Submitted by crinadmin on
Summary: Compilation of joint oral statements delivered by the NGO Group for the CRC at the second session meeting with the Open-ended Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child 6-10 December 2010.
Joint statement on Articles 1 and 2 of the draft Optional Protocol to the CRC Delivered on 6 December by Anita Goh, Advocacy Officer of the NGO Group for the CRC This is a joint statement on behalf of the NGO Group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a global network of 77 national and international NGOs whose mission is to facilitate the promotion, implementation and monitoring of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Mr Chairperson, We would like to first congratulate you for your re-election and to thank you for the draft you have prepared. Before addressing articles 1 and 2, we would like to reiterate the importance of the process we are starting today. As stated by the High Commissioner this morning, it was clear from the session last December that such a new Option Protocol was needed. Such a communications procedure for the CRC will reflect the status of the child as a rights-holder, with a right to have an international remedy when national systems fail to address violations of their rights. We welcome the reaffirmation of Art. 3.1 of the CRC on the best interests of the child as a guiding principle for the Committee when developing its new rules of procedure and when examining communications. For this overarching provision to be complete, however, we recommend the inclusion of an explicit reference to the children’s right to be heard in line with Art. 12.1 of the CRC. We therefore support the suggestion made by the Committee of the Rights of the Child and by several delegations to include a paragraph indicating that, in all actions taken under the protocol, the views of the child will be given due consideration. On the issue of the scope of the communications procedure: We strongly support the position of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and of many delegations to delete the opt-out option for the two existing Optional Protocols currently envisaged in the draft text in order to ensure that the communications procedure does indeed apply to all the children’s rights obligations accepted by a State party and to avoid any differentiation between rights. On the representation of the child: We believe that the Committee on the Rights of the child will be in the best position to determine whether representatives are acting in the best interests of the child victim and support the positions of several delegates who stressed that this matter should be reserved to the Rules of procedure of the Committee. We would also like to stress that the notion of “legal capacity” only exists at the national level and any insertion of such terminology in the draft Optional Protocol would produce a contradictory situation where a child would be envisaged as an object rather than a subject of rights under this special communications procedure, while he or she enjoys unrestricted access under all other existing communications procedures. Art. 2.4 as it is currently drafted is essential to ensure that all children, including babies or young children, who cannot consent or give authorisation, may be represented. Also; in cases of a conflict of interest between the parents and the child, or the legal guardian and the child, the current draft would ensure the child can be represented by another actor, such as a social worker, under the communications procedure if their rights are violated. In such cases, Art. 2.5 offers the necessary safeguards by giving the Committee the power to assess whether the communication is submitted in the best interests of the child.
Regarding Article 1:
Regarding Article 2: