CAT/C/56/D/613/2014 Advance unedited vers ion ' earlier and that this claim, including the medical statement submitted by her, did not constituted a new fact or changed circumstance that required a new examination of the case. Moreover, it found that she had insufficiently made her argument with documentation that she did not belong to the group of 5 % of women who could skip from FGM; and that her _ allegations were too speculative and uncertain to assume that there was arealistic and foreseeable risk of torture if returned to Guinea. Tn this regard, it stated that the fact the she was victim of FGM was not sufficient to conclude that she would be a victim again since inter alia she had not proved that potential perpetrators were aware of the restorative surgery she underwent in the Netherlands. The complainant appealed theRegional Court's ruling before the Council of State. '2.7 On 16 January 2014, the Section of Administrative Law of the Council of State dec1arèd her request for higher appeal manifestly ill-founded. The complaint 3~1 Tlie complainant submits that the Netherlands would violate her rights under article 3 of the Convention by forcibly removing her to Guinea. She claims that the State party's' authorities failed to assess adequately the risk she would be subject to if rèturned. The State party's authorities arbitrarily considered that het fear was speculative and didnot take into account that that sh~ is a victim ofFMG and that FMG is widespread in Guinean society. 3.2 The complainant points out thai according to the UNHCR, Ha woman or girl who has already undergone the practice [of FGM] before she seeks asylum, may still have a well-founded fear offuture persecution. Depending on the individual circumstances of her case and the particular, practices of her community, she may fear that she could be subjected to another form of FGM and/or suffer, particularly serious long-term consequences of the initial procedure ",1 In her ca~e, she ,went through the horrific experiencè ofbeing victim ofFGM in Guinea prior to her departure. Furthermore, since she underwentreconstnictive genital surgery in the State party, a risk of being re-victimized is even higher. ' 3.3 The complainant points out that about 96% of women in Guinea have undergone FGM - with a prevalenee of 94% or above in 4 out of the 5 regions of the country- and submits that, this phenomenon constitutes a consistent pattem of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human right. 2 The pressure to undergo FGM is not limited to direct family members but is a common feature of Guinean society. In this regard, she highlights !hat. Guinea -is a strktly patriarchal society; that a woman is considered immoral if she does not live with her family; that a Gufuean man will not marry a woman who is not circumcised and will demand her to bè circumcised; and that FGM isconsidered a requirement for any women role in Guinean society;3 In light of the foregoing, the complainant clalms that she r;uns a real and fore~eeable risk of being forced to undergo FGM agàin and of a treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention, should she be retumed to Guinea. ' .1 2 3 The complainant refers to UNCHR Guidance note on refugee claims relating to female genital mutilation, (May 2009), paras. 13-15. ' The complainant refers to U1:JICEF's report «Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A statistical overview and exploration ofthe dynamics of change », (July 2013), p. 26-28. The complainant refers to UNFP NUNICEF 2012 Annual Report, Joint programme on female genital mutilation/cutting: Accelerating change; and the Human Rights Committee's findings in communication No. 1465/2006, Kaba v. Canada;Views adopted on 25 March 2010, para. 1O.2~ 4 Bron: www.ohchr.org - Stichting Migratierecht Nederland - www.migratieweb.nl