CEDAW/C/60/D/51/2013 claims that her rights under articles 1 to 3 and 15 of the Convention were violated by the State party. 3.3 The author further submits that, by rejecting her asylum request, the State party has failed to protect her and, in particular, to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women by any person, to guarantee her the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on the basis of equality with men and to protect her from violence that would put her he alth and her life at risk, in violation of articles 1 to 3 and 12 of the Convention. 3.4 The author indicates that she was subjected to violence, forced prostitution and physical abuse because she is a woman. She refers to the Committee ’s general recommendation No. 19, according to which gender-based violence falls within the scope of the Convention. She claims that, because the Convention applies to all women on the territory of the State party, it also applies to women from third countries seeking asylum. She considers that the State party has an obligation to protect such women against discrimination in their countries of origin and to grant them permission to stay whenever necessary. She also refers to the Committee ’s conclusion that article 4 (2) of the Convention provides for a positive obligation on States parties to provide effective protection with regard to t he right to security of person. 2 3.5 The author also recalls that both 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 have an extraterritorial effect. Consequently, she requests the Committee to issue views establishing whether there is a positive extraterritorial obligation on the State party to provide women with effective protection of their right to security of person and, more specifically, whether deportation to rape and forced prostitution may amount to a violation of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 13 May 2013, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility. It submits that the author entered Denmark in November 2008 and was arrested on 1 January 2010 and charged with having illegally stayed in the countr y since 2008. It also submits that the author left China because she feared that she would be killed by individuals involved in organized crime, given that her former husband had raised a large gambling debt in her name. It further submits that, on 2 Janua ry 2010, the Danish Immigration Service decided to expel her from the country pursuant to sections 53b and 34 of the Aliens Act. On 3 January 2010, the Copenhagen City Court decided that the author should be detained until 15 January 2010. During the hearing, the author’s counsel stated that the author was requesting asylum in Denmark. The author was released on 12 January 2010 and on 11 February 2010 submitted an asylum application in which she claimed that she feared for her life if she were returned to China. In an interview conducted by the Danish Immigration Service on 29 April 2010, the author stated that she was being sought by loan sharks who had threatened her, raped her, burned her with hot oil and forced her to work as a prostitute. She also stated that she had no family in China and that she could not earn a living owing to her lack of education. __________________ 2 4/15 See communication No. 2/2003, A.T. v. Hungary, views adopted on 26 January 2005, para. 9.3. 15-05832