CEDAW/C/76/D/122/2017 rule 66 of its rules of procedure, the Committee may decide to consider the admissibility of the communication separately from its merits. 6.2 In accordance with article 4 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee is satisfied that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee observes that the State party did not challenge the admissibility of the communication on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Accordingly, it considers that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 6.4 The Committee reiterates that, according to its jurisprudence, the Convention has extraterritorial effect only when the woman to be returned will be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence. 31 6.5 The Committee notes, with regard to article 3, the author’s claim that, if she were sent back to Italy, the State party would not ensure her full development for the purpose of guaranteeing her the exercise and enjoyment of her human rights. The Committee notes that these claims are not sufficiently substantiated in the communication and the author’s comments. In the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that part of the communication to be inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 The Committee notes that the author, relying on articles 2 (d) and 6 of the Convention, maintains that, if the State party sent her back to Italy, she would be exposed to a risk of serious forms of gender-based violence and to prostitution. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the co mmunication should be declared inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol, owing to a lack of substantiation. 6.7 The Committee notes the author’s claims that she was a victim of sexual slavery and ill-treatment in Somalia and of sexual assault during her first stay in Italy. The Committee also notes the concerns of the State party that the author’s claims lack foundation, given that she could have sought the protection of the Italian authorities; it further notes that she has not provided any evidence that the Italian authorities failed to protect her. The Committee recalls that States parties must apply the principle of proof more flexibly in the case of women victims of violence, taking into account the fact that, in many countries, some women do not have the means to obtain all the evidence. The Committee concludes that the author has sufficiently substantiated her claim for the purposes of admissibility and that it is not precluded on those grounds from proceeding to a consideration of the merits in relation to articles 2 (d) and 6 of the Convention. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the author and the State party, as p rovided for under article 7 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee observes that the author claims to have been kept captive and subjected to degrading treatment by a member of the group Al-Shabaab in Somalia, to whom she was married by force; that she was regularly beaten and raped while held captive; that, as a result of the rapes, she gave birth to a child, who was taken from her by force; and that she became pregnant twice more but was forced to have abortions. The Committee notes that the author decided to flee via Libya to Italy, where she applied for asylum on 8 November 2013 and was granted subsidiary __________________ 31 14/16 See, for example, M.N.N. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011), para. 8.10. 20-11108