CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011 deportation to Uganda would amount to a violation of the Convention by the State party. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 22 June 2012, the State party submitted additional observations. As to the deviation from the requirement of dual criminality in relation to female genital mutilation under the Criminal Code, the State party submits that it is irrelevant to assessing whether the Convention has extraterritorial effect. National provisions set out in the Criminal Code have no impact on the interpretation of the Convention and its non-extraterritorial effect. The deviation from the normal requirement of dual criminality provided for in section 7 (1) (ii) (a) of the Criminal Code and the separate criminalization of female genital mutilation stipulated in section 245 (a) of the Criminal Code merely reflect the desire of the State party’s authorities to prosecute offenders performing female genital mutilation in countries that allow this act. The State party therefore does not share the author’s interpretation that this implies or indicates that female genital mutilation should be seen as an exceptional circumstance resulting in the Convention being accorded extraterritorial effect. 6.2 The State party does not dispute that subjecting a child or an adult to female genital mutilation can amount to ill-treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, article 3 of the Convention against Torture or articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, however, does not deal directly or indirectly with removal to torture or other serious threats to life and the security of a person. The author can therefore bring a communication concerning the State party only with regard to alleged violations of the Convention committed by and under the jurisdiction of Denmark. 6.3 The State party submits that it is aware that the Committee has emphasized in its general recommendation No. 19 that gender-based violence is a form of discrimination that can impair or nullify the enjoyment by women of human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as the right to life, the right to security of the person and the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Nevertheless, this does not change the fact that a State party is responsible only for obligations vis-à-vis individuals under its jurisdiction and cannot be held responsible for discrimination under the jurisdiction of another State, even if the author can establish that she would be subjected to discrimination contrary to the Convention owing to gender-based violence in Uganda. 6.4 With reference to article 5 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the State party observes that the Committee’s application of urgent measures pursuant to article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol in the present and other communications does not indicate that the Convention has extraterritorial effect. 6.5 The State party notes the author’s argument that she did raise the issue of gender-based discrimination in the domestic proceedings, including in her written observations of 8 February 2009. It submits, however, that the only reference to the Convention in those observations is a brief quotation from the Committee’s concluding comments of 23 August 2002 on the consideration of the third periodic report of Uganda. The State party therefore maintains that domestic remedies have not been exhausted. 13-42827 13/19