CEDAW/C/73/D/94/2015 4.10 The State party notes that the allegations pertaining to articles 3, 5 and 16 (b) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women only concern the circumstances that the author may face should she be returned to Somalia. The author thus relies on those provisions in an extraterritorial manner. Citing the Committee’s decision in M.N.N. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011), the State party acknowledges a State’s positive obligation to protect women from being exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender based violence, irrespective of whether such violence woul d occur outside the territorial boundaries of the sending State party: if a State party takes a decision relating to a person within its jurisdiction, and the necessary and foreseeable consequence is that that person’s rights under the Convention will be violated in another jurisdiction, the State party itself may be in violation of the Convention. For example, a State party would be in violation of the Convention if it were to send a person to another State in circumstances in which it was foreseeable that serious gender-based violence would occur. 4.11 The State party also notes that article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights fall outside the scope of the competence of the Committee and hence must be considered inadmissible. 4.12 On the merits, the State party indicates that, in the present communication, the author has not submitted any new information other than what was submitted earlier to the Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board. The author’s deportation would not amount to a violation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. With regard to the author ’s credibility, the State party observes that the Board’s evaluation of the credibility of asylum seekers is based on an overall assessment comprising, inter alia, an assessment of the asylum seeker ’s statements and demeanour at the Board hearing in conjunction with the other information on the case, including country background material and information gathered for the purpose of the case. If the asylum seeker ’s statements appear coherent, the Board usually accepts them as fact. If the statements are inconsistent or changeable or contain expansions or omissions, the Board will seek clarification. 4.13 In its decision on the case, the Refugee Appeals Board took into account in its assessment of the author’s credibility the fact that the author has only attended Qur’an school and was homeschooled by her father, who taught her to read and write. It also took into account the fact that she is a young woman with no social network in Somalia. Pertaining to her health, in her interviews, the author stated that she was healthy and that she only suffered from allergies. Her alleg ation that she was under pressure when interviewed by the immigration authorities is also unsubstantiated, given that she had not indicated the same during the interview. During the lengthy interview process and hearings, the author was represented by coun sel and was allowed to make closing remarks. Her inconsistencies were pointed out during the interview, and she was given an opportunity to elaborate on them. 4.14 According to the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 5 September 2015, the author’s statements on the grounds for asylum could not be accepted as facts. The present communication has not provided any new information on the author ’s credibility and, accordingly, the State party cannot accept the author ’s statements as facts. In addition, in her communication to the Committee, the author has not disputed the credibility assessment carried out by the Board and did not object to the Board ’s decision. According to rule 48 of the Board’s rules of procedure, an asylum seeker can ask for a case to be reopened at any time after the decision. The author did not draw the Board’s attention to any errors or omissions in the report on her oral statement. 6/11 19-15435