CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 avril 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 10 April 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 14778/18 Aida TOURÉ against the Netherlands lodged on 22 March 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE As in the previously communicated cases of Soumah v. the Netherlands (no. 61452/15), Chaloub and Camara v. the Netherlands (no. 7338/16), Magassouba v. the Netherlands (no. 37153/17), Kake and Camara v. the Netherlands (no. 63913/17) and Barry v. the Netherlands (no. 66238/16), the present application concerns a female rejected asylum-seeker from Guinea who fears that her minor daughter will be subjected to female genital mutilation (hereafter “FGM”) in Guinea and that she will not be able to provide protection given the high FGM rate in Guinea in general and within her ethnic group in particular as well as the social and cultural pressure. She also fears that she herself will be subjected to further FGM. The applicant alleges that their removal to Guinea will be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the applicant’s claims and the documents which have been submitted as well as information from public sources concerning the FGM prevalence in Guinea and the extent to which the Guinean authorities are able and willing to provide effective protection in this respect, would her daughter face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention if their expulsion were enforced?   2.     In the light of the applicant’s claims and the documents which have been submitted as well as public sources concerning the prevalence of further FGM in Guinea and the extent to which the Guinean authorities are able and willing to provide effective protection in this respect, would the applicant face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention if her expulsion were enforced?