European States’ Obligations to Repatriate the Children Detained in Camps in Northeast Syria to give effect to the Convention rights, has not allowed States to rely on formalistic arguments regarding the lack of diplomatic relations to avoid their obligations under the right to life, when in reality cooperation was possible.124 Second, State authorities are exercising public powers when deciding whether to repatriate or whom to repatriate from the camps, which affects the rights of the children in a “direct and reasonably foreseeable manner.” 125 European States cannot convincingly argue that they are not aware of the risks and human rights violations that the children in the camps are exposed to and of the likely, foreseeable, and serious harm children are exposed to if they remain in the camps, considering the large number of children that have already died in the camps (see para. 12 above). Third, the children are European States’ nationals in need of the protection of their States of nationality, which have the ability and the obligation 126 to provide necessary travel documentation. From a functional, capacity perspective, it is within the material power of European States to repatriate their nationals from the camps; some have already done so (see Section I.C. above). Notably, based on principles of international cooperation, States that have difficulties in repatriating their children can do so through a third-party State, as has happened in at least one case. 127 The SDF is willing to cooperate with European States in order to repatriate their nationals and has already done so in some cases (see Section I.C. above). The factual situation, taken together with European States’ capacity to protect their child nationals in the camps, gives rise to a positive obligation to prevent serious human rights violations. Notably, in two cases against France, the CommRC has recognized such a functional model of extraterritorial jurisdiction over the child nationals in the camps because, based on numerous contextual factors such as those described above, the State “has the capability and the power to protect the rights of the children 124 ECtHR, “Güzelyurtlu and others v. Cyprus and Turkey,” Application No. 36925/07, 29 January 2019, para. 244. 125 See: HRComm, “General Comment No. 36 (2018) on Article 6 of the ICCPR,” CCPR/C/G/36, 30 October 2018, para. 63; Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, “Extra-territorial Jurisdiction of States Over Children and Their Guardians in Camps, Prisons, or Elsewhere in the Northeast Syrian Arab Republic – Legal Analysis,” 2020, para. 15. 126 See: HRComm, “Vidal Martins v. Uruguay,” Communication No. 57/1979, 23 March 1982, para. 7. 127 With the support of France, the Netherlands repatriated two Dutch children in June 2019, see: Reuters, “French, Dutch Islamic State Orphans Repatriated from Syria,” 10 June 2019. 25