[Publication date][Country]
Country of Origin Information Report
Female genital mutilation (FGM)
20 June 2008
UK Border Agency
Country of Origin Information Service
1
This COI Key Documents contains the most up-to-date publicly available information as at Cut-Off Date.
Older source material has been included where it contains relevant information not available in more recent documents.
FGM20 June 2008
Contents
Preface
Definition of Female Genital Mutilation
Origins
Trends
Paragraphs
Countries
1. Algeria...... 1.01
Extent practised...... 1.01
Legal Position...... 1.02
Protection...... 1.03
2. Angola...... 2.01
Extent practised...... 2.01
Legal Position...... 2.02
Protection...... 2.03
3. Benin...... 3.01
Extent practised...... 3.01
Legal Position...... 3.05
Protection...... 3.06
4. Botswana...... 4.01
Extent practised...... 4.01
Legal Position...... 4.02
Protection...... 4.03
5. Burkina Faso...... 5.01
Extent practised...... 5.01
Legal Position...... 5.03
Protection...... 5.04
6. Burundi...... 6.01
Extent practised...... 6.01
Legal Position...... 6.02
Protection...... 6.03
7. Cameroon...... 7.01
Extent practised...... 7.01
Legal Position...... 7.03
Protection...... 7.04
8. Cape Verde...... 8.01
Extent practised...... 8.01
Legal position...... 8.02
Protection...... 8.03
9. Central African Republic...... 9.01
Extent practised...... 9.01
Legal Position...... 9.03
Protection...... 9.04
10. Chad...... 10.01
Extent practised...... 10.01
Legal Position...... 10.03
Protection...... 10.05
11. Comoros...... 11.01
Extent practised...... 11.01
Legal Position...... 11.02
Protection...... 11.03
12. Democratic Republic of Congo...... 12.01
Extent practised...... 12.01
Legal Position...... 12.02
Protection...... 12.03
13. Republic of the Congo...... 13.01
Extent practised...... 13.01
Legal Position...... 13.02
Protection...... 13.03
14. Cote D’Ivoire...... 14.01
Extent practised...... 14.01
Legal Position...... 14.03
Protection...... 14.04
15. Djibouti...... 15.01
Extent practised...... 15.01
Legal Position...... 15.02
Protection...... 15.03
16. Egypt...... 16.01
Extent practised...... 16.01
Legal Position...... 16.05
Protection...... 16.06
17. Equatorial Guinea...... 17.01
Extent practised...... 17.01
Legal Position...... 17.02
Protection...... 17.03
18. Eritrea...... 18.01
Extent practised...... 18.01
Legal Position...... 18.03
Protection...... 18.05
19. Ethiopia...... 19.01
Extent practised...... 19.01
Legal Position...... 19.03
Protection...... 19.04
20. Gabon...... 20.01
Extent practised...... 20.01
Legal Position...... 20.02
Protection...... 20.03
21. Gambia...... 21.01
Extent practised...... 21.01
Legal Position...... 21.04
Protection...... 21.06
22. Ghana...... 22.01
Extent practised...... 22.01
Legal Position...... 22.03
Protection...... 22.06
23. Guinea...... 23.01
Extent practised...... 23.01
Legal Position...... 23.03
Protection...... 23.05
24. Guinea-Bissau...... 24.01
Extent practised...... 24.01
Legal Position...... 24.04
Protection...... 24.07
25. Kenya...... 25.01
Extent practised...... 25.01
Legal Position...... 25.04
Protection...... 25.06
26. Lesotho...... 26.01
Extent practised...... 26.01
Legal Position...... 26.02
Protection...... 26.03
27. Liberia...... 27.01
Extent practised...... 27.01
Legal Position...... 27.04
Protection...... 27.05
28. Libya...... 28.01
Extent practised...... 28.01
Legal Position...... 28.03
Protection...... 28.06
29. Madagascar...... 29.01
Extent practised...... 29.01
Legal Position...... 29.02
Protection...... 29.03
30. Malawi...... 30.01
Extent practised...... 30.01
Legal Position...... 30.03
Protection...... 30.04
31. Mali...... 31.01
Extent practised...... 31.01
Legal Position...... 31.04
Protection...... 31.05
32. Mauritania...... 32.01
Extent practised...... 32.01
Legal Position...... 32.02
Protection...... 32.04
33. Mauritius...... 33.01
Extent practised...... 33.01
Legal Position...... 33.02
Protection...... 33.03
34. Morocco...... 34.01
Extent practised...... 34.01
Legal Position...... 34.02
Protection...... 34.03
35. Mozambique...... 35.01
Extent practised...... 35.01
Legal Position...... 35.03
Protection...... 35.04
36. Namibia ...... 36.01
Extent practised...... 36.01
Legal Position...... 36.02
Protection...... 36.03
37. Niger...... 37.01
Extent practised...... 37.01
Legal Position...... 37.03
Protection...... 37.04
38. Nigeria...... 38.01
Extent practised...... 38.01
Legal Position...... 38.03
Protection...... 38.06
39. Rwanda...... 39.01
Extent practised...... 39.01
Legal Position...... 39.02
Protection...... 39.03
40. Sao Tome and Principe...... 40.01
Extent practised...... 40.01
Legal Position...... 40.02
Protection...... 40.03
