CCPR/C/130/D/2918/2016 determine statelessness, but that it was not the task of the Mayor to correct this “omission in the law”. The author appealed the decision to the Court of The Hague on 28 October 2015. On 3 March 2016, the Court rejected the appeal, on the ground that he was not registered as stateless. The decision was upheld by the Council of State on 2 November 2016. 2.9 The author lives with his mother in a restricted freedom centre for failed asylum seekers with young children. He has nearly no contact with Dutch society and lives under permanent threat of deportation. His mother is not eligible for any social benefits besides a small weekly allowance. The restricted freedom centres in the State party are intended to serve as temporary, sober facilities, but the author notes that at the time of submission of his communication to the Committee, he and his mother had been living in the centre for three years. He notes that this system has been severely criticized by children’s rights groups as especially damaging and traumatic for children.6 Residents cannot leave the municipal area to which they are assigned, and have strict daily reporting requirements on all days except Sundays, enforced by threat of criminal detention. Children experience constant fear, health problems, family tensions and social exclusion, due to living under such restrictions in the centres. Complaint 3.1 The author submits that the lack of a reliable opportunity for him to acquire a nationality in his childhood, and the years of limbo he has already suffered on account of the State party’s approach to addressing statelessness and related rules pertaining to residency rights and acquisition of nationality, violate his right to acquire a nationality under article 24 (3) of the Covenant. He notes that he has been registered as “nationality unknown” for, at the time of submission of his communication to the Committee, over six years in the country of his birth and the only country he has ever lived in, with no prospect of acquiring a nationality, or even of formally establishing that he is stateless as a prerequisite for such acquisition. The author argues that in considering the general scope of article 24 (3), it is important to recognize the links between the right to acquire a nationality and an individual’s enjoyment of juridical personality and respect for human dignity – and to recognize the responsibility to ensure a child’s personal development in relation to these important facets of individual identity from birth. 3.2 The author further claims that the State party has not met its obligation to ensure that every child, including stateless children and children born to parents in an irregular migratory status, enjoys all the rights provided for in the Covenant, in violation of his rights under article 24 read alone, and in conjunction with article 2 (2) of the Covenant. He argues that the violation of his right to acquire a nationality is not the result of an isolated decision, or specific to his case. Rather, it is the direct consequence of the failure by the authorities of the State party to give effect to the rights enshrined in article 24 in the State party’s legislation and administrative rules governing civil registration, nationality and immigration status. The author argues that domestic legal protections against statelessness are insufficient because: (a) the State party still lacks fair and balanced processes for determining statelessness, including statelessness at birth; and (b) the State party is not implementing other safeguards relevant to preventing and reducing childhood statelessness that would ensure that his best interests are taken into account and that all of his Covenant rights are respected on an equal footing with other children. 3.3 The author also claims that the State party has failed to provide him with an effective remedy in violation of his rights under article 24 read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant and he argues that this failure was acknowledged by the Council of State in its decision of 21 May 2014. 3.4 The author requests the Committee to find a violation of his rights under the aforementioned articles and to recommend that the State party: (a) change his record in the Municipal Personal Records Database from “unknown nationality” to “stateless”; (b) immediately grant him a regular permit of stay in the Netherlands, retroactive to his birth; (c) 6 4 Working Group on Children in Asylum Seekers’ Centres, “Onderzoek naar het welzijn en perspectief van kinderen en jongeren in gezinslocaties” (report on family locations), October 2014. GE.21-00755