UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
#IBelong Campaign Update, July – September 2021
20 October 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
The Impact of COVID-19 on Stateless Populations: Policy recommendations and good practices on vaccine access and civil registration
3 June 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
R.Y.S. v. Spain
4 February 2021 | Judicial Body: UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Children's rights - Sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) | Countries: Cameroon - Spain |
Campaign Update, October 2020 - December 2020
11 January 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country News |
Campaign Update, July 2020 - September 2020
14 October 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country News |
Good Practices Paper – Action 6: Establishing Statelessness Determination Procedures to Protect Stateless Persons
July 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
CASE OF N.D. AND N.T. v. SPAIN
(Applications nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15) (Grand Chamber)
The case concerned the immediate return to Morocco of two nationals of Mali and Côte d’Ivoire who on 13 August 2014 attempted to enter Spanish territory in an unauthorised manner by climbing the fences surrounding the Spanish enclave of Melilla on the North African coast. The Court considered that the applicants had in fact placed themselves in an unlawful situation when they had deliberately attempted to enter Spain on 13 August 2014 by crossing the Melilla border protection structures as part of a large group and at an unauthorised location, taking advantage of the group’s large numbers and using force. They had thus chosen not to use the legal procedures which existed in order to enter Spanish territory lawfully. Consequently, the Court considered that the lack of individual removal decisions could be attributed to the fact that the applicants – assuming that they had wished to assert rights under the Convention – had not made use of the official entry procedures existing for that purpose, and that it had thus been a consequence of their own conduct. In so far as it had found that the lack of an individualised procedure for their removal had been the consequence of the applicants’ own conduct, the Court could not hold the respondent State responsible for the lack of a legal remedy in Melilla enabling them to challenge that removal. 13 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Expulsion - Non-refoulement - Rejection at border | Countries: Côte d'Ivoire - Mali - Morocco - Spain |
Options Paper 2: Options for governments on open reception and alternatives to detention (first published 2015, revised version 2020)
2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
UNHCR Submission for the Universal Periodic Review – Spain – UPR 35th Session (2019)
July 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country Reports |
D.D. v. Spain
1 February 2019 | Judicial Body: UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Expulsion - Non-refoulement - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Mali - Morocco - Spain |