Submitted by crinadmin on
Summary: CRIN is contacting all candidates standing for election to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in December 2012. We are asking them about their experience in children's rights, what they think they can contribute to the Committee, what they think about key issues, their vision for the Committee and, importantly, how they see NGOs' role. Interviews have been edited where appropriate for clarity and brevity.
Peter Guran, 55, from Slovakia, is a member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child in Geneva, where he represents his country on a range of issues concerning children's rights. Prior to this, Guran held a variety of positions in government, including the most recent one at Slovak National Centre for Human Rights, where he served as Head of International Relations and Children Rights Department. He is also an observer in the European Network of Ombudspeople for Children (ENOC) and a member of the Forum for Children Rights of the European Commission. Click here to read Peter Guran's full CV. Why are you seeking re-election to the Committee? What do you think are the main barriers to children's rights being fulfilled? Which areas of the Convention do you think need more clarification? General Comment to the Article 12 [on The right of the child to be heard] and General Comment to the Article 13 [on The right of the child to freedom from all forms of violence] – [these] general comments need to be taken into account much more and to be used more in the practical way in [national laws, this is very important now] that the Third Optional Protocol is adopted. Civil society organisations play a key role in the CRC monitoring process, yet globally States are becoming more hostile towards their participation. How do you think this could impact the work of the Committee? Part of the Committee's role will be to examine complaints submitted under the new optional protocol to the CRC. How do you think this will change children's rights advocacy? The Committee on the Rights of the Child is the only UN treaty body that lacks a follow-up procedure. If you were to develop the procedure, what would it look like? The best practice could maybe be [that of] Latin America. They [national rapporteurs] can visit [countries] personally one year after [reporting] and speak with the State party and NGOs about how their recommendations have been implemented and taken into account with the new policies. For example, I have been a [CRC Committee rapporteur] on the Czech Republic [and] Romania, but I have never been invited [to those countries] in my career. [There] could be a regular rule that after one year or after two years [Committee experts] can visit the country and speak to all parties to evaluate the progress. This is extremely important for the future work [of the Committee]. If you were appointed Chair and had to make on big change to how the Committee works, what would it be? If you could propose a new right to the CRC, what would it be? Who has most inspired you in your work and why? Thank you for the interview. Would you like to add anything to our discussion?
[The] role of the Committee is very important, as it is unique international mechanism for the country to report [on the situation of children’s rights]. I am from Central Europe and for me personally it is very interesting to see different problems in other regions and to compare them with our regional problems. It is very useful to have different point of view about how problems are solved in other countries, because we can implement many of experiences of other countries in our region or country.
There are very different reasons and different barriers across the regions, but despite the fact that [the] CRC is the most ratified convention, after 20 years of its adoption, implementation [of the Convention] remains very weak. [This is due to a] lack of political will and misunderstanding of the spirit of the convention. There are no concrete steps or strategies of how to implement the convention. The main problem is that the spirit of the convention has disappeared. Very often stakeholders [and] politicians don't understand this different approach to children: that children are the holders of the rights and not only the object.
I would say all [areas] need to be clarified. For me the most important is Article 3 [on The] best interests of the child and Article 12 [on] The right of the child to be heard. Also extremely important is the General Comment Number 12 on The right of the child to be heard. In all countries of the world there is the same problem about how to implement these rights.
The role of NGOs for the Committee is extremely important, because alternative reports submitted by NGOs are a very crucial element and source of our information. We encourage State parties to support the role of NGOs in their country in the field of children's rights as well as in monitoring of these rights. I personally suggest each country [establish] a coalition of NGOs that can report to the Committee [as this information is necessary] for us to confront the information of the State party. Of course the Committee has to evaluate the quality of this information. It is important that NGOs have a stable role in the country and are not new and changing every year because credibility [is a significant factor]. This means that we need to support the sustainability of the third sector. And this is the obligation of the State.
I find this Protocol extremely important – not only is it the new communications procedure for the children or person who can make a complaint on behalf of the child to the Committee, but this Optional Protocol can support national mechanisms, independent monitoring systems [inside the country], to create a relevant complaints mechanism for children and adults on behalf of children. It is a very clear signal that children are the holders of the rights and that children can play an active role [in the society]. It is [also] the last step for wider implementation of the Article 12. We are working now on the rules and procedures [of the Optional Protocol] and my country [Slovakia] was a leader in negotiating and drafting of this Protocol and I am very happy that it has been adopted [so quickly]. Our Committee can be an example for all countries to support this independent complaints mechanism.
This is a very important question. What is lacking in some regions is the follow up procedure and the obligation to report [to the Committee] at the moment is every five years. Recommendations [submitted] after five years are often too old. [During this period of time] many political, social, economic and other changes [occur].
It is a hard question... Our committee has good practices and strategies developed, for example pre-session meetings. We try to meet with each country before the session and to speak [with the delegates] personally. We also try to introduce the possibility to speak with children. However, we [often] need to prepare the list of issues for the country to receive new information because [of] delays in reporting information from [countries, reports can be] quite old. It is very important to resolve this situation. Having in mind that our Convention [CRC] is the most ratified convention [in the world] we need to be adequately supported.
[The] Convention has quite a holistic approach but maybe [it would be worth specifying] some rights inside the document. [For example] what is not covered is the area of media, new technologies, internet and its relation to children. We could prepare a new general comment maybe. [Generally speaking] we need to be much more adapted to the new situations and maybe not to introduce new rights, but elaborate the rights already mentioned in the Convention.
It is difficult to name one person. From [the] NGO level for me it is Peter Newell. From the Committee [on the Rights of the Child] it would be our former chair Jean Zermatten.
I think in the future [it would make sense] to discuss the differences in the regions more. Speaking about Eastern or Central Europe, the problem of Roma children is very different from [the problem of] indigenous people [in other territories], for example. So, in the future maybe we can speak much more about issues which are region-specific.