CEDAW/C/55/D/40/2012 violations of the Convention that are expected to be committed by another State party outside both the Danish territory and Danish jurisdiction. The State party also points out that the question of extraterritorial effect has not been directly addressed in the Committee’s jurisprudence and that there are no indications that the relevant provisions of the Convention would apply extraterritorially. 3 4.7 The State party further explains that the European Court of Human Rights has clearly stressed, in its case law, the exceptional nature of extraterritorial protection regarding the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Already in Soering v. the United Kingdom (application No. 14038/88, judgement of 7 July 1989), the Court applied the principle of extraterritoriality to article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture), which expressly prohibits States from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he/she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 4.8 Since then, the European Court of Human Rights has confirmed this judgement on a number of occasions. In F. against the United Kingdom (application No. 17341/03, decision of 22 June 2004), the applicant was an Iranian citizen who had applied for asylum in the United Kingdom claiming persecution on account of his homosexuality and arguing that it would be a violation of article 8 (right to private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights if he was removed to the Islamic Republic of Iran, because consensual homosexual activity between adults was forbidden there. The Court observed that its case law had found responsibility attaching to Contracting States in respect of expelling persons who were at risk of treatment contrary to article 2 (right to life) and article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the Convention. The Court went on to state as follows: Such compelling considerations do not automatically apply under the other provisions of the Convention. On a purely pragmatic basis, it cannot be required that an expelling Contracting State only return an alien to a country which is in full and effective enforcement of all the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. __________________ 3 13-42833 The State party observes that, in communication No. 10/2005, N.S.F. v. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, decision of 30 May 2007, the applicant was a Pakistani national who had applied for asylum in the United Kingdom along with her two children. She claimed to fear for her life at the hands of her former husband in Pakistan and for her two sons’ future and education if the authorities of the United Kingdom deported her. She did not invoke any specific provisions of the Convention nor demonstrate how the Convention might have been violated. The communication was declared inadmissible on the grounds of failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The Committee did not address the issue of extraterritoriality. The State party also makes reference to communication No. 26/2010, Guadalupe Herrera Rivera v. Canada, decision of 18 October 2011, where Canada argued that, in contrast to the Convention against Torture and articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women does not deal directly (or indirectly) with removal to torture or other serious threats to life and the security of the person (see para. 4.4 of the decision). Canada further argued that the author could only bring a communication concerning Canada related to alleged violations of the Convention committed by and under the jurisdiction of Canada. Having found the communication inadmissible on the grounds of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the Committee expressly stated that it did not consider it necessary to examine the other inadmissibility grounds invoked by the State party (see para. 6.4. of the decision). 7/13