CEDAW/C/60/D/51/2013 Issues and proceedings before the Committee concerning admissibility 8.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Com mittee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee takes note of the author ’s claims that her deportation to China would constitute a violation by Denmark of articles 1 to 3, 12 and 15 of the Convention. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae under article 2 of the Optional Protocol, given that Denmark has obligations under the Convention only vis-à-vis individuals under its jurisdiction and cannot be held responsible for violations of the Convention, such as gender-based violence, expected to be committed by another State outside the Danish territory and jurisdiction. The Committee further takes note of the State party’s reference to the concept of jurisdiction in public international law, in addition to its contention that the Convention lacks extraterritorial effect and that, unlike other human rights treaties, does not deal, directly or indirectly, with removal to torture or other serious threats to life and the security of a person. 8.3 The first issue that needs to be addressed by the Committee is whether it is competent under the Convention to consider the present communication, involving the deportation of the author from Denmark to China, where she claims she would be exposed to gender-based violence, a treatment prohibited by the Convention. The Committee would need to determine whether, by deporting the author to China, the State party’s responsibility would be engaged under the Convention for the consequences of such deportation, albeit outside its territory. 8.4 The Committee recalls that in paragraph 12 of its general recommendation No. 28 on the core obligations of States parties under article 2 of the Convention it emphasized that the obligations of States parties applied without discrimination both to citizens and non-citizens, including refugees, asylum seekers, migrant workers and stateless persons, within their territory or effe ctive control, even if not situated within the territory. The Committee indicated that States parties were responsible for all their actions affecting human rights, regardless of whether the affected persons were in their territories. 8.5 The Committee recalls that article 1 of the Convention defines discrimination against women as any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex, which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by women of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. The Committee further recalls its general recommendation No. 19, which has clearly placed violence against women within the ambit of discrimination against women by stating that gender-based violence is a form of discrimination against women and includes acts that inflict physical, mental or sexual harm or suffering, threats of such acts, coercion and other deprivations of liberty. With regard to the State party’s argument that, unlike other human rights treaties, the Convention does not deal, directly or indirectly, with removal to torture or other serious threats to the life and the security of a person, the Committee recalls that, in the same re commendation, it also determined that such gender-based violence impaired or nullified the enjoyment by women of a number of human rights and fundamental freedoms, which include the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhum an, degrading 15-05832 13/15