European States’ Obligations to Repatriate the Children Detained in Camps in Northeast Syria to remedy the human rights violations the children have been subjected to. Therefore, the human rights obligations of States strongly encourage (if not require) providing consular assistance and facilitation of their repatriation. The legal discussions around whether there is an enforceable right to receive consular assistance under international law do not exclude European States’ human rights obligations, which require them to provide prompt and effective consular assistance to their citizens detained in the camps, in the form of administrative and logistical support. 343 The Right to Enter One’s Own Country Children detained in the camps in northeast Syria are unable to return to, or in the case of children born in the camps, travel to their country without the assistance of their country of origin. Therefore, establishing whether States’ obligations regarding the right to enter one’s own country include proactively repatriating their citizens is critical for securing children’s return. i. International and European Human Rights Law Under international and European human rights law, everyone has a right to enter their own country.344 While the ECHR Protocol No. 4 limits the scope of this right, the HRComm interprets the term “one’s own country” broadly.345 It implies a set of ties and connections that together make up “a genuine and effective link”346 to a country, which can be composed of various elements, including: language, center of interests, habitual residence, cultural identity, and family ties. 347 At the very least, the term 343 Some domestic courts in Europe have already ruled that Governments are obliged to deliver consular assistance to their citizens detained in the camps, in order to ensure their physical and psychological integrity and provide them with administrative documents necessary for repatriation. See: Rights Watch UK, “European Women and Children in Syria – Factual and Legal Briefing”, 7 November 2019, para. 11. 344 UDHR, Articles 9 and 13(2); ICCPR, Article 12(4); ECHR Protocol No. 4, Article 3(2); CRC, Article 10(2). Article 9 of the UDHR includes the prohibition of exile; but neither the ICCPR nor ECHR expressly include this prohibition “because it is presumed that the guarantees enshrined in the right to freedom of movement, including the right to return to one’s own country, renders exile impossible in practice.” See: 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 Foreign Fighters under International Law and Beyond (eds.) Andrea de Guttry, Francesca Capone, Christophe Paulussen, Asser Press 2016, p. 250. 345 HRComm, “General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (Freedom of Movement)”, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, 2 November 1999, para. 20. However, note that Article 2 of ECHR Protocol No. 4 limits the right to return to nationals of the State concerned. 346 The “genuine and effective link” criterion arose from ICJ, “Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala)”, Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. reports 1955, Rep 4. 347 HRW, “Right to Return - Relevant Background,” 4 April 2004. 61