The Seventh Follow-Up Progress Report (seventh report) on Individual Communications was issued by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (the Committee) on 5 March 2025, following Rule 28 Rules of Procedure under the Optional Protocol on a Communications Procedure (OPIC). This new report reviews the follow-up to 11 decisions adopted between May 2020 and September 2023 involving various States parties.

Of the 11 cases reviewed, the Committee decided to keep four cases open, while the remaining seven cases were closed. Among the closed cases, those concerning Belgium, Georgia, and Spain were assigned an “A” rating, indicating full or largely satisfactory compliance with the Committee’s Views. The remaining four (three involving Switzerland and one additional case against Spain) were assessed with a “B” rating, denoting partial compliance and the need for further action or information.

Open cases

In X.C. et al. v. Denmark, a case on deportation of a family to China, the family has not yet been deported. The children, however, remain without secure legal status in a return centre and face the real risk of removal to China. Following the Committee’s 2020 Views, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board reopened the case in 2020 and held a new hearing in 2021, but reached the same outcome, relying on the possibility of hukou registration despite uncertainty about the timeframe, the rights of children during registration, and the additional hurdles linked to the author’s circumstances. The family was granted only temporary residence pending further applications. The Committee observed that Denmark had not introduced substantive changes to prevent similar violations and therefore kept the dialogue open, requesting updates on the residence applications. Between 2024 and 2025, little progress was made, as Denmark continued to reiterate its earlier position rather than adopt protective measures.

In S.E.M.A. v. France, concerning an unaccompanied child wrongly excluded from protection after being treated as an adult, the Committee found that practice remained deficient despite legal frameworks on age assessment. Identity documents were not properly verified, bone age tests were overused, and guardianship and legal representation were inconsistently provided, leaving children without adequate shelter and remedies during assessment. Although France reported certain legislative clarifications, the Committee noted that these had not translated into practical improvements, and it therefore kept the case open. Since then, the French Council of State has explicitly denied the relevance and binding character of decisions adopted by the Committee against the French government. The Council of State’s refusal to recognise the authoritative weight of the Committee’s views raises serious concerns regarding the domestic reception of international accountability mechanisms and is likely to have a significant impact on the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations in practice.

In B.J. and P.J. v. Czechia, two siblings were institutionalized to secure health and education rights. The Committee reiterated concern that institutional placements are still used as interim measures without fully exploring family-based alternatives, that children lack effective legal representation, and that reforms to guarantee procedural safeguards remain incomplete. While Czech authorities had disseminated the Committee’s Views and convened expert meetings, progress towards reducing reliance on institutional placements was limited, prompting the Committee to leave the dialogue open.

Finally, in C.C.O.U., C.C.A.M. and A.C.C. v. Denmark, the deportation of the father to Nigeria continued to threaten family unity. The Immigration Service again rejected his residence claim, suggesting contact be maintained through electronic means an arrangement the Committee had previously found incompatible with articles 3 and 9 of the CRC. As Denmark had not advanced towards implementing the Views, the violation remained unresolved and the Committee kept the case open.

Closed cases

“A” rated cases

Three cases were closed with an “A” rating. In N.B. v. Georgia, which concerned corporal punishment in schools, the Committee had previously kept the case open in its sixth follow-up report, pending additional information. In the present report, the case was closed after the author received monetary compensation and other satisfactory remedial measures.

In A.M.K. and S.K. v. Belgium, which concerned the administrative detention of children in migration contexts, the Committee considered the State’s follow-up measures largely satisfactory. Belgium granted residence permits to the authors and their children, prohibited the detention of children in closed centres and disseminated the Committee’s Views. However, no financial compensation was provided to the victims.

A comparable pattern appears in H.M. v. Spain, a case involving the child’s exclusion from the education system, where the Committee similarly awarded an “A” rating despite the absence of compensation for the two-year period during which the child was denied schooling.

“B” rated cases

Among the cases assessed as “B”, Switzerland stands out, with three cases falling into this category. In K.S. and M.S. v. Switzerland, the Committee examined the deportation of a child with medical needs. The State party took some positive steps, including enhancing the handling of medical-based asylum claims and disseminating the Committee’s Views. However, it did not take action to ensure that accompanied children under 14 capable of forming their own views are systematically heard in asylum procedures. Moreover, the Committee regretted that M.S. had not received compensation, even though it had stated that the State party should provide M.S. with effective reparation, including adequate compensation.

In E.A. and U.A. v. Switzerland, concerning the deportation of Azerbaijani children, the Committee had previously kept the case open in its fourth follow-up report, seeking further information on dissemination of its Views. Interestingly, in that earlier report, the authors raised concerns that the Committee had failed to address their claim for financial compensation to cover procedural costs and moral distress. The Committee did not engage with this aspect, presumably because financial compensation had not been explicitly included in the original Views. In the current report, the case was closed with a “B” rating, reflecting the Committee’s assessment that, although the State party granted the authors refugee status in 2021, it had yet to ensure that children are systematically heard during asylum procedures, one of the core concerns identified in the original decision.

In M.K.A.H. v. Switzerland, which involved the deportation of a child and his mother to Bulgaria, the State party reopened the case and granted them provisional admission in Switzerland. Nonetheless, it failed to report on critical aspects of implementation, including access to qualified psychosocial support, the removal of procedural barriers, and the systematic hearing of children in asylum processes. Hence, the Committee closed the case with a “B” rating.

Finally, the Committee assessed the case concerning the right to education of Moroccan children born and raised in Spain (A.B.A. and F.Z.A. v. Spain; F.E.M. and S.E.M. v. Spain; S.E.Y. and M.E.Y. v. Spain; N.L., R.A. and M.A.A. v. Spain). In three of these communications, the children were eventually admitted to school. Nevertheless, the State party did not offer compensation for the prolonged period during which they were excluded from the education system. These cases were assigned a “B” rating, an approach that stands in contrast to the case of H.M. v. Spain discussed above, which involved the same issue. There too, compensation was not provided, yet the Committee awarded an “A” rating, indicating full or largely satisfactory compliance.

Observations

The seventh follow-up report suggests that adequate compensation is not consistently treated as a decisive element in determining whether a State has fully complied with the Committee’s Views. What remains unclear is whether this reflects a strategic prioritisation of non-monetary reparation measures, whether individual (e.g., refraining from deportation, revisiting asylum applications) or structural (e.g., guarantees of non-repetition, legislative reform), or whether it indicates a lack of clarity in the Committee’s remedial framework.

The fact that a case can receive an “A” rating despite the absence of compensation may influence how States parties understand their reparative and remedial obligations. It may suggest that the provision of compensation is not essential for a finding of full or largely satisfactory compliance, even where victims regard compensation as an important component of reparation and even in cases where the Committee has framed reparation in broad terms or has explicitly identified compensation as a relevant measure. This concern is not theoretical. Spain’s explicit position in H.M. that compensation was not warranted risks setting a troubling precedent if it is left unaddressed. Structural measures, including legal or policy reforms, play an important preventive role, but the failure to provide compensation to individual victims raises serious questions about the completeness of the remedy and the victim-centred orientation of the follow-up process.

To enhance the predictability, coherence, and credibility of its follow-up process, the Committee may wish to adopt a more structured approach. For instance, cases in which most measures have been implemented but adequate compensation is lacking could be classified as “B”, to better reflect their partial nature. Alternatively, if the Committee finds that the absence of compensation is justified by other robust reparative actions, it should explicitly articulate this reasoning in its report. Such clarification would not only prevent misinterpretation but would also strengthen the procedural legitimacy and restorative function of the Committee’s work.