Child Rights at the Human Rights Council 45

18 June 2008 - Child Rights at the Human Rights Council 45

___________________________________________________________

 

Please note: The CRIN website has once again been hacked. We are, once again, sorry for any inconvenience this has caused, and for the consequent delay with this CRINMAIL. The attacks which have been affecting the www.crin.org website are exploiting a vulnerability in the database which provides content for the website. We are aware of the weakness and are working to seal all the points of entry that the attackers are utilising. The attacks have been been able to overwrite some data in the database which in turn is displayed on the website. We will be restoring the website from a backup periodically however please be advised that until the defence is complete there is the possibility that some content may be displayed that has not been authorised. It may also be possible that the CRIN website may redirect visitors web browsers to other non-safe areas of the internet beyond our control.

___________________________________________________________

To view this CRINMAIL online, visit: http://www.crin.org/email/crinmail_detail.asp?crinmailID=2814

Children Have Rights Too!
If you do not receive this email in html format, you will not be able to see some hyperlinks in the text. At the end of each item we have therefore provided a full URL linking to a web page where further information is available.

___________________________________________________________


ALTERNATIVE CARE: Special event on alternative care for children [news]

[GENEVA, 6 June 2008] – The ‘dire need’ for adopting guidelines on the alternative care of children, and plug a critical gap in the implementation of the CRC, was stressed at a Human Rights Council special event.

The Permanent Mission of Brazil, with the support of a number of other States who make up a Group of Friends behind the project, hosted the high-level panel discussion to make progress towards the adoption of the draft UN Guidelines on the appropriate use and conditions of alternative care for children.

The panel included representatives of the Government of Brazil, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, UNICEF, and civil society. Following presentations by panellists, the floor was opened up for an interactive dialogue amongst States wishing to raise questions or comment on the draft.

Ms. Christina Baglietto of the International Social Service read a joint statement which reiterated the strong and continuing NGO support for the draft, and Ms. Kersti Kukk, a young person from Estonia, representing SOS-Kinderdorf International, provided a youth perspective on the need for such guidelines founded on her own experience of alternative care. She was one of the youth participants in the drafting process.

Ms. Patricia Lamego, of the Special Secretariat for Human Rights in the Brazilian government, reminded delegates of the history of the consultations on the draft, which date back beyond the UNCRC’s Day of General Discussion on this topic in 2005. Ms.Lamego said Brazil wanted to bring the draft forward as a resolution during the 9th session of the Council later this year.

"Dire need"

Ms. Moushira Khattab, of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, emphasised the ‘dire need’ for the guidelines with respect to a critical gap in CRC implementation. Aware of an increasing number of children living in deteriorating and/or unacceptable conditions, the Committee held its Day of General Discussion in 2005. A call to action followed, which led to the expert consultations to produce an initial draft for consideration.

Ms Khattab emphasised the ongoing and strong support of the Committee for a highly participatory process, and said that the Committee’s concerns for had been fully represented in the current draft. She asked that the Human Rights Council take the draft forward to the General Assembly as a matter of priority.

Noting UNICEF’s strong support for the draft guidelines Ms. Alexandra Yuster, Senior Adviser of the Social Welfare and Justice Systems Child Protection Section, emphasised the synergy between the draft guidelines and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. She noted that the guidelines do not serve to establish additional obligations on State Parties but provide essential guidance on the implementation of the Convention, notably with regards to Articles 9, 20 and 25.

Ms.Yuster added that the current draft is already having an impact on policy and practice at the country level through UNICEF national offices.

Mr. Nigel Cantwell spoke of the long term, and ongoing, commitment of civil society to the guidelines. He also spoke of the progress being made regionally, particularly regarding translation and consultation, notably with the League of Arab States. Mr. Cantwell also pointed out the two basic principles which underlie the essentially preventative intentions for policy and practice of the guidelines. These are the ‘necessity’ principal, which governs the decision to remove a child from their family and, the ‘suitability’ principle, which ensures that the best possible alternative care option is chosen in any particular case.

