CAT/C/59/D/644/2014 their residence there owing to the human rights situation in Nigeria and, in particular, the violence caused by Boko Haram. The complainant further claims that returning to Italy is not an option for her (see paras. 5.2-5.3 above) and that as the State party has not requested Italy to accept her transfer and that of her daughters, it is unknown whether Italy will allow her and her daughters to stay in Italy. 8.6 The Committee also takes note of the State party’s arguments that its authorities, including the Migration Court and the Migration Appeals Court, have thoroughly examined the complainant’s allegations when considering her asylum requests, finding that her accounts were not plausible since she has failed to provide any evidence in support of her allegations. Moreover, she has been able to protect her daughters from female genital mutilation so far and has not had any personal incident in her country of origin. Nor has she reported the alleged threats of female genital mutilation to the Nigerian police or requested its protection. Likewise, the State party also maintains that it does not underestimate the concerns regarding the general human rights situation in Nigeria. However, this situation does not in itself establish that the complainant and her daughters would be personally at risk if expelled to their home country. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that the complainant and two of her daughters hold valid residence permits in Italy; that they can move to that country; and that they will not be at risk of female genital mutilation in Italy and will be able to request protection to the Italian authorities, in case of need. 8.7 The Committee recalls that female genital mutilation causes permanent physical harm and severe psychological pain to the victims, which may last for the rest of their lives, and considers that the practice of subjecting a woman to female genital mutilation is contrary to the obligations enshrined in the Convention. 11 8.8 In the present case, the Committee observes that it is not disputed that the complainant belongs to the Esan ethnic group; that she lived in Edo State, in southern Nigeria, for more than two decades; that her ex-husband is from Uromi; that despite legislation punishing female genital mutilation, it is practised across Nigeria by various ethnic groups; and that approximately 30 per cent of women have been subjected to female genital mutilation. The complainant submits that the State party’s authorities have failed to take duly into account the risk she and her daughters would face if removed to Nigeria, since the authorities in their country of origin will not be able to provide them with protection. Her claims mainly rely on the fact that there is no information concerning persons who have been prosecuted in Edo State for female genital mutilation practice. However, according to reports cited by the parties as well as information in the public domain,12 in Nigeria most victims are subjected to female genital mutilation before their first birthday, female genital mutilation practice varies significantly among ethnic groups, and it remains most prevalent in southern regions among the Yoruba and Igbo ethnic groups. Against this background, the Committee observes that the complainant has not shown that female genital mutilation is practised by members of her ex-husband’s or her own ethnic groups so as to put her minor daughters at real and personal risk of a violation of article 1 of the Convention. Moreover, although she lived for more than two decades in Nigeria, she has not adduced any allegations of being personally subjected to or at risk of female genital mutilation in her country of origin. 11 12 See complaint No. 613/2014, F.B. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 20 November 2015, para. 8.7. See United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: a Statistical Overview and Exploration of the Dynamics of Change (New York, 2013, pp. 27, 28, 34 and 50); United States Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2014: Nigeria, available from https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2014humanrightsreport/#wrapper; United Kingdom Home Office, Operational Guidance Note: Nigeria, December 2013; and United Kingdom Home Office, Operational Guidance Note: Nigeria, January 2013. 9