CRC/C/89/D/77/2019

GE.22-03484 (E) 290322 xx0322

Committee on the Rights of the Child

Views adopted by the Committee under the Optional

Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a

communications procedure, concerning communications

Nos. 77/2019, 79/2019 and 109/2019*, **, ***

Communication submitted by:

F.B. et al. (represented by counsel, Marie Dosé)

and D.A. et al. (represented by counsel, Martin

Pradel)

Alleged victims:

S.B. et al.

State party:

France

Dates of communications:

1 March, 13 March and 25 November 2019

(initial submissions)

Date of adoption of Views:

8 February 2022

Subject matter:

Repatriation of children whose parents are linked

to terrorist activities

Procedural issue:

Extraterritorial jurisdiction

Substantive issues:

Protective measures; right to life; access to

medical care; arbitrary detention

Articles of the Convention:

2, 3, 6, 19, 20, 24 and 37

Articles of the Optional Protocol:

5 (1) and (2) and 7 (e) and (f)

1.1

The authors of the communications are: F.B., acting on behalf of her grandchildren

S.B. (2015),1 A.B. (2016) and A.S.B. (2018); N.S., acting on behalf of her grandchildren K.A.

(2015) and M.A. (2018); S.A., acting on behalf of her grandchildren H.K. (2010), S.K. (2013)

and H.K. (2016); Z.B., acting on behalf of her grandson S.B. (2017); A.D., acting on behalf

of her grandchildren A.S. (2015), S.S. (2016), A.S. (2017) and I.S. (2017); A.N.R., acting on

behalf of her grandchildren O.G. (2011), A.G. (2013), H.G. (2014), S.J.G. (2015), M.G.

(2016) and S.G. (2018); S.D., acting on behalf of her niece I.J. (2008); M.D., acting on behalf

* Adopted by the Committee at its eighty-ninth session (31 January–11 February 2022).

** The following members of the Committee participated in the consideration of the communication:

Suzanne Aho, Hynd Ayoubi Idrissi, Rinchen Chophel, Bragi Gudbrandsson, Philip Jaffé, Sopio

Kiladze, Gehad Madi, Faith Marshall-Harris, Benyam Dawit Mezmur, Clarence Nelson, Otani

Mikiko, Luis Ernesto Pedernera Reyna, José Ángel Rodríguez Reyes, Ann Skelton, Velina Todorova,

Benoit Van Keirsbilck and Ratou Zara.

*** A joint opinion by Committee members Sopio Kiladze, Luis Ernesto Pedernera Reyna and Benoit

Van Keirsbilck (concurring) is annexed to the present Views.

1 The victims’ initials are followed by their year of birth in brackets.

United Nations

CRC/C/89/D/77/2019

CRC/C/89/D/79/2019

CRC/C/89/D/109/2019

Convention on the

Rights of the Child

Distr.: General

9 March 2022

English

Original: French

CRC/C/89/D/77/2019

CRC/C/89/D/79/2019

CRC/C/89/D/109/2019

2

GE.22-03484

of his niece S.D. (2013);2 L.L., acting on behalf of his grandchildren Q.L. (2010), H.L. (2014),

I.L. (2016) and A.L. (2018); P.D., acting on behalf of her grandchildren E.C. (2009), A.H.

(2012), I.H. (2014) and Y.D. (2018); A.E., acting on behalf of his nephews A.R.E. (2015)

and H.E. (2017); S.G., acting on behalf of her grandson N.B. (2016); I.Z., acting on behalf

of her nephew S.B. (2015);3 F.F., acting on behalf of her grandson Y.H. (2016); N.B., acting

on behalf of her grandson S.B. (2017); N.B., acting on behalf of her nephews D.B. (2013),

A.B. (2014) and S.B. (2015); L.H., L.H. and D.A., acting on behalf of their grandchildren

M.A. (2013), A.A. (2014), J.A. (2016), A.A. (2017), S.H. (2017) and R.A. (2018); and C.D.

and A.F., acting on behalf of their grandchildren L.F. (2003), A.F. (2006), S.F. (2011), N.F.

(2014) and A.A. (2017).

1.2

The authors are nationals of France, with the exception of F.F., who is a national of

Algeria and resides in France. The victims are all children of French nationals – relatives of

the authors – who are alleged to have collaborated with Da’esh. Some of the children were

born in the Syrian Arab Republic, while others travelled there with their parents at a young

age. They are currently being held in the Rawj, Ayn Isa and Hawl camps in the north-east of

the country, which are under the control of the Syrian Democratic Forces. The authors claim

that the State party has not taken the measures necessary to repatriate the children to France

and that this failure to act constitutes a violation of articles 2, 3, 6, 19, 20, 24 and 37 of the

Convention. The authors are represented by counsel. The Optional Protocol entered into force

for the State party on 7 April 2016.

