Submitted by crinadmin on
Summary: Concerning the rights of the child, the
Commission adopted an omnibus resolution on
the rights of the child in which it, among other
things, called on all States to end impunity for
perpetrators of crimes committed against
children.
In an omnibus resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.96) on the rights of the child,
adopted as amended and by a roll-call vote of 52 in favour and one
against, with no abstentions, the Commission urged once again the States
that have not yet done so to consider signing and ratifying or acceding to
the Convention on the Rights of the Child as a matter of priority and its
Optional Protocols on the involvement of children in armed conflict and on
the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. It called upon
States parties to implement the Convention and its Optional Protocols fully
and in accordance with the best interests of the child and to strengthen
relevant governmental structures for children. It further called upon all
States to end impunity for perpetrators of crimes committed against
children.
This year's resolution on the rights of the child was sponsored by
Luxembourg as president for the EU group and, as usual by Uruguay for
the Latin American group (GRULAC). The negotiations on the draft
resolution started on 15 April, and were attended by many state
representatives. Unfortunately, there were hardly any NGOs present. Few
states seemed interested in improving the draft resolution, and generally
only took the floor to add their own comments and suggestions. Henri-Paul
Normandin, speaking on behalf of Canada, New Zealand, Norway and
Switzerland, mentioned that although they were supportive of the draft
resolution, it was still too long, where repetition of old language was not
conducive to the promotion of the rights of the child. Furthermore, he
regretted that the draft had been circulated too late for review and
suggestions by other parties, as cooperation and transparency were very
important on all draft resolutions, particularly this one as it attracts so
much support from many delegations.
The draft presented by EU Group and GRULAC group consisted of:
preamble (PP1-PP12); I section (implementation of the convention on the
rights of the child and other instruments) with 9 articles; II section (
protecting and promoting the rights of the child and non-discrimination
against children, including children in particularly difficult situations) with
subparagraphs (non discrimination; freedom from violence; identity, family
relations and birth registration; poverty; health; education; the girl child;
children in particularly situations; children alleged to have or recognized as
having infringed penal law; child labour; recovery and social reintegration);
III section (prevention and eradication of the sale of children, child
prostitution and child pornography); IV section (protection of children
affected by armed conflict); V section (follow-up).
The Commission called upon States to ensure that children were entitled to
their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights without
discrimination of any kind, and to take all appropriate measures to prevent,
and to protect children from, all forms of violence, including physical, mental
and sexual violence, child abuse, domestic violence and neglect, and abuse
by the police, other law enforcement authorities and employees and
officials in detention centres or welfare institutions, including orphanages.
The Commission urged States to take measures to protect students from
violence, injury or abuse, including sexual abuse and intimidation or
maltreatment in schools and to eliminate the use of corporal punishment in
schools. It also urged all States to continue to intensify efforts in order to
ensure the implementation of the right of the child, irrespective of the
child’s status, to birth registration, preservation of identity, including
nationality, and family relations, as recognised by law. It also called upon
States to take all necessary measures to address the problem of children
growing up without parents, in particular orphaned children and children
who were victims of family and social violence, neglect and abuse, and
recognised the need for guidelines for the protection and alternative care
of children without parental care.
The Commission called upon States to ensure the enjoyment of the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health of all children without
discrimination, and to give support and rehabilitation to children and their
families affected by HIV/AIDS. The Commission also called upon States to
recognise the right to education on the basis of equal opportunity by
making primary education available, free and compulsory for all children,
and to take all appropriate measures to prevent racism and discriminatory
and xenophobic attitudes and behaviour through education, keeping in
mind the important role that children play in changing these practices. It
called upon all States to take all necessary measures, including legal
reforms where appropriate, to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by girls
of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, to take effective actions
against violations of those rights and freedoms, and to base programmes
and policies on the rights of the child, taking into account the special
situation of girls. It further called upon all States to eliminate all forms of
discrimination and violence against girls, including female infanticide and
prenatal sex selection, rape, sexual abuse, and harmful traditional or
customary practices, including female genital mutilation.
The Commission called upon all States to take necessary measures to
ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental
freedoms by children with disabilities in both the public and private
spheres; to ensure, for migrant children, the enjoyment of all human rights
as well as access to health care, social services and education of good
quality; and to prevent violations of the rights of children working and/or
living on the street. It called upon all States to protect refugee, asylum-
seeking and internally displaced children, in particular those who were
unaccompanied, and who were particularly exposed to risks in connection
with armed conflict and post-conflict situations. The Commission called
upon States, where deemed necessary, to abolish by law as soon as
possible the death penalty for those aged under 18 at the time of the
commission of the offence, and to protect children deprived of their liberty
from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. The Commission also called upon all States to translate into
concrete action their commitment to protect children from economic
exploitation and from performing any work that was likely to be hazardous
or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s
health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development, and to
take immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and
elimination of the worst forms of child labour as a matter of urgency.
