CCPR/C/125/D/2498/2014 consideration, forms an integral part of every child’s right to measures of protection, as required by article 24 (1).19 The States parties to the Covenant have a positive obligation to protect children from physical and psychological harm, which may include guaranteeing minimum subsistence, in order to comply with the requirements of article 24 (1). 7.4 As a preliminary matter, the Committee notes the State party’s position that, because the child budget is paid to the parent and may be spent as the parent wishes, including on items unrelated to childcare, Y’s rights under article 24 (1) are not implicated by the denial of the child budget. The Committee observes, however, that, according to the State party’s submission, the amount of the child budget is inversely related to the parents’ ability to pay the costs of raising and caring for children and is also dependent on the number and age of children per household. The Committee also notes the information provided by the State party in its fourth periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, stating that the child budget (kindgebonden budget) is a contribution towards the maintenance costs of a child aged under 18 (CRC/C/NLD/4, para. 175). The Committee considers that, while the parent is the direct recipient of the child budget, both the parent and the child benefit from it. Noting the State party’s position that the Committee’s general comment No. 17 limits article 24 protections to those relating to the physical or psychological well-being of children, the Committee observes that the absence of social protection for children may in certain circumstances adversely affect their physical and psychological well-being. 7.5 The Committee notes the State party’s position that, under Dutch law, non-resident aliens are not entitled to the child budget. The Committee also notes, however, that, according to the decisions issued by the domestic authorities, the child budget may in special circumstances be granted to individuals without a residence permit. Nevertheless, in the author’s case, the domestic authorities considered that she had not demonstrated such special circumstances, noting in particular that she had not substantiated her allegations that she was stateless and was unable to leave the Netherlands, and had not argued or shown that the failure to grant the child budget would lead to a humanitarian emergency situation. The domestic authorities based their decision on the notion that the child budget was not intended to guarantee a subsistence level of income to the beneficiaries and on the principle that the beneficiary of the budget is the parent, not the child. 7.6 In evaluating this reasoning through the lens of article 24 (1) of the Covenant, the Committee observes that the State party has not indicated the kinds of special circumstances under which the child budget may be granted to individuals without a residence permit. It is not clear whether any criteria or guidelines exist, in the Child Budget Act or elsewhere, according to which such special circumstances are determined in such a manner as to ensure that the child’s best interests form a primary consideration. While the State party’s authorities maintained that the author had not substantiated her allegations of statelessness and inability to leave the Netherlands, the Committee notes that the author claims to have informed the State party’s authorities of her statelessness in 2009. In this regard, the Committee notes the certificates dated 14 April 2009, 25 May 2011, 14 March 2012 and 12 July 2013 from the Embassy of Uzbekistan in Belgium, stating that the author had not lived in Uzbekistan since 2000, had lost her Uzbek nationality and could not be granted a passport or a return visa. The Committee notes that the State party does not contest having received these certificates and observes that the most recent of them was acknowledged in a letter dated 24 July 2013 by the State party’s Repatriation and Departure Service, which issued a memorandum on 13 June 2014 acknowledging that the author and her daughter were unable to leave the Netherlands through no fault of their own. The Committee notes that the author applied for the child budget in 2011 and that a final decision on that matter was reached in 2014. The State party has not indicated the steps the author could have taken and failed to take in order to substantiate her statelessness and inability to leave the Netherlands during the relevant period. In addition, the Committee observes that the State party does not contest the author’s assertions that she and Y had no choice in the decisions that led to their statelessness. In this regard, the Committee notes the author’s statements that she fled Uzbekistan with her family at the age of 11 and became stateless at the age of 17, and that Y was born stateless in the Netherlands. The Committee 19 10 Bakhtiyari and Bakhtiyari v. Australia (CCPR/C/79/D/1069/2002), para. 9.7.