CEDAW/C/73/D/86/2015 State party observes that the Refugee Appeals Board also attached importance to several other inconsistent statements. 7 4.8 With regard to the author’s request to reopen the asylum proceedings, the State party observes that the author’s general credibility is weakened by the fact that the Refugee Appeals Board could not accept as facts the author ’s statements concerning her original grounds for asylum. In addition, the Board found the author’s statement that her children had gained knowledge about the arrest warrant by coincidence, when they happened to overhear the author’s spouse talking about it in May 2014, to be unconvincing, in particular given that she failed to provide a reasonable explanation for how the document had come into her children’s possession. The State party submits that it agrees with the finding of the Board that the arrest warrant was fabricated for the occasion. The State party notes in that respect that, given the assessment of the author’s credibility, there was no reason to request verification of the authenticity of the document. 8 It also observes that the author has produced no further documentation evidencing the action brought against her in Jordan for kidnapping her daughters. 4.9 With regard to the author’s vulnerable status before the Jordanian authorities as a Palestinian refugee, the State party observes that, although she was born in a refugee camp, the author is a Jordanian national and holds a Jordanian passport and that she can therefore rely on the same rights as other Jordanian nationals. Given that the State party authorities were unable to accept the author’s allegations as facts regarding her ill-treatment throughout her marriage or the future risk of being subjected to illtreatment, the State party did not find it necessary to assess whether the Jordanian authorities were able to ensure protection for the author and her daughters upon their return. 4.10 The State party underlines that the fact that the Refugee Appeals Board made no explicit reference to the Convention in its decision does not mean that its provisions were not taken into account. It is recognized in the case law of the Board that certain kinds of abuse against women perpetrated by private individuals, including their spouses, may be of a scope or intensity as to amount to persecution if the authorities are not able or willing to offer protection to the woman concerned. The __________________ 7 8 6/13 At the hearings on 12 and 23 September 2013 before the asylum authorities and at the meeting with counsel on 11 December 2013, the author stated that she could not report the ill -treatment inflicted by her husband to the police because she was not allowed to leave the house unaccompanied and due to the powerful status of her husband’s family, which had good connections with the authorities. However, at the hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board on 21 January 2014, the author asserted that she had contacted the local authorities on one occasion. In addition, the author has also submitted conflicting information about whether it was her son or her daughter who had accompanied her to the Embassy of Denmark t o Jordan, in Amman, and had knowledge of her real plan of not returning to Jordan. Other inconsistencies in the author ’s statements have also been detected: on one occasion, she claimed not to have had any contact with her husband since her departure, whereas on other occasions she alleged that it was her husband who had threatened to kill her cousin on the phone and who eventually informed her about the killing of her cousin. When determining whether to request verification of the authenticity of docum ents produced by asylum seekers, the Refugee Appeals Board makes an overall assessment of, inter alia, the nature and contents of the documents. It also considers whether such verification could lead to a different assessment of evidence, the timing and circumstances of the production of the documents and the credibility of the asylum seeker’s statement in the light of the general background information available on the particular country. In order to substantiate that the Board is under no obligation to request verification of authenticity of the documents in all cases, the State party refers to the decision of 23 August 2016 of the European Court of Human Rights in J.K. and others v. Sweden (application no. 59166/12). 19-15427