European States’ Obligations to Repatriate the Children Detained in Camps in Northeast Syria encompasses an individual who, because of their special ties to a given country, cannot be considered a mere alien. This includes, for example, nationals of a country who have been stripped of their nationality in violation of international law.348 The right also entitles a person to come to the country for the first time if they were born outside the country. 349 In no case may a person be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter their own country.350 This means that any limitations to the right must be lawful, pursuant to a legitimate aim, necessary and proportionate to achieve that aim.351 The concept of arbitrariness is applied to all legislative, administrative, and judicial actions of the States that are relevant for this right. Even if the interference is provided for by law, it must take into account the individual circumstances of the person concerned; general and virtually automatic restrictions are insufficient.352 While there are few, if any, circumstances in which deprivation of the right to enter one’s own country could be reasonable, States are prohibited from arbitrarily preventing a person from returning to their own country by stripping them of nationality or by expelling them to a third country.353 Notably, States’ human rights obligations stemming from the right to enter to one’s own country include both a negative obligation on the State not to impede entry to the country and a positive obligation, which in the majority of cases means the issuance of all the necessary travel documents, noting that the greater practical importance for the return are the restrictions placed by procedural demands.354 348 HRComm, “CCPR General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (Freedom of Movement)”, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, 2 November 1999, para. 20. For more information about HRC’s interpretation of “his/her own country,” see: Rutsel Martha and Stephen Bailey, “The Right to Enter his or her Own Country”, EJIL:Talk!, 23 June 2020. 349 HRComm, “CCPR General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (Freedom of Movement)”, 2 November 1999, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, para. 19. 350 UDHR Article 13(2); ICCPR Article 12(4); ECHR Protocol No 4 Article 3(2); CRC Article 10(2). 351 UNSG, “Key Principles for the Protection, Repatriation, Prosecution, Rehabilitation and Reintegration of Women and Children with Links to United Nations listed Terrorist Groups”, April 2019, p. 5. 352 ECtHR Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, see: ECtHR, “Stamose v. Bulgaria”, Application No. 29713/05, 27 November 2012, para. 35-36; ECtHR, “Nalbantski v. Bulgaria”, Application No. 30943/04, 10 May 2011, para. 66. Also note that “[…] even interference provided for by law should be in accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant and should be, in any event, reasonable in the particular circumstances,” see: HRComm, “General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (Freedom of Movement)”, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, 2 November 1999, para. 20. 353 HRComm, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, “General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (Freedom of Movement)”, 2 November 1999, para. 19 and 21. See also: ILC, “Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens, with Commentaries”, 2014, Article 8: “A State shall not make its national an alien by deprivation of nationality for the sole purpose of expelling him or her͟”. 354 Kay Hailbronner, “Readmission Agreements and the Obligation on States under Public International Law to Readmit their Own and Foreign Nationals”, Heidelberg Journal of International Law, Volume 57, Issue 1, 1997, p. 6. 62