International Study of Best Practices in Monitoring Childrens Rights

8/3/2019 International Study of Best Practices in Monitoring Childrens Rights

1/98

International Study ofBest Practices in MonitoringChildren's Rights


2/98

Head Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman's) Secretariat

& Children's Complaint Office

Benevolent Fund Building, Near Zero Point,

Islamabad - Pakistan

Tel: 92-51-9252391-5, Fax: 92-51-9252178

WMS Homepage: http://www.mohtasib.gov.pk

CCO Homepage: http://www.mohtasib.gov.pk/cco

CCO Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/CCO.Pakistan

General Queries: [email protected]

File a Complaint: [email protected]

Regional Offices

Lahore

15-A, 3rd Floor, State Life Building,

Davis Road, Lahore

Tel: 92-42-99201017-20

Fax: 92-42-99201021

E-mail: [email protected]

Karachi

4-B, Federal Government Secretariat,

Saddar, Karachi

Tel: 92-21-99202106-7

Fax: 92-21-99202121E-mail: [email protected]

Peshawar

1st Floor, Benevolent Fund Building,

Peshawar Cantt.

Tel: 92-91-9211570

Fax: 92-91-9211571


Quetta

Barganza Villas, Qaddafi Street,

Link Zarghoon Road, Quetta.

Tele: 92-81-9202679

Fax: 92-81- 9202818E-mail: [email protected]

Sukkur

Bungalow No.CS-550/13-B, Behind UBL,

Shalimar, Near Distt. Jail, Sukkur

Tel: 92-71-9310007

Fax: 92-71-9310012


Multan

Bungalow No. 17(XIX) Stadium Corner,

Vehari Road, Multan.

Tel: 92-61-6783473


Faisalabad

24/Z/13-A, Behind Chenab Market,

Susan Road, Madina Town Faisalabad

Tel: 92-41-9220546

Fax: 92-41-9220545


DERA ISMAIL KHAN

House # 31/4, Quaid-e-Azam Road,

D.I. Khan

Tel: 92-0966-9280095


Report writen by Ms. Natasha Simonsen

The statements in this publication are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the

policies or the views of UNICEF


3/98

International Study of

Best Practices in Monitoring

Children's Rights


4/98

Children should never be an appendix. They should be the

starting point. Without Childrens Rights there are noHuman Rights.

Trond Waage,Former Ombudsperson

for Children, Norway

Norway was the first country in the world to establish an Ombudsperson for Children in 1981.


5/98

i

International Study of Best Practices in

Monitoring Children's Rights

Table of Contents

Executive Summary...................................................................................................... v

1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................1

2. Objectives .............................................................................................................3

3. Methodology .........................................................................................................4

4. Limitations ............................................................................................................8

5. Situational Analysis ............................................................................................. 10

a) Government bodies ................................................................................................................ 10

b) Ombudsmans Offices ............................................................................................................. 12

c) Civil Society Organizations ...................................................................................................... 17

6. International Best Practice in Child Rights Monitoring ........................................ 20

a) United Kingdom ...................................................................................................................... 20

b) Republic of Ireland .................................................................................................................. 24

c) Australia .................................................................................................................................. 27

d) New Zealand ........................................................................................................................... 31

e) Canada .................................................................................................................................... 33

f) Norway .................................................................................................................................... 37

g) India ........................................................................................................................................ 41

h) Malaysia .................................................................................................................................. 45

i) Croatia ..................................................................................................................................... 48

7. Global and Regional Networks ............................................................................ 50

a) Global Networks ..................................................................................................................... 50

(i) The International Coordinating Committee of NHRIs ........................................................ 50

(ii) The Global Network of Independent Human Rights Institutions for Children ................... 50

b) Regional Networks .................................................................................................................. 51

(i) The Asia Pacific Forum of NHRIs ......................................................................................... 51


6/98

ii



(ii) The European Network of Ombudspersons for Children (ENOC) ...................................... 52

(iii) The Ibero-American Network of Ombudsmen for Children ............................................... 53

8. Applicability of International Best Practice to Pakistan ....................................... 54

a) Separate or Integrated? .......................................................................................................... 54

b) Distribution of Roles and Responsibilities between Federal and

Provincial Governments .......................................................................................................... 57

c) Economic and Political Instability ........................................................................................... 58

9. Recommendations for Reform ............................................................................ 60

a) Mandate and Functions .......................................................................................................... 60

b) Independence ......................................................................................................................... 64

c) Accountability ......................................................................................................................... 70

d) Accessibility ............................................................................................................................. 72

e) Coordination mechanisms ...................................................................................................... 73

f) Relationship with Civil Society ................................................................................................ 74

g) International Cooperation ...................................................................................................... 75

9. Summary of Recommendations .......................................................................... 76

Annex A: The Paris Principles ..................................................................................... 81

Annex B: Useful Resources ......................................................................................... 86


7/98

iii



Acronyms

ANNI Asian NGOs Network on National Human Rights Institutions

APF Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions

CCO Childrens Complaint Office

CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child

EHRC Equality and Human Rights Commission (UK)

ENOC European Network of Ombudspersons for Children

HRCP Human Rights Commission of Pakistan

ICC International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights

Institutions

KP Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa

LHRLA Lawyers for Human Rights and Legal Aid

NADRA National Database and Registration Authority

NCCWD National Commission for Child Welfare and Development

NHRI National Human Rights Institution

NGO Non-government organization

PCCWD Provincial Commission for Child Welfare and Development

SPARC Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child

SUHAKAM Malaysian Human Rights Commission


8/98

iv



Foreword

Children comprise more than 50 per cent of Pakistan's population. Yet, besides an overburdened

formal justice sector, there are no dedicated forums for receiving and resolving complaints of

children or for public accountability of institutions charged with responsibility for protecting

childrens rights. It was with this in mind that the Wafaqi Mohtasib Secretariat collaborated with

UNICEF to establish the Childrens Complaint Office. There was a need to establish an institutional

arrangement for providing children with a voice in matters relating to them.

Since its initiation the CCO has undertaken many activities to raise the profile of child rights among

the public sector, civil society, media and the general public. The CCO has conducted workshops

and conferences to raise awareness about child rights and the CCO. In addition to a communication

campaign the CCO staff has visited federal schools, particularly in rural areas, to raise awarenessabout the CCO and child rights among children. Child Rights Clubs are being established in various

federal schools through the CCOs facilitation and a Childrens Advisory Panel will be established to

ensure childrens participation in the CCOs decisions and activities. A Child Rights Steering

Committee comprising senior officials from the concerned federal agencies and civil society has

also been established to monitor progress on the National Plan of Action for children and Pakistans

compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

While the CCO has made significant accomplishments, there is always room for improvement. It

must be noted that the CCO is the first of its kind in South Asia. This presents a barrier with respect

to the adoption of a Child Ombudsman model that is relevant and feasible in Pakistan. There is notmuch literature available on child ombudsman models. Hence there was a need to commission the

study on International Best Practices of Child Rights Monitoring.

This report examines the current situation of child rights in Pakistan, explores international

experience and best practices of child rights monitoring and proposes recommendations to

improve procedures and systems for handling childrens complaints and monitoring child rights.

Strengthening the countrys child protection mechanism is a process that involves several

stakeholders. This report highlights feasible recommendations to strengthen the mechanism. We

have taken the initiative but hope it will be followed by much needed efforts from the federal

government and civil society.

