CEDAW/C/60/D/51/2013 motive, referring to several cases of male asylum seekers represented by her counsel. Consequently, she argues that she was discriminated against as a woman with regard to her right to a fair trial and effective legal remedies compared with male asylum seekers in a similar situation. She therefore considers that the communication is sufficiently substantiated and should be declared admissible. State party’s further observations on admissibility 6.1 On 13 September 2013, the State party submitted further observations on admissibility. 6.2 The State party again observes that the author seeks to apply the obligations under the Convention in an extraterritorial manner. It recalls that, in its decision regarding communication No. 33/2011, M.N.N. v. Denmark, the Committee made some general comments concerning the extraterritorial effect of the Convention. In paragraphs 8.7 and 8.8, the Committee referred to the principle of non -refoulement and to the statement in general recommendation No. 19 that gender-based violence, which impairs or nullifies the enjoyment by women of human rights and fundamental freedoms under general international law or under other human rights conventions, is discrimination within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. The State party draws attention to the statement made by the Committee in paragraph 8.10 regarding the positive duties of States parties under article 2 (d) of the Convention. In that paragraph, the Committee recalls that, under article 2 (d), States are under an obligation to protect women from being exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence, irrespective of whether such consequences would take place outside the territorial boundaries of the sending State party: if a State party takes a decision relating to a person within its jurisdiction, and the necessary and foreseeable consequence is that that person ’s rights under the Convention will be violated in another jurisdiction, the State party itself may be in violation of the Convention. In the light of that decision, the State party draws the conclusion that the Convention has extraterritorial effect only when the woman being returned will be exposed to a real, personal and fo reseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence, with the additional requirement that the necessary and foreseeable consequence is that the individual ’s rights under the Convention will be violated in another jurisdiction. The State party submits that, in its view, this means that acts of States parties that may have an indirect effect on a person’s rights under the Convention in other States can entail responsibility for the acting State party (extraterritorial effect) only under the circumstances in which the person to be returned is at risk of being deprived of the right to life or of being exposed to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 6.3 The State party recalls that the author alleges that she was raped, burned with hot oil and forced to work as a prostitute by criminals in China. It contends, however, that her allegations are in no way substantiated by any prima facie evidence. In the State party’s view, the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate her claim that her removal to China would expose her to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious gender-based violence. 6.4 The State party further submits that the author ’s allegations are equally inadmissible because they are incompatible with article 4 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. It contends that positive duties under article 2 (d) of the Convention do not encompass an obligation for States parties to refrain from expelling a person who 10/15 15-05832