The OP3 CRC is an international treaty that allows children or their representatives to approach the UN if their country fails to uphold their rights and if they have exhausted all local remedies to seek justice. It introduces an inquiry procedure that allows any interested party to provide information about grave or systematic violations of child rights to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

As of April 2013, four States, Thailand, Gabon, Germany, and Bolivia have ratified OP3 CRC, while 35 others have signed the treaty. Two countries, Slovakia and Montenegro, have also committed to ratify OP3 CRC by the end of 2013. It is hoped that more countries will commit to ratify this third Optional Protocol for it to enter into force by the end of the year.

Continuous advocacy work is on-going to encourage more countries to sign and ratify the OP3 CRC. Apparently, not many people are aware of the existence of such a treaty. Many also do not understand how it works. To help overcome these challenges, the International Coalition for the OP3 CRC on a Communications Procedure has conducted various advocacy and awareness activities. The International Coalition for the OP3 CRC is a coalition of international, regional and national non-governmental organizations/ networks, and human rights institutions committed to achieve the OP3 CRC’s rapid ratification and entry into force. CRC Asia is one of its steering committee members and is the focal point for Southeast Asia. As part of its contribution to the work of the International Coalition, CRC Asia facilitated activities which primarily centered on raising awareness on the OP3 CRC in Asia. It conducted a learning session on OP3 CRC with the Philippine NGO Coalition on the UNCRC and also ran an awareness raising workshop on OP3 CRC with children from Indonesia. The latter activity was initiated by CRC Asia member, Yayasan SEJIWA. As a result of the workshop, 32 children from 15 children’s organizations collectively drafted a statement in support of the ratification of OP3 CRC. Aside from the conduct of awareness-raising activities, CRC Asia also sent appeal letters to ASEAN member States urging them to sign the Optional Protocol. It also assisted the NGO Group for the CRC in the drafting and dissemination of a press release on OP3 CRC.

Through the advocacy work of the International Coalition, CRC Asia, and other like-minded groups, it is hoped that more countries will ratify OP3 CRC at the soonest possible time. OP3 CRC enhances children’s rights to participation in matters that affect them. It will enable them to directly report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child when they can no longer get relief and justice from local legal remedies.

CRC Asia member, Hong Kong Committee on Children’s Rights (HKCCR) actively partners with children, youth, and NGOs in monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in Hong Kong. This it does as part of its mandate to stand up for the promotion and the protection of the rights of children in the city. In December 2012, HKCCR submitted two separate CRC shadow reports to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child to report on CRC implementation in Hong Kong. The first report was prepared by HKCCR, together with 12 child-focused NGOs and 6 individual experts working for and with children in Hong Kong. The second report was drafted by children from Kids’ Dream (KD), the first child-led organization in Hong Kong.

Last February 2013, two adult delegates from HKCCR, three young people from KD, together with another adult delegate from Society for Community Organization, also took part in the 64^th Pre-sessional Working Group Meeting with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to express both the NGOs’ and children’s views on CRC implementation in Hong Kong. Prior to the meeting with the UN Committee, HKCCR and KD  conducted a joint press conference to make the public aware of the  meeting and to highlight the issues of children to be presented there.

In the Pre-sessional Working Group Meeting, the Hong Kong delegates delivered statements to highlight the primary concerns of children in the country. Delegates also teamed up to address various questions posed by the UN Committee members in relation to the situation of children in Hong Kong. Some of the questions focused on the monitoring mechanism of child rights violations in the city, the government’s attitude towards the Optional Protocols of the CRC, and the situation of children suffering because of parental separation.

HKCCR’s advocacy to promote and protect the rights of children in Hong Kong did not stop after attending the pre-sessional working group meeting in Geneva. Last March 18, 2013, HKCCR and other child rights advocates from the Alliance for Children’s Commission, attended the Legislative Council Meeting that aimed to examine the HKSAR Government Report under the CRC.  HKCCR and other members of the Alliance urged the HKSAR Government to set up a Children’s Commission that would hear children’s voices more clearly, prioritize the interests of children in the community, and also ensure children’s participation in government policy making process.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child will be examining the government reports of China, Hong Kong and Macau on the implementation of the CRC in September 2013 (Plenary session).  HKCCR will send representatives to observe this session.  It is also exploring the possibility of meeting with a special rapporteur before the Plenary Session to create another venue for NGOs and children to discuss the child rights situation in Hong Kong.

