A/HRC/15/29 43. Recognizing the inherent limitations of such processes, general comment No. 6 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child recommends that any age assessment procedure should take into account the psychological maturity of the individual in addition to physical and cultural factors. 44. Safeguards surrounding the issue of age assessment should include that such assessments only be carried out as a measure of last resort when the age of the individual is disputed, that the benefit of the doubt be given to the individual, that information about the process and possible consequences be provided to the individual in a child-friendly manner, that his or her informed consent be sought, and that the individual be protected from return while his or her age is being assessed. Age assessments should ideally be carried out by an independent panel of experts, and the individual should be given the effective opportunity to appeal the decision.37 D. Return 45. The issue of return and repatriation is high on the migration agenda in countries around the world. Children are caught up in collective expulsions, and can be returned to their own or transit countries in the absence of an individual determination of the lawfulness of this action or of the protection needs of the child. Returns of children can be carried out with high levels of violence and the disproportionate use of force. Returns can also lead to the separation of families, as parents are deported to countries of origin while their children remain in the host country. 46. Yet, the ability of States to return children in the context of migration is constrained by a number of factors. Most important in this respect is the principle of non-refoulement. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has asserted that return of a child should in no cases be contemplated to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is real risk of irreparable harm to the child. The Committee has advised that such a risk could originate from both State and non-State actors, be directly intended or as an indirect consequence of action or inaction, and has noted in addition that States should first conduct a risk assessment of the adequacy of food or health services to which the child is being returned (general comment No. 6). Moreover, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants has recommended the principle of non-deportation of unaccompanied children. 47. The principle of the best interests of the child, in addition to accompanying principles such as the right of the child to be heard, should be a primary consideration in any decision to return, and in decisions on the deportation of their parents. 48. While recognizing that in exceptional situations the return of children can be contemplated, the Committee on the Rights of the Child has emphasized that “non rights- 36 37 12 Disputes, and the Process of Age Assessment, Immigration Law Practitioner’s Association” (May 2007). One NGO has noted that “the very status of young immigrants as children is regularly challenged by national immigration control authorities” (Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, Undocumented Children in Europe: Invisible Victims of Immigration Restrictions (Brussels, 2008), p. 6). Bhabha notes in addition that “these children’s youth is discounted because they are assumed to be ‘other’ than ‘our children’; hardened and prematurely matured by their life experiences” (Jacqueline Bhabha, “‘Un vide juridique?’ Migrant Children: the Rights and Wrongs”, in Carol Bellamy and Jean Zermatten (eds.), Realizing the Rights of the Child (Ruffer and Rub, 2007), p. 209). SCEP (fourth revised edition March 2010).