1. Introduction
1. Following a proposal by the
Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group (SOC), the Parliamentary Assembly
decided to hold a debate under urgent procedure on “International
obligations concerning the repatriation of children from war and
conflict zones” on 27 January 2020. I was appointed rapporteur on
the same day.
2. It is in the context of news on the death and suffering of
children caused by the conflicts in Syria and Iraq and their aftermath
– which are reported daily – that this urgent debate is being held.
Similar to the tragedy of lives lost in perilous Mediterranean Sea
crossings, neither the situation in the refugee/detention camps
nor the humanitarian crisis children are confronted with can leave
us indifferent. We must respond to this tragic reality by upholding
children’s rights and protecting them and their best interests.
3. On several occasions, the Assembly has drawn attention to
the humanitarian crisis caused by the war in Syria and Iraq. In
its
Resolution 2107 (2016) on “A stronger European response to the Syrian refugee
crisis”, the Assembly notes that the regional situation is untenable.
It raises concern with respect to the situation of children in Syria
and Iraq in its
Resolution
2204 (2018) on “Protecting children affected by armed conflicts”.
The Assembly urges Council of Europe member States to repatriate
captured foreign fighters, and their families, who fought with ISIS/
Daesh in Syria, and to bring them
to trial in its
Resolution
2298 (2019) on the “Situation in Syria: prospects for a political
solution?”. Other texts, such as
Resolution 2134 (2016), reiterate its firm commitment to fight impunity. In
its
Resolution 2221 (2018) on “Counter-narratives to terrorism”, the Assembly renews
its condemnation of all acts of terrorism and calls on member States
to draw up national strategies for the prevention of radicalisation.
In its
Resolution 2263
(2019) on “Withdrawing nationality as a measure to combat terrorism:
a human-rights compatible approach?”, the Assembly states that deprivation
of nationality of a parent must not lead to the deprivation of the
nationality of his or her children.
Resolution 2099 (2016) on “The need to eradicate statelessness of children”
points to the fact that Syria and other countries have gender-discriminatory
nationality laws which deny women the right to confer their nationality
on their children.
4. This report will once more sound the alert on the dramatic
situation of children stranded in camps and detention centres in
Syria and Iraq following the fall of the so-called Islamic State
(ISIS/Daesh). In al Hol refugee/detention camp in
north-eastern Syria alone, over half of the more than 60 000 camp
residents are children below the age of 12. Many of them are unaccompanied
and/or orphans. Hundreds, if not thousands, of them are descendants
of nationals of European countries and/or European Union citizens.
These children are in acute humanitarian distress. Their rights
and their situation are given adequate consideration only by few governments
of Council of Europe member states. They lack food, shelter from
the elements, clean water, medical services and education. Their
situation is degrading further because of winter weather and a spate
of fighting and terror acts in the region. They are exposed to risks
of endemic violence, exploitation and sexual abuse, harassment,
trafficking, as well as radicalisation risks, to name but a few.
Their access to health, education and safety is next to zero. They
suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental, physical and
social consequences of having lived for many years in a war zone.
5. Despite the support of eminent personalities, international
organisations, NGOs and national independent entities for repatriation,
many national authorities have remained or become reluctant to deliver the
necessary humanitarian efforts to take appropriate care of these
children, often for domestic reasons. These children are not responsible
for the actions of their parents but should be considered as victims
first and foremost, as well as rights-holders in their own right.
Our states have an obligation to secure their safety, as they would
for any other child of their state in danger abroad.
6. In this context, the Assembly should urge governments to fulfil
their international and European commitments and obligations, and
thus support the repatriation and (re-)integration of these children,
and work to overcome the hesitations of national authorities. It
appears that the source of the hesitations may be a lack of a real
or perceived public support for the repatriation of these children,
often rooted in ungrounded or overblown fears of terrorism, as well
as xenophobia and Islamophobia, peddled by irresponsible actors
in the media (including on social media). Informing the public of
the realities may thus be an important first step that our debate
on Thursday may accomplish, so that politicians can live up to their
responsibility to take the lead in saving these children.
