Advance unedited version CAT/C/56/D/61312014 group; that FGM is widespread in Ouinea, in particular among tbis ethnic group; that she was forced to undergo FOM in Ouinea when she was 13 years oId; and that in 2013 she had a genital reconstructive surgery whilè living in the State party. She also argues that due to this genital reconstructive surgery she can be perceived as a wo man who had never undergone FOM now; and that the pressure to undergo FOM is' not limited to direct relatives but.is a commonfeature of Ouinean patriarchal society. 8:6 The Committee also takes flote of the State party's arguments that its authorities have' thoroughly examined the complainant's allegations when examining her three asylum requests, finding that her accounts were not credible; that the fact she was a victim of FOM and that she underwent a genital reconstructive surgery are not sufficient to conc1ude that she is at risk ofbeing subjected to this practice again; that there is no evidence that she may be subjected fo examination upon return to Ouinea that would reveal the reconstructive surgery; that its Ministry of Foreign Affairs country report indicatesthat FOM is mainly practiced to gids before they turn 14 years old; and that only 1.2% of women above 19 years oid are subjected to FOM. 8.7 The Committee oDserves that although FOM is forbidden by law in Ouinea, it is still widespread in the country, with a prevalence of approximately 95% in gids and women and 91 % of members of the Peul .ethnic group. The State party maintains that only 1.2% of FOM are carried out on women over the age of nineteen. This figure, however, could be explained by the fact that the vast majority ofFOMs happen when the victims are under the age of fourteen and not yet married. It does not reduce the risk faced by unmarried women over'19 perceived not to have been subjected to it during their childhood or adolescence. ln this connection, theCommittee notes that FOM 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 subjectinga woman to FOM is contrarytothe obligations enshrined in the Convention. 8.8 In the present case, the Committee recognizes the efforts made bythe State party's authorities to verify the complainant' s accounts by carrying out an investigation in Ouinea within the first asylum proceedings. Although' thecomplainant has failed to provide elements that refute this investigation' s olitcome, as reflected in the person specific report of 12 March 2004 (see para. 4.3 above), that conc1uded that the information provided by her about her and her family' scircumstànces in Ouinea was incorrect, the Committee ' considers thaf such inconsistenées are not of a nature as to undermine the reality of the prevalence of female genital mutilation and the fact that, due to the ineffectiveness of the relevant laws, inc1uding the impunity of thé' perpetrators, victims of FMO in Ouinea do not have access to an effective remedy and to appropriate protection by the authorities. 10 In the complainant's case,' she has already beensubjected to it on one occasion, with severe consequences to her physical and psychological integrity. She undertook a reconstructive plastic surgery since she did not like her body and was unable to establish arelationship with a man (see para. 2.4). Against the backgro~nd óf the situation faced by girls and women in Ouinea, as reflected in reports provided by the parties, the Committee is of the view that in assessing the risk that the complainant would face ifreturned to her 'country of origin, the State party has failéd to take into due consideration the complainant's allegations regarding the events she experienced in Ouinea, her condition as single wo man within the Ouinea society, the specific capacity of the authorities in Ouinea to provideher with .protection so as to guarantee her physical and mental integrity, and the severe anxiety that her return to Ouinea may cause her within this context. Accordingly, the Committee finds 10 See Committee's Concluding Observations on Guinea, CAT/C/GIN/CO/l (20 June 2014), para. 17. See,also CEDAW's Concluding Observations on Guinea, CEDAW/C/GIN/C0I7-8 (14 November 2014), para. 28 and 30. 11 Bron: www.ohchr.org - Stichting Migratierecht Nederland - www.migratieweb.nl