CEDAW/C/60/D/51/2013 may risk pain or suffering inflicted by a private person, without the c onsent or acquiescence of the relevant State. The State party considers that that limitation was established by the Committee against Torture when it reached the conclusion that the issue of whether a State party has an obligation to refrain from such expu lsion fell outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention against Torture. 6 6.5 The State party refers to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, considering that, when returning aliens, a State party can become responsible for acts committed against the alien in his or her country of origin only if the alien is able to show that the authorities of the receiving State are unable to obviate the risk by pr oviding appropriate protection. 7 6.6 The State party further submits that the author refers to the concluding comments of the Committee regarding the general situation in China. Those comments date back to August 2006, however, and do not describe the current conditions. Furthermore, the author has provided no prima facie evidence indicating that the Chinese authorities are unable to provide her with appropriate protection. The State party recalls that, in her interview with the Danish Immigration Service on 29 April 2010, the author explicitly stated that she had never contacted the police or any other Chinese authority to seek help. 6.7 The State party therefore argues that, for the reasons explained in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.6 above, the communication should be declared inadmissible. Furth ermore, referring to rule 66 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the State party requests that the Committee examine the admissibility of the communication separately from the merits. Further submissions by the author 7.1 On 18 November 2013, the author submits that she disagrees with the statement by the State party that her allegations are in no way substantiated by any prima facie evidence. She recalls that she informed the Danish authorities that her attackers had threatened her, raped her, burned her with hot oil and demanded that she should work as a prostitute. She further recalls that the Danish Immigration Service told her that, even if it were to accept her statements about her conflict with loan sharks, such conflict could not justify granting her asylum. She is therefore of the view that the Danish Immigration Service has admitted that the events are factual, even though the State party considers them irrelevant and not sufficient to justify granting asylum. The author insists that her suffering is factual and not merely an allegation, highlighting that the word “alleged” is associated with something that is doubtful. She contends that the word “alleged” is either being misunderstood or misused by the State party. 7.2 The author further submits that there is no doubt that she has substantiated that, were she returned to China, she would be exposed to a real, personal and __________________ 6 7 15-05832 See Committee against Torture, communications Nos. 130/1999 and 131/1999, V.X.N. and H.N. v. Sweden, views adopted on 15 May 2000, para. 13.8. See European Court of Human Rights, H.L.R. v. France, judgement of 29 April 1997 (application No. 24573/94), para. 40; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, judgement of 11 January 2007 (application No. 1948/04), para. 137; and NA. v. the United Kingdom, judgement of 17 July 2008 (application No. 25904/07), para. 40. 11/15