CEDAW/C/73/D/94/2015 claims, analysing in particular the threats allegedly received by the author in Afghanistan, and found them to be inconsistent and implausible on several grounds (ibid., 7.5). The author challenged the assessment of evidence and the factual conclusions reached by the Refugee Appeals Board, but he did not explain why that assessment would be arbitrary or otherwise amount to a denial of justice (ibid.). 4.20 The State party also notes that, in its views in Mr. and Ms. X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012, para. 7.5), the Human Rights Committee noted that the authors’ refugee claims were thoroughly assessed by the State party authorities, which found that the authors’ declarations about the motive for seeking asylum and their account of the events that caused their fear of torture or killing were not credible. The Committee observed that the authors had not identified any irregularit y in the decision-making process, or any risk factor that the State party authorities had failed to take properly into account. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee could not conclude that the authors would face a real risk of treatment contrary to articles 6 or 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights if they were removed. 4.21 According to the State party, the same guarantees of due process apply in the present case. The State party further refers to the decision of the Human Rights Committee in N v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2426/2014, para. 6.6), in which the Committee recalled that it was generally for the organs of States parties to examine the facts and evidence of a case, unless it could be established that such an assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. In that case, the author had not explained why the decision by the Refugee Appeals Board would be contrary to that standard, nor had he provided substantial grounds to support his claim that his removal would expose him to a real risk of irreparable harm in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee accordingly concluded that the author had failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim of violation of article 7 for purposes of admissibility and found his communication inadmissible. 4.22 The State party emphasizes that the Refugee Appeals Board, a quasi -judicial body, made a thorough assessment of the author’s credibility, the background information available and the author’s specific circumstances and found that she had failed to make a convincing case that she would face a risk of persecution or abuse in Somalia. The State party endorses the finding. 4.23 In that connection, the State party also refers to the findings of the Human Rights Committee, in Z v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2329/2014, para. 7.4), that, in the absence of evidence establishing that the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board were manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary with respect to the author ’s allegations, the Committee could not conclude that the information before it showed that the author ’s removal would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. 4.24 The State party recalls that, in the present communicat ion, the author has not brought any new, specific information about her situation. Rather, she is seeking to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances of her case reviewed. The State party notes that the Committee must give c onsiderable weight to the findings of fact made by the Refugee Appeals Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances of the case. According to the State party, there is no basis for doubting, let alone setting aside, the assessment made by the Board that the author has failed to establish that there are substantial grounds to believe that she would be subjected to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of persecution in Somalia and that the necessary and foreseeable consequence of her ret urn is that her rights under the Convention would be violated. Thus, the author ’s return to Somalia would not amount to a violation of articles 3, 5 or 16 (b) of the Convention. 8/11 19-15435