CEDAW/C/60/D/51/2013 level, the substance of the claim that she wishes to bring before the Committee. 3 It observes that no allegation of gender-based discrimination was ever made by the author before the Danish authorities and that the national authorities have accordingly had no opportunity to assess the allegation. It maintains that the author must have at least raised the relevant substantive rights of the Convention before the national authorities for the communication to be declared admissible. 4.5 The State party further submits that the communication should also be declared inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol, given that it considers that the claim of alleged discrimination against female asylum seekers in Denmark is clearly not sufficiently substantiated. 4.6 The State party further submits that the communication should be dec lared inadmissible ratione materiae and ratione loci under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, given that it considers that Denmark is not responsible under the Convention for the acts of gender-based violence suffered by the author, which means that returning the author to China cannot engage the responsibility of the State party. The State party notes that the author seeks to apply the obligations under the Convention in an extraterritorial manner. It considers, however, that the author ’s allegations of a violation of a right under the Convention mainly relate to China and not to Denmark. Consequently, the State party is of the view that the Committee lacks jurisdiction over the relevant violation in respect of Denmark and that the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. The State party observes that article 2 of the Optional Protocol provides that communications to the Committee may be submitted by or on behalf of victims of a violation by the State party of any of the rights set forth in the Convention and that, accordingly, it considers that the right of individual petition is limited by a jurisdiction clause. The State party is therefore of the view that the author may submit a communication against Denmark only concerning alleged violations committed by and under the jurisdiction of the State party. It notes that the author ’s allegations of gender-based violence do not relate to acts carried out by Danish officials or private persons under the jurisdiction of Denmark, but in fact rest on consequences that she may allegedly suffer if returned to China. It insists that the decision to return the author to China cannot engage its responsibility under article 1 to 3, 12 or 15 of the Convention. The State party further observes that the concept of “jurisdiction” for the purpose of article 2 of the Optional Protocol must be considered to reflect the meaning of the term in public international law, meaning that a State party’s jurisdictional competence is primarily territorial. It considers that the extent to which acts of States parties that may have an indirect effect on a person ’s rights under the Convention in other States can entail any responsibility of the acting State party at all will have to be considered an exception based on exceptional circumstances. It submits that no such circumstances exist in the present case that may justify holding Denmark responsible for violations of the Convention expected to be committed by another State party outside Danish territory and jurisdiction. The State party considers that no jurisprudence indicates that the relevant provisions of the Convention have extraterritorial effect. __________________ 3 6/15 The State party refers to communication No. 8/2005, Kayhan v. Turkey, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 27 January 2006, para. 7.7; the Committee declared the communication inadmissible because the author had not raised sex discrimination as an issue. 15-05832