CEDAW/C/59/D/49/2013 to a denial of justice. The arguments and documents submitted by the author cannot support a conclusion that the decisions taken at the national level suffered from any such defects. The State party further notes that the reports by human rights bodies about generalized violence in Mexico, to which the author refers in her communication, were presented to and duly evaluated by the pre -removal risk assessment officer. 4.10 The State party submits that the author has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the risk of domestic violence upon return rises to the level of risk of persecution, risk to life or risk of torture or of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment and that Mexico would be unwilling or unable to protect her in the face of such a risk. The State party also submits that the author has not shown that she cannot live safely in other parts of Mexico if faced with a risk of domestic violence in Morelos and that the hardship resulting from relocation would amount to a human rights violation that is sufficiently severe to justify the application of th e Convention, should the Committee take the view that it contains an obligation of non-refoulement. 6 The State party considers that the author’s allegations should be declared inadmissible, given that they are manifestly ill -founded and not sufficiently substantiated. 4.11 The State party observes that the violations alleged by the author appear to also pertain to the State party’s discriminatory treatment of female refugees claiming gender-based violence. In this regard, the State party submits that it do es not discriminate against women submitting claims based on gender-based violence and rejects as unfounded any suggestion by the author regarding systematic discrimination against women in its immigration system. Furthermore, the State party submits that the author has never presented evidence in respect of such claims. The author has also failed to demonstrate that the lack of a real risk of domestic violence thanks to the existence of an internal flight initiative was in any way the result of systemic or case-specific discrimination by the authorities. The State party considers, to the contrary, that the appropriate laws, policies and practices were strictly followed in the author’s case, such that the author was treated fairly, justly and without discrimination. The State party concludes that the author’s communication, to the extent that it claims discrimination within the Canadian immigration system, is inadmissible pursuant to article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It also considers that this aspect of the communication is inadmissible for being manifestly ill -founded or not sufficiently substantiated. Author’s comments on State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 7 July 2013, the author submitted her comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility. She maintains that the State party has an obligation of non-refoulement under the Convention and that it bears responsibility for the direct and foreseeable consequences of its actions, namely her potential removal to Mexico. The author reiterates that the Committee has confirmed the existence of __________________ 6 14-67406 The State party refers to the following communications submitted to the Committee against Torture in which it expressed the view that resettlement to another part of a country, although causing hardship, did not amount to torture: communication No. 183/2001, B.S.S. v. Canada, views adopted on 12 May 2004, para. 11.5, and communication No. 245/2004, S.S.S. v. Canada, decision adopted on 16 November 2005, para. 8.5. 7/14