CEDAW/C/57/D/39/2012 are predominantly male, such as exclusion and non-molestation orders or mandatory behaviour change training. 4.12 The State party challenges the author ’s argument that there would be no point in seeking protection if she were to return to Mongolia. First, the State party notes that it remains unclear how the Mongolian authorities handled the au thor’s criminal complaints. She adduced no evidence that they had not followed up on them or opened an investigation. Further to her first complaint, the police held Mr. L. for 72 hours. Further to her second complaint, the police recorded her submissions, took pictures of her injuries and questioned Mr. L. Such actions do not suggest that the Mongolian authorities are unwilling to protect her. Furthermore, the author is reasonably expected to have at least asked the police about the status of her complaints. The mere fact that the police contacted Mr. L. further to her complaint does not suffice to prove that they accepted money to keep him informed of the course of the investigation or that the authorities did not take her complaint seriously. In addition, the author’s allegation that Mr. L. bribed the police is not supported by evidence. The author ’s mere suspicion does not warrant the conclusion that she would be unable to obtain official protection in Mongolia. 4.13 Second, the State party notes that the author could have complained to a higher authority in Mongolia. She did not explain why she failed to do so before leaving her country of origin and seeking protection in the Netherlands. Neither did she seek help from other organizations in Mongolia, such as the National Centre against Violence, which has five shelters for victims of domestic violence and offers legal assistance to them. 21 4.14 The State party therefore considers that the author ’s communication is unfounded because she has failed to demonstrate that the Mongolian authorities are unwilling or unable to protect her. It states that general recommendation No. 19 does not require that States parties grant residence permits to victims of domestic violence. The denial of the author ’s asylum request does not disclose a violation of articles 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the Convention. Author’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 On 23 October 2012, the author commented on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits. The author rejects the State party’s argument that she should have complained to the Mongolian authorities because Mongolia is also a State party to the Convention. With reference to general comment No. 15 of the Human Rights Committee, 22 the author argues that the Convention applies to all individuals within the territory of the Netherlands, including migrant and refugee women. She therefore has the right to file her complaint in the Netherlands. 5.2 The author further challenges the State party’s argument that she failed to bring the allegation of sex-based discrimination before the authorities and courts of __________________ 21 22 14-26326 Reference is made to the country report of 12 January 2010 by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands available from www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/ ambtsberichten/2010/01/14/mongolie-2010-01-12.html. Paragraph 1 of general comment No. 15 of the Human Rights Committee reads: Reports from States parties have often failed to take into account that each State party must ensure the rights in the Covenant to ‘all individuals within its territory an d subject to its jurisdiction’ (art. 2, para. 1). In general, the rights set forth in the Covenant apply to everyone, irrespective of reciprocity, and irrespective of his or her nationality or statelessness. 9/16