CEDAW/C/57/D/39/2012 to the Convention. 7 The author does not argue that the alleged violation of her rights under the Convention in Mongolia is attributable to the State party. If the author considered that the Mongolian authorities had failed to protect her, she should have lodged a complaint against Mongolia. 4.3 To the extent that the author complains that the State party failed to meet its obligations under the Convention by denying her a residence permit, notwithstanding the treatment to which she was subjected in Mongolia, the State party submits that it cannot be held liable for a violation, real or alleged, of the Convention by another State party. 8 The Committee therefore lacks jurisdiction over the alleged violations with regard to the Netherlands. 9 Furthermore, the Convention should not be interpreted as encompassing the legal obligation of States parties against removal for threats of torture or other serious threats to life and the security of the person (non-refoulement principle), to avoid overlapping with other international and European instruments. 10 4.4 The State party further argues that the communication is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It submits that the author failed to raise any allegation of sex-based discrimination or refer to the Convention in the course of the asylum proceedings before the authorities or courts of the Netherlands. The central question of those proceedings was whether her removal would constitute a breach of the non-refoulement principle by the State party. Consequently, the national authorities and courts had no opportunity to deal with the author ’s allegations regarding sex-based discrimination and to remedy the alleged violation before it was brought before the Committee. The State party acknowledges that, whereas the author might not have to refer to specific provisions of the Convention in the domestic proceedings, she must have raised the complaint regarding the alleged discrimination in substance. 11 4.5 With regard to the merits of the author ’s communication, the State party submits that the obligation to protect stemming from the Convention with regard to granting asylum to women is no more far-reaching than the obligations arising from the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Protection afforded by __________________ 7 8 9 10 11 6/16 Mongolia has ratified both the Convention (20 July 1981) and the Optional Protocol (28 March 2002). Reference is made to general recommendation No. 19, in addition to communication No. 25/2010, M.P.M. v. Canada, decision of 24 February 2012, para. 4.2; and communication No. 26/2010, Guadalupe Herrera Rivera v. Canada, decision of 18 October 2011, para. 4.4. In those communications, Canada argued, in particular, that the Convention did not deal, directly or indirectly, with removal to torture or other serious threats to life and the security of the person. Reference is made to communication No. 10/2005, N.S.F. v. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, decision of 30 May 2007; and communication No. 15/2007, Zhen Zhen Zheng v. the Netherlands, decision of 27 October 2008. Reference is made to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Reference is made to communication No. 11/2006, Constance Ragan Salgado v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, decision of 22 January 2007. 14-26326