Identification

Author

Portuguese Refugee Council Visit Website

The Asylum Act defines an ‘applicant in need of special procedural guarantees’ in terms of reduced ability to benefit from the rights and comply with the obligations stemming from the Asylum Act due to individual circumstances.[1] Even though it does not include an exhaustive list of asylum applicants presumed to be in need of special procedural guarantees, it does refer to age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, serious illness, mental disorders, and victims of torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence as possible factors underlying individual circumstances that could lead to the need of special procedural guarantees.[2]

The Asylum Act provides for the need to identify persons with special needs and the nature of such needs upon registration of the asylum application or at any stage of the asylum procedure.[3] The nature of special procedural needs should be assessed before a decision on the admissibility of the application is taken.[4]

Screening of vulnerability

Despite these legal obligations, there are no (specific) mechanisms, standard operating procedures, or units in place to systematically identify asylum applicants who need special procedural guarantees.[5]

In 2020, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concern with the lack of such a mechanism and recommended the establishment of ‘an effective mechanism for the identification of vulnerable applicants, in particular stateless persons’.[6]

In May 2025, the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO) published its first report on Portugal, focusing on access to support, protection and justice.[7] GREVIO expressed concern with the lack of a mechanism to systematically screen, identify and refer the needs of women seeking and/or benefiting from international protection victims of violence. While praising the creation of AIMA as a single agency dealing with asylum and migration, GREVIO urged the development of ‘its potential in order to offer comprehensive support and protection to women and girls who are seeking asylum or have been granted refugee status, including through the training of AIMA staff on issues of gender-based violence’.[8] Notably, GREVIO encouraged the national authorities to:

• ‘[A]ddress the specific needs of women victims exposed to intersecting forms of discrimination, in particular […] refugee and asylum-seeking women, and to integrate the perspective of such groups into the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of comprehensive and co-ordinated policies for preventing and combating violence against women’;[9]
• ‘[T]o step up measures to ensure adequate access for all women and girls to general support services, and to continue their efforts to reduce regional disparities in the availability and quality of the services provided’ and to adopt additional measures ‘to devise more effective responses to the needs of women and girls exposed to intersectional discrimination, including those of […] asylum-seeking and refugee women victims’.[10]

According to AIMA, vulnerabilities may be identified during the asylum procedure, particularly during presentation of the application, the interview, the examination of the case and/or during the reception in the host entity that has a MoU with the Agency. The Agency’s first-line officers conduct initial screenings on vulnerabilities upon presentation of an asylum application. The indicators are assessed through self-identification, questions and direct observation. First-line officers also complete an internal vulnerability identification document, based on a UNHCR tool. It is not clear what screening consists of, and whether the tool is systematically applied and how its outcomes are assessed.

According to AIMA, as soon as vulnerability is identified, appropriate support can be given to applicants according to their needs and procedural guarantees can be promoted, such as adapted interview conditions (particularly with regard to the gender of the interviewer), interruption of interviews, and exemption from accelerated or border procedures if deemed inappropriate considering the applicant’s condition.

According to CPR’s observation, throughout 2024, AIMA did not demonstrate any decision-making power on the conditions and maintenance of detention of asylum applicants at the border, leading to concerns about the identification and monitoring of vulnerable cases and application of special procedural guarantees and special reception conditions.

The questionnaire used by AIMA in first instance asylum interviews includes two questions on the applicant’s self-assessed health condition and capacity to undergo the interview.[11] Dublin interview forms also contain a couple of questions on health-related vulnerabilities.[12] According to CPR’s observation, there is no clear link between the answer provided by the applicant and the adoption of special procedural guarantees in practice.

According to AIMA, CNAR’s caseworkers do not have specific training in vulnerabilities but one of the caseworkers deals exclusively with unaccompanied children’s applications. As of 2024, CNAR’s caseworkers had not completed EUAA’s training module on identification of vulnerable persons nor on interviewing vulnerable persons, but received general training on vulnerabilities in the context of other EUAA’s training modules. In June 2025 CNAR staff took part in a training session by the EUAA, focused on conducting interviews with vulnerable individuals.[13]

UNHCR reported having provided training covering the identification and referral of asylum applicants and refugees with specific needs to AIMA’s asylum, social and integration units. Both IOM and UNHCR reported having provided training covering the protection of specific vulnerable groups and the identification and referral of asylum applicants and refugees with specific needs, respectively, to PSP within the framework of PSP’s official training programmes. ISS and UNHCR delivered training on specific needs and mental health and psychosocial support to entities involved in reception of asylum applicants.

