CCPR/C/125/D/2498/2014 also notes that, although the author’s first two applications for a residence permit on the basis of no-fault statelessness were denied in 2009 and 2012, she was eventually granted such a permit in 2014, and it has since been renewed. Thus, the State party’s own authorities have determined that the author is stateless through no fault of her own. 7.7 Regarding the argument of the domestic authorities that the failure to pay the child budget would not lead to an emergency humanitarian situation, the Committee notes the State party’s observation that, when the author applied for the child budget in 2011, she had found a place to live. However, the Committee also notes the statement provided by the author in 2011 from an individual claiming that the author was reliant on his financial support, which he was unable to continue providing. The Committee observes that the State party has not contested the author’s claims that, during the relevant period, she had to rely on charity to meet basic needs. With respect to the State party’s position that the author had the primary responsibility for providing for Y, the Committee notes that the author had no access to the formal labour market during the relevant period, due to her lack of residence and work permits. The Committee notes the State party’s position that the child budget was not intended to guarantee a subsistence level of income, but also notes that the author did not receive any other types of financial assistance from the State party during the relevant period that would provide for Y’s subsistence. With respect to the argument of the State party’s authorities that the beneficiary of the child budget is the parent and not the child, the Committee refers to its conclusions in paragraph 7.3 above. 7.8 In light of the totality of the aforementioned circumstances, including the vulnerability of the author and Y, both of whom are stateless through no fault of their own, the Committee considers that the State party has not specified the kinds of special circumstances that allow individuals without a residence permit to receive the child budget, taking into account the fact that the author’s other applications for various types of subsistence-related benefits were denied. The Committee further considers that, under article 24 (1) of the Covenant, the State party had a positive obligation to ensure that Y’s physical and psychological well-being was protected, including through a guarantee of subsistence under circumstances where her mother had no access to work or other income. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of Y’s rights under article 24 (1) of the Covenant. 7.9 In view of the foregoing, the Committee does not deem it necessary to further examine the author’s claims concerning the same matter under articles 23 (1) and 26, read in conjunction with articles 23 (1) and 24 (1), of the Covenant. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the information before it discloses a violation by the State party of Y’s rights under article 24 (1) of the Covenant. 9. Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide Y with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated, inter alia, to (a) review Y’s circumstances with a view to ensuring her access to minimum subsistence, including by re-evaluating the author’s application for the child budget, as appropriate; and (b) provide adequate compensation to Y for the violations suffered. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. 10. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in the official language of the State party. 11