CEDAW/C/60/D/51/2013 4.9 The State party further submits that, in her communication to the Committee, the author has neither clearly identified nor explained the rights under the Convention on which she is in fact relying, but rather simply referred to articles 1 to 3, 12 and 15 of the Convention. For that reason, the State party argues that the communication should also be declared inadmissible under article 4 (2 ) (c) of the Optional Protocol as not sufficiently substantiated. Author’s comments on State party’s observations 5.1 On 22 July 2013, the author provided new information about additional violations of the Convention by the State party and commented on the State party ’s observations on admissibility. 5.2 The author recalls that she was arrested in October 2 012 and was detained pending forced deportation. On 26 February 2013, the City Court extended her detention, notwithstanding her counsel’s objection because she had been detained for more than five months and never received any treatment for the implicatio ns of her trauma. On 27 February 2013, the author appealed to the High Court of Eastern Denmark, arguing that it would be a violation of the Convention and/or the Convention against Torture to keep her in detention in such conditions. On 4 March 2013, the Eastern High Court upheld the decision of the City Court. The author then appealed to the Supreme Court, which rejected her appeal on 5 April 2013. The author therefore contends that all domestic remedies have been exhausted with regard to her suffering during the detention period. 5.3 The author submits that, as a victim of gender-based violence, her detention in a Danish prison for several months without access to treatment for the implications of her trauma amounts to an additional violation of the Convention by the State party. She considers that States parties to the Convention must provide effective remedies with due diligence to victims of gender-based violence, in addition to access to treatment and reparation. She concedes that, because the acts of genderbased violence were committed in China, the Danish authorities would be able to prosecute them only if the attackers were to enter Danish territory. At the same time, however, she contends that the duty to provide reparation is the opposite of what the Danish authorities have been doing. The author submits that the issue was not raised before the Committee in her initial communication because she had not yet exhausted domestic remedies, but that, now that the Supreme Court has rejected her appeal, the new claim should be added to the communication. She considers that, because these are decisions with regard to her treatment in Denmark, such issues cannot be excluded as inadmissible even if the State party’s argument that the Convention has no extraterritorial effect is upheld by the Committee. 5.4 The author observes that the State party’s observations were limited to the issue of admissibility and that no comment was made on the merits of the case. Nevertheless, she notes that the State party makes mention of the “facts of the case” with reference to the findings of the Danish Immigration Service that her conflict with organized crime elements in China could not justify granting her asylum, given that the acts against her were criminal offences witho ut relevance to asylum law. 5.5 The author agrees with the State party that asylum cases should be subject to appeal to the national courts, but submits that that is not the case and that the constitutional right to appeal against a judgement does not app ly to asylum seekers, given that, in her view, decisions of the Danish Refugee Board may not be appealed 8/15 15-05832