The case of U.A. v. France. Views of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child dated May 21, 2024.
In 2020, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to France.
Message No. 132/2020. The author claimed that the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child had been violated as a result of the age determination procedure to which he had been subjected and the fact that he had not been recognized and protected as an unaccompanied migrant child. The Committee found a violation of certain provisions of the Convention.
The Committee's legal position is that determining the age of a young person who claims to be a minor is of paramount importance, since the results of this procedure determine whether the person is entitled to State protection as a child. Similarly, and this is of paramount importance to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the ability to enjoy the rights enshrined in the Convention directly depends on the results of the aforementioned age determination procedure. Therefore, it is very important that the determination of age is based on due process and that the decisions taken can be appealed. While the age determination procedure is in progress, this person should be treated like a child. In this regard, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child considers that at each stage of the age determination procedure, the best interests of the child should be given priority (paragraph 8.3 of the Considerations).
Identity documents must be considered authentic unless proven otherwise.... Participating States cannot act contrary to what is established by the original and official identity document issued by a sovereign country without officially challenging the validity of this document (paragraph 8.5 of the Considerations).
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child notes that only in the absence of identity documents or other appropriate ways to reasonably assess age, States should conduct a comprehensive analysis of the child's physical and psychological development by pediatricians or other specialists with skills in a comprehensive analysis of various aspects of development. Such an analysis should be carried out promptly, taking into account an individual approach, gender aspects and cultural characteristics, including conducting interviews with children in a language they understand. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child also recalls its general comment No. 6 (2005), according to which age assessment should be based not only on the physical appearance of a person, but also on the degree of her or his psychological maturity, should be based on a scientific, safe, taking into account the interests of the child and the factor of his gender, as well as on on a fair basis, and in case of doubt, the issue should be resolved in favor of the person in question, that is, if there is a possibility that the person in question is a child, then she or he should be treated as such (paragraph 8.6 of the Considerations).
In the context of determining and implementing procedures for assessing the best interests of children, the right to appeal a decision to a higher court or an independent body with a suspensive effect should be guaranteed (paragraph 8.7 of the Considerations).
States parties should appoint a qualified legal representative and, if necessary, an interpreter for all young people claiming to be minors as soon as possible upon arrival in the country. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child believes that ensuring that these young people are represented during the age determination procedure is an important guarantee that their best interests and right to be heard are respected. Failure to comply with this requirement entails a violation of articles 3 and 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, since the age determination procedure serves as the basis for the application of the Convention. The lack of timely representation can lead to significant unfairness (paragraph 8.8 of the Considerations).
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recalls that the date of birth of a child is part of his personality and that States parties are obliged to respect the child's right to preserve it and should not deprive the child of any of its elements (paragraph 8.10 of the Considerations).
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child notes that participating States have an obligation to ensure the protection of all migrant children deprived of a family environment, guaranteeing them, in particular, access to social services, education and adequate housing, and that during the age determination procedure, young migrants claiming to be children should enjoy the right to so that doubts that arise are interpreted in their favor, and treated like children. In any case, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child considers that children should not be required to directly request temporary protection measures during the age determination procedure, as this is the ex officio responsibility of participating States, given the particular vulnerability of unaccompanied migrant children (paragraph 8.12 of the Views).
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recalls that the obligation of States parties to exercise the right to education applies to all children under the age of 18, regardless of the age set for compulsory education (paragraph 8.13 of the Views).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it has been established that the age determination procedure to which the author, who claimed to be a minor and provided evidence in support of his claim, was not accompanied by the necessary guarantees to protect his rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (paragraph 8.9 of the Views).
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child noted that although the author had submitted several identity documents to the authorities, the State party had ignored his right to preserve his identity, deciding that these documents had no evidentiary value, although the validity of the information contained in them had not been properly challenged (paragraph 8.10 of the Views).
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child found that the author had been in a street situation for certain periods of time since his arrival in France and had not used any protective measures (paragraph 8.11 of the Views).
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child noted that since the author was not recognized as an unaccompanied migrant child during a significant part of his stay in France, he was deprived of access to education, which negatively affected his ability to integrate into society (paragraph 8.13 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: the facts presented indicated a violation of articles 3, 8, 12, 20, 28 and paragraph "a" of article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.