CCPR/C/125/D/2498/2014 4.3 The linkage principle, established under the Benefit Entitlement (Residence Status) Act of 1998, aims primarily to ensure that an alien without an unconditional residence permit cannot claim entitlement to public provisions. The Act provides for three exceptions to this rule, in that public provisions relating to education, health care and legal aid are available to all aliens, including those without a residence permit.15 4.4 Moreover, in the Netherlands, the most basic provisions, such as medically necessary health care, are available to every alien residing in the country unlawfully. Although lawfully resident aliens are not entitled to benefits through the regular social security system, alternative provisions are available to them. Aliens awaiting a decision on an asylum application are provided with access to reception facilities, and can obtain a weekly financial allowance and other financial provisions. Aliens who are not asylum seekers are given a financial allowance and have access to a medical expenses scheme to provide for the necessary means of subsistence. Reception facilities may be available if there is a prospect of the individual leaving the Netherlands. Specific financial provisions have been made for minors, who constitute a particularly vulnerable group. Extra reception facilities are available to vulnerable aliens residing in the country illegally, including unaccompanied minors and aliens with medical problems whose legal remedies have been exhausted. Following a Supreme Court decision of 21 September 2012, minor aliens who are not lawfully resident in the Netherlands and live with their family are offered shelter in a family accommodation centre if this is necessary to avert a humanitarian emergency. The families receive shelter until they depart for their country of origin, or until every child in the family has reached the age of majority. 4.5 The State party adds to the factual background of the complaint and acknowledges that, after living outside Uzbekistan for five years, the author lost her Uzbek nationality. On 8 October 2014, the author and Y were granted ex proprio motu a temporary regular residence permit, valid from 13 June 2014 to 13 June 2015, on temporary humanitarian grounds, on the basis of the no-fault policy. The residence permit was extended to 13 June 2016. It was granted after the Repatriation and Departure Service had issued a memorandum on 13 June 2014 expressing the view that the author and her family were unable to leave the Netherlands through no fault of their own. With this memorandum, the cumulative conditions for granting a residence permit on a no-fault basis were met. 4.6 Regarding general child benefits, the State party notes that, in mid-2014, due to an error in which one file was mistaken for another, the author was erroneously considered to be a lawful resident and, in a decision dated 1 December 2014, the author was granted general child benefits and was paid retroactive statutory interest. This error came to light during the examination of the present communication. On 23 July 2015, the decision granting general child benefits was revoked, although repayment was not requested. 4.7 The State party considers that the communication is inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol on the basis that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies, as her appeal against the decision of the District Court of The Hague dated 10 April 2013, concerning her application for general child benefits, remains pending. It is emphasized that entitlement to the child budget is contingent upon on entitlement to general child benefits. 4.8 Moreover, the State party considers that the communication is without merit. Article 23 (1) of the Covenant does not require a child budget to be provided. As the refusal to grant the child budget is not an obstacle to family life, the issue of government interference or failure to act with respect to the life of the author and Y as a family unit does not arise. Contrary to the author’s argument, the Covenant does not create an affirmative obligation to protect the family unit by providing financial assistance, let alone any specific child budget or child benefit. Neither general child benefits nor the child budget is a general income support scheme providing families with children with a minimum subsistence income payment, even if the individuals concerned have resided in the country for a long 15 6 The State party adds that several additional exceptions to the rule exist for various categories of persons, including suspected victims of trafficking in women.