1.3

On 13 and 27 March and 4 December 2019, in accordance with article 6 of the

Optional Protocol, the working group on communications, acting on behalf of the Committee,

rejected the authors’ request for interim measures consisting in the repatriation of the children

to France. However, the Committee requested the State party to take the diplomatic measures

necessary to protect the right to life and integrity of the children, including by ensuring that

they have access to any medical care that they may need.

1.4

On 30 September 2020, at its eighty-fifth session, and on 4 February 2021, at its

eighty-sixth session, the Committee examined the admissibility of the three communications

and found them admissible insofar as they raised issues relating to articles 2, 3, 6, 19, 20, 24

and 37 of the Convention. The Committee concluded that the State party does exercise

jurisdiction over the children who are the subject of the communications. The Committee

noted the parties’ statements that S.H. and his mother were repatriated to France on 9

December 20194 and that S.D. and S.B. were repatriated to France on 15 March 2019.5 In the

light of this information, the Committee discontinued its consideration of the

communications in respect of S.H., S.D. and S.B. For more information on the facts, the

complaint, the parties’ observations and comments on the admissibility of the

communications and the Committee’s decisions in that regard, see the decisions on

admissibility.6

1.5

Following the Committee’s decisions on the admissibility of the three

communications, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of communication

No. 77/2019 on 23 June 2021. In its submission, it reported that O.G., A.G., H.G. and S.G.

had been repatriated in June 2020 and that K.A. and M.A. had been repatriated in January

2021. The authors confirmed in their reply of 20 September 2021 that the complaint had

become moot in respect of O.G., A.G., H.G., S.G., K.A. and M.A. They also noted that the

communication had become moot in respect of S.B., who had been expelled from Turkey on

22 July 2021.

2 Repatriated on 15 March 2019.

3 Repatriated on 15 March 2019.

4 S.H. et al. v. France (CRC/C/85/D/79/2019-CRC/C/85/D/109/2019), para. 9.3.

5 S.B. et al. v. France (CRC/C/86/D/R.77/2019), para. 8.3.

6 S.H. et al. v. France (CRC/C/85/D/79/2019-CRC/C/85/D/109/2019); and S.B. et al. v. France

(CRC/C/86/D/R.77/2019).

CRC/C/89/D/77/2019

CRC/C/89/D/79/2019

CRC/C/89/D/109/2019

GE.22-03484

3

State party’s observations on the merits

2.1

On 22 and 23 June 2021, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of

the communications. It recalls that it has repatriated more minors – 35 French minors in total

– than any other country in Western Europe and that it is actively contributing to the

humanitarian response in support of displaced persons and refugees in the north-east of the

Syrian Arab Republic.

2.2

The State party emphasizes that, to date, the authors have not provided any evidence

that the right to life and right to health of the children who are the subject of the present

communications are under threat, or that the children are being arbitrarily detained by the

Syrian Democratic Forces. It is difficult for the Forces to keep control over the camp and to

gain access to certain areas; as a result, they are unable to identify and locate the foreign

nationals who are being held there. In particular, in communication No. 77/2019, the authors

do not give the exact location of some of the children.7 Lastly, as regards the child victims

allegedly being held in Rawj, the information provided by the authors about the conditions

in which they are being held is very general and relates mainly to the situation in Hawl.

Consequently, to date, there is no evidence that these children are in the Rawj and Hawl

camps8 or that they are being subjected to the alleged violations of the Convention.

2.3

In any case, even if the children were being held in the Rawj camp, that would not

mean that there had been a violation of the Convention. First of all, regarding the claim of

arbitrary detention, the State party notes that the fact that the authorities in the north-east of

the Syrian Arab Republic do not constitute a State does not render the detention of the child

victims – who are parties to a non-international armed conflict – arbitrary. Such detention is

covered by international humanitarian law,9 which allows for the detention of persons who

have fought on behalf of Da’esh, as well as their spouses and children, for imperative reasons

of security.10

2.4

The State party asserts that it cannot be concluded from either the Convention or the

work or Views of the various United Nations committees that States parties have a positive

obligation to repatriate their nationals who may be at risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.

The European Court of Human Rights has not made reference to any such obligation either.

In practice, such an obligation would conflict with the principle of the sovereignty of the

States in which violations are allegedly being committed. It would also go beyond the

commitment that States intended to make when they ratified the Convention, which cannot

be interpreted in that way.

