CAT/C/56/D/613/2014 Advance l!nedited version there is no reason to conclude that the complainant' sexpulsion to Guinea would in itself involve a risk of contravention of article 3 of the Convention. 4.13 The State party refers to the investigation conducted by its Ministry of Foreign . Affairs as reflected in the person--specific report of 12 March 2004, andmaintains that due to the incorrect information provided by the complainant to the authorities, her allegations that she was victim óf forced marriage to her step' grandmother' s brotherand her' accounts abaut her family circumstancesare not credible. It also did not allow its authorities to investigate various aspect of her alleged fear of being forced to undergo FOM again. 4.14 The State. party also submits that the complainant is unlikeIy to be subjected to FGM again upon returningtó Guinea. It maintains that it has no reason to doubtthat the complainant was forced to undergo FGM when she was 13 years old, as· stated during her second asylum application. Nor does it.dispute that she had a correctivesurgery in the. Netherlands. However, since she has already been subjected FGM in accordance withher country's tradition, it is unlikely that she would be subjected to it again as an adult because she has already undergone the procedure and repeat procedures are extremely rare in Guinea. There is no evidence to suggest that upon retuming to Guinea she would be forced , ta submit to an examination that would reveal that she has' had corrective surgery; or that her step grandmother's brother or any other relative or member of her ethnic group would . force her to undergo FGM again. As alternative she can settle elsewhere in a city. With or without the assistance of the chef de quartier, she can build a life for herself without her family having to know that she is back in Guinea. Furthermore, a long time has passed since the complainant left Guinea .and there is no reason to believe that her step grandmother anel husband would still be actively looking for her. As to the complainant's allegations about the risk to be forced fo undergo FGM due to social pres'Sure, the State partY maintains that only 1.2% of genital mutilation procedures are carried out on women over the' age . of nineteen. This information implies that young adult women may decide themselves whether or not to undergo genital mutilation. ta 4.15 In conclusion, the State party notes that the fact alone that the complainant was a victim of FGM in the past, like 96.9% of gids and women in Guinea,' does notmean that her return would be contrary to article 3 of the Convention. She has provided no convincing , arguments to support her claim that she would be subjected to genital mutilation again: Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that she could not setde in a different area than where she lived when she underwent the procedure and whereshe might encounter those who cut her. The complainant's comments on the State party's observations on admissibility and merits 5.1 On 9 )une 2015, the complainant provides her comments on the State party's observations. She claims that the assessment of her credibility carried out in the proceedings concerning her first and second asylum requests, including the person specific report., are not relevant in the light of the corrective surgery she underwent in the State party, as it should be considered a new fact. She claims that she has refuted the findings on the credibility of her account in the first asylum application; and that she has provided many details, which have been partly confrrmed: In particular, it is not challenged that she is a woman, from Guinea who belongs to the Peul ethnic group; that 95 % of women in Guinea are subjected to FGM; that she was forced to undergo FGM; and that she underwent a reconstructive surgery. These facts are sufficient to conc1ude that there are substantial grounds to be subjected to FGM, ifreturned to Guinea. 5.2 The complainant reiterates her allegations and points out that according to the plastic surgeon that practiced the reconstructive surgery, she can be perceived as a wo man who did not undergo any form of FGM before. Hence, her fear of FGM is the same as that of a 8 Bron: www.ohchr.org - Stichting Migratierecht Nederland - www.migratieweb.nl