CEDAW/C/59/D/49/2013 for serious concern. Drawing from the jurisprudence of the Committee again st Torture, however, it notes that the existence of a pattern of gross or flagrant violations of human rights in a particular country does not constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular individual would be in danger of being subjected to death, torture or inhuman treatment upon his or her return to that country. 14 The author must demonstrate that she would personally be at risk. The State party recalls that it was found in the author’s case that the risks alleged did not rise to the level of persecution, torture, serious threats to life or cruel and unusual treatment. The State party also recalls that, while recognizing that the situation for Mexican women facing domestic violence was not ideal, the pre -removal risk assessment officer noted that some protection services were available, in particular in Mexico City, where the author had lived and worked for a number of years, and that she had not demonstrated that she could not find refuge in another part of Mexico, outside of her home town. The officer also considered the human rights reports filed by the author and discussed the briefing by Amnesty International to the Committee in 2012. He determined that the document presented a pertinent overview of violence against women in Mexico, but did not refute the possibility of an internal flight alternative for the author. Furthermore, the State party observes that, while the many challenges faced by victims of spousal violence in Mexico are highlighted in recent human rights reports, some progress has been made, given that the Government has enacted significant reforms of federal and st ate laws to improve protection. 15 7.7 The State party recalls that the author benefitted from two independent assessments of the risk that she alleged that she would face upon return to Mexico. It also mentions that her application for leave to seek judicial review was dismissed without reasons on 7 June 2013. 7.8 Lastly, the State party reiterates that the Committee should not act as another level of appeal. It also reiterates that the findings made by national decision makers, including that the author can safely relocate to another part of Mexico, were neither arbitrary nor a denial of justice to the point of requiring the intervention of the Committee. The State party asserts that its immigration system does not minimize the particular risks faced by women fleeing violence or persecution, but considers that the author was provided with a fair assessment of her claim for protection. 7.9 The State party considers that the author’s communication is based on the same facts and evidence already presented to the national authorities and maintains that the author has not provided evidence to establish that the risk of domestic violence that she faces is both country-wide and rises to the level of the most serious human rights violations, such as torture, or other similarly serious threats to life and security of the person. __________________ 14 15 14-67406 The State party refers to communication No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006, para. 7.7, and communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. the Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. The State party refers to a report prepared in 2011 by the Department of State of the United States of America, in which it is indicated that there are some 70 shelters for women and their children funded at least in part by the Government, mostly for victims of gender-based violence. 11/14