In 2022, a new SOG sub-group was created in order to address the area of vulnerabilities within the asylum system. The group was composed by ACM, CPR, ISS, SCML, SEF, and UNHCR. During 2023, its activities were halted with the suspension of the activity of the SOG.[14] According to the information provided by UNHCR, the group did not resume in 2024 and issues related to vulnerabilities were discussed within the framework of the working group on migration and asylum led by the Judicial High Council. However, these discussions are primarily within the framework of detention measures.

Publicly available statistics regarding vulnerable asylum applicants are scarce and relate mostly to unaccompanied children and families with children.

According to the information provided by AIMA, the database does not allow for the uniform breakdown of cases per category of vulnerability, except for unaccompanied children. In 2024, a total of 203 unaccompanied children applied for asylum in Portugal.

CPR collects statistical information on asylum applicants who self-identify or are identified as vulnerable on the basis of information received from AIMA in accordance with the law, collected directly from the applicants or shared by other service providers. In 2024, of the 2,273 asylum applicants whose cases were communicated by the asylum authority, 567 were identified as vulnerable:

Source: CPR.

According to the information available to CPR, a number of age assessment procedures were pending at the end of 2024. Applicants may be later determined to be adults including on the basis of their own statements, second-stage age assessment procedures requested by the Family and Juvenile Court, assessments made by AIMA, or based on information received from other EU Member States. The number of such cases regarding unaccompanied children who applied for asylum in 2024 remained marginal.

Unaccompanied children

The Asylum Act determines that the staff handling asylum applications of unaccompanied children must be specifically trained.[16]

In 2019, the Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed concern with ‘[…] weaknesses in policy and practice relating to unaccompanied and separated children, particularly in respect of legal representation and guardianship during refugee determination processes’.[17] The Committee recommended Portugal to ‘strengthen policies and practices to improve the identification and registration of unaccompanied and separated children, including through ensuring that they are provided with effective legal representation and an independent guardian immediately after they have been identified’.[18] The necessity and consistency of the assessment of the best interests of the child in asylum procedures were also highlighted by the Committee.[19]

Victims of torture and serious violence

In the case of survivors of torture and/or serious violence, research has demonstrated that identification is conducted on an ad hoc basis and mostly on the basis of self-identification during refugee status determination, social interviews, or initial medical screenings.[20] Staff working with asylum applicants lacks specific training on the identification of survivors of torture and/or serious violence and their special needs.

According to the information provided by the Portuguese authorities to the UN Committee Against Torture in June 2018,[21] ‘[…] the number of asylum applicants that claimed to have been victims of torture or identified as victims of torture is residual.’ The report also states that ‘[i]n general, the applicant is assessed as credible when the claims are reliable or visible signs of the act exist. This leads to a positive decision and to the granting of international protection status without the need for medical examinations. Applicants are then subject to evaluation as well as to medical and psychological monitoring in the reception centres in order to address potential traumas. There are no statistical data on these cases.[22]

Following this report, the identification of survivors of torture was one of the issues addressed by the UN Committee Against Torture in its Concluding Observations on Portugal. The Committee observed that ‘[…] the State party has not provided complete information on the procedures in place for the timely identification of victims of torture among asylum seekers […]’ and recommended ‘[…] the establishment of effective mechanisms to promptly identify victims of torture among asylum seekers’.[23]

Victims of human trafficking

In 2021 the national ‘Protocol for the definition of procedures aimed at the Prevention, Detection and Protection of (presumed) children victims of Trafficking in Human Beings – National Referral Mechanism’ was launched.[24] The referral mechanism, comprised of nine practical tools, aims to establish specific procedures, to reinforce cooperation and communication among professionals and to ensure respect for the best interests of the child.[25] One of the practical tools focus on identification at the border, explaining the referral and identification procedures together with relevant indicators.

