CAT/C/66/D/757/2016 mutilation were too great in the area of origin, the complainant’s mother could be expected to go and live elsewhere in Côte d’Ivoire since in large parts of the country such mutilation is not a standard practice. In those areas there is little pressure from the community to make a woman undergo female genital mutilation. 4.10 The State party notes that the present case differs from F.B. v. Netherlands, which was raised by the complainant, because F.B. was from Guinea, which has a higher prevalence of female genital mutilation than Côte d’Ivoire, and she had already been subjected to such mutilation with severe consequences to her physical and psychological integrity. However, following reconstructive surgery, she feared being forced to undergo female genital mutilation a second time. Those specific circumstances are absent in the present case. 4.11 With regard to the complainant’s mother’s psychological problems, the State party notes that these problems were not brought to light until the judicial review proceedings. During the second interview, the complainant’s mother said that she had provided all the information that could be relevant to the assessment of the application. During the review phase, The Hague District Court was presented with a printout of her entire medical records, which showed that she had apparently attempted suicide after receiving the decision denying her daughter’s asylum application. There is no evidence in her medical records that the complainant’s mother had ever been treated for psychological issues prior to receiving notification of the Government’s intention to deny her daughter’s asylum application, or that she was currently receiving treatment. At no point did she cite this in her own asylum procedure either. 4.12 The Government further notes that although the complainant’s mother’s medical records were submitted, no assessment was made or explanation given by a medical practitioner. According to the complainant’s mother, she suffers from chronic depression or post-traumatic stress disorder, for which she is being treated. However, the Government is unable to accept this claim on the basis of the medical records alone. In the Government’s view, merely submitting medical records is not sufficient for satisfactorily establishing that she is unable to return to Côte d’Ivoire or to protect her daughter from female genital mutilation due to psychological problems. In the Government’s opinion, the complainant’s mother has provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that she is incapable of looking after her children and protecting her daughter from female genital mutilation. In so far as the complainant’s mother argues that she and her children would find themselves in a deplorable position if they were expelled to Côte d’Ivoire because she suffers from posttraumatic stress disorder and they would lack a social network, the Government refers to the case S.J. v. Belgium and submits that the circumstances on which the present communication is based do not fall within the scope of article 3 of the Convention. 11 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 3 July 2018, the complainant submitted her comments to the State party’s observations on the merits of the complaint. With regard to her mother not submitting a request to stay under section 64 of the Aliens Act 2000 in her own asylum case, the complainant submits that by the time the request had to be made her own complaint had already been submitted to the Committee and the request for interim measures had been granted, so there was no need for her mother to follow up on the procedure. She notes that, since the State party had already agreed not to send her family back to Côte d’Ivoire, her mother’s application would not have been taken into consideration by the authorities of the Netherlands. 5.2 With regard to the situation of women in Côte d’Ivoire and female genital mutilation, the complainant notes that the Government and NGOs primarily work on promoting women’s and children’s rights. Moreover, the fact that the Government has intervened in only 10 initiation rites over 10 months shows that it has not made the fight against female genital mutilation a priority. 11 6 European Court of Human Rights, S.J. v. Belgium (application No. 70055/10), judgment of 27 February 2014.