CEDAW/C/55/D/40/2012 residence elsewhere in Pakistan, in a place where the persecutor would be unable to harass them. 7.8 The Committee observes that the author’s alleged sexual harassment by A. G. began in 1998 when she was 16 years old. While the author refers to several incidents of stalking, oral threats, verbal abuse and harassment by the named individual between 1998 and 2009 and claims that her relatives were arrested on several occasions at his request, the Committee observes that the facts as presented by the author do not show a causal link between the respective arrests and the harassment suffered by the author. Neither was she able to demonstrate that her relatives had been summoned by the police, arrested or charged with a crime. Furthermore, the author provides no clear or specific information about her family’s decision to move to another location in Pakistan in an attempt to avoid harassment by A. G. She also fails to explain how A. G. was able to obtain her sister’s telephone number in Denmark and thereby to continue harassing and threatening her by telephone while she was in Denmark between January 2007 and May 2008. The Committee also notes that the alleged harassment-related incidents were of a sporadic nature and as such cannot be considered to constitute systematic harassment amounting to gender-based violence. Lastly, the Committee considers that the author has not adduced sufficient information in support of her contention regarding the alleged persecution based on religion. In the circumstances, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate, for the purposes of admissibility, her claim that her removal to Pakistan would expose her to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence and therefore declares the communication inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol. 7.9 In the light of this conclusion, the Committee decides not to examine the remaining inadmissibility grounds invoked by the State party, including those of ratione loci and ratione materiae. Regarding the State party’s argument that the author seeks to apply the provisions of the Convention in an extraterritorial manner, the Committee refers to its position explained in its decision in communication No. 33/2011, M. N. N. v. Denmark, adopted on 15 July 2013. 8 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol; (b) author. That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the [Adopted in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version.] __________________ 8 13-42833 CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011, paras. 8.5-8.10. 13/13