OP3 Konferenzbericht Englisch

Regional Conference on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a Communications Procedure

Conference ReportEast and Southern Africa5 – 6 November 2014, The Nexus Hotel, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Access to Justice for Children in Africa



2 Access to Justice for Children in Africa

Content

1. Abbreviations 3

2. Introduction 4

3. Day 1: Introduction to the OP3 CRC, its relevance to Africa, and how it can be ratified 5

3.1 Welcome and opening of the conference 5

3.2 Overview of the OP3 CRC and its role in protecting the rights of children 6

3.3 How does the new international complaints mechanism work and

complement national and regional human rights mechanisms? 7

3.4 Panel Discussion: Sharing experiences – Ratification by Gabon and Germany 8

3.5 Question & Answer Session 10

3.6 Panel Discussion: How can States ratify OP3 CRC and what added value

can it bring for the realisation of children’s rights? 12

3.7 Workshop: Designing a ratification advocacy strategy adapted to the

national context 15

4. Day 2: Best practices and way forward? 16

4.1 Panel Discussion: Establishing synergies and cooperation to achieve

Ratification: National case studies and lessons learnt 16

4.2 Panel Discussion: Using International and Regional Opportunities and

Recommendations 18

4.3 Closing Remarks 20

5. Annex 21

5.1 Useful Links 21

5.2 Programme 22

1. Abbreviations

ACERWC African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child

ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights

ACPF African Child Policy Forum

ACRWC African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child

ACtHPR African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights

AU African Union

CLPC Children’s Legal Protection Center

CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child

CSO Civil Society Organization(s)

DAC Day of the African Child

FGM Female Genitale Mutilation

FSC Federal Supreme Court

HRC Human Rights Council

ICT Information and Communication Technology

IHRDA Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa

UN United Nations

UPR Universal Periodic Review

OPAC Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child

on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict

OPSC Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child

on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography

OP3 CRC Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child

on a Communications Procedure

RADDHO La Rencontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme

RatifyOP3 CRC International Coalition for the Ratification of the Optional Protocol to the

Convention on the Rights of the Child on a Communications Procedure

REC Regional Economic Community

3Access to Justice for Children in Africa


2. Introduction

1 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure,

A/C.3/66/L.66, 2 November 2011, available in the six UN Languages:

http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=A/RES/66/138&Lang=en

2 The 14 countries are Gabon, Thailand, Germany, Bolivia, Albania, Spain, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia,

Costa Rica, Belgium, Ireland, Monaco and Andorra.

3 These are Benin, Cape Verde, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco,

Senegal, and Seychelles.

4 The Ratify OP3 CRC – International Coalition for the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the

Child on a Communications Procedure represents international, regional and national non-governmental organi-

sations and networks working on child rights and committed to achieving a universal ratification of the OP3CRC.

The members of the Steering Committee are: Child Rights Coalition Asia (CRC Asia), Child Rights Connect, Child

Rights International Network (CRIN), Eurochild, Kindernothilfe, Plan International, Red Latinoamericana y cari-

beña por la defensa de los derechos de los niños, niñas y adolescentes (Redlamyc), Save the Children, Terre des

Hommes International Federation and World Vision. More information is available at: www.ratifyop3crc.org.

5 The Federal Republic of Germany Foreign Office does not necessarily share the opinions expressed herein.

The sole responsibility for content belongs to author/s.

6 SIDA does not necessarily share the opinions expressed herein. The sole responsibility for content belongs to

author/s.

The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights

of the Child on a Communications Procedure (hereinaf-

ter OP3 CRC 1) was adopted by the UN General Assem-

bly on 19th December 2011 and entered into force on

14 April 2014. So far 14 countries have ratified the OP3

CRC among which there is only one African State, Ga-

bon.2 The OP3 CRC was enacted to enable children

to access justice in the international realm when their

national systems fail to do so. However, they can only do

so if their country ratifies the OP3 CRC thereby accept-

ing the competence of the UN Committee on the Rights

of the Child [hereinafter Committee] to receive commu-

nications/complaints. Apart from the 14 ratifications,

48 countries have signed the OP3 CRC among which

are eleven African States (as of January 2015).3

The International Coalition for the OP3 CRC (hereinaf-

ter Ratify OP3 CRC 4) invited representatives of eleven

countries in Eastern and Southern Africa (Burundi, Ke-

nya, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Sudan, South Afri-

ca, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe) to a Regional

Conference on the Optional Protocol to the Convention

on the Rights of the Child on a Communications Proce-

dure (OP3 CRC) held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from

5-6 November 2014.

The conference was attended by over 70 representa-

tives of Governments (as represented by Permanent

Representations of Member States), National Human

Rights Institutions (NHRI), Civil Society Organisations

(CSOs), International Non-Governmental Organisations

(INGOs), and the academia. It provided them with a

unique opportunity to get an in-depth understanding of

OP3 CRC, why it matters for children‘s rights and how

it complements regional human rights mechanisms in

Africa. Participants were introduced to profound back-

ground information, practical tools and materials to

take OP3 CRC advocacy forward in their countries.

It also provided a platform to share knowledge and

experience.

The conference was kindly supported by the Federal

Republic of Germany Foreign Office 5 with a contribution

from the Swedish Development Cooperation Agency 6,

Plan International, Save the Children International and

Kindernothilfe.


Antje Weber and Flore-Anne Bourgeois-Pieur, the Co-

Chairs of Ratify OP3 CRC, welcomed the participants.

They explained that the main objective of the conferen-

ce was to create an understanding of the OP3 CRC, how

it works, and to explore possibilities for collaboration

for its ratification in order to ensure the realization and

fulfilment of children’s right to access justice worldwide.

The Co-Chairs further provided a brief background

to the Coalition, explaining that it was formed in 2012

after the adoption of the OP3 CRC by the UN General

Assembly and that it comprises more than 80 members

which are national and international non-governmental

3. Day 1: Introduction to the OP3 CRC, its relevance to Africa, and how it can be ratified

organizations. John Graham, the Country Director of

Save the Children in Ethiopia, and Chikezie Anyanwu,

Head of Plan International‘s African Union Liaison & Pan

Africa Program Office, also welcomed the participants

on behalf of their organizations. They congratulated

Gabon for being the first African country to ratify OP3

CRC and stated that the commitment Gabon showed

for the ratification should also extend to the implemen-

tation of the OP3 CRC. They invited all African countries

to join Gabon and ratify the OP3 CRC and stated that

the membership to the coalition is one strategic mecha-

nism for comprehensive engagement for the realization

of children’s rights in Africa.

