CRC/C/77/D/3/2016 advance unedited version 4.8 The State party notes that the author has not provided any new and specific information on her situation different to that already provided and assessed by the RAB. The RAB determines whether statements are coherent and consistent. In the present case, the author’s general credibility was substantially weakened by the fact that her own grounds for asylum had been rejected by the RAB on the basis that her account seemed to be fabricated for the occasion on essential points and her statements were incoherent. 4.9 In its decision of 2 February 2016, the RAB found that the author had not rendered probable that her daughter would be subjected to female genital mutilation in case of her return to the Puntland State of Somalia. The RAB emphasised the background information available on the general situation of female genital mutilation in that region and, particularly, on the possibility for mothers to prevent that their daughters be subjected to female genital mutilation. Therefore, the RAB concluded that the mother’s stated fear could not justify asylum under the Danish Aliens Act. 4.10 The State party notes that the decisive issue at stake is whether the author has the willingness and ability to protect her daughter from being subjected to female genital mutilation by resisting potential pressure from relatives or local community in general. In that regard, the author had just alluded to a fear that her maternal aunt would mutilate her daughter. The State party argues that the author has not elaborated or specified her fear that her daughter would be subjected to female genital mutilation. It is clear from the author’s statements that both she and her husband opposed female genital mutilation. The State party notes that the author chose to leave Somalia in 2014 allegedly to avoid being forcefully married, and travelled to Ethiopia and then Europe with the assistance of her spouse. She therefore appears to be an independent woman with considerable personal strength who must be assumed to be able to resist any social pressure and thus be able to protect her daughter from female genital mutilation.10 4.11 The State party notes that the author relied on reports referring to the situation in Central and Southern Somalia, according to which 90 to 99% of female population have been submitted to female genital mutilation. However, these reports are irrelevant to the present case. According to the Country Information Guidance – Somalia: women fearing genderbased harm / violence”, published by the UK Home Office in February 2015, female genital mutilation is not as widely and consistently practiced in the Puntland State of Somalia as in Central and Southern Somalia. Also, this practice is prohibited in the Puntland State of Somalia. According to the same report, UNICEF has reported that incidents of female genital mutilation appear to be declining in the Somaliland and Puntland regions and that 75% of girls aged 10 to 14 in these regions have not been subjected to female genital mutilation whereas 98% of those aged 15 and above have. Also, according to the Report of fact-finding mission to Nairobi, Kenya and Mogadishu, Hargeisa and Boosaaso in Somalia in June 2012, published by the Swedish Migration Agency, a survey conducted in 2010 in Garowe and Boosaaso –where the author originates- showed a change in attitudes toward female genital mutilation, reflected in a general decline from 85% in 2004 to 72% in 2010. Also, this report stated that incidents of grandmothers abducting their granddaughters to subject them to female genital mutilation had no longer been reported in the Puntland State of Somalia. The report also stated that the practice was more widespread in rural areas, and not in Boosaaso –the author’s hometown, with 700,000 inhabitants, being the largest city in the region. 4.12 Regarding the lack of reference to the Convention by the RAB, the State party notes that this fact cannot be taken to mean that the Board failed to take the Convention into account by not expressly invoking it. It notes that the RAB takes into account the Convention, as well 10 6 In this line, the author cites the European Court of Human Rights’ decision on case Emily Collins and Ashley Akaziebie v Sweden (application No, 23944/2005), adopted on 8 March 2007.