CEDAW/C/57/D/39/2012 the Netherlands that were processing her asylum request. She submits that she clearly stated that she had been a victim of sex-based discrimination in Mongolia, in particular sexual slavery and domestic violence by her former employer and sexual and physical abuse in the workplace. She also stated that the Mongolian authorities had not provided effective protection to her, her two complaints to the police notwithstanding. The State party did not dispute that her statements were credible. Furthermore, the author provided the State party and its national courts with ample information about the general situation of women in Mongolia to show widespread discrimination against women and impunity with regard to incidents of domestic violence and trafficking in women. In so doing, she sought to demonstrate that her situation was not an isolated incident but followed the pattern of structural discrimination against women in Mongolia. The author further notes that it was unnecessary for her to refer to the Convention in the national proceedings. With reference to general recommendation No. 19, she reiterates that violence against women falls with the scope of article 1 of the Convention. In addition, there is no other national procedure or court in the Netherlands to which she could complain of the treatment to which she was subjected in Mongolia. The author therefore contends that she raised the sex-based discrimination claim in substance in the State party and that her communication should be declared admissible. 5.3 The author also refutes the State party’s argument that she could have sought protection under other instruments, such as the Convention against Torture or the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, because the Convention should not overlap with other international and European human rights instruments. She emphasizes that, insofar as such instruments are designed to protect a person against abuse, some overlap is to be expected. She requested the State party to protect her (and her son) against abuse and discriminatory acts in Mongolia. She states that a well-founded “fear of expulsion” to the country of origin might be a reason for granting asylum and thus ensuring effective protection under the Convention. She refers to the Committee ’s concluding observations on the second and third periodic reports of the Netherlands 23 and general comment No. 15 of the Human Rights Committee. 24 The author reiterates that her communication should be declared admissible. __________________ 23 24 10/16 The author refers to the advance unedited version, available from www.un.org/womenwatch/ daw/cedaw/cedaw25/TheNetherlands_Final.htm. The paragraphs referred to by the author read as follows (the author underlined the text of paragraph 28): 27. The Committee is concerned about non-European women who have been trafficked who fear expulsion to their countries of origin and who might lack the effective protection of their Government on their return. 28. The Committee urges the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to ensure that trafficked women are provided with full protection in their countries of origin or grant them asylum/refugee status. Reference is made to paragraph 5 of general comment No. 15 of the Human Rights Committee, which reads as follows (the author underlined the final two sentences): The Covenant does not recognize the right of aliens to enter or reside in the territory of a State party. It is in principle a matter for the State to decide who it will admit to its territory. However, in certain circumstances an alien may enjoy the protection of the Covenant even in relation to entry or residence, for example, when considerations of non-discrimination, prohibition of inhuman treatment and respect for family life arise. 14-26326