3.1 Welcome and opening of the conference


7 Convention on the Rights of the Child, Resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989,

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx

8 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child

Pornography, A/RES/54/263, 25 May 2000, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/OPSCCRC.aspx

9 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed

Conflict, A/RES/54/263 of 25 May 2000, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/OPACCRC.aspx

10 Rules of Procedure under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child

on a Communications Procedure, CRC/C/62/3, 16 April 2013, available in the six UN languages:

http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC/C/62/3&Lang=en

By Kathryn Leslie, Office of the United

Nations Special Representative of the

Secretary-General on Violence against

Children

The OP3 CRC consolidates the international system

of accountability for children’s rights and foresees a

system of individual complaints for the violation of chil-

dren’s rights, inter-state communications, and inquiries

promoted ex-officio by the Committee in the case of

grave and systematic violations of the rights of children.

The OP3 CRC was created as a result of the need for an

international mechanism of appeal when national reme-

dies do not exist or are ineffective to protect children. Its

creation was a result of a long time of discussion within

the UN.

The OP3 CRC has four parts. The first part provides for

general principles that deal with the role of the Commit-

tee and the principles guiding the Committee’s work,

as well as the basic rules of procedure. The second part

which is on communication procedures lays down how

communications should be made and how the Com-

mittee should address them. In the third section, it sets

rules on how the Committee can investigate grave or

systematic violations without necessarily receiving a

complaint. The last part of the Protocol deals with other

key dimensions of the protocol such as international

assistance and cooperation and reporting to the UN

General Assembly.

The OP3 CRC bestows the right to bring communica-

tions to the Committee to children themselves, or their

representatives, who are within the jurisdiction of a

State Party. The complaint can be made on a violation

of children’s rights under the Convention on the Rights

of the Child (CRC 7) and the first two optional protocols

3.2 Overview of the OP3 CRC and its role in protecting the rights of children

– the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights

of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostituti-

on and Child Pornography (OPAC) 8 and the Optional

Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on

the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (OPSC) 9

– in cases where the State has ratified the respective

protocol. Once a communication is received by the

Committee it will undergo two stages, to consider its

admissibility and then its merit.

Under the OP3 CRC an inquiry procedure is also pro-

vided if the Committee receives information regarding

grave or systematic violations of rights guaranteed

in the Convention or in the two Optional Protocols.

OP3 CRC uniquely recognizes children’s legal standing

to seek redress for the violation of their rights – either

directly or through a representative and requires States

Parties to establish domestic remedies which will need

to be exhausted before the Committee intervenes.

Furthermore, Rules of Procedure 10 on the OP3 CRC

have been developed by the Committee. They reaffirm

the fundamental principles of the CRC, including on

children’s best interests and respect for the views of the

child. The importance of the OP3 CRC for governments

and children worldwide was highlighted. Governments

will benefit from the inspiration they will draw from OP3

CRC to create good options and solutions for children at

national level, including Ombudspersons for children and

better opportunities for children to access justice when

their rights are violated. The need to reinforce national

child protection mechanisms through the ratification of

OP3 CRC was indicated clearly by Navi Pillay, former UN

High Commissioner for Human Rights: “Children will now

be able to join the ranks of other rights-holders who are

empowered to bring their complaints about human rights

violations before an international body”.


By Dr. Benyam Mezmur, Vice Chairperson of

the United Nations Committee on the Rights

of the Child and Chairperson of the African

Committee of Experts on the Rights and

Welfare of the Child (ACERWC)

The discussion about a CRC communications procedure

dates back to the late 1980’s. The issue was raised again

in 1999 during the 10th anniversary of the CRC. The

fact, that only very few cases were brought to other UN

treaty bodies by children in the past shows that children

need their own communications procedure under the

CRC. The OP3 CRC doesn’t give substantive rights, but

rather, it reinforces the procedural rights already en-

shrined under the Convention and its two OPs. Since the

coming into force of the OP3 CRC, the Committee ruled

on one communication brought by children against their

teachers who embezzled an award the children won in

a certain competition. The communication was ruled

to be inadmissible since it was made by children from

a non-State Party. It was stated that it will take time to

receive solid communications. As regards the second

communication – the first one against a State Party

– no decision has been made yet on the admissibility.

Once the OP3 CRC was adopted, the Committee de-

veloped Rules of Procedure. One of the general princip-

les of the OP3 CRC, the best interests of the child, has

been recently concretized in General Comment No. 14 11.

It will be one key principle to ensure that children are

not manipulated to bring communications before the

Committee. The Rules also clarify the steps that have

to be taken to consider an individual communication

received under the OP3 CRC. For example, the rules pro-

vide a specific time frame for the Committee to make a

decision on a communication as opposed to communi-

cations under other treaties stating in ‘reasonable time’.

The OP3 CRC offers special protection measures for

those bringing communications before the Committee.

Art 6 of the OP3 CRC provides for interim measures

in order to avoid irreparable damage which cannot be

rectified if no measures are undertaken.

Under the OP3 CRC the Committee can receive a

communication from children who do not have the

capacity to bring legal proceedings under national laws.

Where a communication is admissible at face value, the

concerned State Party can express its opinion on the

admissibility of the communication within two months.

If a State submits its opinion within two months it will

have another four months to reflect its view on the me-

rits of the communication. The timeframe is provided as

a result of the conviction that children don’t have time

and one year in a child’s life is 6% of his/her childhood

(“Justice delayed is justice denied”) meaning if a State

fails to submit its opinion the Committee will proceed

without response by the State.

A communication should not be anonymous and must

be written (see Admissibility Criteria in Article 7, OP3

CRC). The Committee has prepared a complaint form

both for adults and children respectively which will be

available on the website of the Committee. The form gi-

ves a detailed guidance on what information is required

by the Committee so that no lawyer is required to submit

a communication. The Communication should not be ill

founded. One important pre-condition for an individual

complaint is the exhaustion of domestic remedies unless

these are ineffective or unduly prolonged. That means

they have to be available and accessible to children un-

der national law. The consideration of the communicati-

on involves an oral hearing. At the end of the hearing, the

Committee may recommend separately or altogether

rehabilitation, reparation, financial compensation, a pro-

posal to prosecute, guarantee of non-repetition, or legis-

lative and administrative measures. If a State Party fails

to implement the recommendations of the Committee,

the Committee will require the State to make a written

explanation for its failure to comply with the instructions.

In the worst scenario of non-compliance, the Committee

will make a public statement against the State Party and

may report it to the General Assembly.

With regard to the relationship between regional mecha-

nisms and the communications procedure under OP3

CRC, the Committee is not an appellate mechanism

from regional bodies. And a communication pending

before regional bodies will not be considered by the

Committee. With regard to the national level it was sta-

ted that OP3 CRC serves primarily to strengthen access

to justice at national level.

3.3 How does the new international complaints mechanism work and complement national and regional human rights mechanisms?