With regard to asylum seeking children, CPR systematically flags presumed victims of trafficking under its care to OTSH (on the basis of an anonymous form with indicators), to the relevant authorities for purposes of criminal investigation and protection, and to the competent Family Court. Where CPR caseworkers are able to obtain the unaccompanied child’s consent for adequate protection, the cases can be further referred to the multidisciplinary team of the Family Planning Association (APF) that conducts an initial assessment that can lead to the placement of the presumed victim in an Anti-Trafficking Reception and Protection Centre (CAP).

Trafficking in human beings was addressed by the UN Committee Against Torture in its Concluding Observations published in 2019. The Committee expressed concern with reports of lack of training of law enforcement officers and with delays in the process of issuance of residence permits to victims.[26] As such, the Committee recommended Portugal to, among other things: ‘(a) Intensify its efforts to prevent and combat trafficking in persons, including by putting in place effective procedures for the identification and referral of victims among vulnerable groups, such as asylum applicants and irregular migrants; (b) Improve the training of law enforcement officers and other first responders by including statutory training on the identification of potential victims of trafficking in persons; and (c) Ensure access to adequate protection and support, including temporary residence permits, irrespective of their ability to cooperate in legal proceedings against traffickers’.[27]

According to the information provided by the national authorities to the UN Human Rights Committee on the occasion of the consideration of the relevant report, ‘[s]pecial emphasis had been placed on identifying trafficking victims among the children who arrived at the border accompanied by adults who might not be their parents or legal guardians. Strict procedural rules governed how those cases were handled; the minors in question were placed into care while investigations were conducted to clarify the circumstances surrounding their journey and the nature of their relationship with the adult or adults accompanying them’.[28]

In its assessment, with regard to trafficking in human beings and asylum, the UN Human Rights Committee flagged, inter alia, the absence ‘of an adequate identification mechanism for victims of trafficking in persons in the asylum procedures, including with respect to children’. Importantly, the Committee recommended Portugal to ‘[p]rovide adequate training to judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officials, immigration officers and staff working in all reception facilities, including on procedures for identifying victims of trafficking in persons’ and to ‘[e]nsure that victims of trafficking in persons have access to asylum procedures in which their potential needs can be determined’.[29]

In its Concluding Observations published in July 2022, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), also highlighted the need for effective identification and referral of victims of trafficking in Portugal.[30]

At the occasion of the fourth cycle of the Universal Periodic Review on Portugal in 2024, many conclusions and recommendations of the Working Group flagged the need for further efforts to prevent and combat trafficking in human beings, including by improving procedures for the identification and referral of victims among vulnerable groups, particularly applicants for and beneficiaries of international protection, training to law enforcement and improving access to justice and adequate protection for victims.[31]

In June 2022, the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA), published its third report on Portugal, focusing on access to justice and effective remedies for victims, and following-up on issues specific to the national context, including the link between asylum and trafficking in human beings.[32] Notably, GRETA:

• Urged the national authorities to ‘set up effective procedures on the identification of victims of trafficking among applicants for international protection and their referral to assistance’, to ‘provide systematic training and guidance to staff working at immigration detention facilities and asylum seekers accommodation centres, including social workers, medical and other staff, on the identification of victims of trafficking and the procedures to be followed’, as well as to ensure adequate legal support;[33]
• While welcoming the adoption of the national referral mechanism for children, recommended the adoption of ‘guidance on the identification of child victims of trafficking among unaccompanied and separated asylum-seeking children’, and the provision of training to relevant actors;[34]
• Recommended the authorities to ensure that ‘assistance is provided to presumed THB victims who are detained in detention centres for migrants, by setting up specific protocols and by providing specific training on trafficking indicators to police forces, social workers, medical and other staff working at facilities for asylum seekers and detained migrants’.[35]

GRETA also issued a number of recommendations concerning broader issues such as the national framework on trafficking, identification of victims, access to information, non-punishment provisions, and return of victims of trafficking.[36] The Group also highlighted the need to ensure that the reform of SEF does not impair the specialised law enforcement action in the field of trafficking in human beings.[37]

Within the context of the termination of SEF’s activities, competences concerning the investigation of crimes relating to the assistance of illegal migration, trafficking in human beings and related crimes were transferred to the Judiciary Police (PJ) in 2023.[38] It is worth mentioning that a significant number of inspectors who were previously part of SEF were transferred to PJ. It was not possible to gather information regarding the practical impact of this institutional change in the protection of victims of trafficking within the asylum system.

