CAT/C/66/D/757/2016
would not be able to protect the complainant from female genital mutilation due to the
strong social pressure that exists in that society.
2.7
The complainant refers to article 4 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council of the European Union, in which it is stated that the fact that
an applicant has already been subject to persecution or serious harm, or to direct threats of
such persecution or such harm, is a serious indication of the applicant’s well-founded fear
of persecution or real risk of suffering serious harm. 4 Even though this is not strictly
applicable to the complainant, she notes that her mother could not protect herself, even as
an adult, from female genital mutilation and that the same could happen to her because she
depends on her mother. She also refers to the case F.B. v. Netherlands, in which the
Committee found that the State party had failed to take into due consideration the
complainant’s allegations regarding the events she had experienced in Guinea, her
condition as a single woman in Guinean society and the specific capacity of the authorities
in Guinea to provide her with protection so as to guarantee her physical and mental
integrity.5
The complaint
3.
The complainant claims that her expulsion to Côte d’Ivoire would put her at risk of
female genital mutilation, in violation of article 3 of the Convention.
State party’s observations on the merits
4.1
On 13 January 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the
complaint. The State party provided its own statement of facts, and noted that the
complainant’s mother first entered the Netherlands on 4 March 2011 and submitted an
application for asylum on 18 April 2011. On 23 May 2012, her application for temporary
asylum was denied. On 15 June 2012, the complainant’s mother submitted an application
for a judicial review of the decision. On 21 December 2012, The Hague District Court
declared the application for review unfounded. On 24 January 2013, the mother lodged an
appeal of that judgment with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of
State. On 17 June 2013, the appeal was declared unfounded. During her pregnancies, the
complainant’s mother was permitted to stay on the basis of section 64 of the Aliens Act
2000.6 On 22 January 2016, the complainant’s mother gave notice that she wished to submit
a request to stay on the basis of section 64 of the Aliens Act 2000; however, she never
followed up on the request, so the procedure was terminated.
4.2
On 24 April 2015, the complainant’s mother lodged an application for asylum on
behalf of her daughter. By decision of 3 June 2015, the application was denied. It was also
decided not to defer the complainant’s departure pursuant to section 64 of the Aliens Act
2000. On an unspecified date, an application for judicial review of the contested decision
was lodged on behalf of the complainant and interim relief was requested. On 25 June 2015,
The Hague District Court declared the application unfounded and also denied the
application for interim relief. By judgment of 25 August 2015, the Administrative
Jurisdiction Division declared the subsequent appeal manifestly unfounded.
4.3
The State party notes that the complainant’s mother was born in 1990 and lived in
the city of Ferentella in Côte d’Ivoire until 2008. She belongs to the Malinke ethnic group.
She attended secondary school between 2003 and 2008. Because her parents were opposed
to female genital mutilation, they did not subject her to it. After her parents died, in January
2009 the complainant’s mother moved in with her aunt who lived in the city of Gagnoa.
However, her aunt could not afford to feed another family member, so she married the
complainant’s mother off to a wealthy man in exchange for money. The complainant’s
4
5
6
Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on
standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of
international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary
protection, and for the content of the protection granted.
See F.B. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/56/D/613/2014), para. 8.8.
Section 64 reads: “An alien shall not be expelled as long as his health or that of any of the members
of his family would make it inadvisable for him to travel.”
3