COMPLAINTS MECHANISM: Joint statement by NGO Group on draft OP – Articles 7, 8, 9 and 13

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 7 to 13 of the draft Optional Protocol to the CRC

Delivered on 7 December by Anita Goh, Advocacy Officer of the NGO Group for the CRC
 

This statement is made on behalf of the NGO Group, a global network consisting of 77 national and international NGOs. 

Mr Chairman,

With regard to Art 7:

We welcome the support of Sweden for our suggestion on friendly settlements. As noted by France, Slovenia and Germany, it is essential to include the possibility for the Committee to monitor friendly settlements.

We therefore strongly encourage setting additional safeguards to the current Article 7 to ensure that the interests of the victim are fully taken into consideration.

We suggest amending Article 7.2 and subjecting friendly settlements to a follow-up procedure to ensure that the terms of the agreement are implemented within a reasonable period of time. After making its good offices available, the Committee would thus have the power to examine whether the agreed settlement is implemented in respect to the Convention and/or its OPs. The Committee could then continue or re-open the consideration of communications if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course of action, as is the case in the European system, for instance.

With regard to Articles 8 and 9:

We welcome and support the provision of the time limits set in Article 8 and Article 9. These provisions will ensure a swift communications procedure and avoid unnecessary delays that would be detrimental to children’s development and well-being. This would translate in practice the importance of having a speedy procedure, as mentioned by the UK.

With regard to the proposals made regarding ESC rights:

A number of delegations have mentioned language from the OP ICESCR and have suggested including it in Article 8.

We would like to stress, however, that such a proposal would undermine the existing international practice whereby all existing communications procedures apply in the same way to the full range of rights provided by the relevant international instrument.

While the ICESCR covers exclusively ESC rights, the rights enshrined in the CRC are both civil and political rights and ESC rights, just like the rights covered in the CEDAW and the CRPD. We therefore strongly recommend that States follow the precedents of OP CEDAW and OP CRPD which do not create some unwarranted distinction when the respective Committees consider the merits of communications submitted under the CEDAW or CRPD. 

With regard to article 13 on the protection measures:

One of the main outcomes of the first session of the OEWG was the need to take particular attention to the vulnerability of children as complainants.

We welcome the inclusion of Article 13 in the draft proposal and the proposal made by France and others, but are concerned that the protection measures envisaged will not be fully protective and that protection measures are only required to prevent “any form of ill-treatment or intimidation”. We believe that such a requirement is not fully protective for child complainants.

We therefore recommend that the scope of protection measures be extended to prevent any human rights violation against a complainant or his/her representative.