CCPR/C/130/D/2918/2016 a statelessness determination procedure did not grant a residence permit to a person recognized as stateless and that the stateless determination procedure envisaged in the draft legislation, including the criteria for the acquisition of Dutch citizenship by children with stateless parents, was not in line with international standards. 22 The Committee recommended that the State party review and amend its draft legislation with a view to ensuring that a person recognized as stateless was granted a residence permit so as to fully enjoy the rights enshrined in the Covenant, and to ensure that the stateless determination procedure was fully in line with international standards, was aimed at reducing statelessness and took into account the best interests of the child in cases involving children.23 Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its concluding observations on the State party’s fourth periodic report under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, recommended that the State party “ensure that all stateless children born in its territory, irrespective of residency status, have access to citizenship without any conditions”.24 8.5 Regarding the present communication, the Human Rights Committee notes that the author’s mother has contacted Chinese authorities several times to confirm whether they consider the author a Chinese national, without success. The Committee also notes that after she visited the Embassy of China, she was informed that it would only be possible to issue proof of Chinese nationality for the author if she herself was registered as a Chinese national. The Committee further notes her information that she was not registered as a Chinese national at birth, or at any later stage. The Committee notes that the application by the author’s mother to register the author as stateless in the civil registry of the State party was rejected by the domestic authorities on the ground that she had not submitted any proof of the author’s statelessness, such as official documents from Chinese authorities confirming that the author did not have Chinese citizenship. It also notes that in their decisions the domestic authorities did not outline any further steps that the author’s mother could have taken to obtain official documents from Chinese authorities concerning the author’s nationality status, after her repeated attempts to obtain such documentation had proven futile. The Committee further notes that the domestic authorities made no inquiries of their own in order to attempt to confirm the author’s nationality status, or lack thereof. It notes that the Council of State, in its decision of 21 May 2014, acknowledged that the lack of a status determination procedure in the State party meant that individuals entitled to protection, including children, were falling through a gap in legislation. The Committee notes the State party’s declaration that having examined the author’s complaint, it has concluded and acknowledged that the author is currently unable to effectively enjoy his right as a minor to acquire a nationality. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 24 (3) of the Covenant. The Committee also considers that the failure to provide the author with an effective remedy amounts to a violation of the author’s rights under article 24 (3) read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation by the State party of the author’s rights under article 24 (3), read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. 10. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author 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 provide the author with adequate compensation. The State party is also required to review its decision on the author’s application to be registered as stateless in the civil registry of the State party, as well as its decision on the author’s application to be recognized as a Dutch citizen, taking into account the Committee’s findings in the present Views; the State party is also requested to review the author’s living circumstances and residence permit, taking into account the principle of the best interests of the child and the Committee’s findings in the present Views. Additionally, the State party is under an obligation to take all steps necessary to avoid similar violations in the future, 22 23 24 8 CCPR/C/NLD/CO/5, para. 22. Ibid., para. 23. CRC/C/NLD/CO/4, para. 33. GE.21-00755