According to most of the sources consulted, the most common forms of FGM in Guinea are types I and II, as classified by the WHO. Type III or infibulation is less common and sometimes results from ineffective healing after cutting.
The medicalisation of cutting is an increasingly common phenomenon carried out primarily on young girls and in towns, despite the fact that it is prohibited by law and condemned by the WHO. It is carried out by a healthcare professional and/or in a health centre. Certain sources also mention symbolic injuring or "pretence", which they say is without sequelae compared with traditional cutting.
Some of the main reasons put forward to justify FGM are respect for tradition, social acceptance, religion (although FGM is not recommended by any religious text) and controlling female sexuality.
The sources consulted report that double cutting or re-cutting is only carried out very rarely and in certain specific cases.
According to the two demographic and health surveys (EDS-MICS) carried out by the Guinean authorities in 2005 and 2012, the prevalence of FGM was 96% and 97% respectively. The results of the 2012 EDS-MICS show that almost all Muslim women were cut, compared with 78% of Christian women. With regard to ethnic origin, there was no variation with the exception of the Kpelle, among whom the practice of cutting was less widespread; 66% of women were cut compared with almost all women in the other ethnic groups. This survey also underlines the fact that prevalence among girls from birth to 14 years of age varies depending on the age of the girl and the socio-demographic characteristics of the mother. Determining factors include whether or not the mother was cut, her level of education, place of residence, urban or rural and her well-being level.
The 2011 PSI report states that all the indicators suggest a reduction in FGM and underlines a high correlation between the intent to cut and the level of education of those surveyed.
In addition to these figures, the people encountered during the joint mission of asylum authorities in Conakry in 2011, who included health care workers, stated that FGM was becoming less common and that more and more parents, particularly intellectuals and those living in urban environments did not want their daughters to be cut. Some of these witnesses also stated that their daughter had not been cut.
This downward trend in the practice among intellectuals living in urban environments is confirmed by most of the sources contacted by Cedoca. An anthropologist specialising in Guinea added the parameter of financial resources, but stated that this development only affected a very small group of people. However, German cooperation believed that there was little, if any, change to the situation.
Opinions differed on the consequences of parents refusing to allow their daughters to be cut. Certain sources stressed the possible social marginalisation, while others did not. Most made a distinction between the situation in towns, where there was less social pressure, and that in rural environments.
Awareness campaigns were carried out jointly by the Guinean authorities and the national and international organisations present in the country. The religious authorities were also involved.
At legal level, FGM was prohibited by law, but this law was difficult to apply. In addition to the problems of accessing justice, very few victims or their parents dared to file a complaint against a cutter or a family member who had carried out the cutting.
Most of the doctors contacted by Cedoca stated that hospitals provided medical treatment for cutting victims. Psychological care, however, was almost inexistent.
The policy implemented by the Commissioner General is based on a thorough analysis of accurate and up-to-date information on the general situation in the country of origin. This information is collated in a professional manner from various, objective sources, including the EASO, the UNHCR, relevant international human rights organisations, non-governmental organisations, professional literature and coverage in the media. When determining policy, the Commissioner General does not only examine the COI Focuses written by Cedoca and published on this website, as these deal with just one aspect of the general situation in the country of origin. The fact that a COI Focus could be out-of-date does not mean that the policy that is being implemented by the Commissioner General is no longer up-to-date.
When assessing an application for asylum, the Commissioner General not only considers the actual situation in the country of origin at the moment of decision-making, he also takes into account the individual situation and personal circumstances of the applicant for international protection. Every asylum application is examined individually. An applicant must comprehensively demonstrate that he has a well-founded fear of persecution or that there is a clear personal risk of serious harm. He cannot, therefore, simply refer back to the general conditions in his country, but must also present concrete, credible and personal facts.
There is no policy paper for this country available on the website.