CRC/C/80/D/4/2016 12.4 The State party reiterates that a child who has not breached the border protection mechanism is not under Spanish jurisdiction. The European Court of Human Rights has extended the jurisdiction of the State extraterritorially in cases where migrants did not have the option of applying to enter the territory legally. 37 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 13.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 20 of its rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol, whether the communication is admissible. 13.2 The Committee notes the State party’s arguments that the communication is inadmissible rationae personae because, firstly, the author initially declared himself to be of legal age upon his entry into Spain and, secondly, it claims that the author is not the same person who entered Spain on 30 December 2014 and was registered under the name Y.D. The Committee notes, however, that the Malian birth certificate, passport and consular card, all of which are official documents issued in the author’s name that must be presumed to be authentic unless there is evidence to the contrary, show that the author was 15 years old on 2 December 2014, when the events took place. The Committee also notes that the State party itself has acknowledged the authenticity of these documents by issuing the author with a residence permit and a certificate of legal guardianship by the Community of Madrid. 13.3 As to the mismatches between the details of the person registered by the Spanish authorities and those of the author, the Committee notes that the file provides no conclusive evidence that shows that the author is not the person who attempted to gain access to Melilla on 2 December 2014 in the circumstances described. The Committee considers that the burden of proof cannot rest solely on the author of the communication, especially given that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to the relevant information. 38 In the present case, the Committee considers that the author has provided a credible and consistent account of the facts, which is supported by evidence. The Committee also notes the author’s allegations that the State party could have compared the fingerprints of the person registered as Y.D. with those of the author. The Committee therefore finds the present communication admissible rationae personae. 13.4 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible rationae loci because the actions of the Moroccan authorities are not attributable to Spain. The Committee notes, however, that the scope of the present communication is limited to the actions of the Spanish authorities on 2 December 2014, to the exclusion of those of the Moroccan authorities. In this regard, the Committee notes that, according to the author, he was arrested by Spanish security forces at the third fence of the Melilla border crossing and was handcuffed and returned to Moroccan territory. Given these circumstances, and irrespective of whether or not the author is considered to have arrived in Spanish territory, he was under the authority or effective control of the State party. The Committee therefore finds the present communication admissible rationae loci. 13.5 The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible rationae materiae because it refers to the author’s right to asylum, which is not covered by the Convention. The Committee notes, however, that the present communication concerns alleged violations of the author’s rights under articles 3, 20 and 37 of the Convention and not his right to asylum. The Committee therefore finds that the communication is admissible rationae materiae. 37 38 10 The State party does not cite any specific case. See, inter alia, the Views of the Human Rights Committee on the cases of Purna Maya v. Nepal (CCPR/C/119/D/2245/2013), para. 12.2; El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/91/D/1422/2005), para. 6.7; and Medjnoune v. Algeria (CCPR/C/87/D/1297/2004), para. 8.3. GE.19-07971