41. Senegal...... 41.01
Extent practised...... 41.01
Legal Position...... 41.04
Protection...... 41.05
42. Seychelles...... 42.01
Extent practised...... 42.01
Legal Position...... 42.02
Protection...... 42.03
43. Sierra Leone...... 43.01
Extent practised...... 43.01
Legal Position...... 43.03
Protection...... 43.05
44. Somalia ...... 44.01
Extent practised...... 44.01
Legal Position...... 44.04
Protection...... 44.06
45. South Africa...... 45.01
Extent practised...... 45.01
Legal Position...... 45.02
Protection...... 45.03
46. Sudan...... 46.01
Extent practised...... 46.01
Legal Position...... 46.03
Protection...... 46.05
47. Swaziland...... 47.01
Extent practised...... 47.01
Legal Position...... 47.02
Protection...... 47.03
48. Tanzania...... 48.01
Extent practised...... 48.01
Legal Position...... 48.05
Protection...... 48.06
49. Togo...... 49.01
Extent practised...... 49.01
Legal Position...... 49.03
Protection...... 49.04
50. Tunisia...... 50.01
Extent practised...... 50.01
Legal Position...... 50.02
Protection...... 50.03
51. Uganda...... 51.01
Extent practised...... 51.01
Legal Position...... 51.03
Protection...... 51.04
52. Zambia ...... 52.01
Extent practised...... 52.01
Legal Position...... 52.02
Protection...... 52.03
53. Zimbabwe ...... 53.01
Extent practised...... 53.01
Legal Position...... 53.02
Protection...... 53.03
Annexes
Annex A – Referencesto source material
This Country of Origin Information Report contains the most up-to-date publicly available information as at 20 June 2008. 1
Older source material has been included where it contains relevant information not available in more recent documents.
FGM20 June 2008
Preface______
i This Country of Origin Information Report (COI Report) has been produced by COI Service, UK Border Agency (UKBA), for use by officials involved in the asylum/human rights determination process. The Report provides general background information about the issues most commonly raised in asylum/human rights claims made in the United Kingdom. The main body of the report includes information available up to 20 June 2008.
ii The Report is compiled wholly from material produced by a wide range of recognised external information sources and does not contain any UKBA opinion or policy. All information in the Report is attributed, throughout the text, to the original source material, which is made available to those working in the asylum/human rights determination process.
iii The Report aims to provide a brief summary of the source material identified, focusing on the main issues raised in asylum and human rights applications. It is not intended to be a detailed or comprehensive survey. For a more detailed account, the relevant source documents should be examined directly.
iv The structure and format of the COI Report reflects the way it is used by UKBA decision makers and appeals presenting officers, who require quick electronic access to information on specific issues and use the contents page to go directly to the subject required. Key issues are usually covered in some depth within a dedicated section, but may also be referred to briefly in several other sections. Some repetition is therefore inherent in the structure of the Report.
v The information included in this COI Report is limited to that which can be identified from source documents. While every effort is made to cover all relevant aspects of a particular topic, it is not always possible to obtain the information concerned. For this reason, it is important to note that information included in the Report should not be taken to imply anything beyond what is actually stated. For example, if it is stated that a particular law has been passed, this should not be taken to imply that it has been effectively implemented unless stated.
vi As noted above, the Report is a collation of material produced by a number of reliable information sources. In compiling the Report, no attempt has been made to resolve discrepancies between information provided in different source documents. For example, different source documents often contain different versions of names and spellings of individuals, places and political parties, etc. COI Reports do not aim to bring consistency of spelling, but to reflect faithfully the spellings used in the original source documents. Similarly, figures given in different source documents sometimes vary and these are simply quoted as per the original text. The term ‘sic’ has been used in this document only to denote incorrect spellings or typographical errors in quoted text; its use is not intended to imply any comment on the content of the material.
