CEDAW/C/75/D/108/2016 be unable to find protection, her deportation would amount to a violation of articles 1 and 2 (d), read in conjunction with article 2 (e) and (f), of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 The State party presented its observations on admissibility and the merits on 11 May 2017. It considers that the communication is manifestly i ll-founded. Alternatively, it submits that the author’s deportation would not breach the provisions of the Convention. 4.2 The State party recalls the facts of the case. The author, a Somali national, arrived in Denmark on 19 August 2014 without valid trav el documents and applied for asylum. The Immigration Service of Denmark rejected her application on 20 August 2015. The Refugee Appeals Board confirmed that decision on 17 November 2015. 4.3 Before the immigration authorities, the author claimed that she f eared being killed by her uncle because she had married against his will and had run away from the man whom she had been forced to marry. She also expressed a fear of being obliged to live with that man. 4.4 The State party notes that, on the basis of an o verall assessment, the Refugee Appeals Board could not accept the author’s statements as facts because they seemed fabricated for the occasion with regard to a number of essential points. The Board considered, for example, that the information provided by the author to the immigration authorities that she had been able to escape on foot after having been chained in the house for 25 days was not plausible. In addition, the author indicated that the man whom she had been forced to marry had been standing in f ront of the house during her escape. The Board also found it implausible that the author had not been found when her uncle searched for her in the house while she was hiding in the fields and that her future husband had been able to see her between October 2010 and the moment that they married, given that she was living in her uncle’s house at the time. 4.5 Accordingly, the Refugee Appeals Board concluded that the author had failed to render it probable that, in the event of her return to Somalia, she would be at specific and individual risk of persecution falling within article 7 (1) of the Aliens Act, or would risk abuse under article 7 (2) of the same Act. In the light of those conclusions, the Board decided that it had no reason to grant the request to adjourn the case pending the author’s medical examination for signs of torture. 4.6 The State party provides a detailed description of the composition, jurisdiction, independence, prerogatives, legal basis for decisions and use of background information of the Refugee Appeals Board. 4.7 The State party notes that, in its decision of 17 November 2015, the Refugee Appeals Board found that the author’s account of her grounds for seeking asylum appeared to be non-credible and that she had failed to render probable those grounds. From the Board decision, it also appeared that the grounds were implausible, considering that, in the circumstances described, the author had been able to escape on foot from the house of the husband from her forced marriage after having been chained there for 25 days. It also did not seem credible that she had been able to hide in a large container without being discovered, given that several people were searching for her. Moreover, the Board found it implausible that the author’s future husband had been able to see her between October 2010 and January 2011, because she lived in her uncle’s house during that period. On the basis of its credibility assessment, the Board could not accept as fact that the author had had a conflict with her uncle. The State party notes that the present communication contains no new 4/9 20-05121