CCPR/C/125/D/2498/2014 period with the knowledge of the State. Even if article 23 did create affirmative obligations, these would relate more to measures to protect family unity and family reunification. 4.9 It is clear from the Committee’s general comment No. 17 (1989) on the rights of the child that article 24 of the Covenant concerns protecting children against harm to their physical or psychological well-being, and that parents have the primary responsibility, including financial responsibility, for their children. The author acted on this responsibility by providing herself with a place to live in The Hague from 15 June 2011, the date on which she applied for the child budget, to 26 March 2014. It is emphasized that need is not a criterion for being granted the benefit, and that basic provisions are available to unlawful resident aliens in the country. Indeed, on 26 March 2014, the municipality of The Hague offered shelter to the author and Y and, on 2 May 2014, they were offered places at a family location. Since December 2014, they have been provided with what is termed “regular housing”. Moreover, the author’s allegations regarding an alleged lack of accommodation are irrelevant to the subject matter of the communication. The cases cited by the author do not support the notion that article 24 of the Covenant creates specific child rights that indirectly arise from government decisions regarding the child’s parents. It is emphasized that neither type of child benefit constitutes an entitlement of the child. For the same reason, the Netherlands made a reservation to article 26 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to the effect that the provision does not imply an independent entitlement of children to social security, including social insurance. Both general child benefits and the child budget fall within the scope of this reservation. In the Netherlands, a minor has independent social security entitlements only in exceptional situations. 4.10 Regarding article 26 of the Covenant, distinctions based on residence status are by no means unusual in the context of human rights treaties. 16 Moreover, article 26 of the Covenant matches the scope and content of article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. These provisions do not prohibit all forms of unequal treatment; rather, they prohibit only those forms of unequal treatment that qualify as discrimination. Discrimination arises in the absence of a sufficiently objective and reasonable justification, a legitimate aim and reasonable and proportionate means to achieve that aim. 4.11 According to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, it is only in situations where discrimination is based exclusively on nationality that very weighty reasons must exist to establish an objective and reasonable justification. In the author’s case, the distinction is based instead on residence status and is sufficiently justified, given the objective and reasonable justification for treating a country’s own nationals differently from unlawfully resident aliens with regard to social entitlements. Indeed, an unqualified obligation to treat unlawfully resident aliens equally with a country’s own nationals and lawful residents would deprive a State of the ability to pursue an immigration policy to protect the country’s economic well-being. It is therefore both objective and reasonable that the State party limits entitlement to general child benefits and the child budget to lawful residents. According to the European Court of Human Rights, States have the right to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens, and measures aimed at ensuring effective immigration control may serve a legitimate aim of preserving the economic wellbeing of a country.17 Neither the European Convention on Human Rights nor any United Nations treaty protects entitlements to child benefits. 4.12 Concerning the argument that, due to the statelessness of the author and Y, no legitimate aim is served by the distinction made in the eligibility criteria for child benefits, the State party observes that Dutch law allows for the granting of residence permits to individuals who have demonstrated that they have become stateless through no fault of their own. The author did not have such a residence permit in 2011, when she applied for the child budget. Thus, at that time, her situation did not differ from that of other unlawfully resident aliens. Moreover, at the time of application, she was under an obligation to leave 16 17 The State party cites, inter alia, article 1 of the European Convention on Social and Medical Assistance and article 1 (1) of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The State party cites European Court of Human Rights, Nacic and others v. Sweden (application No. 16567/10), judgment of 15 May 2012, para. 79. 7