CEDAW/C/71/D/81/2015 submissions, it is generally for the authorities of States parties to the Convention to evaluate the facts and evidence or the application of national law in a particular case, 14 unless it can be established that the evaluation in question was biased or based on gender stereotypes that constitute discrimination against women, was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 15 The Committee considers, however, that, after addressing all the claims presented by the author, the State party’s authorities found that her story lacked credibility owing to both inconsistencies and a lack of substantiation. The Committee notes that nothing on file demonstrates that there were such irregularities in the examination by the Danish authorities of the author ’s claims that could lead to the conclusion that the State party’s authorities failed in their duty to properly assess the risks that the author would face if deported. 10.11 In the circumstances and in the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the author has failed to substantiate sufficiently, for the purposes of admissibility, her claim that her removal to the Russian Federation with her minor child would expose her to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence. Accordingly, the communication is inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol. 11. The Committee therefore decides that: (a) The communication is inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol; (b) This decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. __________________ 14 15 10/10 See, for example, R.P.B. v. Philippines (CEDAW/C/57/D/34/2011), para. 7.5, and N.M. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/67/D/78/2014), para. 8.6. See, for example, N.Q. v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CEDAW/C/63/D/62/2013), para. 6.6, and N.M. v. Denmark, para. 8.6. 18-20327