CEDAW/C/59/D/49/2013 7.3 The State party notes that the principle of non-refoulement as defined in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees may include gender-related forms of persecution. It also notes that the Committee against Torture has included gender-based forms of violence as falling within the scope of torture. The Convention against Torture contains an explicit obligation of non -refoulement. The State party asserts that, should the scope of article 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women contain the principle of non-refoulement, however, such obligation should be interpreted in a similarly cautious and restricted manner. It therefore sub mits that the Convention can impose an obligation not to return women to countries where they may face a risk of gender-based violence only if there is a serious risk of gender-based violence that is foreseeable, real and personal and that would cause irre parable harm, such as a risk to life, a risk of torture or a risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 7.4 The State party disputes the author’s assertion that Madaferreri v. Australia and Winata v. Australia provide examples of the application of the principle of non-refoulement by the Human Rights Committee in relation to the protection of family life. It submits that, in fact, the cases illustrate a different principle, given that the Committee considered the interference in family li fe caused by the removing State as amounting to a breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It was not a matter of a risk in the country of return. 7.5 The State party further submits that the author has not established that she faces a personal risk of irreparable harm through gender-based violence. It recalls that, to the contrary, she had a reasonable internal flight alternative. Referring to the relevant guidelines of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 11 the jurisprudence of the Committee against Torture 12 and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, 13 the State party submits that it is well established in international refugee law that individuals must seek to minimize their risk of harm, where possible, through internal relocation or resettlement within their own State. The principle is also recognized in the national jurisprudence of States parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Thus, under Canadian law, the principle of an internal flight alternative is an integral part of the refugee determination process. 7.6 The State party contends that the principle of non-refoulement does not require States parties to refrain from removing non-citizens because their home country does not guarantee their safety in a situation of serious generalized violence. The State party considers that the prevalence of domestic violence in Mexico is a cause __________________ 11 12 13 10/14 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “Guidelines on international protection: ‘internal flight or relocation alternative’ within the context o f Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees”, guideline No. 4 (HCR/GIP/03/04). The State party refers to S.S.S. v. Canada (note 6 above), para. 8.5, in which the Committee against Torture noted the evidence on an internal flight alternative, concluding that the complainant would be able to lead a life free of torture in other areas of India. The European Court of Human Rights considered the availability of an internal flight alternative in determining possible violations of article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In Vilvarajah and others v. the United Kingdom, it considered that large parts of Sri Lanka remained peaceful and subsequently concluded th at there was no violation of article 3 (para. 109). 14-67406