CEDAW/C/70/D/76/2014 Background information is collected from various sources, including the Internet, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, reports from non-governmental organizations and the competent authorities of Denmark. 4.7 The State party insists that the author is requesting an extraterritorial application of the Convention. Invoking the Committee’s jurisprudence, 5 the State party considers that the author has failed to establish that she will be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence if deported to Somalia. The State party submits that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of her communication. Accordingly, it concludes that her communication should be declared inadmissible, given that the claims therein are manifestly unfounded. 4.8 The State party submits that the author merely alleged that she would be at risk of serious forms of gender-based violence if she were returned to Somalia, but that she failed to explain the extent to which that would infringe articles 12 and 15 of the Convention. Those articles are not relevant in the present case, because there is no issue of access to medical or health care and the author has not been treated unfavourably because she is a woman. 4.9 According to the State party, the author is attempting to use the Committee as an appellate body in order to have the factual circumstances evaluated in support of her claim, which would equate to a reassessment of her asylum application by the Committee. The author merely expressed her disagreement with decisions made b y the national courts and failed to identify any irregularity in the decision -making process or any risk factors that the Refugee Appeals Board had failed to take properly into account in determining the applicability of the principle of non -refoulement to her case. The State party argues that the Committee should give considerable weight to the facts established by the Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances of the author’s case. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 5.1 On 1 March 2016, the author submitted her comments on the State party’s observations. She reports that she fears deportation because four Somali nationals were recently deported by the authorities of Denmark. She claims that, in the light of a recent case of a Somali asylum seeker in Sweden, 6 the Refugee Appeals Board of Denmark reopened several similar cases concerning single Somali women, and that the cases included the author of communication No. 93/2015. 7 The author expresses surprise that her case has not been reopened, given that she is in a similar situation as that of the author of communication No. 93/2015. 5.2 The author also claims that Denmark does not comply with the decisions of the various United Nations human rights treaty bodies. She mentions as an example a communication relating to deportation before the Human Rights Committee. 8 According to her, the Refugee Appeals Board denied that it was legally bound by that decision 9 on the grounds that the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil __________________ 5 6 7 8 9 18-13456 See M.N.N. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011). The author refers to the judgment of 10 September 2015 of the European Court of Human Rights in R.H. v. Sweden (application No. 4601/14). Communication No. 93/2015, K.I.A v. Denmark, discontinued on 6 November 2017. See Omo-Amenaghawon v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2288/2013). The author provided the Committee with the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 17 November 2015. 5/9