CEDAW/C/62/D/53/2013 conformity with that obligation. That positive duty encompasses the obligation of States parties to protect women from being exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence, irrespective of whether such consequences take place outside the territorial boundaries of the State party: if a State party takes a decision relating to a person within its jurisdiction, and the necessary and foreseeable consequence is a violation of that person’s rights under the Convention in another jurisdiction, the State party itself may be in violation of the Convention. A State party would therefore violate the Convention if it returned a person to another State where it was foreseeable that serious gender -based violence would occur. 16 Such violation also occurs when no protection against the identified gender-based violence can be expected from the authorities of the State to which the person is returned. What amounts to serious forms of gender -based violence will depend upon the circumstances of each case and needs to be determined by the Committee on a case-by-case basis at the merits stage, provided that the author has made a prima facie case by sufficiently substantiating her allegations. 18 8.7 In the present case, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author did not substantiate that the attacks to which she was subjected in Pakistan were of such nature that, if returned there, she would face a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that she established prima facie evidence that she had been subjected to attacks of gender-based violence in Pakistan and that she feared being subjected to similar acts if returned there. Lastly, it notes that none of the violent acts described by the author have been contested by the State party. In view of the information provided, the Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated her claims for the purpose of admissibility. Accordingly, it procee ds to their examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the author and by the State party, as provided in article 7 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee observes that, while the State party does not challenge the truth of the three attacks perpetrated at the beauty salon where the author worked, at her house and while she was in a taxi with her son, it considers th at the author did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the attacks were targeted directly against her. The Committee also observes that the State party has also not challenged the truth of the insults uttered against the author by the two gr oups of men who vandalized the beauty salon and attacked her at her house and set fire to her clothes, namely that the beauty salon was a “sex clinic”, that she was performing “dirty work” and that she was a prostitute. The Committee notes that, while the author provided all relevant information about the tension between her and her parents as well as her husband’s parents, who were all against their marriage, and stated that she had “assumed” that the attacks had been instigated by her in-laws, her application was denied simply because the Danish Immigration Service was of the opinion that her claim that the attacks had been instigated by her husband’s family was not substantiated because she had never been threatened by __________________ 18 12/16 See also communication No. 35/2011, M.E.N. v. Denmark, para. 8.8 (see footnote 13 above). 15-21603