116 GENDER PERSPECTIVES ON TORTURE: Law and Practice FGM.33 Each country adopts a different interpretation of the Refugee Convention and a different gender-sensitive approach toward the meaning of persecution. The lack of common legally binding provisions recognizing FGM as a specific ground for grant­ ing refugee status also limits the non-refoulement of women with FGM or those whose daughters risk being subjected to the practice, despite the existence of guidelines by UNHCR on gender-re­ lated persecutions34 and refugee claims involving FGM35. National courts need to evaluate asy­ lum claims on a case-by-case basis, by assessing whether FGM can be defined as persecution, the seriousness of the persecution, if the persecution is related to one of the grounds in the Geneva Convention, and the reliability of the asylum-seeker’s individual claim. Hence, the implementa­ tion of national and international law provisions and guidelines on non-refoulement for receiving States that recognize FGM as grounds for seeking asylum is recommended and in line with the European Parliament resolution adopted on 8 March 201636, as well as article 61 of the Istanbul Convention. A milestone for the international protection of women against FGM was the recognition of FGM as a form of torture and other ill-treatment by different national and international bodies37. As a result, the European Court of Human Rights began applying article 3 of the 1950 European Convention of Human rights,38 meaning that every State has the obligation to not return or expel a woman to a country where she could be subjected to FGM 39. It is important to emphasize that even if a woman has already been subjected to FGM, due to the permanent and irreversible nature of FGM, she may still need international protection to not be returned to her country of nationality, particularly to a State where reinfibulation is common practice40. In some cases, asylum claims were denied for various reasons, including failing to estab­ lish grounds as provided under the Geneva Convention and presuming that a woman who has already subjected to FGM lacks the fear of persecution because “FGM is generally performed only once”41. As Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan E. Méndez stated, the prohibition of refoulement is 33 The Asylum Qualification Directive adopted in late 2011 highlighted already the necessity to introduce a « common concept of the persecution ground "membership of a particular social group". For the purposes of defining a particular social group, issues arising from an applicant's gender, including gender identity and sexual orientation, which may be related to certain legal traditions and customs, resulting in for example genital mutilation, forced sterilization or forced abortion, should be given due consideration insofar as they are related to the applicant's well-founded fear of persecution.» Directive 2011/95/EU,13 December 2011. 34 UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection: Gender-Related Persecution within the context of Article 1A (2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, HCR/GIP/02/01, 7 May 2002. 35 UNHCR Guidance Note on Refugee Claims relating to Female Genital Mutilation, May 2009. 36 European Parliament resolution of 8 March 2016 on the situation of women refugees and asylum seekers in the EU (2015/2325(INI)). This resolution recognizes FGM as a form of violence and discrimination and declared it a form of persecution; states are urged to foresee FGM as valid ground for seeking asylum in the EU. 37 For example: Committee Against Torture, General Comment No. 2: Implementation of Article 2 by States Parties, 24 January 2008, CAT/C/GC/2, para. 18, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/ docid/47ac78ce2.html; Human Rights Committee (HRC), General Comment No. 28: Article 3 (The equality of rights between men and women), 29 March 2000, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.10, para. 11, available at: http:// www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/ 45139c9b4.html. 38 Emily Collins and Ashley Akaziebie v. Sweden, European Court of Human Rights, Application no. 23944/05, 8 March 2007. 39 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment art 3 states that:” No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture”. 40 In some countries, women risk to be reinfibulated several times after each childbirth or upon marriage in order to maintain the “purity” of the woman. 41 In Re A-T 2007.