CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011 other words, her father was a Bagishu who was now a mature man and who had become a Mugisu through circumcision. The author refers to the report of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 6 according to which the Bagisu tribe practises male circumcision but not female genital mutilation. She notes, however, that the same report also states that it was made “within time constraints”. It is further stated that the report “was not and did not purport to be conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum”. The author submits that the issues before the Committee are when female genital mutilation was made illegal in Uganda and whether the prohibition offers effective protection against her father. She notes that, as late as 11 March 2010, it was reported that female genital mutilation was practised in Uganda 7 and that, consequently, she has established a prima facie case. 3.5 While acknowledging that the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act entered into force in Uganda on 9 April 2010, the author submits that the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board was made on 9 November 2009, i.e. almost half a year earlier. She adds that the decision was, among other things, based on incorrect information provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (dated 3 September 2009) that the legislation had already entered into force (see paras. 2.5 and 2.6). She argues that, since the decision was based on openly wrong information from the Ministry with regard to the status of the legislation in Uganda, the Danish asylum authorities did not provide a fair hearing in her case. She states that, now that the legislation is in force, a new hearing should be allowed in order to assess whether the legislation is an effective measure to protect Ugandan women who fear mutilation by their families and to what extent the police could provide effective remedies in this regard. Following this assessment, it should further be established whether she would risk persecution and whether she would have any real possibility of benefiting from the protection of the law. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 10 January 2012, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. It recalls that the author stated to the Danish asylum authorities that she had left Uganda because she feared that her father or one of his relatives would have her circumcised, given that her father’s clan (the Mogishu clan) had a tradition of circumcising both girls and boys. She could give no further information about the tradition and did not know whether other women had been circumcised. She further stated that she had had no conflicts with the Ugandan authorities and that she was not politically active. The reason for her flight was solely fear of circumcision. She had not applied for asylum in Denmark until her __________________ 6 7 6/19 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, “Uganda: the incidence of female genital mutilation among the Bagisu tribe”, 11 September 2000, available from www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/ 3df4beb814.html [accessed 7 December 2012]. Reference is made to the following excerpt from the 2009 country reports on human rights practices of the Department of State of the United States of America released on 11 March 2010: “FGM [was] practiced by the Sabiny ethnic group in rural Kapchorwa District and the Pokot ethnic group along the north-eastern border with Kenya despite local laws that prohibit the practice. In 2006 the subcounties of Kapchorwa and Bukwo districts passed bylaws to make FGM illegal; however, the practice still occurred. The government, women’s groups, and international organizations continued to combat the practice through education. These programs, which received some support from local leaders, emphasized close cooperation with traditional authority figures and peer counselling.” [Source: www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/af/135982.htm]. 13-42827