CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011 in her own country, however objectionable that treatment may be, cannot constitute a violation of the Convention. For the above reasons, the State party contends that Denmark is not responsible under the Convention for the alleged violations, if any, cited as the basis for the author’s communication. Accordingly, it should be rejected as inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 4.10 The State party further submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It follows from the Committee’s jurisprudence that the author must have raised the claim in substance at the domestic level that she wishes to bring before the Committee. 11 The State party observes that the articles of the Convention invoked by the author all concern discrimination against women. It notes, however, that no allegation based on discrimination against the author as a woman was ever formulated by her before the Immigration Service or the Refugee Appeals Board and that, as a consequence, the domestic authorities have had no opportunity to deal with the author’s assertion that the decision involved genderbased discrimination. 12 Since the Committee in this case would be a court of first instance, the communication should be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 4.11 The State party further submits that, in her communication to the Committee, the author has neither clearly identified nor explained the rights under the Convention on which she is in fact relying, but rather simply referred to articles 1, 2 (c), 2 (d) and 3 of the Convention. The rest of her communication concerns alleged violations of the Covenant and not of the Convention. For that reason, the State party argues that the communication should also be declared inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol as not sufficiently substantiated. 4.12 Given that, for the reasons explained in paragraphs 4.5 to 4.9, the returning of the author to Uganda cannot engage the State party’s responsibility under the Convention, it is submitted that no violation of the Convention would occur. Author’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 On 17 February 2012, the author commented on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits. She submits that the definition of gender-based discrimination referred to in article 1 of the Convention has to be interpreted in the context of the existing human rights instruments, while adding further protection for women against specific forms of gender-based discrimination. 5.2 The author submits that, in its sixth periodic report to the Committee, the State party referred to the fact that the “requirement of the so-called dual criminality in relation to female genital mutilation was abolished”, meaning that “it is now possible to punish Danish nationals as well as persons residing in Denmark who perform or who assist in performing female genital mutilation abroad, even when female genital mutilation is not a crime in the country where it is being __________________ 11 12 13-42827 See communication No. 8/2005, Kayhan v. Turkey, inadmissibility decision of 27 January 2006, para. 7.7. Reference is made to N. S. F. v. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, footnote 8 above, para. 7.3, and Kayhan v. Turkey, footnote 11 above. 9/19