ICCPR Case Digest




Submission: 2016.11.23

View Adopted: 2020.10.19

D.Z. v. Netherlands

A stateless child claimed that the Netherlands violated his right to acquire a nationality, the Committee agrees.

Substantive Issues
  • Child's right to a nationality
  • Effective remedy
Relevant Articles
  • Article 24
Full Text


The author’s mother was born in China in 1989, but her birth was not registered in the civil records in that country. Such registration is performed, and civil status is established, through an individual’s inclusion in a household registry. After her brother was born a few years later, her parents abandoned her. Due to this reason, the authors mom was unable to obtain proof of Chinese citizenship and holds no documentation proving her identity. She then received a temporary residence permit, that was later denied, and she was classified as an illegal alien. The author’s father is not in contact with him or the mother and has failed to recognise paternity.

The author was born in Utrecht in 2010 and was registered in the Municipal Personal Records Database where he was given an “unknown nationality”, as his mother had no records to prove his nationality. The author’s mother has made several attempts to confirm Chinese nationality for her son, in order to satisfy the Netherlands legislation that a person must provide conclusive proof of nationality, in order to change their status from “unknown” in the civil registry. These attempts have either been unsuccessful, or the author has been confirmed that in order to gain proof of nationality, that she would need to be registered in the Civil Registry of China. For these reasons, the author’s mother has been unable to change the author’s nationality entry in the civil registry to stateless, so that he can enjoy the international protections afforded to Stateless children, including the right to acquire the nationality of the state in which he was born in – which is the Netherlands. 

In 2012, the author’s mother lodged a request to the civil registration department of the municipality of Utrecht, that her son’s nationality be recorded as ‘stateless’ instead of unknown. In the municipality’s eyes – the author’s nationality was Chinese according to the Chinese law. The author’s mother lodged an appeal against this decision, which was rejected as there was no proof that the child was stateless – as there needed to be official documentation from Chinese authorities stating such. The Council of State concluded that the author’s mother had failed to provide proof of the child’s statelessness, and that there weren’t any rules within national or international law that could aid this legal gap that has been concluded.

In 2015, the author applied to the municipality of Katwijk for recognition as a Dutch citizen, arguing that he should be allowed access to nationality despite his lack of registration as a stateless person. The Mayor of Katwijk acknowledged that the State party lacked a determination procedure for the author and to determine his statelessness. But the appeal commission concluded that it was not up to the Mayor to fill this gap in procedure and rejected the author’s appeal. This was upheld by the Council of the State in 2016.

Due to all of this, the author lives with his mother in a restricted freedom centre filled with failed asylum seekers with young children. These people live in constant fear, health problems, family tensions and social exclusions from living in these restricted centres. As the author lives in legal limbo, the author submits the complaint that the lack of the State party’s approach of addressing statelessness and rules relating to residency rights and acquiring nationality – that this violates his rights under article 24(3) of the Covenant. He argues this on the basis that after 6 years of filing petitions to gain nationality from the State he was born in, while all the while being registered as “unknown nationality” – that he still has not prospect of acquiring nationality or even formally establishing his statelessness. Additionally, the author argues that the State failed to provide him with an adequate effective remedy, thus the violation of article 24(3) may be read in conjunction with article 2(3).


The Committee notes that the author has exhausted all effective remedies available to him. And that according to the author’s arguments for his rights being violated under article 24(3), that these arguments are sufficiently substantiated in accordance with the Optional Protocol. Therefore, this communication is declared admissible.


The Committee notes that under article 24 of the Covenant, every child has the right to special measures of protection because of their status as a minor. It recalls that the primary consideration in all decisions, should consider the best interests of the child. The Committee recalls though that general comment No.17, does not oblige a State to give their nationality to every child born in their territory – but that every state should take internal decisions and cooperate with other States to make sure that every child is born with a nationality. In addition to this, the UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No.4 states that States need to determine the nationality of a child, once it has been undermined for a while – in order to not prolong this period of “unknown nationality”. This period should not exceed 5 years, that even when the nationality of a child is undetermined, that they should still have full enjoyment of human rights equal in terms of children who are citizens.

The Committee further recalls that in the concluding observations on the State party’s fifth periodic report, that it had already expressed concern over reports that the State had drafted legislation to determine the statelessness of children – that were not in line with the international standards. Similar recommendations were made by the Committee on the Rights of the child.

The Committee notes that in the present communication, that the author’s mother had made several attempts to various entities in order to gather proof to be able to register her child within the municipal laws. That all these attempts were unsuccessful and that the domestic authorities did not attempt to aid the mother to gather some form of proof – thus, all her attempts to confirm the author’s nationality status would be futile.

Bearing all this in mind, the Committee is in the view that the above mentioned facts display a violation of article 24(3) read alone and read in conjunction with article 2(3) of the Covenant.


The State party is obligated, inter alia, to :

  • provide the author with adequate compensation;
  • to review its decision on the author’s application to be registered as stateless in the civil registry of the State party, as well as its decision on the author’s application to be recognized as a Dutch citizen, taking into account the Committee’s findings in the present Views;
  • to review the author’s living circumstances and residence permit, taking into account the principle of the best interests of the child and the Committee’s findings in the present Views.

Additionally, the State party is under an obligation to take all steps necessary to avoid similar violations in the future, including by reviewing its legislation in accordance with its obligation under article 2 (2) of the Covenant to ensure that a procedure for determining statelessness status is established, as well as reviewing its legislation on eligibility to apply for citizenship, in order to ensure that its legislation and procedures are in compliance with article 24 of the Covenant. 

The Committee wishes to receive information from the State party,  about the measures taken to the effect to the Committee's views within 180 days. Date to be received: 17 April 2021. 


Committee's assessment 134th session (CCPR/C/134/4):

  • (a) Provide adequate compensation: C
  • (b) Review the author’s application to be registered as stateless: N/A32
  • (c) Review the author’s application to be recognized as a citizen of the Netherlands: E
  • (d) Review the author’s living circumstances and residence permit, taking into account the principle of the best interests of the child: E
  • (e) Non-repetition, including reviewing legislation (i) to ensure that a procedure for determining stateless status is established and (ii) on eligibility to apply for citizenship: C

Committee’s decision: Follow-up dialogue ongoing.

deneme bonusu bonus veren siteler bonus veren siteler deneme bonusu veren siteler aiaswo.org cafetinnova.org
deneme bonusu veren siteler obeclms.com bonus veren siteler

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee CCPR/C/3/Rev.10

Arabic | Chinese | English | French | Russian | Spanish

CCPR NGO Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (March 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Handbook

CCPR NHRI Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (November 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Arabic | Chinese