CCPR/C/125/D/2498/2014 the Netherlands pursuant to a judicial decision of the highest instance. If all types of financial benefits were granted to unlawfully resident aliens and stateless individuals – regardless of the reasons for their statelessness – this would result in a semblance of legality and the establishment of such a strong legal position that it would be virtually impossible to expel them. Furthermore, that would render it unnecessary for aliens to apply for a residence permit through standard procedures. 4.13 With regard to the author’s argument that Y has suffered indirect discrimination because the child budget, while paid to the author, was intended for her, the State party reiterates that the contribution is granted to the parents, who are free to spend it as they wish, without any obligation to spend it on child welfare. Moreover, Y has not been subject to discrimination, as all parents and their children who are unlawful residents are ineligible for the general child benefit and the child budget under the Benefit Entitlement (Residence Status) Act. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In comments dated 1 December 2015 and 18 April 2016, the author submits that the pending proceedings concerning her application for general child benefits are irrelevant, because her application for the child budget was filed separately, and the two kinds of benefit are not connected. In the final decision of the Council of State on the application for the child budget, there is no reference to the pending case concerning general child benefits. The Council of State did not consider that the pending case rendered inadmissible the matter concerning the child budget. 5.2 In its observations on the merits, the State party disregarded both the poverty faced by the author and Y and Y’s interests as a vulnerable child. These circumstances warrant a more flexible application of the linkage policy. The three exceptions to the linkage principle cited by the State party (relating to education for minors, health care in lifethreatening situations and legal aid as services accessible to individuals without a residence permit) do not ensure fulfilment by the State party of its obligation to protect the interests of the child. The author and Y subsist on an income level far below the Dutch poverty threshold, and they have no means to change their situation. Whereas the State party maintains that basic provisions were available to them, that is not an accurate reflection of their circumstances, and they were fully dependent on third parties for housing, food and clothing. The State party did not intervene, despite multiple confirmations of statelessness by the Uzbek authorities. Only on 2 May 2014 did a representative of the State party offer the author and Y shelter in a rudimentary family facility. The State party does not contest the destitution the author and Y face. 5.3 The State party’s position that the child budget is not based on need is incorrect, as the State party’s explanatory memorandum to the Child Budget Act clearly refers to the child budget as a tegemoetkoming, which translates as a “reimbursement” or “allowance” toward the cost of children. It is means tested, which assumes a need to reimburse the costs of children. 5.4 Although the State party argues that, in furtherance of the legitimate aim of immigration control, it is reasonable to exclude the author and Y from child benefits, the State party was informed many years ago that they are stateless, and it does not substantively address its obligations in relation to their statelessness in its observations. The State party does not acknowledge that it could have remedied the authors’ statelessness through its own policies. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8