In July 2021, a Ministerial Order reviewing the documents issued to persons with victim status and particularly vulnerable victim status was published.[39] Importantly, the documents to be handed to victims of trafficking in human beings and assistance to illegal migration clearly refer to their right to apply for international protection in Portugal.

In December 2024, the 2025-2027 Action Plan to Prevent and Combat Trafficking in Human Beings was adopted.[40] The plan considers that the humanitarian crisis associated with the armed conflict in Ukraine and the significant influx of people towards the EU increases the risk of exploitative situations related to trafficking in human beings, in particular trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation, taking into account the high number of displaced women and children. It makes no reference to cases of international protection. According to the plan, the strategic objectives are (1) to strengthen knowledge and awareness of trafficking in human beings; (2) to ensure that victims have better access to their rights and assistance; (3) to strengthen the prevention of and fight against organised crime networks in the context of trafficking in human beings. Notably, the plan does not concretise measures to be taken for the systematic identification of victims of trafficking in human beings, focusing on the need for the intervention of civil society to identify cases.

According to OTSH, in 2024, there were no formally identified and/or confirmed victims of trafficking in human beings among applicants for and beneficiaries of international protection by the competent authorities.

CPR is unaware of instances where asylum applicants were granted international protection on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of trafficking in human beings.

Age assessment of unaccompanied children

Despite the obligation to refer unaccompanied children to Family and Juvenile Courts for the purposes of legal representation,[41] the Asylum Act does not provide for a specific identification mechanism for unaccompanied children or objective criteria to establish which asylum applicants must undergo an age assessment.

According to the Asylum Act, AIMA may resort to medical expertise using a non-invasive examination to determine the age of the unaccompanied child who must be given the benefit of the doubt in case well founded doubts persist regarding their age after the examination.[42] The law does not define or list the non-invasive methods that may be used within this context.

The unaccompanied child must be informed that their age will be determined by means of such expertise and their representative must give prior consent.[43] In early 2020, following the results of workshops with children on age assessment funded by the Council of Europe, the National Commission for the Promotion of Rights and the Protection of Children and Young People published a leaflet with information on age assessment procedures to children. The leaflet is available in Portuguese, English, and French.[44]

Refusal to allow an expert’s examination does not prevent the issuance of a decision on the application for international protection but shall not determine its rejection.[45]

The age assessment procedure may also be triggered by the Family and Juvenile Court in the framework of judicial procedures aimed at ensuring legal representation for the child and the adoption of protective measures (see Legal Representation of Unaccompanied Children)[46] or by the unaccompanied child’s legal representative.

As such, age assessment procedures can be triggered either by AIMA when there are significant doubts regarding the age of the applicant on the basis of physical appearance and/or demeanour, or by Family and Juvenile Courts in the framework of legal representation and child protection procedures (see Legal Representation of Unaccompanied Children). The Agency had no data pertaining the number of applicants that underwent an age assessment procedures in 2024.

While official data is not available, in recent years CPR observed that age assessment procedures were triggered by Family and Juvenile Courts to almost all unaccompanied children by default, and without an analysis of the individual need for such procedures and/or prior individual hearing.[47]

The absence of objective criteria to establish what constitutes reasonable doubt, who must undergo an age assessment, and the nature of the initial age assessments is particularly problematic:[48]

• In cases of asylum applicants who were referred by AIMA to childcare facilities despite legitimate doubts regarding the age of the applicant on the basis of their physical appearance and/or demeanour thus putting at risk the integrity and security of the facility;
• In a few cases where asylum applicants claim to be adults but there are legitimate doubts about the possibility of them being children on the basis of statements, physical appearance and/or demeanour; and
• Due to the systematic use of age assessments triggered by Family and Juvenile Courts without adequate justification of their need and proportionality.

