Views Adopted by The UN Human Rights Committee Under Article 5(4) HOLDING In its consideration of the merits of the case, the HRC concluded that, by registering ‘unknown nationality’ in DZ’s civil records and leaving them unable to effectively enjoy their right as a child to acquire a nationality, the Netherlands had violated art 24(3) of the ICCPR. It also noted that the failure of Dutch authorities to provide DZ with an effective remedy constituted a violation of art 24(3), read in conjunction with art 2(3), of the ICCPR. Moreover, the HRC observed that the Netherlands was under an obligation to make full reparations to the victim, by way of adequate compensation and by reviewing DZ’s living circumstances and residence permit. Likewise, the HRC found that the Netherlands was under an obligation to review its legislation, in accordance with art 2(2) of the ICCPR, to ensure that a procedure for determining stateless status is established, as well as making sure that the eligibility to apply for Dutch nationality complies with art 24 of the ICCPR. ANALYSIS In its decision, the HRC reasserted the special measures of protection to which children are entitled under art 24 of the ICCPR, including the best interests of the child principle. On the child’s right to acquire a nationality, the HRC resorted to its General Comment No 17 (1989) on the rights of the child, where it recognises that states must adopt every appropriate measure, both internally and in cooperation with other States, to ensure that every child has a nationality when he is born. In this connection, no discrimination with regard to the acquisition of nationality should be admissible under internal law as between legitimate children and children born out of wedlock or of stateless parents or based on the nationality status of one or both of the parents.4 Moreover, the HRC reaffirmed that art 24(3) aims to prevent a child from being afforded less protection because of their nationality, or lack thereof. On the other hand, it did not go so far as to establish that states have a duty to confer nationality to every child born in their territory. This is in line with the long-established rule that nationality matters fall within the so-called reserved domain of states (domaine réservé) and, thus, should be determined at the national level. Such discretion, however, must be performed within the boundaries demarcated by, and in compliance with, the limitations stemming from international law. 5 Among such limitations, as General Comment No 17 specifies, is the prohibition of discrimination enshrined in arts 2 and 24 of the ICCPR, which operates, for instance, in relation to the modes of acquisition of nationality.6 This means that, if a given state adopts the jus soli principle as the main criteria to confer its nationality, it cannot discriminate between children born to single mothers and those born to married couples, nor between those born to stateless parents and those fathered by individuals of a given nationality. In this example, the civil and nationality statuses of the child’s parents become irrelevant. 4 5 6 Report of the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc A/44/40 (29 September 1989) annex VI ‘General Comment No 17 (Article 24)’ 175 [8] (‘General Comment No 17 (Article 24)’). Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco (Advisory Opinion No 4) [1923] PCIJ (ser B) 6, 24. General Comment No 17 (Article 24) (n 4) 174 [5]. 165