CEDAW/C/73/D/86/2015 7.3 The Committee notes that the author claims to have exhausted all domestic remedies and that the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the communication on that grounds. The Committee observes that, according to the information available to it, decisions of the Refugee Ap peals Board are not subject to appeal before the national courts. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol do not preclude it from examining the communication. 7.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim of violations under articles 3 and 22 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In the absence of any other information of pertinence on file, the Committee considers that part of the communication to be inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. 7.5 The Committee also notes the author’s claim under article 15 (4) of the Convention, insofar as, according to Jordanian authorities ’ practice, she was required to seek her husband’s permission to leave Jordan with their children. The Committee considers that the author’s claim in that respect does not fall under the responsibility of the State party, but that of Jordan. Furthermore, the Committee is no t satisfied that such a practice would amount to a serious form of gender-based violence and therefore, in the absence of any other information of pertinence on file, the Committee considers that part of the communication to be inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol. 7.6 The Committee notes that, relying on articles 1 and 2 (d), read in conjunction with article 2 (e) and (f), of the Convention, the author claims that, should the State party return her and her daughters to Jordan, they would be personally exposed to a risk of serious forms of gender-based violence. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol, owing to a lack o f substantiation. 7.7 The Committee reiterates that, according to its jurisprudence, the Convention has extraterritorial effect only when the woman to be returned will be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence. 13 7.8 The Committee recalls that, under article 2 (d) of the Convention, States parties undertake to refrain from engaging in any act or practice of discrimination against women and to ensure that public authorities and institutions act in conformit y with that obligation. The Committee refers to its general recommendation No. 32, in paragraph 21 of which it noted that, under international human rights law, the non-refoulement principle imposed a duty on States to refrain from returning a person to a jurisdiction in which he or she might face serious violations of human rights, notably arbitrary deprivation of life or torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Furthermore, the Committee notes that State parties must prevent statelessness through legislative provisions making the loss or renunciation of nationality contingent upon possession or acquisition of another nationality and allow the reacquisition of nationality for women left stateless owing to the absence of such safeguards. 14 The Committee also refers to its general recommendation No. 19, in paragraph 7 of which it noted that gender-based violence, which impairs or nullifies the enjoyment by women of human rights and fundamental freedoms under general international law or under human rights conventions, was discrimination within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention, and that such rights included the right to life and the right not to be subjected to torture. The Committee further developed its interpretation of violence against women as a form of gender__________________ 13 14 19-15427 See, for example, M.N.N. v. Denmark, para. 8.10. General recommendation No. 32, para. 63 (e). 9/13