far a persecution because of religion can be accepted  here. It is difficult to see any connection with the religion of the women who are been maltreated. 2.4   Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main ? 9. Kammer [9] In a verdict of 1999 the 9th chamber of the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main  also affirms the political persecution of women from Cte d?Ivoire because of threatened genital mutilation. 10 However this decision is particularly interesting because the court applies the above described concept of political persecution as persecution by the state only on the right of political asylum in accordance with article 16a GG but not on the right of political asylum in accordance with the Geneva Convention (article 51 AuslG). Therefore it would be expected that the court would deal with the question of the substantial Convention ground in this decision. Unfortunately, this question is not addressed. The court affirms the asylum claim in accordance with the Convention alone because a life-threatening intervention threatens the plaintiff which she cannot escape in her own country. 2.5   Verwaltungsgericht Trier [10] Opposite to this jurisprudence the Verwaltungsgericht Trier denies that threatening genital mutilation in Nigeria is relevant persecution but mentions that the "Convention ground of membership of a particular social group" comes into consideration. 11 [11] The 10th senate of the HessVGH has inferred due to the fact that homosexual intercourse and the repetition of other homosexual practices in Iran are punished with death that homosexuals in Iran represent a social group according to the