CAT/C/59/D/644/2014 8.9 The Committee further observes that, although the State party’s authorities concluded that the complainant and her daughters were not entitled to refugee status or subsidiary protection, the decision of the Migration Agency of 3 April 2013, confirmed by the Migration Court and the Migration Court of Appeal, ordered their expulsion to Nigeria if they could not show that any other country would accept them. According to the Swedish Police memorandum of 19 December 2014, contained in the case file, after the complainant’s asylum request was finally dismissed, on 13 June 2014, the Italian authorities, through the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), informed the Swedish Police that the complainant and two of her daughters held valid permanent residence permits in Italy, without any time limit. The complainant has not refuted this information and has not convincingly explained why they cannot return and reside in Italy. Rather, she has contended in general fashion that her residence permit in Italy is dependent upon her ex-husband’s permit and that, even if her residence permit were independent of her husband’s, she would risk her permit being revoked, since she will not able to show that she has sufficient income to provide for herself and her daughters. Furthermore, no information provided by the parties indicates that, upon return to Italy, the complainant and her minor daughters may be at real and personal risk of female genital mutilation there or that the Italian authorities will be unable or unwilling to protect them. The Committee also notes that Italy is party to the Convention; that it has made a declaration under article 22; and that the current findings do not preclude the author from submitting a complaint against Italy in the future, should she consider that her rights have been violated by that State party. 8.10 Accordingly, in the light of the considerations above, and on the basis of all the information submitted to the Committee by the parties, the Committee considers that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that her and her daughters’ removal to Italy or their country of origin would expose them to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of treatment contrary to article 1 of the Convention. The Committee, however, is confident that the State party will give the complainant a reasonable time for her to leave the State party voluntarily, together with her minor children. 9. Accordingly, the Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the return of the complainant and her three minor daughters to Italy or Nigeria would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention by the State party. 10