In the interactive dialogue, fourteen States made interventions and these were largely supportive of the draft and complimentary of Brazil’s considerable efforts to promote the draft within the Council. There were a few notes of caution but, on the whole, the dialogue emphasised the strong cross-regional support which the draft has attracted. The chair of the meeting, Mr. Alejandro Artucio Rodríguez, Vice-President of the Human Rights Council, concluded that, given the level of support expressed during the dialogue, there was sufficient encouragement to take the next steps to ensure that the Guidelines form the backbone of a resolution to be adopted during the 9th session of the Human Rights Council this September.

For the webcast of the Special Event, visit the HRC webcast site at: http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/archive.asp?go=080606#noon  

Further information

 

For more information, contact:
SOS Kinderdorf International
Liaison and Advocacy Office
Nussdorfer Str. 65, 1090 Vienna
Tel: + 43 1 310 23 98 10; Fax: + 43 1 310 23 98 20
Email: info@sos-childrensvillages.org
Website: www.sos-childrensvillages.org

Visit: http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=17569

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMUNICATIONS PROCEDURE: Committee on the Rights of the Child endorses campaign [news]

[GENEVA, 11 June 2008] – A side event on the campaign to establish a communication procedure under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child took place during the eighth session of the Human Rights Council this week.

The event was organised by the Working Group for the communications procedure, under the NGO Group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The aim of the Working Group (WG) is to persuade states to establish an Ad Hoc Working Group to draft an Optional Protocol (what is this?).

The event was attended by around 30 participants, including representatives from the governments of Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Uruguay, the United Kingdom, Germany, Mexico, Italy, Slovenia and Canada.

The meeting was opened by Peter Newell, of the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children and Co-Chair of the working group, who said that: "Children have waited twenty years for this essential mechanism to reinforce full implementation of their convention. There should be no further delay. Many standard elements to establish such a procedure already exist under other instruments. Drafting should not be a long drawn out process: States should aim to have the Optional Protocol open for signature by the 20th anniversary of the CRC."

Support from Committee

Yanghee Lee, Chair of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, said that the Committee had opted to support the proposal.

"Time has come", she said, "we have worked on this diligently, we have weighed the pros and cons, and we are now inviting all stakeholders to come forth and seriously work together on the drafting process". She said that there were of course still issues that needed to be addressed and questions to be answered, but that it should be an open and consultative process.

Eva Tomic, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Mission of Slovenia, which holds the EU presidency, said that her government was extremely supportive of child rights. She added they needed to clarify how children will use the mechanism, but a strong point in support of this mechanism is that it will fully establish children as rights holders.

Kathleen Marshall, Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People was speaking on behalf of the European Network of Ombudspersons for Children (ENOC), a signatory to the petition calling for the establishment of the communications procedure and a member of the Working Group. She said that such a mechanism raise the status of the CRC and make state authorities take it more seriously.

She said that, as a commissioner, having the power to set up formal investigations into breaches of children's rights often resulted in people being more prepared to collaborate. "This leads me to believe that the impact of the Optional Protocol [...] would go far beyond the number of cases in which it was actually invoked", she said.

"At the moment", she continued, "the lack of immediate consequence for flouting the Convention may act to the disadvantage of children. The contrast with the European Convention on Human Rights is stark. The prospect of an application to that Court could always be guaranteed to get authorities moving."

The Representative of the government of Uruguay said her government were very supportive of the campaign and that they had been attending meetings and discussions to better understand how to move forward. She welcomed the decision of the Committee on the Rights of the Child to support the proposal for an OP and reminded that this issue was also on the agenda of MERCOSUR (what is this?) at sub regional level, where a similar procedure was being discussed.

-----------------------

About the Campaign:

A communications mechanism would allow children and their advocates to appeal when domestic or regional remedies fail or simply do not exist. It would provide new pressure on States Parties to fulfil their obligations and also encourage them to provide effective remedies at national level.

