CEDAW/C/71/D/81/2015 6.4 The State party also observes that, pursuant to its rules of procedure, the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board are taken by a simple majority. The majority did not recognize as facts any elements of the author ’s account of the grounds for her asylum application. 6.5 It further observes that the background information provided by the author 12 was known to the Refugee Appeals Board and was, therefore, included in its assessment of the appeal. 6.6 The State party maintains that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of her communication and that, pursu ant to article 4 of the Optional Protocol, it should therefore be declared inadmissible. Should the communication be declared admissible, the State party reiterates its previous observations and recalls that the author has not established that there are su bstantial grounds to believe that returning her to the Russian Federation would constitute a violation of the Convention. It also reiterates its request for the interim measures of protection to be lifted. The State party draws attention to the statistics on the jurisprudence of the Danish immigration authorities, which show the significant recognition rates for asylum claims from the 10 largest national groups of asylum seekers on which decisions were pronounced by the Refugee Appeals Board between 2013 and 2015. Author’s comments on the additional observations of the State party 7. On 24 October 2016, the author submitted additional comments. She refers to a report by the Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, dated 4 October 2016, in support of her claim that she cannot be safe in the Russian Federation and that she is at high risk of being subjected to gender-based violence and discrimination there, as it shows that there is still a climate of fear in Chechnya. In the report, it is indicated that the number of insurgents has fallen, which has reduced the pressure on family members. Nevertheless, family members of insurgents still experience threats from Chechen authorities. Further observations of the State party 8. By a note verbale dated 30 March 2017, the State party submitted additional observations. It stresses that the author did not provide additional information regarding her allegations beyond the information submitted as the basis for the decision made by the Refugee Appeals Board. Accordingly, the State party refers to its previous observations, while also observing that the report cited by the author in her previous submission cannot lead to a different assessment of the case. Author’s comments on the further observations of the State party 9.1 By a letter dated 10 July 2017, the author submitted additional comments. She reiterates that the case is covered by the Convention. 9.2 The author claims that the State party did not assess the content of the r eport that she referred to in her previous comments. 9.3 The author emphasizes that at least one or two of the members of the Refugee Appeals Board found that she was credible and reiterates her claim that she could talk __________________ 12 18-20327 European Asylum Support Office, EASO Country of Origin Information Report: Chechnya — Women, Marriage, Divorce and Child Custody (September 2014); and Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, “Tsjetsjenia: Kvinners situasjon” (Chechnya: the situation of women), 16 July 2014, and “Tsjetsjenia: Kvinner på flukt fra familien” (Chechnya: women running away from their families), 8 September 2014. Available from https://landinfo.no. 7/10