Ejaz Ahmad Qureshi

Advisor/Head Childrens Complaint Office


9/98

v



Executive Summary

Pakistans obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child require it to establish an

effective, independent institution to monitor childrens rights and enforce accountability for rights

violations. Child rights institutions worldwide take many different forms, but the Committee on the

Rights of the Child and the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre have both concluded that, regardless

of the particular model adopted, the most important thing is that institutions have the capacity to

monitor, promote and effectively protect childrens rights. The experience of different countries in

varied stages of the development cycle reveals a number of recurring tensions. The issues which

arise include: the question of whether child rights institutions should be separate from, or

integrated within, general human rights bodies; the appropriate distribution of responsibilities

between different levels of government and the related tension between individual access to

justice (complaint handling) and broader advocacy roles; and the problems posed for human rights

institutions in fragile states as a result of political and financial instability.

Consideration of the experience in other countries, compared with an analysis of the prevailing

situation in Pakistan, yields a number of specific recommendations for the future of the child

ombuds system in Pakistan. These recommendations for reform are divided into seven thematic

areas. They are: a) mandate and functions; b) independence; c) accountability; d) accessibility; e)

coordination; f) relationship with civil society; and g) international cooperation.

With respect to a) the mandate and functions of the office, it is noted that the jurisdiction of the

Childrens Complaint Office should be as broad as possible, which may require re-evaluation of

some of the existing limitations on that jurisdiction. The functions of the office include complaint

handling, conducting systemic inquiries, and research and reporting. It is important that each of

these functions are highly developed and carried out by specifically trained officers.

The independence of the office (recommendation b) could be buttressed by further clarity in the

establishing legislation; amendments to the appointment and dismissal process; guarantees of

pluralism; and financial independence.

Accountability(point c) includes both accountability to Parliament and to children, and necessitates

forward planning, child participation, and regular reviews of progress made towards identified

objectives.


10/98

vi



Accessibility(recommendation d) refers to the geographic and physical accessibility of the office to

children, and to those who might be likely to complain on their behalf. A number of specific

recommendations are made for improving accessibility, including through both physical andtechnological channels, subject to considerations of privacy and anonymity for children.

Coordination (point e) requires both formal and informal mechanisms for referral of complaints,

standardisation of procedures (and adequate training in those procedures), as well as sharing best

practices between and within institutions at both federal and provincial levels. One important

avenue for coordination is through annual meeting of representatives from all of the Childrens

Complaint Offices, perhaps in a venue rotating between the different provinces and the capital.

The relationship with civil society(recommendation f) is a crucial one since civil society groups andorganisations are likely to be a key source of information and complaints about the rights of

children. The Child Rights Steering Committee established by the Federal Childrens Complaint

Office is to be welcomed in this regard. The existing regulations governing the making of

complaints may need to be amended to clarify that civil society organisations have the capacity to

complain on behalf of children.

Lastly, international cooperation will be a key source of information and support, including through

global and regional networks, in which Pakistan may have the opportunity to play a leading role.


11/98

1



1. IntroductionPakistan is a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and is obliged to respect

and protect the rights of children, who constitute almost 50% of its population. Successful

implementation of Pakistans Convention obligations requires the establishment of independent,

effective and credible human rights institutions, including institutions with a mandate specifically

for children. Such institutions are particularly important for realising the human rights of children

because of their additional vulnerability to abuse, and their limited ability to seek remedies for

violations of their rights.

National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) have a number of functions. These include: helping to

ensure that laws and regulations comply with human rights obligations; monitoring rights

violations; providing a means of resolving disputes and complaints outside the formal justice

system; and supporting the work of civil society groups in defending human rights. The important

role played by NHRIs in promoting and protecting human rights has been acknowledged by the

General Assembly of the UN1, the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna

2, the Human

Rights Council3, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

4and the Secretary-General

5,

and the Committee on the Rights of the Child6.

Regardless of whether national human rights institutions are general in nature, or whether they

have specific mandates for children (or any other vulnerable group), such bodies should comply

1 Principles relating to the status of national institutions (Paris Principles), GA Res 48/134, annex of

20 December 1993. The Paris Principles are reproduced in Annex A to this report.

2 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action A/CONF.157/NI/6 of 17 June 1993.3 National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: Report of the Secretary

General to the Human Rights Council A/HRC/13/44 of 15 January 2010.4 HR Res 2005/74 of 20 April 2005.5 Institution-building of the United Nations Human Rights Council, HRC Res 5/1 of 18 June 2007.6 General Comment No. 2 The role of independent national human rights institutions in the promotion

and protection of the rights of the child, CRC/GC/2002/2, adopted 15 November 2002, and GeneralComment No. 5 General measures of implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (arts.

4, 42 and 44, para. 6), CRC/GC/2003/5 adopted 27 November 2003.


12/98

2



with the Paris Principles adopted by the General Assembly in 19937. The Paris Principles have been

agreed by the international community as embodying the minimum requirements which NHRIs

must satisfy in order to be both credible and effective. Their importance as a guideline for

childrens rights institutions was acknowledged by the Committee on the Rights of the Child in its

General Comment No. 2 (2002).

Dedicated childrens rights institutions may take many forms. They may be structured around a

single person (such as the Childrens Ombudsperson in Ireland, or Child Advocates in Canada). They

may be multi-member bodies (such as the National and state-based Commissions for the

Protection of Children in India). They may have complaint-handling functions, or play an exclusive

policy role, or they may follow a hybrid model incorporating both functions. Sometimes there is a

specific Childrens Commissioner within a broadly mandated institution such as a Human Rights

Commission. The different forms which NHRIs take will be explored in detail below. However, it is

important to note that, according to the Committee on the Rights of the Child:

[Our] principal concern is that the institution, whatever its form, should be able,

independently and effectively, to monitor, promote and protect childrens rights. It is

essential that promotion and protection of childrens rights is mainstreamed and

that all human rights institutions existing in a country work closely together to this

end8.

In its most recent Concluding Observations for Pakistan dated October 2009, the Committee

regretted that Pakistan has not yet set up offices of an ombudsperson for children at federal and

provincial levels, and further, it urged Pakistan to:

7 Paris Principles, ibid.8 General Comment No. 2, ibid., para 7.


13/98

3



Establish an independent and effective monitoring mechanism in accordance with

the Principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and

protection of human rights (the Paris Principles) and taking into account the

Committees general comment No.2 (2002) on the role of independent human rights

institutions, ensuring that it is provided with adequate human and financial

resources and easily accessible to children. It should have a mandate to monitor the

implementation of the Convention as well as to receive and address complaints from

children, and do so in a child-sensitive and expeditious manner9.

This study has been commissioned as part of a project to try to fill the gap due to the lack of an

independent national institution for childrens rights in Pakistan. Working with the Federal and

Provincial Ombudsmen Offices across Pakistan, and with the support of UNICEF, the objective is to

strengthen monitoring and accountability for violations of childrens rights. This includes, but is not

limited to, handling individual complaints. The overarching goal is to create an institution that can

address systemic issues affecting children and function as an advocate for child rights in Pakistan.