A laudable undertaking in the event was the dedication of a plenary session (Plenary IV) for children and the youth to speak on their issues. CRC Asia’s Darunee Jaisit, a child leader from Thailand spoke in that plenary and highlighted the importance of children’s participation, her experiences in participating in various fora both at the national and regional levels, and the recommendations of children to ASEAN member states.  The recommendations that Ms. Jaisit shared came from the consultations with children conducted by some members of CRC Asia prior to the ACSC.

It was the first time that a child speaker was allowed to deliver a talk in a plenary session during an ASEAN Civil Society Conference.

At the ACSC, CRC Asia also facilitated a workshop on issues of children and the youth  together with Pro Com Network (Thailand), Hajah Mordiah Jackia (Brunei) and representatives of the Regional Youth Forum.  The workshop discussed challenges faced by children and the youth in terms of their participation in decision making processes. Other issues discussed were on violence and abuse, discrimination, issues on juvenile justice, education, and health.  Specific recommendations concerning the issues of children were put forward by CRC Asia and other child-focused groups which called on ASEAN Member States to act on the following:

?In addition to the ASEAN Children’s Forum, establish a mechanism that guarantees the meaningful participation of children especially those who are disadvantaged; ensure that the mechanism operates under accepted standards and are done in consultation with children;

?Ensure protection of children from all forms of discrimination, violence and abuse (physical, sexual, emotional, psychological, economic);

?Develop mechanisms to collect comprehensive and disaggregated data on children to inform decision makers in designing and implementing effective programs;

Sign and ratify important international conventions such as the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a Communications Procedure (OP3 CRC), the  Migrant Workers Convention, and Refugees Convention of 1951;

Establish restorative and child sensitive juvenile justice systems to protect the rights of Children in Conflict with the Law (CICL) and to support their rehabilitation and reintegration into society;

Ensure the protection of children and their families in areas where there are insurgencies and conflicts;

Promote and protect the rights of disabled children by developing specialized educational resources and ensuring their access to appropriate facilities;

Promote and protect the rights of “Children on the Move” (children who move from a place of origin through transit and reach destination within or between countries) by ensuring their access to basic services, legal protection, provision of alternative care, and protection from abuses;

That ASEAN Human Rights Institutions coordinate their efforts and work together for the protection and promotion of the rights of children in ASEAN;

? That ASEAN Human Rights Institutions conduct frequent, broad-based, transparent, and meaningful discussions with civil society organizations, particularly with national and regional child-focused networks and children’s groups; and

For countries with no National Human Rights Institutions/ Commissions to establish this in their own countries where children can report violations of their rights and have these violations immediately addressed.

The abovementioned recommendations will be presented to leaders of ASEAN member States during the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting to be held in Brunei at the end of this month.

The ultimate goal of the UPR is to improve the human rights situation in every country by prompting, supporting, and expanding the promotion and protection of human rights. It also provides technical assistance to States and improves their capacity to deal effectively with human rights challenges. That is why it is disheartening to note that Israel has suspended its relations with the Human Rights Council in a letter published in May 14, 2012.  It did not submit a national report last October 2012, and was not present for the selection of its troika, this January 2013. Many Member-States did not take Israel’s boycott lightly and condemned its non-participation in the UPR process. Some countries feared that the boycott threatens the future of the UPR.

As a consequence, the HRC deferred the review for Israel until its next session in October and November and urged the country to cooperate again. The Council also agreed that the HRC President will report on the progress of his efforts to bring Israel back to the UPR. These steps are included in decision HRC A/HRC/OM/7/L.1. They will be used by the Council in future cases of non-cooperation. Through this decision, “the international community sent a clear message of unity to keep the universality of this mechanism.”

However, even with Israel’s non-participation, the UPR for 13 other States continued from January 21 to February 2012. This did not deter the UPR Working Group’s practice of reviewing 42 States every year. The UPR Working Group is made up of 47 members of the HRC. It will review some Asian countries in 2013 (Malaysia) and 2014 (Vietnam).

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are enjoined to participate actively in the UPR in their country. NGOs can take part in several activities before, during and even after the UPR. Before the review, they can join national consultations and provide alternative information on human rights situation. They can be present during the actual review and conduct side events and press conferences to raise awareness on the UPR. After the review, NGOs can lobby States to accept recommendations given by the UPR.

