Submitted by crinadmin on
[1 February 2007] - The Committee on the Rights of the Child this afternoon held an informal meeting with the States parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to discuss its methods of work, in particular the experience of the Committee with the two chamber working method; follow-up to the Secretary-General's Study on Violence against Children; treaty body reform; and the relationship between the treaty bodies and the Human Rights Council. Introducing the agenda, the Chairperson, Jacob Egbert Doek, observed that the three sessions of the Committee in 2006 had been held in two chambers, allowing for the consideration of 48 reports, and thus clearing the Committee's backlog. From the feedback received, there had been no negative impact on the quality of the dialogues the Committee had held with State party representatives. With regard to the Secretary-General's Study on Violence against Children, the resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the topic had contained several specific recommendations. This morning the Committee had met with Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, the coordinator of the study, and had expressed its desire to actively participate in the follow-up of the study. In that regard, it was critical that Mr. Pinheiro be provided with adequate human and financial resources to do so. Concerning treaty body reform, as was known, the Committee was not in favour of the High Commissioner's proposal for a unified standing treaty body. However, it had agreed that there might be a more feasible alternative, and was participating in a working group to consider possible further steps in that regard. On the relationship between the treaty bodies and the Human Rights Council, the Chairperson said that the Committee still had high expectations. Among ideas for such cooperation, the Human Rights Council could devote one or two days per session to meetings on children's issues, including, for example, the issue of violence against children and what follow-up should be taken to the UN study. Further cooperation and exchange of experiences was certainly recommended. Every year, the former Human Rights Commission had adopted a resolution on children, without asking the Committee for its input. Finally, if there was to be a significant distinction between the new Council and the former Commission, it was the universal periodic review mechanism. That provided an excellent opportunity for mutual cooperation and close collaboration between the Human Rights Council and the treaty bodies. During the debate, several States expressed their support for measures taken by the Committee to streamline its methods of work and congratulated it on eliminating its backlog. They also wished to see further work to ease reporting burdens. Several States commended the Committee's position on treaty body reform, focusing on practical, gradual steps that could be taken now to harmonize and streamline methods. However, another State party reiterated its support for the "bold and visionary" approach taken by the High Commissioner, and hoped that work on such a unified body would continue. Regarding reporting burdens, a State wondered if Committees could consider combining the list of issues with their concluding observations. That would assist States in drafting their reports, and eliminate some of the reporting burden. States also supported the Committee working more closely with the Human Rights Council, in particular with regard to the universal periodic review. Those were mutually strengthening opportunities, and should in particular help to avoid duplication or overburdening States. A State party expressed a desire for the Committee to be involved in regional mechanisms with regard to children's rights. A State party asked for guidance on presentations on the Optional Protocols to the Convention A Committee Expert expressed the desire to hear more suggestions from States parties on treaty body reform. An Expert hoped that States parties would take the Committee's recommendations from the concluding observations into consideration in formulating national plans and policies regarding children. Regarding reporting, an Expert said the Committee needed to hear how the drafting of State party reports involved a dynamic process within the State party itself, involving all the stakeholders concerning children's rights. An Expert noted that the Committee had just issued new guidelines on reporting on the Optional Protocols, which should be a great help to States parties. On the issue of reporting on the Optional Protocols, the Chairperson noted that the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict did not contain any provisions on extraterritoriality. However, the Committee had been encouraging the States parties to introduce provisions for extraterritorial jurisdiction regarding crimes outlined by the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict. The International Criminal Court provided for extraterritoriality of war crimes, but nevertheless, for a fully developed wall of protection to prevent children from being internationally recruited, States needed to commit to an extraterritorial provision. For the record, to date the Committee had considered 17 reports under the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict and 14 on the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. At its next public session, on Friday, 2 February at 12.30 p.m., the Committee will discuss its future meetings, before releasing its concluding observations and recommendations on the country reports which it has considered this session before officially closing it.