11 General comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration (art. 3, para. 1), CRC/C/GC/14, 29 May 2013,

http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2fC%2fGC%2f14_&Lang=en


Ratification of OP3 CRC by Germany

By Joachim Schmidt, Ambassador of

the Federal Republic of Germany to Ethiopia

The Government of Germany shares the goal of the

universal ratification of OP3 CRC with the organizers of

the Regional Conference. Germany negotiated actively

at the UN for the adoption of the OP3 CRC and was the

first European country to ratify it. The active initiation

and negotiation was due to the history of Germany 100

years ago in the First World War (WWI) which took the

life of millions of children during its course and in the

aftermath. In face of this, there was a realization that at

least the children need to be protected; that they have

rights, even if they did belong to the enemy. This was

soon codified in International Law and the Conventi-

on and its Protocols now spell out clear expectations

of how children should be treated. Their best interest

should be a primary consideration when it comes to all

areas of their lives.

Thus, there is a close historical connection between the

German history and the development of a framework for

children’s rights. As history has taught we expect these

standards to be upheld regardless of whether there

is war, conflict, poverty or social inequality. The Third

Optional Protocol will go long ways in making this vision

a reality.

Two areas have been especially important for the Ger-

man ratification process of the OP3 CRC: Civil society

and effective implementation of the Convention. The

ratification process of OP3 CRC by Germany was highly

backed by the involvement of CSOs. The relentless

activism and continued dialogue of the CSOs with the

government for such kind of complaint mechanism

made the engagement and ratification of Germany a

possibility.

Several concerns were raised during the initial discussi-

on on a complaints mechanism for the CRC, but during

the course of time the Government ultimately came to

the conclusion that these concerns were either allevia-

ted by the Committee itself or that they were outweig-

hed by the positive aspects of such a Protocol. OP3 CRC

can contribute much to improve the implementation of

the Convention in the following four ways:

1) The Convention has now been brought into line with

the other major human rights conventions.

2) The Committee on the Rights of the Child is compo-

sed of experts who are particularly sensible to the

needs of the child when it seeks remedies. So it is a

unique platform for children to appropriately voice

their concerns.

3) Due to the individual complaints, the recommenda-

tions and general comments issued by the Commit-

tee would now be shaped by a greater awareness

of some of the specific problems facing children all

over the world.

4) The Protocol will lead to better national jurispruden-

ce and better domestic mechanisms to deal with

rights violations.

Ratification of OP3 CRC by Gabon

By Marie Delicat, Embassy of Gabon

to Ethiopia

Gabon was the first African country to ratify OP3 CRC.

This step was taken in line with the ratification of the

African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child,

which took place on 18th May 2007, which also provides

for a communications procedure. The Government of

Gabon is committed to protect human rights, and in

particular, children‘s rights, and this is entrenched in the

Constitution. Children are protected from all forms of

abuse and trafficking. The government has undertaken

measures for law reform including on provisions in the

Civil Code and the Penal Code. There is also a manual of

procedure which specifies the roles and responsibilities

of all actors who deal with child victims. The govern-

ment gives due consideration to the best interests of

3.4 Panel Discussion: Sharing experiences – Ratification

by Gabon and Germany


the child and the ratification of the ACRWC and the OP3

was done to reinforce its commitment to the protection

of child rights.

Child Justice Project in Ethiopia

By Selamawit Girmay, Child Justice Project

Office, Federal Surpreme Court of Ethiopia

More than 53% of the Ethiopian population are

children. Many stakeholders are involved in the pro-

tection of children’s rights and the Federal Supreme

Court (FSC) is the main stakeholder. The Child Justice

Project Office was established in 1999. It has four

basic strategies:

1. Conducting research which can influence revision of

laws;

2. Infrastructural development such as establishing

child-friendly structures in different courts;

3. Capacity building and awareness raising through

training of those who work with children such as

prosecutors, judges, lawyers and non-governmental

organisations;

4. Creating a referral network.

The office has undertaken the following activities:

a. Expanding child friendly structures for child victims,

children in conflict with the law and those who pass

through the justice system in civil cases of marria-

ge, maintenance, succession and so forth. Under

this activity, the office has been able to bring major

changes by introducing child-friendly settings, infor-

mal court proceedings, using professional assistan-

ce, child-friendly language use, and by establishing

child waiting rooms.

The Office realised that there is lack of human re-

sources particularly social workers. Hence the Office

arranged a two years vocational training for them

with the Ministry of Education.

b. Establishment of Children’s Legal Protection Center

(CLPC)

The CLPC has five main activities: it provides free

legal aid service to all children who pass through

the justice system including legal representation;

mediation services; DNA testing to assert paternity;

psychosocial services which includes provision of

shelter, food, education, counselling, medical care

and so forth; and capacity building of different sta-

keholders.

c. Referral system

Due to the lack of coordination among those who

work on the rights of children, a Memorandum of

Understanding and Operational Agreement was

signed between 34 governmental and non-govern-

mental organisations to create synergy and better

protect children’s rights through a referral system.

Through this system matters can be referred to

relevant institutions including the CLPC.

The progress made includes the establishment of 52

children’s courts in the federal and regional states, the

signing of guidelines for child friendly administration of

justice by all presidents of regional and federal courts

to ensure uniformity, and the creation of a national legal

aid network. These developments go hand in hand with

what the OP3 CRC would like to achieve for justice for

children in Africa.


Moderation: Theophane Nikyema, Executive

Director, African Child Policy Forum (ACPF)

Questions to and answers from the speakers

of the morning session

Following the presentations, many questions were

raised. They related to the role of CSOs in the process

of ratification of OP3 CRC in Germany and Gabon, the

mechanisms put in place to monitor the implementation

of the Convention and the Optional Protocols, how to en-

sure that children are empowered and not manipulated

to submit communications to the Committee, what the

OP3 CRC can do for children subjected to violence in the

family setting and how access to justice can be ensured

in some Muslim communities where it is assumed that

marriage is in the best interest of the child, and Female

Genitale Mutilation (FGM) is not criminalized. Questions

also related to how States can be convinced that OP3

CRC is an added value and complementary to existing

regional and national mechanisms and what measures

can be taken when States fail to follow the recommenda-

tions of the Committee and when they fail to accept the

competence of the CRC Committee. Another question

related to how Germany promotes the ratification of OP3

CRC in its bilateral and multilateral dialogue with other

countries including through its development aid.

In addressing the questions raised, the panellists raised

important points. On the participation of CSOs it was

highlighted that they can participate by supporting

children in submitting communications, engaging in the

inquiry procedure, and promoting and lobbying for rati-

fication. In assisting children to access the Committee,

three documents were/ will be produced which are the

child friendly version of the OP3 CRC, complaint form

for adults and child friendly complaint form for children.