By June 2008, more than 400 international and national organisations had signed the petition: "An international call to strengthen the enforcement of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child by the drafting of an Optional Protocol to provide a communications procedure". To sign the petition, go to: www.crinorg/petitions/petition.asp?petID=1007

Further information

The petition is available in English, French, Spanish, Arabic and Russian.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPR: Making child rights central to the UPR [news]

[GENEVA, 10 June 2008] - The need to haul child rights to the top of the Human Rights Council agenda was stressed at a special event on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).

The event was organised by the Working Group on the Human Rights Council, of the NGO Group on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in order to lauch a UPR toolkit which helps child rights NGOs particpate in the Review.

Chair Roberta Cecchetti, of the Save the Children Alliance, said: “We are aware this is a new process, and something that is not well known beyond Geneva. It is essential that we engage from the very beginning.”

Jennifer Grant, of Save the Children UK, said the purpose of the event and the toolkit were "to inspire the child rights civil society to engage with the UPR and use it as a tool for promoting children’s rights."

She added: "It has been said that the UPR should not be used to consider violations of children’s rights since we already have the CRC. But such comments seem amazing when you consider that they are not saying the same about other treaties, such as on disabilities or women. It speaks volumes about the way children are perceived.”

“Child rights are often seen as soft law. The UPR is another way for ensuring States are held to account for their obligations.

“The UPR is in its infancy so these are precedent-setting times.”

She added that without submissions from child rights NGOs, vital information may go undocumented and States would not be held to account for their legal obligations.

Ms Grant explained how she had spoken to the UK government following their review. Delegates reported that they had been very impressed with the child rights advocacy, and that they had never expected to be held to account for their child rights obligations in the UPR process. Child rights strongly featured in the recommendations.

"Timely"

Paulo David, who is responsible for the OHCHR department receiving and compiling submissions for the UPR, said the toolkit was very timely.

He warned that some countries had been using child rights as an “alibi” to avoid talking about other human rights obligations. He said: “It is perceived as soft law. But, of course, they are not talking about freedom of religion, or the private sector, they are talking about those easy issues such as trafficking.”

He said NGOs should therefore keep an eye on the political use of children's rights. “It is often more about child welfare, rather than child rights,” he said.

Mr David said that the submissions should be focused. He said: “It is hard to put information together because we have to stay true to it all. If the submissions are not too detailed, and prioritise issues rather than trying to cover everything, then they are more likely to be heard. We are limited to the information we receive.”

He added that OHCHR was open to advice, and in particular suggestions as to which recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child were thought to be most relevant.”

He pointed out that NGOs could also have an impact by working with National Human Rights Institutions, by lobbying delegates and by working with troikas in advance of the session. They can also make statements in the plenary.

Once the session was opened for questions and comments, a UK delegate said: “We believe the UPR process is complementary to the CRC, not instead of it. We also agree that lobbying States with NGO recommendations is a good way forward.”

However, she also noted how some countries had attempted to inhibit the involvement of NGOs in the plenary sessions. She said: “We very much support the involvement of NGOs, but we would very much emphasise that if they are involved from the beginning, this question would not even come up.”

Jennifer Philpot-Nissen, of World Vision International, suggested that if the field offices of larger NGOs sent bullet points of concerns, Geneva offices could then turn those concerns into submissions.

And Alan Kikuchi-White, of SOS Kinderdorf, said he was pleased with how his organisation’s submission had been edited by OHCHR.

Further information

 

For more information, contact:
Child Rights Information Network
1 St John's Lane, London EC1M 4AR
Tel: + 44 20 7012 6866 or 67; Fax: + 44 020 7012 6899
Email: info@crin.org
Website: www.crin.org

Visit: http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=17567

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISABILITIES: Special event [news]

A special event was organised at the Human Rights Council to celebrate the entry into  force of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and its Optional Protocol on 3 May 2008. This initiative was organised by the delegations of New Zealand and Mexico.

The meeting began with a statement by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Louise Arbour. This was followed by statements by four panellists and a video-message, after which designated States from each regional group and two NGOs spoke.

