Submitted by crinadmin on
[GENEVA, 10 June 2008] - The need to haul child rights to the top of the Human Rights Council agenda was stressed at a side-event on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The event was organised by the Working Group on the Human Rights Council, of the NGO Group on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in order to lauch a UPR toolkit which helps child rights NGOs particpate in the Review. Chair Roberta Cecchetti, of the Save the Children Alliance, said: “We are aware this is a new process, and something that is not well known beyond Geneva. It is essential that we engage from the very beginning.” Jennifer Grant, of Save the Children UK, said the purpose of the event and the toolkit were "to inspire the child rights civil society to engage with the UPR and use it as a tool for promoting children’s rights." She added: "It has been said that the UPR should not be used to consider violations of children’s rights since we already have the CRC. But such comments seem amazing when you consider that they are not saying the same about other treaties, such as on disabilities or women. It speaks volumes about the way children are perceived.” “Child rights are often seen as soft law. The UPR is another way for ensuring States are held to account for their obligations. “The UPR is in its infancy so these are precedent-setting times.” She added that without submissions from child rights NGOs, vital information may go undocumented and States would not be held account to their legal obligations. She recognised that knowledge of international mechanisms in NGOs could be low. “The UPR can seem very intimidating,” she said. Ms Grant explained how she had spoken to the UK government following their review. Delegates reported that they had been very impressed with the child rights advocacy, and that they had never expected to be held account to child rights obligations in the UPR process. Child rights strongly featured in the recommendations. She finished by emphasising the importance of involving children in the process, and the need to consider other treaties besides the CRC, since they all concern children. "Timely" Paulo David, who is responsible for the OHCHR department receiving and compiling submissions for the UPR, said the toolkit was very timely. He warned that some countries had been using child rights as an “alibi” to avoid talking about other human rights obligations. He said: “It is perceived as soft law. But, of course, they are not talking about freedom of religion , or the private sector, they are talking about those easy issues such as trafficking.” He said NGOs should therefore keep an eye on the political use of children's rights. “It is often more about child welfare, rather than child rights,” he said. Mr David said that the submissions should be focused. He said: “It is hard to put information together because we have to stay true to it all. If the submissions are not too detailed, and prioritise issues rather than trying to cover everything, then they are more likely to be heard. We are limited to the information we receive.” He said the submissions from the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children had been especially successful. Mr David added that the department were open to advice, and in particular suggestions as to which recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child were thought to be most relevant.” He pointed out that NGOs could also have an impact by working with National Human Rights Institutions, by lobbying delegates and by working with troikas in advance of the session. They can also make statements in the plenary. Once the session was opened for questions and comments, a UK delegate emphasised that: “We believe the UPR process is complementary to the CRC, not instead of it. We also agree that lobbying States with NGO recommendations is a good way forward.” However, she also noted how some countries had attempted to inhibit the involvement of NGOs in the plenary sessions. She said: “We very much support the involvement of NGOs, but we would very much emphasise that if they are involved from the beginning, this question would not even come up.” Jennifer Philpot-Nissen, of World Vision International, suggested that if the field offices of larger NGOs sent bullet points of concerns, Geneva offices could then turn those concerns into submissions. And Alan Kikuchi-White, of SOS Kinderdorf, said he had pleased with how his organisation’s submission had been edited by OHCHR.