2.5

It does not by any means follow from customary international law, international case

law or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 that States have an obligation

to repatriate their nationals, including when they are likely to be subjected to inhuman or

degrading treatment abroad. While repatriation may, in certain circumstances, be one of the

ways in which consular assistance is provided, it is by no means an obligation for the sending

State. The fact that the vast majority of States members of the Council of Europe are not

taking steps to repatriate their nationals shows that there is a consensus on this matter, for if

they were under such an obligation, they would all have opened negotiations to that end.

Furthermore, neither the Conseil d’État (the highest administrative court) nor the

Constitutional Council has found that the State party has any such obligation under domestic

law.

2.6

Contrary to what the Committee stated in its decisions on the admissibility of the

communications, the State party does not in any way have the “capability” to repatriate the

7 In a letter to the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, the authors stated that the mother and

children had not been located.

8 To the State party’s knowledge, the Ayn Isa camp has been dismantled and several escapes were

reported when that occurred.

9 Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and any applicable customary law.

10 The International Committee of the Red Cross considers that non-State groups may also impose non-

criminal detention, or internment, on the basis of international humanitarian law. See the commentary

on article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (para. 728), available on the

website of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

CRC/C/89/D/77/2019

CRC/C/89/D/79/2019

CRC/C/89/D/109/2019

4

GE.22-03484

children who are the subject of the present communications. Their repatriation does not, as

the authors claim, depend solely on the willingness of the Government of the State party to

take action but on many factors, including the consent of the authorities in the north-east of

the Syrian Arab Republic, who are detaining them;11 the consent of the mothers to the

repatriation of their children;12 the difficulties encountered by the Syrian Democratic Forces

in identifying and locating foreign nationals; the fact that the French nationals who are being

held in the Rawj camp are under the control not of a sovereign State but of de facto authorities,

which means that the mothers cannot be extradited; and the complexity and dangerousness

of such missions, which naturally depend on the relations that each State has with the various

actors in the armed conflict that continues to rage in the north-east of the Syrian Arab

Republic. Members of Da’esh hiding within the camp itself pose a security risk for

repatriation operations. Several members of the camp’s internal security forces (Asayish) and

several humanitarian workers have been murdered inside the camp in recent months.

2.7

In any event, if the Committee were to find that the State party had an obligation to

repatriate its nationals, this could only be understood to mean an obligation of conduct.

Author’s comments on the State party’s observations

Communication No. 77/2019

3.1

In their comments dated 20 September 2021, the authors note that the French

intelligence services had already been able to draw up an accurate and regularly updated

register of the children in the camps in the north-east of the Syrian Arab Republic, including

information on their civil status, their location and, for those who were not born abroad, the

date of their arrest, the date of their arrival at the camps and the date of their departure for

the Syrian Arab Republic.13 Moreover, in practice, the supposed “obstacles” to repatriation

invoked by the State party, including the lack of diplomatic and consular representatives in

the Syrian Arab Republic, did not in any way prevent the State party from repatriating

nationals on five occasions in the past, since the conditions allowed for it to send French

delegations to oversee the operation on the ground. Repatriation is all the more feasible as

the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria frequently reiterates its call for

international cooperation and for States to repatriate their nationals from the camps.

3.2

The authors consider that the information regarding the whereabouts of the children

cannot be invoked as grounds for inadmissibility, since the Committee has already declared

the communication admissible and must now make a decision on the merits. In any case, the

question of their whereabouts is not an insurmountable obstacle to repatriation.

3.3

The authors note that the State party does not contest the allegation that it failed to

meet its obligations under the Convention. They argue that States parties have a positive

obligation to take measures to protect the rights of the child, including measures to prevent

or put an end to any infringement of the rights enshrined in the Convention, including by

third parties.14 The authors maintain that the State party is choosing not to take the positive

measures that it can reasonably be expected to take in order to protect and ensure the rights

of the children concerned, even though it is well aware that they are being subjected to serious

rights violations.

3.4

According to the authors, the French authorities’ decision not to repatriate the children

in question violates their right to non-discrimination as enshrined in article 2 of the

11 In order to hand over the persons concerned, the authorities would need to issue an administrative

expulsion order, but the State party has not had diplomatic or consular representatives in the Syrian

Arab Republic since 2012.

12 The State party’s position is that the authors’ daughters and sisters should be tried locally. However,

the children concerned will be repatriated if their mothers agree and if conditions allow.

13 Luc Mathieu, Willy Le Devin and Dominique Albertini, “État islamique : un rapatriement

programmé, préparé, mais gelé” (Islamic State: plans for repatriation put on ice), Libération (Paris), 4

April 2019.

