Submitted by crinadmin on
Español - русский язык - Français Update: 2nd Working Group Meeting on the CRC Complaints Mechanism The Campaign for a CRC Complaints mechanism reached its next hurdle last week as formal drafting negotiations on a communications procedure for children's rights began in Geneva. Over a hundred States attended the session, with NGOs, independent experts, and the Committee on the Rights of the Child contributing to the lively debate. While no formal agreements were reached by the end of the week, it was felt that discussions were fruitful and had made significant headway in determining the shape of the final text. Background Following last year's initial discussions of creating a communications procedure under the CRC, the Human Rights Council asked the Chairperson of the Working Group for an Optional Protocol to the CRC to prepare a draft Optional Protocol as a starting point for negotiations. The draft borrows heavily from existing treaty body complaints mechanisms, including the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Notably, it also strives to take into account the special situation of children by, among other things, demanding shorter response times, offering complainants confidentiality and anonymity, providing a means for collective communications to be brought on behalf of groups of unidentified or unidentifiable victims, and reaffirming the best interests of the child as a guiding principle throughout. Opening Navanethem Pillay, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, opened the meeting by encouraging governments to embrace creative innovation in drafting the complaints mechanism to ensure the best possible protection for children's rights. She also encouraged States to draw on the knowledge and opinions of the independent experts present and the Committee on the Rights of the Child, reminding them that UN treaty bodies play a crucial role in establishing and enforcing international human rights law. Debate Under the leadership of Mr. Dharoslav Stefanek from Slovakia, the Chairperson of the Working Group, formal discussions then began with a debate around the ways in which children would be able to bring communications before the Committee. As the draft provides for adults to bring complaints on behalf of children, some delegations like Sweden and Iran expressed concerns about the possible manipulation of child complainants and wanted to restrict the number and kinds of people who could represent children before the Committee. Meanwhile, other States like Argentina thought that giving the Committee a chance to look at whether adult representatives were acting in a child's best interests would serve as an appropriate safeguard. Collective communications were next on the agenda, which would give qualified NGOs, ombudsmen, and national human rights institutions the power to bring complaints on behalf of large numbers of children suffering grave or systematic violations of their rights without identifying any individual victims. Many States, especially Commonwealth countries, saw little added value in allowing for these kinds of complaints. Others - including the MERCOSUR countries and Eastern European States like Slovakia, Slovenia, and Serbia - believed that collective communications would better be able to protect children's rights. Independent expert Peter Newell found this point especially relevant for extremely vulnerable children like victims of forced marriage or female genital mutilation who would not otherwise be in a position to reach the Committee. Another manner of addressing serious and widespread rights violations - inquiry procedures - were more readily embraced. Interim measures were also generally accepted by most States, although opposing proposals from the United States and Liechtenstein suggested weakening and strengthening the force of these measures, respectively. Most States also favored extending the time limit for States to respond to communications from three months to six months, and felt it necessary to know the identity of individual complainants in order to adequately respond to allegations. Friendly settlement procedures were welcomed, and some States like France and Brazil proposed that the Committee also be able to monitor these settlements for a period of time after their completion. Protection measures proved similarly uncontroversial, with a near consensus emerging that steps would need to be taken to protect any person potentially put at risk from using the communications procedure. However, controversy again arose following the United Kingdom's proposal to give States more leeway when meeting children's economic, social and cultural rights than their civil and political rights and Sweden's subsequent suggestion that States be given greater flexibility in meeting any right under the CRC. Finland was concerned that treating some rights differently would undermine the holistic nature of the Convention, and NGOs and experts agreed this would not only go against treaty body precedent, but be unworkable in practice as children's rights cannot be so easily categorised. Almost all States agreed, however, that the communications procedure be child-friendly and child-sensitive whatever the parameters of review might be. Progress As the first read through of the draft Optional Protocol sped through more quickly than anticipated, States spent the latter part of last week discussing certain issues in greater detail and submitting concrete proposals on changes to the existing language. Many ideas were revisited and much progress was made towards creating a workable instrument. As the session concluded, the Chairperson announced his intention to produce a revised version incorporating the week's discussions by mid-January at the latest, and asked States to come prepared to finalise the text during the next Working Group meeting from February 10th through the 16th.
Read detailed summaries of the Working Group discussions as they become available here.