vii The Report is based substantially upon source documents issued during the previous two years. However, some older source documents may have been included because they contain relevant information not available in more recent documents. All sources contain information considered relevant at the time this Report was issued.
viii This COI Report and the accompanying source material are public documents. All COI Reports are published on the RDS section of the Home Office website and the great majority of the source material for the Report is readily available in the public domain. Where the source documents identified in the Report are available in electronic form, the relevant web link has been included, together with the date that the link was accessed. Copies of less accessible source documents, such as those provided by government offices or subscription services, are available from the COI Service upon request.
ix COI Reports are published regularly on the top 20 asylum intake countries. COI Key Documents are produced on lower asylum intake countries according to operational need. UKBA officials also have constant access to an information request service for specific enquiries.
xIn producing this COI Report, COI Service has sought to provide an accurate, balanced summary of the available source material. Any comments regarding this Report or suggestions for additional source material are very welcome and should be submitted to the UKBA as below.
Country of Origin Information Service
UK Border Agency
Apollo House
36 Wellesley Road
Croydon CR9 3RR
United Kingdom
Email:
Website:
Advisory Panel on Country Information
xiThe independent Advisory Panel on Country Information (APCI) was established in 2003 to make recommendations to the Home Secretary about the content of the UK Border Agency’s country of origin information material. The APCI welcomes all feedback on the UKBA’s COI Reports, Key Documents and other country of origin information material. Information about the Panel’s work can be found on its website at
xii In the course of its work, the APCI reviews the content of selected UKBA COI documents and makes recommendations specific to those documents and of a more general nature. The APCI may or may not have reviewed this particular document. At the following link is a list of the COI Reports and other documents which have, to date, been reviewed by the APCI:
xiiiPlease note: It is not the function of the APCI to endorse any UKBA material or procedures. Some of the material examined by the Panel relates to countries designated or proposed for designation for the Non-Suspensive Appeals (NSA) list. In such cases, the Panel’s work should not be taken to imply any endorsement of the decision or proposal to designate a particular country for NSA, nor of the NSA process itself.
Advisory Panel on Country Information:
Email:
Website:
Return to contents
Go to sources
Definition of Female Genital Mutilation(FGM) (Also known as Female Genital Cutting (FGC)
The World Health Organisation defined FGM: ‘Female genital mutilation comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the female external genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons’.[42a]
‘Female Genital Mutilation – Legal, Cultural and Medical Issues’ (p8), published by McFarland and Co in 2005, reported the World Health Organisation as grouping FGM into four categories:
”Type I, clitoridectomy, involves removing the prepuce with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris.
Type II, excision, removes the prepuce and clitoris together with partial or total excision of the labia minora.
Type III, infibulation, removes part or all of the external genitalia and stitches/narrows the vaginal opening. (In northwest Nigeria, infibulation is often performed after a clitoridectomy.
Type IV, unclassified, includes all other procedures such as pricking, piercing, or incising of the clitoris and/or labia; stretching of the clitoris and/or labia; cauterisation by burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissue; scraping of tissue surrounding the vaginal orifice (angurya cuts) or cutting of the vagina (gishiri cuts); introduction of corrosive substances or herbs into the vagina to cause bleeding or for the purpose of tightening or narrowing it, and any other procedure that falls under the definition given above.
