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.

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’.^[5]

 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.[6] 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’.[7] 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’;[8]
• ‘[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’.[9]

According to AIMA, vulnerability screening is conducted by first-contact officials upon presentation of an asylum application, through direct questioning, observation, and self-identification by the applicant. Officials complete an internal vulnerability identification document based on UNHCR’s screening tools, with a view to ensuring appropriate treatment and support at all stages of the procedure, including reception. AIMA recognises that vulnerability is not static and may emerge or evolve over time; accordingly, staff are trained to identify vulnerability during the interview and throughout the examination of the application. 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, AIMA’s internal screening tool is not applied consistently across all parts of the country and border posts, and thus it cannot be assumed that there are specific mechanisms to systematically identify asylum applicants who need special procedural guarantees. Moreover, its application does not appear to impact the granting of such guarantees in practice.

Since the beginning of its operations AIMA has not demonstrated any decision-making power regarding the conditions and maintenance of detention of asylum applicants at the border, leading to concerns about the identification of vulnerable people, application of special procedural guarantees and reception conditions.

The questionnaire used by AIMA in first instance asylum interviews includes one question on the applicant’s self-assessed capacity to undergo the interview.^[10] Dublin interview forms also contain a couple of questions on health-related vulnerabilities.^[11] 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 does not have a dedicated unit for cases including vulnerable people. One caseworker is exclusively assigned to unaccompanied children’s applications. Other vulnerabilities are addressed within the general casework framework, with trained caseworkers applying the relevant procedural safeguards. In 2025, capacity-building measures were reinforced, including EUAA training on interviewing vulnerable persons and on trafficking in human beings.

In 2025, UNHCR, IOM and OTSH provided training to PSP within their respective regular training programmes, covering: specific needs of vulnerable groups, identification and protection of vulnerable groups, and vulnerability indicators for trafficking victim identification, including particularities relating to children (including unaccompanied children) and referral procedures for suspected cases. IOM also extended its training to GNR.

According to UNHCR, issues related to vulnerabilities were discussed within the working group on migration and asylum led by the Judicial High Council, 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 2025, a total of 62 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 2025, of the 1,759 asylum applicants whose cases were communicated by the asylum authority, 452 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 2025. 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 2025 remained marginal.

Unaccompanied children

The Asylum Act determines that the staff handling asylum applications of unaccompanied children must be specifically trained.^[13]

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’.^[14] 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’.^[15] The necessity and consistency of the assessment of the best interests of the child in asylum procedures were also highlighted by the Committee.^[16]

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.^[17] 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,^[18] ‘[…] 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.^[19]

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 in 2019. 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’.^[20]

In the list of issues published in June 2023, the UN Committee Against Torture 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.’[21] In June 2025, the Portuguese authorities did not directly address the question, largely restating the applicable legal framework and practice, without providing any specific data.[22]

Victims of human trafficking

In December 2024, the 2025-2027 Action Plan to Prevent and Combat Trafficking in Human Beings was adopted.[23] 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 the information provided by OTSH, Portugal has a national referral system[24] and a specific referral system for child victims,^[25] both under revision since 2025, as well as five specialised multidisciplinary teams and corresponding regional networks. As part of the national action plan, OTSH reported that in 2025 the authorities undertook a revision of the vulnerability indicators used in the national referral system, mapping and systematising indicators from national and international sources and producing a harmonised comparative framework. Partner consultation and finalisation of the revised indicators remained pending at the end of 2025. In 2026, a first consultation round was completed and a draft manual is under review, with finalisation and associated training activities anticipated during the year. According to OTSH, these structures, together with initial and continuous training provided by OTSH and other entities, operationalise the national mechanism for the identification and referral of potential trafficking victims.

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.[26]

The lack of effective protection for victims of trafficking, including identification mechanisms, training of law enforcement, and access to protection, support and residence permits, has been highlighted by UN institutions for a number of years, including the UN Committee Against Torture in 2019, the UN Human Rights Committee in 2020, and the CEDAW Committee in 2022.[27] 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.^[28] 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;^[29]
• 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;^[30]
• 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’.^[31]

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.^[32] 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.^[33]

In 2023, competences for the investigation of trafficking in human beings and related crimes were transferred from SEF to the Judiciary Police (PJ),^[34] along with a significant number of former SEF inspectors. The practical impact of this change on the protection of trafficking victims within the asylum system could not be assessed.

In July 2021, a Ministerial Order reviewing the documents issued to persons with victim status and particularly vulnerable victim status was published.^[35] 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.

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).

According to OTSH, in 2025, 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.

In 2025, OTSH reported having provided support with the Coordination of the Specialised Multidisciplinary Teams to PSP in developing indicators and screening questions for the identification of presumed trafficking victims amongst asylum applicants, to be applied in first-line screening procedures at border control.

Age assessment of unaccompanied children

Despite the obligation to refer unaccompanied children to Family and Juvenile Courts for the purposes of legal representation,^[36] 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.^[37] 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.^[38] 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.^[39]

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.^[40]

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)^[41] 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 2025.

