CEDAW/C/51/D/25/2010 causing injuries that required stitches. The physical and psychological abuse allegedly continued until June 2000, when the author managed to expel her spouse from the house. The author alleged that from 2005 her former spouse started visiting her from time to time, subjecting her to all kinds of abuse. On 13 November 2006 her former spouse allegedly hit her in the presence of a police officer friend of his. After that episode, the author allegedly filed a complaint with the public prosecution service and told her story on the Televisa television channel. Her former spouse then allegedly threatened to kill her and her son. At that point she and her son both left the country. 4.5 During the hearing of 22 May 2008, the Immigration and Refugee Board questioned the author extensively about her allegations concerning her former spouse, the fact that no claim for protection had been lodged with the Mexican authorities, and the absence of violence against or in the presence of her son. In the light of the inconsistencies and contradictions in the author’s testimony, the Immigration and Refugee Board concluded that the author had completely fabricated a story to obtain refugee status in Canada and that she had not presented any credible or reliable evidence on which the Board could base a decision to grant her asylum. These inconsistencies included the lack of information about how she had publicly disclosed her situation through the media, such as the name of the journalist who had allegedly reported on her case, and the fact that she had not attempted to keep a tape of the broadcast. The State party also refers to the fact that the medical certificate had no evidential value, and that the author was unable to give any detailed information about her former spouse, such as his date of birth. 4.6 Regarding the author’s request for a PRRA, the State authorities considered that the documents provided were general in nature and that they did not corroborate the author’s story or her allegations; nor did they establish a link between her personal situation and the violations in Mexico. The PRRA officer concluded that the documents did not demonstrate that the author would face a personal risk within the meaning of articles 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act if returned to Mexico. On 17 April 2009, after the PRRA officer had already decided to reject the request, the author’s counsel submitted four new pieces of evidence, consisting of a letter from a journalist from the Televisa television channel; a letter from a member of the municipal executive committee of the city where the author lived; letters from the author’s mother and sister; and a letter from a teacher and friend of the author. The PRRA officer agreed to consider these new elements but then rejected them. She took the view that the letters from the author’s sister, mother and friend were not impartial; that the letter from the Televisa journalist was vague and gave no indication of the date of the broadcast featuring the author; and that the letter from the member of the municipal executive committee attesting to the steps the author had taken to submit a complaint against her former spouse in November 2006 was not new evidence and should have been mentioned by the author to the Immigration and Refugee Board. 4.7 In its decision of 18 January 2010, the Federal Court of Canada took the view that the inferences drawn by the PRRA officer were reasonable. According to the Court, the author had not been able to establish that the PRRA officer’s decision had been based on a misguided conclusion, or drawn in an improper or arbitrary manner or without taking account of the evidence before the officer. Lastly, it was of the opinion that the guidelines on “Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution”2 had been taken into account by the PRRA officer even though they had not been explicitly cited. 4.8 The State party notes that the author and her son left Canada on 1 April 2010. This came to light when the State party was gathering information to prepare its observations on the communication. The records of the State party indicate that the author and her son both 2 GE.12-41804 http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/eng/brdcom/references/pol/guidir/Pages/women.aspx. 5