CRC/C/80/D/4/2016 6.2 The State party denies having returned the author to Morocco. It alleges that no evidence has been adduced that the author took part in an illegal assault on the border fence and “much less that he did so on the dates indicated in the initial communication”. 7.1 In his comments of 5 May 2017, the author claims that the State party makes contradictory allegations. He points out that, in its initial observations, the State party claims that the author is the same person as the one who was registered at the temporary reception centre for migrants and at Melilla police centre on 30 December 2014 and that he was not a minor. However, in its additional observations, the State party argues that the author is not the same person as the one registered by the Spanish authorities on 30 December 2014. The State party contradicts itself so as not to focus on the author’s summary deportation on 2 December 2014, which is the only issue to which the present communication relates. 7.2 The author maintains that he submitted photographs 26 proving the deportation carried out on 2 December 2014 and that he has identified himself in these photographs. He adds that the State party accepts that the author was returned to Morocco by the Spanish Civil Guard on 2 December 201427 and does not deny that the person appearing in the video cited by the State party itself is the author. The author affirms that the person who was registered at the temporary reception centre for migrants in Melilla under the name Y.D. on 30 December 2014 is him. He points out that the name of the person registered at the temporary reception centre for migrants on that day and the names of his parents are phonetically the same as the author’s details as shown on his Malian consular card, especially bearing in mind the transposition of the oral Bambara language (the author’s mother tongue) into the Spanish language. He adds that the photographic comparison invoked by the State party lacks probative value and that the State party could verify that the author is the person who was registered at the temporary reception centre for migrants in Melilla on 30 December 2014 were it to make a comparison between the fingerprints taken at the temporary reception centre and those recorded in the Register of Unaccompanied Foreign Minors. 7.3 The author maintains that the State party cannot cite any available effective remedy because the lack of an effective remedy constitutes the very cornerstone of its policy of indiscriminate summary deportations. 28 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 8.1 In its submissions of 14 May 2018, the State party reiterates its arguments on the inadmissibility of the communication rationae loci and rationae materiae. It maintains that the facts presented by the author in his initial communication are “a gross manipulation” because: (a) On the date on which he submitted the present communication, the author had already been officially recognized as a minor by the Spanish authorities, who had accepted the original birth certificate submitted by him as sufficient proof “even though no biometric data were provided, since the certificate was assessed in conjunction with an assessment as to whether or not he appeared to be a minor”. It reiterates that there is no record of the author having illegally climbed over the border fence in Melilla; (b) The author wants the Committee to confuse the author with Y.D., who is a different person with a similar first and family name but a different nationality (Burkina Faso), who is of full legal age (born on 2 November 1994) and took part in an illegal assault on the Melilla border fence in early December 2014. It claims that Y.D. was registered as an adult at the temporary reception centre for migrants in Melilla on 10 December 2015. 8.2 The State party requests the Committee to discontinue its consideration of the present communication, in accordance with rule 26 of its rules of procedure, given that the 26 27 28 GE.19-07971 See footnote 2 above. See para. 4.1 above. The author cites the third-party intervention submitted by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, para. 35, concerning the cases of N.D. v. Spain and N.T. v. Spain (applications No. 8675/15 and No. 8697/15) pending before the European Court of Human Rights. 7