CEDAW/C/70/D/76/2014 7.6 The author claims that, if deported to Somalia, she would be exposed to a risk of serious forms of gender-based violence at the hands of members of the family of her husband, the family of A., and Al-Shabaab. 7.7 The Committee recalls that it is generally for the authorities of States parties to the Convention to evaluate the facts and evidence and the application of national law in a particular case, unless it can be established that the evaluation was conducted in a manner that was biased or based on gender stereotypes that constitute discrimination against women, was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. In that regard, the Committee notes that, in substance, the author is challenging the manner in which the State party’s asylum authorities assessed the factual circumstances of her case, applied the provisions of legislation and reached their conclusions. The issues before the Committee are, therefore, whether there was any irregularity in the decision making process regarding the author’s asylum application and whether the State party’s authorities failed to properly assess the risk of serious gender-based violence in the event of her return to Somalia. 7.8 The Committee notes that the State party’s authorities found that the author’s account lacked credibility, owing to a number of factual inconsistencies and a lack of substantiation, and appeared fabricated. The Committee observes that the insufficient information provided by the author’s counsel to the Committee corroborates the determination of the State party’s authorities that the author’s claims lack substantiation. The Committee also notes that the State party took into consideration the general situation in Somalia. 7.9 The Committee further notes the author’s claims that the immigration authorities of Denmark have failed to consider her case from the perspective of the Convention or to mention the Convention in their decision, even though the matter was raised by her counsel during the Refugee Appeals Board hearing. The Committee observes that the author’s counsel requested the immigration authorities to consider her asylum claim in the light of the Convention, without however referring to specific provisions and without substantiating the claims in relation to any specific articles. 7.10 The Committee notes the author’s claim that she was sentenced to death unlawfully for the murder of A. in her home town in Somalia, a sentence pronounced under sharia law, when the region was administrated by Al-Shabaab. The Committee notes that, according to the material on file, Al-Shabaab control of the region ceased in 2014. It also notes that the author does not claim that the death sentence in question currently remains in effect, now that the region is administrated by government authorities. Accordingly, the Committee cannot conclude that the author would risk imprisonment and/or the carrying out of the death sentence pronounced when Al-Shabaab administrated the region. That aspect of the communication is therefore inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol. 7.11 In addition, the author has not provided sufficient information to establish that she would be unable to live together with relatives from her own family or that she would be left with no network in Somalia. In that connection, the Committee notes that, even once granted an appeal before the Refugee Appeals Board, the author did not substantiate her claim that she has no family network or ties to count on, including a male network (see para. 6.1 above). The Committee also notes that the author has not claimed that she has no relatives in Somalia, but rather that she has had no contact with them since her arrival in Denmark. According to the information on file, she has close family members living in her town of origin, and it was indeed her family members who organized and paid for her travel to Denmark. 7.12 The Committee notes the author’s claim that she suffered violence while imprisoned by Al-Shabaab and that the authorities of Denmark did not order an examination for signs of torture in her case, despite her request and the fact that she 8/9 18-13456