CEDAW/C/62/D/53/2013 she would suffer in Denmark, but rather on consequences that she might suffer if she were returned to Pakistan. Therefore, the only conduct by a Danish authority about which the author had complained was the decision to remove her to a place where she would allegedly suffer discriminatory treatment contrary to the Convention. The decision to return the author to Pakistan, however, could not engage the State party’s responsibility under article 1, 2 (c) and (d), 3, 12, 15 or 16 of the Convention. 4.5 The State party noted that the concept of jurisdiction for the purposes of article 2 of the Optional Protocol must be considered to reflect the meaning of the term in public international law, namely that a State’s jurisdictional competence is primarily territorial. Only in exceptional circumstances could acts of States parties that produced effects in other States result in a responsibility for the acting State party, known as extraterritorial effect. The State party submitted that no such exceptional circumstances existed in the present case and that Denmark could not be held responsible for violations of the Convention that were expected to be committed by another State party outside of Danish territory and jurisdiction. 4.6 The State party further submitted that the question of extraterritorial effect had not been directly addressed in any published jurisprudence of the Committee and that there was no jurisprudence to indicate that the relevant provisions of the Convention had any extraterritorial effect. 5 The European Court of Human Rights, however, had clearly stressed in its case law 6 the exceptional character of the extraterritorial protection of the rights contained in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 4.7 The State party also considered that, under article 2 of the Optional Protocol, the Committee could receive communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of a State party who claimed to be victims of a violation by that State party of any of the rights set forth in the Convention. In that connection, the State party referred to the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee according to which the deportation of persons by States parties to other States that would result in a foreseeable breach of their right to life, or their freedom from torture, would entail a violation. The Human Rights Committee had, however, never considered a complaint on its merits regarding the deportation of a person who feared “a lesser human rights violation” in the receiving State, such as a violation of a derogable right. 7 4.8 The State party referred to the definition of gender -based violence as “a form of discrimination that can impair or nullify the enjoyment by women of their human rights, such as the rights to life, security of the person and not to be subjected to torture or ill-treatment”. It considered that States parties were responsible only for obligations regarding individuals under their jurisdiction and could not be held responsible for discrimination in the jurisdiction of another State party, even if the __________________ 5 6 7 6/16 The State party refers to communication No. 10/2005, N.S.F. v. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 30 May 2007. The State party refers to the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights of 7 July 1989 in Soering v. the United Kingdom, application No. 14038/88, para. 88, and the decisions of the Court of 22 June 2004 in F. v. the United Kingdom, application No. 17341/03, and 28 February 2006 in Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom, application No. 27034/05. The State party refers to Sarah Joseph, Jenny Schultz and Melissa Castan, eds., The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Cases, Materials and Commentary , 2nd ed. (New York, Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 94. 15-21603