2. ObjectivesThe objectives of the study are threefold:

I. To conduct a survey of international best practices on national institutions for childrensrights;

II. To assess the applicability of the different models to Pakistan; andIII. To develop recommendations for the Ombuds system in Pakistan to improve monitoring

of child rights, and promote accountability for rights violations.

9 Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties underarticle 44 of the Convention, Concluding Observations: Pakistan CRC/C/PAK/CO/3-4 of 15 October

2009, pp4-5.


14/98


15/98

5



with sources from both developed and developing countries. The primary sources were the

websites of the relevant institutions, their annual reports, their reports to the Committee on the

Rights of the Child, and the Concluding Observations of that Committee.

c) ConsultationConsultation with international institutions and networks interviews and discussions with

members of national human rights institutions and supporting research institutions and networks,

including:

Asia Pacific Forum on Human Rights; European Network on Ombudspersons for Children; UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence; United Kingdom Equality and Human Rights Commission; Australian Human Rights Centre; and Faculties of Law and Social Policy at the University of Oxford.

d) Development of recommendationsThe applicability of international practices to Pakistan was assessed with reference to the situation

analysis and in consultation with stakeholders in Pakistan, including:

Childrens Complaint Office of the Federal Ombudsman; Site visits and staff interviews at the Childrens Complaint Offices in Punjab and Sindh;


16/98

6



Interviews with the Provincial Ombudsman for Punjab and the Secretary to theProvincial Ombudsman for Sindh;

UNICEF Pakistan; Human Rights Commission of Pakistan; Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child (SPARC); and Childrens Complaint Office Stakeholder Workshop at the Wafaqi Mohtasib Secretariat

in Islamabad on 26 August 2010.


17/98

7



List of Participants at the Childrens Complaint Office Stakeholder Workshop, Wafaqi Mohtasib

Secretariat, Islamabad, 26 August 2010

Name Designation Ministry / Organisation

Mr. Ejaz Ahmed Qureshi Advisor / HCCO CCO

Mr. Ikram Ullah Jan Director General Ministry of Religious Affairs

Major Rd. Muhammad Safdar DGM (IOD) NADRA

Mr. Arif Majeed Joint Educational Advisor Ministry of Education

Mr. Tariq Khurshid Malik Deputy MD Pakistan Bait-ul-Maal

Mr. Hussain Asghar Deputy Head NCB-Interpol FIA

Mr. Nisar Ahmad Deputy ChiefPlanning and Development

Division

Mr. Khalid Lateef Deputy Director NCCWD

Mr. Sajjad Bukhari Inspector Police

Mr. Mulazim H. Mujahid Deputy Educational Advisor Ministry of Education

Mr. Qindeel Shujaat Executive Director Cynosure Consultants

Ms. Umm-e-Zia Managing Director Cynosure Consultants

Mr. Muhammad Raza Ali Senior Research Assistant Cynosure Consultants

Ms. Natasha Simonsen Child Protection Consultant

Mr. Arshad Mehmood Executive Director SPARC

Ms. Saiqa Ashraf Senior Programme Office Rozan

Ms. Nausheen Yaseen Khan Project Assistant Pakistan Coalition for Education

Ms. Sidra Zulfiqar Programme Officer Pakistan Coalition for Education

Ms. Pashmina AliProgramme Manager Child

ProtectionSave the Children UK

Mrs. Alia Asad Section Officer (Admin) Ministry of Human Rights

Mr. Mohammad Jamal Khan

SaddozaiProject Coordinator CCO

Ms. Amna Khalid Training & Research Officer CCO

Mr. Fazal Khan Communication Officer CCO

Mr. Zeeshan Haider Admin & Finance Officer CCO


18/98

8



4. LimitationsThe primary limitation was the availability of information. In general, information about child rights

institutions in developed countries was more readily available, and more comprehensive, than

information from equivalent sources in less developed countries. In the latter cases, the institutions

tended to be newer, and they often did not have fully functioning websites or publications

available online. Some institutions did not respond to written or oral requests for information

within the available timeframe. Further, some information regarding national human rights

institutions in other countries was not available in English. This was particularly the case with

regard to member states of the Ibero-American Network of Ombudspersons for Children.

Unfortunately detailed information on countries within this network was not accessible to the

author. With regard to the situation analysis in Pakistan, it was not possible to visit Balochistan or

Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa given security issues, time and budgetary constraints (the project was

completed in ten weeks).

Additionally, where information was available, the type of information was sometimes limited to

descriptive studies of the mandate and powers of the particular institution(s). Despite the

proliferation of child rights institutions globally, there is relatively little comparative analysis of the

effectiveness of different models. Indeed, relatively few such institutions have been evaluated, and

fewer still have been evaluated independently10

. This lacuna is a major factor supporting the

consultants recommendation that an independent evaluation be commissioned for the Childrens

Complaint Office (at both federal and provincial levels) within three to five years, so that progress

10 The exceptions are Norway and Croatia, where evaluations of the Child Ombudsmen have beenconducted. In Norway the review was conducted by a Committee appointed by the relevant

government Ministry, and was thus not independent. In Croatia the evaluation was conducted by apanel of independent experts including a member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, a

representative from the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, and experts from the University of Zagreband the Croatian Institute of Social Research. The Norwegian and Croatian reports are relied upon in

this study.


19/98

9



can be measured against identifiable indicators and the medium and long term objectives of the

office reassessed.

Against this backdrop of limitations on the availability and quality of information, it is significant

that the results of three important studies were not yet available to be incorporated into this

project. The first is the Global Study on Ombudswork for Children currently being conducted at the

UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre in Florence. The results of the study will be available in mid-

2011. It is expected to be a comprehensive survey of international childrens institutions, including

a comparative analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of different models, yielding

recommendations for the establishment and development of global Ombudsinstitutions. The

second study of relevance is being conducted by the Australian Human Rights Centre at the Faculty

of Law, University of New South Wales, and will analyse the role and effectiveness of different

institutions in the Asia Pacific region. The third study is the independent review of the Childrens

Commissioner for England which has recently been announced by the UK Parliament. This is the

first time that the office has been reviewed and the results are due in November 201011

. It is

anticipated that the results of these studies, had they been available at the time of writing, would

have been helpful for this report.

11 The Terms of Reference of the review and the details of its consultations are available on the website

of the UK Department of Education:http://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/index.cfm?action=consultationDetails&consultationId=17

26&external=no&menu=1 [last accessed 30 August 2010].


20/98

10



5. Situational Analysisa) Government bodiesThe key federal government agencies in Pakistan with a mandate related to child rights are: the

National Commission for Child Welfare and Development (NCCWD); the proposed successor to the

NCCWD in the National Commission on the Rights of Children; the Ministry of Human Rights; and

the proposed National Commission on Human Rights. At the provincial level there are separate

bodies of varying strength and effectiveness. There are no independent child rights institutions at

any level.

NCCWD is a body located within the federal Ministry of Social Welfare and Special Education. Its

mandate is to:

assess the impact of the constitutional, legal and administrative provisions having

bearing on welfare and development of children and suggest measures to provide

full opportunities for their complete growth12

.