2. The children bear no responsibility
for the circumstances in which they find themselves
7. After nine years of armed conflict
and terrorist activities, 1/3 of the children in Syria and Iraq
remain in at-risk situations, according to Save the Children
: 18 out of 1000 children die before
their 5th birthday; 85% of refugee children
are living below the poverty line; 28% of children suffer from stunting
due to malnutrition.
8. As a consequence of the fighting in north-eastern Syria and
the defeat of ISIS,
al Hol camp
was established to provide shelter to refugee women and children,
but also to detain those women (and their children) who had – or
are believed to have had – supported ISIS/
Daesh.
According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC),
its population dramatically increased
from 10 000 in December 2018 to 72 000 residents at the end of March
2019. The general situation remains tense after recent military
moves and a resurgence of terror acts. 55% of the residents of
al Hol refugee camp are below the
age of 12. 7 000 children under the age of 12 are foreigners, children
whose parents are believed to have been affiliated to ISIS/
Daesh. The situation in
al Hol camp is preoccupying. 306
children died between March and November 2019 at
al Hol refugee camp alone. In December
2019, the Rojova Information Center
reported that the population
in
al Hol camp fell to 68 000
residents for various reasons. 1-2 deaths or stillbirths are seen
daily through malnutrition and cold weather.
The three highest morbidities were
respiratory tract infections, diarrhoea and anaemia at 35.6%, 11.8%
and 4.2% respectively.
9. Broadcasted images of the camps show miserable infants and
toddlers living in tents.
They lack food, shelter from the
elements, clean water, medical services and education. Some of them
were terribly wounded before their arrival whereas healthcare was
almost inexistent before the opening of an ICRC field hospital in the
summer. Their situation is further degrading because of the extreme
winter conditions. They are exposed to risks of harassment, endemic
violence, exploitation and sexual abuse. Most are below the age
of 12
and too young to be anything but
innocent victims. None of them bear responsibility for the circumstances
in which they find themselves. While it is true that many of the
children over 12 years of age may have been radicalised, and some
of them may even have participated in the fighting or in terror
attacks, international law is very clear about the protection of
children – any person under the age of 18. Children should be treated
first and foremost as victims and their treatment must be determined
with the best interests of the child as a primary consideration,
in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
This includes actions taken by both public and private actors and
in legislative, judicial, and administrative decisions. Children
have special rights and protections that apply in all situations,
irrespective of the children’s age, sex, or other status, including
actual or perceived family or personal affiliation
.
10. Where children are suspected of having committed criminal
acts, due process and fair trial standards, including the presumption
of innocence and the right to an appeal must be adhered to, with
the appropriate consideration for age and gender. When relevant,
these children should be repatriated to the countries of nationality
for judicial proceedings
,
or diverted from such proceedings if possible. For example, they
should not be prosecuted solely for their suspected association
with or membership of any armed group. They should be involved in
specific child-sensitive rehabilitation programmes for their (re)-integration
in society. Should criminal proceedings be necessary, these should
conform to child-protection and child-friendly justice standards
.
11. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was the
first international body to sound the alarm on the disastrous conditions
in
al Hol camp in early 2019,
immediately backed by the World Health Organisation. On 24 April
2019, United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian
Affairs, Ursula Brigitte Müller, also sounded the alarm. On 21 May
2019, UNICEF General Director, Henrietta Ford, requested the immediate
protection of the rights of the children of foreign fighters. Council
of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, together
with the members of the European Network of Ombudspersons for Children
(ENOC), called on the 47 member States on 28 May 2019 to urgently
repatriate their underage nationals. At the 41st session
of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, on 24 June 2019,
High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, called for
the urgent repatriation of foreign family members. On 11 November
2019, four United Nations high-level advocates published a joint
statement related to the conflict-affected women and children in
Syria and Iraq.
