CEDAW/C/57/D/39/2012 personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence were she to return to Mongolia. 36 6.7 The Committee notes that the author has provided no explanation as to why and how she considers that her rights under articles 3 and 6 of the Convention, which deal with the advancement of human rights of women, exploitation of prostitution and trafficking in women, have been violated by the State party ’s denial of her asylum application. In the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate the claims under articles 3 and 6 of the Convention for purposes of admissibility. 6.8 With regard to the assessment of the risk of serious forms of gender-based violence for the author if returned to Mongolia, under articles 1 and 2 (e) of the Convention, the Committee notes, first, that the author merely states that she fears that the Mongolian authorities would fail to protect her against Mr. L., but provides no further explanation. Neither has she explained why Mr. L. would remain a real threat to her, five years after the alleged events occurred (between December 2008 and June 2009). In addition, the author has not explained how, in the past, the Mongolian authorities have failed to protect her in her perso nal circumstances or shown that there is a real risk that these authorities would be unable to provide her with appropriate protection upon return. 6.9 Furthermore, the Committee takes note of the fact that the author has not explained why she did not follow up on her complaints with the police during the three months of her absence from Mr. L.’s house between December 2008 and June 2009. Neither has she explained why she did not complain to the Mongolian prosecuting authorities or courts during the same period. The Committee further notes that the author left the country in June 2009, i.e. six months from the time of her first complaint to the police (December 2008). On the other hand, the Committee observes that it does not follow from the material on file that the Mongolian authorities had in fact acted in bad faith or had failed to react promptly to the author’s complaints. In this context, the Committee also observes that Mongolia is a State party to the Convention and to the Optional Protocol thereto and, as such, is bound by their provisions. 6.10 In these circumstances, and in the absence of any other pertinent information before it, the Committee considers that the facts as presented do not permit a conclusion to be reached that there is no effective legal system in Mongolia capable of establishing, prosecuting and sanctioning Mr. L. and, especially, that the author ’s individual circumstances justify the risk of persecution by Mr. L. and the lack of protection against such a risk, in the event of return to her country of origin. The Committee also concludes that, for purposes of admissibility, the author has failed to substantiate her claim under articles 1 and 2 (e) of the Convention. 6.11 In the light of the above considerations, taken as a whole, and in the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, her claim that the denial of her asylum application by the State party would expose her to a personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence if returned to Mongolia and that the Mongolian authorities have failed, or would fail, to provide __________________ 36 14-26326 See, for example, communication No. 33/2011, M.N.N. v. Denmark, para. 8.10. 15/16