In Islamic culture, Type I is also called sunna (‘tradition’ in Arabic); Type II, clitoridectomy or excision, is called khafd (‘reduction’ in Arabic); and Type III or infibulation, is also known as ‘pharaonic circumcision’ because it was thought to be practised in Egypt during the Pharaoh dynasties”.[4a]
Origins
‘The American Academy of Pediatrics’, in an article published in July 1998, stated:
”During the past two decades [1980s and 1990s] several international and national humanitarian and medical organisations have drawn worldwide attention to the physical harms associated with FGM. The WHO and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics have opposed FGM as a medically unnecessary practice with serious, potentially life-threatening complications. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Canada, also opposed FGM and advised their members not to perform these procedures. In 1995 the Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association recommended that all physicians in the United States strongly denounce all medically unnecessary procedures to alter female genitalia, as well as promote culturally sensitive education about the physical consequences of FGM”.[44a]
‘Female Genital Mutilation – Legal, Cultural and Medical Issues’ (p16), published by McFarland and Co in 2005 stated:
”Scholars and physicians differ as to which groups, ethnicities, and religions first practiced FC (Female Cutting) and when. The practice predates Christianity and Islam… The accounts of historian Pietro Bembo, posthumously published in 1550, reported that most likely FC originated in Egypt and the Nile valley, then spread out to the Red Sea coastal tribes with Arab traders, and then spread into eastern Sudan”.[4a]
Islam Watch, in an article dated 6 July 2007, reported: ”As a cultural practice, FGM has probably been in existence for thousands of years. It has traditionally happened across Equatorial Africa, yet in the East and Horn of Africa it appears more widespread, probably as a result of Islamist influence”.[41a]
Addressing the Islamic religious perspectives, a report of a conference, held in June 2006, ‘Female Genital Mutilation religious and legal perspectives’, published by Womankind stated: ”Islam participants argue forcefully that there is no justification for FGM in any Islamic texts or teachings. First, they emphasised that the practice is not even referred to in the Koran. It is referred to in one of the hadiths; however, as authoritative participants made clear, this hadith has been found to be weak and inauthentic”.[34b]
The report continued: ”Secondly, participants noted that the key tenets of Muslim obligation are clearly asserted in the Koran and hadiths… Yet FGM is not even mentioned. Nor can FGM be justified on the basis of following the Prophet’s example; it is not stated that any of the Prophet’s wives and daughters had undergone the procedure”.[34b]
Then addressing Christian religious perspectives, the report continued:
”Christian (Coptic) religious leaders also emphasised to the conference that there is no justification for FGM in Christian teachings; indeed, it is not even referred to in the Bible. The procedure is not undertaken as part of a religious ceremony, and no religious leader is present when it is performed. On the contrary, Christian doctrine is clear on the sanctity of the human body. For example, the first sacrament, baptism, refers explicitly to the wholeness of the body. The human body is believed to be sacred for two reasons. First of all, it was created in God’s image and, secondly, humans carry Christ in their organs. Christianity also teaches that men and women were created equal – and that women have a right to sexual pleasure”.[34b]
The WHO, in its Key Facts paper of May 2008, noted:
”Local structures of power and authority, such as community leaders, religious leaders, circumcisers, and even some medical personnel can contribute to upholding the practice. In most societies, FGM is considered a cultural tradition, which is often used as an argument for its continuation. In some societies, recent adoption of the practice is linked to copying the traditions of neighbouring groups. Sometimes, it has started as part of a wider religious or traditional revival movement”.[42a]
Trends
‘Female Genital Mutilation – Legal, Cultural and Medical Issues’ (p198), published by McFarland and Co in 2005, stated:
”The Director-General [of the World Health Organisation in 1994] believes that many people in practicing societies do not naturally see the link between female genital mutilation and the suffering of the women and children who undergo it… The WHO commissioned the Programme for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) to review the FGM programs in countries in the African and Eastern Mediterranean Regions. In 1998, PATH found that ‘little attention had been given to the status of FGM programming, the types of behaviour change strategies being implemented, their successes and failures, what lessons have been learned, and what support strategies are required if the elimination goal is to be achieved’. PATH identified cultural issues why the practice continues, but PATH also discovered the emergence of a large-scale information campaign and an increase in government involvement… Campaigns to eliminate female cutting continue to meet with success and they are causing changes in ways of life, societal roles and cultural codes”.[4a]
This publication further said (p207):
”In 1977, an international working group on FC was created in Geneva. The group’s purpose was to study FGM and work with African women and men. They sent missions to Africa to analyze the procedure in its cultural context and to identify ways to collaborate. It initiated work in Sudan, Egypt, and Kenya. In 1984, it organised a seminar in Dakar, Senegal. Collaborators were the Ministry of Public Health in Senegal, World Health Organisation (WHO), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). At this seminar they established the IAC. As an NGO, IAG Inter African Group Inter African Committee (IAC) promotes the health of women and children in Africa and in migrant communities. IAC fights harmful traditional practices including FGM and promotes beneficial ones… On 6 February 2003, the Common Agenda for Action against Female Genital Mutilation was adopted at the International Conference on Zero Tolerance to FGM held … in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The goal of the Common Agenda for Action is to eliminate FGM by 2010 in Africa and in the world”.[4a]
The World Health Organisation’s Key Facts on FGM stated:
”In 1997, the WHO issued a joint statement with UNICEF and the United Nation Population Fund (UNFPA) against the practice of FGM. A new statement, with wider UN support, was then issued in February 2008 to support increased advocacy for the abandonment of FGM. The 2008 statement documents new evidence collected over the past decade about the practice. It highlights the increased recognition of the human rights and legal dimensions of the problem and provides current data on the frequency and scope of FGM. It also summarizes research about why FGM continues, how to stop it, and its damaging effects on the health of women, girls and newborn babies. Since 1997, great efforts have been made to counteract FGM, through research, work within communities, and changes in public policy…”. [42a]