NCCWD played an integral role in developing National Plan of Action for Children in 2006, a review

of which is now pending. It has also developed a draft National Child Protection Policy, but that

policy has not yet been adopted. As noted by the Committee of the Rights of the Child in its

Concluding Observations for Pakistan in 2009, NCCWD has limited power to promote or implement

change13

. It lacks an explicit statutory basis, has extremely limited human and financial resources

(despite its broad mandate to cover child welfare and development across the whole of Pakistan)

and importantly, unlike the Ombudsman, it is not independent of the government. There is no

12 Website of the National Commission for Child Welfare and Development, [lastaccessed 9 September 2010].13 CRC Concluding Observations: Pakistan, October 2009, ibid, pp3-4.
http://www.nccwd.gov.pk/http://www.nccwd.gov.pk/


21/98

11



equivalent body in the provinces, and coordination between federal, provincial and local levels is

minimal.

NCCWD is criticized as toothless by non-government organizations in Pakistan14

. Even the director

of the NCCWD frankly acknowledges that NCCWD is not given sufficient respect or attention by the

government15

. This is reflected in the governments failure to pass the draft bill which would confer

a clear statutory basis and mandate on the NCCWD. Mr Mangis suggestion to enhance the

reputation and import attached to the NCCWD is to relocate it to another Ministry other than

Social Welfare, since Social Welfare is in his view accorded less importance by the government16

.

Pakistans strongly hierarchical bureaucracy also means that the rank of the civil servant who heads

the NCCWD is an important factor to take into account. A further potential issue affecting the

NCCWD is the uncertainty about the survival of some federal ministries, including Social Welfare,

after the 18th

Amendment to the Pakistani Constitution comes into force in mid-2011 and

jurisdiction over social welfare is devolved to the provinces.

The Ministry of Human Rights is a newly established federal Ministry. Its mandate and

responsibilities are as yet unclear, and it has not yet developed rules of business. There is some

discussion in the Ministry about the possibility of establishing a Child Observatory Cell and a human

rights complaint service within the Ministry of Human Rights but these discussions are in a very

14 Interview conducted by the consultant with Mr Arshad Mahmood, Director, SPARC, 7 September

2010, Islamabad; interview conducted by the consultant with Mr Qindeel Shujaat, CynosureConsultants, 7 September 2010, Islamabad; see also criticisms from local NGOs reported in Dawn News,

Demand for Legislation to Protect Child Rights, 4 February 2010, available at [last accessed 23 September2010].15 Intervie0 conducted by the consultant with Mr Hasan Mangi, Director, NCCWD, 7 September 2010,Islamabad.16 Interview


22/98

12



early stage and the process of drafting rules of business has not yet begun17

. There are no

equivalent departments in the provinces of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan or Sindh, but in

Punjab there is a combined Law, Parliamentary and Human Rights Department.

A proposal to establish a National Human Rights Commission in Pakistan was made in 2005, with a

draft bill developed to that effect. The Bill has not yet been introduced into the National Assembly.

There is also a proposal to establish a National Commission on the Rights of Children, which would

take the place of the NCCWD, but this proposal has progressed little since it was first made in 2001.

There are no independent provincial-level institutions for the protection of child rights, though

there are separate agencies and departments with different mandates and varying levels of

effectiveness. These are: Provincial Commissions for Child Welfare and Development (PCCWDs) in

every province; the Child Protection and Welfare Bureau in Punjab, the Child Protection and

Welfare Commission in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, and Child Protection Units in Sindh and Balochistan.

All of these bodies are located within the Social Welfare departments in their respective provinces.

b) Ombudsmans OfficesThe institution of the Ombudsman is the only independent government body with a human rights

mandate in Pakistan. The first Ombudsman was created at the federal level under the

Establishment of the Office of the Wafaqi Mohtasib (Federal Ombudsman) Order, which was

promulgated by the President in 1983. Its Secretariat is located at Zero Point, Islamabad, and there

are eight regional offices. The role of the federal office is to receive and respond to complaints

about maladministration of public power within the areas of federal jurisdiction. In addition there

are several independent Ombudsmen at the federal level with specific portfolios such as tax and

banking.

17 Interview by Qindeel Shujaat at the Ministry of Human Rights on 4 June 2010, reported in ChildRights: Theory and Practice Cynosure Consultants, study commissioned by the Childrens Complaints

Office with the support of UNICEF, forthcoming in 2010.


23/98

13



The lead established by the federal government was later followed by the provinces. In Sindh, Act

No. 1 of 1992 established the Provincial Ombudsman. Punjab issued an Ordinance creating a

Provincial Ombudsmans Office in 1996, which was amended by two subsequent ordinances before

the Punjab Office of the Ombudsman Bill was ultimately passed by the Provincial Assembly in 1997.

The Punjab and Sindh Acts were largely modeled on the federal ordinance. In Punjab, similar

regulations have also been passed, but no regulations exist in Sindh. A draft set of regulations has

been prepared by and a review committee has been formed by the Provincial Ombudsman Sindh,

but the process has been underway for some 18 months and there is no specific timeframe for its

conclusion. The Office of the Ombudsman Balochistan was established by an executive Ordinance

in 2001. The Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Ombudsman Ordinance of 2010 established a parallel

institution in KPK.

The Provincial Ombudsmen, like the Federal Ombudsman, have jurisdiction over complaints

relating to the maladministration of public power. Importantly, they do not have jurisdiction over

abuses committed by private persons. Since Pakistans federation is quite decentralized, the bulk of

government jurisdiction lies with the provinces. This includes jurisdiction over important childrens

issues such as education, health, social welfare, juvenile justice and labour. The federal government

has jurisdiction over all of those issues if they occur in Islamabad Capital Territory and/or the

Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), as well as other issues within the federal mandate such

as immigration, security and the armed forces. Since Ombuds offices in Pakistan only have

jurisdiction with respect to maladministration of public power, their jurisdiction mirrors the

distribution of powers between the federal and provincial governments.

In late 2008 partnerships were developed between UNICEF, the Federal Ombudsman, and

Provincial Ombudsmen for Sindh, Punjab and Balochistan. At that time, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa was

the only province which did not have an Ombudsmans office. Negotiations began between UNICEF

and the Law Department for the establishment of an Ombuds office in that province (which was

then called North West Frontier Province, or NWFP). In early 2009, Childrens Complaint Offices


24/98

14



were established within the Federal Ombudsmans Office and the Provincial Ombudsmen for Sindh,

Punjab and Balochistan respectively. Those offices have now been operational for approximately

18 months.

The main focus of the CCOs in Punjab, Sindh and at the federal level so far is to raise awareness of

the existence of the office through media campaigns, school visits, workshops and seminars with

government agencies and civil society organisations. The federal CCO has also made efforts to

make the website of the Ombudsmans office more child friendly, with a link to a separate page

about the CCO, and a facebook group established. The Punjab CCO has conducted visits to several

prisons in the province and has reported to the Inspector-Generals of each prison with regard to

conditions for children18

.

In addition to the awareness-raising and complaint-handling functions which are replicated at the

provincial levels, the federal CCO focuses on strengthening institutional capabilities for protecting

child rights. This has occurred through the establishment of a Child Rights Steering Committee,

chaired by the CCO and comprising representatives of the Ministries of Interior, Health, Youth

Affairs, Capital Development Authority (CDA), Law, Human Rights, Labour, Education, Social

Welfare, the National Police Bureau, the Federal Investigative Agency (FIA), and several NGOs. The

objectives of the Steering Committee are to monitor Pakistans compliance with the CRC and to

review progress towards realising the National Plan of Action. The first meeting of the Steering

Committee was held on 29 September 2010 and the discussion emphasised the importance of

breaking down the National Plan of Action into a subsidiary plan identifying specific steps which

each Ministry could adopt19

.

