A 13-year-old A had arrived in Finland together with his uncle. A had told his family to reside in Baghdad. He had been in regular contact with his parents. The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the benefit of the child is, in principle, to live with her own family. In connection with the return to home country, the reunification with the family could, in the light of the evidence presented in the case, in itself be considered to be in A's interest. To return home to A's country, however, required that his return to security and the adequacy of reception conditions be assured. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the return Directive (Article 10 paragraph 2) requires that before returning an unaccompanied minor from the territory of a Member State, the authorities of that Member State must be assured that he/she is returned to a family member or designated guardian, or that adequate reception for him in the State .It is therefore the responsibility of the Authority to ensure the safety and proper reception in case of return. In this regard, a relative who sought asylum in Finland at the same time as the appellant could not ensure the complainant's safe return. Since the appellant can not be required to apply for a voluntary return program, the Finnish Immigration Service should not have considered that the return of the appellant to his country of origin can be ensured through his voluntary return. The Supreme Administrative Court considers that appellant's statement regarding his contact with his family in his home country is not sufficient to fulfill the legal obligation to return the minor appellant to his family member. In the view of the Supreme Administrative Court, it is necessary to co-operate with the Finnish enforcement authorities and the competent authorities of the host state or with the parents or guardians in the home country of the child. Since it has not been possible to ascertain the safety of the appellant's return and the appropriateness of the reception conditions, the decisions of the Immigration Service and the Administrative Court must be annulled and the case must be returned to the Immigration Service for re-examination. The Supreme Administrative Court draws particular attention to the appellant's young age. If it is not possible to ascertain the safety of the appellant's return to the country of origin and the adequacy of the reception conditions, and therefore it is not possible for the appellant to return to the home country, it is necessary to consider granting the residence permit to the appellant.