The Spanish Supreme Court is set to impose new measures next week to secure the welfare of over 1,200 unaccompanied foreign minors currently in the Canary Islands, according to legal sources.

In March, the court warned of overcrowding conditions and granted the government a 10-day period to ensure protective measures were in place.

However, during a hearing held on Thursday, the State Advocacy acknowledged that the government has not yet implemented any such measures.

This lack of action surprised Supreme Court justices, with one questioning, "Have you taken any steps?" The reaction from officials in the Canary Islands was one of frustration, as one representative stated, "It has become clear that nothing has changed since the March ruling." The number of unaccompanied minors has reportedly increased from 1,000 to 1,200 in the past two months.

The Supreme Court aims to prevent the government from further deflecting responsibility with a new series of directives.

Previously, in March, the court emphasized that the national government could not shift the burden onto the Canary Islands.

To date, the only step taken by the central government has been to send a draft of a new protocol to the Canary Islands.

The government announced this protocol just before briefing the Supreme Court on the measures taken over the last two months.

During the hearing, a representative from the Canary Islands challenged the director of Humanitarian Care regarding the timeline of this protocol’s registration, to which she responded that she was informed it was under negotiation.

When pressed about whether the regional government had participated in the draft, she replied, "I don't know."

The representative from the Canary Islands clarified in her concluding remarks that this is a unilateral protocol, registered late on the day prior, and associated with a timeline expected for approval no earlier than September 30, 2025. She indicated that the Canary Islands government cannot accept this proposal and described the central government's actions as a way to prolong the situation without resolution.

The State Advocacy further recognized that it has not been able to carry out individual assessments of the minors.

One witness highlighted that only 45 placements in facilities were secured, yet none of the minors have been transferred to these locations so far.

There are also reports that no infrastructure exists to accommodate the minors separately from adults, nor is there adequate personnel available to provide 24-hour assistance as required by law.

The Canary Islands government previously informed the Supreme Court in March that ongoing conditions adversely affect the mental health of the minors and re-victimize them.

The government also criticized the lack of access to the national reception system as contributing to overcrowding and potential tensions among staff in already overwhelmed centers.

In defense, the State Advocacy contended that it could not be interpreted as governmental inaction, citing a lack of precise obligations under the General State Administration.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court rejected these arguments, noting that there is no record of the minors’ right to state-supported accommodations being fulfilled.

The Supreme Court noted that the government possesses an established framework and a network of public and private residential resources under the Ministry of Migration's functional oversight.

However, the unaccompanied minors remained under the sole responsibility of the local child protection system.

Consequently, the Supreme Court directed the government to take immediate action, setting an inflexible deadline of 10 days, but over two months later, the central government has shown no sign of progress.

This inaction has prompted the court to announce forthcoming measures next week, directly addressing a question raised by the court's president, Carlos Lesmes, to a government official: "Do unaccompanied minors not have the right to international protection?"