CAT/C/59/D/644/2014 that it does not underestimate the concerns regarding the general human rights situation in Nigeria. This situation, however, does not in itself establish that the complainant and her family would be personally at risk if expelled to their home country. 4.6 The State party maintains that its authorities are in a very good position to assess the information submitted by an asylum seeker and to assess the credibility of his or her claims. In the complainant’s case, both the Swedish Migration Agency and the Migration Court conducted thorough examinations. The Migration Agency had an extensive interview with the complainant, which was conducted in the presence of a legal counsel and an interpreter, whom the complainant confirmed she understood well. The complainant was also given the opportunity to argue her case in writing before both the Migration Agency and the Migration Court. Throughout the asylum procedure, the complainant was represented by legal counsel. The Migration Agency and Migration Court had sufficient information to ensure that they had a solid basis for making a well-informed, transparent and reasonable risk-assessment. In the light of the material before them, they found that the complainant’s and her daughters’ return to Nigeria would not entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention. There is no reason to conclude that the authorities’ decisions were inadequate or arbitrary. In this connection, the State party points out that the Committee is not an appellate body, and that considerable weight should be given to findings of facts that are made by organs of the State party concerned. 4.7 The State party notes that the complainant has not contacted the police authorities in Nigeria to report her ex-husband’s and ex-mother-in-law’s threats regarding female genital mutilation of the daughters, and that the country information does not support her view that a person seeking protection from the police for threats regarding female genital mutilation does not receive any help. This, combined with the fact that the complainant has not previously had any problems with the Nigerian authorities, shows that the complainant has not plausibly demonstrated that the law enforcement authorities in Nigeria lack the willingness or ability to provide protection for the complainant and her daughters. 4.8 The State party also points out that, in its decision, the Migration Agency stated that the expulsion would be executed by the complainants travelling to Nigeria, if they could not show that any other country would accept them. In this connection, it maintained that, if it was possible for an individual to abide by the authorities’ decision on expulsion by travelling to another country where he or she would be admitted, the individual had an obligation to do so. Since, according to the Swedish Police memorandum of 19 December 2014, the complainant and her two older daughters have permanent residence permits for Italy, they may return to that country. It further submits that the complainant has not indicated that she has contacted the Italian authorities for protection. According to available information, Italy has specific criminal law provisions to address female genital mutilation, 8 and a large number of remedies exist under Italian law when there is a risk of such practices. 4.9 In conclusion, the State party reiterates that the complainant has failed to demonstrate that there are substantial grounds for believing that she and her daughters would personally be at risk of torture if returned to Nigeria or Italy. Consequently, their expulsion to Nigeria would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 5 January 2016, the complainant provided her comments on the State party’s observations and reiterated her previous allegations. 8 6 The State party refers to a report by the European Institute for Gender Equality, Female Genital Mutilation in the European Union and Croatia, 2013, available from http://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/eige-report-fgm-in-the-eu-and-croatia.pdf.