CRC Asia has just recently assisted Child Rights Coalition Malaysia in preparing its NGO report to the UPR. Issues highlighted in the report submitted last March 2013 focused on Malaysia’s reservations to CRC articles, discrimination of children, death penalty imposed on children, children’s lack of participation, issues of indigenous, refugee, stateless and asylum seeking children, and issues of children with disabilities. Among the recommendations presented were: repealing/ amending all legal provisions on capital punishment and life imprisonment of children, lifting remaining reservations to the CRC and the signing/ ratification of the third Optional Protocol to the CRC on a Communications Procedure (OP3 CRC),  amendment of laws to protect the rights of children in conflict with the law, prohibition of all forms of corporal punishment in the school and the home, non-discrimination of children, and ensuring the right of children to quality healthcare.

It is important to note that children can also participate in the UPR. They can give their own human rights recommendations to the UPR, based on their own experience. This was in fact done by a children’s council organized by an NGO in Lebanon in 2010.

The participation of NGOs and children in the UPR process is important. Their contributions strengthen the mechanism and ensure that the human rights situation in countries is improved.

Article 24 states that every child has the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health. It urges Member States to ensure that all children have access to health care services. It pushes States to take steps to decrease infant and child mortality, as well as disease and malnutrition.

Last March 7, 2013, a full day meeting was conducted by the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) to discuss the challenges in achieving the full realization of the universal right to health. The meeting focused on how to make the implementation of the right of the child to health stronger. It discussed accountability mechanisms to ensure compliance by State Parties. The meeting also discussed the social determinants of health and the interdependence between the right to health and other rights enshrined in the CRC.

During the meeting, the link between the right to health and the right to education was highlighted.  Participants said that barriers to the right to health, which include violence against children, drug use and child marriage, can be overcome with effective health and human rights education.   They also said that education gives children a voice about their own health and well-being.

The meeting also emphasized the health issues that require the urgent attention of States. These include maternal and reproductive health, child mortality, malnutrition, harmful practices (such as genital mutilation and honour killing), violence, accidents and disabilities, mental health and substance abuse. The meeting laid down measures for the effective implementation of the right to health. Setting up accountability systems was one of the major recommendations during the meeting. This can include creating a complaint system and independent monitoring bodies, and applying judicial remedies. The meeting also recommended strengthening health systems, through higher investments and appropriate indicators and assessment tools, and comprehensive and non-discriminatory primary health care programs.

Other concrete recommendations which surfaced during the meeting include improving laws and policies to provide services, programs, resources and infrastructure to help attain the right to health, birth registration, non-violent and nurturing child-rearing practices, education, and international cooperation.

One hundred ninety-three (193) countries in the world have signed and ratified the CRC. Since its entry into force in 1990, many states have become more open to using it in legal arguments to advance children’s rights. According to the Child Rights International Network (CRIN), 132 court decisions from national, regional and international judicial and quasi-judicial bodies around the world from 1993 to 2012 cited and used the CRC in legal arguments. In these cases, the CRC was used either as a law directly applied to a case, or more frequently, as a guide in making court decisions.

In these cases, children’s economic, social and cultural rights, such as the rights to health, education and social security, were more frequently cited than children’s civil and political rights, such as freedom of expression and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In particular, the most cited provision of the CRC was Article 3, which guarantees the best interests of the child. Other principles most often cited also include non-discrimination, right to life, survival and development, and respect for the views of the child. Article 37, or the prohibition on torture and deprivation of liberty, as well as Article 19, which covers the provisions on protection from abuse and neglect, were also frequently raised.

In Asia, 20 cases made use of the CRC to settle legal disputes. One of these cases centered on the issue of life imprisonment for persons under 18 years of age. This case from Hongkong cited Article 37 of the CRC, which emphasized the need for the rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders into society. In Japan, the CRC was also cited in a case where the inheritance share of an illegitimate child was being decided. The case referred to the CRC provision on non-discrimination or Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the CRC which states that the signatory countries shall respect and ensure that all children’s rights should be respected regardless of the birth or other status of the children, their parents or statutory guardians.

