Committee on the Rights of the Child (communication No. 193/2022): " 9.4 In the present case, the Committee observes that the detention of the first and fourth authors was de facto imposed on them for the purpose of their transfer under the Dublin procedure and was thus based solely on their migration status. The Committee notes that, while the first author was not herself subjected to a formal detention order, she and the fourth author were placed in a closed detention center and faced the same restrictions as adults held in the centre, including restrictions on their movement. It further observes that their detention lasted 34 days and that the authors had expressed their willingness to return voluntarily to Austria. The Committee notes that the assessment conducted by the domestic authorities focused primarily on the preservation of family unity and the alleged suitability of detention conditions. However, the Committee recalls that, where the best interests of the child require maintaining family unity, this does not justify the detention of the child but rather requires the adoption of non-custodial solutions applicable to the family as a whole.22
9.5 The Committee notes that the authorities’ assessment of the best interests of the child was limited and did not address the inherent harm of detention on children or meaningfully consider non-custodial measures that could also preserve the family unity, nor did it demonstrate how the children’s interests were weighed against other considerations, as required under article 3 of the Convention."