While official data is not available, in recent years CPR observed that age assessment procedures were triggered by Family and Juvenile Courts in almost all unaccompanied children by default, and without an analysis of the individual need for such procedures and/or prior individual hearing.^[42]

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:

• 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).^[43] 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.^[44] This has also been observed by UNICEF.^[45] 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.^[46] 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.^[47]

Despite the established technical limitations of such methods,^[48] 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.[49] This practice has been overturned by Administrative Courts in at least one instance regarding the asylum procedure,^[50] and was criticised by the Council of Europe.^[51]

Since 2024, AIMA often suspends asylum procedures in cases involving unaccompanied children referred to the Family and Juvenile Courts,[52] even where no age assessment has yet been ordered, on the basis of general administrative rules.^[53] This practice is both concerning and unjustifiable given that the Asylum Act significantly restricts the application of accelerated and admissibility clauses to unaccompanied children[54] and does not assign age-assessment examinations a determinative role in the conduct of asylum procedures.[55] According to CPR’s observations, these suspensions are rarely notified to the child applicant and legal representative, and tend to be prolonged, in some cases lasting several months or even a year – well beyond the 30 working-day limit established by law for accelerated and admissibility procedures.[56] During this period, no progress is made in the asylum procedure, as the child is not heard on the merits of the claim and is only entitled to a certificate of asylum application. In CPR’s view, this practice disregards both the principle of presumption of minority and the best interests of the child.

Since 2024, in some cases the intervention of the child applicant or reception entity was necessary to lift the suspension following the conclusion of age assessment procedures, whether due to a lack of awareness on AIMA’s part or to its inaction.

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.^[57] 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.[58] 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] Per CPR’s experience, as explained above these concerns remain relevant in 2025.

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

^[2] Ibid.

^[3] Article 77(2) Asylum Act.

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

^[5] 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.

[6] 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.

[7] Ibid, para. 92.

[8]  Ibid, para. 19.

[9] Ibid, para. 93.

^[10] The question reads (1) “Do you feel able to take part in the interview at this time?”

^[11] The questions read (1) “Do you feel able to take part in the interview at this time?” and (2) “Any health issues: Do you have any health problems? (Y/N), What are they? Are you being treated by a doctor? (Y/N) Are you taking any medication? (Y/N), Are you with a family member or relative who has health problems? (Y/N)”.

^[12] Figures below five are not included in this table.

^[13] 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.

^[14] 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.

^[15] Ibid., para. 42(c).

^[16] Ibid., paras 41(b) and 42(b).

^[17] Italian Council for Refugees et al., Time for Needs: Listening, Healing, Protecting, October 2017, available here.

^[18] 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.

^[19] 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.

^[20] 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.

[21] Committee Against Torture (CAT), List of issues prior to submission of the eight periodic report of Portugal, 9 June 2023, available here, par.7.

[22] Committee Against Torture, Eighth periodic report submitted by Portugal under article 19 of the Convention pursuant to the optional reporting procedure, due in 2023, 5 June 2025, available here, paras.84-88.

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

[24] Committee on Citizenship and Gender Equality (CIG), Sistema de Referenciação Nacional de Vítimas de Tráfico de Seres Humanos – Orientações para a Sinalização de Vítimas de Tráfico de Seres Humanos em Portugal, October 2014, available here.

^[25] 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.

[26] 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.

[27] For further details on this issue, please refer to previous AIDA reports.

^[28] 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.

^[29]  Ibid, par.177.

^[30] Ibid, par.186.

^[31] Ibid, par.193.

^[32] 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.

^[33] 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.

^[34] 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.

^[35] Ministerial Order n. 138-E/2021 of 1 July, available here.

^[36] Article 79(2) Asylum Act.

^[37] Article 79(6) Asylum Act.

^[38]  Article 79(7) Asylum Act.

^[39] 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.

^[40] Article 79(8) Asylum Act.

^[41]  In this case, it is mandatory.

^[42] This has also been confirmed by UNICEF (to the 2023 AIDA Report) and Aldeias de Crianças SOS (to the 2025 AIDA Report). In 2025, CPR is aware of cases in which age assessment procedures were ordered to be carried out on accompanied children aged between 5 and 12.

^[43] Article 2(1) Act no.45/2004, of 19 of August as amended by Decree-Law no.53/2021, of 16 June, available here.

^[44] UNHCR, The Way Forward to Strengthened Policies and Practices for Unaccompanied and Separated Children in Europe, July 2017, available here.

^[45] 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.

^[46] While an examination of genitals was not used in age assessment in the past, National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences (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.

^[47] According to CPR’s observation, the refusal is usually referred in the relevant report together with an estimation of sexual development. Aldeias de Crianças SOS reported that it was not aware of any invasive practices, such as evaluation of sexual development, in 2025.

^[48] 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, available here, pp.12 et seq.

[49] Worryingly, in 2025 CPR is aware that ISS has already made the allocation of social security numbers (NISS) contingent on the results of age assessment procedures.

^[50] See e.g., TAC Leiria, Decision 784/14.9 BELRA, 19 July 2014, unpublished.

^[51] 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.

[52] AIMA confirmed this practice when providing information for the 2025 AIDA report.

^[53] Article 38(1) Administrative Procedure Code.

[54] Article 79(9) Asylum Act.

[55] The law explicitly states that a refusal to undergo an age assessment procedure does not result in the rejection of the asylum application, nor does it prevent a decision from being issued on the matter. Article 79(8) Asylum Act.

[56] Article 20(1) Asylum Act.

^[57] Article 51(1) and (2) Code of Procedure in Administrative Courts.

[58] This has also been confirmed by Aldeias de Crianças SOS to the 2025 AIDA Report. In one such case, Aldeias de Crianças SOS appealed against the archiving of the decision, arguing for the continuation of the measure after more than a year of intervention.

^[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.