14 European Court of Human Rights, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,

Application No. 39630/09, Judgment, 13 December 2012, para. 198.

CRC/C/89/D/77/2019

CRC/C/89/D/79/2019

CRC/C/89/D/109/2019

GE.22-03484

5

Convention, read in conjunction with articles 3, 6, 16,15 24 and 37. The implicit decisions to

deny repatriation to these children were clearly prompted by the activities of their parents,

who are suspected or known to be linked to terrorist organizations. Other French nationals

have been repatriated without there being any clear, consistent and established criteria that

show why orphans should be considered more deserving of repatriation than children

accompanied by their mothers, when both groups are equally at risk of violations of the

principle of the best interests of the child and of their rights to life, family and health and

their right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or unlawful deprivation of

liberty.

3.5

As regards the substance of article 3 of the Convention, it cannot be denied that the

State party’s failure to repatriate the children undermines the protection of their best interests,

as it will result in their being detained in the camps for an extended and indefinite period, in

conditions that threaten their survival and physical integrity. They face a severe lack of health

care, food, water, sanitation facilities and education and they are at risk of indoctrination.

From a procedural standpoint, owing to the State party’s particularly opaque policy of

repatriation on a case-by-case basis and the lack of an explicit decision to refuse repatriation

(the various requests for repatriation that have been made remain unanswered), the “decision”

of the French authorities not to repatriate the children does not in any way indicate that the

best interests of the child were a primary consideration or were even taken into account. In

order to fulfil its obligations under article 3 of the Convention, the State party should arrange

for the joint repatriation of the mothers and children concerned, in order to preserve the

family environment.

3.6

In addition, the authors maintain that there has been disproportionate interference with

the children’s right to life, survival and development (Convention, art. 6), their right to

maintain family relations with close relatives such as their grandparents, uncles and aunts

who are the authors of the communication (art. 16), their right to the highest attainable

standard of health (art. 24) and their right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading

treatment or to be deprived of their liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily (art. 37). The authors

consider that the lack of action by the State party in this regard constitutes a failure to

discharge its positive obligation to prevent all such violations. The State party was fully

aware of the general situation in the camps in the north-east of the Syrian Arab Republic and

was alerted to the specific situation of the children concerned through numerous letters from

the authors’ counsel and explicit requests for repatriation. Instead of taking all the measures

available to it to put an end to these violations (repatriation being the only measure that is

reasonable and in line with its obligations), the State party has chosen to let them continue.

3.7

Although the authors acknowledge that the Convention does not explicitly establish a

specific positive obligation to repatriate children who are being detained in the camps in the

north-east of the Syrian Arab Republic, they assert that such an obligation can be inferred in

this case from the State party’s positive obligation to ensure the rights of the child. They

argue that the only way in which the State party can fulfil its positive obligations in this case

in accordance with international law is to repatriate the children concerned16 and that this

gives rise to a specific positive obligation to do so, because of the specific nature and gravity

of the situation. This positive obligation can also be interpreted in the light of the consular

protection mechanism provided for in public international law.

Communications No. 79/2019 and No. 109/2019

3.8

In their comments dated 29 September 2021, the authors informed the Committee that,

according to the latest data published by the non-governmental organization Save the

Children on 23 September 2021, 62 children – or approximately 2 per week – have died in

the Hawl and Rawj camps since the beginning of 2021. Moreover, another threat, namely the

spread of new Da’esh cells in these camps, is likely to become increasingly difficult to

15 In their initial submission, the authors invoked article 19 rather than article 16 of the Convention.

16 See A/HRC/46/36, para. 30; and Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, “Third-party

intervention”, document CommDH (2021)21, para. 18 (in the case H.F. and M.F. v. France and J.D.

and A.D. v. France, applications No. 24384/19 and No. 44234/20).

CRC/C/89/D/77/2019

CRC/C/89/D/79/2019

CRC/C/89/D/109/2019

6

GE.22-03484

manage.17 Many French and international institutions have unanimously condemned the

living conditions in which French nationals – especially children – are being held in the

camps in the north-east of the Syrian Arab Republic and the State party’s refusal to repatriate

them. The authors are concerned about the physical and mental health of the children, their

living conditions in the Rawj camp and the fact that they do not have access to appropriate

medical care or education. 18 Moreover, the State party knows perfectly well where the

children are located within the Rawj camp, contrary to its claims.

