Council discusses protecting the rights of children deprived of their liberty and children of incarcerated parents

AFTERNOON

8 March 2012

Concludes Annual Full-Day Meeting on the Rights of the Child

The Human Rights Council this afternoon concluded its annual full-day meeting on the rights of the child after discussing the protection and realization of the rights of children deprived of their liberty and children of incarcerated parents.

Sandeep Chawla, Deputy Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, introducing the discussion, said that States all over the world faced a number of challenges with regard to the protection of children’s rights in the administration of justice. A common challenge was the lack of data and statistics on the situation of children in contact with the law, which was a prerequisite for the development of sound policies and programmes. In many countries, the legal and policy framework was inadequate to deal with those children, and criminal justice systems were often used as a substitute for adequate care and protection systems.
Most of those children were charged with petty crimes and very few had committed violent offences.

Speaking as panellists were Marta Santos Pais, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on violence against women; Rani D. Shankardass, Secretary-General of the Penal Reform and Justice Association, India; Luis Pedernera, Latin American and Caribbean Network for the Defense of the Rights of the Boys, Girls and Adolescents; Dainius Puras, Head and Professor of the Centre of Child Psychiatry and Social Pediatrics at Vilnius University; and Abdul Manaff Kemokai, Executive Director of Defence for Children International, Sierra Leone.

Ms. Santos Pais said that too often, the criminal justice system was used as a substitute to weak or incipient child protection institutions, generating approaches that further stigmatized children at risk. In many cases it remained difficult to access data on the numbers of children deprived of liberty and on the reasons that led to their placement in detention centres or in care institutions. Similarly, there was a lack of independent mechanisms to safeguard children’s rights in the justice system, which in turn led to a culture of impunity and of tolerance of violence against children.

Ms. Shankardass said that the State had obligations to children of incarcerated parents because it had interfered with their family life by separating the children from their parents. The effects of parental incarceration on children should be addressed by bringing the subject onto the national agenda, tackling the absence of data on this category and considering incarceration of women in light of the damage it brought to families.

Mr. Pedernera said that the Latin American and Caribbean region continued to be the most unequal in the globe. This inequality was getting worse each year. Boys, girls and adolescents were the poorest of the region and the most criminalized. There was a trend of accusing children of threatening insecurity. Very little had been done to ensure the tenets of the Convention on the Rights of the Child became a reality in Latin America and the Caribbean. Social cohesion needed to be strengthened.

Mr. Puras said that States needed to adopt an approach of investing in health based on the combination of human rights approach, child-centred orientation and modern understanding. Modern public health interventions could be very effective in protecting children from detention and deprivation of liberty. Children in the juvenile justice system were extremely vulnerable to health issues, and had often unmet physical, developmental, and mental health needs.

Mr. Kemokai said that rehabilitation was the process of reforming child offenders to become law abiding and behave in conformity with the norms and values of society. Rehabilitation required positive psychological and physical changes in the child. Achieving the offender’s reconciliation with the victim was a crucial milestone in the process of rehabilitation and reintegration of a child offender.

In the discussion, speakers said that the protection of children in the administration of justice still faced challenges everywhere. Millions of children around the world were affected by the incarceration of their parents and speakers warned that parental absence due to incarceration could leave lasting consequences on the physical and emotional well-being of children, especially young children and toddlers. The issue of children in conflict with the law needed to be approached systematically and the system of juvenile justice must be adapted to children’s needs and must include the principle of total protection, ensure participation of the child and address root causes.

Speaking in the discussion were Norway, United Kingdom, Mauritania on behalf of the Arab Group, United States, Switzerland, Brazil, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Algeria, Germany, Argentina, Armenia, Slovenia, Turkey, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uruguay, Indonesia, China, Republic of Korea, Tunisia, Georgia, Chile, Cuba, Russian Federation, Morocco, Portugal, and the Maldives. The International Labour Organization also took the floor.

Also speaking were Friends World Committee for Consultation in a joint statement, Union of Arab Jurists in a joint statement, and Defence for Children International.

The Council will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Friday, 9 March to continue with its general debate on the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, which it started during its midday meeting today.

