CCPR/C/125/D/2498/2014 fully meeting its obligations under treaties relating to statelessness, including with regard to children who are born stateless. 2.13 On 27 May 2013, the author applied, on behalf of Y, for a long-term child residence permit, also known as a “children’s pardon”.6 On 3 July 2013, the State Secretary of Justice rejected the application on the ground that Y had lived in the Netherlands for only four years before the passage of the law establishing the children’s pardon, instead of the requisite five years.7 On 8 October 2014, the State Secretary of Justice denied the author’s appeal, but granted the author, her parents, her brother and Y a one-year residence permit on the ground that all members of the family were unable to leave the Netherlands through no fault of their own. In March 2015, the District Court of The Hague denied the author’s appeal regarding the children’s pardon. The author applied for an extension of her one-year residence permit and, at the time the communication was submitted, was awaiting a response.8 2.14 The author maintains that she has exhausted domestic remedies with regard to her claims of violations of her right to family life and non-discrimination and of the rights of her child. She states that she has not submitted the matter for consideration by another body of international investigation or settlement. The complaint 3.1 The author submits that, by denying her application for a child budget, the State party violated her and Y’s rights under articles 23 (1), 24 (3) and 26, read in conjunction with articles 23 (1) and 24 (1), of the Covenant, as well as Y’s rights under article 24 (1). With respect to article 23 (1), the author asserts that, in conformity with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights,9 the Dutch courts have found that payment of the child budget may be regarded as a discharge of the State’s positive obligation to protect family life under article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The author adds that the child budget is similarly protected under article 23 (1) of the Covenant, and that the denial of her application amounts to a violation of the right to family life. The linkage principle should not be rigidly applied to stateless individuals, especially when minors are involved, as is the case here. It is well established under Dutch law that the linkage principle is not set in stone and cannot prevail when violations of human rights are at stake.10 The author lost her Uzbek nationality at the age of 17. As a result, Y was born stateless in the Netherlands. The author has submitted several official documents from the Uzbek authorities to demonstrate her loss of nationality. The Repatriation and Departure Service has acknowledged that, because of the author’s loss of nationality, she cannot be repatriated or expelled.11 In addition, the author and Y cannot formally be declared stateless because the Netherlands has no such procedure. Thus, they cannot access the special protection afforded to stateless persons under article 32 of the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, to which the Netherlands is a party. This amounts to a violation of the author’s and Y’s rights under article 24 (3) of the Covenant. Because the author and Y were unable to solve their 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 The State party indicates that this procedure is a transitional scheme for long-term resident children. The State party indicates in its initial observations that, on 6 September 2013, the author again applied for a residence permit for Y under the transitional scheme. The application was denied on 2 December 2013 on the same grounds as before. The author contested both decisions in her appeal. The State party notes in its initial observations that the residence permit was extended until 13 June 2016. The author cites European Court of Human Rights, Niedzwiecki v. Germany (application No. 58453/00), judgment of 25 October 2005, para. 31. The author cites Centrale Raad van Beroep (Central Appeals Tribunal), case No. ECLI:NL:CRVB:2006:AV0197, judgment of 24 January 2006. The author provides a translation of a letter from the Repatriation and Departure Service dated 24 July 2013. The letter refers to the certificate issued by the Embassy of Uzbekistan in Belgium on 12 July 2013 stating that the author had lost her Uzbek nationality.