Delegation to the 2Nd Session of the Uni- Ted Nations Human Rights Council Working Group on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child

Delegation to the 2nd session of the Uni- ted Nations Human Rights Council Working Group on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child

February 10th-16th, 2011

UN Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland 1

Contents Introduction ...... 2 The Delegation ...... 3 United Nations Human Rights Council ...... 7 ELSA and UN Human Rights Council ...... 7 2nd Session of the Working Group on Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child within UN Human Rights Council ...... 8 Procedural Structure ...... 8 Why to write an Optional Protocol? ...... 10 Results of the first session, 14-18 December 2010 ...... 11 Results of the Second Session, 10-16 February 2011 ...... 12 The most debated Articles ...... 14 Article 5 - Publicity ...... 14 Article 6 – Individual Communications ...... 16 Article 7 – Collective Communications ...... 18 Article 24 - Reservations ...... 19 Personal Experiences – Being a delegate in UN ...... 21 Life in UN Headquarters ...... 21 Life in Geneva ...... 23 Contacts made during the session ...... 24 Contact Information of the Delegates ...... 24

Albania • Armenia • Austria • Azerbaijan • Belgium • Bosnia and Herzegovina • Bulgaria • Croatia • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Georgia • Greece • Hungary • Iceland • Ireland • Italy • Kazakhstan • Latvia • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Malta • Montenegro • The Netherlands • Norway • Poland • Portugal • Republic of Macedonia • Romania • Russian Federation • Serbia • Slovak Republic • Slovenia • Spain • Sweden • Switzerland • Turkey • Ukraine • United Kingdom

Introduction

Dear reader,

We are hereby glad to present you our delegation report about the 2nd Session of the Working Group on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child within United Nations Human Rights Council, which has been held between the dates 10th-16th of February 2011 in Geneva, Switzerland.

We are six Human Rights enthusiasts from Italy, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and United Kingdom. It was all our first experience as a delegate in such a prestigious international institution and we all had an amazing experience.

Within this report, you will be able to find information about us, the session itself and also some practical matters about being a delegate and the city of Geneva itself.

Hopefully after reading this report, you will also be encouraged about being a part of a delegation in the future. Do not forget that this is trully an unforgettable experience and a chance of a lifetime!

Best regards, Elif, Ezgi, Olga, Stephanie, Federica, Yusra

The Delegation A. Elif Yıldırım (Head of Delegation, ELSA International)

My name is Elif Yıldırım, a 22-year old Turkish girl and I am the current Vice President Student Trainee Exchange Programme of ELSA International. I had the honour to be appointed as the Head of The European Law Students’ Association (ELSA) Delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Council, working group on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 2nd session which is going to take place in Geneva, Switzerland on February 2011. My main interest in Human Rights issues comes from the series of lectures I took during my Erasmus year in Krakow, Poland. As an assignment of these lectures, I also had the opportunity to research and have a presentation about “Women Rights in Turkey – Honour (Namus) Killings” which made me even more interested in the affects of culture and religion, especially on the rights of women and children. As to deepen my knowledge, I also decided to participate in the Working Group on Women Rights within my university. Because of my interest in such topics, I decided to represent ELSA in this delegation.

Z. Ezgi Kılınç (ELSA International)

My name is Ezgi Kılınç and I am the Vice President for Academic Activities of the International Board of ELSA for the term 2010/2011. I was appointed as the delegate to represent ELSA in the 2nd Session of the Working Group on Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child within United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva Switzerland. After several positions in the Local and National level in ELSA Turkey, I was elected for my position in the International Board in the ICM Malta in March 2010. Following the elections I moved to the Headquarters of ELSA International in Belgium from Istanbul where I was born and raised. I am 23 years old and was awarded with Bachelor of Laws by the Marmara University Law Faculty in Istanbul in 2009. I have been involved as an active member of ELSA for 5 years by now and I have to admit that ELSA Delegations are one of the biggest opportunities that ELSA provides to its members. ELSA International has been working on a Legal Research Group on the Rights of the Children in cooperation with Council of Europe

to be launched in the term 2011/2012. As a part of my tasks, I have been working on this project during my term in office, thus this specific Working Session took my interest, for the purpose of making contacts and gaining perspective on the matter.

