CEDAW/C/55/D/35/2011 related to her membership of FLN, the author had replied in the negative, 17 later reporting during the Board hearing of 29 September 2011 that she did not know the perpetrators. The State party reiterates that at no time during the domestic proceedings did the author assert that the rape was an instance of politically motivated persecution. 6.3 Concerning interim measures of protection granted by the Committee, the State party submits that these are interim procedural measures comparable to those requested by other treaty-based committees and other international procedures and that the use of such measures does not imply that the Convention has been breached in a specific case, nor can it be interpreted to establish that the Convention has extraterritorial effect. 18 6.4 With regard to the author’s argument that the State party recognizes only political persecution against men, the State party indicates that the Refugee Appeals Board has assessed the author’s own circumstances, including her political activities and situation vis-à-vis her spouse’s political activities, as part of a comprehensive assessment in case of return to Burundi. The State party also reiterates the view of the Board that the grenade attack of May 2010 was apparently not directed against the author or her spouse. 6.5 The State party reiterates that, in its decision of 29 September 2011, the Refugee Appeals Board determined that the author would not be at risk of assault in case of return to Burundi. That assessment took into account the relevant national and international sources of law by which the Board is bound when making its decisions. 19 6.6 Regarding the question of extraterritoriality, and the author’s argument that the prohibition of certain crimes by the State party, such as crimes against humanity and torture, has granted extraterritorial effect, the State party submits that the Convention does not deal with such crimes. While it does not dispute that violence against women in the form of rape can amount to ill-treatment, the State party submits that the Convention does not encompass removal to torture or other serious threats to life and the security of the person, whether directly or indirectly. The author can therefore bring a communication concerning the State party only with regard to alleged violations of the Convention committed by and under the jurisdiction of the State party, even if the author can establish that she would be subjected to discrimination contrary to the Convention owing to gender-based violence in Burundi. 20 Referring to two recent decisions adopted by the Committee, 21 the State party invites the Committee to express its view on the issue of the extraterritorial application of the Convention. 6.7 As to the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party maintains that the author failed to invoke the Convention during domestic proceedings. Consequently, it reiterates that domestic remedies have not been exhausted. __________________ 17 18 19 20 21 10/20 The State party refers to the report of her second interview on 14 April 2011. The State party later refers to article 5 (2) of the Optional Protocol in this regard. The State party refers to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The State party refers to the Committee’s general recommendation No. 19. Communication No. 25/2010, M. P. M. v. Canada, and communication No. 26/2010, Herrera Rivera v. Canada. 13-43086