18 See, eg, Punjab Childrens Complaint Office Report Visit to Borstal Institute and Juvenile Jail

Faisalabad (undated, on file with the author).19 Minutes of the Preliminary Meeting of the Child Rights Steering Committee, prepared by the CCO on

29 September 2010 (on file with the author).


25/98

15



The federal CCO includes a separate staff of five people (a project Coordinator, a Communications

officer, a Training and Research Officer, a Monitoring and Evaluation Officer and an Admin and

Finance Officer) located in office space made available by the Federal Ombudsman within the main

premises. The Head of the CCO, Mr Ejaz Qureshi, was appointed by the Federal Ombudsman to that

role. Thus far, the budget of the CCO is provided entirely by UNICEF. At the federal level, some 200

complaints have been received by the CCO in the 18 months since its establishment, which includes

complaints made by children, parents, non-government organizations (NGOs) and some incidents

picked up by CCO staff from the newspapers. These are reported, graphed and analysed in a

biannual publication20

. The majority of complaints received thus far have related to the education

sector.

The Punjab CCO consists of a permanent staff of five people, including a Programme Officer,

Communications Officer, Focal Person, an Admin and Finance Officer, and a consultant

psychologist. The two posts for specialist Child Investigation Officers (one male, one female) are

currently vacant. The office is located in part of a building provided by the Provincial Ombudsman

Punjab, with a budget provided entirely by UNICEF at this stage. To date there have been 230

complaints, some of which have been referred to the Child Protection and Welfare Bureau for

action to be taken by police. Traumatic cases (such as allegations of child abuse, or disputes over

child custody) are referred to the consultant psychologist, which has occurred in 22 cases so far.

Individual files are kept in hard copy and a summary of the information is recorded on a computer

database. The majority of complaints in Punjab have also related to education.

The Sindh CCO is headed by the Assistant Registrar of the Office, who has adopted the role of Focal

Person in addition to his regular duties. The Sindh Ombudsman has provided a small office area in

the premises of the main office, and the Governor of Sindh made a verbal commitment to

contribute five million rupees to the CCO, though there is no timeframe for this commitment and at

20 See, e.g. Wafaqi Mohtasib Secretariat, Review Report of the Childrens Complaint Office, January

July 2010 (on file with the author).


26/98


27/98

17



complaint. The extent to which this requirement limits accessibility of the office to children is

unclear.

c) Civil Society OrganizationsCivil society includes, but is not limited to, non-government organizations. It also includes media

organizations, employer groups, trade unions, teacher associations and other groups, all of which

should be included in the communications strategy of the Childrens Complaints Office. Some NGOs

with a key role to play in the development and outreach of the CCO are outlined in more detail

below.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) is a registered non-government organization

with a presence in every district. HRCP obtains information about violations of human rights across

a range of areas, including childrens rights. The primary sources of information are HRCP field

officers, and a media monitoring hub located in its Lahore office. Newspaper cuttings are collated

and stored and the information compiled into a comprehensive annual report on the state of

human rights in Pakistan. These are currently in the process of being digitized but this is a slow and

painstaking process. HRCP is a member of the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development

(FORUM-ASIA), which works closely with the Asia Pacific Forum in promoting, supporting and

developing NHRIs across the region.

The Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child (SPARC) is an established NGO which

operates across Pakistan. It produces an annual report on the state of child rights in Pakistan and

was the leading NGO coordinating the shadow report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child

during the last periodic report in 2009. The primary source of SPARCs information about the

violation of child rights is its Child Rights Committees in 50 districts across Pakistan. These Child

Rights Committees are comprised of local volunteers such as teachers, lawyers, social workers,

journalists and other activists. The Child Rights Committees are currently confined to Punjab, Sindh


28/98

18



and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa but SPARC plans to establish five new committees in Balochistan in the

near future. Committee members receive training from SPARC on child rights, as well as on

monitoring, reporting and other roles, to help ensure that violations are reported in the press.

SPARC also monitors news reports in its provincial offices, but unlike HRCP it does not have a

centrally coordinated database.

Lawyers for Human Rights and Legal Aid (LHRLA) is an NGO with solid credentials in advocating for

child rights. LHRLA is based in Karachi and runs a child helpline, Madadgaar, which operates in

Sindh only23

. LHRLA has advocated for a Childrens Ombudsperson in Pakistan for some years and

has developed an informal referral system with the Provincial Ombudsman Sindh in relation to

childrens complaints.

Civil society groups and organizations perform important advocacy functions. However they also

reveal an important gap in the system of child protection, since they have limited access to the

government, no binding or authoritative powers with respect to federal or provincial agencies, and

in some cases their relationship with the government can only be described as tense (at best).

In contrast, an independent child ombudssystem would have the status of a state institution with

access to government [which] is the institutions distinguishing feature vis a vis civil society24

.

NGOs and civil society organizations cannot have the stature, permanence, or influence with

government of an independent national human rights institution.

23 See Madadgaar Helpline [last accessed 10 September 2010].24 Kieren Fitzpatrick and Catherine Renshaw, NHRIs in the Asia-Pacific Region, Paper Presented toWorkshop Organised by Harvard Law School and NYU, September 2009, available at

[last accessed 30 August 2010].


29/98

19



Mapping Pakistans Child Rights Institutions

Civil SocietyOrganisations

NonIndependentGovernment

Bodies

IndependentHuman Rights

Institutions

Children's ComplaintOffices of the Federal and

Provincial Ombudsmen

National Commission forChild Welfare and

Development (NCCWD)(Social Welfare Ministry)

Human RightsCommission of Pakistan

Society for the Protectionof the Rights of the Child

(SPARC)Provincial Commissionsfor Child Welfare and

Development (PCCWD)(Social WelfareDepartment)

Lawyers for Human Rightsand LEgal Aid (LHRLA)

Other NGOs and CSOs;media etc.

Federal Ministry ofHuman Rights

Proposed NationalCommission on the Rightsof Children (Federal Only)

Proposed National

Commission on HumanRights (Federal Only)


30/98

20



6. International Best Practice on Child RightsMonitoring

What follows is a description of the main functions and characteristics of child rights institutions in

a number of different countries. In countries with a federal structure, or other decentralized

models, a brief overview of both central and regional mechanisms is provided.

a) United KingdomStructure

The United Kingdom of Great Britain is a unitary state with a population of approximately 62

million people. It is comprised of the four countries of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern

Ireland. The constituent countries have only those powers which are devolved to them by the

state.

The UK has a central Equality and Human Rights Commission, and separate Childrens

Commissioners in each of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In addition, there is a

range of specialist Ombudsmen offices in the UK with the power to receive and respond to

individual complaints relating to maladministration. They include: the Office of the Parliamentary

Commissioner (Ombudsman), the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, the Local

Government Ombudsman and the Financial Ombudsman Service. There is no specialist Childrens

Ombudsman in the UK, and no Childrens Commissioner at the central government level.

Central government

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has jurisdiction over all four countries of the

UK: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It was established under the Equality Act 2006

and its main functions are to monitor human rights and equality legislation and make proposals for

change. There are no child-specific functions, and no childrens representative at the central


31/98

21



government level. Individual Commissioners do not have specific portfolios. However the EHRC

does have a separate Disability Committee, established as a subsidiary organ of the Commission.

