CEDAW/C/57/D/39/2012 2.10 On 26 March 2011, the author complained about the decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Almelo District Court. On 16 August 2011, the District Court rejected her appeal on the same grounds as the Service. On 13 September 2011, the author lodged an appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State. 1 On 1 November 2011, the Council rejected the appeal without further comments on the merits of the case. 2.11 The author submits that, given the information about the systemic failure of Mongolia to protect women subjected to discrimination and domestic violence, there were and would be no remedies available to her in Mongolia. She explains that the Mongolian authorities are tainted by corruption and that there is no effec tive and accessible legal system in Mongolia. She contends that her two complaints to the police prompted no action by the authorities. She further argues that the State party should have investigated whether the Mongolian authorities were in a position to provide effective protection, in particular by examining all available information about the situation in Mongolia and applying it to her individual circumstances in the asylum proceedings. In support of her arguments, she refers to cases heard by the European Court of Human Rights: H.L.R. v. France (application No. 24573/94, judgement of 29 April 1997) 2 and NA. v. the United Kingdom (application No. 25904/07, judgement of 17 July 2008). 3 She also emphasizes the incorporation into the State party’s refugee legislation of article 7 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted. 4 Complaint 3.1 The author claims a violation of articles 1, 2 (e), 3 and 6 of the Convention. In particular, she submits that she was subjected to violence, sexual slavery and physical abuse because she is a woman. She refers to the Committee’s general recommendation No. 19, according to which gender-based violence falls within the scope of article 1 of the Convention. The author claims that, because the Convention applies to all women on the territory of the State, it also applies to women from third countries seeking asylum. The State has the obligation to protect such women against discrimination in their countries of origin and to offer them permission to stay whenever necessary. She adds that the Mongolian authoriti es are reluctant to __________________ 1 2 3 4 4/16 The highest administrative court in the Netherlands. The author does not refer to any particular paragraph or argue why this case is relevant. The author refers to paragraph 142 of the judgement, in which the Court underlined that, when assessing the applicant’s claim to be at real risk of ill-treatment in case of forcible return to Sri Lanka, it would need, first, to have due regard for the deterioration of the security situation there and the corresponding increase in general violence and heightened security; and, second, to take a cumulative approach to all possible risk factors identified by the applicant. Article 7 reads: 1. Protection can be provided by: (a) the State; or (b) parties or organisations, including international organisations, controlling the State or a substantial part of the territory of the State. 2. Protection is generally provided when the actors mentioned in paragraph 1 take reasonable steps to prevent the persecution or suffering of serious harm, inter alia, by operating an effective legal system for the detection, prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution or serious harm, and the applicant has access to such protection. 14-26326