NORDIC JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS 153 who, because of his or her special ties to or claims in relation to a given country, cannot be considered to be a mere alien.90 According to the UN Human Rights Committee, persons with a special connection to a country are thus also entitled to claim the right to return. This interpretation, however, is not legally binding.91 It is also questionable whether this right goes so far that it requires the Dutch Government to actively facilitate their return. This does not follow from the literal text of UNCRC Article 10(1). For that reason, assuming that the children with ties to the Netherlands fall within the Netherlands’ jurisdiction, there is no obvious violation of UNCRC Article 10(1). As already stated, it is not likely that the children with ties to the Netherlands who are located in Syria, Iraq and Turkey will be able to return to the Netherlands without assistance from the Dutch Government,92 even though in the light of the (non-binding) interpretation of this right by the UN Human Rights Committee, this is would be desirable. This is on strained terms with the right to return as set out by the UN Human Rights Committee.93 The current policy of the Dutch Government is thus at variance with the right to return of children who have ties to the Netherlands. 4.4. The obligation to respect international children’s rights Respect for children’s rights, according to the CRC, entails that a State Party not only refrains from committing a direct violation, but also refrains from indirect violations. A direct link between an act or an omission by a State Party and a violation of children’s rights appears to be present if the violation was caused by the act or omission of a State Party authority.94 According to the CRC, an indirect violation exists if a State Party supports or facilitates a violation.95 The CRC does not specify more details in this regard, and so it is not entirely clear whether this presumes active actions other than policymaking. The question here is whether the Dutch Government through its policy of not reaching out to children with ties to the Netherlands or accepting the help of others (the Kurds, the US and the Red Cross) does not in fact supports or facilitates the direct violations by local State and non-State actors. As long as the children with ties to the Netherlands are not assisted in returning to the Netherlands, they are unable to escape the reported violations of children’s rights, and as a result it is questionable whether the Dutch Government is demonstrating sufficient respect for their rights. 4.4.1. The obligation to protect against violations by State and non-State actors outside the territory of a State Party The obligation to protect against violations is also relevant in light of the situation of the children in Syria, Turkey and Iraq. The Dutch Government can be expected to take all 90 Ibid. 20. Lutz Oette, ‘The UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies: Impact and Future’ in Gerd Oberleitner, International Human Rights Institutions, Tribunals, and Courts (Springer 2018). 92 D’Oliveira (n 25). 93 Sandra Krähenmann, ‘The Obligations under International Law of the Foreign Fighter’s State of Nationality or Habitual Residence, State of Transit and State of Destination’ in Andrea de Guttry, Francesca Capone and Christophe Paulussen (eds), Foreign Fighters under International Law and Beyond (TMC Asser Press 2016). 94 Tzevelekos and Katselli Proukaki (n 49). See also Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts of the International Law Commission, art 5 ff. 95 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No 16 (2013) on State Obligations regarding the Impact of the Business Sector on Children’s Rights, 26. 91