The Commission also called upon States to criminalise and effectively
penalise all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children; to
take effective measures to ensure prosecution of offenders, whether local
or foreign; to increase cooperation at all levels to prevent and dismantle
networks trafficking in children; and to address effectively the needs of
victims of trafficking, of sale of children, of child prostitution and child
pornography, among other things. It strongly condemned any recruitment
and use of children in armed conflicts contrary to international law, and
urged all parties to armed conflict to end such practice, and all other
violations against children, including killing or maiming, rape or other sexual
violence, abduction, denial of humanitarian access, attacks against schools
and hospitals and the forced displacement of children and their families;
and called upon all States to pay special attention to the protection,
welfare and rights of girls affected by armed conflict. Moreover, the
Commission called upon armed groups that were distinct from the armed
forces of a State not, under any circumstances, to recruit or use in
hostilities persons under the age of 18 years.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (52): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso,
Canada, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala,
Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya,
Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation,
Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Ukraine,
United Kingdom and Zimbabwe.
Against (1): United States.
Abstentions (0):
Before the Commission voted on the resolution, it rejected an amendment
proposed by the United States with a roll-call vote with 1 in favour, 51
against, and no abstentions.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (1): United States.
Against (51): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso,
Canada, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala,
Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya,
Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru,
Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South
Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Ukraine, United Kingdom and
Zimbabwe.
Abstention (1): Pakistan.
HENRI-PAUL NORMANDIN (Canada, speaking in explanation of vote before
the vote on behalf of Canada, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland),
said that these countries strongly supported the Convention on the Rights
of the Child, its Optional Protocol, the Committee on the Rights of the Child,
and other specialised procedures of the United Nations. The countries also
supported the adoption of the draft resolution tabled by the European
Union, GRULAC and others. However, as in past years, its length continued
to be of concern. The repetition of old language was not conducive to the
promotion of the rights of the child. Furthermore, the cosponsors had
circulated the text much too late for review and suggestions for changes
by other parties. There was a need for transparency and cooperation on all
draft resolutions, particularly this one, which attracted the support of so
many delegations.
SASHA MEHRA (United States), in a general comment, said the United
States Government had been constructively and generously engaged in
bilateral and multilateral agreements with the aim of upholding the rights
of the child. The Untied States respected and appreciated the interests
and contributions of other nations and organisations to promoting and
protection the rights of children, and to enhancing the quality of their lives
in direct ways. The Government had already ratified the two Optional
Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. She appreciated the
efforts of the co-sponsors in highlighting some of the important issues
pertaining to the rights of the child. The delegation of the United States
had already tabled a series of amendments to the text and for a vote.
ELIA SOSA (Mexico, in an explanation of the vote on behalf of the Group of
Latin American and Caribbean Countries - GRULAC), said this was a very
important draft resolution. The Convention on the Rights of the Child had a
central place in the promotion and protection of the boy and girl child. This
was an instrument of universal scope and set an unquestionable standard
and perhaps the broadest consensus on this topic. This resolution was a
treasure; the accumulation of various varied commitments which continued
to be improved year by year, and all delegations should view it in that
manner, as a confirmation and a treasure. With respect to the
amendments now being presented, for the same reasons and in view of
the importance of the Convention on the rights of the child, GRULAC was of
the view that they were not appropriate.
IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), speaking in an explanation of the vote before
the vote on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union had
listened closely to the amendments proposed by the United States, and
assumed that they would be voted on. The European Union regretted that
those amendments had been put forward at this time, and that they had
not be put forward during negotiations on the text. They could not be
accepted. Preambular paragraph one and operative paragraph two
recognised the importance of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
while operative paragraph seven recognised the contribution of the
International Criminal Court in defending the rights of children victims of
serious crimes, and ending impunity. Meanwhile, operative paragraphs 16
(d) and (f) addressed the rights of the child to maintain contact with their
parents residing in different States, including in the case of illegal adoption.
The United States’ proposed amendments could undermine the Convention
on the Rights of the Child, and its Optional Protocols. The Convention had
been ratified by 192 States, and provided for a comprehensive normative
standard on children’s rights. The cosponsors rejected the proposed
amendments and would vote against them.
SERGEY CHUMAREV (Russian Federation), in a general comment, said the
delegation of the Russian Federation would vote against the amendments.
SASHA MEHRA (United States) said that it requested a vote on draft
resolution L. 36.
[source: UNOG]
Owner: UNOG