Olga Sendetska (ELSA International)

My name is Olga Sendetska and I am currently occupying the position of the Treasurer of the International Board of ELSA for the term in office of 2010/2011. I was appointed as the delegate to represent ELSA in the 2nd Session of the Working Group on Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child within United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva Switzerland. After holding the positions of the Vice President for Marketing in ELSA Ukraine and President of ELSA Ukraine, I was appointed as Director for Financial Management of ELSA International in May 2010 and later on elected for the position of the Treasurer of ELSA International at the ICM in Alanya in October 2010. Following my appointment I moved to the Headquarters of ELSA International in Belgium from Tysmenytsya, a small town in Ukraine where I grew up. I am 22 years old and hold a Bachelor of Laws degree from Yaroslav the Wise National Law Academy of Ukraine in June 2010. I have been involved as an active member of ELSA for 4 years by now. When it comes to my academic interest on the topic I must say that the procedures and the work of the international institutions and Human Rights in particular have been a focus for my studies throughout the 4 years of my Bachelor degree and I have been specifically working on the topic of gender equality through papers that I have completed and defended before a commission of professors specialising in the field every year of my studies. That is why the work of the Working Group on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child was of a great interest to me and motivated my application for this particular delegation.

Stephanie Downes (ELSA New Castle, United Kingdom)

As a new ELSA member for a newly established ELSA group, I was keen to become involved in the many opportunities there are on offer to members.

Writing a dissertation about the UK’s ‘Anti-social behaviour’ legislation and how it affects youths allowed me to have an increased interest in Rights of the Child and their strength in practice. The UK, in having a criminal age of responsibility of 10 as well as other factors, has been criticised for its lack of enthusiasm shown in practice for the Rights of the Child. I was interested, therefore, in seeing the approach taken by the states in creating the protocols which they are to be bound by. The attention to detail paid by the states and the NGOs revealed how vital an alteration could have on the impact on the states and those who would use the protocol. The most interesting suggestion, in my opinion, was by the Norwegian National Human Rights Institution, that the protocol should be open to those who had their rights violated when they were children, but are adults when making the complaint. This suggested alteration was upheld.

Federica Toscano (ELSA Ferrara, Italy)

My experience in ELSA began 5 years ago, when my eyes met by accident an ELSA poster in my faculty. It was love at the first sight... and from that moment, we have never separated!!

At the beginning my local board was not very well connected to the network, but during these years things are changed a lot. We improved our position at the national level and now it was the right time to show up at an international level, too.

Being part of a Delegation is one of the best experiences that ELSA offers to his members, because it allows you to see with your eyes how decisions are made in International Institutions and to create important contacts with other colleagues, but also with experts from all over the word.

For me it was really important to participate to this Working Group because I'm organizing a Summer Law School on the protection on children against violence and sexual abuse in Italy for this summer. It was incredibly easy to make contacts with NGO, to rouse their interest in my project and to establish collaboration with their delegates. I suggest to all of you that are organizing similar international events to pay attention to the next call for delegation...and if there is the possibility to attend meetings on your topic, take advantage from it!

Yusra Suedi (ELSA Geneva, Switzerland)

I am a second year student in law school at the University of Geneva, Switzerland. Thought the degree is broad and touches a range of arenas from divorce to taxes and everything in between, I have a particular enthusiasm for human rights that I choose to manifest in my everyday life, through extra study programs, my thesis and most relevantly, attending conferences. What better way to pursue this passion than to participate in the Human Rights Council? Though the newspaper articles and TV snippets always seemed glamorous, seeing how the HRC functions in real life was nothing like I imagined. But I am thankful to have been part of an experience that provided me with a real perspective of such a crucial body of the United Nations. Hopefully, it won’t be the last time that I am able to work in such en environment, or the last time I am able to represent ELSA in such prestigious circumstances.

