CEDAW/C/59/D/49/2013 9.6 The Committee notes that the State party does not dispute that the author was a victim of domestic violence in Mexico and had unsuccessfully sought the protection of the Mexican authorities. The Committee acknowledges that women and girls in Mexico face widespread gender-based violence, including domestic violence. The Committee notes, however, that the author fails to provide sufficient elements to enable the Committee to conclude that her former partner would remain a threat to her, five years after the alleged events, which occurred between December 2008 and March 2009. In this regard, the Committee notes that, according to the information on file, the author’s former partner last enquired about the author’s whereabouts in September 2011 when he went to her mother’s house while drunk. 20 The Committee observes that the author provides no information about the reason that she could not move elsewhere in Mexico if she decided that she had to leave Morelos to avoid being exposed to violence at the hands of her former partner. 21 The Committee also observes that the author left Mexico two months after the last incident of domestic violence and provides no information on other remedies pursued in Mexico after unsuccessfully filing complaints with the police. In the circumstances, the Committee considers that the author has therefore not provided sufficient information to demonstrate that she would face a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence if returned to Mexico and thereby to substantiate her claim under articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with general recommendation No. 19. 9.7 In addition, the Committee notes that the author provides no explanation as to why and how she considers that her rights under article 3 of the Convention, which pertains to the advancement of women’s human rights, have been violated by the State party’s rejection of her asylum application and decision to deport her. 9.8 The Committee recalls that article 4 (2)(c) of the Optional Protocol precludes the Committee from declaring a communication admissible if it is not sufficiently substantiated. In the view thereof, and in the absence of any other pertinent information before it, the Committee considers that the facts as presented by the author do not permit it to conclude that she has sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, the claim that her removal from Canada to Mexico would expose her to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence. The author has therefore not made a prima facie case to substantiate her allegations of violation of articles 1 to 3 of the Convention by the State party. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the communication i s inadmissible under article 4 (2)(c) of the Optional Protocol. 10. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 4 (2)(c) of the Optional Protocol; (b) author. That this decision shall be communicated to the State p arty and to the __________________ 20 21 14/14 The author does not mention any event thereafter in her pre-removal risk assessment claim or before the Committee. See communication No. 40/2012, M.S. v. Denmark, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 July 2013, para. 7.8. 14-67406