CEDAW/C/62/D/53/2013 State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 14 October and 20 December 2013, the State party provided additional observations reiterating that the communication should be deemed inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol for lack of substantiation. The State party noted the recently adopted views of the Committee in respect of the extraterritorial application of the Convention, according to which States parties have the obligation 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 from which the person is being deported. 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. 9 Nevertheless, the State party considered that, under that jurisprudence, the Convention had an extraterritorial effect only in exceptional circumstances in which the person to be returned was at risk of being deprived of his or her right to life or of being exposed to torture and ill-treatment. 6.2 The State party considered that the facts as presented by the author did not establish prima facie evidence of her allegations. She had only declared that the persons behind the attacks that she suffered were probably members of her husband’s family or her family because of their o bjection to the marriage. However, no elements substantiated her allegations that the attacks were of such a nature that, if returned to Pakistan, she would be at risk of persecution, qualifying for protection under section 7 of the Aliens Act, or that she would be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence. 6.3 The State party further considered that the communication was inadmissible under article 4 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol because it was incompatib le with the provisions of the Convention. It asserted that the positive duties under article 2 (d) of the Convention did not encompass an obligation for States parties to refrain from expelling a person who might be at risk of pain or suffering inflicted b y a private person, without the consent or acquiescence of the relevant State. The State party referred to the views of the Committee against Torture according to which torture must be inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiesc ence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. 10 The State party also referred to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which had established that a State party could become responsible for acts committed agains t an alien in his or her country of origin only if he or she was able to demonstrate that the authorities of the receiving State were not able to obviate the risk by providing appropriate protection. 11 The State party considered that such condition had not been fulfilled in the present case because the author had never sought the protection of the authorities in Pakistan. She had only stated that her neighbours had contacted the police because she was unable to do so herself and that the police had replied __________________ 9 10 11 8/16 Communication No. 33/2011, M.N.N. v. Denmark, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 15 July 2013, para. 8.10. See Committee against Torture, communication Nos. 130/1999 and 131/1999, V.X.N. and H.N. v. Sweden, views adopted on 15 May 2000. See European Court of Human Rights, communication No. 24573/94, H.L.R. v. France, views adopted on 22 April 1997, para. 40; communication No. 1948/04, Salah Sheekh v. The Netherlands, views adopted on 12 December 2006, para. 137; communication No. 25904/07, N.A. v. the United Kingdom, views adopted on 24 June 2008, para. 110. 15-21603