Advance unedited version CAT/C/56/D/613/2014 person who would undergo it for the fITst time. She further argues that her situation is very exceptional and that, therefore, the State party' s observations that refer to information concerning the practice of further or repeat FGM in Guinea is not relevant to her case. The fact that the complainant already underwent FGM is an important indication that it will be very likely that she will be forced to undergo FGM again. 7 5.3 The complainant submits that the State party;s observations regarding the low possibility that gids or women over 14years are forced to undergo FGM and altemative relocation rely on its country report information ab out FGM in Guinea. Although the country information is of paramount importance, it lacks substantiation, since it does not indicate the sources of this information. The State party' sargument should be supported by objective and verifiabie sources. 5.4 The fact that the applicant's relatives may not be aware ofthe reconstructive surgery or that they would not submit her to a medical examination upon return is not sufficient to conclude that she would not be at risk since she fears of FGM by any member of the Guinean society. 5.5 The infof1l?ation on the percentage of FGM performed on women above the age of 14 years corresponds with the undisputed fact that the prevalence ofFGM in Guinea is over 95% and that it is practiced to gids before they turn 14 years old. Furthermore, the high percentage ofwomen who were victim ofFGM does not correspond withthe State party's argument that the complainant may relocate in other part of Guinea and avoid FGM. State party's further observations 6.1· On 24 July 2015, the State party provided further observations. It reiterates its previous observations and maintains that the information, to which it referred in its previous observations on admissibility and merits, is derived from the country report issried by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A country report is drafted on the basis of multiple sources, including reports by international organizations, including UNHCR's reports, other States and well-known NGOs with presence in the field. 6.2 The State party points' out that the complainant's situation is not similar to those of women and gids that were never subj ected to FGM. She already underwent FGM and there is no evidence to suggest that upon return she would be subjected to a medièál examination that would reveal this surgery. Furthermore, no individual crrcumstances have been brought forward by her to indicate that in her situation there is a real risk of this occurrence. Although FGM is widespread in Guinea, this does not change the fact the FGM is usually instigated by parents '-fnostly mother- of the girl. If the mother does not wish to have her daughter circumcised, it may happen that other female relatives instigate it. This ho wever in no way supports the complainant' s allegation that she would be at risk from any other member ofthe Gumea's society. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has 7 The complainant refers to Committee'sGeneral Comment No 1, para 8; and article4.4 ofDirective 2011195/EU ofthe European Parliament and the Council of 13 December 2011 on standardsfor the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection,for a uniform statusfor refugees or for persons eligiblefor subsidiary protection, andfor the content of the protection granted. 9 Bron: www.ohchr.org - Stichting Migratierecht Nederland - www.migratieweb.nl