CEDAW/C/59/D/49/2013 Author’s comments on State party’s additional observations on admissibility and observations on the merits 8.1 On 20 December 2013, the author commented on the State party’s observations on the merits. She refers to her previous submission and reiterates her argument that Canada bears responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of its actio ns if she is returned to Mexico, where she will be exposed to gender-based violence. The author further stresses that the Committee has adopted such a position in its decision in M.N.N. v. Denmark. 8.2 The author also reiterates that States parties are under an obligation to refrain from removing individuals where the foreseeable consequence would be a violation of their rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, even in cases where the breach falls short of a risk to life, risk of torture or risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. She considers, in any event, that the alleged risk does amount to a threat to life and that the physical abuse that she has suffered and to which she would again be exposed upon return also cons titutes cruel and unusual punishment or treatment. 8.3 The author reiterates that she is a victim of a denial of justice by the Canadian immigration authorities, which justifies the intervention of the Committee, given that the evaluation of the internal flight alternative by the pre-removal risk assessment officer was based on selective use of some of the credible evidence that she submitted in support of her claim. For example, the officer arbitrarily ignored the report by Human Rights Watch on Mexico and drew unreasonable conclusions from the briefing by Amnesty International to the Committee. The author further submits that, in its decision on her application to stay her removal, the Federal Court made no reference to the arguments, documents and case law that she submitted. 8.4 The author disputes the position taken by the State party in its memorandum to the Federal Court, arguing that the availability of protection is not a factor in whether Mexico City can be an internal flight alternative. 8.5 The author refers to further reports released in 2013 by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International regarding the lack and inadequacy of protection for victims of gender-based violence in Mexico. 8.6 As to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, she indicates that her application for leave to seek judicial review of the pre-removal risk assessment decision was dismissed without reasons on 7 June 2013 and that she has no access to any further domestic remedy. Issues and proceedings before the Committee concerning admissibility 9.1 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 72 (4), it is to do so before considering the merits of the com munication. 9.2 As required under article 4 (2)(a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee is satisfied that the same matter has not already been examined or is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 9.3 The Committee notes the author’s claims that her deportation to Mexico would constitute a violation of articles 1 to 3 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the Committee’s general recommendation No. 19, grounded in the alleged risk of gender-based violence that the author would face if she were returned to Mexico, 12/14 14-67406