Several years after the Islamic State group lost its last territory in March 2019, tens of thousands of Syrians, Iraqis, and third-country nationals from around 60 countries – including many children – remained in camps and prisons in north-east Syria and Iraq. In early 2026, almost 6,000 detainees were transferred to Iraq, among them children who were caught up in a war they did not choose. Repatriation remains the best way forward for most of the third-country nationals – but a deeply disturbing trend concerns the exclusion of young third-country nationals who “age out” of childhood from repatriation efforts.

In this post, ICRC Advisers Julia Joerin, Vanessa Murphy, and Katerina Kappos lay out why states should include young adults in repatriations as a standard practice, and call on states to reaffirm their commitment to resolving what continues to be one of the most complex and protracted child protection crises of our time.

Before the political shifts that took place in north-east Syria earlier this year, tens of thousands of Syrians, Iraqis and third-country nationals from around 60 countries were held in the region’s camps and places of detention, most of them arbitrarily, and a majority women and children. They have long been collectively perceived as affiliated with the Islamic State group, regardless of individual circumstances or their age. Over the last decade, the ICRC witnessed first-hand how these places became a microcosm of suffering and despair.

But then the situation in the camps and places of detention changed rapidly – including through the transfer of almost 6,000 detainees to Iraq. There is now a window of opportunity to act in the interests of the children and young people who have been too long forgotten.

Over recent years, several states assumed responsibility for their nationals in north-east Syria and in Iraq, bringing children home, reuniting families, and showing how this can be done humanely and safely. Around 3,400 third-country nationals (including many children) were repatriated by 58 countries of origin between 2019 and 2026.

But today, across Syria and Iraq an estimated 2,000 children of third-country nationality are still stranded, waiting to go back home with their families.

In addition, many children captured during 2017-2019 military operations have since turned 18, meaning they no longer fall under the legal definition of “child”. They are now “aged out” young adults, with little prospect to be repatriated with their families and a high risk of being left behind.

All concerned states must take responsibility for finding a lasting solution.

Looking back: the situation the ICRC witnessed in north-east Syria

For several years, the ICRC conducted regular visits to the camps in north-east Syria, and operated a medical centre in Al-Hol camp together with the Syrian Arab Red Crescent. It was also often the only humanitarian actor able to access juvenile and adult places of detention, including “rehabilitation” centres, to monitor treatment and living conditions and to address some of the most pressing humanitarian needs. The ICRC’s visits offered detainees and people held in camps the possibility to exchange family news with their loved ones. The ICRC also notified states of the whereabouts of their nationals held in camps and places of detention, as per the wishes of the latter, who in most cases want to be repatriated to their country of origin.

The people in the camps and places of detention endured extremely harsh living conditions. Children spent nearly a decade without regular access to education and health care, and without clear prospects for the future. Among the grim realities they faced, third-country national adolescent boys as young as 11 or 12 years old were separated from their families and moved to juvenile “rehabilitation” centres, detained based on their gender, age and family affiliation. When these boys approached age 18, they feared being sent to the prisons for adults.

The bottom line for children and young adults has been almost a decade of hardship, paired for most with the hope of repatriation with their family members. That hope dims as soon as they turn 18.

Punished for turning 18

Most of the young men and women who were children until recently have never been given the opportunity to be repatriated to their countries of origin. This is in part because priority has often been given to repatriating younger children: with some exceptions, governments have tended to repatriate children together with their mothers, but not other adults, from Syria and Iraq. In these policies, women are often eligible for repatriation only in their function as mothers or primary caregivers (therefore repatriated in the best interest of their child). Conversely, childless adults tend to be left behind.

As a result, the likelihood for young third-country nationals to be repatriated drops drastically when they turn 18. Girls and boys who have suffered from armed conflict in childhood – including many who have experienced violations of international humanitarian law – are punished once again when they “age out” of childhood. The ICRC urges states to reverse this trend.

International legal and policy standards relevant for the repatriation of young adults

The rights and protections afforded to children under international human rights law and international humanitarian law apply to persons under the age of 18, unless a given obligation specifies a different age explicitly. Consequently, young adults who are 18 and over are no longer legally entitled to the same levels of protection for family unity,^[1] their best interests^[2] and support for recovery from armed conflict^[3] as children.

