8.  The first applicant was born in 1970 and the second applicant in 1997. They live in Montreal (Canada). 9.  The applicants are a mother (“the first applicant”) and her daughter (“the second applicant”). They explained that the first applicant had arrived in Canada on 25 September 2000, where she was granted refugee status on 23 July 2001 and obtained indefinite leave to remain on 11 March 2003. 10.  After being granted refugee status, the first applicant asked her brother, K., a Dutch national living in the Netherlands, to collect the second applicant, then five years old, from the Democratic Republic of Congo (“the DRC”), where she was living with her grandmother, and to look after her until she was able to join her. 11.  At 7.51 p.m. on 17 August 2002 K. arrived at Brussels National Airport with the second applicant. He did not have the necessary travel and immigration papers for his niece or documents to show that he had parental authority and so he tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade the immigration authorities that the second applicant was his daughter.
He explained to the Belgian authorities that he had been on a trip to Kinshasa to visit his father’s grave and that the first applicant had asked him to bring the second applicant to Europe in order to join her in Canada. The child had been living with a grandmother who was now too old to look after her and the first applicant’s attempts to bring her to Canada lawfully had failed. 12.  On the night of 17 to 18 August 2002 the federal police telephoned the first applicant to inform her of the situation and to give her a telephone number where she could ring her daughter. The first applicant explained that she had made an application to the Canadian authorities on behalf of her daughter. 13.  On 18 August 2002 the second applicant was refused leave to enter Belgium and directions were made for her removal on the ground that she did not have the documents required by the Aliens (Entry, Residence, Settlement and Expulsion) Act of 15 December 1980.
On the same day directions were issued for her to be held in a designated place at the border in accordance with section 74/5 of that Act.
Pursuant to that decision the second applicant was detained in Transit Centre no. 127. Her uncle returned to the Netherlands.
On the same day a lawyer was appointed by the Belgian authorities to assist the applicant and he applied for her to be granted refugee status. 14.  On 19 August 2002 the Belgian authorities contacted the immigration department at the Canadian embassy in The Hague to request information on the first applicant’s immigration status in Canada. The immigration department informed them that the first applicant had applied for asylum and indefinite leave to remain in Canada. However, the application for asylum made no mention of the second applicant and so did not extend to her.
In the interim, the first applicant lodged an application in Canada for a visa for her daughter. 15.  On 20 August 2002 a lawyer, Mr Ma., informed the authorities that he had been instructed to replace the lawyer initially assigned to the second applicant and that he was taking steps to secure leave for the first applicant to bring her daughter to Canada. 16.  On 22 August 2002 the Aliens Office enquired informally of the Dutch authorities whether they would be willing to take over the second applicant’s request for asylum under the Dublin Convention, but they refused.
It also asked K. to furnish the addresses of the members of the family in Kinshasa. 17.  In a letter to Transit Centre no. 127 dated 23 August 2002, the lawyer thanked the staff at the centre for the friendly welcome they had given to the second applicant and the care with which they had attended to her needs. 18.  On 26 August 2002 the immigration office at the Canadian embassy in the Netherlands informed the Aliens Office by e-mail of the first applicant’s former address in Kinshasa and her parents’ address there. 19.  On 27 August 2002 the second applicant’s request for asylum was declared inadmissible by the Aliens Office, which refused her leave to enter and gave directions for her removal. The decision stated that she had a right of appeal against the refusal to the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons under the expedited procedure and could apply within thirty days to the Conseil d’Etat for an order setting aside the removal directions.
