CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011 of the Board. In particular, the claim about gender-based violence was made by her counsel in written observations to the Board of 8 February 2009. Subsequently, during the oral hearing by the Board on 9 November 2009, her counsel quoted the Convention and made the argument about gender-based violence, albeit unsuccessfully given that the author’s request for asylum was rejected. The author submits that the State party wrongly relies on the failure of the Board to reflect her claims about gender-based violence as a ground for arguing that she has not exhausted domestic remedies. 5.11 As to the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol, the author refers to the Committee’s general recommendation No. 19, on violence against women. She adds that the State party itself considers that violence against women, including female genital mutilation, falls within the scope of article 12 of the Convention. 19 The author argues that the State party is perfectly aware that female genital mutilation as such is covered by the Convention and she invokes a violation of article 12 in addition to the earlier claims made in her communication to the Committee. 5.12 Lastly, the author refers to the Committee’s decision in N. S. F. v. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 20 and submits that the Committee’s jurisprudence shows that it is not necessary to invoke specific provisions of the Convention and to demonstrate how the Convention may have been violated for a communication to be considered admissible. 5.13 On 12 March 2012, the author submitted additional comments on the State party’s observations. With regard to the reasoning of the Refugee Appeals Board (see para. 4.2), she submits that the fact that her father has previously been unable to have her circumcised is not the same as evidence that he would not want to do so if he could find her. She adds that, while the Board could have argued that she would have to request protection from the Ugandan authorities, such argument does not appear in the decision in question. That she stayed in Denmark for four months before applying for asylum is irrelevant to the assessment of whether she risks being subjected to female genital mutilation upon her return to Uganda. 5.14 The author argues that, although the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act was passed in 2010, it remains ineffective 21 and that effective protection is lacking. Consequently, female genital mutilation remains a real threat to girls and women in Uganda. The author adds that the Refugee Appeals Board did not question the credibility of her claims (see para. 4.2) but rather concluded that, because her father had previously been unable to have her circumcised, he would not do so later. She submits in this regard that there is every reason to believe that her father continues to want his traditional “right” to be carried out and that he is capable of doing so if he finds her. The author therefore argues that the decision of the Board of 9 November 2009 was in violation of the Convention and that even at present her __________________ 19 20 21 12/19 Reference is made to the sixth periodic report of Denmark to the Committee, footnote 13 above, pp. 54-60. See footnote 8 above, para. 7.4. Reference is made to the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review on Uganda (A/HRC/19/16), paras. 52 and 91 and recommendations 111.49, 111.50 and 111.54. See also the concluding observations of the Committee on the combined fourth to seventh report of Uganda (CEDAW/C/UGA/CO/7) and the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on the initial report of Uganda (CCPR/CO/80/UGA). 13-42827