There is no individual complaint service at the EHRC. However it does provide an information and

advice helpline, from which it identifies cases which are appropriate for initiating or supporting

legal action, or for alternative dispute resolution.

The EHRC is developing an Equality Management Framework to compile and measure

disaggregated data across a range of indicators, including data related to children. Aside from this

information collection and monitoring function, the role of the EHRC with respect to children is

quite limited.

Country-level Childrens Commissioners

In addition there are separate Childrens Commissioners for each constituent country of the UK.

The Childrens Commissioner for England was established under the Childrens Act 2004; there is a

separate Childrens Commission for Wales and there are Commissioners for Children and Young

People in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The Childrens Commissioner for England, like the Scottish and the Welsh Commissioners, has no

individual complaint/casework function; this is specifically excluded by s2(7) of the Act. However

where an individual childs case raises issues of public policy of relevance to other children the

Commissioner may hold an inquiry to investigate and make recommendations about those issues

(s3). That power is suo moto, but the Secretary of State can also request that a particular inquiry

should take place (s4). The Secretary of States power to direct that an investigation be conducted

has been criticised by NGOs as compromising the independence of the office25

.

25 See, eg, Childrens Rights Alliance for England, Joint Statement from Childrens Commissioner Review

NGO Co-ordinating Group, available at


32/98

22



In contrast to the English, Welsh and the Scottish Commissioners, the Childrens Commissioner in

Northern Ireland has the power to receive and investigate individual complaints, regardless of

whether they raise broader policy issues. All offices in the UK run an information and enquiry

service in the form of a helpline. They each have structures for participation and advice from

children, such as the Children and Young Peoples Advisory Group of the English Commissioner26

,

the School Ambassadors programme run by the Welsh Commissioner27

, and the strategy for

children and youth participation in the work of the Scottish Commissioner28

.

Coordination

There is no formal relationship between the Equality and Human Rights Commission and any of the

Childrens Commissioners in each country, and there is no referral mechanism. Indeed, they have

only recently begun to establish a working relationship and to identify potential areas of

collaboration29

.

Cooperation between Childrens Commissioners in the four different countries is informal. They

worked together to produce a shadow report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child on the

UKs compliance with the CRC30

. The lack of coordination in other areas has been criticized by the

Committee on the Rights of the Child as follows:

statement-from-childrens-commissioners-review-ngo-co-ordinating-group.html> [last accessed 2

September 2010].26 See website of the Childrens Commissioner at

[last accessed 2

September 2010].

27 See [last accessed 2 September 2010].28 Scotlands Commissioner for Children and Young People, Participation Strategy 2005: Children and

Young People with us Every Step of the Way, available at [last accessed 2 September 2010].29 Correspondence between the author and Liz Speed, Research Manager, UK Equality and Human

Rights Commission, August to September 2010.30 UK Childrens Commissioners Report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, report

available through the website of the Scotland Commissioner for Children and Young People


33/98

23



The Committee notes that the State party functions with devolved government

arrangements and that this system makes it difficult to have a single body

coordinating implementation of the Convention. [] Nonetheless, the Committee

remains concerned at the lack of a body mandated to coordinate and evaluate a

comprehensive and effective implementation of the Convention throughout the State

party, including at local level31

.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child has also expressed concern that the Childrens

Commissioners do not have sufficient complaint handling procedures, and that they are not

sufficiently independent so as to fully comply with the Paris Principles32

.

Assessment

The Childrens Commissions in the United Kingdom are all relatively new institutions. None of them

have been evaluated, although an evaluation of the English Commission has now been

commissioned and is expected to be released by the end of 201033

. The criticisms from the

Committee on the Rights of the Child demonstrate: the importance of coordination between

institutions at different levels of government; the need for comprehensive complaint services; and

the requirement of full independence from government.

[last accessed 10 August2010].31 Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties underArticle 44 of the Convention, Concluding Observations: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland Forty-ninth session, CRC/C/GBR/CO/4, 20 October 2008, pp3-4.32 CRC Concluding Observations: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, ibid., p4.33 See UK Department of Education:http://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/index.cfm?action=consultationDetails&consultationId=17

26&external=no&menu=1 [last accessed 30 August 2010].


34/98

24



b) Republic of IrelandStructureIreland is a unitary state with a population of approximately 4.5 million people. It has an

independent Human Rights Commission, established in 2000, and a dedicated Ombudsperson for

Children, established in 2002. The Irish Human Rights Commission does not handle individual

complaints, but the Ombudsperson for Children has that capacity. Commissioners of the Irish

Human Rights Commission do not have specific portfolios or responsibilities.

Ombudsperson for Children

Ireland established an independent Ombudsperson for Children pursuant to the Ombudsperson for

Children Act 2002. The office has a broad mandate covering three main areas: (1) complaints

handling; (2) communication and participation; and (3) research and policy.

The complaint handling function is broader than the equivalent functions in the Childrens

Commissioners in all countries of the UK, with the exception of Northern Ireland. The Irish

Ombudsperson for Children has produced useful guidelines on investigations and complaint

handling, based on reviews of guidelines adopted by other child rights institutions, independent

research and consultation with children and young people34

. In addition to receiving and

investigating all individual complaints, the Irish Ombudsperson for Children conducts inquiries into

systemic issues affecting children. Examples of such issues include: the procedures for investigating

child deaths; the plight of separated children; and the question of whether there is adequate

recognition of childrens rights in the Irish Constitution35

.

34 The guidelines are available at

and

[last accessed 12 September 2010].35 See [last accessed 10 August 2010].


35/98

25



The communication and participation function includes consultation with children and young

people through a range of avenues. There is a Youth Advisory Panel, the members of which serve

two-year terms. The Panel provides advice to the Ombudsperson and produces a Young Peoples

Annual Report, as well as other tasks36

. In addition, each year the Ombudsperson and her staff

conduct school visits around the country and convene focus groups of children and young people in

order to hear their concerns. Comments and concerns by children are compiled into a report which

describes the issues raised but maintains the anonymity of the children37

.

The research and policy function has included making a number of submissions to the Irish

Parliament on issues such as child protection, medical care for children, and student behaviour38

.

The Ombudspersons office also gives written advice to the government about the impact of

proposed legislation on children39

.

Appointment of the Ombudsperson is by the President upon a resolution passed by the Parliament.

Conditions for removal from the office are strictly limited and essentially relate only to serious ill

health or gross misconduct (s3 of the Act). Interviews for the Ombudsperson were conducted by a

panel of 15 children and young people from across Ireland40

.

36 More information about the Youth Advisory Panel is available at [last accessed 10 August 2010].37 What Children and Young People Care About Issues Raised by Children and Young People with our

Office in 2008, available at [last accessed 12 September 2010].38 See [last accessed 12

September 2010].39 See [last accessed 12 September

2010].40 See Dorothy Butler Scally, Report on the Selection Processes for the Appointment of the Irish

Ombudsman for Children, Public Appointments Service,


36/98

26



Coordination

Since Ireland is a small unitary state, there is no need for a regional or provincial coordination

mechanism. Beyond the borders of the Republic, there is an informal association called the British

and Irish Network of Ombudspersons and Childrens Commissioners, which does not meet regularly

and does not have a permanent secretariat. It met for the first time in 200541

.

