CEDAW/C/62/D/53/2013 taxi), were general, isolated and past criminal matters. Furthermore, the Service concluded that the author’s allegations were not credible, given that it took her two years to apply for asylum after her arrival in Denmark, and that, if her fears were justified, she could submit a complaint to the Pakistani authorities, even if she really was considered a prostitute. 3 2.5 The Refugee Appeals Board denied the author’s appeal on 5 April 2013. According to the author, the Board considered it a fact that she had been attacked at her home and had been burned and that she had also been attacked a few days earlier at her workplace. It also considered it a fact that the same people were responsible for both acts because they all referred to prostitution as justification for the attacks. The Board considered, however, that the author had failed to establish that the attacks had been perpetrated by her husband’s family because of their marriage and that she could not establish that the attacks had been directed against her. The Board thus concluded that the author could not establish that she would be at risk of persecution if returned to Pakistan and that being a Christian woman with no network in the country was not sufficient to grant her asylum. Complaint 3.1 The author claims to be a victim of a violation of articles 1, 2 (c) and (d), 3, 12, 15 and 16 of the Convention by the State party. The author considers that the State party seems to argue that, if the attacks were perpetrated by a group of men acting as “morality police”, they would not constitute an act of violence against women. The author considers that such interpretation amounts to a violation of her rights under the Convention because it clearly constitutes gender -specific persecution, whoever perpetrated the attacks. 3.2 The author also claims that she was the victim of an attempted murder committed in the name of so-called honour, either because of her marriage without the consent of her husband’s family or because of her work having been perceived as immoral. She states that she did not seek justice or redress in Pakistan because acts such as those that she suffered are not properly prosecuted and punished in that country. She therefore considers that her deportation to Pakistan amounts to a violation of her rights under the above-mentioned articles of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 12 June 2013, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication. It indicated that the author’s husband had obtained a residence permit for Denmark in May 2005 on the basis of his marriage to a Danish national in May 2002. The author’s husband had divorced his then spouse in March 2007 and married the author in Pakistan in 2008. The State party indicated that the author’s children by her husband had residence permits in Denmark under the family reunification section of the Aliens Act. The author’s application for family reunification, submitted on 19 July 2010, was rejected on 12 January 2011 by the Danish Immigration Service. On 17 June 2011, that decision was upheld by the Ministry of Refugees, Immigration and Integration Affairs, which requested the author to leave the country. On 15 September 2012, the national police came across the author, detained her and charged her with illegally staying in __________________ 3 4/16 No further information was provided on the argument by the Danish Immigration Ser vice. 15-21603