The Committee takes due consideration of the age and

maturity of the child.

In assuring the utility of the OP3 CRC in advancing ac-

cess to justice, Dr. Benyam Mezmur explained that if the

OP3 CRC had a subtitle, it would have been ‘from urban

to rural, from law to practice, from pilot to scale’. The

Committee tries to ensure that justice should not only

be for those who can afford it.

Therefore, in the lobbying process it should be menti-

oned that OP3 CRC is an incentive to provide an effecti-

ve national child justice system and also an opportunity

to learn from other States since the decisions of the

Committee on one case is not only for the utility of the

concerned State Party, but also for other countries

consideration.

Moreover, the principle of exhaustion of local remedies

will be guided by the best interest of the child and be

more clarified during the course of work of the Commit-

tee. The local remedy that should be sought should not

3.5 Question & Answer Session


be prolonged or ineffective. What amounts to prolonged

or ineffective remedy is subject to the interpretation of

the Committee, but the prospect of success is a guiding

notion. In addition, the local remedy that should be

sough is a binding one, not other remedies. Hence, the

Committee will decide on a case by case basis to iden-

tify if the principle is fulfilled or exemption applies. In

doing so the Committee will respect the sovereignty of

the State but it won’t let sovereignty override the rights

protected under the Convention.

„The principal objective of the OP3 CRC is to

encourage States to ensure that children have

access to justice at national level, and not neces-

sarily to facilitate for the Committee to receive

many communications.“

Benyam Mezmur

The Committee could recommend financial compensa-

tion, repatriation, prosecution and support to the victim.

When a State is not complying with the recommenda-

tions of the Committee, the State will appoint a rappor-

teur to engage with the Committee during reporting,

and/or make public statements, and it may also report

the situation to the UN General Assembly with the

seriousness it deserves. The Committee will also adopt

a Child Protection Policy to ensure that the Committee

adheres to the highest standards of child protection

throughout the process.

In relation to countries which do not criminalize FGM

and child marriage, there is no exception provided under

article 21 of the ACRWC. Both the CRC and the African

Committee believe that penalising child marriage and

FGM should be done through immediate measures,

not progressive ones since legislation should guide the

behaviour of the society.

All States Parties to the ACRWC, with the exception of

Egypt, have accepted the competence of the African

Committee to deal with complaints. However, a comp-

laint against a country not a State Party to the Charter

will not be registered. The same will apply to the OP3

CRC. Different to the African procedure, the OP3 CRC is

optional and has an ‘opt out’ option. It does not stand by

its own, rather complements already existing treaties.

It is a procedural document and States are at liberty to

ratify it since it is optional.

The reason why only one African country ratified the

OP3 CRC is perhaps due to lack of awareness. Hence

CSOs should actively push governments to ratify the

OP3 CRC by raising awareness.

In response to the question raised about the role of

CSOs in Gabon, Mme Delicat made clear that CSOs are

influencing State ratification of the Protocol in Gabon;

however, they did not influence the ratification of OP3

CRC. It is the government that took the initiative becau-

se it had political will to do so.

With regard to promoting the OP3 CRC, Thomas Rohland,

representative of the Government of Germany, highligh-

ted that the Government promotes and pushes for the

ratification of OP3 with bilateral agreements and dialo-

gues with States. These activities should be undertaken

also by the other 13 countries that have ratified OP3 CRC.


Moderation: Violet Odala (Save the Children)

The process of ratification of treaties including the OP3

CRC varies from State to State according to each coun-

try’s constitutional law. Many have to get a decision of

the Parliament to do so.

National perspective: strategic litigati-on through the‘160 Girls Campaign“

By Merci Chidi, Ripples International (Kenya)

Ripples International conducts strategic litigation to

ensure rights of girls, and assists survivors of sexual

violence. Rape of girls or defilement, which is a legal

term for sexual violence against a girl child, is common

in many African countries and perpetrators are often fa-

mily members and police officers. Despite the penalties

for defilement, the law is not adequately enforced. For

this reason, Ripples International initiated legal procee-

dings to ensure the protection of the rights of girls. At

the time the campaign “160 Girls” was launched in 2011,

Ripples International had 160 girls victims between the

ages of 13 and 18 who needed justice. Currently the

number has grown to more than 400.

In May 2013, the court ruled in favour of the girls. It

established that the police failure to enforce existing

defilement laws and to protect them from defilement

are violations of domestic, regional and international

human rights law. The ruling of the court is significant

as the case with the 160 girls set a precedent. Eleven

petitioners got access to justice, obliged Kenyan police

to conduct investigation and empowered human rights

by making the State accountable for violations. Ripples

International now engages in monitoring the police

service and holding the police accountable across the

country and in ensuring compliance of court orders. In

case implementation of the court orders cannot be en-

sured, Ripples International will take the next step and

go back to court. After this, domestic remedies can be

considered as being exhausted and the question arises:

What to do next and would the OP3 CRC procedure be

an option?

Regional perspective: Communications submitted to the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC)

By Ayalew Getachew, Secretariat of ACERWC

The ACERWC receives communications in accordance

with article 44 of the ACRWC. The Committee has so

far received 4 communications against the government

of Uganda, Kenya, Senegal and one State Party which

cannot be mentioned because the ACERWC has not

considered the admissibility of this Communication.

The communication against the government of Uganda

was received in 2005 and it was submitted by the Cent-

re for Human Rights, University of Pretoria, on behalf of

children in Northern Uganda, where it was claimed that

grave breaches of children’s rights took place between

2001 and 2005. The alleged breaches were; recruitment

and use of children as soldiers, sexual violence against

children, killing and maiming of children, abduction

of children, and attacks on schools and hospitals. The

ACERWC undertook an investigation mission with the

consent of the State Party, whereupon it was found that

the State Party had violated Article 22 (which deals with

involvement of children in armed conflict), and as a fun-

damental duty - Article 1(1) of the ACRWC, and not the

rest of the issues as alleged in the Communication.

The second Communication was submitted against the

government of Kenya in 2009 by IHRDA and the Open

Society Initiative on behalf of children of Nubian de-

scendants in Kenya. It was alleged that the government

of Kenya treated Nubian descendants as “aliens” as it

believed that they did not have any ancestral homeland

within Kenya and that children of Nubian descendants

were denied the right to birth registration and nationality

as provided under article 6 of the ACRWC among other

articles. No investigative mission was conducted as the

government did not respond to the allegation. The ACER-

WC found multiple violations of Articles 6(2), (3) and

(4); Article 3; Article 14(2) (b), (c) and (g); and Article

11(3) of the Charter by the Government of Kenya.

