CEDAW/C/55/D/40/2012 and cannot be held responsible under the Convention for discrimination occurring under the jurisdiction of another State. 6.3 Referring to two recent decisions of the Committee, 7 the State party notes that they both were declared inadmissible on other grounds and that the issue of the extraterritorial application of the Convention was not addressed. The State party therefore invites the Committee to express its view on this issue. 6.4 The State party further observes that the Committee’s application of interim measures pursuant to article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol in both the present case and previous cases, such as Guadalupe Herrera Rivera v. Canada (communication No. 26/2010), cannot be interpreted as establishing that the Convention has extraterritorial effect, as claimed by the author. This view is supported by the very wording of article 5 (2) of the Optional Protocol, which reads: “Where the Committee exercises its discretion under paragraph 1 of the present article, this does not imply a determination on admissibility or on the merits of the communication.” 6.5 The State party further notes that the author also alleges a violation of article 12 of the Convention, according to paragraph 2 of which States parties must take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care. The State party submits, however, that this article, like the other articles of the Convention, cannot be considered to have extraterritorial effect. On several occasions, the European Court of Human Rights has considered whether health-care considerations can warrant a finding of a breach of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the event that a person is returned to his or her country of origin. For example, in N. v. the United Kingdom (application No. 26565/05, judgement of 27 May 2008) the Court found the following: Advances in medical science, together with social and economic differences between countries, entail that the level of treatment available in the Contracting State and the country of origin may vary considerably. While it is necessary, given the fundamental importance of Article 3 in the Convention system, for the Court to retain a degree of flexibility to prevent expulsion in very exceptional cases, Article 3 does not place an obligation on the Contracting State to alleviate such disparities through the provision of free and unlimited health care to all aliens without a right to stay within its jurisdiction. A finding to the contrary would place too great a burden on the Contracting States. 6.6 According to the State party, the risk of discrimination in the field of health care cannot oblige States parties to return aliens only to countries where conditions are in full compliance with each of the safeguards, rights and freedoms set out in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This is the case with article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is even more the case with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, because this instrument does not address, either directly or indirectly, the issue of removal to torture or other serious threats to the life and the security of the person. __________________ 7 13-42833 Communication No. 25/2010, M.P.M. v. Canada, decision of 24 February 2012, and communication No. 26/2010, Guadalupe Herrera Rivera v. Canada, decision of 18 October 2011. 11/13