CEDAW/C/55/D/40/2012 of another State. This is true even if the author can demonstrate that she would be subjected to discrimination under the terms of the Convention as a result of genderbased violence in Pakistan. 4.13 According to the State party, the return of women who arrive in Denmark simply to escape from discriminatory treatment in their own country, however objectionable that treatment may seem, cannot constitute a violation of the Convention. If the opposite view were accepted, States parties could return aliens only to countries where conditions were in full compliance with each of the safeguards, rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. States parties cannot be obliged under the Convention to return aliens only to countries whose legal systems are compatible with the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in the Convention. In the light of the foregoing, the State party contends that the present communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention and should be declared as inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae under article 4 (2) (b), read together with article 2, of the Optional Protocol. 4.14 The State party further argues that the communication is inadmissible in relation to the author’s husband and to the baby boy born in 2011, as they cannot claim to be victims under the Convention. Article 2 of the Optional Protocol states that communications may be submitted by or on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals who are under the jurisdiction of a State party and who claim to be victims of a violation by that State party of a right set forth in the Convention. The Convention concerns discrimination against women. While the term “women” is not clearly defined in the Convention, it is clear that adult males and boys cannot be regarded as women and, as a consequence, cannot be considered victims of a violation of the Convention. 4.15 The State party also claims that the communication is inadmissible on the grounds that it is not sufficiently substantiated (see article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol). The author does not clearly identify or explain the rights under the Convention on which she is in fact relying, but instead simply lists articles 1, 2, 3, 5 and 16 of the Convention. It is unclear which violations the author is in fact claiming will occur should she and her family be returned to Pakistan. Neither does she substantiate her claim. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 In her submission of 20 June 2012, the author explains that, in her written submission to the Refugee Appeals Board dated 5 March 2012, she invoked articles 1, 2 and 5 of the Convention, as well as the Committee’s general recommendation No. 19. Articles 3 and 16 of the Convention were invoked in her initial communication to the Committee, dated 15 March 2012. The author explains that she wishes also to invoke article 12 of the Convention. 4 Since the State party did not challenge the admissibility of the communication on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author considers that no further remedies have to be exhausted in Denmark. 5.2 The author claims that the Committee is competent to consider different forms of gender violence. Specifically, she refers to a number of its cases dealing with __________________ 4 13-42833 The author merely invokes article 12 of the Convention without providing any further information or arguments in support thereof. 9/13