CCPR/C/128/D/3012/2017 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that she has exhausted all the effective domestic remedies available to her. In the absence of any objection from the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 7.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that she would face torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by Al-Shabaab if returned to Somalia, owing to her husband’s previous work for a humanitarian organization. She submits that she was threatened, abducted and detained by Al-Shabaab, resulting in her departure from Somalia. The Committee also takes note of her claim that she has no male network in Somalia, which would further expose her to a risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant in case of return to her country of origin. 7.5 The Committee observes that the Swedish Migration Agency considered the author’s accounts of the events that had allegedly taken place in Somalia to be vague, lacking in detail and contradictory. In particular, the Migration Agency pointed out that the author was unable to account for the circumstances of her detention and escape from AlShabaab. The Agency did not therefore accept that she had been abducted by Al-Shabaab on the basis of her husband’s work for the humanitarian organization. The Committee observes that, notwithstanding its negative credibility findings, the Agency continued to assess whether an internal flight alternative might be relevant and plausible for the author. In that regard, the Committee notes that the Agency examined the security circumstances in two places of the author’s habitual residences, Mogadishu and Masagaway, and identified Mogadishu as an internal flight alternative for her. The Agency also took into account the fact that the clans of her parents and her husband are represented in Mogadishu. The Agency noted that the author had an uncle in Mogadishu, who had actively supported her, including by paying for her medical treatment and selling her mother’s house to fund her departure from Somalia, and that her allegations that she does not have any male network in Somalia were therefore not substantiated. Furthermore, the Committee notes that in her additional observations submitted to it, the author has not provided any new information regarding her uncle. In addition, the Committee notes the State party’s contention that, during the domestic asylum proceedings, the author did not raise the claim that her uncle’s son was a member of Al-Shabaab and had requested his father to reveal her whereabouts, and that this situation would prevent her from returning to her uncle in Mogadishu. The Committee also notes the State party’s contention that the author has not provided any explanations as to her failure to raise this central claim during the domestic proceedings, thereby undermining her credibility. In this regard, the Committee notes that the author has not substantiated her claim that her uncle may no longer be alive. In view of the above, the Committee considers that the information available demonstrates that the authorities of the State party have carried out a thorough assessment of the author’s asylum application. The information before it does not enable the Committee to conclude that the author would be at serious risk of a violation of her rights under article 7 of the Covenant in case of return. 7.6 The Committee considers that, while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities, the information available does not indicate that those findings are manifestly unreasonable. 8 It also considers that the author has not established a sufficient basis for her claim that the evaluation of her asylum application by the Swedish authorities was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.9 8 9 6 R.G. et al. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/115/D/2351/2014), para. 7.7. For example, A v. Denmark (CCPR/C/116/D/2357/2014), para. 7.4.