CEDAW/C/60/D/51/2013 before the courts. She contends that that is also the case for an asylum seeker whose case has been rejected as manifestly unfounded. Furthermore, she submits that there is no precedent and no legal literature to support the opinion that it could be possible for an asylum seeker to appeal against a decision issued under the “manifestly unfounded” procedure before the Danish courts. The author further contests the statement that the Danish courts have the real and effective ability to stay a deportation order and maintains that, according to current jurisprudence, courts can stay a deportation order only in exceptional circumstances. She is therefore challenging the State party’s observation that there is a real and effective remedy available for asylum seekers in her position. 5.6 The author concedes that it is correct that she did not mention the relevant provisions of the Convention, but maintains that she did describe gender-based violence in the form of rape and forced prostitution. In addition, because her case was declared manifestly unfounded, she was not allowed access to counsel who would have been able to invoke the relevant provisions. For that reason, the author considers that the reference to communication No. 8/2005 is irrelevant, given that the author in that case had counsel who could have raised the issue appropriately. The author maintains that she was interviewed by the Danish Immigration Service on 29 April 2010 without the assistance of counsel; therefore, the requirement that she mention the relevant provisions of the Convention for the communication to be declared admissible is unacceptable. She argues that it was incumbent on the Dani sh authorities to identify that the acts of gender-based violence that she suffered were related to the Convention and to treat her asylum application accordingly. She further submits that her case is similar to those concerning victims of trafficking and should have been handled accordingly. She therefore considers that her communication is in line with the requirements of the Optional Protocol and should be declared admissible. 5.7 The author notes that the State party argues that her reference to a simi lar case before the Human Rights Committee is not proof of discrimination against female asylum seekers. She explains that she mentioned the case because it also concerned a female asylum seeker who suffered from a lack of equal treatment with men in a similar situation. The author elaborates that that case was also considered manifestly unfounded and that it was only after the communication was forwarded to the Human Rights Committee that the Danish authorities reopened the case, provided counsel and allowed the case to proceed to the Refugee Appeals Board, which eventually granted asylum. In her opinion, that demonstrates very clearly the importance of the rights to appeal against judgements and to legal counsel. 5.8 The author concedes that, from a statistical point of view, a single case cannot be considered proof of gender discrimination. She refers to a number of other cases as further evidence of her claim, however. She observes that communications Nos. 33/2011, M.N.N. v. Denmark, and 40/2012, M.S. v. Denmark, were initially treated as manifestly unfounded asylum cases, indicating that gender-specific issues are treated less seriously than “male issues” such as political repression. Furthermore, she submits that only the Danish authorities would be abl e to provide gender-disaggregated data on the number of asylum seekers whose claims are rejected under the “manifestly unfounded” procedure. 5.9 The author contends that it is disturbing that more women asylum seekers have their asylum requests denied than male asylum seekers with a similar asylum 15-05832 9/15