United Nations Human Rights Council The United Nations Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body which was created to address and comment upon violations of human rights, guided by the ‘Institution-Building Package’. The Human Rights Council is composed of member States, a President and the Advisory Committee. For states, there are 47 seats which are occupied for a 3-year term. Seats are divided among the regional groups; 13 each for Africa and Asia, 8 for Latin America and the Caribbean, 6 for Eastern Europe and 7 for Western European and Others, and are elected for by members of the General Assembly. The President is placed by their State who has been elected as chair and holds a one-year post. The Advisory Committee is composed of members from the African states (5), Asian states (5), Latin America and Caribbean states (3) Eastern Europe states (2) and Western Europe and other states (3). Together they bear the responsibility for “strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe”1

ELSA and UN Human Rights Council The European Law Students’ Association has gained a good name and reputation in the international legal community. ELSA is known in the world of International Organisations and ELSA still makes international institutions aware of the fact that in case they are looking for a partner among students’ organisations for co-operation, there is ELSA to rely on.

ELSA has gained consultative status with several United Nations bodies. In 1994 ELSA was granted Consultative Status in Category C in UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation), in 1997 ELSA obtained Special Consultative Status with UN ECOSOC (United Nations Economic and Social Council). Futhermore, ELSA has a co-operation agreement with UNHCR (UN High Commissioner for Refugees).

Cooperation with the international institutions gives ELSA-members outstanding opportunity to attend the sessions of the international organisations and to receive a special practical experience.

1 http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/

2nd Session of the Working Group on Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child within UN Human Rights Council Procedural Structure

Extract from the Draft Report of the Open-ended Working Group on an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to provide a communications procedure2

By it resolution 11/1 of 17 June 2009 the Human Right Council decided to establish an Open- ended Working Group to explore the possibility of elaborating an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to provide a communications procedure complementary to the reporting procedure under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

By resolution 13/3 of 24 March 2010, the Council decided to extend the mandate of the Open- ended Working Group until the seventeenth session of the Council. It also decided to mandate the Working Group to elaborate an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to provide a communications procedure. In this regard, the Council requested the Chairperson of the Working Group to prepare a proposal for a draft optional protocol to be used as a basis for the negotiations.

The second part of the session of the Working Group was held from 10 to 16 February 2011.

During the first meeting, on 6 December 2010, the working group elected Mr. Drahoslav Štefánek (Slovakia) as its Chairperson-Rapporteur, by acclamation. Mr. Štefánek was nominated by the core group of States (Chile, Egypt, Finland, France, Kenya, Maldives, Slovakia, Slovenia, Thailand and Uruguay) supporting the initiative for a new optional protocol on a communications procedure under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Representatives of the following States members of the Human Rights Council attended the working group meetings: Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Japan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Maldives, Mexico, Nigeria,

2 A/HRC/17

Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America and Uruguay.

The following States also participated as Observers at the working group meetings: Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Chad, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Germany, Greece, Holy See, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Iran, Ireland, Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Mauritania, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) participated in the session.

The following non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council were represented by observers: Defence for the Children International, European Disability Forum, Good Neighbours International, International Commission of Jurists, International Service for Human Rights, NGO Group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Plan International, Save the Children- Japan, Save the Children - Switzerland, SOS Children’s Villages International, SOS Kinderdorf International, Terre des Hommes International Federation, the European Law Students’ Association.

Pursuant to paragraph 3 of resolution 11/1, the Chairperson of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Yanghee Lee, and Vice-Chairperson Jean Zermatten also attended the session of the working group as resource persons. Mr Peter Newell, Vice-President of the NGO Group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Chairman of the Council of the Child Rights Information Network also participated in the session in his capacity as expert. The European Network of Ombudspersons for Children, the Ombudsman for Children in Poland, the International Coordinating Committee for National Human Rights Institutions and the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights also took part in the session, as well as Mr. Benyam Dawit Mezmur, member of the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.

The working group had before it the following documents:

A/HRC/WG.7/2/1 Provisional agenda

A/HRC/WG.7/2/2 Proposal for a draft optional protocol prepared by the Chairperson- Rapporteur of the Open-ended Working Group on an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to provide a communications procedure

A/HRC/WG.7/2/3 Comments by the Committee on the Rights of the Child on the proposal for a draft optional protocol prepared by the Chairperson-Rapporteur

A/HRC/WG.7/2/4 Revised proposal for a draft optional protocol prepared by the Chairperson-Rapporteur.

A/HRC/WG.7/2/CRP.2 Revised proposal for a draft optional protocol.

The second part of the session (10 to 16 February 2011) was devoted to discussions on the

revised text (A/HRC/WG.7/2/4).

