CEDAW/C/69/D/80/2015 also given that it intersects with homosexuality, 12 the Committee considers that the author has failed to substantiate, for admissibility purposes, that the lack of reference to the Convention in her asylum decision, or the refusal to call a witness, stemmed from or resulted in any gender-based discrimination. Nor is there any element on file to allow the Committee to conclude that the State party 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, there was a ny procedural defect or arbitrariness. The Committee also considers that the author has failed to substantiate sufficiently that the initial mistake in the name of the addressee in the decisions of the Danish Immigration Service and Refugee Appeals Board, which was subsequently corrected in the Board’s final decision of 5 December 2014, resulted in any breach of the Convention in her respect. 9. The Committee therefore decides that: (a) The communication is inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optio nal Protocol; (b) This decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. __________________ 12 18-06594 See CEDAW/C/UGA/CO/7, paras. 43–44. 11/11