CEDAW/C/55/D/40/2012 gender-related crimes, including rape. 5 She claims that her case is about the possible risk of rape/sexual assault in Pakistan, and notes that the extent to which she runs such a risk relates to the merits of the communication, not to its admissibility. 5.3 She further argues that the provisions of the Convention that address violence against women should have extraterritorial effect, like article 3 of the Convention against Torture and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, especially in cases where deportation would result in torture or inhuman treatment upon return. She notes the absence of any jurisprudence in this respect, but claims that the Committee can provide protection in cases of violence against women. The author recalls that, in her case, the Committee granted interim measures requesting the State party to refrain from deporting her and her two minor children to Pakistan. She refers to other cases 6 that, according to her, “seem to indicate” that the Committee considers her case to be “exceptional” and “confirming” that the provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women have extraterritorial effect. 5.4 The author rejects the State party’s argument that her husband and son cannot be considered victims under the Convention, claiming that her husband had to flee Pakistan because of her problems and that their family suffered from discrimination in Pakistan and therefore fear returning there. In addition, adult males and boys can be victims of gender inequality and discrimination too. 5.5 Lastly, the author claims that, contrary to the State party’s assertion, the communication is sufficiently substantiated and should be considered on its merits. She submits that the Refugee Appeals Board failed to consider her sexual harassment claim and to acknowledge the State party’s obligations under the Convention. For instance, when the Board was called upon to assess the risk of rape and forced marriage should she be returned to Pakistan, it simply recommended that she should move to another part of the country. Additional observations by the State party 6.1 In its submission of 27 August 2012, the State party explains that it does not dispute the fact that violence against women can amount to ill-treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, article 3 of the Convention against Torture and articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women does not address the issue of removal to torture or other serious threats to the life and security of the person, either directly or indirectly. The author can therefore submit a communication concerning Denmark only if the violations of the Convention alleged therein were committed under the jurisdiction of Denmark. 6.2 The State party reiterates that it is aware of the Committee’s position, as reflected in its general recommendation No. 19, that gender-based violence is a form of discrimination that impairs or nullifies the enjoyment by women of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Nevertheless, this does not change the fact that a State party is responsible only for violations that are committed under its own jurisdiction __________________ 5 6 10/13 Communication No. 18/2008. Communication No. 10/2005 and communication No. 26/2010. 13-42833