CEDAW/C/59/D/59/2013 would “take care of the problems presented by the rich people”. Before the Refugee Appeals Board, she had stated that she had not contacted the authorities regarding the custody of the child because, in her view, they would not consider the case because she was not married to her child’s father. She had also stated that she thought that neither the police nor any other authorities would consider h er case because it was a family matter. In that light, the State party is of the view that the author has failed to seek assistance from the Chinese authorities based on her own assumption that they would ignore her case. 4.23 On those grounds, the State party submits that the communication should be rejected by the Committee as inadmissible. Referring to rule 66 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the State party requests the Committee to examine the admissibility of the communication separately from its merits. It also reserves its right to submit observations on the merits. Author’s comments on State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 6 March 2014, the author’s counsel expressed the view that the communication was admissible and substantiated, stating that Y.C. did not seek police assistance in China because she was not married to the father of her child and because the police force does not care about domestic issues. As a Christian, she believed that she would receive even less attention and feared harassment by the police. 5.2 The author’s counsel points out that, because Y.C. has been beaten six times by her child’s father and because he has threatened to beat her if they meet again, she faces a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence if she approaches him again. As a principle of human rights, a person must be able to see his or her own child; out of fear, the author was unable to exercise that right for many years. 5.3 According to the author’s counsel, if the author were to be granted asylum in Denmark and eventually become a Danish citizen, she would have a better chance of success and protection if she approached the Chinese authorities to see her son. 5.4 With reference to a report by a non-governmental organization, the author’s counsel notes that domestic violence is traditionally considered to constitute a private issue in China. 5.5 The author’s counsel concludes that the communication should be declared admissible in order to secure the human rights of the author and enable her eventually to see her child and to exercise her religion as freely as she has been able to do in Denmark. Issues and proceedings before the Committee concerning admissibility 6.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. Pursuant to rule 66, the Committee may decide to consider the admissibility of the communication separately from its merits. 6.2 In accordance with article 4 (2)(a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee is satisfied that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8/10 14-67404