CEDAW/C/71/D/81/2015 legal basis for its decisions and the proceedings before it, in particular regarding the assessment of evidence and background information on the human rights situation in the country of origin concerned. 4.3 The State party submits that, insofar as the author relies on the Convention having extraterritorial effect, the Convention has such an effect only when the woman to be returned will be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence. 3 As the author has failed to substantiate that she faces such a risk if forcibly returned to the Russian Federation, the communication should be declared inadmissible, as manifestly ill-founded, under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol. 4.4 Should the Committee find the communication admissible, the State party submits that the author has failed to produce new and specific information on her situation in addition to the information on the basis of which the Refugee Appeals Board denied her asylum request. The State party underlines that the fact that the Board made no explicit reference to the Convention in its decision does not mean that its provisions were not taken into account. The majority of the members of the Board considered that the author’s statements seemed unlikely and non-credible, as she made inconsistent statements about the incidents that occurred between 2005 and 2013. 4 They also found that, on her asylum request form and in her first interview with the Danish Immigration Service on 11 February 2014, she mentioned only the incidents that took place in 2013, whereas in the second interview with the Service on 11 August 2014 and at the hearing before the Board of 16 January 201 5, she provided information about other incidents that took place between 2005 and 2013, alleging that she was raped and tortured by the Chechen authorities and forced to provide intelligence about the rebels to the authorities. 4.5 The State party also finds that the author has failed to credibly explain why she mentioned the alleged incidents between 2005 and 2013 only in her statement at the asylum interview on 11 August 2014. It also questions the credibility of the author ’s claim that she found it difficult to make a statement through a male interpreter on the violent abuse that she had allegedly suffered as, despite having several opportunities, she opted not to make a statement earlier on those incidents. Moreover, she stated in the first interview conducted by the Danish Immigration Service on 11 February 2014 that she had never been arrested, detained, the subject of a search warrant, charged or punished in her country of origin and that she had had no conflict with the authorities or with any private individuals other than the incident in September 2013. 4.6 The State party refutes the author’s argument that the Refugee Appeals Board failed to take the Convention into account and ignored her rights under the Convention. The State party stresses that the Board always examines asylum applications in the light of the international human rights treaties, including the Convention, to which Denmark is a party. It underlines that the Board always takes __________________ 3 4 4/10 The State party refers to the decision of the Committee in M.N.N. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/55/D /33/2011) to support this claim. There are inconsistencies regarding the incidents between 2005 a nd 2013. At her interview on 11 August 2014, the author stated that rebels had come to the family home in October 2005 and that no one had come subsequently, while in the hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board on 16 January 2015, the author stated that someone had come to the family home in October 2005 and again one and a half months later. In the interview on 11 August 2014, the author said that she had received a telephone call from a public official telling her that her father had been arrested and that she must come to the police station and that, subsequently, she had been summoned by telephone for several interviews with the police. However, according to the report of the hearing on 16 January 2015, the author stated that she had been summoned by the authorities about 19 or 20 times with an interval of one to two months and that she has been raped and tortured. 18-20327