Why to write an Optional Protocol? The Convention on the Rights of the Child, entered into force the 2nd September 1990, provides, at art. 43, the establishment of a Committee who should be addressed every five years of a report made by the States Parties about the implementation of the Convention inside the country, who can ask information about some situations to States or special agencies (such as the UN Children's Fund, UNICEF), and has the power to make suggestion and general recommendation to any State Party, that shall be reported also to the General Assembly.

These provisions have been considered too much weak to guarantee an effective protection of Children's Rights. The Human Rights Council, and in particular the Committee itself, put forward the idea that other new instruments should be provided, that could allow the child or a representative adult to address directly the committee with individual or collective communications whenever they consider having being victims of a violation of their rights. Furthermore, it has been considered essential to give the Committee the possibility to intervene to stop a violation ongoing.

To consider individual complaints is an instrument provided by several human treaty bodies, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant in Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other

Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This instrument gives to other particular Committees competence to examine these complaints and sometimes to take adequate measures to stop the violation or give some relief to the victim.

These are the reasons why on 17th June 2009, the Council adopted resolution A/HRC/RES/11/1 by which it decided to establish an Open-ended Working Group to explore the possibility of elaborating an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to provide a communications procedure complementary to the reporting procedure under the Convention.

Finally, on 24th March 2010, the Council adopted resolution A/HRC/RES/13/3 deciding to mandate the Working Group to elaborate an optional protocol and requested the Chairperson of the Working Group, Mr. Drahoslav Štefánek, to prepare a proposal for a draft optional protocol.

Results of the first session, 14-18 December 20103 Many delegations: even if many efforts had been made to protect and promote the rights of children, they are still abused and exploited in many parts of the world and often they have no access to effective remedies. It is necessary to assert the status of children as rights holders by building a communications procedure available and accessible for all children.

A few delegations, in particular the group of African States, stressed that the effective protection should start at a domestic level, because of the necessity of considering cultural and religious elements, as far as the role of family and tradition.

The Chairperson of the Committee, Yanghee Lee, stressed that the Committee considered a real necessity the elaboration of a communications procedure to ensure to the protection of Children's Rights.

Other experts, such as the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography Najat Maalla M'Jid, explained that the lack of competence in considering individual communications was for her a huge limit that made her unable to act on many instances, not covered by her mandate.

3 All the relevant documentation can be found at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/OEWG/1stsession.htm

Peter Newell, member of the Committee, expressed the fact that the existing regional mechanisms are often not effective because they don't ensure child friendly information, easy access to independent complaints, adequate reparation; the child is often considered an object and not a subjct of rights. He also suggested to provide not only individual, but also collective communications, in order to allow the Committee to carry out inquiries for mass violations under the Convention.

Results of the Second Session, 10-16 February 20114 Examination of the Proposal for a draft optional protocol prepared by the Chairperson

• Competence: Art.1 recognizes the competence of the Commission to consider communications and to conduct inquiries, even if the possibility to opt-out in the inquiry procedure is recognised at art. 16§7-8 at any time

• General Principles: Art.2 declares that the Committee shall be guided by the principle of the best interest of the child , having regard also to his rights and views, giving due weight in accordance with his age and maturity,

• Rules of Procedure: the Committee is free to elaborate these rules with no external participation, as guaranteed by art. 43§8 of the Convention. (even if there is the possibility for the State to participate in Intern-Committee Meetings)

• The identity of individuals or groups concerned is protected (this means that the protection is not guaranteed only to whom submit the communication)

• Individual Communications the submission is possible for individuals and group of individuals. This means that the right of submitting a communication is not only restricted to child victims and their legal representatives; this wording allows both children and “those acting on his/her behalf”. This means that it has been recognised that the interest of parents is not always identical with the best interest of the child. There is no more any mention to the “manipulation of the child”, present in the precedent version

4 All the relevant documentations can be found at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/OEWG/2ndsession.htm

of the article; but at least the possibility for a State-Party to opt out to this provision has been deleted at the very last moment, with the disappointment of some delegations such as iran, Nigeria, China and Russia.

• The instrument of Collective Communications provided by the revised proposal of this protocol was also removed at the very last moment, as compromise to balance other last- minute changes.