Opening Statement

SANDEEP CHAWLA, Deputy Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, introducing the discussion, said that States all over the world faced a number of challenges with regard to the protection of children’s rights in the administration of justice. A common challenge was the lack of data and statistics on the situation of children in contact with the law, which was a prerequisite for the development of sound policies and programmes. In many countries, the legal and policy framework was inadequate to deal with those children, and criminal justice systems were often used as a substitute for adequate care and protection systems. It was estimated that over one million children worldwide were deprived of their liberty, and not much was known about the profile of these children in detention. Most of those children were charged with petty crimes and very few had committed violent offences. Many had been rounded up for homelessness and vagrancy and had committed no offence at all. Those children were particularly vulnerable to violence, which often remained invisible and unpunished. The consequences of the violation of children’s rights in the administration of justice could not be underestimated; they seriously pre-empted the development and the ability of the child to grow into a functioning adult. The promotion and protection of children’s rights in the administration of justice was a matter of priority and could no longer be neglected by States, Mr. Chawla said. The response must be multifaceted and must include both State and non-State actors. In closing, Mr. Chawla said that the panel today would identify key challenges and propose concrete recommendations on how to promote and protect the rights of children deprived of liberty and children of incarcerated parents.

Statements by the Panellists

MARTA SANTOS PAIS, Special Rperesentative of the Secretary-General on violence against women, said thousands of children were today still being subjected to deprivation of liberty, not as a measure of last resort but as a privileged response, in many cases awaiting trial for endless periods of time. Still too often, the criminal justice system was used as a substitute to weak or incipient child protection institutions, generating approaches that further stigmatized children at risk. In many cases it remained difficult to access data on the numbers of children deprived of liberty and on the reasons that led to their placement in detention centres or in care institutions. Similarly, there was a lack of independent mechanisms to safeguard children’s rights in the justice system, which in turn led to a culture of impunity and of tolerance of violence against children. It was critical to promote strong and cohesive national child protection systems. Addressing the root causes of child poverty, exclusion and marginalization, and providing universal basic social services were an indispensable dimension, but ensuring targeted support to families and children at risk was equally important. It was critical to minimize the cases of children in contact with the juvenile justice system and decriminalize survival behaviour and safeguard the rights of children at risk. These various measures were also critical to preventing recidivism and providing second-chance opportunities for young offenders. It was crucial to develop strong accountability and enforcement mechanisms to prevent violence, to investigate abuses and to hold accountable those responsible for incidents of violence against children.

RANI D. SHANKARDASS, Secretary-General of the Penal Reform and Justice Association, India, said that the State had obligations to children of incarcerated parents because it had interfered with their family life by separating the children from their parents. In South Asia, home to one-fifth of the world’s population, the most basic quantitative information about children who had parents in prison was lacking. The underlying tenets of the criminal justice systems of the countries in South Asia were still rooted in colonial foundations which included a powerful bureaucracy and austere Codes and Acts. Families of the incarcerated were usually the poor and powerless with neither the means nor know-how to address the issues of rights. National acts and international documents related to child rights existed in each of the countries of South Asia but the special category ‘children of incarcerated parents’ was conspicuous by its absence in the criminal justice system. The effects of parental incarceration on children should be addressed by bringing the subject onto the national agenda, tackling the absence of data on this category and considering incarceration of women in light of the damage it brought to families.

LUIS PEDERNERA, Latin American and Caribbean Network for the Defense of the Rights of the Boys, Girls and Adolescents, said the Latin American and Caribbean region continued to be the most unequal in the globe. This inequality was getting worse each year. Boys, girls and adolescents were the poorest of the region and the most criminalized. There was a trend of accusing children of threatening insecurity. Very little had been done to ensure the tenets of the Convention on the Rights of the Child became a reality in Latin America and the Caribbean. This was a region where children were still convicted and sentenced to life in prison. A situation of torture and ill treatment still prevailed, without legislation or other action against it. Plans had not been developed to handle the trauma of children submitted to these situations. An underground criminal system, in some places, managed unhealthy and inhuman living conditions of some children taken into care. Social cohesion needed to be strengthened. A broad approach which rejected any short-term vision on children and adolescents had to be adopted. This would support treatment of children on a holistic basis without discrimination or exclusion. This was a process that aimed to rebuild social engineering. States needed to review the minimum standards for the juvenile justice systems that were just published.

