CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011 Author’s comments on the State party’s additional observations 7.1 On 13 July 2012, the author commented on the State party’s additional observations. On the issue of the extraterritorial effect of the Convention, the author argues that the criminalization of female genital mutilation in Denmark is important proof that the State party has acknowledged the obligation to end impunity for those practising female genital mutilation anywhere in the world, if they are within Danish jurisdiction. When women are within Danish jurisdiction, a similar requirement follows from the Convention to protect those women from being returned to countries in which offenders performing female genital mutilation act with impunity, which is the case in Uganda. 7.2 The author notes the State party’s argument that, while it accepts that female genital mutilation can amount to ill-treatment under the other United Nations human rights instruments, the Convention “does not deal directly or indirectly with removal to torture or other serious threats to life and the security of the person”. She submits in this regard that this is a matter of interpretation of the Convention, which should be left to the Committee. The author argues that the Committee would likely conclude that it is mandated under the Convention to consider gender-based violence as its main concern and therefore also be able to consider whether some forms of gender-based violence may indeed reach such a level that the Convention would have extraterritorial effect. The author also notes that, although article 7 of the Covenant does not mention deportation either directly or indirectly, it nevertheless gives a mandate for the Human Rights Committee to deal with communications involving deportation. 7.3 The author agrees with the State party that the Committee’s application of urgent measures does not imply a determination on the admissibility or the merits of the present communication as such. She submits, however, that the mere fact that the Committee applies urgent measures in such cases appears to indicate that the Committee is of the view that there may be situations in which the Convention can be invoked with regard to fear of gender-based violence in the country of origin in order to stay deportation from the receiving country. The author argues, therefore, that the Convention does have extraterritorial effect in some cases and that the present communication should thus be declared admissible and examined on the merits. 7.4 As to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author submits that the Danish Refugee Council invoked the Committee’s concluding comments of 23 August 2002 on the consideration of the third periodic report of Uganda in its decision of 17 October 2008 and held that “it could not, on the basis available, agree to treating the [author’s] case as manifestly unfounded”. She recalls that the Immigration Service then refused to grant her a residence permit. The author further submits that, in his written observations of 8 February 2009, her counsel referred to the same concluding comments on Uganda as the Refugee Council. Furthermore, he stated that in Uganda the author could not receive the protection against female genital mutilation to which women and girls were entitled under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Her counsel further stated that single women in 14/19 13-42827