Beyond this law reserved for children, the following four legal and policy considerations should inform governments’ policy regarding the repatriation of young adults in north-east Syria and Iraq.

First, among the young adults is a small sub-set who may have been recruited or used in hostilities as children by an armed group. Those persons are legally entitled – regardless of their age – to appropriate assistance for their physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration if they fall within the jurisdiction of the 173 States Parties to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (OPAC). Given the significant number of States Parties to OPAC, they typically are within the jurisdiction where this protection applies. Importantly, Article 6(3) of OPAC affords this right to all “persons” who were unlawfully recruited or used in hostilities, rather than exclusively “children” – meaning it still applies to young adults. In the ICRC’s view, repatriation (with due respect for the principle of non-refoulement) affords them the best chances of recovery and reintegration.

Second, many young adults stranded in camps and places of detention in Syria and Iraq suffered violations of international humanitarian law during their childhood, including serious violations. As victims of serious violations, they are entitled to equal and effective access to justice, and adequate, effective and prompt reparation for any harm suffered.^[4] Reparation includes restitution – which should, whenever possible, restore the victim to the situation prior to the serious violation, including, as appropriate, the restoration of liberty and the enjoyment of family life.^[5] Facilitating the repatriation of young adults in camps, juvenile detention centres and adult prisons, subject to the principle of non-refoulement, is a necessary first step towards such reparation of harm suffered.

Third, juvenile justice standards provide that efforts should be made to extend the principles of juvenile justice to those who have “aged out” of childhood since the offence.^[6] The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommends that children who turn 18 while serving a juvenile sentence be permitted to complete their sentence in juvenile facilities, rather than be moved to facilities for adults (General Comment 24, paras. 35 and 93). Although young third-country national adults in places of detention should not generally be considered “offenders” – they are not completing a sentence for a criminal charge – the ICRC recommends the same principle of extending the treatment of detained children to young adults as a matter of policy. Young adults should be permitted to stay in juvenile facilities; they should not be mixed with the adult detainee population. This approach will make it easier to identify them for future repatriation.

Fourth, young adults may be entitled to recovery and repatriation under the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons (see Arts 6 and 8), widely ratified with 182 States Parties. In line with that Protocol, persons under 18 who travelled across borders to Iraq or Syria with the involvement of an organized criminal group, in a manner constituting their recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt for the purpose of their exploitation, are victims of trafficking, which entails obligations of assistance and repatriation for States Parties.^[7]

More generally, it is worth recalling that, when appropriate, the repatriation of young adults does not preclude their prosecution for international crimes upon return to their state of nationality. The ICRC recommends that states use national legislation for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity and all forms of jurisdiction available to them to ensure that there is no impunity for international crimes. At the same time, mere association with or membership in an armed group when a person was a child should not be the basis for prosecution.^[8]

Positive state practices for the return and reintegration process

In recent years, many states have already assumed responsibility for their nationals in north-east Syria, repatriating children – and sometimes young adults – together with their families. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. But providing adequate support upon return is a good general practice, as it allows for all individuals to be successfully reintegrated, including those over 18.

Reintegration needs to grapple with the meaning people give to their experiences, and what they need in order to reconnect. Support for physical and psychological recovery, and for social reintegration, should allow children and those who have “aged out” of childhood while in north-east Syria or Iraq, to find their place within their families, communities and society upon return. This further requires allowing them to exercise their rights – including the rights to nationality[9] and family relations,^[10] and to be free from discrimination^[11].

Most states repatriating nationals from north-east Syria and Iraq have adopted measures that aim to facilitate reintegration while simultaneously trying to tackle potential security risks linked to individuals’ actual or perceived affiliation with “terrorism”. It is important not to reduce these children and young people to being a security risk, but to address the impact armed conflict, encampment and detention have had on their lives through specialized support programs, taking into account the complex interplay of contextual factors.

