Advance unedited version CRC/C/77/D/3/2016 as other relevant international treaties as a crucial element of its examination of applications for asylum in cases involving children. 4.13 With regard to the general security situation in Somalia, the State party notes that the author has invoked the European Court of Human Rights’ case R.H. v Sweden11 referred to the return of a woman to Mogadishu, not the Puntland State of Somalia, and was therefore not applicable in the present case. 4.14 The State party notes that, according to the RAB’s jurisprudence, new grounds for asylum presented after the DIS decision do not automatically result in the referral of the case to the DIS for reconsideration at first instance. In most cases, a referral is not required as it is possible for the RAB to assess the new information on a fully informed basis at the Board hearing. A case will normally be referred back to the DIS if new information has been provided on the asylum-seekers’ country of origin, or in the event of changes to the legal basis that are deemed essential to the determination of the case. Also, RAB hearings are attended by a DIS representative. Therefore, the DIS considers if there are grounds for granting asylum before the RAB reaches a decision on the case. Also, no provision in the Convention affords the right of appeal in a case like the present one. 4.15 The State party submits that the author‘s daughter has not been subjected to discrimination of any kind due to her or her parents’ race, colour, sex, religion, or other status that would justify a violation of article 2 of the Convention. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In her comments dated 14 December 2016, the author alleges that the State party’s argument of insufficient substantiation of a risk of irreparable harm is closely linked to the merits. The author notes that she would be returned with her daughter to a country that has not ratified the Convention and where she would therefore be afforded no protection, in violation of article 1 of the Convention given that the author’s daughter is a child. 5.2 The author claims that article 3 of the Convention imposes an obligation on State parties to act only in accordance with the best interests of the child. For example, if a mother had stated that she would take her daughter to Somalia to perform female genital mutilation, the State party would have an obligation to take the child away from the mother in order to secure her best interests. 5.3 The author alleges that, even though female genital mutilation is prohibited in Somaliland and the Puntland State of Somalia, the practice is still deeply embedded in society –although the incidence may be lower in Puntland than in Somalia-. The risk is therefore existent. The question is whether it is likely that the author will be able to obtain the required protection against this harmful practice if deported. Since the laws in Puntland are not enforced, there is no or very little protection against female genital mutilation in practice. A single mother cannot protect her daughter 24 hours a day and she cannot prevent this practice to be performed in her absence. The authors notes that in a decision of 27 March 2014, the RAB granted asylum to a single mother from Somalia on the assumption that she would not be able to resist social pressure for the daughter to be subjected to FMG. Even though the author did not single out the grandmother or other relatives as possible perpetrators of the female genital mutilation upon return, pressure can also come from other community members and the Somalian society at large. The author contends that the RAB should have granted her protection on that basis. The State party’s statement that the decisive issue is whether the author has the willingness and ability to protect her daughter against female genital mutilation, and the conclusion that she appears to be an “independent woman with considerable personal strength” is an argument that was not raised during the RAB hearing 11 Application No. 4601/2014, decision of 10 September 2015. 7