CEDAW/C/59/D/59/2013 6.3 The Committee notes the author’s allegation that her deportation to China would constitute a violation by Denmark of her rights under articles 1 to 3 and 5 of the Convention and general recommendation No. 19, given that States are under an obligation to refrain from deporting persons who risk gender-based violence. In substantiation, she explains that the father of her child left with their son and that she was hit on six occasions during an argument with him when seeking to see the child. The father refused to allow her see the child and threatened to beat her if they met again. The author also claims that she is a Christian and that her former employer forbade her to display religious items at her workplace, where she also lived. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention and manifestly ill-founded and unsubstantiated under article 4 (2)(b) and (c) of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 In the present case, regarding the author’s claims that she suffered violence at the hands of the father of their child, that it was impossible for her to see the child, having been prevented from doing so by the father, and that she was threatened with beatings if they met again, the Committee notes that, in fact, the author has made no attempt whatsoever to bring her problems to the attention of the Chinese authorities. Even taking into account the author’s claims about the persistent stereotypes in China, that police officers perceive domestic violence issues to constitute a private matter and that she was not married to the father of her child and is a Christian, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate, for the purposes of admissibility, her claim that she wo uld not have received adequate protection in China had she contacted the competent authorities there and would not have been granted access to or custody of her child. The Committee considers that the alleged violence inflicted by the author’s former partner in 1998 was sporadic. It also notes that the author indicates that she last sought to see her child some two to three years before her departure from China, without providing sufficient explanation about her failure to seek to see her child or obtain cu stody of him for such a significant period. In the circumstances, the Committee considers that this part of the communication is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and is therefore inadmissible under article 4 (2)(c) of the Opti onal Protocol. 6.5 As to the author’s claim that it would be impossible for her to exercise her religious beliefs freely and that she would be unable to display religious items at her workplace, where she also lived, the Committee notes that, in this context, the author has failed to substantiate any aspect of gender-based discrimination in her allegations. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that, in this regard, the author has invoked a breach of her rights under article 18 of the Internation al Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, not a breach of her rights under the Convention. In addition, the Committee considers that the author has not provided sufficient information in support of her contention regarding the alleged religious based persecution. Accordingly, and in the absence of any further pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that this part of the communication is inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded under article 4 (2)(c) of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 In that context, the Committee expresses its concern about the lack of substantiation in the arguments presented by the counsel for the author. In the circumstances, the Committee cannot but conclude that the author’s claim that her removal to China would expose her to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of 14-67404 9/10