CEDAW/C/60/D/51/2013 foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence, given that she has already previously suffered such violence. She contends that she has provided prima facie evidence through her own statements and by showing her head, which still bears the marks of burns from hot oil. She therefore considers that the communication cannot be declared inadmissible for that reason. 7.3 The author contends that her claim that the Chinese authorities are unable to obviate the risk that she is facing by providing appropriate protection is sufficiently substantiated to declare her communication admissible, given that the information that she provided is highly relevant to the situation that she was facing in China when she was attacked and thus relevant to her decision not to contact the Chinese police. Furthermore, she submits that she has never claimed that the information from the concluding observations of the Committee in 2006 would in any way be relevant to the present-day conditions — on the contrary, she fears that the situation may be much worse today. The author submits, however, that that consideration would be part of the examination of the merits of the case and that she would be happy to provide such information when the case reaches that stage. She argues that at the time of submitting her comments she had every reason not to attempt to contact the police in China and to seek protection elsewhere. She further notes that the male asylum seekers mentioned above were permitted to file an appeal, even though they had never requested the Chinese police to protect them against loan sharks. Consequently, she considers that the communication is compatible with the provisions of the Convention and should be declared admissible. 7.4 On 2 January 2014, the author added that her counsel had again represented a male Chinese asylum seeker before the Danish Refugee Board, a man who feared violence because he had borrowed money from loan sharks. The man’s claim had been rejected, but some of the Board members had stated that they would grant asylum on the basis that the asylum seeker had left China illegally. According to the author, this fact demonstrates that she was discriminated against with regard to the right to access to justice compared with men. She further submits that, had she been allowed to file an appeal on an equal footing, she might also have argued that she feared persecution from the Chinese authorities owing to her illegal exit from the country. While that argument may or may not have led to asylum being granted, the author maintains that her right to equal treatment has been violated, given that a greater number of men in a similar situation have been granted leave to appeal. Consequently, she has been discriminated against as a woman because she was not even permitted leave to appeal, unlike male applicants who feared persecution from loan sharks. She also adds that she sees no attempt to answer her comments on the issue in the State party’s observations. 7.5 The author further submits that in 2013 her counsel represented five Chinese men whose asylum applications were rejected by the Danish Immigration Service and who were granted leave to appeal. She argues that she has been discriminated against as a woman with regard to her right to a fair trial and effective legal remedies compared with male asylum seekers in the same situation. She therefore considers that her communication is sufficiently substantiated and should be declared admissible under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol. 12/15 15-05832