The law also does not establish further specific rules and principles applicable to age assessment procedures.

Age assessment procedures are conducted by the National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Science (INMLCF).[49] It is unclear whether child protection concerns are specifically considered in such assessments. According to CPR’s observation the procedures thereto fail to meet the holistic and multidisciplinary standards recommended by UNHCR.[50] This has also been observed by UNICEF.[51] The methods used for age determination include wrist, clavicle and dental X-rays, as well as an evaluation of sexual development as part of the age assessment procedure.[52] These methods, in particular the evaluation of sexual development, are arguably invasive and therefore not in line with those permitted by the Asylum Act.

According to the information available to CPR, where the applicant did not consent to an examination of their genitals, such examinations were not performed and the age assessment examinations proceeded.[53]

Despite the established technical limitations of such methods,[54] their results have been used by the national authorities as evidence of the adulthood of the applicant and as grounds for refusing the benefit of the doubt despite their inability to establish an exact age. This practice has been overturned by Administrative Courts in at least one instance regarding the asylum procedure,[55] and was criticised by the Council of Europe.[56]

AIMA often suspends the asylum procedure on the basis of general administrative rules in order to wait for the results of age assessment procedures ordered by the Family and Juvenile Courts.[57] According to CPR’s experience, these decisions of suspension are not usually notified to the child applicant nor to the legal representative and suspensions tend to be prolonged. In some cases, where age assessment procedures had already been completed, the intervention of the child applicant/reception entity was necessary in order to lift the suspension of the asylum procedure.

The initial and second-stage of age assessment procedures are made for different purposes including: (i) the provision of special procedural guarantees i.e., referral to the Family and Juvenile Courts for the purposes of legal representation in the asylum procedure; (ii) the provision and the cessation of special reception conditions, i.e., immediate referral to childcare services and referral to the Family and Juvenile Courts for purposes of confirming the provision of special reception conditions there; and (iii) for the purposes of refugee status determination as a material fact of the asylum application.

The law does not provide for a specific legal remedy against the initial age assessment procedure conducted for purposes other than the refugee status determination. However, if adopted at administrative level, in principle, these that can be challenged before the Administrative Courts as per general Administrative Law.[58] Age assessments conducted within the context of Family and Juvenile Courts procedures may be, in principle, appealed pursuant to general rules. In practice, this is rarely – if ever – the case given the individual circumstances, and the lack of available legal expertise.

As a general rule, upon the existence of medical examinations determining that the applicant is an adult, the protective measures adopted within the context of child-protection processes cease. It is concerning that, in many cases, however, the documents issued to the applicant within the asylum procedure do not reflect a change in the date of birth of the person concerning, thus hindering integration both as a child and as an adult.

According to information available to CPR, in some cases, upon reception of the results of the medical report and before the issuance of a decision on the age assessment procedure, the competent Family and Juvenile Court gave the applicant and the appointed guardian the opportunity to reply to the analysis. According to the experience of CPR’s CACR, in some instances, where the protective measure is deemed to have a positive effect in the individual case by the Family and Juvenile Court, it can be maintained. Nevertheless, this is not a standard or systematic practice within the context of age assessment procedures.

At least in some instances, cases where the applicant is deemed to be an adult were immediately referred by the Family and Juvenile Court for criminal investigation for the provision of false statements to the authorities. While no data is available in this regard, this practice has been observed both by CPR and UNICEF.[59]

In 2019, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child raised concerns about age assessment procedures and recommended that Portugal ‘continue to enforce multidisciplinary and transparent procedures that are in line with international standards and adequately train staff to ensure that the psychological aspects and personal circumstances of the person under assessment are taken into account’.[60]

[1] Article 17-A(1) Asylum Act.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Article 77(2) Asylum Act.

[4] Article 17-A(1) Asylum Act.

[5] In the context of the right of reply of the authorities to the 2024 draft AIDA report (22 August 2025), AIMA refers to screening tool, created and implemented in September 2024 (for further details see right of reply in annex). However, according to CPR’s observation, the tool, a practice only in place since September 2024, is not applied systematically in all parts of the country and border posts.