Experts, UNICEF and NGOs were strongly in favour for the adoption of this instrument, affirming that it avoids the Committee having to examine separately identical individual communications, it reinforces the protection of children belonging to particular vulnerable groups, it eliminates the difficulty of indentifying individual victims and it has a strong preventive role.

• Admissibility: Even if experts and NGO had strongly recommended admitting not written communication, the final proposal requires a communication in writing. It was also deleted the provision that allows to submit non written materials in support. It had also been added a time limit of 12 months for the submission.

• Interim Measures: It is a competence given to the Committee to request State-Party to act to avoid irreparable harm to victims. After many changes the final version of the compromise contains these words even though NGOs were against this wording.

• Friendly settlement: These provisions have been considered really important to avoid the re-victimization of the children and to reduce the Committee work. However, this art.12 had gone through a tough discussion that leads to several withdrawals of this measure by the Chairmen, against the will of delegations. The final version of this article is really controvert, cause it doesn't take into consideration the participation of the Child or who acts on his/her behalf to the agreement and because the wording of the §2 closes to any implementation of the settlement or to any control made by the Committee to verify the positive effect of the measures taken by the state to respect the settlement, including subsequent reports.

The Chairperson took the decision to leave the regulation of this settlement to the Committee with the elaboration of the rules of procedure, but the great part of delegations had fight a lot against this withdrawal, defending that this article can be a great instrument in their hands to protect themselves against the control of the Committee.

• Inquiry Procedure: The procedure is well explained in art. 16; it gives a significant strength to the protocol. The index talks about “grave and systematic” that can restrict the ambit of violations because it suggests the existence of a deliberate policy of the State. Some NGO proposed to replace it with the wider repeated, but this proposal had never been seriously considered. However, experts said that the concept of “reliable information” and “systematic” will be defined in the rules of procedure. It is provided the possibility to opt-out at the §7 for a State-Party who declares to don't recognize the competence of the Committee to conduct inquiry procedures.

• The art. 24 provided the prohibition for a State to advance any reservation incompatible with the object and the purpose of the Protocol. Even if a large number of delegation and NGO, as far as the experts, supported this provision, at the end of the discussion the Chairperson decided to amend orally the final proposal withdrawing this article, giving voice to delegations that considered such provision discouraging many states to adhere.

The most debated Articles

Article 5 - Publicity At the beginning of this session Article 5 was as follows:

“Article 5 Publicity

The identity of any individual or group of individuals submitting a communication shall not be revealed publicly without the express consent of the individual or individuals concerned.”

In the former Working Groups, Article 5 demanded non-disclosure, even to state parties, without consent. Yet, as the state’s lack of knowledge about the applicant would have increased difficulty in defending a claim whilst decreasing transparency and the chance of a fair hearing, it was

altered. It was suggested that in exceptional circumstances the state should not know the identity; however, this comment was never reflected in the drafts.

It was stressed by the experts on the Council that this principle of confidentiality extends to all stages.

Two prominent issues were noted in the Working Group: that of the title and the reference to "individuals submitting a communication".

The title was changed to "Non-Publication of Identity" as suggested by Japan and supported by many others. Ethiopia, however, criticised this on the grounds that it jumps to a rule on non- publication, when this is not the case when consent is given. These difficulties provoked the suggestion to merge the Article with another, either Article 11 (Transmission of Communication) or Article 4 (Protection Measures). The President submitted his opinion that, as it is an important principle, it should stand alone. A number of States, however, felt that a merge would be acceptable. Egypt agreed, noting that this was the case in the actual Convention on the Rights of the Child, as did Austria, feeling that the central feature to protect the child was achievable either way. Yet Switzerland felt a merge was undesirable as Article 4 concerns States whilst Article 5 also concerns the Committee, and for this reason they should be kept separate. The experts, supported by Portugal, felt that a change in title, for example to "Confidentiality" would be most appropriate.

In the final proposal Article 5 was in fact merged, becoming Article 4 Paragraph 2, denying the need for a title.

