CRC/C/86/D/83/2019- advance unedited version supporting network in Somalia, considering that her husband currently does not reside with the author and her children; (b) The State party has argued that, as the author and her husband clearly oppose female genital mutilation and the author is not returning to a rural area where she may be more dependent on the surrounding community, she would be able to resist any social pressure and thus protect her daughter from being subjected to female genital mutilation. However, the Committee notes that the father’s position regarding female genital mutilation alleged by the State party seems irrelevant in the present case, in light of the uncontested information provided by the author that her husband currently resides in the Unites States of America and is not returning to Somalia with the author and her children. As to the State party’s reliance on the author’s ability to resist social pressure, the Committee considers that the rights of the child under article 19 of the Convention cannot be made dependent on the mother’s ability to resist family and social pressure, especially in light of the general reported context, and that State parties should take measures to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse in all circumstances. The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that it is relying on its interpretation of regional jurisprudence on other similar cases. However, the Committee notes that this interpretation cannot exempt the State party from complying with its obligations under the Convention as interpreted by the Committee; neither can this interpretation justify the non-compliance with the Committee’s Views under the Optional Protocol; (c) The evaluation of the risk that a child may be subjected to the irreversible harmful practice of female genital mutilation, in the country to which the child is being deported should be carried out following the principle of precaution and, where reasonable doubts exist that the receiving State cannot protect the child against such practices, State parties should refrain from deporting the child. 31 8.8 The Committee therefore concludes that the State party failed to consider the best interests of the child when assessing the alleged risk of the author’s daughter being subjected to female genital mutilation if deported to Somalia and to take proper safeguards to ensure the child’s well-being upon return. The Committee therefore concludes that the return of the author’s daughter to Somalia would amount to a violation of articles 3 and 19 of the Convention. 8.9 The Committee, acting under article 10 (5) of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of articles 3 and 19 of the Convention. 9. The State party is under an obligation to refrain from deporting the author’s daughter to Somalia and to ensure that she is not separated from her mother and brother.32 The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. In this regard, the State party is requested, in particular, to ensure that asylum proceeding affecting children include a best interests analysis and that, where a risk of a serious violation is invoked as a ground for non-refoulement, the specific circumstances in which the children would be returned are duly taken into account. 10. Pursuant to article 11 of the Optional Protocol on a communications procedure, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to include information about any such measures in its reports to the Committee under article 44 of the Convention. Finally, the State party is requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in the official language of the State party. 31 32 10 See Kaba v. Canada (CCPR/C/98/D/1465/2006), para. 10.1; and F.B. v. The Netherlands (CAT/C/56/D/613/2014), para. 8.7. See the joint general recommendation No. 31 (2014) of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women/general comment No. 18 (2014) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on harmful practices, para. 55 (m).