advance unedited version -CRC/C/86/D/83/2019
2.3
Since the Refugee Appeals Board decision cannot be appealed in the Danish judicial
system, the author states that domestic remedies have been exhausted.
2.4
The author informs the Committee that, on 10 April 2019, she submitted to the
European Court of Human Rights a request for interim measures to stop her daughter’s
deportation to Somalia. On 18 April 2019, the European Court rejected the request and
considered the remainder of the author’s application inadmissible pursuant to articles 34 and
35 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that her daughter’s rights under articles 3 and 19 of the Convention
will be violated if she is deported to Somalia, as she may be subjected to female genital
mutilation.
3.2
The author claims that, as a single mother, she will not be able to withstand social
pressure and protect her daughter against female genital mutilation in a country where 98%
of women are subjected to this practice.4 The author notes that the Refugee Appeals Board
based its decision on the Danish Immigration Service report on female genital mutilation in
Somalia (2016), according to which it is possible for girls not to be circumcised (see para.
2.2 above). However, the author claims that the same report indicates that, if the mother is
not strong enough to stand against the other women’s will, then she may succumb to
pressure.5 The author adds that, although female genital mutilation is prohibited by law in
Somalia, it is still almost universally practiced.6 She adds that she herself was submitted to
female genital mutilation. She also states that her husband currently resides in the United
States of America and that it is unknown how he would react to the social pressure should he
return to Somalia. She also notes that, in its letter dated 7 November 2016, UNHCR urged
States to refrain from forcibly returning individuals to Southern and Central Somalia. The
author also states that the revocation of her daughter’s residence permit was in violation of
article 3 of the Convention, since her daughter was born and raised in Denmark and has no
ties with Somalia. Finally, the author submits that, in evaluating the risk that a child could be
subjected to irreversible harm, such as female genital mutilation, the State authorities should
follow the principle of precaution.7
3.3
The author contends that, under article 19 of the Convention, States parties are obliged
to protect children against any harm or violence. In doing so, they must always take into
consideration the best interests of the child.
3.4
The author notes that the Refugee Appeals Board did not make any reference to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child in its decision.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
In its observations dated 1 November 2019, the State party states that the deportation
of the author and her children to Somalia was suspended on 10 May 2019 (see para.
1.2 above).
4.2
The State party submits that the author’s communication to the Committee does not
present any new information substantiating her claims and repeats the facts that have already
been assessed by domestic authorities. The State party notes that the Committee has
established in its general comment No. 13 (2011) on the right of the child to freedom from
4
5
6
7
See UNICEF report, “Female Genital Mutilation: Global Concern”. Available at
https://www.unicef.org/media/files/FGMC_2016_brochure_final_UNICEF_SPREAD.pdf.
See Denmark, Ministry of Immigration, Integration and Housing, “South central Somalia: female
genital mutilation/cutting: thematic paper — country of origin information for use in the asylum
determination process” (January 2016). In the report, it is stated that “women who are heavily
dependent on their communities might not be the strong ones to refuse the practice” (p. 16) and “since
FGM is about the control of women and the female body, even educated and exposed returnees from
the West will continue the practice” (p. 21).
See U.S. Department of State, “Somalia Human Rights Report 2016”, p. 32. Available at
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Somalia-1.pdf.
See I.A.M. vs. Denmark (CRC/C/77/D/3/2016), para. 11.8 (c).
3