CEDAW/C/57/D/39/2012 those instruments may be triggered even if the threat emanates from persons who are not public officials. It should be established, however, that the risk is real and that the authorities in the country of origin are unable to obviate it by providing appropriate protection. 4.6 With reference to the above, the State party explains that, by virtue of its policy on aliens, the obligation to protect extends only to cases in which it can be established that an asylum seeker is unable to receive protection from the authorities in his or her country of origin. A deter mining factor in this regard is whether such authorities take appropriate measures, such as establishing an effective legal system to investigate, prosecute and sanction those responsible. The legal system is effective if it can offer the necessary protection as cases arise. The effectiveness of protection is determined through an assessment of measures taken. Protection is effective if it reasonably protects from the threat, which does not imply ruling out all possible risk. Furthermore, effective protection does not have to be deemed permanent at the time of assessment: protection for the immediately foreseeable future is sufficient. 12 It is also relevant whether the alien has access to such protection. 13 Aliens are expected to apply to a higher authority, if necessary. Should local authorities fail to offer adequate protection, victims are, in principle, expected to turn to the central government authorities. 14 4.7 The State party further explains that it is up to the alien to demonstrate, in the first place, that no effective protection can be offered in the country of origin. The burden of proof may shift to the authorities of the Netherlands, however, if the alien’s individual situation and the general situation in the country of origin so warrant. The division of the burden of proof is therefore based on the alien ’s individual circumstances, which are assessed partly in the light of the general situation in the country of origin. Should general sources of information about the country show that protection is generally unavailable or that requesting protection is pointless or even dangerous, the alien is not to be expected to demonstrate that protection is unavailable in his or her individual situation. 4.8 In the light of that policy, the State party emphasizes that the general situation in Mongolia is not such that asylum seekers are automatically considered refugees. 15 The author must therefore demonstrate that the facts and her individual circumstances justify her fear of persecution within the meaning of t he 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The State party is of the view, as confirmed by the national courts, that the author has failed to do so. 4.9 In this regard, the State party notes that legislation relating to domestic violence was enacted and a national centre against violence established in Mongolia between 2004 and 2005. In 2007, the Committee recognized the efforts by Mongolia to combat and prevent domestic violence and violence against women. At the same time, the Committee expressed concern that the incidence of domestic violence remained high and that it continued to be seen as a private matter. The Committee therefore called upon Mongolia to ensure that women victims of violence had __________________ 12 13 14 15 14-26326 Reference is made to article C4/2.2.4 of the Aliens Act (2000) implementation guidelines. Reference is made to article 3.37c of the Aliens Regulation (2000). Reference is made to article C4/2.2.3 of the Aliens Act (2000) implementation guidelines. Reference is made to the country report of 12 January 2010 by the Ministry of Foreign Aff airs of the Netherlands, available in Dutch from www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/ ambtsberichten/2010/01/14/mongolie-2010-01-12.html. 7/16