CEDAW/C/62/D/53/2013 that she had been reported as a prostitute and therefore they had taken no action with regard to her case. 12 The State party therefore considered that the author had not sufficiently substantiated that the national authorities were unable to provide her with adequate protection and that her claims in that regard should be deemed inadmissible. 6.4 On 10 March and 18 August 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication, reiterating that the author had not substantiated the risk to which she would be subjected if returned to Pakistan. The State party stated that the Refugee Appeals Board had accepted as facts that she had been attacked at the beauty salon, at her home and in a taxi, but it considered that she had not demonstrated that those attacks had been directed against her and that she had provided no evidence that her removal to Pakistan would expose her to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender -based violence. Author’s additional comments 7.1 On 23 December 2013, the author provided additional comments. She indicated that she had referred to the Convention in her asylum procedures, including in the hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board. The State party’s authorities had considered, however, that they did not have the obligation to protect women who could be subjected to gender-based violence when returned to their country of origin. The author therefore welcomed the State party’s submission in which it accepted that the Convention had an extraterritorial effect in cases involving the principle of non-refoulement. 13 7.2 The author indicated that she had sufficiently substantiated her case and had established prima facie evidence that she was a victim of gender -based violence. She further indicated that burning attacks were a common form of gender -based violence in some regions of India and Pakistan and that they disproportionately affected women. She alleged that she had been subjected to such an attack for being a woman who behaved in a way that was not accepted by some sectors of society. The author reiterated that her marriage against the will of her parents and her husband’s family could also be the source of the attacks that she had suffered, but that she could not provide additional evidence in that regard. Lastly, she considered that being a Christian woman living on her own and working in a beauty salon also made her vulnerable to such attacks. In that connection, the author referred to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) eligibility guidelines for assessing the international protection needs of members of religious minorities from Pakistan, which indicated that violent anti-Christian attacks occurred throughout the country and that, in many instances, the authorities were unable or unwilling to protect the lives of Christians or to bring the perpetrators to justice. 7.3 The author further submitted that she had not been able to go to the police herself after the attacks because she had been in hospital recovering from the burns. After her release, she had not dared to do so in view of her neighbours’ comment __________________ 12 13 15-21603 The State party refers to the interview given by the author to the Danish Immigration Service on 10 January 2013. The author refers to the State party’s observations provided on 14 October 2012. The author also refers to communication No. 33/2011, M.N.N. v. Denmark (see footnote 9 above), and communication No. 35/2011, M.E.N. v. Denmark, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 26 July 2013. 9/16