CEDAW/C/55/D/35/2011 and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights). 7 The Human Rights Committee has similar jurisprudence, where it has found on a number of occasions that the deportation of individuals by States parties to other countries would result in the foreseeable violation of their right to life, as set out in article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or their right to be protected against torture, as set out in article 7 of the Covenant. The State party further submits that the Human Rights Committee has never considered a complaint on its merits regarding the deportation of a person who feared less serious human rights violations. In this context, the State party points out that the provisions of the Convention do not deal with questions of torture or other serious threats to the life and security of the person. 4.9 The State party submits that, under the Committee’s general recommendation No. 19, gender-based violence is a form of discrimination that could impair or nullify the enjoyment by women of their human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as the right to life and the right not to be subjected to torture. The State party argues that it is responsible only for obligations vis-à-vis individuals under its jurisdiction and cannot be held responsible for discrimination in another country. Returning a person who comes to the State party simply to escape from discriminatory treatment in her own country, however objectionable that treatment may be, cannot constitute a violation of the Convention by that State party. 4.10 The State party further submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The State party contends that the author failed to raise any allegations of sex-based discrimination before the Immigration Service or the Refugee Appeals Board. Consequently, domestic authorities have not had an opportunity to deal with the author’s allegations regarding sex-based discrimination. According to the Committee’s established jurisprudence, the author must have raised the claim in domestic proceedings before bringing it to the Committee to consider. 8 While the author may not have to refer to specific provisions of the Convention, she must at a minimum have made specific claims regarding the alleged discrimination. 4.11 The State party further submits that the author’s claims are not substantiated. Instead of explaining which specific right granted by the Convention has been violated, the author simply refers to articles 1, 2 (c), 2 (d) and 3. The author also mentions article 14, which concerns problems of women in rural areas, in addition to the significant roles that rural women play in the economic survival of their families. According to the State party, article 14 is not relevant in the circumstances. Author’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 The author provided comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits on 20 June 2012. She submits that, since the issue of extraterritorial effect has not been considered by the Committee, the Committee should decide on the issue and confirm the extraterritorial application of the provisions of the Convention. __________________ 7 8 13-43086 The State party refers to the judgement of the Court in Soering v. the United Kingdom, application No. 14038/88. The State party refers to communication No. 8/2005, Kayhan v. Turkey, decision dated 27 January 2006, para. 7.7. 7/20