CAT/C/59/D/644/2014 reason why the Italian authorities had not found her in their system, another request was sent to them. On 13 June 2014, the Swedish Police received confirmation that the complainant had been in Italy since at least 1998, and that in February 2012 she had been issued a permanent residence permit without any time limit. Furthermore, her first two daughters also held valid residence permits in Italy, and the Italian authorities had registered the information concerning the birth of her youngest daughter. In view of this, by a memorandum of 19 December 2014 the Swedish Police concluded that it was possible to transfer the complainant and her children to Italy or to enforce the order to return them to Nigeria. According to the memorandum, the complainant expressed unwillingness to return to Italy, since she did not know where she could live or how she would provide for her family. She further maintained that she no longer had contact with her ex-husband and that she did not know how to get in touch with him. Against that background, the State party maintains that it is possible to transfer the complainant and her children to Italy, where they will not risk any treatment contrary to the Convention. Thus, since they are no longer in immediate danger of removal to Nigeria, they are not victims within the meaning of article 22 of the Convention.4 4.3 The State party provides a description of relevant domestic legislation and points out that the complainant’s case was considered in accordance with the Aliens Act of 2005. Provisions of the Act reflect the principles enshrined in article 3 of the Convention, and therefore the State party authorities apply the same kind of test when considering asylum applications as is used for article 3 of the Convention. 4.4 Should the Committee find the complaint admissible, the State party contends that the complainant has failed to demonstrate that she and her daughters would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of harm if returned to Nigeria. 5 It recalls that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion, and must be personal and present, even if it does not need to meet the test of being highly probable.6 In this regard, the State party asserts that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not, as such, constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his or her return to that country. 4.5 Reports about the human rights situation in Nigeria 7 indicate that female genital mutilation is common in many parts of the country. Approximately 30 per cent of Nigerian women have been subjected to genital mutilation. The number varies greatly from region to region, and the greatest problem is in the south. The State party points out that a national law forbidding female genital mutilation was enacted by the Government in 2015. Moreover, on a state level, Edo State has also enacted laws against genital mutilation. These measures, along with the work of local and international NGOs, have reduced the number of female genital mutilations practised in Nigeria. The State party also maintains 4 5 6 7 The State party refers to communication No. 264/2005, A.B.A.O. v France, decision adopted on 8 November 2007, paras. 8.3-8.4; and to the Human Rights Committee’s Views concerning communication No. 1291/2004, Dranichnikov v. Australia, adopted on 20 October 2006, para. 6.3. The State party refers to communications No. 178/2001, H.O. v Sweden, Views adopted on 13 November 2001, para.13; and No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, Views adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. The State party refers to communications No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.3; and No. 213/2002, E.J.V.M v. Sweden, Views adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 8.3. The State party refers to the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs Manskliga rattigheter i Nigeria 2010 and to a report by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Prevalence of female genital mutilation (FGM), including ethnic groups in which FGM is prevalent; available State protection, 27 July 2010, available at www.ecoi.net/local_link/144821/259833_de.html. 5