Submitted by crinadmin on
Summary: Summary of the Second Meeting of the Working Group on an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to provide a communications procedure that took place in Geneva from December 6 to December 10, 2010.
Articles 10, 11 and 14. Click here to see the draft text of these Articles. The Chairperson opened the discussion on a cluster of additional tools to address children's rights, including inquiry procedures for grave or systematic rights violations under Article 10, follow-up to those procedures under Article 11, and provisions for international assistance and cooperation under Article 14. Article 10 would allow for the Committee to investigate reliable information on serious or widespread violations of children's rights without receiving a formal complaint, provided that a State party recognized the competence of the Committee to do so. Article 11 essentially serves as a way to follow-up on any inquiries brought under Article 10, and is taken from the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 14 also comes from the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and permits the Committee to seek technical advice or assistance concerning communications and inquiries received and potential responses thereto. It could also be possible to establish a trust fund to cover the expenses of this assistance should States so wish. Germany then began the discussion by advocating that the threshold for “grave” and “systematic” violations in Articles 10 and 11 remain high to limit the number of inquiries brought by the Committee. Mexico and Slovenia supported the article as drafted, underscoring the value of Article 10 to address rights violations. Pakistan and Egypt questioned what kinds of information might be considered reliable enough to initiate an inquiry under Article 10. Iran felt that acceptable sources for reliable information should be specified in the draft, and Brazil agreed that the definition of reliable information could be more precise. Slovenia, however, was hesitant to accept any change that would limit the scope of this reliable information like listing acceptable sources. Germany, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Canada, China, the Russian Federation and Algeria welcomed the chance for States to “opt-out” out of the inquiry procedure, while Liechtenstein, France and possibly Sweden felt that the procedure was too important to allow for this. Slovenia also advocated deleting the opt-out, but would consider requiring consent of a State party before arranging a country visit. France wanted to make clear that the Committee should contact States parties about initiating an inquiry process “without undue delay”, but also sought to extend the time line for States to respond from three months to six months. Poland, New Zealand, Iran, Thailand and Egypt offered support for both of these proposals; Mexico to the former; and Japan, Australia, Brazil, Canada and Algeria to the latter. Slovenia, however, did not favor extending the time limit. To enhance the confidentiality offered under Article 10, Russia and Iran suggested that the publication of any Committee reports on an inquiry procedure require the express consent of the State party concerned. Liecthenstein, Slovenia and France disagreed, noting the already confidential nature of the inquiry process and not wanting to set a lower bar for children. France, meanwhile, sought to empower the Committee to ensure that protection measures be provided to all children involved in the inquiry process. When following up on an inquiry procedure under Article 11, Poland and Thailand thought that States should be able to describe not only measures already taken, but also measures envisaged. Liechtenstein clarified that follow up should cover measures adopted that take a long time to implement, not just measures that States merely intend to take. Brazil saw some potential for overlap between inquiry procedures and collective communications under Article 3, and preferred the more formal nature of the latter. Along with Egypt, Brazil also wondered whether there might be some duplication with Human Rights Council Special Procedures, and sought to clarify this in the interests of conserving resources. Turning to Article 14, Germany was not in favor of creating a new trust fund to provide technical advice or assistance, and Sweden wished to delete the article entirely. Poland wondered what kinds of funds might be made available, and Brazil, China and Thailand were willing to discuss the creation of a new fund. China also called on developed countries to provide assistance for developing countries. Liechtenstein did not support establishing a new fund, but did emphasize the need for expertise, and UNICEF reassured States that there was no need for a separate mechanism to foster international assistance. Slovenia felt that cooperation with Special Procedures and other UN agencies should be more explicit. The NGO Campaign for a CRC Complaints Mechanism then took the floor to express support for a shorter response time limit to inquiries and the deletion of Article 10's opt-out clause. Independent expert Peter Newell agreed, noting the contradiction between asking the Committee to initiate inquiries without delay and yet granting States more time to respond. Mr. Newell also supported deleting the opt-out given the limited opportunity for and rare use of inquiry procedures. The Committee on the Rights of the Child felt that the inquiry procedure should not be restricted to grave and systematic violations, but be able to address any repeated or recurrent violations. Jean Zermatten, Vice Chair of the Committee, agreed with the NGOs that a shorter time limit would be more appropriate, and also seconded France's proposal to extend protection measures to any children involved in an inquiry procedure. And finally, the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights advised that it would be unwise to limit the scope of reliable information for initiating inquiry procedures given their high threshold and rare use. To sum up discussions, the Chairperson remarked on the main issues discussed, including proposals to change time limits under Articles 10 and 11; concerns about inquiry procedures' overlap or duplication with other UN work; the kinds of information to be relied on in initiating inquiries; the possibility for States to “opt out” of Article 10; and the possibility of establishing a new fund for international assistance under Article 14.