CEDAW/C/68/D/79/2014 being incompatible with the Convention under article 4 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.5 The Committee takes note of the State party’s claim that the communication is manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol, owing to lack of substantiation. In this regard, the Committee recal ls the author’s claim that a member of Al-Shabaab named A.H. threatened to kill her if she did not marry him and that those events prompted her to flee her village, with her family ’s assistance. The author has claimed that, if the State party returned her to Somalia, she would be personally exposed to serious forms of gender-based violence under articles 3, 5 and 16 (b) of the Convention. The author has further alleged that the State party should have undertaken an independent investigation into the risk th at she faces in Somalia. 7.6 The Committee refers to paragraph 21 of its general recommendation No. 32 (2014) on the gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality and statelessness of women, in which it has stated 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 the arbitrary deprivation of life or torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Committee further refers to paragraph 7 of its general recommendation No. 19 (1992) on violence against women, in which it recalled that gender-based violence, which impaired or nullified the enjoyment by women of human rights and fundamental freedoms under general international law or under human rights conventions, was discrimination within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention, and that such rights included the right to life and the right not to be subject to torture. The Committee has further elaborated its interpretation of violence against women as a form of gender discrimination in its general recommendation No. 35 (2017) on gender-based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19, in paragraph 21 of which it reiterated the obligation of States parties to eliminate discrimination against women, including gender -based violence, resulting from the acts or omissions of the State party or its actors, on the one hand, and non-State actors, on the other. 7.7 In the case at issue, the Committee observes that there is no claim that the State party directly violated the particular provisions of the Convention invoked, but that by returning the author to Somalia would expose her to serious forms of gender-based violence at the hands of private individuals related to a member of Al -Shabaab. 7.8 The Committee recalls that it is generally for the authorities of States parties to the Convention to evaluate the facts and evidence or the application of national law in a particular case, 6 unless it can be established that the evaluation was biased or based on gender stereotypes that constitute discrimination against women, was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 7 In that regard, the Committee notes that, in substance, the author ’s claims are aimed at challenging the manner in which the State party’s authorities assessed the factual circumstances of her case, applied the provisions of legislation and reached conclusions. The issue before the Committee is therefore whether there was any 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 7 17-21664 See, for example, R.P.B. v. Philippines (CEDAW/C/57/D/34/2011), para. 7.5. See, for example, N.Q. v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CEDAW/C/63/D/62/2013). 7/8