CEDAW/C/55/D/40/2012 that he/she is returned to his/her country of origin (protection status). The conditions for granting a residence permit under section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act are considered to have been met when concrete and individual factors render it probable that the asylum seeker will run a real risk of being subjected to torture in the event that he/she is returned to his/her country of origin. It follows from section 31 (2) of the Aliens Act that no alien may be returned to a country where he/she will be at risk of persecution on the grounds set out in article 1 (A) of the Refugee Convention, or where he/she will not be protected against being sent on to such a country. 4.4 According to the State party, the present communication should be declared inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae under article 2 and article 4 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, since Denmark cannot be held responsible under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women for the acts referred to in the communication. The author seeks to apply the provisions of the Convention in an extraterritorial manner, but the allegations set out in the communication, while they may be imputable to Pakistan, are not imputable to Denmark. The Committee therefore lacks jurisdiction over the alleged violations with regard to Denmark and the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. 4.5 The State party notes that, while the Convention itself has no explicit jurisdiction clause limiting its scope of application, article 2 of the Optional Protocol clearly states that communications “may be submitted by or on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals, under the jurisdiction of a State party, claiming to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the Convention by that State party”. Accordingly, the right of individual petition is clearly limited by a jurisdiction clause. It follows that the author may submit a communication concerning Denmark only if the violations of the Convention alleged therein were committed under the jurisdiction of Denmark (see article 2 of the Optional Protocol). In the present case, no Danish official and no private person, organization or enterprise under the jurisdiction of Denmark has committed a violent act, genderbased or otherwise, against the author and her family. Nor have the author and her family made any allegations against Denmark to that effect. While it is true that the author and her family are temporarily residing in Denmark and, therefore, currently under Danish jurisdiction, their claims rest not on any treatment that they will suffer in Denmark, or in an area where Danish authorities are in effective control or as a result of the conduct of Danish authorities, but rather on consequences that they may suffer if they are returned to Pakistan. The author complains that she and her family will be returned to a place where they will allegedly suffer discriminatory treatment contrary to the Convention. However, the decision to return her and her family to Pakistan cannot engage the responsibility of the State party under article 1, 2, 3, 5 or 16 of the Convention. 4.6 According to the State party, the concept of jurisdiction, for the purposes of article 2 of the Optional Protocol, must be considered as corresponding to the meaning of the term in public international law. Thus, the words “under the jurisdiction of a State party” must be understood to mean that a State’s jurisdictional competence is primarily territorial and that State jurisdiction is presumed to be exercised normally throughout its territory. Only in exceptional circumstances can certain acts of a State party produce effects outside its territory, triggering its responsibility (something known as “extraterritorial effect”). No such exceptional circumstances exist in the present case and Denmark cannot be held responsible for 6/13 13-42833