Submitted by crinadmin on
Summary: Open-ended Working Group to explore the possibility of elaborating an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Joint statement on behalf of the following NGOs: International Save the Children Alliance, Kindernothilfe, Organisation Mondiale Contre la Torture (OMCT), Plan International, SOS Children's Villages International, Terres des homes International, World Vision International, the Child Rights Information Network (CRIN), the Global Initiative to End Corporal Punishment and the NGO Group for the CRC
Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson, This is a joint statement on behalf of 11 child rights NGOs Mr Chairperson,
The question of workload and resources of the Committee has been raised by Ms. Lee and we would like add a few things to her statement. While we certainly recognize that these are going to be two very important factors for the success of a communications procedure under the CRC, the situation should not be cause for great concern, mainly thanks to the employment of a two-chamber working methodology. The Committee is currently working to reduce the backlog of state reports on the Convention and the two optional protocols. The workload can be easily explained by the fact that between the Convention and its two Optional Protocols the Committee is responsible for reviewing 3 international treaties; a total of 459 State Parties reports.
In addition to working in two chambers, the Committee has also managed, whenever possible, to join reviews of the CRC with the two Optional Protocols, reducing de facto the numbers of times that each individual State Party has to appear before the Committee. Once States have submitted their initial reports on the optional protocols, subsequent reports will cover all treaties jointly. Thus, the number of reports the Committee will have to consider will eventually decrease to 193. Effectively, the backlog is now at its peak and the workload of the Committee from reviewing State reports will decrease as the reports are joined.
Nevertheless, a communications procedure is not likely to compete with the workload of reviewing State reports. Looking at the existing treaty bodies, most have adopted rules of procedures for dealing with complaints in smaller working groups or by nominating a specific Committee member to act as a rapporteur/focal point for the complaints. This has had the effect of minimizing the impact on the treaty bodies’ workload. We are certain that the Committee on the Rights of the Child can learn from the experiences of other Treaty Bodies and adopt adequate rules of procedure to assure that a communications procedure does not impede its other monitoring tasks.
Additionally, we would like to raise the issue of resources available. We have heard from the chairperson yesterday that the amount of communications to treaty bodies is of a manageable size. The amount of resources required to add a new communications procedure should also be manageable. I can refer to the statement made by Ms. Lee’s earlier statement that the petitions unit would require just one extra staff to handle the additional burden of a new communications procedure, representing a relatively small increase in cost for what should be a great benefit for children who are unable to find redress for violations of their rights.
In conclusion, let us state firmly the point of principle that it would be quite wrong to deny children a communications procedure on the grounds of scarcity of resources – particularly in light of States' overall commitment to “first call for children” in the human rights system affirmed in the Vienna Declaration.
Thank you