The third Communication was submitted to the ACER-

WC on July 2012 by the Centre for Human Rights of the

3.6 Panel Discussion: How can States ratify OP3 CRC and what added value can it bring for the realisation of children’s rights?


University of Pretoria and La Rencontre Africaine pour la

Défense des Droits de l’Homme (RADDHO) on behalf of

the talibes in Senegal. It states that more than 100,000

children (known as talibes) aged between 4 and 12 years

are sent away by their parents to live in Qur’anic schools

known as daaras. The Communication points out that

these children are forced by their instructors (known as

marabouts) to work on the streets as beggars, are kept

in an unsafe and unhygienic structures, are not provi-

ded with clean water, and enough food, and that they

are injured by speeding motor vehicles in the course

of begging on the streets. In sum, the Communication

concludes that the government did not regulate these

schools and hence violated articles 4, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16

and 29 of the ACRWC. The ACERWC is now preparing

its written decision to be shared with the Complainants

and the Respondent State. A follow up mission was un-

dertaken after the decision was made. The government

states that the situation has changed while the situation

on ground tells otherwise.

Generally, the ACRWC communication procedure can

advance the protection of children’s rights mainly

because it makes a violation public and by highlighting

weaknesses in the translation of the ACRWC into dome-

stic realities. It also assists the government in addres-

sing the situation through technical recommendations

by the ACERWC .

The most recent developments in the work of the ACER-

WC include the application for standing before the

African Court of Humans and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR)

to get binding decisions and the revision of the Guide-

lines on Communications to harmonize them with the

procedure of the African Commission on Human and

Peoples’ Rights and the Court.


Another regional perspective: Com-munications submitted to the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR)

By Gaye Sowe, Institute for Human Rights

and Development in Africa (IHRDA)

The ACHPR was established in 1987 with the mandate

to receive communications. It can now receive commu-

nications from all countries except Morocco and South

Sudan. However, South Sudan has recently ratified the

African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The

Commission has a promotional and protective mandate.

It can receive both individual and interstate communica-

tions. While more than 300 individual complaints have

been submitted, there has only been 1 interstate com-

munication (DRC vs. Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda). The 10

countries against which the most communications have

been submitted include Nigeria (32), Zimbabwe (15),

DRC (14), Cameroon (13), Ethiopia (11), Sudan (11), Ken-

ya (11), the Gambia (10), Botswana (8) and Tanzania (7).

While economic and social rights are not justiciable in

many civil law countries, the African Charter on Human

and Peoples’ Rights has made these rights justiciable; it

has also provided for group rights such as the right to live

in a clean environment. Furthermore, it has no derogati-

on clause.

Cases on the rights to family life are considered by the

Commission; nonetheless it does not specifically deal

with children’s rights – it deals with general human

rights issues.

The experience of the Commission in respect of its com-

munications procedures is useful to inspire other me-

chanisms. It gives very progressive recommendations.

Some of the recommendations are ground breaking, for

instance in a case involving Cameroon compensation

was paid. The recommendations can be good advocacy

tools. The Commission also provide access to persons

who do not get any help at the local level as they could

be exempted from exhausting local remedies. Another

added value is that violation caused by non-state actors

could be alleged before the Commission. At the same

time, the Commission faces some challenges. These

include delays in decision-making, physical access to

the Commission, the non-binding nature of the recom-

mendations, lack of awareness about the Commission’s

role, and non-compliance with Commission recommen-

dations. Nevertheless, it was underscored that advan-

tages outweigh the drawbacks. CSOs play a vital role in

putting pressure on governments to ratify the African

Charter as well as other human rights treaties and sub-

mitting cases to the regional human rights mechanisms.

Questions and answers:

After the three presentations were made, participants

raised some questions pertaining to how local remedies

can be exhausted in a situation where there is conflict,

and on what could be done against Boko Haram in

Nigeria. In response, it was explained that the require-

ment of exhaustion of local remedies has exceptions

and complainants can be exempted in the event of wide

spread conflict, where national courts cannot be relied

on. On the issue of Boko Haram, it was explained that

joint sessions between all stakeholders involved could

perhaps lead to a solution.


Key elements to take into account for a successful ratification campaign stra-tegy

By Laure Elmaleh, Child Rights Connect

Designing an advocacy strategy is essential to use

resources effectively, maximise opportunities for

advocacy and connect advocacy activities with other

areas of work and general goal of your organisation. This

presentation provides an overview of different elements

and aspects which could be included in an advocacy

strategy for the ratification of OP3 CRC, according to

the national context:

Identify key targets: Who are the decision-makers?

Who are the allies? Who are the right messengers?

Who is the audience?

Identify the right messages: assess the national po-

litical context, adapt key arguments to the national

context.

Identify key opportunities to convey the messages to

the targets.

Set goals, develop action plan and evaluate results.

Recognise capacities and gaps.

Generally actors with formal authority to make the

decision to ratify (e.g. government representatives,

parliamentarians depending on the ratification process

in your country) should be targeted as well as actors

with the capacity to influence those with formal autho-

rity (e.g. NHRI, ombudsperson, high-level individuals,

UNICEF). Supporters and allies are needed throughout

the whole process to make the voice louder and resour-

ces and effectiveness stronger.

Key standard messages why a State should ratify OP3

CRC could be:

To reaffirm its recognition of children as rights-hol-

ders;

To reinforce its national remedies;

To strengthen its commitment to the rights of child-

ren with minimal implementation obligations;

To demonstrate international leadership in child

rights.

These messages should always be adapted to the natio-

nal context and target.

It is important to identify entry points, events, symbolic

dates, processes that can be used to call for ratification

of OP3 CRC. All these entry points depend on the natio-

nal context, political system and current activities in the

country and should be chosen carefully.

Suggested activities to push for the ratification of OP3

CRC could be:

Write a joint letter to relevant ministries, parliamen-

tarians, to the permanent mission to the UN of the

State (or follow up the letter sent by the Internatio-

nal Coalition);

Organise a meeting with relevant ministries;

Organise a meeting with influential members of

parliament;

Organise a seminar on OP3 CRC with relevant pro-

fessionals (NGOs, NHRI, UNICEF, Bar Association);

Get media attention on OP3 CRC (write a press

release, use twitter, facebook, write an oped,…).

The Participants were then divided into eleven country

groups to discuss elements of advocacy strategies for

their respective countries after which they presented

the outcome of their discussions. The country groups

continued their work on the second conference day and

presented their country strategies at the end which will

now be implemented at country level. Minutes from the

discussions can be shared with CSO participants on

demand.

