CEDAW/C/60/D/51/2013 that they were or would have been unable or unwilling to provide her with protection against the organized crime elements. 8.9 The Committee further takes note of the author’s claim that she is a victim of gender-based discrimination with regard to the right to access to justice, given that more female asylum seekers than male asylum seekers are denied asylum under the “manifestly unfounded” procedure by the State party’s authorities. The Committee also takes note of the author ’s claim that, as a victim of gender-based violence, her detention in a Danish prison for several months without access to treatment for the trauma that she suffered amounts to a violation of the Convention by the State party and that the State party has a duty to provide effective remedies with due diligence to victims of gender-based violence, as well as access to adequate treatment and reparations. The Committee recalls that, as stated in its general recommendation No. 32 on the gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality and statelessness of women, articles 1 to 3, 5 (a) and 15 of the Convention establish an obligation upon States parties to ensure that women are not d iscriminated against during the entire asylum process, beginning from the moment of arrival at the borders. Women asylum seekers are entitled to have their rights under the Convention respected; they are entitled to be treated in a non -discriminatory manner and with respect and dignity at all times during the asylum procedure (para. 24). The Committee also recalls that a gender-sensitive approach should be applied at every stage of the asylum process and that women asylum seekers whose asylum applications are denied should be granted dignified and non-discriminatory return processes (paras. 24-25). Lastly, the Committee notes that the author, who is represented by counsel, has not informed it of her whereabouts and whether she has been deported to China. In the above circumstances and in the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the author has not substantiated her claim of gender-based discrimination in terms of access to justice and that she has also failed to sufficiently substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, the claim that her removal from Denmark to China would expose her to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious form of gender-based violence. The Committee notes that, under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol, it must declare a communication inadmissible where it is not sufficiently substantiated. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the present communication is inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol. 9. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol; (b) author. 15-05832 That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the 15/15