CAT/C/66/D/757/2016 4.6 The State party submits that, in terms of policy, its assessment of asylum applications by Ivorian nationals is based partly on the special country report on the situation in Côte d’Ivoire issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in September 2011. 9 Subsequent country reports have not led to a change in policy. The Immigration and Naturalization Service uses statements made by asylum seekers to determine whether they are eligible for a temporary asylum residence permit because they face a real risk of being subjected to female genital mutilation. The Service also takes into consideration general information about female genital mutilation in the country of origin. If there is a wellfounded fear of female genital mutilation, the Service issues a temporary asylum residence permit exclusively to girls, including those who were born in the Netherlands, who run a real risk of being subjected to female genital mutilation upon return to their country of origin and to their parent or parents. 4.7 The State party maintains that, although the human rights situation for women and girls in Côte d’Ivoire gives cause for concern, the information made available by various public sources indicates that there is no reason to conclude that the expulsion of women and girls to that country would, in itself, involve a risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. The Government notes that the complainant’s interpretation of the country report issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs – that 88 per cent of Malinke women in Côte d’Ivoire have undergone female genital mutilation – is incorrect, or in any case requires qualification. That percentage refers to women living in specific regions, i.e. in northern and north-western Côte d’Ivoire. The Government also notes that it cannot be concluded, on the basis of the country report, that the prevalence of female genital mutilation among Malinke women and the social pressure they are under to undergo the procedure would apply to the complainant and her mother should they go to live in a region where it is less common. The State party further notes that the complainant’s grandparents were able to protect her mother during their lifetime despite the fact that they were living in a region where female genital mutilation was prevalent. There is also no evidence that the complainant’s family was subjected to social exclusion because her mother had not undergone such mutilation. 4.8 In the Government’s view, the complainant would be able to return with her mother and brothers to the area where her mother spent most of her life and with which she is familiar. The risk of female genital mutilation being carried out will mainly depend on the attitude of the family and, most particularly, that of her mother. Her mother is opposed to female genital mutilation and may be expected to do all she can to protect her daughter and simply not give in to pressure from others. 10 The State party does not see why the complainant’s mother would not be able to protect her daughter from female genital mutilation, like her parents protected her. The State party considers that the fact that she is a single parent does not alter this, as she is more highly educated that the average Ivorian woman, she was able to avoid her own re-cutting, leave her family and community and flee to Europe. In the Netherlands she learned Dutch by reading books. 4.9 The State party further submits that the complainant’s mother is free to go and live in a part of Côte d’Ivoire where female genital mutilation is less common, especially since contact with family members in Côte d’Ivoire has been severed. It does not consider this to be a relocation in the sense of article 8 of Directive 2011/95/EU since the complainant does not run a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention in her mother’s area of origin. The Government believes that, even if social pressure to undergo female genital 9 10 Available from www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/ambtsberichten/2011/10/03/ivoorkust-2011-09-29thematisch-ambtsbericht-politieke-ontwikkelingen-en-veiligheidssituatie. European Court of Human Rights, R.B.A.B. and Others v. the Netherlands (application No. 7211/06), judgment of 7 June 2016. In paragraph 56 of the judgment, the Court found, in relation to another African State where female genital mutilation is practiced, that in general there is no real risk of a girl or woman being subjected to female genital mutilation at the instigation of persons who are not family members. In the case of an unmarried woman, the risk of such mutilation being practised will depend on the attitude of her family, most particularly her parents but also her extended family, and, if a woman’s parents are opposed to female genital mutilation, they will normally be in a position to ensure that she does not marry a man who (or whose family) is in favour of it, regardless of the attitude of other relatives of the woman concerned. 5