CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011 performed”. 13 She adds that female genital mutilation has therefore, as from May 2003, had an extraterritorial effect in Denmark pursuant to section 245 (a) of the Criminal Code. 5.3 The author notes that the Committee has issued its general recommendation No. 19, on violence against women, and considered a number of individual communications that could provide guidance in the present communication. 14 The author argues that the use of female genital mutilation is a form of threat to a woman’s health and that the issue is therefore covered by article 12 of the Convention. She adds that the relevant provisions of the Convention are thus articles 1, 2 (c)-2 (f), 5 (a), 12 and 16 (1), in addition to general recommendation No. 19, supplementing the range of provisions in other human rights instruments that apply equally to men and women. 5.4 The author submits that the issue before the Committee is whether the Convention has extraterritorial effect, similar to article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) and article 7 of the Covenant. In other words, the author is asking whether there is a “positive” obligation on the State party to provide effective protection for a woman’s right to security of person if the threat against that woman is in another country or country of origin where there is no such protection. The author adds that this question has already been raised in a number of communications in which the authors argued that their deportation to their respective countries of origin would constitute a violation of the Convention. 15 Given that all these communications were declared inadmissible on grounds other than the extraterritorial applicability of the Convention, the Committee’s position on this issue is yet to be publicly stated. In this respect, the author notes, however, that the Committee has requested States parties to take interim measures in a number of these communications, 16 which may suggest that the Committee already has an opinion that such measures can be used in exceptional [deportation] cases, where the author risks torture or inhuman treatment on return. 5.5 The author draws the Committee’s attention to the fact that the Convention has not been directly incorporated as a legal norm into the State party’s national law, 17 unlike the European Convention on Human Rights. She adds that the State party’s failure to incorporate the United Nations human rights instruments into its legal order creates a high level of uncertainty in relation to the legal status of decisions adopted by the human rights treaty bodies under the individual communication procedure. __________________ 13 14 15 16 17 10/19 CEDAW/C/DNK/6, p. 60. Reference is made to communication No. 2/2003, A. T. v. Hungary, views adopted on 26 January 2005, paras. 9.3 and 9.6, and communication No. 4/2004, A. S. v. Hungary, views adopted on 14 August 2006. Reference is made, among others, to communication No. 26/2010, Herrera Rivera v. Canada, inadmissibility decision of 18 October 2011. Reference is made to Herrera Rivera v. Canada, footnote 15 above, and N. S. F. v. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, footnote 8 above. Reference is made, among others, to the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture on the fifth periodic report of Denmark (CAT/C/DNK/CO/5), para. 9, and the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on the fifth periodic report of Denmark (CCPR/C/DNK/CO/5), para. 6. 13-42827