CEDAW/C/62/D/53/2013 that, even though they had reported her case, the police had not investigated because she was considered a prostitute. 7.4 On 10 June 2014, the author submitted comments on the merits of the communication. She referred to the concluding observations of the Committee on the fourth periodic report of Pakistan (CEDAW/C/PAK/CO/4, para. 21), wherein it had expressed concern about the persistence of child and forced marriages, “karo kari”, stove burning and acid throwing, marriage in accordance with the Koran, polygamy and murder in the name of so-called honour. The Committee highlighted that, notwithstanding the provisions in the Criminal Law Act of 2004 that criminalized offences in the name of so-called honour, the qisas and diyat ordinances continued to be applied in those cases, resulting in perpetrators being given legal concessions and/or being pardoned and not being prosecuted and punished. The Committee also expressed concern about the insufficient information regarding the implementation of the standard operating procedures for treating women who were victims of violence and the scant number of shelters. The author referred to other sources, according to which, in Pakistan, parents gave precedence to the honour of the family over the daughters’ right to choose their own husband. 14 7.5 The author argued that the attacks that she suffered, which had been considered facts by the State party, were aimed directly at her because she was a woman who behaved contrary to the established gender roles in Pakistan. She therefore considered that it was impossible to conclude that she would not be subjected to similar acts in case of return to her country and considered that she would not be able to seek protection from the Pakistani authorities. The author further contended that the Refugee Appeals Board had not justified why it had not taken into account that she was a woman living on her own, with no network in Pakistan. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 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 66, the Committee may decide to examine the admissibility of the communication together with its merits. 8.2 The Committee notes the author’s claims that her deportation to Pakistan would constitute a violation by Denmark of articles 1, 2 (c) and (d), 3, 12, 15 and 16 of the Convention. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the Convention has an extraterritorial effect only under exceptional circumstances in which the person to be returned is at real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence. 8.3 The Committee recalls its general recommendation No. 28 (2010) on the core obligations of States parties under article 2 of the Convention, according to which the obligations of States parties apply without discrimination both to citizens and non-citizens, including refugees, asylum seekers, migrant workers and stateless persons, within their territory or effective control, even if not situated within the territory. States parties are “responsible for all their actions affecting human rights, regardless of whether the affected persons are in their territories” (para. 12). The __________________ 14 10/16 “Pakistan acid attack parents ‘feared dishonour’”, BBC News, 5 November 2012. 15-21603