3.7 Workshop: Designing a ratification advocacy strategy adapted to the national context


Moderation: Gaye Sowe, Institute for Human

Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA)

Ratification of OP3 CRC in Germany from a CSO perspective

By Antje Weber, Kindernothilfe

The idea to create an individual complaints mechanism

for the CRC was discussed in 1999 on the 10th anniver-

sary of the Convention. Several NGOs took this idea back

home. In Germany, Kindernothilfe took the lead on OP3

CRC advocacy work in Germany. One of the first steps

was to conduct a study on opportunities and limitations

of a complaints mechanism for the CRC. In 2001, NGOs

launched a campaign to lobby for the ratification of

OP3 CRC. In the following years, many discussions and

workshops with relevant stakeholders at governmental

level followed. Children’s rights are a cross-cutting issue

in Germany and thus, many ministries and governmental

agencies at communal, federal and national level were

involved. At the beginning, the position of the govern-

ment towards OP3 CRC was sceptical due to a number

of open questions such as: What does a complaints me-

chanism mean for the national level? Does the CRC in-

corporate States duties only or create justiciable rights?

Should we wait for the adoption of an Optional Protocol

to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights or the ratification/ entry into force of the

two Optional Protocols of the CRC? Would a communi-

cations procedure overlap with other mechanisms?

The National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) in Ger-

many – the German Institute for Human Rights – functi-

oned as a mediator throughout the years and invited all

stakeholders to a workshop in 2009, which was a turning

point in the argumentation of the German Government.

Striving for the creation and adoption of OP3 CRC beca-

me the goal of joint action by government and civil socie-

ty in Germany which marked its peak with the German

ratification in 2013. The support of the German Govern-

ment for OP3 CRC continues since then through the

support of lobby and advocacy for OP3 CRC in Geneva

and New York and most recently through support to CSO

initiatives such as this Regional Conference in Ethiopia.

Some lessons learnt from this process might be useful

for CSO in other countries, including the following:

Joint action between governments & civil society is

needed;

NHRI or other institutions/ organisations can functi-

on as a mediator;

Champions/ key persons at Ministries/ Parliament

are needed to bring the issue into Parliament;

Lobby activities should target the national and inter-

national level;

Questions & objections should be taken seriously;

Legal/ political arguments based on profound rese-

arch are most convincing;

Patience and perseverance is needed;

Research and evidence is useful to support the ad-

vocacy work.

OP3 CRC Advocacy Activities in Rwanda

By Rene Christian Umukunzi, Child Rights

Coalition Rwanda

The Child Rights Coalition in Rwanda aims to monitor

and report on the implementation of the CRC and the

ACRWC, including advocacy on the ratification of OP3.

To meet this objective, the coalition carried out a mee-

ting with stakeholders and developed a five years action

plan. The priority areas under the action plan are the

dissemination of concluding observations of the CRC

Committee (which included a recommendation on rati-

fication of OP3 CRC) and the ACERWC in child friendly

versions, carrying out ad-hoc lobbying which includes

dialogue with the government and parliamentarian via

SMS Major challenges faced by the coalition throughout

4. Day 2: Best practices and way forward?

4.1 Panel Discussion: Establishing synergies and cooperation to achieve Ratification: National case studies and lessons learnt


the process are identified to be lack of understanding of

the OP3 and its content by the government and other

CSOs, limitation of NHRIs, and reshuffling of govern-

ment officers. The Child Rights Coalition Rwanda will

continue to push for OP3 CRC in the future. It will get

inspiration from CSO’s experience in other countries, for

example from Germany.

Thailand and Slovenia: Cooperation with National Human Rights Institutions and UNICEF


The objective of the presentation was to give concrete

examples of cases of cooperation between CSOs and

other actors like UNICEF and National Human Rights

Institutions (NHRIs) to advance the ratification process

at national level.

The government of Thailand supported OP3 CRC from

the very beginning but the role of key actors was crucial

in pushing the government for ratification. CSOs orga-

nized a briefing for different ministries, the NHRI and

other national CSOs. Further meetings were then orga-

nised between CSOs and the NHRI and with the country

and regional UNICEF offices to encourage support the

ratification. This led to the ratification of the OP3 in

2012 making Thailand one of the first two countries to

ratify the OP3 besides Gabon.

Slovenia is expected to ratify OP3 CRC by the end of

2014 or at the beginning of 2015. This is attributable

to the partnership between UNICEF and CSOs in the

dialogue with several ministries involved in the ratifica-

tion of OP3 CRC. This cooperation included the orga-

nisation of a roundtable to raise awareness about OP3

CRC to professionals working with and for children such

as Ombudsman officers, attorneys, the criminal police,

the Ministry of Justice, CSOs and other bodies, which

resulted in the support from several ministries to the

ratification of OP3 CRC.

These examples show that involving and getting the

support of different actors at national level, in parti-

cular UNICEF or the NHRI could prove useful within a

broader advocacy strategy to engage with the State

on the ratification of OP3 CRC. These advocacy strate-

gies should be adapted specifically to each country’s

context. UNICEF and NHRIs can be legitimate actors

to engage a discussion with the State on OP3 CRC and

could provide support to CSOs, while CSOs can provide

their expertise on the topic.

Questions and answers:

Following the presentations the floor was open for

discussion. The questions raised were on what the key

advocacy messages were in Rwanda, how children were

involved in the ratification process in Germany and what

are the roles put for children in the implementation of

the OP3. Additional questions on leverage of Informati-

on and Communication Technology (ICT) and the media

to promote ratification and the link between NHRI and

the Ombudsman were raised.

In response to the questions raised directly to the Child

Rights Coalition Rwanda, Chris Umukunzi explained that

the advocacy message is a simple one that calls the go-

vernment to make Rwanda one of the top countries for

children’s rights and that the ratification of OP3 CRC is

not adding any additional obligation on the government

but reinforcing ongoing efforts. ICT were also very useful

for the advocacy work. Besides the support from Plan

International Sweden and members of the coalition,

he said that the coalition in Rwanda is undertaking its

advocacy with a zero budget approach.

In addressing questions made to Antje Weber from

Kindernothilfe, she replied that children were not involved

in the ratification process because of technical issues.

However, a case study was made to show what impact

the adoption and ratification of the OP3 CRC have for

children’s rights in Germany. In January 2014 a group of

children met the Committee to present their views on

the realization of children’s rights in Germany. A child-fri-

endly brochure on OP3 CRC shall be produced with the

participation of children in the future. The media has

been engaged in all the process through press releases

and press conferences. But OP3 CRC is not an easy topic

and needs further explanation. Therefore, it is difficult to

attract media attention throughout the country. Concer-

ning the implementation of OP3 CRC, the Government

recently announced the creation of an independent

monitoring body at the NHRI in 2015.

Laure Elmaleh from Child Rights Connect indicated that

CSOs from Thailand did involve children in their work on

OP3 CRC. Child Rights Connect also produced a child

friendly questionnaire 12 to collect the views of children

on OP3 and access to justice. More than 300 children

around the world filled the questionnaire and Child

Connect is engaging with the Committee to accommo-

date the views of the children in its working document.

