CEDAW/C/59/D/49/2013 came to the attention of the authorities in December 2012. The author was detained and offered a pre-removal risk assessment. The State party stresses that it was t he second time that the author was seeking protection in Canada, her first application under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act having been denied in 1999. She was then subject to a removal order, but voluntarily left Canada and returned to Mexico in April 2000. 4.3 The State party further explains that, because the author had already had a refugee determination, albeit in respect of another claim, her new allegations of risk of persecution, risk to life or risk of torture or cruel or unusual treat ment or punishment were assessed through a pre-removal risk assessment rather than through another refugee determination. The State party submits that pre -removal risk assessment applications are considered by officers who are specially trained and duly informed about international human rights obligations, including with regard to gender and children’s issues, and the risks specific to victims of domestic violence, given that persecution based on one’s gender, including domestic violence, can sustain a claim for protection in Canada. 4.4 The State party recalls the facts presented by the author in her pre -removal risk assessment application and indicates that she also adduced evidence of her history and past incidents of domestic violence suffered in Mexico, such as medical documents, letters from family members attesting to the abusive behaviour of her former partner and documentation from the Mexican authorities attesting to the complaints that she submitted to the competent authorities. The author also presented several reports prepared by human rights bodies on the situation faced by victims of gender-based violence in Mexico. Despite finding her allegations credible, the jurisdictions of the State party determined that the author had a reasonable internal flight alternative within Mexico and that she had not presented compelling evidence demonstrating that she could not return to live apart from her abusive former partner in other areas of that country. 4.5 The State party indicates that the findings were established not only by risk assessment experts, but also by an independent court, which did not support the idea that the author would be exposed to a substantial personal risk if returned to Mexico. In this regard, the State party refers to the decisi on of the Federal Court of 18 February 2013, by which the author’s application to stay the removal proceedings was dismissed. It is indicated that the author was afforded the opportunity to present additional evidence following her oral hearing to refute t he availability of an internal flight alternative. The pre -removal risk assessment officer carefully considered the evidence, but ultimately decided that the author had the possibility of an internal flight alternative and that the additional evidence pres ented did not refute that finding. The State party further notes that the author’s application for leave to seek judicial review of that decision has not yet been decided by the Court and that her application does not automatically defer her removal, which is currently under an active valid order. 4 4.6 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party observes that the author had applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and __________________ 4 14-67406 The State party does not allege non-exhaustion of domestic remedies because the Federal Court had not ruled yet on the judicial review. It merely noted that the proceedings had not yet been concluded and acknowledged that in any case it would not stay the removal of the author. The Federal Court handed down its ruling on 7 June 2013, as mentione d in paras. 7.7 and 8.6 below. 5/14