On 26 November 2019, on the occasion
of the adoption of a Resolution
“on children’s rights
on the occasion of the 30th anniversary
of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child”, the European Parliament
expressed “its gravest concern regarding the humanitarian situation
of children of foreign fighters held in north-eastern Syria and
urges the member States to repatriate all European children, taking
into account their specific family situations and the best interests
of the child as a primary consideration, and to provide the necessary
support for their rehabilitation and reintegration; deplores the
lack of action hitherto of EU member States and the absence of coordination
at EU level”.
12. Civil society organisations are unanimous in their condemnation
of the lack of action to address the critical situation of the children
and in the battle to hasten their safe return. Human rights organisations
like Human Rights Watch and children rights organisations such as
Save the Children have issued appeals to bring these children home.
In December 2019, an Albanian orphan
was evacuated from
al Hol with the help of the Albanian
and Syrian authorities, and with the support of the Red Cross and
Red Crescents’ “Restoring Family Links” programme
, to live with his father in Italy.
In Belgium, Child Focus is leading a campaign in favour of their
return. Civil society organisations dealing with the fight against
violent radicalism such as SAVE Belgium
are also alerting public opinion.
In December 2019, a Brussels Court ordered the repatriation of 10
children of four Belgian ISIS fighters. In Denmark, former Assembly
member Bjørn Elmquist
is counselling the families as a
lawyer to push for the repatriation of the approximately 30 Danish
children in
al Hol. With the
Danish authorities the family of a 11-month boy was able to organise
the return from
al Hol camp
in November 2019.
The boy has no other relative except
from his grandparents and aunt in Denmark. In France, families and relatives
represented by the “
Collectif des Familles
Unies” are supported by FIDH, “
Ensemble
contre la peine de mort” (ECPM), «
Association
française des Victimes du Terrorisme» (AfVT), magistrates’
and lawyers’ trade unions. A petition has collected 2 950 signatures
to contradict a poll implying that 2/3 of the French are against the
repatriation of these children from Syria and Iraq.
With their lawyers, they filed a
complaint against France with the UN Committee for the rights of
the children in spring 2019 and six additional complaints during
the summer 2019 in domestic courts. The coalition of human rights
organisations “the Child Justice Advocacy Group” (
Terres des hommes, Penal Reform
International, CRIN, and others) published the call “Bringing Children
Home: A children’s rights approach to returning from ISIL” on 28
January 2020 and addressed 10 recommendations to the over 80 countries
whose citizens decided to join the so-called Islamic State (ISIL).
13. At national level, public figures and independent administrative
authorities have supported the repatriation of these children. Their
situation has caused turmoil for the governmental majority in Finland
and Norway
. In Belgium, Mr Bernard De Vos, the
“
Délégué général aux droits de l’enfant”
of the Wallonia-Brussels federation ordered the return of all Belgian
children detained in Syria on 19 March 2019
after a first interpellation of the
public authorities in December 2018. Already in 2012, he had listed
recommendations on the need for protection of the Belgian children
in Syria and Iraq and for a secure repatriation and the integration of
these children in Belgian society. In France, after different referrals
in 2017, Mr Jacques Toubon, the “
Défenseur
des droits”, took the decision numbered 2019-129 urging
French authorities to provide adequate support to the French children
in Syria
. The “Commission nationale consultative
des Droits de l’Homme” (CNCDH) published a detailed opinion on 24
September 2019.
The Coordinator of the anti-terrorist
centre and magistrate David De Pas is in favour of the repatriation
of the children, women and fighters.
Former President François Hollande
also supported the urgent repatriation of the French children in
Syria and Iraq.
In the UK, MP Crispin Blunt said
that bringing British citizens back to the UK was “a burden we have
to bear” and that children should be prioritised. The country was
moved by the story of three children believed to be from the UK
and broadcasted by the BBC. Many in the country were also shocked
by the case of Ms Shamima Begum who was deprived of UK citizenship.
Although the government had indicated that her child would remain
British, the baby passed away because of the deplorable condition
in
al Hol camp when he was
less than three weeks old.
14. The situation in
al Hol and
other camps in the region is not sustainable and is particularly
volatile.
