CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011 5.6 As to the State party’s argument that the present communication is inadmissible pursuant to article 4 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the author argues that it has not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. She submits that, while her first communication was indeed addressed to the Human Rights Committee, it was not registered as a formal communication (i.e. assigned a case number) and was thus never examined. The author therefore argues that article 4 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol does not apply to the present situation. 18 5.7 As to the State party’s arguments that the communication should be declared inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae under article 2 of the Optional Protocol, the author reiterates that she fears that her forced deportation from Denmark to Uganda will lead to her being subjected to female genital mutilation without any protection from the Ugandan authorities. She recalls the State party’s argument that it has no responsibility under the Convention in relation to any violations thereof, including female genital mutilation, which may occur in another country. With reference to the jurisprudence of the Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee, and to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the author submits that, under international law, “exceptional circumstances [when] acts of State parties which produce effects in other States amount to responsibility for the acting State party” (see para. 4.6) occur “if the effect amounts to torture or inhuman treatment, as well as other serious human rights violations”. 5.8 The author submits that this exceptional circumstances requirement is met because she fears female genital mutilation if she returns to her home country. The State party’s attempt to reduce her communication to the issue of gender discrimination under article 1 of the Convention, i.e. a less serious form of human rights violation, must therefore be rejected by the Committee. She adds that female genital mutilation is a serious human rights violation amounting to torture and inhuman treatment and that it is compounded by the lack of protection by law in Uganda. The author also submits that her argument is supported by the fact that the Committee has already requested the State party to take interim measures in the present communication. 5.9 The author further argues that the State party’s legislation criminalizing female genital mutilation also appears to reflect that exceptional circumstances apply. According to section 245 (a) of the Criminal Code, female genital mutilation is a serious form of violence punishable by up to six years’ imprisonment. Moreover, the State party has introduced penal sanctions for acts of female genital mutilation carried out in other countries, even when such acts are legal in that particular country. The author thus concludes that the State party’s arguments for declaring the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol are contrary to the law and practice in Denmark with regard to female genital mutilation. 5.10 In relation to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author notes that the State party does not argue that an appeal against the decision by the Refugee Appeals Board should have been made to a court or any other higher body in Denmark. She submits that, while she raised the issue of gender-based violence during the processing of her request for asylum, it was not reflected in the decision __________________ 18 13-42827 Reference is also made to N. S. F. v. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, footnote 8 above, para. 7.4. 11/19