MKAH v Switzerland SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENT A Main Arguments by the Parties Befor UNCRC, AM argued that if her son was returned to Bulgaria, Switzerland would violate several provisions of the CRC,9 including art 7 (the right to a nationality) and art 12 (the right to be heard). UNCRC asked Switzerland to suspend the return of the family to Bulgaria while the case was pending. AM noted that, at the time, the procedure for determination of statelessness in Bulgaria was restricted to persons who were born in Bulgaria or entered the country regularly.10 The lack of a legal framework to recognise her son as stateless meant that his return would result in a violation of the right to a nationality under arts 2(2) and 7 of the CRC.11 AM claimed that the Swiss authorities had failed to justify how the removal order was in accordance with the child’s best interests, especially in light of the abuse they suffered and the poor conditions.12 AM stressed the likelihood of her child being re-traumatised if returned to Bulgaria, relying on civil society reports and decisions from international bodies that evidenced the severe lack of integration policies, housing, education and medical care in Bulgaria for beneficiaries of international protection.13 A third party intervention submitted by the Advice on Individual Rights in Europe Centre, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, and the Dutch Council for Refugees14 informed UNCRC that although Bulgaria has international obligations to protect stateless persons and prevent statelessness, it has maintained reservations to the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons15 and the 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 AM invoked arts 2(2), 6, 7, 12, 16, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 37 and 39 of the CRC: see MKAH v Switzerland (n 1) 1 [1.1]. This case note only analyses the claims related to the child’s right to a nationality and related implications. MKAH v Switzerland (n 1) 3 [3.2]. ibid 3 [3.2], 9 [6.4]. In relation to the alleged violation of art 2(2), UNCRC concluded that the author had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim and therefore declared it ill-founded and inadmissible: see MKAH v Switzerland (n 1) 11 [9.7]. ibid 12 [10.3]. ibid 4 [3.5] citing Iliana Savova, ‘Country Report: Bulgaria 2018 Update’ (Country Report, Asylum Information Database, January 2019); Council of Europe, Report of the Fact-Finding Mission by Ambassador Tomáš Boček, Special Representative of the Secretary General on Migration and Refugees, to Bulgaria (Report No SG/Inf(2018)18, 19 April 2018) 19; Margarite Zoeteweij and Adriana Romer, ‘Bulgarie: Situation Actuelle des Personnes Requérantes d’Asile et des Personnes au Bénéfice d’un Statut de Protection’ (Information Report, Swiss Refugee Council, 30 August 2019) 22–23; Swiss Refugee Council, Renoncer aux Transferts vers la Bulgarie (Report, September 2019). AIRE Centre, European Council on Refugees and Exiles and Dutch Council for Refugees, ‘Third Party Intervention in MKAH v Switzerland, 95/2019’, Communication to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in MKAH v Switzerland, 31 March 2020, 9 [37] <https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/sites/default/files/aldfiles/CRCMKAH%20final%20as%20sent.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/N29P-EJY2> (‘Third Party Intervention’). Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, opened for signature 28 September 1954, 360 UNTS 117 (entered into force 6 June 1960). See also Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, New York, 28 September 1954, Bulgaria: Accession, UN Doc CN.168.2012.TREATIES-V.3 (28 March 2012); Bulgaria: Withdrawal of Reservation to Article 31 of the Convention, UN Doc CN.505.2020.TREATIES-V.3 (27 October 2020). 295