CEDAW/C/59/D/59/2013 degrading treatment. Such rights are protected under the Convention against Torture, articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 4.10 The State party notes that the author indicates that the basis of her fear of returning to China is that the father of her child hit her six times in connection with her wish to have custody of the child, that he married another woman and refused to allow the author even to see the child and that he thr eatened to hit her if they met again. 4.11 The State party observes that the child’s father has at no time sought out the author since taking the child. According to the author’s statement, it was she who had contacted the child’s father because she wanted custody of the child. Upon his visit, they had fought. Subsequently, the child’s father had changed his telephone number and the author had since had no contact with him, apart from once, two or three years before her departure, when they had met and he had threatened to hit her if she harassed him again. Therefore, according to the author’s own statement, there is no question of any risk that the author will be sought out and assaulted by the child’s father; the author has stated that, if returned, she fears meeting him because he would probably hit her. 4.12 As to the author’s fear of meeting her child’s father, the State party observes that the author has met him only once without prior agreement, two or three years before her departure. She has also stated that he lives in another village and that the city in which both worked is large. Her assumption that he will hit her should they meet is based solely on supposition. When they met two or three years before her departure, he did not hit her. The State party thus finds no basis for considering it foreseeable that serious gender-based violence would occur were the author returned to China. 4.13 Regarding the author’s fear of returning to China because she has been forbidden to display religious icons and pictures at her workplace and her fear that her religion would place her in an even weaker situation if she were to seek help or protection from the authorities in relation to her child, the State party first points out that the author herself has requested that her complaint be considered under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, not the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 4.14 The State party adds that the author has failed to substantiate how her religion would place her in a weaker situation if she were to seek help or protection from the authorities in relation to her child, or how it might otherwise be of significance to the Committee’s assessment as to whether she would be at risk of ge nder-related violence or discrimination should she be returned to her country of origin. On the contrary, the author has constantly maintained that she has had no problems with the Chinese authorities; she contended that the authorities had had conversatio ns with the priest or priests of the church without any further action. The author has also stated throughout the proceedings that it was her employer who had forbidden her to have religious pictures and objects on view at her workplace, where she also liv ed. 4.15 Concerning access to her son, the author has failed to provide any information suggesting that her situation would be different if she were issued with a Danish residence permit as opposed to being returned to China. 6/10 14-67404