DAINIUS PURAS, Head and Professor of the Centre of Child Psychiatry and Social Pediatrics at Vilnius University, said that States needed to adopt an approach of investing in health based on the combination of human rights approach, child-centered orientation and modern understanding. Modern public health interventions could be very effective in protecting children from detention and deprivation of liberty. Children in the juvenile justice system were extremely vulnerable to health issues, and had often unmet physical, developmental, and mental health needs. On this regard, high rates of physical injuries, tuberculosis, dental needs, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV all needed particular attention. Mental health also needed to be addressed as a priority. There were many effective ways to prevent juvenile violence and violence against children in different levels, for example by developing effective national policies aimed at reducing violence, poverty, and socio-economic inequalities. There was increasing evidence that investment in good mental health and emotional well-being was an important component in breaking the circle of violence and social exclusion. Violence was an expression of failure in managing relations, services or policies. Modern mental health interventions were based on supporting non-violent and respectful relations and included trainings of children and adults to constructively manage feelings. The combination of efforts by all stakeholders, empowerment of communities, synergy of public health approach and human rights perspective was necessary to implement modern approaches.

ABDUL MANAFF KEMOKAI, Executive Director of Defence for Children International, Sierra Leone, said that rehabilitation was the process of reforming child offenders to become law abiding and behave in conformity with the norms and values of society. Rehabilitation required positive psychological and physical changes in the child. Achieving the offender’s reconciliation with the victim was a crucial milestone in the process of rehabilitation and reintegration of a child offender. In many cultures in Africa, traditional or cultural methods of rehabilitation included traditional ceremonies that were performed to cleanse the offense and ask for forgiveness. Institutionalized forms of rehabilitation dominated in many countries with the use of punishment and severe deprivations that often failed children. Reintegration was more difficult when a child had been taken out of his/her home because the link and trust with the family may have been broken. Juvenile justice should not only examine the crime committed by the child but the broader social and economic injustices within the family and society that were crucial for prevention, rehabilitation and reintegration.

Discussion

Brazil said the protection of children in the administration of justice still faced challenges everywhere, including in Brazil. Azerbaijan said that the main challenges to the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the area of the administration of justice needed more attention from States and the international community. Switzerland said that millions of children around the world were affected by the incarceration of their parents; parental absence due to incarceration could leave lasting consequences on the physical and emotional well-being of children, especially young children and toddlers, warned the United States. Mauritania on behalf of the Arab Group said that children affected by natural disasters were more vulnerable to violence and exploitation, due to their separation from their families, among other reasons. The issue of children in conflict with the law needed to be approached systematically said Norway and Argentina added that the system of juvenile justice must be adapted to children’s needs and must include the principle of total protection, ensure participation of the child and address root causes. Union of Arab Jurists spoke of the situation of Iraqi children and said that the national authorities and the international community bore responsibility for this future generation of Iraqis.

Countries shared examples from their national efforts on the administration of justice: in the United Kingdom, the principal aim of justice systems was to prevent offending and they sought to divert young people from a formal intervention, also by promoting restorative justice; Belarus had carried out an analysis of the judicial system and had introduced special protection measures for children from vulnerable families; this had reduced the number of children in conflict with the law; Algeria said corporal punishment was strictly forbidden in Algeria, while separation in prisons ensured safety for sentenced children, and legal provisions in Armenia made it possible for a juvenile committing an offence to avoid sentencing.

Norway asked the panellists to further elaborate on measures to prevent all forms of violence against children in conflict with the law. Germany asked about measures to assist Governments and parliaments to develop policies based on scientific evidence. Friends World Committee for Consultation asked what additional guidance was needed in relation to children of incarcerated parents and what support could be provided to young children leaving prison with their parents. Brazil and Azerbaijan suggested the compilation of best practices in the area of the administration of justice for children to inspire and assist other States in this regard.

Slovenia said that juvenile detention was a last resort and could only be imposed on minors between 16 and 18 years. Could the panellists share good practices in awareness raising and training to prevent violence and abuse of children? Turkey said that it was crucial to introduce measures on the ground specifically tailored for children. The Democratic Republic of the Congo said that a special law in 2009 had provided for re-education centres that stressed reintegrating juvenile offenders into society, rather than punitive measures. Uruguay said that in certain cases, an offense committed by a child was the result of a whole set of problems, including extreme poverty. Indonesia was in the process of establishing a restorative child justice system and had increased the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 8 to 12 years old. China stressed that promoting children’s development had great significance for building the human capacity of the country. The Republic of Korea said that children in conflict with the law were often the most vulnerable and the way the justice system dealt with them would impact their future. Tunisia said it had established a legal system to protect children’s rights, including family judges.