Assessment

The Irish model is strong in all three of its areas of complaint handling, communication and

participation, and research and policy. It has a high degree of independence from the government,

mandated in the establishing legislation, and has broad ranging powers to inspect premises,

compel production of documents, and table reports to parliament. In these respects it has been

commended by the Committee on the Rights of the Child42

. However some concerns have been

expressed about the limitations on the Ombudspersons powers with respect to inspection of

prisons and police stations. The Committee has expressed concern that these limits on the

Ombudspersons powers could lead to gaps in implementation of the Convention43

.

41 Press release, Logan attends first meeting of British and Irish Network of Ombudsman and

Commissioners for Children, 16 August 2005, available at [last accessed 2 September 2010].42 Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under

Article 44 of the Convention, Concluding Observations: Ireland Forty-third session, CRC/C/IRL/CO/2,29 September 2006.43 CRC Concluding Observations: Ireland, ibid., pp3-4.


37/98


38/98

28



State-level Childrens Commissioners

The childrens commissioners in the Australian states are:

New South Wales Commission for Children and Young People; New South Wales Office for Children the Childrens Guardian; Australian Capital Territory Children & Young Peoples Commissioner; Northern Territory Childrens Commissioner; Queensland Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian; South Australia Guardian for Children and Young People; Commissioner for Children, Tasmania; Child Safety Commissioner, Victoria; Western Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People.

Each of these institutions has a statutory basis and the office holders are appointed by the

executive. Their mandates are generally broad, and most (but not all) have the capacity to receive

and respond to individual complaints. The Queensland and Tasmanian Commissioners have

specifically enumerated functions to inspect places of detention and residential institutions for

children. In NSW, Queensland and Victoria the Commissioners are charged with investigating child

deaths45

. In some states the Childrens Commissioner is responsible for conducting background

checks on individuals seeking employment related to children. Some states, but not all, have young

45 A table with comparisons of the different roles of the respective state-based mechanisms in Australiais available for download from the European Network of Ombudspersons for Children (ENOC) website:

[last accessed 1 August 2010].


39/98

29



peoples advisory groups and committees. Some Commissioners have the power to conduct

inquiries into systemic issues affecting children, but only with prior ministerial approval46

. Perhaps

for this reason, just one inquiry has been conducted in NSW since its establishment in 199847.

Coordination

As in the UK, there is no formal coordination between the Australian Human Rights Commissioners

and the various state-based bodies. Coordination largely happens on an ad hoc basis. The

Committee on the Rights of the Child has expressed concern about the lack of a dedicated child

rights institution or focal person at the federal level48

. The Committee suggested the appointment

of a member of the Australian Human Rights Commission with specific responsibility for children,

and the creation of specialized sections within the state and territory Ombudsmen to deal with

childrens issues49

.

Assessment

Like the UK, Australias network of child rights institutions is quite decentralized. The state-based

mechanisms are quite strong in their policy and research roles, but the Committee on the Rights ofthe Child has criticized the absence of a central coordinating mechanism at the federal level. This

may explain some of the differences between the models adopted in each state and, significantly, it

may result in uneven implementation of the Convention. For example, some states are

insufficiently independent from the government, such as the Commissioner for Children in

Tasmania, where investigations by the Commissioner require prior Ministerial request50

. Other

46 Commission for Children and Young People Act NSW 1998, s 11(c).47 NSW Commission for Children and Young People, Submission to the Statutory Review of theCommission for Children and Young People Act 1998, 31 May 2010.48 Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties underArticle 44 of the Convention, Concluding Observations: Australia Fortieth session, CRC/C/15/Add.268,

20 October 2005, pp4.49 CRC Concluding Observations: Australia, ibid.50 Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1997 Tasmania, s 79.


40/98

30



states lack a complaint handling function altogether51

, a lacuna which has been criticized in other

contexts by the Committee on the Rights of the Child52

. Some of these problems may be rectified if

the current proposal to establish a federal Office of the Commissioner for Children and Young

People passes into law53

.

51 Eg Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 NSW, s 16.52 CRC Concluding Observations: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, ibid., p4.53 See Sarah Hanson-Young MP, Second Reading Speech Commonwealth Commissioner for Children

and Young People Bill 2010, 12 May 2010, available at [last accessed 19 September 2010].


41/98

31



d) New ZealandStructureNew Zealand is a unitary state with a population of approximately 4.5 million. It has a national

Human Rights Commission and a Childrens Commissioner at the central government level. Both

institutions have individual complaint handling functions, as well as advocacy, communication and

research roles. The Human Rights Commission includes two specific Commissioners dedicated to

Race Relations and Equal Employment Opportunities respectively. There are also six commissioners

with general mandates across all human rights issues.

Although the Human Rights Commission does not have a representative or focal person for

children, that role is fulfilled by a separate, independent institution with broad jurisdiction and a

high public profile across New Zealand. Because of the particular disadvantage faced by indigenous

Maori children, there is a debate about the possibility of introducing a separate Iwi Maori

Childrens Commissioner in New Zealand54

.

Childrens Commissioner

The New Zealand Childrens Commissioner was established under the Children, Young Persons and

their Families Act in 1989, but its current roles and responsibilities are set out in the Childrens

Commissioner Act 2003. It has a broad mandate independent of the government to promote the

rights of children, investigate individual complaints, and conduct advocacy, by and on behalf of,

children. The Commissioner is appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the executive.

A Young Peoples Reference Group consisting of children aged 12 to 18 from around New Zealand

provides information and advice to the Commissioner on a regular basis55

. Applications are

54 John Barrington, A Voice for Children: Office of the Commissioner for Children in New Zealand 1984-

2003, Dunmore Press Ltd, Wellington 2004, pp113.55 See the website of the Childrens Commissioner at [last accessed 1

September 2010].


42/98

32



advertised widely across the country. The individuals selected serve two year terms. They meet

four times per year, with all costs covered by the Childrens Commissioner, and participate in

teleconferences monthly. The Young Peoples Reference Group advises the Commissioner on what

is important to young people, it reaches out to children and young people across the country,

organizes events for young people, and also produces its own childrens newsletter.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed concern in 2003 about the possibility of

duplication between human rights institutions in New Zealand, and the lack of adequate financial

resources to the Commissioner for Children. The Committee recommended that New Zealand:

ensure that the Office of the Commissioner for Children and the National Human

Rights Commission are equally independent and that they report to the same

political body, and to define the relationship between the two institutions, including

a clear division of their respective activities. In addition, the Committee urges the

State party to ensure that the Office of the Commissioner for Children receives

sufficient human, material and financial resources to carry out its mandate56

.

Since that time, significant changes have occurred, including an increase in funding to the office by

20% in the year 2009-201057

, and the development of strategic workplans for the Childrens

Commissioner58

.