Regarding the wording within the Article, Canada and Slovakia, had suggested the deletion of “submitting a complaint” to be replaced by “concerned”. In opposition, France highlighted the fact that this was too restrictive and narrow. Indeed the NGO, International Commission of Jurists, supported this, requesting language which would include the victim, the representative and any relevant third party; capturing the full range of those whose identity shouldn’t be published in the best interests of the child. The subsequent draft reflected these requests and included once again “submitting a complaint”. Canada, however, recognised that this may not actually capture the child him/herself. Whilst they recognised that re-adoption of “concern” was

also not ideal, they found it to be a compromise. A number of states supported this option, notwithstanding the fact that it would not include all it should. Regardless, in the final draft “concerned” was adopted. One could suggest this is the opinion most favourable to the state but less favourable to the child.

The text of the revised proposal is as follows:

“Article 5 Publicity

The identity of any individual or group of individuals submitting a communication shall not be revealed publicly without the express consent of the individual or individuals concerned.”

Article 6 – Individual Communications Article 6 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child grants individuals, who are currently victims or had been victims while they were children, the opportunity to submit a communication. There were several points that were elaborately discussed. Firstly, there was the issue of whether the optional protocol should apply in connection with the Convention and its two existing optional protocols (the “opt in” clause) or whether states, when ratifying the protocol, could choose not to recognize the competence of the committee to examine communications alleging violations of the rights set forth under either of the two existing protocols (“opt out” clause). Another controversy was the inclusion of a provision clarifying the competence of the Committee in connection with States which are parties to the first two Optional Protocols, but not the Convention itself. Thirdly, the HRC took a lot of time in discussing whether the right to submit a communication should pertain to “individuals or groups of individuals”, which was more inclusive than the wording “children or groups of children”. Another matter of conflict was the issue of legal representation. On one hand, there was the restriction of the right to submit a communication to child victims or their legal representatives. There were many broad and varied suggestions. On the other hand, certain delegations suggested that the issue of legal representation should be dealt with in the committee’s rules of procedure and that the committee should deal with this matter on a case by case basis. Finally, an issue brought up by the chair-rapporteur was that the practical relevance of the question of legal representation was limited. “The committee shall include in its rules of

procedure safeguards to prevent the manipulation of the child by those acting on his/her behalf and may decline to consider any communication where it appears to the Committee that the communication is not in the child’s best interest”.

The text of the revised proposal is as follows:

“Article 6 Individual Communications

1. Communications may be submitted by or on behalf of an individual or group of individuals, within the jurisdiction of a State party, claiming to be victims or to have been victims while they were children, of a violation by that State party of any of the rights set forth in:

(a) The Convention;

(b) The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography;

[2. A State party may, at the time of signature or ratification of the present Protocol or accession thereto, declare that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in subparagraph 1 (b) and/or (c) of the present article.

3. Any State party having made a declaration in accordance with paragraph 2 of the present article may, at any time, amend or withdraw this declaration by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.]

4. Where a communication is submitted on behalf of an individual or group of individuals, this shall be with their consent unless the author can justify acting on their behalf without such consent.

5. Where the author of a communication is acting on behalf of a child as defined in article 1 of the Convention, or a group of children, the Committee shall determine whether it is in the best interests of the child or group of children concerned to consider the communication.

6. The Committee shall include in its rules of procedure safeguards to prevent the manipulation of children by those who represent them and to protect their rights under the present Protocol.”

Article 7 – Collective Communications Article 7 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child enables the Committee to receive collective communications, for example from national human rights institutions and NGOs. There were two main debates regarding this article: Firstly, the question of whether or not this article in question should exist in the first place. Many argued against such a provision, as it was without a precedent, represented no added value as no protection gap existed, posed difficulties in terms of exhaustion of domestic remedies, that it overlapped with the reporting procedure & inquiry procedure for grave or systematic violations, and that the provision on individual communications already contemplated the submission of communications by groups of individuals. However, the experts and NGOs were in favor of such a provision as it filled a gap in the protection mechanisms and could have a preventive role. A second matter was that some delegations supported the proposal presented by the chairperson- rapporteur allowing states to accept collective communications by opting-in at the time of signature or ratification of the Protocol, while others preferred an “opt out” clause, or at least allowing states to opt in “at any time” and not just at the moment of ratification or accession. NGOs were against any optional clauses.

