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 February 10 to February 16, 2011. Part II: Communications The Chairperson introduced Part II's discussion on Communications (articles 6, 7 and 15) by going over some of the major revisions made to the draft text. Among other changes, article 6 on individual communications was amended to address concerns about the manipulation of children. Article 7 on collective communications – the most hotly debated topic last session – was modified to cover any recurring violation of children's rights, but would now require States to “opt in” to allowing these communications. On the other end of the spectrum, article 15 on inter-state communications replicates standard language from numerous existing international instruments, and the Chairperson expected little further discussion on the provision. Liechtenstein took the floor first to insist on deleting the “opt-out” in article 6 that would allow States to declare that the communications procedure would not apply to existing Optional Protocols under the Convention. Liechtenstein felt that obligations must not vary among the CRC instruments, and noted that there was no distinction made between the Convention and its Optional Protocols in the State reporting procedure. To ensure full implementation, the delegate argued, “we cannot make a distinction and give the impression there's a difference in the obligation to implement these three instruments.” Many other delegations agreed with the call to delete the Optional Protcol opt-out. Notably, France and Poland wanted to avoid making a hierarchy of rights, Belgium feared an opt-out would undermine the indivisibility of the Convention and its Optional Protocols, Germany felt that deleting the opt-out was the “only way the communications procedure could have the desired effect”, and Slovakia emphasized that the communications procedure was a procedural tool to enforce obligations that have already been recognized. A smaller group of states argued that the Optional Protocol opt-out should be retained. The United Kingdom did not see the opt-out as creating a hierarchy of rights, but rather as giving States more choice in how to apply the communications mechanism. Thailand also saw benefits in providing flexibility as not every State was party to all of the CRC instruments, which are different and unique, albeit interrelated. On a practical level, Canada and Pakistan both believed that an opt-out clause would provide for wider ratification. Turning to who might be permitted to submit a communication to the Committee, Ukraine thought it might make things clearer to refer not just to “individuals” bringing complaints, but to “children.” The United Kingdom and a number of other delegations disagreed, as complainants might well have attained the age of majority by the time domestic remedies had been exhausted and communications could be filed with the Committee. The UK further questioned the necessity of specific language to enable adults to file communications on violations that occurred and were pursued in childhood. Since this would clearly be permitted under the existing text in any event, the Chairperson agreed to delete this language. France felt that where children submit communications to the Committee directly, the article should contemplate providing some form of legal assistance. Slovenia agreed, but did not want to place limitations on who could represent children in making complaints as this might risk denying some children access to the procedure. The Chairperson thought this could be addressed in the Committee's Rules of Procedure. Germany, meanwhile, argued that all children under 16 should be required to have legal representation by an adult when bringing communications. Mexico disagreed, and although happy for any adult with a connection to a child to represent that child before the Committee, felt that all children should be able to submit a communication directly at any time. Haiti didn't seem to think that children even had the capacity to appoint others to act on their behalf. Along these lines, Ethiopia, Egypt, Algeria and Iran proposed that any definition of persons entitled to bring communications include a reference to national context and ideas around the competence of children. For indirect communications, Pakistan, Russia, Finland and a few other delegations took an equally restrictive view, proposing that generally only children's parents or legal guardians be permitted to submit complaints on their behalf. Portugal strongly disagreed, noting that parents might well be violating children's rights either by act or omission, and – with the support of Lithuania and Japan - felt that the Committee should be given more tools to determine whether children's interests were being adequately represented. Sweden welcomed the new safeguard on manipulation in article 6, but also thought that it would be appropriate for the Committee to consider the best interests of all children submitting communications, whether directly or through a representative. New Zealand proposed with some interest that rather than requiring the Committee to determine whether considering a communication would be in the best interests of the child, the language could be reverted to allow the Committee to decline communications that were not in a child's best interests. Rounding out the discussion on Article 6, UNICEF, the European Disability Forum, the National Human Rights Institutions, the NGO Group for the CRC, the International Commission of Jurists, and independent expert Peter Newell all argued against both allowing States to opt-out of applying the communications procedure to existing Optional Protocols and placing any further limitations on the representation of children in bringing complaints. On the former point, they underscored the importance to human rights of the principles of indivisibility, interdependence, and interrelatedness. On the latter, they felt that any further limitations on the representation of children – whether it be in limiting the persons able to represent children before the Committee or in requiring all children to have representation – would go against the very purpose of the communications procedure: to give all children access to a remedy where their rights have been violated. Moving on to discuss article 7, Liechtenstein spoke strongly in favor of including collective communications. Alongside other States including Brazil and Peru, however, the delegation would have preferred to see the collective communications mechanism as mandatory or an opt-out. If it was to remain an opt-in, Liechtenstein suggested furthering opening up the procedure by editing the text to provide that State Parties could recognize the competence of the Committee to review collective communications at any time, not just at ratification. Slovakia also welcomed the lower threshold for communications and appreciated the opt-in clause as a genuine effort at reaching a compromise. Uruguay emphasized the preventative nature of collective communications as an opportunity for States to receive technical assistance in designing laws to respect children's rights, and Portugal confirmed that several governments have changed laws in a positive direction following collective communications submitted under the European Social Charter. Chile agreed that collective