The authors of the communication before the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child are four Afghan nationals belonging to the Sikh religion: Jas.K.B. (first author), her parents, C.K.B. (second author) and M.S.B. (third author), and her older sister J.K.B. (fourth author).

In January 2016, they fled Afghanistan due to Taliban attacks and threats of forced conversion and of kidnapping against the children, and they claimed asylum in Austria, where they were housed in a metal container. They left Austria for Germany and then to the Czech Republic with smugglers. On 20 March 2019, the family was found by the Czech police. 

On 21 March 2019, the adults were detained for 30 days for the purpose of preparing their transfer to Austria, designated as the responsible Member State under the Dublin III Regulation. The first author was not formally detained but was accommodated in the Bělá-Jezová detention facility with her family. 

The police recorded 1 January as the date of birth of each family member's respective birth year, which resulted in the author's sister being considered an adult denied the guarantees under the Convention. 

On 9 April 2019, detention was extended by an additional 20 days and on 24 April 2019, the family was transferred to Austria. Prior to the transfer, the authority operating the detention centre retained partial payment for costs from the family for costs incurred by their detention (approximately1 500 USD, with an outstanding debt of approximately 350 USD).

On 3 April 2019, the applicants challenged the detention decisions before the Regional Court in Ústí and Labem, arguing that the first author should not have been detained. They argued that there was no serious risk of absconding as they cooperated with authorities, did not resist transfer and even expressed willingness to return to Austria, the authorities did not consider alternatives to detention and argued that detention was incompatible with the best interests of the child. On 15 April 2019, the Regional Court dismissed their action. 

They lodged a cassation complaint before the Supreme Administrative Court, which dismissed the action on 17 April 2020 finding that the authors raised general and hypothetical objections about their detention, without substantiating individual harm sufficiently. 

They further appealed to the Constitutional Court on 22 June 2020, which dismissed the action on 22 June 2021.

Before the UN Committee for the Rights of the Child, they claimed a violation by the Czech Republic of the first and fourth authors' rights under Articles 3, 5, 6(2), 12, 16, 37(a) and (b) of the Convention. The first author argued that her detention for 34 days without considering alternative measures was illegal and imposed solely based on the family's migration status and for the purpose of a transfer under the Dublin Regulation, without being compatible with the best interests of the child, and it amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment. She also argued that detention of migrant families with children in Czechia was systematic.

Regarding the fourth author, it was claimed that she was wrongly treated as an adult due to an inadequate and inaccurate age determination process, notwithstanding her proximity to minority and possible minor status. As a result, the best interests of the child were not assessed, and she did not have the right to be heard.

The Committee recalled its jurisprudence according to which children should never be detained for reasons related to their or their parents' migration status as this constitutes a violation of children's rights and is contrary to the principle of the best interests of the child. This is due to the harm inherent in any deprivation of liberty and the negative impact on children's physical and mental health and on their development. It also recalled that, in the context of immigration, deprivation of liberty as a measure of last resort is not applicable, and is generally disproportionate and arbitrary within the meaning of article 37 (b) of the Convention. According to the Committee, States should prohibit by law any kind of child immigration detention and this should be fully implemented in practice.

In this case, the Committee noted that the detention measure was de facto imposed in order to transfer the authors under the Dublin procedure, based solely on their migration status. They were placed in a closed detention center for 34 days and faced the same restrictions as adults, including restrictions on their movement, although they expressed their willingness to return voluntarily to Austria.

The Committee also observed that the assessment made by the domestic authorities focused primarily on the preservation of family unity and the detention conditions, while in the view of the Committee maintaining family unity, does not justify the detention of the child but rather requires the adoption of non-custodial solutions for the family as a whole. Furthermore, the reasoning of the detention decision did not address the inherent harm of detention on children, did not meaningfully consider non-custodial measures, and did not demonstrate how the children's interests were weighed against other considerations.

Thus, the Committee found that the children's deprivation of liberty amounted to arbitrary detention in violation of article 37(a) and (b) of the Convention, alone and in conjunction with Article 3. Taking into

Regarding the claim concerning age assessment, the Committee recalled that States have an obligation to promptly identify children in migration contexts and to ensure that, where there is reasonable doubt as to age, the individual is afforded the benefit of the doubt and treated as a minor pending appropriate assessment.

The Committee noted that the dates of birth for all the members of the family were recorded identically and no additional steps were taken to verify the age of the fourth author by making a thorough and culturally sensitive age assessment. Failing to take such an approach, the authorities deprived the applicant of protection measures for children under the Convention, including safeguards related to deprivation of liberty and the assessment of her best interests. Thus, the Committee concluded that the State party violated the rights of the fourth author under Article 3 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 37.

The Committee held that the State party should provide adequate compensation for the violations of their rights and reimbursement of the costs of their detention, and take all necessary measures to ensure that children are not deprived of their liberty due to their or their parents' migration status, that non-custodial solutions are available to preserve family unity and when there is reasonable doubt about a person's age, that a prompt, child-sensitive, and culturally appropriate age assessment is conducted, with the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of minority applied pending its outcome.