2022 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 4(1) Despite her efforts, DZ’s mother could not produce any conclusive proof of the child’s nationality or lack thereof, as required by Dutch law. Consequently, she was unable to change DZ’s entry in the civil registry to ‘stateless’ and trigger the special protection afforded to stateless children under international and domestic law. In a decision on administrative appeal, the District Court of MiddenNederland pointed out that the burden of proof in these cases rests on the claimant. Conversely, Dutch authorities are not required to conduct inquiries and determine stateless status. The ruling was later upheld by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Dutch Council of State, which highlighted how neither national nor international law provides any rules on procedures for determining statelessness that state authorities are obliged to follow. Further, the Council did acknowledge that individuals entitled to international protection were falling through a gap in legislation but declined to fill any such loopholes. Doing so, according to the Council, would go ���beyond the law-making task of the judiciary’.2 After having all appeals and applications denied, DZ and their mother were living in a centre for failed asylum seekers with young children, with nearly no contact with Dutch society and the constant possibility of deportation. DZ’s mother was not eligible for any social benefits apart from a small, weekly allowance. Although these restricted freedom centres were initially envisaged to serve as temporary facilities, DZ and their mother were living there for more than three years. This system is particularly harmful to children, who are exposed to constant fear, health problems, family tensions and social exclusion. 3 ISSUES The main issue put before the HRC concerned the violation of art 24(3) of the ICCPR, which provides the right of every child to acquire a nationality. DZ claimed that the absence of a reliable opportunity for them to receive a nationality in their childhood, together with the years of limbo that they had to endure on account of the Netherlands’ approach to addressing statelessness and related rules pertaining to residency rights and acquisition of nationality, violated their right under art 24(3) of the ICCPR. In this respect, DZ also highlighted the interrelationship between one’s right to acquire a nationality at birth and an individual’s enjoyment of juridical personality and respect for human dignity under the ICCPR. A second issue concerned the Netherlands’ failure to ensure that every child, especially stateless children and children born to parents with an irregular migratory status, enjoy their rights under the ICCPR — therefore violating arts 24 and 2(2) of the ICCPR (the latter requiring every state to adopt the necessary laws and measures to implement the rights set out in the treaty). Moreover, as DZ noted, this is a consequence of a systemic flaw in the Dutch legislation and administrative rules governing civil registration, nationality and immigration status. For instance, the Netherlands lacked a fair and balanced process to determine statelessness, including statelessness at birth. On top of that, there were no safeguards in place to prevent and reduce childhood statelessness and ensure that a child’s best interest is fully respected. A third issue related to the lack of an effective remedy in violation of art 24(3), read in conjunction with art 2(3), of the ICCPR. 2 3 ibid 3 [2.6]. ibid 4 [2.9]. 164