3.9

The authors consider that, since the Committee has established that the children who

are the subject of the present communications are under the jurisdiction of the State party,

the State party cannot refuse to take the measures necessary to protect its minor nationals

without failing to honour its international obligations under the Convention. They note that

the political and religious views of the children’s parents – however reprehensible they may

be on account of their links to an extremist ideology that is against the interests of the State

party – were evidently taken into account by the State party in its decision not to ensure the

children’s rights, in violation of articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

3.10

Even though the State party has known for more than two years that the children who

are the subject of the present communications are being held in very poor sanitary conditions

in camps that are situated in an area of armed conflict and are at risk of death or serious injury,

it refuses to take the measures necessary to ensure respect for the rights enshrined in article

6 of the Convention. It has to be acknowledged that more than 250 children of French

nationality are still being held in camps in the north-east of the Syrian Arab Republic. By

deciding to repatriate some children and not others, the State party is distinguishing between

children in a way that is unacceptable and contrary to its international obligations. The

repatriation of the children together with their mothers would be in the best interests of the

children. In any event, the French authorities have not taken any steps to establish whether

the mothers concerned would consent to their children being repatriated without them.

3.11

Recalling that six of the children who are the subject of the present communications

were born on Syrian territory to parents with French nationality, the authors assert that the

situation faced by the children violates their fundamental rights to be registered after birth

and to acquire a nationality (in the case of children born in the camps) and to preserve their

identity and family relations, under articles 7 and 8 of the Convention.19

3.12

With reference to articles 20, 24 and 2820 of the Convention, the authors complain that

there is a lack of medical care, as some of the children have been suffering from war injuries

for several years and are therefore at risk of illness, injury and imminent death. Moreover, all

of the children who are the subject of the present communications are, at the very least,

affected by the lack of access to water and food. They are thus exposed to the harmful

consequences that malnutrition can have in children of such a young age.

3.13

Lastly, with reference to article 37 of the Convention, the authors recall that the

children who are being detained in the camps in the north-east of the Syrian Arab Republic

are not subject to any detention orders and that no legal action is being taken against them

locally. As to the State party’s claim that the deprivation of liberty to which the children are

being subjected constitutes administrative internment in the context of a non-international

armed conflict, the authors point out that this exceptional measure is permissible only if the

security of the State makes it “absolutely necessary” 21 or for “imperative reasons of

security”.22 In the present case, the detention of the children in the camps quite clearly cannot

17 See S/2021/68.

18 A.F., who is 14 years old, suffered a serious injury to his left foot during a bombing incident and

needs urgent orthopaedic surgery, without which he may lose the use of his foot permanently; L.F.,

who is 17 years old, is facing the threat of forced and early marriage; and one of the grandchildren of

the author D.A. is asthmatic, while another has a broken arm and no access to the appropriate surgical

treatment.

19 Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention were not mentioned in the initial submissions.

20 Article 28 of the Convention was not mentioned in the initial submissions.

21 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, art. 42.

22 Ibid., art. 78.

CRC/C/89/D/77/2019

CRC/C/89/D/79/2019

CRC/C/89/D/109/2019

GE.22-03484

7

be justified on either of these two grounds. On the contrary, it is the security of the children

that is under threat.

3.14

The children who are the subject of the present communications are in such a dire

situation that repatriation to French territory is the only measure that can effectively protect

them. It should also be noted that the State party maintains regular contact with

representatives of the Syrian Democratic Forces in order to monitor the changing situation in

the Syrian Arab Republic. The State party is therefore in sufficiently close contact with the

Syrian Democratic Forces to be able to ensure that the children detained in the area receive

the protection to which they are entitled.

Third-party intervention on the merits

4.1

On 23 July 2021, the Defender of Rights submitted a third-party intervention on the

merits of the three communications. After investigating similar complaints, she issued a

decision on 22 May 2019 in which she found several violations of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human

Rights) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child and made recommendations to the

Government of France. According to the Defender of Rights, the situation of the children

who have been held in these camps, in an area of armed conflict, for several months or even

years and, in some cases, since birth, undoubtedly constitutes inhuman and degrading

treatment that puts their lives at risk within the meaning of articles 6 and 37 of the Convention

and is contrary to the best interests of the child as protected by article 3. The situation also

violates other fundamental rights, including the right to be registered after birth and to acquire

a nationality (in the case of children born in the camps), the right to preserve one’s identity

and family relations (Convention, arts. 7–8), the rights to protection provided by the State

party and to health care (arts. 19–20 and 24) and the right to education (art. 28).

4.2

In the face of a situation that has been recognized as violating the Convention and

pursuant to the principle of the best interests of the child set out in article 3 of the Convention,

the State party has a number of obligations towards these children, who are French nationals.

