CEDAW/C/59/D/59/2013 4.16 In addition, the author ’s departure was not caused by a specific situation. During her interview with the Danish Immigration Service on 26 July 2013, she referred to the difficult social conditions in China as a reason for her asylum application. 4.17 In the light of the foregoing, the State party considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate, for the purposes of admissibility, her claim that her removal to China would expose her to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence. Furthermore, it remains unclear and insufficiently substantiated what violations of the Convention the author would suffer if she were returned to China. The author refers to several provisions of the Convention, without describing in detail how they may be considered relevant. The communication should therefore be declared inadmissible under article 4 (2)(c) of the Optional Protocol as manifestly ill-founded and unsubstantiated. 4.18 As regards the part of the author’s claims regarding her fear of per secution by the father of her child, the State party submits that that part of the communication is inadmissible under article 4 (2)(b) as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. 4.19 With reference to the jurisprudence of the Committee agains t Torture, the State party notes that positive duties under article 2 (d) do not encompass an obligation for States parties to refrain from expelling a person who might risk pain or suffering inflicted by a private person, without the consent or acquiescen ce of the State authorities. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights on article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights shows also that, when returning an alien, a State party can become responsible for acts committed against the alien in h is 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 providing appropriate protection. 1 4.20 In the State party’s view, the author has failed to sufficiently substantiat e her contention that the Chinese authorities would be unable to obviate the alleged risk through appropriate protection, meaning that this part of the communication should be declared incompatible under article 4 (2)(b) of the Optional Protocol. 4.21 In this respect, the State party emphasizes that, according to her own statements to the Danish authorities, the author at no time contacted the Chinese authorities concerning the violence to which she was subjected by her child’s father or the child’s sustained stay with his father. The author’s claims in the communication to the effect that she could not receive help from the authorities because she was not married to the child’s father or that the situation of neglect on the part of the authorities prevented her from making another attempt to see her child are not supported by the author’s own statements during the proceedings. 4.22 The State party adds that the author’s own statements during the proceedings also do not support the allegation made in the co mmunication to the effect that the she did not contact the authorities because she did not dare to seek protection from them. Before the Danish Immigration Service, she had stated that she did not seek the protection of the authorities because in China because nobody wanted to be involved in private matters, that it would be a waste of time and that the authorities __________________ 1 14-67404 See, for example, H.L.R. v. France, application No. 24573/94, para. 40, Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, application No. 1948/04, para. 137, and NA v. the United Kingdom, application No. 25904/07, para. 110. 7/10