The Assembly believes that child protection rather than immigration
control should be the driving concern in how countries deal with
unaccompanied children. With this in mind, it establishes the following
set of 15 common principles, which it invites member states to observe
and work together to achieve:
5.1 unaccompanied
children must be treated first and foremost as children, not as
migrants;
5.2 the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration
in all actions regarding the child, regardless of the child’s migration
or residence status;
5.3 no child should be denied access to the territory or be
summarily turned back at the borders of a member state. Immediate
referral to assistance and care should be arranged by specialised
services with a view to identifying if the migrant is a minor, ascertaining
his or her individual circumstances and protection needs and ultimately
identifying a durable solution in the child’s best interest;
5.4 child victims of human trafficking should benefit from
special arrangements in terms of identification, reception and protection.
These should be adapted to their needs and ensure their protection
in line with the Council of Europe Conventions on Action against
Trafficking in Human Beings (CETS No. 197) and on the Protection
of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (CETS No.
201);
5.5 every unaccompanied child should be provided immediately
with a guardian mandated to safeguard his or her best interest.
The legal guardian should be independent and should have the necessary
expertise in the field of childcare. Every guardian should receive
regular training and undergo regular and independent check-ups/monitoring;
5.6 legal, social and psychological assistance should be provided
without delay to unaccompanied children. Children should be informed
immediately upon arrival or interception, individually and in a language
and form that they can understand, about their right to protection
and assistance, including their right to seek asylum or other forms
of international protection, and the necessary procedures and their
implications;
5.7 all interviews with an unaccompanied child concerning
his or her personal details and background should be conducted individually
by specialised and well-trained staff and in the presence of the
child’s guardian;
5.8 access to asylum and international protection procedures
must be made unconditionally available to all unaccompanied children.
A harmonised, child-sensitive asylum system needs to be established, including
procedures that take into consideration the additional difficulties
children may have in withstanding trauma and in expressing coherently
what has happened to them and their child-specific experiences of
persecution. Asylum applications by unaccompanied children should
be given priority and processed within the shortest appropriate
time frame, while allowing children sufficient time to understand
and prepare for the process. All unaccompanied children in asylum
proceedings must be represented by a lawyer in addition to a guardian,
provided free of charge by the state and be able to challenge before
a court decisions regarding their protection claims;
5.9 no detention of unaccompanied children on migration grounds
should be allowed. Detention should be replaced with appropriate
care arrangements, preferably foster care, with living conditions suitable
for children’s needs and for the appropriate period of time. Where
children are accommodated in centres, they must be separated from
adults;
5.10 age assessment should only be carried out if there are
reasonable doubts about a person being underage. The assessment
should be based on the presumption of minority, involve a multidisciplinary evaluation
by an independent authority over a period of time and not be based
exclusively on medical assessment. Examinations should only be carried
out with the consent of the child or his or her guardian. They should
not be intrusive and should comply with medical ethical standards.
The margin of error of medical and other examinations should be
clearly indicated and taken into account. If doubts remain that the
person may be underage, he or she should be granted the benefit
of the doubt. Assessment decisions should be subject to administrative
or judicial appeal;
5.11 the child’s views should be heard and given due weight
in all relevant procedures, in accordance with his or her age and
maturity. Administrative and judicial procedures within member states
should be conceived and applied in a child-friendly manner;
5.12 finding a durable solution should be the ultimate goal
from the first contact with the unaccompanied child. It should include
family tracing if requested by the child or his or her guardian
– where it is safe to do so and will not put family members in danger
– and an individualised best-interest assessment that examines all
options for durable solutions on an equal basis. A durable solution
may be the child’s integration into the host country, family reunification
in a third country, or return and reintegration in the country of
origin. An individual life project should be identified jointly
by the authorities, the legal guardian and the child concerned,
and monitored throughout the accomplishment of the project in line
with Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)9 on life
projects for unaccompanied migrant minors. Pending identification
of a durable solution, the child should benefit from legal residence
status in the host country. This should be valid throughout the
duration of the child’s personal life project conducted in the host
country, even if the project extends to the age of adulthood;
5.13 access to adequate accommodation, education, vocational
training and health care must be guaranteed to all unaccompanied
children, regardless of their migration status and under the same conditions
as to child nationals. Moreover, unaccompanied children should be
able to benefit from comprehensive child welfare programmes. These
should, where necessary, take into consideration their emotional
needs following traumatic experiences and should, beyond the immediate
psychological assistance to be provided (see paragraph 5.6), comprise
measures such as targeted educational assistance, placement in foster
families or specialised residential care, or integration assistance
for children with disabilities;
5.14 family reunification possibilities should be extended
beyond the country of origin and approached from a humanitarian
perspective exploring wider family links in the host country and
third countries, guided by the principle of the child’s best interest.
The Dublin II Regulation should only be applied to unaccompanied
children if transfer to a third country is in the child’s best interests;
5.15 the best interests of the child should be taken into account
in all steps leading to the return of the child to his or her country
of origin. Return is not an option if it risks leading to the violation
of the child’s fundamental human rights. If no parents or members
of the extended family are identified, return should only take place
with advance secure, concrete, and adequate care and reintegration
arrangements in the country of origin. Return to institutional care
should not in and of itself be viewed as a durable solution. A professional
child-protection body should conduct the assessment of return conditions.
A follow-up plan should be established in order to ascertain that
the protection of the child is guaranteed following the return.
Non-rights-based arguments such as those relating to general migration
control, must not override best-interest consideration in return
decisions. Returns to countries where the child’s security, protection
– including against refoulement –
and welfare cannot be guaranteed, must not be envisaged. Children
in return proceedings must be represented by lawyers in addition
to guardians. They must be granted access to the return case file
and be able to challenge return decisions before a court; their
appeals must have suspensive effect on the return.