[6] Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on the fifth periodic report of Portugal, CCPR/C/PRT/CO/5. 28 April 2020, para 34(c) and 35(c) available here.

[7] Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO), First thematic Evaluation Report – Portugal – Building trust by delivering support, protection and justice – 27 May 2025, available here.

[8] Ibid, para. 92.

[9] Ibid, para. 19.

[10] Ibid, para. 93.

[11] The questions read (1) “Do you feel alright, are you comfortable? Do you have any health problems?”, and (2) “Do you feel capable of talking to me at the moment?”.

[12] The questions read (1) “Are you in good health – Y/N? Do you have health problems – Y/N? Which problems?” and (2) “Are you accompanied by a relative with health problems?”.

[13] Information provided by AIMA in the context of the right of reply of the authorities to the report on 2024 (22 August 2025).

[14] The activity of the SOG was not resumed until the end of 2024.

[15] Figures below five are not included in this table.

[16] Article 79(12) Asylum Act. The provision of mandatory training on the rights of the child to all relevant professionals, including immigration and asylum officers was also recently recommended by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. See Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Portugal, CRC/C/PRT/CO/5-6, 9 December 2019, par.13 (c), available here.

[17] Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Portugal, CRC/C/PRT/CO/5-6, 9 December 2019, par.41(c), available here.

[18] Ibid., para. 42(c).

[19] Ibid., paras 41(b) and 42(b).

[20] Italian Council for Refugees et al., Time for Needs: Listening, Healing, Protecting, October 2017, available here.

[21] Committee Against Torture, Seventh periodic report submitted by Portugal under article 19 of the Convention pursuant to the optional reporting procedure, due in 2017, CAT/C/PRT/7, 18 December 2018, available here.

[22] Committee Against Torture, Seventh periodic report submitted by Portugal under article 19 of the Convention pursuant to the optional reporting procedure, due in 2017, CAT/C/PRT/7, 18 December 2018, available here paras.133-134.

[23] Committee Against Torture, Concluding Observations on the seventh periodic report of Portugal, CAR/C/PRT/CO/7, 18 December 2019, par.38(d), available here. In the List of Issues published in June 2023, the Committee Against Torture (CAT) requested information regarding, inter alia, “the number of successful applications and the number of asylum-seekers whose applications were accepted because they had been tortured or might be tortured if returned.” See Committee Against Torture (CAT), List of issues prior to submission of the eight periodic report of Portugal, 9 June 2023, par.7, available here.

[24] OTSH (coord.), Protocolo para a definição de procedimentos de atuação destinado à prevenção, deteção e proteção de crianças (presumíveis) vítimas de tráfico de seres humanos – Sistema de Referenciação Nacional, May 2021, available here.

[25] The tools focus on: 1. Guiding principles of children’s protective intervention; 2. Overall indicators and types of exploitation by indicators. 3. Detection in National Territory. 4. Detection at External Borders. 5. Procedures for assessing the child’s age. 6. Appointment of Tutor or Legal Representative. 7. Assistance, Sheltering, (Re) Integration and Return. 8. Rights of children victims of Trafficking in Human Beings. 9. Training Module.

[26] Committee Against Torture, Concluding Observations on the seventh periodic report of Portugal, CAR/C/PRT/CO/7, 18 December 2019, para 43, available here. In the List of Issues published in June 2023, the Committee Against Torture (CAT) requested information regarding, inter alia, the investigation of cases of trafficking of persons, data concerning victims, complaints, prosecutions, convictions and sentences, provision of redress to victims, data on protection and support measures, as well as measures to increase training of relevant officials.” See Committee Against Torture (CAT), List of issues prior to submission of the eight periodic report of Portugal, 9 June 2023, par.6, available here.

[27] Committee Against Torture, Concluding Observations on the seventh periodic report of Portugal, CAR/C/PRT/CO/7, 18 December 2019, para 44, available here.

[28] Human Rights Committee, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 40 of the Covenant (continued), CCPR/C/SR.3697, 13 March 2020, para 33, available here.