Recommendations for policy action

1. Since 2018, the ICRC has consistently called on states to repatriate their nationals stranded in Iraq and north-east Syria, subject to the principle of non-refoulement, with priority given to children accompanied by their mothers or primary caregivers. These calls are grounded in states’ obligations to protect children’s rights – notably to make decisions with their best interests as a primary consideration – and are as urgent as ever.
2. The ICRC calls on states to extend their repatriation and reintegration policies to include young women and men who turned 18 during their time in camps and places of detention, in due recognition of their related vulnerability and in the interest of keeping families together. Like the children, those individuals who recently “aged out” of childhood should be treated as victims first and foremost. Most of them have never been given the opportunity to be repatriated, and they should not be punished for the mere fact of time passing.
3. When states organize repatriations of women and children from north-east Syria, they should proactively search for sons and brothers – whether boys or young men – who were captured when they were children and subsequently placed in juvenile “rehabilitation” centres and adult prisons, likely based on a blanket policy of placing adolescent boys in detention. If their whereabouts are known, states should repatriate them together with their families.
4. When states organize repatriations from Iraq, they should include the children and young adults in prisons, as well as those in juvenile detention or accommodation centres who previously accompanied their mothers in detention. States should also repatriate mothers who have been left behind in Iraq during previous repatriations of their children.
5. States should urgently address the cases of unaccompanied children, those with non-biological links to their primary caregivers, and those of individuals at risk of statelessness or whose citizenship has been revoked, particularly former child victims of conflict and their caregivers. States should consider reinstating citizenship, or granting exceptions to nationality laws where appropriate.
6. States will also need to identify and finance sustainable and dignified solutions respectful of international law for those individuals who will stay in Iraq or Syria, as they will not be able to return home, in particular those who have non-refoulement.

The ICRC acknowledges the complexities and challenges that states of origin face in conducting repatriations from north-east Syria and Iraq, and it commends the efforts of those who have embarked on assuming this responsibility. The ICRC continues to provide technical guidance and practical recommendations to states to help them tackle the situation.

The recent changes on the ground make two things very clear. First, large camps and ad hoc detention arrangements have never been, and cannot be, a long-term solution. Second, there is a window of opportunity for countries of origin to bring their actions in line with the international commitments they have made to protect children in armed conflict, and to act for both children and “aged-out” young people while it is still possible.

Children whose only offence is often having been taken by their parents into areas controlled by the Islamic State group – or having been born there – should be seen first and foremost as victims, not as perpetrators. The focus, for all of them, should be on rehabilitation and reintegration.

If we agree that these children and young adults are entitled to meaningful protection, and that they deserve better than a life spent in detention, then each country of origin must look at their situation and take responsibility for its own nationals. In practice, that means bringing them home. Repatriation, in line with non-refoulement, family unity and the best interests of the child, is the only realistic way to reach that goal.

Finding safe, dignified ways to bring back these children and “aged out” young people, and to rehabilitate and reintegrate them into society after a decade of violence and suffering will take time, resources, political will and courage. It will not be easy, and no single model will fit every case. But one thing is simple: they were children when this story began, and the responses we choose today must not ignore that.

References

[1] See Articles 9 and 10, Convention on the Rights of the Child, among others.

[2] Article 3(1), Convention on the Rights of the Child.

[3] Article 39, Convention on the Rights of the Child.

[4] Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, UNGA Res. 60/147, 16 December 2005, Annex Principle 11.

[5] Ibid, Principle 19.

[6] UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (“The Beijing Rules”), Rule 3.3.

[7] Arts. 3 and 4 of the Protocol establish the definition of trafficking and scope of offences, and Art. 3(b)-(d) together provide that the means of trafficking of a child is irrelevant, even if the child appears to have been recruited, transported, transferred or received with their consent. Arts. 6 and 8 outline the obligation to assist and protect victims of trafficking and facilitate their repatriation.

[8] States should consider granting amnesty in such cases. See Second Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, Art. 6(5), Paris Principles 8(7) and Rule 159 of the ICRC Study on Customary IHL.

[9] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 15.

[10] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Arts. 17(1) and 23(1).

[11] ICCPR, Arts. 2(1) and 26; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Art. 2(2).

Related articles

• Robert Doya Nanima, African traditions and the protection of children in armed conflict, June 16, 2026
• Sara Aleisseh, Life teaches before school does: the invisible curriculum of the super child, June 4, 2026
• Magdalena Arias Cubas, Sanjana Bhardwaj and Simon Robins, Deaths and separations in migration: lessons from migrant women and children, January 22, 2026
• Timothy P. Williams, Alexandra Jackson and Vanessa Murphy, Beyond the rubble: eight ways urban warfare affects children, August 22, 2024