CEDAW/C/57/D/39/2012 prevent, investigate or sanction abuses against women, which are common but considered to be an internal family matter. 3.2 The author further submits that, by denying her asylum request, the State party has failed to protect her and, in particular, to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women by any person, to guarantee her the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on the basis of equality with men and to protect her from exploitation, in violation of articles 2, 3 and 6 of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 23 August 2012, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and merits. It reiterates the facts of the case and clarifies the asylum proceedings pursued by the author. In particular, it states that the author reported to the authorities of the Netherlands on 22 June 2009 and subsequently applied for a temporary asylum residence permit. On 25 August 2009, an interview was conducted in her asylum case. The author was questioned as to her identity, nationality, civil status, family, documents, date of departure from her country of origin and travel itinerary. She was provided with an interpreter. A report of the interview was drafted. On 24 February 2010, the author submitted her comments on the interview report. On 19 March 2010, the State party notified her of its intention to deny her application. On 23 April 2010, the author challenged that intention and submitted additional arguments on 27 April and 10 May 2010. On 17 August 2010, she was interviewed regarding her reasons for seeking asylum and an interview report was drawn up. On 3 November 2010, the Medical Assessment Section of the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued a report in which it stated that the author was receiving medical treatment 5 that, if interrupted at short notice, would not result in a medical emergency. A copy of the report was sent to the author. On 15 November 2010, the State party notified the author of its intention to deny her leave to remain in the country on medical grounds under section 64 of the Aliens Act (2000). 6 On 25 January 2011, the State party reiterated its intention to deny the author’s application for temporary asylum, which she challenged on 24 February 2011, emphasizing her eligibility therefor. On 28 February 2011, the author ’s application for a temporary asylum residence permit was denied. On 26 March 2011, the author applied to The Hague District Court for a review o f the latter decision and submitted grounds for review on 21 July 2011. On 2 August 2011, the Almelo District Court heard the author ’s case in the presence of the author and her counsel. On 16 August 2011, the District Court denied her application for revi ew as unsubstantiated. On 13 September 2011, the author appealed against that decision. On 1 November 2011, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State upheld the District Court’s decision. 4.2 The State party challenges the admissibility of the case. In particular, it argues that the communication is inadmissible ratione materiae. It notes that the author was allegedly subjected to sexual violence in Mongolia, which is itself a State party __________________ 5 6 14-26326 The author did not mention that she was undergoing medical treatment in her submissions to the Committee. According to section 64 of the Aliens Act (2000), an alien shall not be expelled as long as his or his family members’ health condition makes it unadvisable for him to travel. 5/16