Before giving the floor to the speakers, the President of the Council said that, since the adoption of the CRPD by the General Assembly in 2006, all interested parties had worked tirelessly for its entry into force. He pointed out that not only was this the first comprehensive human rights treaty with a very strong development dimension, it also had been negotiated and entered into force ‘in record time’.

The President also underscored that the CRPD does not establish new rights, but rather ensures that the rights of disabled persons will be respected in all fields.

Ms Arbour stressed that a major gap had been closed by the entry into force of the CRPD, as it moved attitudes towards disabilities from a charity or medical approach to a human rights approach centred on participation. She pointed out that the Convention envisages a fully active role for persons with disabilities and accords them legal capacity on an equal basis with others. Furthermore, she stressed that the Council is ‘perfectly positioned’ to advance the goals of the Convention and its vision of affirmative change.

She urged the Council to foster universal ratification of the Convention, an ‘achievable goal’. Ms Arbour ended her statement by describing the CRPD as ‘a roadmap for all to correct the unacceptable situation [currently faced by disabled persons]’.

Thematic focus

Each of the four panellists focused on a different dimension of the rights of disabled persons. The first speaker, Ms Theresia Degener spoke specifically of women with disabilities. She noted that the Convention had taken a ‘twin track’ to the issue of gender and disability. She commended the Convention for acknowledging the multi- dimensional discrimination against women, but at the same time, cautioned that ‘the difficult work [of implementation] begins now’.

Next, Mr Louis Fernando Astorga Gatjens spoke of the ‘dual, complex divide’ faced by disabled persons in terms of access to information and services. He drew attention to the passive discrimination faced by those with motor and sensory disabilities, and urged urgent actions and polices aimed at reducing the digital divide. Mr Astorga remarked, ‘without accessibility, there cannot be full rights for disabled persons’.

Ms Charlotte McClain-Nhlapo explained how poverty and disability create a vicious circle, and the consequent need to involve disabled persons in development programmes. She also made a number of suggestions for action, including the mainstreaming of a disability perspective in the future work of the Council, poverty- eduction, and collection of reliable statistics. The final panellist, Mr Lex Grandis listed ‘the visions and dreams [of persons with disabilities] of how the Convention will create an inclusive world’. He stressed that persons with disabilities are persons with capacities, and implored, ‘nothing about us without us’.

After the panel, a video-message from the Vice-President of Ecuador was shown. His intervention focused largely on the measures under way in his country to implement the CRPD. He explained that the single goal of the ‘Ecuador without Barriers’ programme is the defence of persons with disabilities through the 13 The following States made statements: New Zealand, Mexico, Egypt, China, Russian Federation, Slovenia (on behalf of the EU), South Africa, India, Spain.

There were additional statements made by two NGOs. These supported earlier observations that the Convention moves the treatment of persons with disabilities from a social issue to a human rights issue, and that the Convention introduces a ‘fundamental shift in thinking’.

In closing the celebration, the President singled out the common element running through all the statements – the desire to speed up the process of signing and ratifying the CRPD ‘so that it really turns into a universal document’.

Further information

For more information, contact:
International Service for Human Rights
Rue de VarembĂŠ 1, P.O. Box 16, CH-
1211 Geneva
Tel: + 41 22 733 51 23; Fax: + 41 22 733 08 26
Email: gtc@ishr-sidh.ch
Website: www.ishr.ch

Visit: http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=17566

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUVENILE JUSTICE: Protecting the Rights of Children in Juvenile Justice Systems [news]

[GENEVA, 5 June 2008] - Defence for Children International (DCI) organised a Panel Discussion entitled “Protecting the Rights of Children in Juvenile Justice Systems: Follow-up to General Comment No.10”.

The panel was chaired by DCI’s founder and child rights expert Nigel Cantwell. Panellists included Nevena Vuckovic Sahovic and Jean Zermatten, members of the Committee on the Rights of the Child; Virginia Murillo Herrera, DCI Vice President for Latin America; and, Davinia Ovett, Secretariat Coordinator of the Interagency Panel on  Juvenile Justice.

