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, continued: Communications The Chairperson continued the discussion on Part II of the draft Optional Protocol, moving to articles 8 through 14. Regarding article 8 on interim measures, he noted that there had been proposals both to strengthen and to weaken the force of these measures, and that the current text reflected a balance between these two positions. Article 9 on admissibility offered new requirements that the communications be in writing and submitted within one year of the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Article 10 had been added to the text to introduce a clear disadvantage requirement, and Articles 11 and 14 on transmission of communications and follow-up, respectively, reflected new time limits of “as soon as possible within 6 months.” Article 12 on friendly settlement now provided the Committee an opportunity to follow up on these settlements, and a new proposal for Article 13 was submitted to incorporate considerations of reasonableness and recognize a variety of acceptable means for States to meet their obligations for economic, social and cultural rights under the Convention. Ethiopia began the discussion on article 8 by making a proposal to explicitly restrict the Committee's ability to issue interim measures to exceptional circumstances. Many delegations indicated support for such a restriction, but Liechtenstein and Slovenia felt that if already tentative interim measures were to be further limited, the language of the text would also need to be changed to require that States not just consider requests, but that they take appropriate action to prevent any further harm to the victim. Ecuador saw States' obligations under interim measures not just as avoiding irreparable damage, but as guaranteeing the human rights of victims and those around them. France, meanwhile, felt that it was above all important that the Committee engage in constructive dialogue with States on interim measures. On article 9, Switzerland, Egypt, and Iran felt that there was no need to mention that the Committee would accept non-written information in considering communications Many other states disagreed, with Finland and Austria emphasizing the importance of being child-friendly, Belgium and Poland wishing to broaden the scope of information permitted, and France calling for an explicit reference to the Rules of Procedure to elaborate on forms of information that could be considered. To address the potential interface with regional human rights systems, the United Kingdom – with the support of Argentina, the United States, Canada, Greece, and Austria - proposed limiting the Committee's ability to review communications that have already been reviewed under regional systems. Pakistan firmly disagreed, recognizing the importance of non-duplication, but also the differences between regional and international mechanisms. Sweden welcomed the introduction of a time limit for the submission of communications after the exhaustion of domestic remedies, but felt that it should be 6 months rather than 1 year. Denmark, Iran, and the Netherlands agreed, but France, Uruguay, Canada and Greece wanted to retain the 1 year limit. India, Turkey, Austria, and Argentina liked the new requirement, but were open to wording and other suggestions, and Spain was happy with the requirement so long as it continued to provide an exception for cases where meeting the deadline was not feasible. Liechtenstein was not convinced of the need for a time limit after exhaustion of remedies at all and – along with the United States – wondered how this time limit could be determined where the exhaustion requirement was excused. Australia and the Czech Republic also expressed serious doubts about the wisdom of a time limit given the special vulnerabilities of children, and proposed that the time limit extend at least to 12 months beyond a child reaching the age of majority. The National Human Rights Institutions agreed that this could be much more child-friendly if rephrased to allow children a reasonable amount of time to bring complaints following the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Haiti and Egypt felt that it could be prejudicial to national legal systems and undermine States' ability to offer effective relief to allow for an exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies where complainants were “unlikely” to get an effective remedy or to face long delays. Liechtenstein, however, underscored the importance of this exception as it may often be the case that there are no remedies available, especially for child complainants. As the discussion moved to article 10's new requirement that communications demonstrate a “clear disadvantage”, Germany argued that the language was too indefinite and vague to give any guidance to the Committee as to which communications would meet that threshold. Germany felt that every violation of children's rights demonstrated a clear disadvantage as rights violations are always serious. A number of States agreed, with Belgium and the Czech Republic leading several European States to assert that the “clear disadvantage” requirement – taken from the European Court of Human Rights' admissibility criteria – does not make sense in a UN treaty body mechanism, where there is no real danger of the Committee being overwhelmed by complaints. Sweden and another group of States, however, welcomed the clear disadvantage