CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011 been passed prohibiting it, is incorrect, given that no such law was in force in November 2009 when the decision was taken by the Refugee Appeals Board. On the contrary, the author provided proof to the Board that a bill was being discussed but had not yet been passed by Parliament. 2.6 On 9 November 2009, the Refugee Appeals Board found that the author was unlikely to be in genuine danger of female genital mutilation if she were returned to Uganda. The Board underlined that the author had applied for asylum only in connection with her arrest for illegal residency and therefore did not meet the requirements for a residence permit under section 7 of the Aliens Act and should immediately leave Denmark. If she did not leave voluntarily, she could be forcefully returned to Uganda under section 32a of the Act. 2.7 According to the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board, the author has four half-siblings in Kampala on her mother’s side who live with their fathers. The author did not know whether they had been circumcised. The author’s children lived with her aunt in the village of Natete and she was in contact with them by telephone. She wished to be reunited with her children in Uganda when she no longer feared female genital mutilation. Her daughter was not circumcised. Having been asked whether she was not afraid that her daughter would be circumcised, since her daughter’s father belonged to the Mogishu clan, the author explained that she was worried but there was nothing that she could do about it. The author also stated that she had had no contact with her mother, either before or after her departure from Uganda, because her mother lacked a telephone. The author did not know anyone who was circumcised but claimed that women did not share that private matter with others. The author knew of no tradition of circumcision in her father’s clan, 2 had not seen her father since she was 9 years of age and had not been threatened either by him or by his family but feared what would happen if he found her. She argued that the police in Uganda could not protect her, as they “only help[ed] those who pa[id] bribes”. Her father could still circumcise her even if she bribed the police and he would go unpunished if he chose to do so. 2.8 On 14 May 2010, the Committee, acting through its Working Group on Communications under the Optional Protocol to the Convention, requested the author’s counsel in writing to, among other things, provide it with: (a) Clarifications on the author’s ethnicity/clan/tribe in Uganda, since it was being referred to differently in the communication as Mogadishu, Mogishu and Moghiso; (b) Independent evidence supporting the author’s claims that women belonging to the ethnic group/clan/tribe in question continued to be subjected to circumcision in Uganda. He was requested further to substantiate the risk of the author being subjected to circumcision if returned to Uganda in the light of the entry into force of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act in Uganda on 9 April 2010. 2.9 Given that the Committee received no reply to its request for information of 14 May 2010, the Working Group decided, on 18 February 2011, to send the __________________ 2 4/19 During the hearing of her case by the Refugee Appeals Board, the author explained, however, that her father was from Mogishu clan, which had a tradition of circumcising women. 13-42827