CEDAW/C/55/D/40/2012 Issues and proceedings before the Committee concerning admissibility 7.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. Pursuant to rule 66, the Committee may decide to consider the admissibility of the communication separately from its merits. 7.2 In accordance with article 4 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee is satisfied that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee observes that the State party did not challenge the admissibility of the communication on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Accordingly, it considers that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 7.4 The Committee notes the author’s allegation that her and her family’s deportation to Pakistan would constitute a violation by Denmark of their rights under the Convention in view of the sexual harassment to which she had previously been subjected there and the inability of the Pakistani authorities to provide them with effective protection against the treatment to which, she claims, they would again be exposed upon their return. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s arguments that the communication should be declared inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae under article 2 and article 4 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, as the author seeks to expand the protection offered by the Convention in an extraterritorial manner; that the State party cannot be held responsible under the Convention for gender-based discrimination that has occurred or is to occur under the jurisdiction of another State (Pakistan); that the Committee lacks jurisdiction over the alleged violations with regard to the State party; and that the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. 7.5 The Committee recalls that article 1 of the Convention defines discrimination against women as “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women … of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field”. The Committee further recalls its general recommendation No. 19, which has clearly placed violence against women within the ambit of discrimination against women by stating that gender-based violence is a form of discrimination against women and includes acts that inflict physical, mental or sexual harm or suffering, threats of such acts, coercion and other deprivations of liberty. 7.6 In the present case, the Committee notes that the author claims that, since the age of 16 (i.e. since 1998), she has been subjected to sexual harassment by an individual belonging to a high-ranking family with strong connections within the police force, and that this harassment continued until she and her family left Pakistan for Denmark in 2009. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that she and her family were persecuted because of their Christian faith. 7.7 The Committee further notes that the Refugee Appeals Board found that the author and her family had been subjected to outrages by a particular individual, his brother and the local police for a number of years; however, the Board concluded that it must be considered reasonable for the author and her family to take up 12/13 13-42833