advance unedited version -CRC/C/86/D/83/2019 and that consideration should also be given to providing protection to a relative who may be accompanying the girl or woman.24 The Committee further notes that other treaty bodies have considered that subjecting a woman or girl to female genital mutilation amounts to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.25 However, in the present case the author has not raised this claim, either directly or in substance. 8.5 In the present case, the Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that, as a single mother, she would be unable to protect her daughter from being subjected to female genital mutilation in a country where 98 per cent of women have been subjected to that practice despite it being prohibited by law, as the law is not enforced. The author has also argued that she herself was subjected to female genital mutilation; suffered oppression as a result of her secret marriage; and would be unable to receive any support from her close family upon return to Somalia. The Committee takes note of the State party’s observation that, according to several reports, a mother can protect her daughter from being subjected to female genital mutilation in Somalia if she is able to resist family or community pressure; that the author failed to explain the specific risk that her daughter would run; that, as both parents are opposed to female genital mutilation and the author will not be returning to a rural area where she may become heavily dependent on the surrounding community, it must be assumed that the author would be able to resist social pressures and protect her daughter from being subjected to female genital mutilation; and that the author’s general credibility was undermined by the fact that she was not deemed credible regarding her own grounds for asylum, namely the conflict with her al-Shabaab uncle and the four-year imprisonment, and that she knowingly provided false information to the domestic authorities regarding her husband. The Committee also notes the State party’s claim that the incidents of female genital mutilation have declined in Somalia. 26 8.6 The Committee notes that the prevalence of female genital mutilation appears to have declined in Somalia, as a result of, inter alia, its prohibition under the 2012 Constitution 27 and the 2014 policy against the practice.28 However, the Committees notes that, according to reports submitted by the parties,29 the practice is still deeply engrained in Somali society. 8.7 The Committee recalls that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in decisions concerning the deportation of a child and that such decisions should ensure — within a procedure with proper safeguards — that the child will be safe and provided with proper care and enjoyment of rights. 30 In the present case, the Committee notes the arguments and information submitted to it, including the assessment of the mother’s assumed ability to resist social pressure based on her expressed opposition to the practice and on reports about the situation of female genital mutilation in Somalia. However, the Committee observes that: (a) The Refugee Appeals Board’s assessment was limited to a general reference to a report on central and southern Somalia, without assessing the specific and personal context in which the author and her daughter would be deported and without taking the best interests of the child into account and the fact that the author would not have any male 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Ibid, para. 55. See Kaba v. Canada (CCPR/C/98/D/1465/2006), para. 10.1; F.B. v. The Netherlands (CAT/C/56/D/613/2014), para. 8.7; and M.N.N. v Denmark (CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011), para. 8.8. See Danish Immigration Service, “Country of Origin Information: FGM/Female circumcision Background, numbers and tendencies” (January 2019). See Danish Immigration Service, “Thematic Paper: South Central Somalia - Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting” (January 2016), p. 7. See Somalia, Ministry of Women’s Development and Family Affairs, Female genital mutilation/cutting policy of November 2014 (supported by UNICEF Somalia). See in particular, UK Home Office, “Somalia: women fearing gender-based harm and violence” and US Department of State, “Somalia Human Rights Report 2016”, both of which indicate that the practice of female genital mutilation remains almost universal in Somalia. See joint general comment No. 3 (2017) of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and No. 22 (2017) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, paras. 29 and 33. 9