The second applicant lodged an appeal under the expedited procedure with the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons. 20.  On 4 September 2002, in reply to an enquiry from the Aliens Office, the Belgian embassy in the DRC advised that the addresses of the members of the applicant’s family in Kinshasa it had obtained on the basis of information provided by the first applicant were incorrect. The applicants denied that K. had given false addresses. 21.  In an e-mail of 23 September 2002, the immigration office at the Canadian embassy in the Netherlands informed the Aliens Office that the first applicant had not yet been granted refugee status in Canada. 22.  On 25 September 2002 at the hearing of the appeal under the expedited procedure, the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons upheld the refusal of leave to enter after finding that the second applicant’s sole aim had been to join her mother in Canada and clearly could not form a basis for an application for refugee status. He drew the Minister of the Interior’s attention to the fact that, as a minor, the second applicant was entitled to join her family by virtue of Article 10 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child dated 20 November 1989. 23.  On 26 September 2002 Mr Ma. sent a letter to the Aliens Office advising it that the first applicant had obtained refugee status in Canada and had applied to the Canadian authorities for a visa for her daughter. He asked the Aliens Office to place the second applicant in the care of foster parents on humanitarian grounds in view of her age and position until such time as the Canadian authorities had granted her leave to enter. He added that Ms M., an 18-year-old Belgian national, would make a suitable foster parent. He explained that although the child was being well treated, she was very isolated at the centre and at risk of psychological damage as a result of being detained with adult foreign nationals whom she did not know.
The Aid to Young People in the French Community Department, from whom Mr Ma. had sought assistance, supported the proposal.
No reply was received to the request. From information in the case file it would appear that the Aliens Office dismissed the idea on the grounds that it would place the second applicant at risk, as a warrant had been issued in 1998 for the arrest of Ms M.’s father on suspicion of sexual offences against minors and he lived in the same town as Ms M., albeit at a different address. The Aliens Office also considered that there was a very real danger that the child would be taken away by her uncle. 24.  In October 2002 the Aliens Office contacted the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Red Cross and the Belgian embassy in Kinshasa.
With the embassy’s help it was able, on the basis of K.’s statements, to identify and subsequently locate a member of the second applicant’s family, namely her maternal uncle, B. (a student living on a university campus with five other people in what the embassy described as suitable accommodation and who, according to the applicants, was the sole member of the family still living in the DRC). An official from the Belgian embassy in Kinshasa went to B.’s home and explained the situation to him, but B. told him that he did not have the means to look after the child. 25.  On 9 October 2002 the second applicant’s lawyer lodged an application for her release with the chambre du conseil of the Brussels Court of First Instance under section 74/5, paragraph 1, of the Law of 15 December 1980. In the application, he sought an order setting aside the removal directions of 27 August 2002 and an order for the second applicant’s release and placement with Ms M. acting as a foster parent or, failing that, with an institute for young children.
In the interim, he also contacted the UNHCR, which made enquiries of the family in Kinshasa from which it emerged that no one was prepared to look after the child. 26.  On 10 October 2002 the Belgian authorities booked a seat on a flight on 17 October 2002 with the same airline as the second applicant had flown with on the outward journey (they cited its obligation under section 74/4 of the Law of 15 December 1980 to transport at its own cost anyone not in possession of the requisite travel papers or who had been removed on lawful grounds to the country from which he had come or any other country prepared to accept him). The UNHCR, Aid to Young People in the French Community Department and the Belgian embassy in Kinshasa were informed. 27.  On 11 October 2002 Brussels Crown Counsel informed the Aliens Office of the second applicant’s application and requested the case file, which the Aliens Office supplied on 14 October 2002. 28.  According to the Government, B. was informed on 12 October 2002 that his niece would be arriving at 5.45 p.m. on 17 October. 29.  In a letter of 15 October 2002, the Aliens Office advised Crown Counsel of its views on the application for the second applicant’s release:
“... the enquiries have enabled the person concerned’s family to be located in Kinshasa. In view of the positive results of the enquiries as a whole, a flight has already been arranged for Thursday 17 October 2002. The child will be met at Kinshasa by her family. A representative from our embassy will also be present. Lastly, we would note that the sole responsibility for the length of the applicant’s detention lies with her uncle, who has been uncooperative and has studiously avoided giving the Aliens Office the family’s address. Accordingly, in the child’s own interest, she should remain in detention until Thursday 17 October 2002, when she can be returned to her own family in Kinshasa.”
On the same day, after receiving confirmation from the Aliens Office that the child was to be removed, the Belgian embassy official in Kinshasa informed B. in the following letter, which was sent by recorded delivery:
“Dear Sir,
I wish to confirm the message which the embassy has received from the Department in Brussels, namely, the return of your niece Mubilanzila Tabitha to Kinshasa (N’Djili) arriving on the Hewa Bora flight at 5.45 p.m. on Thursday 17 October 2002.