It is highly unlikely that the Kurdish
authorities have the means and sufficient financial resources to
properly manage facilities like the
al
Hol camp. According to Kurdish sources, among the residents
of the
al Hol camp are detained
nationals of at least 54 countries
(among them 16 different member States
of the Council of Europe are represented, but it is likely that
there are citizens of many more member States in this and other camps).
Nevertheless, residents are mainly from Syria (43%) and Iraq (42%).
About 90% of the camp residents are women and children. The camp
is separated into zones based on the degree of radicalisation of
the women living there. Kurdish forces managing the camp indicate
that fanatical women are threating women willing to return and to
face justice for their acts. They also claim these women are subject
to violence from the more radicalised women. The women who are taking
care of the children are inclined to lead them to radicalisation. Small
children were seen reciting ISIS slogans. The camp can be considered
a timebomb. The unique chance to save the children currently detained
in the
al Hol camp and other
facilities may disappear when those who manage to survive are old
enough to become fighters themselves. The camp could become the
catalyst of future radical violence. This global issue cannot be
solved by the Kurdish authorities.
15. Ad hoc co-operation
between European countries already exists for the relocation of
returnees from Syria and Iraq. France has repatriated orphans of
Belgian and Dutch nationals in the spring of 2019. However, co-ordinated
co-operation between countries to sort the situation of all their
nationals in Syria and Iraq is missing. The situation must be resolved
at domestic and European level as soon as possible, as time is lacking.
3. Member
States’ obligations and responsibilities
16. The key principles supporting
the urgent repatriation of the children whose parents are believed
to have been affiliated to ISIS/
Daesh and
who are now stranded in Syria and Iraq are States’ international
commitments and obligations related to the rights of the child,
the primary responsibility of States for their own nationals and the
right to nationality. Lack of action could have a considerable human
cost with children’s lives lost or ruined; a reputational cost with
the refusal to take responsibility for their own nationals; and
a legal cost as a consequence of pending cases before different
international human rights bodies. UNSC Resolution 2178, 2331 and
2427 recall that children whose parents are believed to have been
affiliated to ISIS/
Daesh should
be considered victims. The Secretary-General of the United Nations
Antonio Guterres published already in April 2019 “Key principles
for the protection, repatriation, prosecution, rehabilitation and
reintegration of women and children with links to United Nations
listed terrorist groups”.
Protection and repatriation
17. Whatever the link their parents
have with United Nations listed terrorist groups
, the children currently held in refugee
camps and detention facilities in the north-east of Syria are first
of all children: infants, toddlers, pre-schoolers, school-aged children.
The best interest of the children is clearly in danger. The United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is very clear
about the protection of the child – any person under the age of
18 – and the need to give primary consideration to their best interests
in all circumstances.
18. Strong international standards in favour of the repatriation
of the children exist. The access to their country cannot be barred.
Article 10 of the UNCRC stipulates that “States Parties shall respect
the right of the child and his or her parents to leave any country,
including their own, and to enter their own country.” Article 3 of
Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
states that “No one shall be deprived of the right to enter the
territory of the state of which he is a national”, and was cited
by French lawyers in a case filed with the Court in May 2019. International
standards take into consideration the specific case of war. According
to Article 38 of the UNCRC: “States Parties undertake to respect
and to ensure respect for rules of international humanitarian law
applicable to them in armed conflicts which are relevant to the
child.” Nevertheless, it must be recognised that it is hypothetical
for these children to exercise these rights without assistance when
they are in refugee/detention camps in Syria and Iraq.
19. The children should thus enjoy the appropriate protection
of their rights of return, including active repatriation. Article
19 of the UNCRC requires State Parties to protect the child from
all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect
or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including
sexual abuse and to set up effective procedures for the establishment
of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child
and for those who have the care of the child. Article 35 requires
States Parties to “take all appropriate national, bilateral and
multilateral measures to prevent the abduction of, the sale of or
traffic in children for any purpose or in any form.” These obligations
find concrete expression at European level through several Council
of Europe Conventions, such as the Council of Europe Convention
on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (CETS No. 197) and
the Council of Europe Convention on Protection of Children against
Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (CETS No. 201).
