C Explanatory memorandum by Ms Liliane
Maury Pasquier, rapporteur for opinion
1. Female genital mutilation is
a practice deeply entrenched in the social, economic and political
structures of the communities that perpetuate it. It can play an
important role in defining the cultural identity of girls and women,
hence is perceived as a significant cultural determinant of the
identity of the communities that practise it.
Note However, although the right to
participate in cultural life is protected by international law,
Article18.3.of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights establishes that limitations to manifest one’s beliefs may
be applied to protect the health or fundamental rights and freedoms
of others.
Note
2. Hence, considering that female genital mutilation is a harmful
practice that violates several human rights and conventions as suggested
in the explanatory memorandum of Ms Fresko-Rolfo’s report
Note and that is obviously
not based on any medical indication or benefit as all medical experts
will agree, there is no justification for pursuing this harmful
practice. I would like to personally underline this based on my
long-standing experience as a medical professional (midwife) in
Switzerland. At Parliamentary Assembly level, the fact that female
genital mutilation is a serious human rights violation was already
pointed out through a report prepared by the Social Affairs Committee
leading up to
Resolution
1952 (2013) and
Recommendation
2023 (2013) on children’s right to physical integrity.
Note
3. Because they generally lack influence on the decision made
by their family, girls are particularly powerless and the procedure
is forced upon them. Furthermore, studies have shown that in some
countries the age of girls who are coerced into undergoing female
genital mutilation has been decreasing.
Note Hence
it is important to send out a strong signal about the condemnable
nature of this practice (Amendment A). Girls and women at risk of
female genital mutilation generally have no or few means and support
to oppose the will of their family and rarely have someone to turn
to in this matter. Therefore, to prevent female genital mutilation from
happening, it is essential to provide girls and women with an opportunity
to escape from their isolation. This opportunity may be offered
by offices or institutions from which they could seek help, as rightly
pointed out in the draft resolution (paragraph 5.7).
4. Because of the strong cultural forces driving the perpetuation
of female genital mutilation, it is particularly important to develop
a cultural understanding and sensitivity so as not to stigmatise
the communities in which it is still performed and to ensure that
positive attention be paid to any attempts to prevent the mutilation
on the girls concerned. For this reason, it is particularly important
for professionals in contact with potential victims and their families
to be trained to approach families in a sensitive manner, to improve
the chances of convincing them to abstain from the planned procedures
and deal with the fear of stigmatisation of girls having escaped the
practice (Amendment B). The same culturally sensitive approach needs
to be followed for survivors of female genital mutilation to encourage
them to search help and not stay isolated in their suffering following
the procedure (Amendment D).
5. Whilst the draft resolution already points to the crucial
role played by professionals of various backgrounds in contact with
children, it is also essential that doctors, teachers, social workers
and others, suspecting that a woman or a girl may have suffered
or is threatened with female genital mutilation, receive adequate
legal protection to report their suspicion without fears of backlashes
from the families. Indeed, a lack of such protection may discourage
reporting of suspicious cases, hence inhibiting the prosecution
of crimes and preventing survivors from receiving adequate care
(Amendment C). I recall that the Assembly had already addressed
the crucial issue of reporting in the framework of another activity
(relating to sexual violence against children) which then led to
Resolution 1980 (2014) “Increasing the reporting of suspected sexual abuse
of children”; I believe that the conclusions drawn on the principle
of reporting also apply to the case of female genital mutilation.
6. Finally, as noted by the rapporteur, Ms Fresko-Rolfo, herself
in paragraphs 39 and 40 of her explanatory memorandum, both the
Parliamentary Assembly – in
Resolution
1765 (2010) – and the Council of Europe as a whole – in its Convention
on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic
Violence (CETS No. 210, “Istanbul Convention”) – require that not
only female genital mutilation itself be recognised as potential
grounds for an asylum claim, but also the well-founded fear of female
genital mutilation (Amendment E). This is all the more important
since, as noted by the rapporteur in paragraph 41 of the explanatory
memorandum, women wishing to emigrate are occasionally encouraged
to undergo the practice.