12 To access the survey report presented to the UN Human Rights Office

and the presentation made the Human Rights Council’s Annual Day on

the Rights of the Child 2014 based on the finding of the survey, please go to

http://www.childrightsconnect.org/access-to-justice-for-children/


The Use of International Advocacy Opportunities and Recommendations


Several international procedures qualify for advocacy

activities for the ratification of OP3 CRC and should be

used in national advocacy strategies.

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a mechanism

of the Human Rights Council (HRC) aiming at impro-

ving the human rights situation of each of the 193

United Nations (UN) Member States. Under the UPR,

the human rights situation of all UN Member States is

reviewed every 4.5 years. At the end of each review, the

HRC publishes an outcome report listing the recom-

mendations made by other States that the State

under review will have to implement before the next

review. This mechanism could be useful for OP3 CRC

advocacy; as some states that have already ratified the

OP3 CRC may make recommendations to other states

to ratify it. Ghana, for instance, was recommended to

ratify the OP3 CRC by Slovakia in 2012 and accepted

the recommendation; a year later Ghana signed the

OP3. CSOs can use these UPR recommendations in

their advocacy by reminding their State on the recom-

mendations from the UPR and work with the recom-

mending states to follow up on the implementation of

the recommendation.

A second advocacy opportunity at international level is

the CRC Reporting. The Committee regularly reviews

each State party to the CRC, the OPSC and the OPAC.

Through this procedure, the Committee examines the

progress each State has made in implementing the

Convention and its Optional Protocols. CSO have the

opportunity to submit shadow reports on the implemen-

tation of the CRC in their country to provide additional

information for the Committee and will be heard at the

pre-session in Geneva before the Committee invites the

State to the session and presents its Concluding Obser-

vations. CSOs can incorporate the issue of ratification

of the OP3 in the alternative report they submit to the

Committee and can follow up on the implementation

of the Concluding Observations, as the Committee

now systematically includes a recommendation on the

ratification of OP3 CRC in the Concluding Observations

of each country that it reviews.

4.2 Panel Discussion: Using International and Regional Opportunities and Recommendations

Moreover, States that are running for election of the

HRC can make voluntary pledges on actions that they

would take during their term as a HRC member. Some

voluntary pledges include a commitment by the State

to become party to all core human rights instruments.

If it is the case, this commitment can also be used for

advocacy by reminding the State and to follow up on the

ratification measures the State undertook.

Furthermore, symbolic dates such as the 28th of

February, 14 April, 20th November, 19th of December

which are the anniversary of opening to signature of

OP3, entry into force of OP3, anniversary of the adop-

tion of CRC, and adoption by the General Assembly of

OP3 respectively can be used to specifically advocate

on the ratification of the OP3, as they would provide

international visibility to States that would ratify on

those dates. As an example of using a combination of

these international opportunities, the International

Coalition wrote letters to Permanent Missions of all

UN States in July 2013 to advocate for the ratification

of OP3 CRC, suggesting to States to ratify OP3 CRC

during the next UN Treaty Event taking place each

September in New York, and reminding them, where

relevant, of the international commitments that they

had taken within the UPR.

The Use of Regional Advocacy Opportunities and Recommendations

By Dr. Aquinaldo Mandlate, Community Law

Centre, University of the Western Cape

The AU bodies with human rights mandate or with

human rights related mandates can play a key role in

promoting ratification of the OP3, especially those with

children’s rights monitoring mandate. The ACHPR and

the ACERWC envisage collaboration of their respecti-

ve monitoring mechanisms with CSO’s which creates

many opportunities where CSO’s can directly engage

with the mandate of regional human rights institutions

to encourage State parties to ratify OP3.

One example is to engage with these treaty bodies such

as the ACHPR or the ACERWC carrying out promotio-

nal visits to State Parties and request them to include

ratification of OP3 in their recommendations to State


Parties, raise the issue at the CSO and NGO Forum influ-

encing the sessions through recommendations and/or

including recommendations on ratification of OP3 CRC

in alternative reports to the ACERWC and the ACHPR.

The fact that the ACHPR and the ACERWC provide for

cooperation with international human rights Institutions

opens another important avenue to advocate for ratifi-

cation of the OP3 by engaging the ACHPR/ the ACERWC

and the CRC Committee to strengthen collaboration

on that matter. The second more indirect way can be

carried out through dissemination of information via

radio or websites and following up of implementations

made by regional human rights treaty bodies. Working

with Special Rapporteurs with a mandate relating to

children such as for example the Special Rapporteur

of the ACERWC on Ending Child Marriage, the Regional

Economic Communities (RECs), and the African Peer

Review Mechanism to promote access to justice and/or

give recommendations to ratify OP3 CRC are additi-

onal opportunities that can be used by CSOs. Lastly,

the crucial role of regional and sub-regional coalitions

such as the Network of African National Human Rights

Institutions, Child Rights Networks, and CSOs Forum in

pushing the agenda at the national and continental level

was highlighted.

Questions and answers

The presentations were followed by a discussion. Ques-

tions were raised on what assistance for CSO can be

obtained from the African Union, how child rights policy

made by RECs can be used in the ratification of the OP3

CRC, how can CSOs that don’t have an office in Geneva

take part in the UPR, the possible threats of the ad-

vocacy campaign, and how to navigate and create good

understanding of OP3 CRC at regional level.

In responding to the questions raised, it was mentioned

that CSOs which don’t have offices in Geneva can still

engage in the UPR in collaboration with other CSOs

that have an office in Geneva and engage with embas-

sies at capital level. In addition, the CSOs who have not

participated in the UPR can use the recommendations

emanating from the UPR for their advocacy work. In

addressing the issue of threats and creating understan-

ding, it was said that understanding the situation on

the ground and the context of each country is crucial.

Further it was said that one of the main objectives of

OP3 CRC was ensuring access to justice at the national

level and any advocacy on the ratification of OP3 CRC is

advocacy to strengthen the national system.

The participants suggested using the 25th anniversary

of the CRC and the Day of the African Child (DAC) as

opportunities for advocacy, to form or join Ratify OP3

CRC. A suggestion was made to propose access to

justice as the theme for the DAC 2016. Further, it was

mentioned that the RECs are also an important avenue

for advocacy on ratification of the OP3 by their Partner

States, as more and more, the RECs are adopting a child

rights agenda, such that discussions have begun in the

East African Community to develop a Regional Protocol

for Children.


By Annalies Borrel, African Child Policy

Forum (ACPF)

The conference has created a great opportunity for key

stakeholders to exchange experience and knowledge

on OP3 CRC as well as opportunities, challenges and

the advocacy strategies in the ratification of OP3 CRC.