20. In view of the fact that the situation in the detention camps
is putting at risk the lives of the children and possibly exposing
them to inhumane treatment, the right to be free from torture and
inhumane treatment in accordance with Article 7 of the International
Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 3 of the
ECHR could be invoked; as well as, of course, the right to life
(protected in the UNCRC, the ICCPR and the ECHR)
. The case law of the European Court
of Human Rights has demonstrated that the jurisdiction of States
Parties can be extended beyond domestic borders where the action
of state bodies is implemented.
21. The UNCRC provides the main elements in support of family
unity; the obligation of humanitarian support in case of armed conflict;
the obligation of care once returned and the reintegration of these
children. Article 36 stipulates that “States Parties shall protect
the child against all other forms of exploitation prejudicial to
any aspects of the child's welfare.” It should be noted, however,
that the right to family unity (or family life at European level
through Article 8 of the ECHR) is not absolute. Alternative care
arrangements should thus be explored for situations in which children
cannot remain with their parents or where it is not in the best
interest of the child to remain with his or her primary care givers.
Family-based interim care arrangements should be prioritised, followed
by community-based interim care arrangements
.
22. In this context it should be noted that a court in Berlin
ruled that, due to the dire conditions in the
al
Hol camp, the German government had to repatriate a woman
and three children. The Higher Administrative Court ruled on 6 November
2019 that repatriation of the traumatised children is only possible
if the mother were also repatriated. The German government was already
taking steps to repatriate the children but refused to repatriate
the mother. According to the Higher Administrative Court, repatriation
of the mother could only be refused if there was a concrete and
tangible threat, which the German government was unable to prove
.
23. The case of nationals of member States of the Council of Europe,
who were deprived of their citizenship in Denmark, Switzerland,
and the United Kingdom has put their children in a difficult situation.
The eventuality of them becoming stateless is an infringement of
the Geneva Convention on Statelessness.
The Council of Europe’s
acquis related to avoiding statelessness
is also important in this regard, in particular the 1997 European
Convention on Nationality (ETS No. 166), the 2006 Convention on
the Avoidance of Statelessness in relation to State Succession (CETS
No. 200) and Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)13
on the nationality of children. Article 8 of the ECHR (right to
respect for private and family life) has been interpreted to include
respect for a nationality in the context of the denial of citizenship
or uncertainty of recognition of citizenship.
24. At the level of the European Union, Directive 2015/637
of 20 April 2015 on “the coordination
and cooperation measures to facilitate consular protection for unrepresented
citizens of the Union in third countries” facilitates the exercise
of the right set out in point (c) of Article 20(2) TFEU of citizens
of the Union to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which
the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented,
the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any
Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that Member
State. The Directive recalls that Citizenship of the Union is the
fundamental status of nationals of the member States.
Rehabilitation and (Re-)Integration
25. International law guarantees
the rights of returnee children to rehabilitation and (re-)integration. Article 39
of the UNCRC stipulates that “States Parties shall take all appropriate
measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social
reintegration of a child victim”. While the situation and trauma
of the children may vary according to their age and gender, it is
clear that the consequences of war and armed conflict for children
are dramatic, as noted in the Assembly’s report on “Protecting children
affected by armed conflicts” by Ms Sevinj Fataliyeva (Azerbaijan,
EC/DA)
.
26. As the Assembly pointed out in
Resolution 2204 (2018), member States should “educate children and young people
who have experienced traumatising armed conflicts on non-violent
approaches to ending aggression and conflict, in order to make them
resilient to the trans-generational transmission of violence and allow
them to grow up in a culture of constructive dialogue”
,
and provide “specialised support to children […] and young people
returning from territories controlled by
Daesh,
when they arrive in safe destinations, including in different European
countries, and in particular by giving them psychological assistance
and support, with appropriate therapy for post-traumatic stress,
as quickly as possible after their arrival in the host country”
.
27. Useful guidance on ensuring the well-being of children who
are deprived of parental care can be found in the United Nations
Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children,
as well as the Council of Europe Recommendations
Rec(2005)5 on the rights of children living in residential institutions
and CM/Rec (2011)12 on children’s
rights and social services friendly to children and families.