[29] Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on the fifth periodic report of Portugal, CCPR/C/PRT/CO/5. 28 April 2020, par 32 and 33(b) and (c), available here.

[30] CEDAW, Concluding Observations on the tenth periodic report of Portugal, CEDAW/C/PRT/CO/10, 12 July 2022, available here.

[31] Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review – Portugal, A/HRC/58/5, 18 December 2024, para. 37.106, 37.107, 37.113, 37.114, 37.280, available here.

[32] Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA), Evaluation Report – Portugal – Third Evaluation Round – Access to justice and effective remedies for victims of trafficking in human beings, 13 June 2022, available here.

[33] Ibid, par.177.

[34] Ibid, par.186.

[35] Ibid, par.193.

[36] Ibid, pp. 47-52. See also the subsequent recommendation by the Committee of the Parties to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings: Recommendation CP/Rec(2022)06 on the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings by Portugal, 17 June 2022, available here.

[37] Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA), Evaluation Report – Portugal – Third Evaluation Round – Access to justice and effective remedies for victims of trafficking in human beings, 13 June 2022, par.27, available here.

[38] Article 2(c) Act n. 73/2021 of 12 November 2021 approving the restructure of the Portuguese system of border control, reshaping the regime of the forces and services responsible for internal security and establishing other rules for the redistribution of competences and resources of the Immigration and Borders Service, last amended by Act n. 53/2023, of 31 August 2023, available here.

[39] Ministerial Order n. 138-E/2021 of 1 July, available here.

[40] Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 194/2024, 24 December 2024, available here.

[41] Article 79(2) Asylum Act.

[42] Article 79(6) Asylum Act.

[43] Article 79(7) Asylum Act.

[44] National Commission for the Promotion of Rights and the Protection of Children and Young People, Une évaluation de l’âge qui respecte les droits des enfants/An age assessment procedure that respects children’s rights, 19 February 2020, available here.

[45] Article 79(8) Asylum Act.

[46] In this case, it is mandatory.

[47] This has also been confirmed by UNICEF to the 2023 AIDA Report.

[48] While the border procedure has not been applied since March 2020, it is worth mentioning that, within that context, SEF has in the past refused to trigger age assessment procedures and/or give the benefit of the doubt to asylum applicants claiming to be children, with significant implications regarding detention and access to procedural rights in the absence of a legal representative.

[49] Article 2(1) Act no.45/2004, of 19 of August as amended by Decree-Law no.53/2021, of 16 June, available here.

[50] UNHCR, The Way Forward to Strengthened Policies and Practices for Unaccompanied and Separated Children in Europe, July 2017, available here.

[51] As per the information shared by UNICEF to the 2023 AIDA Report. UNICEF has further reported that, in some instances, legal representatives are not properly informed or trained to fully advocate for the best interest of the child within these procedures.

[52] While an examination of genitals was not used in age assessment in the past, INMLCF published a procedural note in 2019 on the estimation of age in living and undocumented persons that includes it in the age assessment procedure. INMLCF, Norma procedimental – Estimativa da idade em indivíduos vivos indocumentados, NP-INMLCF-018, 14 October 2019, previously available in Portuguese here (not available at the time of writing). The grounds for this (regrettable) change of practice are not know.

[53] According to CPR’s observation, the refusal is usually referred in the relevant report together with an estimation of sexual development.

[54] For an analysis of the framework of the use of medical examinations for this purpose see, for instance: ECRE, Age assessment in Europe – Applying European and International Legal Standards at stages of age assessment procedures, December 2022, pp.12 et seq, available here.

[55] See e.g., TAC Leiria, Decision 784/14.9 BELRA, 19 July 2014, unpublished.

[56] GRETA, Report concerning the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings by Portugal, GRETA (2017)4, 17 March 2017, available here.

[57] Article 38(1) Administrative Procedure Code.

[58] Article 51(1) and (2) Code of Procedure in Administrative Courts.

[59] As per the information shared by UNICEF to the 2023 AIDA Report.

[60] Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Portugal, CRC/C/PRT/CO/5-6, 9 December 2019, pars.41(e) and 42(e), available here.