CEDAW/C/59/D/49/2013 6.2 While noting the jurisprudence of the Committee in M.N.N. v. Denmark, 9 the State party disputes the interpretation of the Convention made by the Committee to the effect that the principle of non-refoulement can be included in the Convention. It reiterates that a good interpretation of the ordinary mea ning of the text of the Convention, in the light of its object and purpose, does not support an implicit obligation of non-refoulement. It refers again to the travaux préparatoires, which do not indicate that the negotiating parties ever contemplated that the Convention would include a guarantee against removal in case of torture or other similar threats to the life and security of the person. It recalls that the focus of the Convention is national action to improve the condition of women in the areas cover ed by the Convention, meaning that women who face gender-based forms of torture, risk to life or other irreparable harm should use the existing complaint mechanisms before the Human Rights Committee and/or the Committee against Torture, which are competent to assess such risks. 6.3 In addition, contrary to the author’s assertion, the State party considers that the definition of discrimination contained in article 1 of the Convention does not include an obligation of non-refoulement where women may face a risk of genderbased violence. It therefore claims that acceptance of the assertion by the Committee would unduly extend States parties’ obligations under the Convention. The State party submits that the author’s claims would fall within the purview of the Convention only if she were alleging gender-based discrimination in the Canadian refugee and protection system or domestic violence in Canada without an adequate response by the Canadian authorities. The State party recalls that the author’s claims relate to the inadequate response of the Mexican authorities and that, as such, her complaint should be directed at Mexico. The State party cannot be held responsible for discrimination in the jurisdiction of another State. State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 8 October 2013, the State party also submitted its observations on the merits. It considers that the author’s claims lack merit for failure to establish substantial grounds for believing that she would be subjected to a risk of irreparable harm if returned to Mexico. 7.2 The State party submits that, in international law, the principle of non-refoulement requires a high threshold, in that there must be a foreseeable, real and personal risk of irreparable harm in the country of return, such a s a risk to life or a risk of torture, for a State to be constrained by the obligation of non-refoulement. It considers that the risk of a violation of any human right, such as the right to non-discrimination, cannot impose an obligation of non-refoulement. The State party stresses that the Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights have established implicit obligations of non-refoulement only in cases of the most serious levels of violation of human rights in order to limit the extraterritorial effects of human rights instruments to exceptional circumstances. 10 __________________ 9 10 14-67406 Communication No. 33/2011, M.N.N. v. Denmark, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 15 July 2013. The State party refers to communication No. 1302/2004, Khan v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 25 July 2006, para. 5.6, citing the Human Rights Committee’s general comment No. 31, para. 12, and Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgement of 7 July 1989. 9/14