The applicant is a Somali national, who applied for international protection on behalf of her daughter. The applicant entered Denmark in 2013 and was granted refugee status and a residence permit pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Danish Aliens Act. She gave birth to her son in 2014 and her daughter in 2016, who were both granted residence permits based on their mother’s status. In 2018, the Immigration Service decided to revoke their permits. The applicant filed a new asylum application on behalf of her daughter in 2017, on grounds that on return to Somalia she would face a risk of being forcibly circumcised, removed from the mother and married, due to family and social pressure. The application was rejected by the Danish Immigration Service and the decision upheld by the Refugee Appeals Board. The applicant and her daughter are subject to a deportation order to Somalia, and the applicant claims that her daughter’s deportation would violate her rights under Articles 3 and 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Committee noted that, according to General Comment No.6, States shall not return a child to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a risk of irreparable harm to the child. The assessment of such risk should be carried out in an age and gender-sensitive manner, considering the particular forms and manifestations of persecution experienced by children. In the Joint General Recommendation No. 31 of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women/General Comment No. 18 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Committees noted that female genital mutilation may have various health consequences and the risk of being subjected to harmful practices or being persecuted as a result of such practices should be recognised a ground for granting asylum.

In this case, the Committee noted that the Refugee Appeal Board’s assessment of the case was limited to the general situation in Somalia and did not consider the specific and personal context of the applicant and her daughter and the best interest of the child. It considered further that the rights of the child cannot be made reliable on the ability of the mother to resist family and social pressure, as noted by the State party. The evaluation of the risk that a child may be subject to harmful practice in the country of return should be carried out following the principle of precaution and, where reasonable doubt exist that the child will not be protected, State parties should not deport the child. The Committee concluded that Denmark failed to consider the best interest of the child and to take proper safeguards to ensure the child’s well-being upon return, and therefore the return of the applicant’s daughter would amount to a violation of Articles 3 and 19 of the Convention. Denmark is therefore under an obligation to stop the deportation of the applicant’s daughter to Somalia and to ensure that she is not separated from her mother and brother.