CEDAW/C/71/D/101/2016 irregularity in the decision-making process regarding the author’s asylum application, to the extent that the State party’s authorities failed to properly assess the risk of serious gender-based violence in the event of her return to Somalia. 6.10 The Committee notes that the State party’s authorities found that the author’s account lacked credibility owing to factual inconsistencies and a lack of substantiation, in particular regarding her forced marriage and persecution by her uncle’s family. The Committee further notes that, notwithstanding the findings with respect to the author’s credibility as described above, the State party also considered the general human rights situation in Somalia. 6.11 In the light of the foregoing, and while not underestimating the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with regard to gender-based discrimination in Somalia and the general human rights situation there, the Committee considers th at the author has failed to substantiate, for the purposes of admissibility, that the Danish asylum authorities’ assessment of her case, including that of the Refugee Appeals Board, and the lack of reference to the Convention in her asylum decision, result ed in any genderbased discrimination in the present case and that she would suffer persecution in case of forcible return to Somalia. There is also no element on file to allow the Committee to conclude that the State party’s authorities failed to give sufficient consideration to the author’s application for asylum, or that, in the examination of her case — that of a female asylum seeker — any procedural defect or arbitrariness could be revealed. 7. The Committee therefore decides that: (a) The communication is inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol; (b) 12/12 This decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. 18-20335