56 Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under

Article 44 of the Convention, Concluding Observations: New Zealand Thirty fourth session,CRC/C/15/Add.216, 27 October 2003, pp4.57 Report of the New Zealand Childrens Commissioner to the UN CRC 2010, 2 September 2010, pp11,available at

[lastaccessed 19 September 2010].58 See Statement of Intent 2009-12, tabled in the New Zealand Parliament in July 2009, available at [last accessed

12 September 2010].


43/98

33



Assessment

The New Zealand Childrens Commissioner is a good model which balances individual casework

functions with broader research, reporting and advocacy roles. It was one of the first independent

child rights institutions in the world and has thus had some considerable time to develop and

review its functioning. Its independence from the government is set out in legislation and there is a

permanent structure for the involvement of children and young people in its work. However, the

lesson which may be drawn from the early experience of the New Zealand Childrens Commissioner

is that it is important to clearly delineate the different roles and responsibilities of each human

rights institution. New Zealand also provides a good example of effective channels for

communication with children and young people, in the form of the Young Peoples Reference

Group, which mirrors the equivalent group in Ireland.

e) CanadaStructure

Canada is a federal state. It has ten provinces and three territories, and the distribution of powers

is highly decentralized with the bulk of government powers exercised by the provinces. As in

Australia and the UK, there is a Human Rights Commission at the central government level, and

child-specific institutions in each of the provinces.

Federal Government

The Canadian Human Rights Commission was created under the Canadian Human Rights Act 1985.

The Commissioners do not have specific portfolios and there is no dedicated representative for

children. The Commission receives individual complaints alleging discriminatory practices,

conducts investigations and has the power to appoint conciliators where necessary. There is also a

separate Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for litigation of complaints arising under the Canadian

Human Rights Act.


44/98

34



The Commission is also responsible for: public information programs to raise human rights

awareness; human rights research; reporting, receiving and making recommendations on human

rights; reviewing prospective legislation and trying to discourage discriminatory practices. It reports

annually to the Parliament on its activities over the course of the previous year (s27 of the Act).

Provincial Child Advocates

Nine of the ten Canadian provinces have separate child-specific offices, usually referred to as Child

Advocates. Each office was created by provincial-level legislation and is funded by the government

in that state. Most have individual complaint handling procedures, and may conduct investigations,

inquiries, manage alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and may make recommendations to

government, agencies, or communities. However, their core function is to provide highly

individualised case advocacy59

.

The provincial offices are:

Representative for Children and Youth, British Columbia Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, Newfoundland and Labrador Office of the Childrens Advocate, Manitoba Office of the Child and Family Service Advocacy of Ontario Saskatchewan Childrens Advocate Office Child and Youth Advocate, Alberta Nova Scotia Childrens Ombudsman

59 Robin MacLean and Brian Howe, Brief Report on Canadian Provincial Children and Youth AdvocacyOffices: Highlights of Functions and Recent Activities, Child Rights Centre, Cape Breton University,

August 2009.


45/98

35



Quebec Commission For Human Rights and Youth Rights New Brunswick Child and Youth Advocate.

The British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Ontario Advocates also play a role in the investigation of

child deaths. The Alberta and Nova Scotia offices have particular focuses on welfare services for

children, and children in residential care (including juvenile detention), respectively60

. Some, but

not all, offices have established mechanisms for participation of children and young people such as

youth groups. Some, but not all, offices are fully independent of the government.

Coordination

The lack of a child-specific institution at the federal level, or Child Advocate to mirror the

equivalent institutions in the provinces, has been strongly criticised in Canada61

. As in Australia and

the UK, there is no formal relationship between the federal-level Human Rights Commission and

the provincial-level Youth Advocates. However there is an annual coordination meeting of all

childrens rights institutions at the provincial level, known as the Canadian Council of Provincial

Child and Youth Advocates. The lack of a hierarchy between those institutions has been a source of

some criticism62

. In particular, as in the UK and Australia, the fact that there is no Childrens

Advocate or Child Ombudsman at the federal level means that coordination suffers between the

provinces and territories63

. The Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended that:

60 Robin MacLean and Brian Howe, ibid.61 Robin MacLean and Brian Howe, ibid.62 Telephone interview with Vanessa Sedletzki, Child Rights Officer, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre,31 August 2010.63 Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties underArticle 44 of the Convention, Concluding Observations: Canada Thirty fourth session,

CRC/C/15/Add.215, 27 October 2003, pp4.


46/98

36



the State party establish at the federal level an ombudsmans office responsible

for childrens rights and ensure appropriate funding for its effective functioning. It

recommends that such offices be established in the provinces that have not done so,

as well as in the three territories where a high proportion of vulnerable children

live64

.

Assessment

The Canadian provincial child advocate system is a good example of an institutional network which

focuses to a high degree on individual complaints. The range of services provided to individual

complainants is quite broad and usually includes powers of legal representation. However there is

generally less emphasis on research, policy and communication functions in the Canadian

provinces.

As in Australia, Canadas decentralized federation has resulted in significant variation between the

different provinces. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has criticized the fact that some of

Canadas most vulnerable children do not have access to a Child Advocate by reason of their

location in certain provinces or territories65

. Uneven development in child rights institutions in

different parts of the country is not necessarily a bad thing, as some states may take the lead in

certain areas and develop practices which can be shared with other provinces. However, good

coordination between federal and provincial levels is imperative to ensure that these best practices

are shared, and that there are no gaps in implementation of the Convention.

64 CRC Concluding Observations: Canada, ibid., pp4.65 CRC Concluding Observations: Canada, ibid., pp4.


47/98

37



f) NorwayStructureNorway is a unitary state with a population of approximately five million people. It is divided into

19 counties and 430 municipalities. Administration is quite decentralized with the municipalities

largely responsible for self-government. The national human rights institution for Norway is the

Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, which is located within the law faculty at the University of

Oslo. It does not have an individual complaint handling function but rather focuses on research,

advocacy and communication. The Ombudsperson for Children, in contrast, has the power to

receive and respond to individual complaints.

Ombudsman for Children

In 1981 Norway became the first country in the world to establish a Childrens Ombudsman,

through Act No. 5 of that year (The Ombudsman for Children Act).There are also regulations (called

Instructions) which are issued pursuant to the Act. Other Ombudsmen exist in Norway for specific

issues, such as the Ombudsman for Defence and the Ombudsman for Consumer Affairs. In 1993,

after 12 years of operation, an evaluation of the office of the Child Ombudsman was conducted by

the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs66

.

Mandate

The Ombudsman for Children has a broad mandate to promote the rights of children, to

investigate, criticize and publicise matters affecting their welfare, and to follow up the

development of conditions under which children grow up (Act, s3).This includes jurisdiction over

both public and private bodies.

66 Norwegian Official Report, The Commissioner for Children and Childhood in Norway (1995).


48/98

38



Complaint handling

The Child Ombudsman can take up cases directly from individuals, at the request of other people,

and can also take suo moto notice of complaints (Instructions, s2). If the complaint relates to a child

but is not made by the child personally, the childs permission must be sought before an

investigation is conducted; however there is a power to proceed in the absence of the childs

permission in exceptional circumstances (i.e. the age of the child prevents permission from being

given: Instructions, s2). The Ombudsman has access to all public and private institutions for

children and unrestricted access to documents (Act, s4).

The complaint handling functions of the Childrens Ombudsman are reserved for cases of

significant principal value in areas that highlight particular weaknesses or gaps in legislation67

. The

1995 review concluded that the Commissioner should concentrate on general cases and questions

of principle, and work to a lesser extent on individual cases68

.

International Study of Best Practices in Monitoring Childrens Rights

Documents

Transcript of International Study of Best Practices in Monitoring Childrens Rights