CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011 particular had no legal protection in Uganda and had to pay bribes if they wished to make a report to the police. 22 7.5 The author further submits that, on 30 October 2009, her counsel submitted additional observations to the Refugee Appeals Board, including a reference to the combined fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh periodic report of Uganda to the Committee. 23 According to that report, the Ugandan authorities stated that a law prohibiting female genital mutilation had been drafted and presented to Parliament. That information was contrary to the information provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which stated that such a law already existed in Uganda. The author’s counsel therefore argued that her deportation to Uganda would be in violation of the Convention and articles 2, 3, 7, 14 and 26 of the Covenant. He considered that the author “risk[ed] inhuman treatment because she [was] a woman and that the State party [was] not treating her on an equal footing with men, since she [was] not protected against violations that only affect[ed] women”. The author notes that the decision of the Board does not mention the additional observations of 30 October 2009 at all. 7.6 The author maintains that, while the Convention was indeed invoked before the Danish asylum authorities on more than one occasion, there is not a single reference to the Convention in the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board. She submits that the Board has not even attempted to argue why she was not protected under the Convention. 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. Pursuant to rule 66, the Committee may decide to consider the admissibility of the communication separately from its 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. In this context, the Committee notes that the author’s communication submitted under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was never registered for consideration by the Human Rights Committee. 8.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims that her deportation to Uganda would constitute a violation by Denmark of articles 1, 2 (c), 2 (d), 3 and 12 of the Convention. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae under article 2 of the Optional Protocol, given that Denmark has obligations under the Convention only vis-à-vis individuals under its jurisdiction and cannot be held responsible for violations of the Convention, such as genderbased violence, expected to be committed by another State party outside Danish territory and jurisdiction. The Committee further takes note of the State party’s reference to the concept of jurisdiction in public international law, in addition to its __________________ 22 23 13-42827 Reference is made to the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on activities of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Uganda (A/HRC/7/38/Add.2). CEDAW/C/UGA/7, para. 175. 15/19