requirement both as consistent with the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and as appropriate given the nature of some of the rights under the CRC and the limited resources of the Committee. Egypt, Iran, and Pakistan were generally happy with the requirement, but did not see the need for an exception to allow the Committee to consider serious issues of general importance. Uruguay, however, felt that this exception was necessary to enable the Committee to develop an instructive body of jurisprudence, and Slovakia felt that the entire matter would be better left to the Committee's Rules of Procedure. On article 11, Nigeria, Algeria, and Egypt proposed that the Committee consider the admissibility of communications separately and prior to considering the merits. Finland did not support this idea, feeling that it would reduce the efficiency of the Committee's work and lengthen the time it took to consider communications. Regarding State response time limits, New Zealand and a few other delegations felt that requiring States to submit responses “as soon as possible” was legally ambiguous, and that a strict 6-month time limit should be adopted. Slovenia reminded these delegations that it had advocated shorter time limits from the outset and hence saw this language as a compromise position, and the Chairperson indicated that the matter had already been discussed at length and resolved in the previous meeting. Opinions were split on the new provisions for monitoring friendly settlements under article 12, and the United Kingdom and Switzerland led a number of delegations in seeking clarification as to the powers envisaged for the Committee. Ethiopia and Nigeria felt that matters reaching friendly settlement should be closed for consideration and followed up only under Article 14, and Iran argued that there should be no follow-up whatsoever. On the other end of the spectrum, Sweden, France, Slovenia and the Netherlands wanted the Committee to be able to re-open the communication if circumstances justified. Germany and a number of other States also believed that the Committee should be specifically tasked with observing whether friendly settlements are implemented in the best interests of the child. There was also division over the Chairperson's new proposal to introduce separate consideration and give more deference to States for communications concerning economic, social and cultural rights under article 13. The United Kingdom explained that the new provision was in line with the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and would reflect the ways in which these kinds of rights are implemented differently from civil and political rights. Many other States from Europe and North America agreed, and Japan proposed moving the new language to the Rules of Procedure as done under the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Egypt led the opposition to the new provision, arguing that the CRC already deals with economic, social and cultural rights in a distinct fashion by inserting language about progressive realization throughout. Belgium agreed that there should be no differentiation in the communications procedure between different categories of rights, as all rights are indivisible, interdependent, and entitled to the same respect. Pakistan also did not want to create a hierarchy of rights, and Finland felt that treating rights unequally would destroy the holistic nature of the Convention. In their oral statement, the NGO Group for the CRC and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) supported Liechtenstein's proposal for article 8 to strengthen the force of interim measures and ensure that the rights of all parties are preserved during the communications procedure as necessary to the fundamental rule of law. The NGO Group also argued against considering regional mechanisms in determining admissibility of communications under article 9 as regional systems do not have the competence to adjudicate cases under the CRC. They did not favor introducing any time limit following a complainant's exhaustion of domestic remedies, and – along with the ICJ – felt that inserting a “clear disadvantage” requirement in article 10 would go against the nature of the draft Protocol to address legitimate violations of children's rights. The NGO Group further recognized the confusion around article 12's provisions for monitoring friendly settlements, and advocated that the Committee be able to re-open friendly settlements that have not been successfully implemented. They also supported Finland's statements against the proposal to treat economic, social and cultural rights differently under the Protocol. The ICJ, further addressing the matter, argued that there should not and cannot be separate levels of review for different categories of rights under the CRC on practical level because communications may well allege multiple violations and these categories are not clearly delineated in the Convention itself. Independent expert Peter Newell and the Committee on the Rights of the Child largely echoed the sentiments of the NGOs. They agreed on the importance of strong interim measures, the undesirability of considering proceedings from regional mechanisms, the imprudence of a “clear disadvantage” requirement, the necessity of allowing the Committee to re-open problematic or unimplemented friendly settlements, and the serious danger in considering certain categories of rights differently.