CEDAW/C/71/D/101/2016
Board, however, based its decision on considerations relating to cred ibility and did
not address the need for protection.
2.7 On 1 December 2015, a majority of the members of the Danish Refugee Appeals
Board rejected the author’s asylum application, finding the author’s explanations to
be imprecise and divergent. The Board concluded that “the RAB’s majority did not
take the view that the applicant is in risk on return to Somalia without male network,
and that she therefore will be at risk of assault under the Aliens Act, para 7 (2), like
the fact that [she] purports to travel from Mogadishu to Baardheere cannot lead to a
different result”. According to the author, although a minority of the Board concluded
that she might be at risk of persecution, the majority rejected her application, saying
that it could not trust her story and that the fact that she was a single woman fearing
persecution in Somalia was not grounds for asylum in Denmark.
2.8 The author adds that she had been exposed to female genital mutilation in the
past and throughout her entire life has been oppressed a s a woman in Somalia. She
has not had the opportunity to seek help from the authorities in a male -dominated
society. She was denied the wish and the right to choose a husband, as her uncle
wanted to forcibly marry her to an unknown man. That Al-Shabaab no longer controls
the area does not alter the fact that Somali society is strongly patriarchal and
suppresses women who seek independence, through violent measures such as honour
killings.
2.9 According to the author, regardless of any credibility issue, it is a fact that she
is a single woman from one of the world’s most repressive and discriminatory
countries with respect to women. As a motive for her asylum claim she had mentioned
that she would be at risk of gender-specific violence in Somalia, which includes the
risk of being subjected to rape or other forms of gender-specific violence. Women
with no male protection network cannot travel alone in Somalia. Various groups
control the roads and will take advantage of male domination to persecute single
women.
2.10 The author also fears persecution in her home town by her own family. Even
though the area is controlled by government forces, there are no functioning
authorities in Baardheere able to protect her against gender-specific violence. She
will thus not only suffer gender-specific violence, but also receive no police or other
protection.
2.11 The author claims that the authorities failed to assess her asylum application in
the light of their obligations under the Convention, even though her counsel has
specifically invited them to do so.
2.12 The author further claims that Denmark would be in violation of articles 2 (d),
12, 15 and 16 of the Convention and the principle of non-refoulement as set out in the
Committee’s general recommendation No. 32 in the event of her forcible return to
Somalia.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
3.1 The State party presented its observations on admissibility and merits by a note
verbale dated 11 August 2016. Preliminarily, it informs the Commi ttee that, on
22 February 2016, the Refugee Appeals Board suspended the time limit for the
author’s deportation following the Committee’s request for interim measures. The
State party recalls the facts: the author, a Somali national born in 1989, entered
Denmark on 15 August 2014 without valid documents and applied for asylum. On
20 August 2015, the Danish Immigration Service, rejected her application. On
1 December 2015, the Board confirmed that refusal.
18-20335
3/12