Advance unedited version CRC/C/77/D/3/2016 order that the alien stay at a specific accommodation centre. However, the author and her daughter have left their accommodation and have not applied for private accommodation. Also, the RAB contacts the police when asylum-seekers recorded in the immigration registries go missing for over 14 days. If the police are unaware of the location of these asylum-seekers, the RAB closes the case. In light of this, the State party argues that it can be accepted as a fact that the author and her daughter have left Denmark voluntarily. 9 On 7 November 2017, the State party reiterates its request for discontinuance, and its previous inadmissibility arguments. With regard to the author’s argument regarding the nonratification of the Convention by Puntland, the State party notes that Puntland has not been recognised as an independent state by the international community and therefore remains a region of Somalia, which has ratified the Convention. In any case, the relevant issue is not the ratification but the compliance with the Convention. The State party insists that a case will be remitted to the DIS only if new essential information has been provided, which was not the case here, and in any event, the Convention does not afford the right to appeal in cases like the present one. Finally, the State party notes that the author has invoked other RAB cases where asylum had been granted but without indicating the similarities of these cases – which did not involve deportations to Puntland- with hers. It notes that the particular ability of a mother to resist social pressure must be determined on the basis of a very specific assessment of the personal circumstances of the individual case. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 20 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee notes the author’s statement that decisions by the Danish Refugee Appeals Board are not subject to appeal and that therefore domestic remedies have been exhausted. This has not been challenged by the State party. Therefore, the Committee considers that there is no obstacle to the admissibility of the communication under article 7 (e) of the Optional Protocol. 10.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim based on article 2 of the Convention that her daughter was discriminated against because, as a result of having been born in Denmark to a Somali mother, her claim was only assessed by the RAB without any possibility to appeal. The Committee observes, however, that the author makes this claim in a very general manner, without showing the existence of a link between her daughter’s or her own origin and the alleged absence of appeal proceedings against the decisions of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board. Therefore, the Committee declares this claim manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible according to article 7 (f) of the Optional Protocol. 10.4 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the author has not sufficiently substantiated her claim that her daughter would be at risk of being subjected to female genital mutilation if returned to the Puntland State of Somalia. However, the Committee considers that, in light of the author’s allegations regarding the circumstances under which she would be returned, the author’s claims based on articles 3 and 19 of the Convention have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility. 10.5 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the author and her daughter are deemed to have left the territory of the State party and, consequently, they are no longer under its jurisdiction. The Committee notes, however, that the author and her daughter’s departure from Denmark is merely speculative as it has not been confirmed. Also, the deportation order issued against them remains in effect, which means that the author and 9