CEDAW/C/62/D/53/2013 them and the attacks occurred directly after she began working at the beauty salon, not after the wedding. 9.3 The Committee further notes the nature and seriousness of the attack by three men at the author’s house in July 2009, during the course of which she suffered severe burns that resulted in her being admitted to hospital for seven to eight months; the attack against the beauty salon where the author was employed; and the shooting incident in March 2010 by unknown men on motorbikes, which could have resulted in serious injuries to the author and her son. The Committee is of the view that the nature and circumstances of those attacks all indicate that they were targeted at the author and were therefore “personal”. The Committee also considers that the inability of the author to provide precise information on the exact identity of the persons responsible for the three attacks did not compromise her credibility and therefore considers that the denial of her asylum application by the State party was manifestly arbitrary. Even if the attacks had not been instigated by the parents of the author’s husband, as “assumed” by the author, she was still at risk of being subjected to other serious harm and had a well-founded fear of further acts of gender-based violence. In that connection, the Committee recalls its general recommendation No. 32, according to which States parties should take into account that the threshold for accepting asylum applications should be measured not against the probability, but against the reasonable likelihood that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution or that she would be exposed to persecution upon her return. 9.4 The Committee has given due consideration to the State party’s submission that the author did not sufficiently substantiate her claim that the Pak istani authorities would be unable to provide her with the protection necessary to obviate the alleged risk. The Committee also notes the author’s submission that she did not go to the police because she was in hospital recovering from severe burns and tha t she did not dare to do so after she was released because she had been informed by her neighbours that, notwithstanding the fact that they had reported the severe attacks to the police, the police had refused to investigate because they considered her to be a prostitute. The Committee has given due consideration to the unchallenged submission by the author that she did not complain to the police. In that regard, the Committee recalls that, in line with paragraph 29 of its general recommendation No. 32, “as a matter of international law, the authorities of the country of origin are primarily responsible for providing protection to the citizens, including ensuring that women enjoy their rights under the Convention, and that it is only when such protection is not available that international protection is invoked to protect the basic human rights that are seriously at risk”. In the present case, the Committee is of the view that the fact that the author did not seek the protection of the State or make a complaint to the authorities before her departure from Pakistan should not have prejudiced her asylum claim, especially taking into account the level of tolerance towards violence against women and the pattern of failure in responding to women’s complaints of abuse, which are reflected in the information provided by the author and make it unrealistic to require the author to have sought protection in advance of her flight. 9.5 The Committee also considers that the State party gave no due consideration to the fact that the author was an illiterate ethnic Punjabi of Christian faith with no family support, living in a village in Pakistan away from her husband and being treated as a “prostitute” by society at large, including the police. In that connection, the Committee recalls the UNHCR eligibility guidelines for assessing the 15-21603 13/16