CEDAW/C/72/D/96/2015 authorities, that family members are kept under surveillance and threatened into giving information about their relatives, in addition to experiencing a variety of sanctions, and that a climate of fear persists in Chechnya. In the report, it is also indicated that medical treatment of insurgents is regarded as a criminal and punishable act under Russian criminal law. The author submits that the situation is particularly difficult for female supporters or alleged supporters of insurgents, given that women risk violence, sexual harassment and sexual assault by the Chechen authorities. 30 7.4 The author recalls the State party’s statement, in its submissions dated 22 December 2016, that, even if the Committee declares the author ’s communication to be admissible, the author can nevertheless be returned to the Russian Federation. The author reiterates that her deportation would constitute a violation of article 2 (c), (d) and (f) of the Convention. She underlines that, as a woman sought by Chechen authorities for assisting an insurgent, she would be at great risk of cruel and degrading treatment and sexual violence because of her gender if she were to be returned to the Russian Federation. 7.5 The author recalls that the State party referred to a report produced by the Danish Immigration Service dated 15 January 2015. She submits that the report was produced before the Grozny attack of 4 December 2014 and only briefly mentions the tense situation after the attack. The author indicates that, after the attack, President Kadyrov stated that he would call for collective responsibility and punishment. 7.6 The author refers to the decision of the Committee in Y.W. v. Denmark, 31 in which it indicated that the Convention had extraterritorial effect and that article 2 (d) imposed an obligation to refrain from engaging in any act or practice of discrimination against women and to ensure that public authorities and institutions acted accordingly. In that case, the Committee also indicated that, if a State party takes a decision relating to a person within its jurisdiction, and the necessary and foreseeable consequence is that the person’s rights under the Convention would be violated in another jurisdiction, the State party itself might be in violation of the Convention. 7.7 Responding to the State party’s submissions on the situation in Chechnya, the author submits that Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation but has a strong and independent government under President Kadyrov. Further observations of the State party 8. On 10 July 2017, the State party informed the Committee that it would present no comments in response to the author’s submission of 28 February 2017. It maintains that the author’s communication is manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible. Should the Committee find the communication to be admissible, the State party submits that the author has not established that her return to the Russian Federation would be contrary to the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Request for interim measures 9. The Committee notes that, on 24 September 2015, following its request of 22 September 2015 under article 5 of the Optional Protocol and rule 63 of its rules of procedure, the State party, through the Refugee Appeals Board, suspended the deportation of the author. The Committee commends the State party for complying __________________ 30 31 19-05867 To support this claim, the author refers to a report of the European Asylum Support Office, entitled EASO Country of Origin Information Report: Chechnya – Women, Marriage, Divorce and Child Custody (September 2014). Y.W. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/60/D/51/2013), para. 8.7. 9/11