The ACPF leaves four important messages for partici-

pants;

1. There is an elevated awareness on child rights in

Africa, in the AU and within CSOs, as evidenced by

the African report prepared by ACPF;

2. The OP3 CRC creates opportunities to reinforce the

implementation of the ACRWC which also draws

inspiration from other international documents;

3. We should be cautious that the necessary child

protection systems ensure that children are not

vulnerable in the process; and

4. We all have a role to play in making OP3 CRC a norm

and standard through advocating its ratification.

4.3 Closing Remarks

Collaborative actions are needed to safeguard child

rights; and such action should not only be advocacy for

ratification, but also support of implementation. The

ACPF expressed its commitment to support this pro-

cess. She then thanked the organizers and participants.

By Antje Weber, Kindernothilfe, and Flore-Anne

Bourgeois-Prieur, Plan International, on behalf

of Ratify OP3 CRC

The International Coalition Ratify OP3 CRC thanks all

participants, speakers, supporters and organisers of

this Conference.

The Conference is seen as a kick-off for future ad-

vocacy activities targeting the ratification of OP3 CRC

in East and Southern Africa. Ratify OP3 CRC offers

constant support for all activities of the country delega-

tions and invites all participants to join the Coalition as

members. 13

13 Membership Application Forms are available under

http://ratifyop3crc.org/about-us/joinus


5. Annex

5.1 Useful Links

African Child Policy Forum:

www.africanchildforum.org/site

African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child:

http://acerwc.org

Child Rights Connect:

www.childrightsconnect.org

Ratify OP3 CRC:

http://ratifyop3crc.org

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child:

www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRC/Pages/CRCIndex.aspx

UN Special Representative on Violence against Children:

http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org

5.2 Programme

5 November 2014

Introduction to the OP3 CRC, its relevance to Africa, and how it can be ratified

Morning: Introductory sessions for Civil Society and Government Representatives

9:00 Welcome and Opening of the Conference

Antje Weber and Flore-Anne Bourgeois-Prieur (Co-Chairs of Ratify OP3 CRC), John Graham (Country

Director Save the Children Ethiopia), Chikezie Anyanwu (Country Director Plan International Ethiopia)

9:30 Overview of OP3 CRC and its role in Protecting the Rights of Children

Kathryn Leslie (Office of the United Nations Special

Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children)

10:00 Coffee Break

10:30 How does the new international complaints mechanism work and complement national/regional

human rights mechanisms?

Dr. Benyam Mezmur (Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and Chairperson

of the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child)

11:15 Sharing Experiences: Ratification by Gabon and Germany

Gabon: Marie Delicat (Embassy of Gabon to Ethiopia)

Germany: Joachim Schmidt (Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany to Ethiopia)

Ethiopia: Selamawit Girmay (Federal Surpreme Court)

12:00 Question & Answer Session (with all presenters)

Moderation: Theophane Nikyema (African Child Policy Forum)

12:30 Joint Lunch for Government and Civil Society Representatives

Afternoon: Practical sessions for Civil Society Representatives

14:00 Panel discussion: How can States ratify OP3 CRC and what added value can it bring for the

realization of children’s rights?

Moderation: Violet Odala (Save the Children)

Mercy Chidi (Ripples International, Kenya)

Ayalew Getachew (Secretariat of the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of

the Child)

Gaye Sowe (Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa, IHRDA)

Panel discussion and Question & Answer

15:30 Coffee Break

16:00 Workshop: Designing a ratification advocacy strategy adapted to the national context (Part 1)

Moderation: Flore-Anne Bourgeois-Prieur (Plan International), Laure Elmaleh (Child Rights Connect)

17:45 End

20:00 Cultural Evening

Ethiopian Restaurant “Totot”

Access to Justice for Children in Africa22

6 November 2014

Best Practices and way forward?

Participants: Civil Society Representatives

9:00 Welcome and Opening

Recap of Day 1: Key arguments for the ratification of OP3 CRC/Key steps for an effective

ratification campaign strategy

Chikezie Anyanwu (Plan International)

9:45 Panel discussion: Establishing synergies and cooperation to achieve ratification: national case

studies and lessons learnt

Moderation: Gaye Sowe (Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa, IHRDA)

The German example: Cooperation between Civil Society and Government,

Antje Weber (Kindernothilfe)

Thailand and Slovenia: Cooperation with National Human Rights Institutions and UNICEF,

Laure Elmaleh (Child Rights Connect)

The case of OP3CRC Advocacy in Rwanda, Rene Christian Umukunzi (Child Rights Coalition,

Rwanda)


10:45 Coffee Break

11:15 Panel discussion: Using international and regional opportunities and recommendations

Moderation: Gilbert O. Onyango (The East Africa Centre for Human Rights, EACHRights)

Use of international advocacy opportunities and recommendations,

Laure Elmaleh (Child Rights Connect)

Use of regional advocacy opportunities and recommendations,

Dr. Aquinaldo Mandlate (Children’s Rights Project, Community Law Centre, University of

the Western Cape)


12:30 Lunch

14:00 Workshop: Designing a ratification advocacy strategy adapted to the national context (Part 2)

Moderation: Petronella Mayeya (Save the Children), Laure Elmaleh (Child Rights Connect)

16:00 Closing Remarks

Annalies Borrel (African Child Policy Forum)

Antje Weber (Kindernothilfe/ RatifyOP3 CRC)

Flore-Anne Bourgeois-Prieur (Plan International/ RatifyOP3 CRC)

16:30 End


Publisher:KindernothilfeDüsseldorfer Landstraße 18047249 DuisburgGermany

Telephone +49 (0) 203 77 89 0Info-Service: +49 (0) 203 77 89 111Fax: +49 (0) 203 77 89 118

[email protected]://en.kindernothilfe.org

Editors: Antje Weber (Kindernothilfe; responsible according to the German Press Law), Laure Abado (Plan International), Violet Odala (Save the Children)

Final Editing: January 2015

Design: Eckard Kleßmann

Conference Rapporteur: Abigeya Getachew, Adiam Zemenfes Tsighe

With consultative status at the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)

Photo credits: Front Page: Christian Herrmanny, Conference Photos: Photo Unique Ethiopia, Back Side: Jakob Studnar

Donation Seal of QualityKindernothilfe handles donations in a trust-worthy manner. Every year since 1992 this has been officially confirmed by the Seal of Quality for charitable organisations awarded by the German Central Institute for Social issues (DZI). This certifies its financial responsibility and statutory use of donations.

In the context of the transparency prize 2012 Kindernothilfe was awarded for the excellency of its reporting.

OP3 Konferenzbericht Englisch

Documents

Transcript of OP3 Konferenzbericht Englisch