CRC/C/80/D/4/2016 13.6 Lastly, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complainant did not exhaust available domestic remedies, in accordance with article 7 (e) of the Optional Protocol, in that: (a) he did not seek asylum in the countries he travelled through; (b) he did not apply for asylum in Spain at the Beni Enzar border crossing; (c) he did not apply for a work visa for Spain; and (d) after entering Spain, he had access to effective remedies through which to challenge the administrative decision ordering his expulsion. The Committee notes that, in points (a), (b) and (c) above, the State party simply suggests that the author could have applied for asylum or a work visa before entering the State party’s territory; such suggestions therefore cannot be considered effective remedies with respect to his expulsion. The Committee also notes that it can be gleaned from the case file that on 2 December 2014 no formal expulsion order against the author had been issued. Accordingly, the Committee considers that, in the context of the author’s imminent expulsion on 2 December 2014, and in the absence of a formal expulsion order that could have been challenged by the author, the judicial remedies mentioned in point (d) of the State party’s argument would have been worthless, as they were neither available nor effective. Consequently, the Committee considers that article 7 (e) of the Optional Protocol does not constitute a barrier to the admissibility of the present communication. 13.7 The Committee considers that, in accordance with article 7 (f) of the Optional Protocol, the author has sufficiently substantiated his complaints under articles 3, 20 and 37 of the Convention. The Committee therefore finds the complaint admissible and proceeds to consider it on the merits. Consideration of the merits 14.1 The Committee has considered this communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 10 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 14.2 The issue before the Committee is whether, in the circumstances of this case, the author’s return to Morocco by the Spanish Civil Guard on 2 December 2014 violated his rights under the Convention. In particular, the author claimed that, by summarily deporting him to Morocco on 2 December 2014, without performing any form of identity check or assessment of his situation, the State party: (a) failed to provide the author with the special protection and assistance to which he was entitled as an unaccompanied minor (art. 20); (b) failed to respect the principle of non-refoulement and exposed the author to the risk of violence and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in Morocco (art. 37); and (c) failed to consider the best interests of the child (art. 3). 14.3 The Committee is of the view that the State’s obligations to provide special protection and assistance to unaccompanied children, in accordance with article 20 of the Convention, apply even “with respect to those children who come under the State’s jurisdiction when attempting to enter the country’s territory”.39 Similarly, the Committee considers that “the positive aspect of these protection obligations also extends to requiring States to take all necessary measures to identify children as being unaccompanied or separated at the earliest possible stage, including at the border”. 40 Accordingly, it is imperative and necessary that, in order to comply with its obligations under article 20 of the Convention and to respect the best interests of the child, the State conducts an initial assessment, prior to any removal or return, that includes the following stages: (a) assessment, as a matter of priority, of whether the person concerned is an unaccompanied minor, with, in the event of uncertainty, the individual being accorded the benefit of the doubt such that, if there is a possibility that the individual is a child, he or she is treated as such; (b) verification of the child’s identity by means of an initial interview; and (c) assessment of the child’s specific situation and particular vulnerabilities, if any. 41 14.4 The Committee is also of the view that, in compliance with its obligations under article 37 of the Convention, in order to ensure that no child is subjected to torture or other 39 40 41 GE.19-07971 General comment No. 6, para. 12. Ibid., para. 13. Ibid., para. 31. 11