CEDAW/C/62/D/56/2013 6.2 The State party reiterated its position about the inadmissibility of the communication and indicated that, in case the Committee decided to examine the communication on the merits, the author had failed to provide prima facie evidence that, by returning her to Pakistan, the State party had violated articles 1, 2, 3, 5 and 16 of the Convention. Author’s comments on State party’s observations 7.1 On 14 February 2014, the author’s counsel addressed the State party’s observations of 10 September 2013 and 13 January 2014. Regarding the S tate party’s observations of 10 September 2013, he submitted that the author had sufficiently substantiated the real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender discrimination by providing information about the harassment to which she had bee n subjected before coming to Denmark. He also stated that, although it was true that the author’s claims were connected to the persecution of her daughter by a private individual, she could have become a hostage if returned, in order to force her daughter to return to Pakistan. He indicated that sexual harassment was a severe breach of human rights, corresponding to inhuman and degrading treatment under article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 7.2 Regarding the State party’s observations concerning the news articles about the author’s conversion to Islam, he commented that, although the author appeared to have initiated the articles herself, it also seemed from the text of some of the announcements that Muslim sources had boasted about the situation. Given that neither of the articles depicted a situation of persecution, the State party did not need to refer to the country background information issued by the Home Office. The author had converted to Islam in order to avoid persecution. He also argued that the author was part of the community of Anglo-Indians that was being persecuted and harassed. One instance of such harassment, he suggested, was the killing of the author’s son. Additional submission by the State party 8. By a note verbale of 1 May 2014, the State party submitted that it had no further comments. Issues and proceedings before the Committee concerning admissibility 9.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. Pursuant to rule 66, the Committee may decide to consider the admissibility o f the communication separately from its merits. 9.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that her deportation to Pakistan would constitute a violation, by Denmark, of her rights under the Convention, in view of the harassment to which she had been subjected as a Christian woman, the sexual harassment to which her daughter had been subjected by a private individual and the detention and death of her son. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible on the basis of its incompatibility with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to article 4 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, its lack of substantiation, pursuant to article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol, and because article 2 (d) of the Convention does not encompass an obligation for State parties to refrain from expelling a person who might risk 6/7 15-21608