This case concerned a 17-year old Moroccan national that was intercepted while attempting to enter Spain in a migrant boat. He had no papers and was taken to a hospital where an X-ray of his left hand was taken, the examination of which indicated that he was over 18 years of age. Following to this, his expulsion as well as his detention were ordered. He claimed that the State had violated his rights under article 3, read in conjunction with articles 18 (2), and 20 (1) as well as articles 8, 12, 20, 27 and 29 of the Convention. In accordance with article 6 of the Optional Protocol, on 19 March 2019 the working group on communications, acting on behalf of the Committee, requested the State party to take interim measures – namely, to suspend the execution of the author’s deportation order pending the Committee’s consideration of his case and to transfer him to a child protection facility. Later, the State party submitted a request to close the case explaining that the Prosecutor’s Office had issued an age determination ruling officially recognizing the author as a minor and ordering his transfer to a juvenile protection centre the Committee considered that the recognition of the author as a minor rendered the case moot and decided to discontinue its consideration, in accordance with rule 26 of its rules of procedure relating to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure.

Source: PDF

In this case the applicant maintained that the State failed to respect his right to be presumed to be a minor in the event of doubt or uncertainty and thus acted against his best interests and in violation of article 3 of the Convention, putting him at a real risk of suffering irreparable harm as a consequence of his having been placed in a detention centre for adults and ordering the return to his country of origin. The author also claimed to be a victim of a violation of his rights under Articles 18 (2), 20 (1), 12, 27 and 29. The Committee found a violation of articles 3, 8, 12 and 20 (1) of the Convention and recommended that the State party: a) ensures that all procedures for assessing the age of young people claiming to be children are carried out in a manner consistent with the Convention particularly regarding the considerations of the documents submitted and the legal representation of young people without delay and free of charge, b) ensures that unaccompanied young people claiming to be children are assigned a competent guardian as soon as possible, c) develops an effective and accessible redress mechanisms that allows young unaccompanied migrants to apply for a review of any decrees declaring them to be adults, and d) provides training to authorities, judges, and other relevant professionals on the rights of migrant children.

Source: PDF

In this case the applicant maintained that the State failed to respect his right to be presumed to be a minor in the event of doubt or uncertainty and thus acted against his best interests and in violation of article 3 of the Convention, putting him at a real risk of suffering irreparable harm as a consequence of his having been placed in a detention centre for adults and ordering the return to his country of origin. The author also claimed to be a victim of a violation of his rights under Articles 18 (2), 20 (1), 12, 27 and 29. The Committee found a violation of articles 3, 8, 12 and 20 (1) of the Convention and recommended that the State party: a) ensures that all procedures for assessing the age of young people claiming to be children are carried out in a manner consistent with the Convention particularly regarding the considerations of the documents submitted and the legal representation of young people without delay and free of charge, b) ensures that unaccompanied young people claiming to be children are assigned a competent guardian as soon as possible, c) develops an effective and accessible redress mechanisms that allows young unaccompanied migrants to apply for a review of any decrees declaring them to be adults, and d) provides training to authorities, judges, and other relevant professionals on the rights of migrant children.

Source: PDF

In this case the applicant claimed that the State violated his rights under articles 3, 8, 18 (2), 20, 27 and 29 of the Convention as well as his right to be presumed a minor in the event of doubt or uncertainty about his age and thus acted against his best interests and in violation of article 3 of the Convention. The Committee found a violation of articles 3, 8, 12 and 20 (1) of the Convention and recommended that the State party: a) ensures that all procedures for assessing the age of young people claiming to be children are carried out in a manner consistent with the Convention particularly regarding the considerations of the documents submitted and the legal representation of young people without delay and free of charge, b) ensures that unaccompanied young people claiming to be children are assigned a competent guardian as soon as possible, c) develops an effective and accessible redress mechanisms that allows young unaccompanied migrants to apply for a review of any decrees declaring them to be adults, and d) provides training to authorities, judges, and other relevant professionals on the rights of migrant children.

Source: PDF