The final outcome of many heated debates over these two articles was that they were both maintained in the Optional Protocol however both underwent slight alterations in wording, which was finally concluded to be a disappointment to the majority of the Human Rights Council at the end of the session. A majority of member states, including the two experts present and the Chairperson-Rapporteur himself, believed that the articles 6 and article 7 were examples that demonstrated the failure of the Optional Protocol in its aim to provide suitable protection to children.

The revised text of the proposal is as follows:

“Article 7 Collective communications

1. Each State party may, at the time of signature or ratification of the present Protocol or accession thereto, declare that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider collective

communications as provided for in the present article in respect of the rights set forth in some or all of the instruments listed in paragraph 2.

2 National human rights institutions and ombudsman institutions as well as nongovernmental organizations, fulfilling the criteria established in the Committee’s rules of procedure may submit collective communications alleging recurring violations affecting multiple individuals of any of the rights set forth in:

(a) The Convention;

(b) The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography;

3. Any State party having made a declaration in accordance with paragraph 1 of the present article may, at any time, withdraw this declaration by notification to the Secretary General of the United Nations.”

Article 24 - Reservations At the beginning of this session Article 24 was as follows:

“Article 24 Reservations

No reservations to the present Protocol shall be permitted.”

Many states, however, felt such a provision would deter states from adhering to the protocol. Instead the rules regarding reservations contained in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) were viewed as sufficient, negating the need for a provision in the present protocol. The experts and some NGOs however supported the Article as not only does the VCLT allow for the prohibition of reservations, it has also been seen elsewhere that a similar prohibition had not had an adverse effect on ratification.

Despite the counter-arguments, a subsequent draft suggested a significantly weakened Article 24, requiring that:

1. Reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Protocol shall not be permitted. 2. Reservations may be withdrawn at any time.

Finland noted that with both opt-in and opt-out clauses, as well as the protocol’s optional nature, reservations are unnecessary. In fact, the experts described the Protocol as an ‘a la carte system’ jeopardised and weakened by things such as the allowance of reservations. This rendered the situation “disappointing” to many experts, NGOs and a few States.

Although a compromise was suggested in deleting all opt-in and opt-out clauses for the deletion of the prohibition. This was not adhered to as some State flexibility would have been lost. Consequently, only one side of the compromise was effective. As a result, the Norwegian National Human Rights Institution recognised that negotiations had consisted of “give without take” concerning the rights of the child verses the state.

In the final proposal Article 24 was deleted. Consequently reservations are allowed subject to the VCLT requirements. This, along with other changes, led the experts to conclude that lowered standards for children have been attained as children are still not recognised as full holders of rights. The process, they stated, was too hasty and the best interest of the child was sacrificed for the sake of consensus to enable ratification.

Personal Experiences – Being a delegate in UN Life in UN Headquarters

The large majestic creamy-white colored building stands proud and solid before you, harboring a stream of historical moments, current controversies and future promises. As your feet steer you towards the intimidating brass gates, you can hardly believe that they are your own. Your badge and bag are checked and before you know it, there you are, strolling casually in down the never- ending corridors like any other delegate. Grey-haired men in equally grey suits pass you by, some even give you nods of approval, as if to say, “Hey there, colleague!” This definitely takes some getting used to, you think to yourself in disbelief. You feel like Charlie in Willy Wonka’s Factory, shuffling around the enormous hollow halls of greatness, mouth ajar, eyes gleaming. This is it: the UN headquarters.

Life in the UN headquarters is like no other. The architecture of the building and land is unbelievable and the extreme diversity in its inhabitants a pleasure to the eye. Before making your way to the conference hall, you figure there’s enough time for you to swipe some coffee from the Serpent Bar downstairs. Your eyes scan over the array of sombre-colored suits scattered across the lounge-like chairs, fitted neatly on delegates – some typing furiously on their laptops, others reading the paper, and others chatting amongst themselves, or even starting some early political lobbying. You gaze outside the window and admire the postcard-like view of Geneva: the famous Jet d’Eau fountain, at the heart of a shockingly blue Lac Léman, tucked carefully inside of a chain of magnificent mountains. With ten minutes to spare, you head upstairs into the enormous conference hall. By this time, most

