CCPR/C/130/D/2918/2016 5.3 The author argues that in order to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant, the State party should establish by law an accessible, efficient framework for determining statelessness status, which should contain the following features: (a) the best interests of the child should be taken into account as a primary consideration in all actions or decisions that concern them, particularly the implementation of safeguards for the prevention of statelessness; 8 (b) children’s access to statelessness determination and consideration of their claims should under no circumstance be conditioned upon their parents’ migratory status;9 (c) the procedure should be accessible to anyone regardless of the lawfulness of his or her stay in the State party;10 (d) authorities responsible for making statelessness determinations should receive training and support, including specialized training on nationality law, international human rights law and statelessness;11 (e) the procedure should adopt an approach to evidence that takes into account the challenges inherent in establishing whether someone is stateless; 12 (f) no child should be registered as being of unknown or undetermined nationality for longer than five years;13 and (g) special measures of protection should be granted to persons of undetermined nationality, children born in the territory should be treated as “stateless” until a nationality is determined, and individuals awaiting statelessness determination should be granted an automatic permit of stay for the duration of proceedings. Additional submission from the State party 6. On 23 April 2018, the State party reiterated its position as outlined in its submission of 28 June 2017. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 7.4 The Committee notes the author’s submission that the State party has violated its obligations under article 2 (2) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 24, since it failed to adopt such laws and administrative rules as may be necessary to give effect to the rights enshrined in article 24 of the Covenant. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence14 that the provisions of article 2 (2) cannot be invoked as a claim in a communication under the Optional Protocol in conjunction with other provisions of the Covenant, except when the failure by the State party to observe its obligations under article 2 is the proximate cause of a distinct violation of the Covenant directly affecting the individual claiming to be a victim. The Committee notes, however, that the author has already alleged a violation of his rights under article 24, resulting from the interpretation and application of the existing laws of the State party, and the Committee does not consider that examination of whether the State party also violated its general obligations under article 2 (2) of the Covenant, read in conjunction 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 A/HRC/31/29, para. 9. Ibid., para. 8. UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons (Geneva, 2014), para. 69. UNHCR, Mapping Statelessness in the Netherlands, p. 60, recommendation 3 (f); and Katja Swider, “Statelessness determination in the Netherlands”, pp. 16–18. UNHCR, Mapping Statelessness in the Netherlands, p. 59, recommendation 3 (b). UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No. 4 (“Ensuring every child’s right to acquire a nationality through articles 1–4 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness”), para. 22. Poliakov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/111/D/2030/2011), para. 7.4. GE.21-00755