Georgia said it had implemented bold reforms in the juvenile justice system including peer to peer mentorship and incentive programmes carried out through close inter-agency cooperation. Chile said it was important to avoid discriminatory stereotypes against children who had committed crimes and stressed the importance of awareness raising campaigns. Cuba said that the interment of minors in specialized schools was used as a last resort and only done in extreme cases. The Russian Federation said that alternative measures such as warnings, parental supervision, and reduction of leisure time were applied to minor offenders. The Government was concerned about the high level of deaths among adopted Russian children in the United States. Morocco said that the criminal code had provided a protective legal framework for children and minors, including recognizing children considered to be in difficult situations, such as when their parents had been sentenced to over a year. Defence for Children International said that significant evidence showed that depriving children of their liberty often led to children becoming repeat offenders. International Labour Organization asked the panellists about measures to prosecute and punish adults who used children in crime and wider economic and social measures that could address the root causes of the worst forms of child labour. Portugal asked about the best way to guarantee the realization of the right to education for child detainees. Maldives said that steps had been taken to adapt the country’s law enforcement and judicial systems to cope with the alarming increase in children involved in gang violence.

Concluding Remarks

SANDEED CHAWLA, Deputy Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, said the lack of data on the situation of children in contact with the law was the first problem. There was a need to strengthen policies on rehabilitation rather than focusing on punishment, and a need to improve conditions of detention and access to services for children deprived of their liberties. States had to shift from a punitive to a child-sensitive approach. Coordination between the criminal justice system, social welfare, education and public health institutions was needed, as well as coordination among the international agencies. The sharing of best practices was important, but the collection of data was the starting point.

MARTA SANTOS PAIS, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on violence against children, said that any justice system was not designed to marginalise or to simply punish children. Most of the children who were in the criminal justice system should not be there in the first place, because prevention and alternative measures should be the priority. Strong legislation was needed to give children the confidence that the system was appropriate and able to deal with them in the best way. Children with imprisoned parents had to be given special protection. On the issue of the fight against impunity, Ms. Santos Pais said that strong accountability systems were needed together with independent monitoring mechanisms. Finally, problems could not be solved without taking the young people’s observations and recommendations into consideration.

RANI D. SHANKARDASS, Secretary-General of the Penal Reform and Justice Association, India, said the criminal justice system was a continuous process, even though it was divided into three agencies. The tragedy of persons caught in the system was that the agencies did not talk to each other. It would therefore be inappropriate to undertake reform in a piecemeal manner. More research on individuals inside institutions and those released after being in prisons would show how uncivilized it was. The possibility of creating a child-friendly atmosphere in a prison was very slim. Standards for children in prison were insufficient. No matter how poor the child, creating a familiar home environment was the goal. The regime of a prison life was not healthy living for a child. Children did not belong in prisons, but those left outside required more research to investigate how they could come to terms with being left without a parent.

LUIS PEDERNERA, Latin American and Caribbean Network for the Defense of the Rights of the Boys, Girls and Adolescents, said working from the state level more proactively and stopping the criminalization of children was important. Preventing discriminatory coverage by the press related to children was a vital issue as well. Police officers needed to be trained to deal with children. The best practices in the educational sphere for children deprived of freedom involved ensuring that children continued to go to school. Completely closed institutions for children that provided all services within their walls should not be encouraged. Students needed to be able to leave and interact in the public sphere. The distance between the situation of children left outside and inside institutions should be minimized as much as possible. Deprivation of freedom of children was a bad response. It was an expensive response that generated crime.

DAINIUS PURAS, Head and Professor of the Centre of Child Psychiatry and Social Paediatrics at Vilnius University, said that political will was needed to increase social investment in secondary prevention to lower the number of children incarcerated. Programmes to train children and their parents could reduce and break cycles of violence. Mr. Puras said that the worst scenario was when a mother was imprisoned and her baby was placed in institutional care. Extensive evidence and studies had shown that the mental health and emotional wellbeing of the child would be harmed if it was put in institutional care and separated from the mother at a young age.

ABDUL MANAFF KEMOKAI, Executive Director of Defence for Children International, Sierra Leone, said that mostly it was young babies or children below five years who were allowed to remain with their mothers in prison. At a certain age, children should leave the prison and the Government needed to find an appropriate person to care for the child. In Sierra Leone, grandmothers or aunts were the ones often targeted to provide support for the child when it was taken from the mother with a social worker allocated to the child to follow his/her progress integrating into school and the community.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record