advance unedited version -CRC/C/86/D/83/2019 law of the European Court of Human Rights, 19 according to which the crucial part of assessment of cases concerning female genital mutilation is whether the family can ensure that their child is not subjected to the practice. Thus, the Coordination Committee decided to apply the legal standard set forth by the European Court of Human Rights to cases concerning female genital mutilation. The Refugee Appeals Board has since assessed such cases, including the present case, in accordance with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. 6.3 The State party submits that the information provided in the author’s comments of 24 January 2020 regarding her education, employment and circumstances upon her return have already been assessed by the Refugee Appeals Board. The State party reiterates that the Board could not find as facts the author’s claim that she was to be considered as a single mother without any male network in Somalia and that the decision regarding female genital mutilation is ultimately the mother’s. The State party further notes that, according to the available background information, those who have been exposed to western ideas and concepts are perceived to be more able to withstand social pressure.20 As concerns Ceelbuur not being a “big city”, the State party clarifies that, in its observations of 1 November 2019, it merely stated that Ceelbuur is not a rural area and that it is a town with an estimated population of almost 80,000. The State party also states that, by having resided in Ceelbuur between 1988 and 2013, the author has demonstrated her ability to make a living there. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 20 of its rules of procedure, whether or not the claim is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the author’s uncontested statement that decisions by the Danish Refugee Appeals Board are not subject to appeal and that therefore all domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument, uncontested by the author, that the Immigration Appeals Board’s decision of 11 March 2019 confirming the Danish Immigration Service’s decision to revoke the residence permits of the author’s children can be appealed and that this part of the communication should therefore be declared inadmissible. The Committee notes, however, that, in reviewing the Immigration Service’s decision to revoke the permits granted on the basis of family reunification, the Immigration Appeals Board only assessed whether the author’s children had developed special ties with Denmark and whether there were any other personal circumstances, including health-related, that would make the revocation especially burdensome. It further notes that, in this decision, the risk of female genital mutilation was not discussed and that the Immigration Appeals Board explicitly stated that the general conditions of Somalia may be a question of asylum, which was not part of its assessment. Thus, the Committee considers that an appeal against the Immigration Appeals Board’s decision would not have been an effective remedy within the meaning of article 7 (e) of the Optional Protocol as it would not have examined the author’s claims presented to the Committee, namely, the risk that Y.A.M. would face the risk of being subjected to female genital mutilation in case of return to Somalia. The fact that the decision by the Immigration Appeals Board was appealable does not therefore preclude the Committee from examining the author’s claims based on articles 3 and 19 of the Convention that her daughter runs a risk of female genital mutilation, for which domestic remedies have 19 20 The State party cites the European Court of Human Rights, Emily Collins and Ashley Akaziebie v. Sweden (application No. 23944/05), Sow v. Belgium (application Np. 27081/13), and R.B.A.B. and Others v. The Netherlands (application No. 7211/06). See UK Home Office, “Country Information and Guidance. Somalia: Women fearing gender-based harm and violence” (2016), p. 24. Available at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/pages/attachments/2016/08/04/uk_somalia_women_fearing _082016.pdf. See also Danish Immigration Service, “Thematic Paper: South Central Somalia Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting” (January 2016), p. 24. 7