The frequency and the way the CRC is being used these past years show that there is a growing awareness and confidence on its practical and effective use to remedy and address child rights violations.  Even with the differences in geography, culture, courts and case subject matter, the CRC is growing to be a potent tool to advance children’s rights. The fact that more and more cases are referring to the CRC is a triumph in itself. This, hopefully, will inspire more child rights advocates to use it in their own legal advocacy work and move judges to ensure that their decisions are always in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. For more information on the case law of the CRC, please refer to the CRIN report (www.crin.org/docs/CRCin Court Report.pdf).

In this regard, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has highlighted the importance of setting up an independent statutory body like a Children’s Commission to take care of the interests of all children especially those who are marginalized and in vulnerable situations.

The 1.1 Million Children’s Campaign aims to gather support for the establishment of a Children’s Commission in Hong Kong.

Please support this campaign this 2013. 

By Dr. Binda Preet Sahni

This working paper seeks to crystallize the tenets of principles and practices relevant to Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD) into binding legal rights. The aim is to protect ‘very young children’ everywhere by defining the rights to life, survival and development. These proposed set of human rights is relevant to every child who is conceived and continue until the child is six years old. Therefore, they exist whether the infant is a biological entity of the pregnant mother or is a separate physical person.

The author calls for a uniform child rights law to be enacted. The statute shall spell out the rights of very young children clearly. It should secure full defense of its subjects regardless of if it is implemented on a domestic or multilateral level.  

This working paper addresses the social and legal environment of India, but is transnational in the overall analysis. 

Download the material here.

About the author:

Dr. Binda Preet Sahni is a lawyer and academic. Her core area of interest is the interaction of international law with all other legal disciplines. She consults and publishes on a range of legal issues, including defining the responsibilities of transnational corporations under national and international law.

(Editor’s Note: All authored articles, materials and papers contained in this site are the sole responsibility of the author/s. They do not necessarily reflect the actions, opinions or views of CRC Asia, its staff, members or sponsors.)  

Quezon City, Philippines – More than 400 children and supporting  adults from about 40 children’s groups and child-focused civil society organizations nationwide gathered in a National Children’s Forum on children’s issues.  The activity was organized to provide space for children to discuss their issues and come up with a comprehensive picture of children’s situation in the Philippines.

 ”Children know exactly what their situation is, as they have first hand experience of their own issues and problems. They know what is lacking and what needs to be done in terms of solutions. And more importantly, they are capable of providing suggestions on how children’s lives in their communities can be improved,” according to Anna Lindenfors, Country Director of Save the Children in the Philippines.

The outcomes of the forum will form part of the children’s groups’ platforms to influence voters and 2013 election candidates in prioritizing and pushing forth programs for child rights. “We expect that the children’s forum will provide more and even new evidences of unmet rights of Filipino children,” explained by Lindenfors.

The event was organized by the Children Talk to Children About the UN CRC (C2C) Project, an initiative of child-led organizations to strengthen meaningful participation of children in CRC monitoring and advocacy. It was supported by Save the Children and Samahan ng Mamamayan – Zone One Tondo (ZOTO).

The event was organized in to celebrate the 23rd Anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN CRC).

An alternative report prepared by Philippine NGO Coalition on the UN CRC in 2008 highlighted the crucial gaps in implementing child rights in the country. It revealed the absence of clear allocation for children in national budget and a decrease of budget for social services. Also, around 12,000 children were left behind due to parents and guardians working abroad, and leaving children with inadequate protection from abuse, early sexual activity and its consequences. Furthermore, massive displacement of families due to the armed conflict in Mindanao has affected almost 900,000 children from 2001 to 2008.

Phnom Penh, Cambodia — More than 60 grassroots, national, regional, and international civil society groups are calling upon ASEAN Member States to postpone the adoption of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, which is not worthy of its name. 

The organizations vow to reject the Declaration if it is adopted with its current text.  Instead, they urge ASEAN Member States to send the draft back to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) with instruction to revise it so that it accords with international human rights law.

The Declaration as it stands now unquestionably fails to meet existing international human rights standards, let alone add value to them.  It flies in the face of the international consensus on human rights principles that have been in place for more than six decades. Of utmost concern are specific provisions in the Declaration’s General Principles, which tear at the heart of long accepted human rights precepts. Under these provisions, the enjoyment of the rights provided in the Declaration is to be “balanced with the performance of duties” (GP 6), subjected to “national and regional contexts” and to considerations of “different cultural, religious and historical backgrounds” (GP 7). Moreover, all of the rights provided in the Declaration would be subject to restriction on a wide array of grounds including “national security” and “public morality” (GP 8).

