CEDAW/C/55/D/35/2011 during the oral hearing, she raised a number of human rights provisions and international human rights standards. 7.5 Lastly, the author regrets that the State party claims that it reserves the right to submit further observations concerning the merits of the communication. According to the author, by delaying the case further, the State party is holding the author “hostage” as an asylum seeker, whereby she is forced to live in an asylum camp with no possibility of working and pursuing normal activities. She adds that she is in a bad condition 26 and requests the Committee to decide on her case as soon as possible. Issues and proceedings before the Committee concerning admissibility 8.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Convention. Pursuant to rule 66, the Committee may examine the admissibility of the communication separately from the merits. 8.2 In accordance with article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee is satisfied that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims that her deportation to Burundi would violate articles 1, 2 (c), 2 (d) and 3 of the Convention, given that she was raped by three men in Burundi before she fled the country owing to political persecution, and of her fears that she may be subjected to rape or other forms of bodily harm upon being returned to Burundi. The Committee takes note of the State party’s allegation that the author failed to raise any right protected under the Convention and to submit any allegation of gender-based discrimination before the Immigration Service or the Refugee Appeals Board. The Committee recalls that, under article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol, authors must use the remedies in the domestic legal system that are available to them. It also recalls its jurisprudence, according to which the author must have raised in substance at the domestic level the claim that he or she wishes to bring before the Committee 27 so as to enable domestic authorities and/or courts to have an opportunity to deal with such a claim. 28 In this regard, the Committee observes that the author’s asylum application before the Immigration Service, and related interview reports, indicate that the author raised as ground in support of her application for a residence permit only the fact that she feared being killed or imprisoned by the Government if she returned to Burundi, given that the regime persecuted all members of FNL. She referred to her membership of an opposition party as the reason for being wanted in her country of origin. 29 The Committee further observes that even the alleged rape was not raised as a ground per se in support of her application for asylum. Instead, during the asylum interviews, when questioned about the alleged rape, the author stated that she did not know the identity of the perpetrators, nor why they had raped her in particular, and added that she believed that it was coincidental that she had been __________________ 26 27 28 29 12/20 The author provides no additional details. See communication No. 8/2005, Kayhan v. Turkey, decision of 27 January 2007, para. 7.7. See N. S. F. v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, communication No. 10/2005, decision of 30 May 2007, para. 7.3. Report of 13 December 2010 of the author’s asylum interview before the State party’s Immigration Service. 13-43086