Some of these obligations are positive, such as the obligation to adopt appropriate and

effective measures to put an end to the treatment arising from the conditions of detention in

the camps as soon as possible and to provide the children with protection. The Defender of

Rights considers that the only way to ensure that the children are protected and to end the

ongoing violations of their fundamental rights is to arrange for them to be returned to French

territory with their mothers and to be assisted by the competent services. The fact that the

State party has already repatriated a number of children shows that this measure – which

these families have been requesting for months to no avail – is perfectly feasible.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Further consideration of admissibility

5.1

Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must

decide, in accordance with rule 20 of its rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol,

whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol.

5.2

The Committee notes the developments relating to the admissibility of the three

communications that occurred after it had adopted its decisions on admissibility. With regard

to communication No. 77/2019, the Committee notes the parties’ statements concerning the

repatriation to France of O.G., A.G., H.G., S.G., K.A., M.A. and S.B. in June 2020, in January

2021 and on 22 July 2021. In the light of this information, the Committee considers that the

communication has become moot and that its consideration should be discontinued insofar

as it related to the State party’s failure to repatriate these children.

5.3

The Committee also notes that the authors invoked articles 7, 8, 16 and 28 of the

Convention only when they submitted their comments on the merits. Their claims under these

articles were therefore not included in the arguments concerning the admissibility and merits

of the case to which the State party was invited to respond. The authors have not shown why

they were unable to make these claims at an earlier stage of the proceedings and have not

CRC/C/89/D/77/2019

CRC/C/89/D/79/2019

CRC/C/89/D/109/2019

8

GE.22-03484

sufficiently substantiated them. Accordingly, the Committee finds these claims inadmissible

under article 7 (f) of the Optional Protocol.

5.4

However, the Committee finds that the authors’ claims under articles 2, 3, 6, 19, 20,

24 and 37 of the Convention have been sufficiently substantiated and proceeds to consider

them on the merits.

Consideration of the merits

6.1

The Committee has considered the present communications in the light of all the

information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 10 (1) of the

Optional Protocol.

6.2

The Committee must determine, in particular, whether, in the circumstances of the

present case, the State party’s failure to take protective measures in respect of the child

victims who are being held in the Rawj, Ayn Isa and Hawl camps constitutes a violation of

the children’s rights under the Convention. The authors specifically accuse the State party of

failing to repatriate the children and claim that repatriation is the only possible means of

ensuring the children’s access to the necessary health care, their right to life and development

and their protection from arbitrary detention and ill-treatment.

6.3

The Committee notes the conflicting arguments put forward by the parties as to

whether States have an obligation to repatriate their nationals under public international law

or international human rights law and what falls within the scope of the consular assistance

that a State must provide to its nationals who are outside its territory. However, the

Committee considers that the question to be resolved is whether, in the specific circumstances

of the present communications, the State party has taken all the measures necessary to

implement and ensure the rights enshrined in the Convention in respect of the child victims

who are under its jurisdiction, taking into account the principle of the best interests of the

child as a primary consideration.

6.4

The Committee notes the State party’s argument that it does not have the capability to

repatriate the children, as that course of action does not depend solely on the willingness of

the State party but also on the consent of the authorities in the north-east of the Syrian Arab

Republic and of the children’s mothers, and is hindered by the difficulties encountered in

identifying the children and ensuring the security of such operations. The Committee

reiterates the point made in its decisions on admissibility, namely that the State party, as the

State of the children’s nationality and by virtue of the information available to it on the French

children being held in the camps and its relationship with the Syrian authorities, has the

capability and the power to protect the rights of the children in question by taking action to

repatriate them or provide other consular responses. This capability is demonstrated by the

fact that the State party has already successfully repatriated more than 30 French children

without reporting any incidents relating to their repatriation or any refusal to cooperate on

the part of the Syrian Democratic Forces. The Committee notes that, on the contrary, the

leaders of the Syrian Democratic Forces have repeatedly expressed their wish to see all

foreign nationals being detained in the camps repatriated to their States of nationality, thus

leaving it to the State party to decide whether or not to proceed with repatriation. As to the

consent of the children’s mothers, the Committee notes that their consent has reportedly not

been sought. It also observes that, as it noted in its decisions on the admissibility of the

communications, most of the mothers gave their express consent to the submission of these

communications on behalf of their children.

6.5

The Committee notes the authors’ argument that the child victims, most of whom are

young children, are barely surviving in the prison camps where they are being held, which

are controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces and situated in a war zone. They are living

in inhuman sanitary conditions, lack basic necessities, including water, food and health care,

and therefore face an imminent risk of death. The State party argues that the authors have not

demonstrated that the children who are the subject of the present communications are

exposed to any specific risks but have merely described the general situation in the camps.

