documents translated in English but also original documents in the language of the applicants were accepted.483 According to information provided by the Greek Dublin Unit, Afghan identification documents and documents provided by other nationals, such as Somali nationals, are not considered by Germany’s BAMF as viable evidence to prove the family link, given that they could easily be forged. According to NGOs, in 2022, Germany and Sweden doubted the authenticity of Somali identification documents and asked for a DNA test. GCR could not obtain similar information for 2023. Based on GCR’s observations, in 2024 and 2025 there is no information that documents by specific nationalities were not accepted as viable evidence. 484 Most Member States consider the requirement of the DNA test to be the last resort, while others, such as Spain and Ireland request a DNA test regardless of the submission of identification documents. German authorities have also rejected cases due to lack of DNA test results regardless of submission of identification documents and circumstantial evidence. Sweden and the Netherlands, requested for DNA results proving the kinship, especially regarding applications on grounds other than Article 9 and 10 Dublin III Regulation. According to Safe Passage, French authorities seldom request DNA testing and, in such cases, only when ordered by a prosecutor. Since 2017, Dublin Units have increasingly refused requests in cases of subsequent separation of family members who entered Greece and applied for asylum prior to departure to another Member State on the basis that the family separation was ‘self-inflicted’ and was contrary to the best interests of the child. The Greek Authorities have partially adopted this reasoning. According to a circular of the Asylum Service from January 2020, such requests should not be sent, and the cases should be referred to the regular procedure. The same would apply in cases where minors were subsequently separated from their family and travelled to another Member State. The only exception is when another Member State specifically asks for a take charge request. In any case, an assessment of each case always precedes the referral to the regular procedure. Based on GCR’s experience, such requests have been accepted by the authorities of Sweden, Switzerland and Luxembourg while German Authorities rejected them arguing that the family was together at the time the application for international protection was lodged (Article 7 par. 2 Dublin III Regulation) and that the humanitarian grounds of Article 17 (2) do not apply. They also sometimes argue that further consideration of such cases would undermine the meaning of the Regulation, which is to ‘prevent secondary movement’. However, in two cases dealt with in 2022, Germany accepted a “humanitarian clause” request for the reunification of parents with their two daughters in Germany, one of whom had arrived there after having submitted an asylum application in Greece, 485 as well the reunification of two brothers in a case of a subsequent separation.486 In contrast, Belgium rejected a request based on Article 17(2) of the Regulation regarding a family with a minor son, on the basis that the mother’s departure from Greece after the family’s application had been submitted was not in the best interests of her child.487 GCR is not aware of similar cases in 2023. It is also difficult to establish a family relationship in cases of marriages by proxy, as they may not be recognised by the receiving State’s domestic law. GCR is aware of at least one such case of family reunification that was rejected by the German Authorities, because the applicant’s spouse was already present in the requested Member State’s territory when the marriage ceremony took place. Unaccompanied children 483 484 485 486 487 Practice-based observation by GCR, January 2025. Practice-based observation by GCR, January 2025. Information provided by RSA. Information provided by European Expression. Information provided by RSA. 102