Yours faithfully,
...” 30.  On 16 October 2002 the chambre du conseil of the Brussels Court of First Instance held that the second applicant’s detention was incompatible with Article 3 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and ordered her immediate release. Noting that it had no jurisdiction to authorise her placement in a foster home or an institution, it held that the application was well-founded in part. Its decision was served on the director of Transit Centre no. 127 that same day.
Crown Counsel, who had the right to appeal against that decision within twenty-four hours, informed the director of the Centre by fax the same day that he was reserving his decision whether or not to appeal.
On the same day the UNHCR’s representative in Brussels sent a fax to the Aliens Office requesting permission for the second applicant to remain in Belgium while her application for a Canadian visa was being processed. It drew the Office’s attention to the fact that there did not appear to be an adult in Kinshasa who was able and willing to look after the second applicant, since, according to the information in its possession, B. was still a student. It added that the first applicant had had refugee status in Canada since 23 July 2001, that the second applicant’s father had disappeared in August 2000 and that her twin sister had been taken to Congo-Brazzaville four months earlier. 31.  On 17 October 2002 the second applicant was deported to the DRC. She was accompanied by a social worker from Transit Centre no. 127 who placed her in the care of the police at the airport. On board the aircraft she was looked after by an air hostess who had been specifically assigned to accompany her by the chief executive of the airline. The second applicant travelled with three Congolese adults who were also being deported.
There were no members of her family waiting for her when she arrived. The Government explained that after considerable efforts the embassy official had obtained B.’s agreement to come to the airport to meet his niece. However, he had reneged on his promise at the last minute. 32.  The parties have not formally established whether or not a member of the Belgian embassy was at the airport, as stated in the Alien Office’s letter of 15 October 2002. The second applicant stayed at the airport until 5.23 p.m. before eventually being collected by Ms T., a secretary at the National Information Agency of the DRC, who offered her accommodation.
On the same day the first applicant rang Transit Centre no. 127 and asked to speak to her daughter. She was informed that she was no longer staying at the Centre and advised to contact the Aliens Office for further details, which she did. The Aliens Office did not provide her with any explanation but suggested she speak to the UNHCR, from whom she learnt of her daughter’s deportation to Kinshasa. 33.  On 18 October 2002 the official from the Belgian embassy in Kinshasa went to B.’s home, only to discover that he had disappeared.
On the same day the Belgian authorities received a message from the Canadian embassy in The Hague informing them that the first applicant had been granted refugee status and indefinite leave to remain in Canada with a work permit in 2002 and was consequently entitled to have her family join her. 34.  The second applicant left the DRC on 23 October 2002 following the intervention of the Belgian and Canadian Prime Ministers, with the latter agreeing in principle to authorise the reunification of the family. The second applicant travelled to Paris with Ms T. and from there to Canada the same day on a Canadian visa. During the stopover in Paris, Ms T. and the second applicant were accompanied by two officials from the Belgian embassy. The journey was paid for by the Belgian authorities.
The case had attracted considerable attention from the press in the meantime. 35.  On 25 October 2002 the airline which had flown the second applicant back to Kinshasa informed the Aliens Office that she had not travelled alone, but with four other aliens who were also being removed. It said that it had arranged for an air hostess to look after her until she was handed over to the authorities in Kinshasa. 36.  On 29 October 2002 the first applicant applied to the Canadian authorities for a visa permitting family reunification. 37.  At the request of the Aliens Office, the director of Transit Centre no. 127 described the second applicant’s living conditions at the centre in a letter of 23 November 2004. He explained that she had been looked after by two women who were themselves mothers, that she had played with other children, that her uncle and mother had telephoned her nearly every day and that she had been allowed to telephone them free of charge under the supervision of a team of social workers; he added that her lawyer had paid her a number of visits and had brought her telephone cards, confectionary and money, that she had often played outdoors, had watched large numbers of videos, done drawings and arithmetic and had been comforted if she showed any signs of distress after telephone calls from her family. The director also explained that during the removal procedure the second applicant had been accompanied to the embarkation area (more precisely, the federal police checkpoint) by a social worker and that the entire staff at Transit Centre no. 127 were concerned about the welfare of children, particularly unaccompanied minors.