NORDIC JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS 151 State and non-State actors in Syria, Iraq and Turkey. This touches upon the obligation to respect and protect children’s rights which will be commented on in this section as well. 4.2. The justification for the current policy by the Minister and UNCRC Article 3(1) The justification for the Dutch Government’s policy appears to be at variance with UNCRC Article 3(1) which stipulates that ‘the best interests of the child’ shall be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children. The policy seems mainly motivated by the potential threat from any accompanying parents.74 The NCTV’s security analysis emphasises that all security risks outlined that apply to children are applicable to a large degree to adults.75 The risks involved with the repatriation of women should not be underestimated according to the NCTV, now that women are also being called on to fight as jihadists.76 After returning, a woman who is a jihadist could come into contact with other jihadists and try to reinforce the jihadist movement in the Netherlands.77 According to the Minister of Justice and Security, the separation of these children from their parents is not the solution as that is would be a complicated legal matter. It could also fuel ‘feelings of revenge’ that could affect their development at a later stage.78 Although the victimhood of these children with ties to the Netherlands is acknowledged— their development may be impaired by their parents and they did not choose themselves to travel to a war zone79 – this does not appear to have been a serious consideration when the policy was established. It is unclear to what extent an assessment was made of the interests of the children, and how these interests were balanced against the interests of State security.80 Determining policy in relation to or affecting children requires a comprehensive inventory of their interests and rights, and the attribution of a certain value to these. On the grounds of UNCRC Article 3(1), the interests of children should carry serious weight.81 The interests of children should be seen separately from the role and position of their parents, though it should not be forgotten that the relationship between child and parents is highly relevant and should not be restricted without reason (see also UNCRC Article 9). That the Dutch Government wants to prevent the risks arising from accompanying parents is understandable, but these risks are a separate issue to the question of whether the children themselves have a wish, interest and right to return (see also UNCRC Article 12). On the other hand, it should be noted that the children themselves could also form a risk. The greatest threat according to the security services are children who have received combat training or have combat experience. Children could also have been indoctrinated by ISIS with the notion that the Netherlands (and the whole of the West) is the enemy. It is 74 Parliamentary Documents II 2017–18, 29754, 461. NCTV (n 2). Ibid. 77 Ibid. 78 Parliamentary Documents II 2017–18, 29754, 461. 79 Ibid. 80 Next to these counter-terrorism arguments, the Minister brought forward the argument related to international relations, the safety of those who wish to return and the safety of the civil servants were they to be sent to the region for repatriation purposes. 81 CRC Committee, General Comment No 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration (Art 3(1)), 39. This is also supported in the literature in relation to UNCRC, art 3(1); see e.g. Noam Peleg, ‘International Children’s Rights Law: General Principles’ in Ursula Kilkelly and Ton Liefaard (eds), International Human Rights of Children (Springer 2019) 135–57. 75 76