This new report reviews the follow-up to 11 decisions adopted between 8 February 2022 to 13 September 2024 involving various States parties. Of the 11 cases reviewed, three were closed with a Level A assessment, indicating satisfactory or largely satisfactory, while one case was closed with a Level B assessment, indicating partial compliance. The remaining seven cases remained open because further implementation measures were required.

Open Cases

Among the open cases, A.M. v. Switzerland concerns the age assessment of an unaccompanied Afghan child who was treated as an adult after Swiss authorities rejected an earlier Swedish age assessment and assigned him a different date of birth. The State party indicated in its response that it did not intend to adopt the Committee’s measures concerning general age assessment. The Committee considered that the State party had not taken sufficient measures and thus kept the dialogue open. Further, in D.E.P. v. Argentina, concerning juvenile justice, the Committee recommended legislative reform, including replacing the existing juvenile justice framework, ensuring protection for persons who were under 18 when the offence was committed, and strengthening non-custodial and reintegration measures. As Argentina had not taken sufficient steps to implement the Views, the Committee decided to keep the dialogue open. J.M. v. Chile, concerns the international return of a child with autism, the Committee recommended a new assessment of the return request and J.M.’s integration in Chile, as well as effective reparation. As Chile had not taken sufficient steps, the Committee kept it open.

Turning to cases involving partial implementation, S.B. et al. v. France, concerning the rights and reparation of children whose parents were linked to terrorist activities, the Committee initially kept the dialogue open in its fifth follow-up report. In its recent report, it noted with satisfaction that more than half of the children concerned had been repatriated but remained concerned about those still held in camps in north-eastern Syria. It therefore kept the dialogue open. In M.L. et al. v. Georgia, concerning children subjected to abuse and inadequate protection in an orphanage. The Committee acknowledged the initial measures but considered them insufficient regarding compensation, rehabilitation, the criminal investigation and the situation of children remaining in the institution. It therefore kept the dialogue open.

The next case, Camila v. Peru, concerns the failure to provide adequate information, health care and access to therapeutic abortion to an Indigenous child. The Committee remained concerned about potentially regressive legislative measures, reported harassment and reprisals directed at the National Maternal Perinatal Institute, and the absence of compensation for Camila, including support for her education. The Committee therefore considered implementation incomplete and kept the dialogue open. Lastly, G.G.P. v. Paraguay relates to prolonged delays in establishing paternal filiation and securing the child’s related rights. The Committee noted the measures taken but considered them insufficient. It therefore kept the follow-up dialogue open.

Closed Cases

The next category comprises closed cases. In S.H.K. v. Denmark, concerning the deportation of a Somali girl who faced a risk of female genital mutilation, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board reopened the asylum proceedings, and the authors were granted residence in Denmark. Following this the Committee closed the case with “A” rating. 

Similarly, in C.C.O.U. et al. v. Denmark, concerning the potential separation of three children from their father following his expulsion to Nigeria, the Committee had decided to keep the follow-up dialogue open pending further information on the implementation of its seventh follow-up report. Denmark subsequently reassessed the claim, granted the father a residence permit and lifted the re-entry ban. The Committee therefore considered the Views implemented and closed the case with an “A” rating.

In M.E.V. et al. v. Finland, Sámi children challenged mineral exploration on their traditional lands, alleging violations of their cultural rights, identity, health and participation rights. The authors had argued that the expiry of the mineral exploration permit did not provide an effective remedy because the underlying legal framework remained capable of permitting similar interference with Sámi rights in the future, particularly in the absence of adequate recognition of Sámi land rights, free, prior and informed consent and child-rights-oriented impact assessments. Nevertheless, the Committee considered the individual measures sufficiently addressed because the permit had been suspended and subsequently expired, resulting in no further harm to the authors since 2022, and therefore closed the follow-up dialogue on individual reparation with “A” rating. At the same time, the Committee noted that only initial steps had been taken to address the general measures and that further implementation was still required. 

In contrast, in S.N. et al. v. Finland, concerning Finnish children held in camps in north-eastern Syria, the Committee had previously kept the follow-up dialogue open in its sixth follow-up report. In its recent report, the Committee noted with satisfaction the State party’s positive measures to facilitate repatriation and support the reintegration and resettlement of returned children. Although it remained concerned about children who continued to live in the camps, it took account of Finland’s efforts and the obstacles to further repatriation. The Committee therefore closed the follow-up dialogue with “B” rating, indicating partial compliance, while expecting Finland to continue monitoring and addressing the situation of the remaining children. 

Observation

In its eighth follow-up report, the Committee appears to make more explicit use of the distinction between individual and general measures in both open and closed cases. This can be seen in M.E.V. et al. v. Finland, where the Committee closed the follow-up dialogue concerning individual reparation with an A rating, while directing the monitoring of general measures to Finland’s next periodic report under article 44 of the Convention. A similar pattern can be observed in A.M. v. Switzerland, where the Committee differentiated between individual and general measures while keeping the follow-up dialogue open in relation to the former. As regards general measures, it invited the State party to report on the steps taken to implement those measures in the context of its next periodic report. Similar approach can be observed in M.L. et al. v. Georgia. This approach suggests an emerging practice whereby the Committee distinguishes between the implementation of remedies for individual authors and the fulfilment of general recommendations, with the latter monitored through periodic reporting under article 44 in some cases. Nevertheless, the application of this distinction raises questions concerning the consistency of the Committee’s follow-up assessments. While, in some cases, the Committee has directed the monitoring of general measures to the State party’s next periodic report, in others, such as Camila v. Peru, it has continued the follow-up dialogue in relation to both individual and general measures. The Committee does not clearly explain the criteria it applies when deciding whether general measures should be addressed through periodic reporting under article 44 or through the follow-up procedure. Questions also arise concerning the Committee’s decisions to close or maintain follow-up dialogues where significant concerns remain unresolved. In S.N. et al. v. Finland, for example, the Committee closed the follow-up dialogue with “B” rating despite continuing concerns about children who remained in camps. By contrast, in S.B. et al. v. France, the Committee maintained the follow-up dialogue open, noting that children remained in the camps and requesting further information on their repatriation and reintegration. The Committee does not clearly explain why the continued presence of children in the camps resulted in the closure of follow-up in S.N. et al. but the continuation of the dialogue in S.B. et al. Greater clarity on how the Committee determines the follow-up procedure for general measures and decides whether to close or maintain follow-up would therefore be valuable.