Submitted by crinadmin on
Update on the campaign – June 2009 On 17 June 2009, the Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a resolution establishing an Open-ended Working Group to «explore the possibility of elaborating an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to provide a communications procedure complementary to the reporting procedure under the Convention » (Resolution A/HRC/11/L.3). Although the final mandate of the Working Group is weaker than what we originally hoped for, it is a great achievement at the UN level as it launches the process and provides a formal platform for States to discuss a communications procedure under the CRC. Co-sponsors of this resolution are: Austria, Belarus, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Italy, What is this Working Group about? An “open-ended working group” means that any State interested in the issue is welcome to be part of the Group. It is therefore still unclear who will attend the first session and who will not. The Working Group will meet for the first time before the end of 2009, most probably during the second half of November 2009, for five working days. It will then report back to the Human Rights Council on the progress made at its 13th session, in March 2010. Since no term was given to the Working Group, a new resolution renewing its mandate and ideally requesting the Working Group to start the drafting process will be needed in 2010. The mandate to “explore the possibility of elaborating an Optional Protocol” establishing a communications procedure under the CRC means that States will merely discuss this possibility during its first session. The reiterated statements of delegations about not “prejudging” the outcome of the Working Group imply that the Working Group may not decide to elaborate such an Optional Protocol at the end of its first session. Lessons learned from the negotiations of resolution A/HRC/11/L.3 While some States have been envisaging the creation of a communications procedure for some time now, this appeared to be a relatively new issue to most. The majority of States feel that they lack information and expert papers as a basis for discussion at the Working Group. Certain States were vocal about their concerns that mainly revolved around 1) the need for such a communications procedure, 2) the substance of it, 3) its effectiveness, and 4) its implications, notably in terms of resources. Next steps - Preparing for the first session of the Working Group States willing to participate in the Open-ended Working Group will consult relevant ministries and institutions about the feasibility of the Optional Protocol in view of the first session. The outcome of this first session of the Working Group will be key to the rest of the process. If States feel that their concerns have been addressed during that session, they will be willing to move forward and start drafting the Optional Protocol at their next session. We need your help The NGO Group will continue its efforts to address States’ concerns and ensure their support for the elaboration of an Optional Protocol. However, States’ preparation to the first session of the Working Group will mainly be done in capitals. What we need you to do Which States are supportive so far States that have co-sponsored the resolution can be considered as being supportive of the idea of an Optional Protocol, although this does not automatically mean that they feel they are ready for elaborating it. In addition to the co-sponsors, States that have shown some support in Geneva are Argentina, Morocco, Senegal and Turkey. It would be interesting to know more about their respective capitals’ positions. Which States need convincing African States Latin American & Caribbean States Asian States China raised to major concerns: 1) they want to avoid any duplication with existing mechanisms and 2) ensure that such a communications procedure is effective. Singapore engaged constructively in the negotiations but they are not yet supportive. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh said they would not oppose the initiative but would not support either. The Philippines did not participate to the negotiations. The reason for this lack of engagement in support of the OP still remains unclear. Indonesia attended the negotiations but remained silent. Legislative reforms on children's measures are currently going on at their national level and they told the NGO Group for the CRC that they wanted to settle this before engaging at the international level. Western Europe & Other States Eastern European States ------------------- Please share with us your activities in relation to the campaign. If you need any further information or advice in advocacy arguments, please do not hesitate to contact Anita Goh, Advocacy Officer in Geneva on consultant@childrightsnet.org or by calling +41 774460083 Further information
Latest news from Geneva
Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Montenegro, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, Uruguay
Most African States seemed to be supportive when approached, but only Kenya and Egypt co-sponsored the resolution. Although there is a similar mechanism with the African Committee of Experts, several African States raised concerns regarding child representation at the international level (concern about instrumentalisation of children). Some also asked what would be the relationship between their regional mechanism and a similar international mechanism.
Most Latin American countries are supportive. As the Paraguayan delegate stated, there have been some discussions about this initiative at the MERCOSUR level. It would be important to make sure that they are all well informed about this initiative and what it entails and ready to convince other delegations.
Japan is particularly concerned about the current overload of the Committee and doubts that the Committee will be able to deal effectively with communications on top of their examination of States reports.
Canada, Sweden, the US and the UK need to be convinced that a communications procedure under the CRC is the right option. They all requested more time for discussions on this issue (feasibility study, expert reports) and raised several concerns, such as what it would bring, what gaps it would fill, how could it be effective from a resources point of view, how far it is an accessibility problem to existing mechanisms, which rights would be covered by it.
The Russian Federation remained cautious about the initiative (they did not receive formal instructions from their capital for the negotiations) and said that a discussion on the correlation with national mechanisms would be useful.