communications would enable the rights of children to be better protected by increasing coverage of violations and obviating the need to identify vulnerable children, and UNICEF saw strong benefits for collective communications in addressing protection and revictimization issues. Slovenia agreed with the independent experts and the Committee on the Rights of the Child that collective communications were extremely important for children's rights. They would allow for otherwise unchecked potential and actual violations of rights to be brought to the Committee, and could address serious matters from child pornography and forced child labor to children in institutions and immigrant children. Slovenia also pointed out that collective communications were not entirely novel, as some legal frameworks like the European human rights system and the ILO already allow for such mechanisms. Costa Rica applauded the opt-in as a means to bridge the gap between States in favor of and States against including article 7. Mexico felt that the opt-in compromise was acceptable, and Lithuania, Turkey and the Maldives could also support article 7 as an opt-in. Switzerland felt that an opt-in option would make it easier to accept collective communications as part of the Optional Protocol, but had no experience with these mechanisms on a national or regional level and was not entirely convinced of its added value. Thailand had concerns about the manipulation of children, but was open to further discussion. France also welcomed efforts to make collective communications more acceptable to all States, but – like Haiti - did see several potential legal problems with article 7 including the application of the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement. Ethiopia recognized collective complaints as an innovative mechanism, but did not believe that the Committee should have the competence to review them. China and Greece did not wish to create a new mechanism for collective complaints as it does not exist under other treaty body communications procedures. Germany felt that allowing for collective communications would jeopardize the Committee's ability to review individual communications in a timely manner, and the United Kingdom had additional policy concerns. Austria did not see any added value in allowing collective communications as concerns about anonymity and vulnerability could be addressed in the individual communications and inquiry procedures. Australia, Canada, and the United States expressed concerns about the interrelationship between collective communications and admissibility criteria, in particular the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement. Australia believed that States must have an opportunity to respond to complaints before they reach the Committee, and that in order to do so, individuals claiming to suffer violation of their human rights would need to be identified. The United States seconded this notion in arguing that communications must not be abstract, and should be grounded in reality by identifying at least one victim. Iran, New Zealand, Russia, the Netherlands, India, Japan, Korea and Egypt also spoke out against collective communications. The Czech Republic and Haiti opposed collective communications, but were ready to discuss the article if other States agreed that it should remain part of the Optional Protocol. NGOs then took the floor to deliver successive statements of strong support for collective communications. The National Human Rights Institutions praised collective communications and highlighted the distinctive knowledge and experience NHRIs often have, which would make them ideally placed to help resolve any technical issues like the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The European Disability Forum noted that children with disabilities have even less information on their rights, are frequently not in place to bring complaints themselves, and may not have access to adults who would bring complaints on their behalf. As such, the recognized the importance of collective communications, which have already been used in other instances where individual communications would have been impossible to protect the rights of children with disabilities. The NGO Group for the CRC was surprised at the opposition to collective communications from European and African States, both of which already have similar mechanisms in place. The NGO Group saw collective complaints as a way to ensure that all children have access to the communications procedure, including those are not in position to bring complaints and those who cannot be identified. Both the NGO Group and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) argued that as an essential component of the Optional Protocol, the collective communications mechanism should be mandatory, or at the very least an “opt-out” article. The ICJ in particular did not understand the rationale behind arguing for the full deletion of the mechanism as an “opt-in”, given that States not interested in allowing children in their jurisdiction to bring collective communications would in no way be required to do so. Save the Children wanted to see collective communications included in as strong a form as possible. They noted the existence of similar procedures under the ILO, and saw collective complaints as a “creative opportunity for the advancement of children's rights.” Plan International agreed that the Optional Protocol must be effective and accessible for all children, and that collective communications would best address violations committed against vulnerable children. Plan also welcomed the introduction of language to clarify the difference between collective communications and inquiries, reporting requirements and individual communications. In particular, Plan noted that reporting procedures are too comprehensive to allow for detailed or focused reviews, only happen every 5 years and are not quasi-judicial in nature, while inquiry procedures have far less formal procedures and are rarely used. To conclude the debate on article 7, independent expert Peter Newell took the floor to welcome the support for collective communications from many States and the softening of opposition from others. Collective communications are essential to the effectiveness of the Optional Protcol, he argued, and all people who understand the status of children and the problems of pursuing children's rights on the ground already know the value that these communications could bring. Mr. Newell believed States should not be afraid of introducing a newer procedure into the Optional Protocol, as relying only on standard provisions would inevitably cause stagnancy in human rights. Especially given the low use by children of existing procedures, more must be done to make this Optional Protocol genuinely accessible to children. Moreover, collective communications already function well in other systems, and would in fact address many concerns expressed by States in avoiding the manipulation of children, obviating the need for protection measures, and more efficiently using the Committee's time and resources. Decisions would be neither abstract nor difficult to respond to, he assured, but would detail how laws and policies led to violations of chidlren's rights and suggest what a State might need to do in order to fulfill its obligations.