CEDAW/C/51/D/25/2010 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Convention. Pursuant to rule 66 of its rules of procedure, the Committee may examine the admissibility of the communication separately from the merits. 6.2 In accordance with article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, the Committee is satisfied that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims in her initial communication that her deportation to Mexico, where she was at risk of being abused and even killed by her former spouse, a judicial police officer, would constitute a violation by the State party of article 2 (c) and (d), article 3, article 15 and article 16 of the Convention. The Committee notes the State party’s observation that the author and her son returned to Mexico using their own air tickets, that they did so of their own accord on 1 April 2010 — that is, after the submission of the initial communication — and that they confirmed their departure to the Canadian authorities. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that since the risk in the event of her deportation was the very subject of the communication, the author’s voluntary return renders the communication moot and therefore inadmissible. The Committee further notes that the State party says it has not received any report, directly from the author or her representative, stating that the author has suffered gender-based violence since her return to Mexico. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the claims the author put forward in her application for asylum had been rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board and then by the PRRA officer on the grounds of nonsubstantiation and lack of credibility, and that no new evidence has been submitted to the Committee. 6.4 The Committee notes that the author has not provided any explanation regarding her motives for her voluntary departure to Mexico. The author’s counsel simply made a general statement that she was facing difficult circumstances in Mexico and that she was frightened, but he never commented on the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication or, in particular, on the issue of her voluntary departure to Mexico and the reasons for it. In the light of the information available to it, the Committee concludes that the author’s departure from Canada without giving any explanation to the Committee and without following up her initial complaint, despite several reminders, renders the communication both manifestly unfounded and not sufficiently substantiated. It therefore considers the communication inadmissible pursuant to article 4, paragraph 2 (c), of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 Having found the communication inadmissible under article 4, paragraph 2 (c), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee does not consider it necessary to examine the other challenges to admissibility submitted by the State party. 7. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 4, paragraph 2 (c), of the Optional Protocol; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. [Adopted in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish, the French text being the original version.] 8 GE.12-41804