CEDAW/C/55/D/35/2011 4.3 The State party submits that the Refugee Appeals Board accepted the author’s evidence, including her involvement in FNL activities, but found that the author’s political activities were of limited nature. The Board found no evidence that the rape committed by three unknown men related to her FNL activities. The Board further found no basis to assume that the purpose of the police inquiry in Kibenga, at the house where the author was staying, was to apprehend her. 4.4 The State party submits that, according to section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act, a residence permit will be issued to an applicant if the applicant is at risk of the death penalty or of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment should he or she return to his or her country of origin. The conditions for such residence permit are met if the individual factors render it probable that the asylum seeker runs a real risk of torture should he or she return. 4.5 The State party submits that such an assessment is made by the Refugee Appeals Board, which makes a decision on the basis of all relevant evidence, including information on the situation in the asylum seeker’s country of origin. For this purpose, the Board has a comprehensive collection of general background material on the situation in the countries from which the State party receives asylum seekers. The State party further submits that the Board makes its decisions in accordance with the international obligations of Denmark. 4.6 The State party submits that the return of the author to Burundi will not lead to a violation of the provisions of the Convention, as claimed by the author. It contends that the communication should be declared inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae under article 2 and article 4 (2)(b) of the Optional Protocol. The State party further submits that the alleged violations in the author’s complaint relate to Burundi 6 and not to Denmark. The State party argues that the Committee lacks jurisdiction over the relevant violations in respect of Denmark and, therefore, the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. The author’s claims are based not on any treatment that she will suffer at the hands of the State party, but on consequences that she may suffer if she is returned to Burundi. The decision to return the author to Burundi cannot trigger the State party’s responsibility under articles 1, 2 (c), 2 (d) and 3 of the Convention. 4.7 The State party submits that the concept of jurisdiction for the purposes of article 2 of the Optional Protocol must be considered within the general meaning of the term in public international law. Thus, the words “under the jurisdiction of a State party” must be understood to mean that a State’s jurisdictional competence is primarily territorial and that State jurisdiction is presumed to be exercised throughout its territory. Only in exceptional circumstances can certain acts of a State party produce effects outside its territory, triggering its responsibility (“extraterritorial effect”). The State party submits that no such exceptional circumstances exist in this case. 4.8 The State party further submits that there is no jurisprudence by the Committee that indicates that the provisions of the Convention have extraterritorial effect. The State party submits that the European Court of Human Rights has in past decisions stressed the exceptional character of extraterritorial protection of the rights contained in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights __________________ 6 6/20 Burundi is a State party to the Convention and has signed but not ratified the Optional Protocol. 13-43086