people have settled into their places – people of all colors, speaking all languages, coming together under the multicolored ceiling that defines the Human Rights Council hall. Arguments, points and opinions surge back and forth for what seems like 30 minutes at most but is in reality 3 hours. Before we know it, lunchtime has come, and you start the journey to the cafeteria of the Palace of Nations; a journey that will take at last 15 minutes. At this stage you realize that diplomacy is a principle of the UN reflected not only in the conference hall but as far as the cafeteria, where people nod politely, stand maturely in a queue (no matter how long) and treat each other with utmost respect despite their own hunger. As your break comes to an end and you resume into an afternoon of council progress, the day itself comes to an end. Who knew after a day of predominantly sitting in one place, that one could feel so mentally and physically exhausted at the? A trip to the gorgeous green endless fields that are the UN gardens will have to wait. A journey to the famous UN gift shop will have its turn another day. Your aching feet and pounding head tell you that today have come to a shattered close. As your feet steer you past the famous line of member state flags towards the exit and to the awaiting tram, as you walk away from the large majestic creamy-white colored building, you leave the UN headquarters with mixed feelings of satisfaction and frustration: satisfaction at the progress made and the potential in store, and frustration at the slow pace of bureaucracy, the amount of threatening controversy in some raised issues that do not have a straight forward answer. In that moment upon leaving the UN headquarters, you feel like the world is holding its breath, waiting for the perfect solution from yours truly. You feel responsible, ready, driven. You feel like a superhero in a suit. Maybe it has something to do with being at the Palace of Nations itself that instills a sentiment of hope and passion into anyone who walks its historical halls. Maybe it has to do with being in Geneva, a city bursting with international organizations, NGOs and diplomats from all corners of the globe. Whatever it is, the flame within you leaves with you as you walk away from the building and, although fading with the sunset, will surely be reawakened tomorrow, at the start of a new day at the UN headquarters.

Life in Geneva

Geneva is situated in the Geneva Canton, by the Lake Geneva, thus is a French speaking city. There are 3 official languages in Switzerland (French, German and Italian) however English is spoken very commonly in Geneva, since the city is an international one due to its importance in diplomacy and international organizations. Geneva is the second most populated city after Zurich in Switzerland.

Life in Geneva is fairly expensive compared to other cities in Europe besides Oslo and Stockholm as Geneva is stated as the fourth most expensive city in the world. The currency of Switzerland is Swiss Francs and the rate is a little higher than the double of Euro.

The most important recommendation is early booking of accommodation. The hostels in the city are affordable and have good service. Since most of the visitors to the UN bodies accommodates in these hostels, they are over the quality of a regular hostel. Geneva City Hostel and Geneva Youth Hostel are recommended by the delegation. These two hostels are on the tram lines and easy to reach to the city center, as well as the UN Headquarters. The tram 13 and tram 15 are the lines that can be used for directions to both the UN Headquarters and Geneva city center.

When you arrive in the Geneva Airport a direct train can be taken to the Geneva main train station. The ticket you get from the Airport, where you pick up your luggage is free of charge and the train station is in the airport. Also the public transport in Geneva is free of charge as when you book in a hostel, they provide you with a transportation card for the days that you have booked in.

If you go through the menus of restaurants, they seem over the general expectation of the price of a main course; however the prices of fast food locations are not much different. The locations around the University of Geneva are more affordable than the other restaurants. The local tastes as Fondue and Macarons are highly recommended.

The other side of the bridge, where the old city of Geneva situated, is more touristic than the other part. Mainly the shops and nice cafés are on this side of the bridge. Especially the macarons from La Durée is recommended for tasting.

Although Geneva is not a metropolitan city, the night life in Geneva is also enjoyable, when it comes to pubs or night clubs, the city is considered as an international and dynamic city. The dynamic nightlife goes on during the weekends, and besides that the city is a “ghost town” during the week-days. Especially on Sundays, the social life at the cafes or shops stops in Geneva.

Eric NYMAN

UNICEF

Division of Policy and Practice

enyman@unicef.org

Michael FRENCH

SAVE THE CHILDREN

[email protected]

Jean-Paul POUGALA

Professor Sociology and Economics at Geneva School of Diplomacy

[email protected]

He is focused on African Society, sustainable development.

Sevda CLARK

Norwegian Institute of Human Rights

[email protected]

Less than 30 years old, Turkish, very kind and wide knowledge on children rights.

Contact Information of the Delegates If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact us:

[email protected]