CEDAW/C/71/D/81/2015 about having been raped only after she realized that in Denmark it was possible to talk about sexual abuse, whereas in her country doing so would have been shameful. 9.4 The author further refers to a new country of origin information report released by the European Asylum Support Office in March 2017. According to the translation of the report provided by the author, the efforts of the Chechen authorities to enforce tradition and morality affect women more than men, putting them at increased risk of honour killings, underage marriages and violence. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 10.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee notes that the author claims to have exhausted domestic remedies and that the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the communication on that ground. The Committee observes that the Refugee Appeals Board functions under the law as a court of appeal, in view of its nature as an independent, competent and quasi-judicial body, and that therefore, according to Danish law, no appeals against its decisions can be lodged before national courts. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol from considering the matter. 10.3 In accordance with article 4 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee is satisfied that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 10.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that her deportation to the Russian Federation with her child would constitute a violation by Denmark of articles 2 (d)–(f), 5 (a) and 16 (1) (d) of the Convention. The Committee also notes the State party ’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol for lack of substantiation. In that regard, the Committee recalls the author’s claim that she is at risk of being subjected to violence by the Chechen/Russian authorities and from the rebels, if she is deported to the Russian Federation, because during her first marriage Chechen rebels visited the house where she lived, and she was subsequently forced to become an informer for the authorities and to provide intelligence regarding the activities of the rebels. The author fears that, if deported, the family of her second husband will take her son away from her as she assumes that her second husband has divorced her and, as is the custom in Chechnya, in case of divorce, the children stay with the husband ’s family. 10.5 The Committee recalls that, according to its jurisprudence, 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. 13 10.6 The Committee refers to its general recommendation No. 32 (2014) on the gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality and statelessness of women, in paragraph 21 of which it noted that, under international human rights law, the non-refoulement principle imposes a duty on States to refrain from returning a person to a jurisdiction in which he or she may face serious violations of human rights, notably arbitrary deprivation of life or torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Committee further refers to its general recommendation No. 19, in paragraph 7 of which it noted that gender-based violence, which impairs or nullifies the enjoyment by women of human rights and fundamental freedoms under general international law or under human rights conventions, is discrimination __________________ 13 8/10 See, for example, M.N.N. v. Denmark, para. 8.10. 18-20327