CEDAW/C/68/D/79/2014
claim that she would be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious
forms of gender-based violence if she were returned to Somalia.
4.5 The State party asserts that, should the Committee find the communication to
be admissible and proceed with its consideration of the merits, the author has not
sufficiently substantiated the claim that she would be exposed to a real, personal and
foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence if she were returned to
Somalia.
4.6 The State party recalls that the author ’s statements before the Danish
Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board were inconsistent. In addition
to the issue of her contentious reply to A.H. when they last met, the author also made
inconsistent statements about her aunt, including the circumstances of the latter ’s
death. During the asylum screening interview on 9 May 2014, the author submitted
that her three aunts were nomads from Xarardheere. Later in the same interview, the
author stated that one of her aunts had paid for her departure from her country of
origin and that her aunt had sold her land. She then claimed that her aunt had since
died, but had been living in Dhuusamarreeb. She later reported that her father had
told her that her aunt had been killed by Al-Shabaab because Al-Shabaab knew that
she had helped the author to leave the village. The author provided evasive and
unconvincing explanations about both her aunt’s killing and the position of A.H. in
her home village.
4.7 According to the State party, the author also provided incoherent and
conspicuously fabricated statements regarding her contact with her family after her
departure from her country of origin. When interviewed by the Danish Immigration
Service on 13 June 2014, the author submitted that she had last been in contact with
her family about 20 days prior to the interview — which corresponds to May 2014 —
and also on 25 April 2014. At the oral hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board on
24 November 2014, the author stated that she had been in contact with family in her
country of origin twice since, most recently in June 2014. The author then stated that
the village was empty, as everybody had fled. When asked how she had obtained that
information, she responded that no one had told her. Even though she was asked
several times, she was unable to disclose the source of the information, repeating only
that “she knew” that the village was deserted.
4.8 The State party cannot accept that the author had a conflict with a high -ranking
Al-Shabaab member, nor that she would be forcibly married to or killed by A.H. in
the case of her return to Somalia. It therefore cannot conclude that the author fears
any asylum-relevant persecution in the case of her return to Somalia. It adds that the
author’s communication was submitted shortly after the Refugee Appeals Board made
its decision and that she has failed to produce new and specific information about her
situation, instead merely repeating the factual information that formed the basis of
the Board’s decision of 24 November 2014. In that regard, the Board determined that
the author’s statement appeared unspecific, fabricated for the occasion and not based
on her personal experiences. The State party adds that the decision of the Board is not
mainly based on the author ’s credibility, but on an overall assessment of whether the
author was eligible for residence under section 7 of the Aliens Act, including an
assessment of the existing background information and the author ’s physical and
mental condition. That assessment also took account of the risk of abuse owing to the
general conditions in Somalia.
4.9 The State party considers that the overall situation in Somali a cannot
independently justify asylum. The State party has taken into account background
4/8
17-21664