However, so far, no minimum standards
seem to have been developed to guarantee the smooth integration
in society of the children who have experienced armed conflicts.
This is why Save the Children has called for the establishment of
such minimum standards for integration with a child-sensitive approach
to encompass the complexity of the different individual cases. Since
the Council of Europe Strategy for the Rights of the Child (2016-2021)
calls for children to be protected against violence, including in
armed conflicts, this may be a field where the newly set-up Council of
Europe Steering Committee for the Rights of the Child (CDENF) may
want to become active.
28. The specific case of children who are also offenders is strictly
framed. Article 40 states that “States Parties recognise the right
of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognised as having infringed
the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion
of the child's sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the
child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of
others and which takes into account the child's age and the desirability
of promoting the child's reintegration and the child's assuming
a constructive role in society.” The First Optional Protocol on
the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict applies to the care
of alleged offenders, whereas the Second Optional Protocol on the
Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (2006)
reminds us that armed conflicts feed the market for trafficking of children.
It is important to ensure that returnee children are provided with
proper rehabilitation and (re-)integration services even in cases
where they are suspected or convicted of criminal offenses.
29. The European Union organised a high-level conference on child
returnees and released prisoners in Luxembourg, on 11 October 2018,
and a study visit to Pristina on the on-going experience on the
ground. Kosovo
as one of the first
in Europe, made a political decision and repatriated 110 Kosovan
citizens from detention camps in North Syria, most of them women
and children, already in April 2019.
4. Risks
and challenges should not be underestimated
30. Since the beginning of the
conflict, almost all Council of Europe member States have been “blind”
and powerless in Syria as diplomatic and consular representations
are closed. The support in the field is limited and relies largely
on the assistance provided by military forces controlling war and
conflict zones. Chancelleries are dependent on the good will of
Kurdish forces, while the Autonomous Kurdish Authority has neither
the legitimacy nor the capacity to prosecute European ISIS/Daesh fighters. In addition, the
unprecedent nature of the number of individuals to repatriate, the
complexity and risks of rescue operations have pushed chancelleries
to be extremely cautious.
31. Information is essentially coming from the Kurdish authorities,
journalists and providers of humanitarian assistance who carry out
their mission with difficulty. The Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC)
voices concern about the current
escalation of hostilities, which would exacerbate the plight and
internal displacement, in the north-eastern area, where SARC was
and is still making every effort to meet the needs of the families
suffering adverse conditions. The
al
Hol camp is currently under the authority of Kurds of
the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) but this could change following
the most recent military moves. In addition, their capacity to run
the camps is limited and they may not be capable to hold the detainees
indefinitely.
32. The exact number of children whose parents, believed to be
affiliated to ISIS/
Daesh,
are citizens of Council of Europe member States is difficult to
track with precision as many of them where born in Syria. According
to the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR)
of King’s College in London, their number varies between 1 300,
1 834 and 5 000.
These numbers are almost impossible
to verify. The children are often undocumented, some are stateless,
and others have never had any contact with their relatives in Europe.
The Kurdish authorities have established a commission to try to
determine the exact figures of women and children.
The identification of the children
is difficult
.
The situation of children whose parent believed to be affiliated
to ISIS/
Daesh is a citizen
of a Council of Europe member State and binational is even more
complicated. Of the 30 to 40 Swedish nationals (women and children)
in
al Hol camp, half of them
are binational citizens of Somalia. The recent decision of the Somali
authorities to repatriate their citizens was considered by a newspaper
as a risk for their potential uncontrolled return to Sweden where
they have families and relations.
33. Some countries have already repatriated a large number of
children, whereas some others have been reluctant and sometimes
opposed to repatriation. Surprisingly the United States which has
demonstrated a strong position against terrorism, is in favour of
the return of all fighters.
President Trump encouraged
the European countries to do the same at the recent NATO summit.
For him, “the military achievement can easily be undone by failing
to address what it has brought”. The escape of all fighters and
their families is not an option for the Americans and must be prevented.
