European States’ Obligations to Repatriate the Children Detained in Camps in Northeast Syria Notably, the prohibition of discrimination has also been recognized as a guiding principle for the effective protection of children’s rights. States, in all of their actions, must respect and ensure that all children are free from any kind of discrimination based on their or their parents’ race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth, or other status.169 In particular, States must take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination and punishment on the basis of their status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s family members and the impugned conduct of parents that may have adverse consequences on children.170 In practical terms, States must take proactive measures where necessary to guarantee the principle of non-discrimination, which may require positive measures aimed at a particular group of persons in order to redress a situation of inequality. 171 In light of the abovementioned legal standards, European States must ensure that respect for equality and non-discrimination is a central feature of all decisions related to the repatriation of children detained in northeast Syria.172 So far, most European States have adopted a case-by-case approach regarding repatriation, based on unclear criteria regarding which children are entitled to repatriation, such as being below a certain age, being orphaned or otherwise unaccompanied, or having particularly acute medical needs (see Section I above, on Factual Background). This kind of approach results in different treatment between children in the camps based on their age, their parental and/or maternal links, and the degree of their or their parents’ alleged affiliation with ISIS. This differential approach may amount to discrimination.173 In order to ensure that their repatriation policies are not 169 CRC, Article 2(1); ICCPR, Article 24(1). CRC, Article 2(2). See also: HRComm, “MMM. et al. v. Australia,” Communication No. 2136/2012, 2013, para. 10(4): “the detention of a minor child whose parent was deemed a security risk was arbitrary and contrary to Article 9, para. 1 of the ICCPR.” 171 CommRC, “General Comment No. 14 (2013),” para. 41. 172 OSCE/ODIHR, “Guidelines for Addressing the Threats and Challenges of ‘Foreign Terrorist Fighters’ within a Human Rights Framework,” 2018, p. 62. See also the EU “Directive 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on Combating Terrorism and Replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and Amending Council Decision 2005/671/JHA,” 15 March 2017, which refers specifically to the general prohibition of discrimination, in particular on grounds of race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion. For a guide on how to demonstrate discrimination in counter-terrorism context see: Open Society Foundations and Amnesty International, “A Human Rights Guide for Researching Racial and Religious Discrimination in Counterterrorism in Europe,” 2021. 173 CRC, Article 2. See also: Andrea Olivares Jones and Karin Frodé, “Children of Foreign Fighters: Australia’s Responsibility to Repatriate,” 2019. 170 32