The objectives of this event were to raise awareness about pressing issues in juvenile justice, and relevant international standards, specifically the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s General Comment No.10 “Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice” (GC 10). This event was part of DCI’s wider international programme aimed at promoting the use of GC 10 and monitoring its implementation.

In his opening words, Nigel Cantwell recalled that just 30 years ago we had no international standards at all in the field of juvenile justice. GC 10 consolidates the existing standards in one document, but also makes new recommendations, for example with regards to developing an appropriate minimum age of criminal responsibility.

Nevena Vuckovic Sahovic, Member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, identified some of the most pertinent trends and issues in juvenile justice today. She said that the greatest challenge in juvenile justice at present is not legislative reform, but rather the implementation of existing legislation at the local level.

Pressing issues

Ms Vuckovic Sahovic also listed what she considered to be some of the most pressing issues including: the need to shift from repressive measures to prevention of juvenile delinquency; the need for greater implementation of diversionary measures; the over-use of pre-trial detention; the existence of status offences; and, the lack of attention paid to the situation of children below the minimum age of criminal responsibility. She noted that there is also a wider problem of violence against children and its root causes that needs to be addressed, as there is a strong relationship between violence and children coming into conflict with the law.

Jean Zermatten, Member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, explained some of the Committee’s hopes and expectations for GC 10. He said that GC 10 is seen as a tool to guide States in the development and implementation of a comprehensive juvenile justice policy which includes prevention, diversion and clear rules for a child-rights friendly and coordinated juvenile justice system.

The added-value of GC 10 is that it allows discussions on juvenile justice to focus more on the overall system rather than remaining purely factual or technical.

Davinia Ovett, of the Interagency Panel on Juvenile Justice, presented the work of the Panel and discussed how GC 10 is being used by its 13 members in their advocacy, monitoring, training and technical assistance actions. She said that GC 10 is useful for the provision of technical advice and assistance in juvenile justice..

Finally, Virginia Murillo Herrera, DCI’s Vice President for the Americas, presented DCI’s international follow-up project on GC 10. The project is currently being implemented in 8 countries by DCI National sections (Albania, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka and Uganda). National activities include advocacy, awareness- aising, training and monitoring to ensure that GC 10 is widely known, understood and used by States parties.

Ms. Murillo Herrera also shared some reflections on the context of juvenile justice in the Latin American region. She noted in particular that repressive measures such as detention as still the most common responses to juvenile delinquency and that further efforts need to be made to divert children from the justice system.

Several NGO partners participated in the discussion including OMCT, Save the Children, SOS Kinderdorf International, Quaker UN Office, APT, Inter-American Institute for Human Rights, World Vision International, the NGO Group for the CRC; and, staff members from DCI-Switzerland. Representatives from permanent missions of Italy, UK, Austria and Romania as well as representatives from UNICEF and the OHCHR were also present. After panellists’ interventions,

Nigel Cantwell opened the floor to questions from participants. An interesting question was raised by the representative of OMCT regarding the worrying trend in some countries to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) to 12, based on recommendations made in GC 10.

Members of the Committee on the Rights of the Child recalled that GC 10 does not say that States with a higher MACR should lower it to 12; rather that they consider age 12 to be the absolute minimum. The Committee will have to remind States of this on a case by case basis. Other interventions included questions on the structure of the Interagency Panel on Juvenile Justice and remarks on the need to mainstream juvenile justice in the UN Human Rights Council, Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures.

For further information, contact
Anna Volz, Juvenile Justice Programme Officer:
juvenilejustice@dci-is.org

Further information

Defence for Children International
1, rue de VarembĂŠ, CH 1211 Geneva
Tel: + 41 22 734 0558; Fax: + 41 22 749 1145
Email: info@dci-is.org
Website: www.dci-is.org

Visit: http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=17565

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

POVERTY: Call for ideas on poverty and human rights [news]

The 2008 Social Forum of the Human Rights Council will be held from 1 to 3 September 2008. 

A letter from the OHCHR Secretariat of the Social Forum calls for stakeholders' inputs on concrete ideas and suggestions on how best the Forum can be utilised to move forward the eradication of poverty in the context of Human Rights, as wll as on specific themes the Social Forum should focus on.