In Europe, Kosovo* has said that they will not allow their citizens
to be a danger for others and have repatriated 110 individuals,
including 74 children (including 9 orphans). Russia repatriated
122 children between December 2018 and November 2019. Kazakhstan
has airlifted 524 nationals, mainly children.
34. Others have repatriated a smaller number of children or have
halted their efforts. From the 69 children identified in Syria,
Belgium has repatriated six after a Court order. After having authorised
the return of more than 100 children, France has considerably slowed
the pace for further repatriations to now decide case by case. Between
149
and 300
French minors remain trapped in Syria.
17 were repatriated in 2019. In December, Bosnia and Herzegovina
repatriated 24 women and children.
Of the 100 German children identified,
four were repatriated. Sweden repatriated seven orphans; Austria
and the Netherlands two children each; Denmark one. Direct access
to
al Hol camp and facilities
in the north-east of Syria is insecure.
5. Conclusions
35. This report aims to provide
a basis for an urgent debate to take place on 30 January 2020. Its
ambition is not to provide a complete overview of the situation
of children whose parents, believed to be affiliated to ISIS/Daesh, are citizens of Council of
Europe member States, but to restore the perception of their humanity
and to remind member States that these children are first and foremost
victims of war in need of urgent protection. Repatriating these
children from Syria and Iraq is a human rights obligation and a
humanitarian duty. The Assembly should call upon the member States
concerned to be transparent about the actual number of children concerned
and to take measures responding to their urgent needs before it
is too late. Their return should be organised as early as possible
and coordinated with their relatives in Europe.
36. These child victims have witnessed war and extreme violence,
and have lived in wretched and squalid conditions. They need specific
support to recover and solidify their resilience. It goes without
saying that girls require special attention and gender sensitive
policies should be applied throughout. Child-care professionals are
trained to deliver appropriate services, including health and education,
but also dedicated psychological and psychiatric support to respond
to the specific needs of these children. Additional training is
probably needed. The capacity of the child-care services to effectively
take care of a large number of returning children should be ensured.
These measures should be supported by the provision of adequate
financial resources.
37. The (re-)integration of these children may be a challenge
for the countries concerned when it concerns the minority of older
children (the vast majority of the children are aged under 12, often
under six). De-radicalisation is complex and has a mixed track record.
Among good practice examples available in Europe is a pilot project
in Aarhus, Denmark, which shows that child returnees need above
all support and empathy to be safe from risks. Taking care of the
children who have lived in this extremely violent environment is
key to combating radicalisation and terrorism. As underlined by
Belgian Child Ombudsperson Mr De Vos, this approach stands at the
opposite pole of the exclusionist mindset which only serves to further
ISIS’ and other terrorist groups’ anti-Western ideology.
38. The role of the media is important here: media coverage should
not place children at risk of physical or psychological harm and
psychological damage. Media, publication standards, codes of conduct
and other safeguards should be implemented to prevent placing children
at risk, violating confidentiality standards and otherwise causing
harm to the children or their families, as underlined by the Paris
Principles and Guidelines on children associated with armed forces
or armed groups
.
39. As noted by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities,
de-radicalisation is the responsibility of all levels of government.
The role of public services, local
governments and civil society organisations active in this field
should be supported because they are essential to prevent the ideas
supporting terrorism. Establishing a society which is resilient
to threats and vulnerabilities caused by radicalism and terrorism
is a common-sense objective. National human rights institutions
can also make an important contribution.
40. In cases where surviving parents are prosecuted or convicted
for criminal activity, separation from the child may be inevitable.
This situation cannot be a matter of policy but must be decided
on a case-by-case basis. The question of returning European ISIS
fighters is another issue on which the Parliamentary Assembly is
preparing a separate report.
41. I am profoundly convinced that actively repatriating, rehabilitating
and re-integrating these children without further delay is a human
rights obligation and a humanitarian duty. Integrating a child-rights
perspective into counter-terrorism efforts is not only a human rights
imperative but would also constitute an essential contribution towards
the national security of the countries concerned.