CCPR/C/117/D/2464/2014 and orally, with the assistance of legal counsel. The Board conducted a comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence in the communication. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his comments of 25 January 2016 on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits, the author reiterates that his communication is admissible for the reasons explained in his initial submission and that the State party has failed to substantiate why it should be considered manifestly ill-founded. 5.2 As to the State party’s observations on the merits, the author refers to the position of UNHCR on the standard of proof, according to which the decision-maker needs to decide if, based on the evidence provided as well as the veracity of the applicant’s statements, there is a “reasonable likelihood” that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution. 10 The same position has later been adopted by other international bodies, most recently by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. 11 The author further refers to UNHCR’s position that, although the fear must be well-founded, it does not mean that there must have been actual persecution. 12 5.3 With reference to the UNHCR Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,13 the author submits that the Refugee Appeals Board has failed to assess the cumulative effect of his experience. The Board’s decision is vitiated with procedural irregularities, because he has a well-founded fear owing to the following cumulative factors: his family’s conflicts in the past; his clan affiliation; his lack of family and social network in Somalia; the risk of internal displacement; his health issues; and the risk of forced recruitment by al-Shabaab. 5.4 The author refers to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Sufi & Elmi v. United Kingdom, in which the Court concluded: [I]n view of the humanitarian crisis and the strain that it has placed both on individuals and on the traditional clan structure, in practice the Court does not consider that a returnee could find refuge or support in an area where he has no close family connections [...]. If a returnee either has no such connections or if he could not safely travel to an area where he has such connections, the Court considers it reasonably likely that he would have to seek refuge in an [internally displaced persons] settlement or refugee camp.14 Furthermore, the Court considered it: [U]nlikely that a Somali with no recent experience of living in Somalia would be adequately equipped to “play the game”, with the risk that he would come to the attention of al-Shabaab, either while travelling through or having settled in an al- 10 11 12 13 14 See UNHCR, “An Overview of Protection Issues in Europe: Legislative Trends and Positions Taken by UNHCR”, European Series, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Geneva, September 1995), p. 87. The author refers to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women general recommendation No. 32 (2014) on the gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality and statelessness of women, para. 50. See “An Overview of Protection Issues in Europe” (note XX above), p. 87. See UNHCR, Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva, 2011), para. 201. Available from www.unhcr.org/3d58e13b4.pdf. See Sufi and Elmi v. United Kingdom (applications Nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07), Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 2011, para. 267. 7