However, the Committee notes that the security situation, the restrictions on movement and

the sanitary conditions described apply to all children who are being held in the camps,

CRC/C/89/D/77/2019

CRC/C/89/D/79/2019

CRC/C/89/D/109/2019

GE.22-03484

9

including the child victims, who must face the same detention and living conditions as the

other people living in the camps. The Committee is of the view that the causes of harm have

been sufficiently identified and that there is no reason to believe that the children specifically

named in these communications are less at risk than other people in the camps.

6.6

The Committee recalls that States parties have an obligation to adopt positive

measures to give full effect to the rights of all children under their jurisdiction, pursuant to

article 4 of the Convention.23 It considers that this obligation is particularly strong when it

comes to protecting children from ill-treatment and potential violations of their right to life.

In the present case, the Committee notes that the imminent risk of death faced by the children

being held in camps in the Syrian Arab Republic has been noted in several reports, including

a conference room paper of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the

Syrian Arab Republic.24 The State party is well aware of the situation and has repatriated

several of these children of its own accord.

6.7

With respect to article 6 of the Convention, the Committee notes the authors’

arguments, which are supported by evidence, that many children have died in the camps, that

such deaths continue to occur and that the living conditions described, including the lack of

food and water, pose an imminent and foreseeable threat to the lives of all the children who

are being held in the camps. The Committee notes that the State party does not deny that the

conditions in the camps are as described by the authors and the third party. In the light of the

foregoing, the Committee considers that there is sufficient information to establish that the

conditions of detention pose an imminent and foreseeable threat to the lives of the child

victims and that the State party’s failure to protect them constitutes a violation of article 6 of

the Convention.

6.8

As regards the authors’ claims under article 37 (a) of the Convention, the Committee

considers that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the prolonged detention of the child

victims in the conditions described, including in particular the lack of health care, food, water,

sanitation facilities and education, has an impact on their development and constitutes cruel,

inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in violation of article 37 (a) of the

Convention.

6.9

The Committee notes the State party’s argument that it does not have a positive

obligation to repatriate its nationals under the Convention. However, given that the State

party is aware of the prolonged detention of these French children in a life-threatening

situation and is capable of taking action, the Committee considers that the State party has a

positive obligation to protect these children from an imminent risk of violation of their right

to life and an actual violation of their right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading

treatment.

6.10

Lastly, with respect to the authors’ claims under article 3 of the Convention, the

Committee recalls that the best interests of the children must be a primary consideration in

all actions concerning them. It also recalls paragraph 18 of its general comment No. 14 (2013),

which states that inaction or failure to take action and omissions are also “actions”. In the

circumstances of the present case, the Committee concludes that the State party has not

shown that it gave due consideration to the best interests of the child victims when assessing

the authors’ requests for their repatriation and that this constitutes a violation of article 3 of

the Convention.

6.11

In the light of the foregoing and in the particular circumstances of the present case,

the Committee concludes that the State party’s failure to protect the child victims constitutes

a violation of their rights under articles 3 and 37 (a) of the Convention and that the State

party’s failure to protect the child victims from an imminent and foreseeable threat to their

lives constitutes a violation of article 6 (1) of the Convention.

23 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-17/2002, 28 August 2002, para. 87.

24 Conference room paper of the Commission on children’s rights in the Syrian Arab Republic

(A/HRC/43/CRP.6), available (in English only) on the website of the Commission

(www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/IICISyria/Pages/Documentation.aspx).

CRC/C/89/D/77/2019

CRC/C/89/D/79/2019

CRC/C/89/D/109/2019

10

GE.22-03484

6.12

Having reached this conclusion, the Committee does not consider it necessary to

examine whether the same facts constitute a violation of articles 2, 6 (2), 19, 20, 24 and 37

(b) of the Convention.

7.

The Committee, acting under article 10 (5) of the Optional Protocol on a

communications procedure, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of

articles 3, 6 (1) and 37 (a) of the Convention.

8.

The State party is therefore under an obligation to provide the authors and the child

victims with effective reparation for the violations suffered. It is also under an obligation to

prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. In this regard, the Committee

recommends that the State party:

(a)

Provide, as a matter of urgency, an official response to each request for

repatriation submitted by the authors on behalf of the child victims;

(b)

Ensure that all procedures for the examination of these requests and the

implementation of any decisions taken are in accordance with the Convention, taking into

account the best interests of the child as a primary consideration and the importance of

preventing further violations of the rights of the child;

(c)

Take urgent positive measures to repatriate the child victims, acting in good

faith;

(d)

Support the reintegration and resettlement of each child who has been

repatriated or resettled;

(e)

Take additional measures, in the meantime, to mitigate the risks to the lives,

survival and development of the child victims while they remain in the north-east of the

Syrian Arab Republic.

