CEDAW/C/60/D/51/2013 4.2 The State party submits that, on 18 May 2010, the Danish Immigration Service transmitted the author ’s application for asylum to the Danish Refugee Council under section 53b (2) of the Aliens Act, given that it considered the application manifestly unfounded. On 26 May 2010, the Council endorsed that opinion and found that the return of the author to China would not be contrary to section 31 of the Act . In a decision dated 31 May 2010, the Danish Immigration Service rejected the author ’s asylum application, stating that her conflict with organized crime elements could not justify asylum because the acts against her were criminal offences without relevan ce to asylum law and because she could seek protection from the Chinese authorities. It emphasized that, according to its findings, the author had never been a member of any political party or had any conflict with the Chinese authorities. Consequently, it considered the application manifestly unfounded and decided that the author would be returned to China if she refused to leave voluntarily. 4.3 The State party provides detailed information about the legal basis for the decisions made under the Aliens Act. Pursuant to sections 7 and 31 of the Act, an alien will be issued a residence permit in Denmark if he or she is at risk of the death penalty or of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if returned to his or her country of origin or to a country where he or she will not be protected against such risk (non-refoulement). The above provisions apply to all aliens and must be applied in accordance with the international legal obligations of Denmark. Decisions under section 7 of the Act are made by the Danish Immigration Service and are normally subject to appeal before the Refugee Appeals Board, unless the application is considered manifestly unfounded. Under section 53b (1) of the Act, an application is considered manifestl y unfounded if it falls under the criteria established in subparagraphs (i) to (vi), in particular if it is manifest that the circumstances invoked by the applicant cannot lead to the issuance of a residence permit under section 7. In case of a negative decision, the Danish Immigration Service submits the case to the Danish Refugee Council, which can agree with the decision and return the case to the Danish Immigration Service, or it can disagree with the decision, in which case the decision is automaticall y appealed before the Danish Refugee Board. 4.4 The State party submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol because the author did not exhaust all domestic remedies. It observes that, by virt ue of article 63 of the Constitution, aliens may bring an appeal before the ordinary courts, which are empowered to decide any question relating to the scope of the executive ’s authority. It therefore considers that the author is incorrect in stating that she was barred from appealing against the decision in her case. The State party further observes in that connection that the courts are not barred from allowing legal proceedings on the validity of an administrative decision to stay the execution of such a decision. Furthermore, it submits that the decision as to whether legal proceedings should stay the execution of a decision depends on the balance between the public interest in not postponing the execution of the decision and the nature and scope of the harm that may be caused to the individual applicant, while taking into account whether, on the basis of a provisional assessment, there is a reasonable basis for the claim of invalidity. Accordingly, the State party considers that the author had access to an effective remedy in her case. Furthermore, the State party submits that it follows from the case law of the Committee that the author must have raised, at the domestic 15-05832 5/15