Note that submissions should be sent at the latest by 11 July 2008 to the Secretariat of the Social Forum via fax +41 22 928 9010 or electronically to socialforum@ohchr.org.  

For more information, contact:
UN Human Rights Council
Website: http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/

Visit: http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=17542

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PLENARY: Efforts to censure NGOs cause outrage and dismay [news]

[10 June 2008] - Everything appeared to begin well yesterday (June 9), the second week of the current session of the Council. Delegations came together to launch the final round of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process of 32 countries audited in April and May regarding their human rights records. However the exchanges quickly degenerated among member states.

The reason for the conflict related to what NGOs could and could not say during their brief interventions – two minutes per organisation. In other words, are the defenders of human rights allowed to underline gaps in the final report on their respective countries or must they be content with making only technical observations of little consequence ? At stake, once again, is the question of the role civil society plays at the heart of the Human Rights Council.

UPR, which is the greatest innovation of the Council, foresees two steps for NGO participation. First, a compilation of their concerns is included in the main document along with those of UN experts as well as the state in question. In the second step, these same NGOs may express ‘general comments’ before conclusions are made on the final examination. It was the notion of ‘general comments’ that set off the uproar on Monday with Egypt and Pakistan on one side and Slovenia (speaking for the EU), Switzerland, Mexico, Canada and France on the other.

During this final step of the UPR process, each country has one hour to present its commitments to the Council and to listen to comments from its peers as well as those from NGOs. First on the list Monday was Bahrain, which listened for two minutes to the critiques of Abdulhadi Alkhawaja, a Bahraini national from the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS). It would have gone like a letter in the post if the militant had abstained from attacking his country’s royal family. This imprudent digression aroused the thunder of Egyptian ambassador, Sameh Shoukry, who invoked procedure to try and censure Alkhawaja’s comments.

Diplomatic battle

Thus for the rest of the day, a diplomatic struggle was launched between Western countries and Muslim ones, a verbal jousting contest that continued during the review for Tunisia and Morocco. Interrupted, the reprimandes of the Danièle Mitterrand Foundation against the Polisario Front; interrupted again, the denunciations of the FIDH (International Federation of Human Rights) and Amnesty International regarding torture in Tunisia or the absence of independent judges and lawyers in the country. At each intervention, the Egyptian delegation raised his hand to demand a point of order.

Egypt and Pakistan consider that comments from NGOs should be limited to general remarks about the final report while Western countries believe NGOs should raise points not mentioned in the report. For his part, Council President, Doru Costea, called for order at each intervention deviating from the report’s content, and appearing to agree with the Egyptian position. France’s Ambassador, Jean-Baptiste Mattei, recalled that ‘in the 240 minutes that UPR lasts, NGOs only have 20 minutes’. And if on top of this their comments are censured? Swiss diplomat, Muriel Berset Kohen said: ‘nothing in the institutional text specifies that NGOs must limit the content of their interventions. We expect that civil society will raise issues missing in the reports.’

According to the Ambassador Mohammed Loulichki of Morocco, who sat in stoic silence during the verbal ping-pong match about the Polisario Front, the question of NGOs is a fuzzy part of the UPR process. He himself had, last year, led a working group charged with drawing up the fundamentals of UPR. ‘It’s like a radio broadcast that one needs to fine-tune,’ he explained to TDH. ‘Sometimes there is interference but after some adjustment, clarity is restored. We will get there, this is a good mechanism. It is the only exhaustive dash board for human rights that is available to the international community.

Further information

For more information, contact:
Human Rights Tribune
9, rue du Valais, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 901 33 33
Fax: +41 22 901 33 30
Email: redaction@humanrights-geneva.info
Website: http://www.humanrights-geneva.info

Visit: http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=17530

___________________________________________________________

This update has been produced by CRIN, in collaboration with the NGO Group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Subgroup for the Commission on Human Rights. To subscribe, unsubscribe or view archives, visit http://www.crin.org/email.

___________________________________________________________