9.

Pursuant to article 11 of the Optional Protocol, the Committee wishes to receive from

the State party, as soon as possible and within 180 days, information about the steps taken to

give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to include information

about any such steps in its reports to the Committee under article 44 of the Convention. Lastly,

the State party is requested to publish the present Views and to disseminate them widely.

CRC/C/89/D/77/2019

CRC/C/89/D/79/2019

CRC/C/89/D/109/2019

GE.22-03484

11

Annex

Joint opinion of Committee members Sopio Kiladze, Luis Ernesto

Pedernera Reyna and Benoit Van Keirsbilck (concurring)

1.

While we agree with the conclusion reached by the Committee in this extremely

difficult and sensitive case, we believe that the Committee should have examined the

violation of articles 6 (2) and 37 (b) of the Convention.

2.

The Committee rightly considered that the authors had sufficiently substantiated their

claims as to the inhuman living conditions and the lack of basic necessities, including water,

food and health care, which pose an imminent risk of death. Moreover, there is evidence that

the children in the camps in the north-east of the Syrian Arab Republic are being held in

terrible conditions and are being denied their rights to education and play, along with many

other rights.

3.

Although it is not easy to define the full scope of the rights enshrined in article 6 (2)

of the Convention, under which States parties have an obligation to ensure to the maximum

extent possible the survival and development of the child, the present case shows that the

children’s right to survival has been severely compromised and that their right to

development cannot possibly be realized, even to the smallest extent. All of the child victims

are at risk of malnutrition, which will have a lasting impact on their development. The impact

will be greater in the case of children who have injuries or specific illnesses. The lack of

access to education, including early childhood education for the youngest among them, will

also continue to harm their development in the long term.

4.

Having found a violation of article 37 (a) of the Convention and having concluded

that the situation amounted to an actual violation of the child victims’ right not to be subjected

to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the Committee should have pursued its line of

reasoning further and should have found a violation of article 6 (2), given that it is simply

impossible for a child to develop fully in the context of inhuman and degrading treatment.

The State party’s obligation to protect children from a violation of article 37 (a) overlaps with

its obligation to protect children from a violation of article 6 (2). States parties are also

responsible for omissions, pursuant to article 4 of the Convention. If the State party has an

obligation to act but takes no measures to ensure the rights enshrined in the Convention, it

must be held accountable for this omission. In order to comply with article 6 (2), the State

party should have repatriated the children. The State party did not put forward any reasonable

arguments as to why these particular children could not be repatriated, while others had been.

The State party has therefore violated article 6 (2) of the Convention.

5.

As regards article 37 (b) of the Convention, we have noted that the Independent

International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic stated as follows:

“Thousands of women and children remain unlawfully interned in camps across northeast

Syria in the territory controlled by the Kurdish-led SDF coalition. Suspected for links with

Da’esh but left with no legal recourse and no end date to their ordeal, they have been left to

fend for themselves in conditions that may amount to cruel or inhuman treatment. … Yet,

most foreign children remain deprived of their liberty, since their home countries refuse to

repatriate them. Most are under 12 years old. No one accuses them of crimes, yet, for over

three years, they have been held in horrifying conditions, deprived of their right to education,

to play, to proper health care.”25

6.

The child victims are not subject to any detention orders and no legal action is being

taken against them locally. Furthermore, the continued detention of young children who are

not parties to the conflict and should be treated primarily as victims is unlawful,

disproportionate and amounts to arbitrary detention, in violation of article 37 (b) of the

25 Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, “Increasing violence

and fighting add to Syria’s woes, making it unsafe for return”, press release, 14 September 2021.

CRC/C/89/D/77/2019

CRC/C/89/D/79/2019

CRC/C/89/D/109/2019

12

GE.22-03484

Convention, including the principles that detention should be used only as a measure of last

resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.

7.

The question is whether the State party is responsible for the detention of the child

victims and thus for the violation of article 37 (b) of the Convention. It did not take direct

action resulting in their detention. However, as a State Party, it had an obligation to take

measures to ensure their return, in accordance with article 4 of the Convention. The State

party failed to repatriate the child victims and this led to their prolonged, unlawful and

arbitrary detention. Consequently, we are of the view that the State party had an obligation

and was effectively able to prevent the prolonged detention of the child victims by

repatriating them and is therefore responsible for its failure to do so under article 37 (b) of

the Convention.