CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011 arrest four months after her arrival because she, being just a schoolgirl wishing to get away from her country of origin, did not know of the concept. 4.2 The State party further recalls that, in its decision of 9 November 2009, the Refugee Appeals Board accepted that the author’s basis for asylum was the risk of forced circumcision if returned to Uganda. The Board also accepted the author’s reference to a situation in which her father had approached her mother when the author was 9 years of age to have the author circumcised. The Board further noted that the author and her father had since had no contact, except for an accidental meeting in the street in Kampala when they did not speak to each other. The Board found that the author was not at risk of female genital mutilation if she were returned to Uganda, emphasizing that many years had passed since the author’s father or any of his family members had approached her. Against that background, the Board did not find it probable that the author would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if she were returned to Uganda. 4.3 The State party provides detailed information about the tasks and composition of the Refugee Appeals Board and about the legal basis of its decisions pursuant to the Aliens Act. Pursuant to section 31 (1) of the Act, an alien may not be returned to a country where he or she will be at risk of the death penalty or of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or where he or she will not be protected against being sent on to such country (non-refoulement). This absolute provision applies to all aliens and must be applied in accordance with the international legal obligations of Denmark. 4.4 The State party submits that, on an unspecified date, the author submitted a communication to the Human Rights Committee in which she stated that her deportation would constitute a violation of the Covenant. The communication was, however, rejected. The State party therefore argues that the present communication is inadmissible pursuant to article 4 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, since the same matter has already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, i.e. the Human Rights Committee. It notes in this context that the entire communication, apart from the first short sentence, concerns alleged violations of the Covenant and not of the Convention. The alleged violations of the Convention are thus merely briefly mentioned in the first sentence. 4.5 The State party further submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae under article 2 of the Optional Protocol because Denmark is not responsible under the Convention for the acts cited as the basis for the author’s communication. It notes that, while the Convention itself has no explicit jurisdiction clause limiting its scope of application, article 2 of the Optional Protocol clearly provides that communications “may be submitted by or on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals, under the jurisdiction of a State party, claiming to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the Convention by that State party”. Accordingly, the right of individual petition is clearly limited by a jurisdiction clause. The State party acknowledges that the author is temporarily residing in Denmark and therefore currently under Danish jurisdiction. The author’s claims rest not, however, on any treatment that she will suffer in Denmark owing to the conduct of the State party’s authorities, but rather on consequences that she may suffer if she is returned to Uganda. Accordingly, the only conduct by a Danish authority of which the author complains is the decision to 13-42827 7/19