CEDAW/C/71/D/81/2015 into consideration the relevant asylum seeker’s particular situation, including cultural differences, age and health, and that, if it has doubts about the asylum seeker ’s credibility, the Board always assesses to what extent the principle of the benefit of the doubt should be applied. 5 It refutes the author’s argument that the Board failed to take into account the violent and frightening incidents described by the author, as it is possible to note from its decision that the Board took into account that there may have been interpreting problems and that it may have been difficult for the author to make a statement on the sexual abuse that she allegedly suffered. 4.7 The State party also observes that it is unlikely that, after having suffered very serious and violent abuse, the author continued to refuse to work a s an informer. The State party further observes that it is unlikely that, for about seven years, the author was able to provide new information every second month and that she was in possession of information that was relevant to the authorities, as she “appears to be a very low-profile individual” and to have no affiliation with the rebel movement. It observes that the information provided in the report submitted by the author was taken into consideration by the Refugee Appeals Board when taking its decisi on. 4.8 The State party concludes that the return of the author and her child to the Russian Federation will not constitute a breach of articles 2 (d)–(f), 5 (a) and 16 (1) (d) of the Convention because there is no basis for contesting the assessment made by the Refugee Appeals Board, according to which the author had failed to substantiate that she faced a risk of persecution or abuse in the Russian Federation, as it was based on a thorough assessment of the author ’s credibility, the background information available and the author’s specific circumstances. 6 The State party also recalls that, in her communication to the Committee, the author did not provide new information that was different from that already taken into account by the Board. It further claims that the author is seeking to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances of her claim for asylum reassessed by the Committee. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 11 December 2015, the author submitted her comments on the State party ’s observations. Regarding admissibility, she underlines that it is not possible to know what would happen if she were to return to the Russian Federation, but it is obvious that there is a risk that she will be subjected to gender-based violence there. 5.2 The author rejects the argument that the Convention has extraterritorial 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 and refers to the language used by the Committee in this connection in its decision of 15 July 2013 in M.N.N. v. Denmark. 7 She suggests that, in the present case, it should be obvious that the risk is foreseeable owing to her specific circumstances. She notes that members of the Refugee Appeals Board considered her explanations credible, as the decision was taken by majority and not by consensus. 5.3 The author claims that her failure to mention in the first interview that she had been raped is explained by the fact that, in Chechnya, culture and tradition dictate that speaking openly about sexual abuse often results in the stigmatization of the __________________ 5 6 7 18-20327 The State party provides a detailed explanation of the way in which decisions are made by the Refugee Appeals Board, in accordance with the Aliens Act. The State party refers to the decisions of the Human Rights Committee in P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013) and in Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012) to support its claims. M.N.N. v. Denmark, para. 8.10. 5/10