CEDAW/C/GC/32 inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is codified in a number of regional human rights treaties and international non-binding documents. 15 18. Bearing in mind that the vast majority of States have become parties to international instruments prohibiting the refoulement of asylum seekers and refugees, in addition to State practice and, among others, the practice whereby non-signatory States to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees host large numbers of refugees, often in mass-influx situations, the prohibition of refoulement of refugees, as enshrined in article 33 of the Convention and complemented by non-refoulement obligations under international human rights law, 16 constitutes a rule of customary international law. 17 19. Article 3 of the Convention against Torture prohibits removal of a person to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The Committee against Torture, in its general comment No. 2, has explicitly situated gender-based violence and abuse within the scope of the Convention against Torture. 18 Articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also encompass the obligation on States not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm in the country to which the person will, or may subsequently, be removed. The Human Rights Committee has further noted that the absolute prohibition of torture that is part of customary international law includes, as an essential corollary component, the prohibition of refoulement to a risk of torture, which entails the prohibition of any return of an individual where he or she would be exposed to a risk of torture, ill-treatment or arbitrary deprivation of life. 20. According to those human rights provisions, no asylum seeker or refugee is to be expelled or returned (refoulé) in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his or her life or freedom or the right to be free from torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment would be threatened. 21. The Committee notes that the Convention, as an instrument to prevent discrimination against women, contains no explicit provision on non-refoulement. In the framework of its work on individual communications under the Optional Protocol, the Committee has had to address States parties’ objections to the effect that the Committee has no competence to deal with cases submitted on behalf of __________________ 15 16 17 18 14-64766 See, for example, the 2000 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, art. 19 (2); the 1966 Principles concerning Treatment of Refugees, adopted by the Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee (art. III (3)); the Declaration on Territorial Asylum, adopted by the General Assembly by its resolution 2132 (XXII) (art. 3); the 1969 Organization of African Unity Convention governing the specific aspects of refugee problems in Africa (art. II (3)); the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights (art. 22 (8)); and the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees (para. 5). In addition, non-refoulement provisions modelled on article 33 (1) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees have also been incorporated into extradition treaties and a number of anti-terrorism conventions at the universal and regional levels. UNHCR, Declaration of States parties to the 1951 Convention and or its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted on 13 December 2001 (HCR/MMSP/2001/09). UNHCR, “Advisory opinion on the extraterritorial application of non-refoulement obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol” (2007), para. 15. See also communication No. 35/2011, M.E.N. v. Denmark, inadmissibility decision adopted by the Committee on 26 July 2013, para. 8.8. 7/21