No other universal or regional instrument applies a “balance” between the enjoyment of rights and freedoms against duties and responsibilities. On the contrary, these instruments are founded upon the idea that human rights are the birthright of all persons, not some kind of commodity that must be earned.  International law and practice do not permit such broad restrictions that could, in effect, serve to excuse the violation of the rights guaranteed elsewhere in the Declaration. Finally, international law imposes on all ASEAN Member States the duty, regardless of their “national and regional contexts,” to respect and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Civil society groups have repeatedly expressed grave concerns over both the drafting process and the substance of the Declaration since the initiative began. The AICHR met with regional civil society only towards the very end of the process and ignored most of their recommendations. Some individual AICHR representatives held consultations with civil society groups nationally, but such meetings were mostly ineffective. In some countries, no consultations were held at all. Most of the drafting process was conducted in secret and texts were rarely shared and never publicized.

For the Government of Cambodia, the adoption of this fundamentally flawed Declaration during the 21^st ASEAN Summit in Phnom Penh will reflect negatively on its role and legacy in building the region’s human rights system.

The AICHR should also conduct a drafting exercise in a transparent manner and invite grassroots, national, regional, and international civil society to participate meaningfully in the process.

If the ASEAN Member States decline to continue the drafting process and proceed with the adoption of the Declaration in its current form, the organizations will reject the Declaration and condemn its adoption. The people of the region and the international human rights community and stakeholders will continue to rely primarily upon existing international instruments for human rights protection in the ASEAN.

Endorsed By:

1. ASEAN Watch, Thailand
2. ALTSEAN-Burma
3. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
4. ASEAN LGBTIQ Caucus
5. Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) 
6. Asosiasi Kewirausahaan Sosial Indonesia (AKSI)
7. Amnesty International
8. ASEAN Disability Forum (ADF)
9. Bank Information Centre (BIC)
10. Boat People S.O.S.
11. Burma Issues
12. Burma Partnership (BP)
13. Cambodian Food and Service Workers Federation (CFSWF)
14. The Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC)
15. The Cambodia Youth Indigenous Association (CIYA) 
16. Coalition to Abolish Modern-day Slavery in Asia
17. Community Management Centre (CMC)
18. DEMA Malaysia
19. Dignity International
20. ELSAM Papua
21. Focus on the Global South
22. FONGTIL – The NGO Forum of Timor-Leste
23. Housing Rights Task Force (HRTF)
24. Human Rights Foundation of Monland (HURFOM)
25. Human Rights Watch
26. IMPARSIAL- The Indonesian Human Rights Monitor
27. Independent Democracy of Informal Economy Association (IDEA)
28. The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC)
29. Indigenous Peoples Task Force (IPTF) 
30. Indonesia for Humans
31. International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
32. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
33. Institute for Essential Services Reform (IESR), Indonesia
34. Knowledge and Rights with Young People through Safer Spaces (KRYSS)
35. Land Reform Chiang Mai
36. 36.  Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Yogyakarta
37. Migrant Forum in Asia
38. Nationalities Youth Forum
39. Palaung Women’s Organization
40. Peace Way Foundation
41. People’s Empowerment Foundation
42. People Like Us (PLU)
43. Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)
44. Philwomen on ASEAN
45. PT Foundation
46. Rainbow Rights Project Inc.
47. SAMIN Indonesia
48. Sayoni
49. Seksualiti Merdeka
50. Shwe Gas Movement
51. Southeast Asia Committee for Advocacy (SEACA)
52. Solidaritas Perempuan
53. Southeast Asia Women’s Caucus on ASEAN 
54. Task Force Detainees Philippines (TFDP)
55. Taxi Network Thailand
56. Thai Transgender Alliance
57. The Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS)
58. Towards Ecological Recovery and Regional Alliance (TERRA)
59. Disabled Persons International (Asia-Pacific)
60. Peace and Conflict Studies Center (National University of Timor-Leste)
61. People’s Empowerment Foundation (PEF)
62. Urban Community Mission Jakarta