CEDAW/C/62/D/53/2013 author could establish that she would be subject to discrimination contrary to the Convention owing to gender-based violence in Pakistan. Accordingly, the return of a woman who had come to Denmark simply to escape from discriminatory treatment in her own country, however objectionable that treatment might be, could not constitute a violation of the Convention. The State party therefore considered that it was not responsible under the Convention for the violations alleged by the author and argued that the communication should be rejected as inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae pursuant to article 4 (b), read together with article 2, of the Optional Protocol. 4.9 The State party further submitted that the communication should be deemed inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol for lack of substantiation, given that the author had not clearly identified or explained which rights enshrined in the Convention would be violated in case of return to Pakistan, but only made a general reference to articles 1, 2 (c) and (d), 3, 12, 15 and 16 of the Convention and to general recommendations No. 12 (1989) and No. 19 (1992) on violence against women. Lastly, the State party argued that applications for asylum were examined in the same manner and under the same procedure for men and women, meaning that women asylum seekers were not subjected to discriminatory treatment in Denmark. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 18 July and 13 August 2013, the author submitted comments on the State party’s observations. While confirming that the information regarding how her husband had arrived in Denmark and his residency status was accurate, she questioned the relevancy of such information in the context of her communication. In addition, she highlighted that the violations that she suffered occurred after Denmark refused her family reunification application, forcing her to return to Pakistan in 2009, even though she was already married and pregnant at the time (see para. 2.1). 5.2 The author reiterated that her husband’s family had organized the first two attacks, one very shortly after the other (see para. 2.2). However, she clarified that she had never argued that she could make such an affirmation regarding the attack that occurred while she was in a taxi (see para. 2.3). She considered that the attacks to which she had been subjected constituted gender-based violence and that she would not be able to seek protection in case of return to Pakistan. 5.3 As to the State party’s argument that she had not substantiated her allegations, the author contended that she had provided clear information on the gender-based violence to which she would be subjected if returned to Pakistan. She referred to the Committee’s jurisprudence according to which crimes committed in the name of so-called honour are covered by the Convention and States have the obligation to protect women against such practices. 8 __________________ 8 15-21603 See joint general recommendation No. 31 of the Committee on the Eliminatio n of Discrimination against Women/general comment No. 18 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on harmful practices (2014), paras. 10-14 and 29-30. 7/16