SOU, Alm.del - 2012-13 - Bilag 62: Referat af rapporten "Championing Children’s Rights: A global study of independent human rights institutions for children", fra UNICEF

THE UNICEF OFFICE OF RESEARCHIn 1988 the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) established a research centre to support itsadvocacy for children worldwide and to identify and research current and future areas of UNICEF’swork. The prime objectives of the Of ce of Research, until 2011 known as the Innocenti Research Centre,are to improve international understanding of issues relating to children’s rights and to help facilitatefull implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in developing, middle-income andindustrialized countries.The Of ce aims to set out a comprehensive framework for research and knowledge within theorganization in support of its global programmes and policies. Through strengthening researchpartnerships with leading academic institutions and development networks in both the North and South,the Of ce seeks to leverage additional resources and in uence in support of efforts towards policyreform in favour of children.Publications produced by the Of ce are contributions to a global debate on children and child rightsissues and include a wide range of opinions. For that reason, some publications may not necessarilyre ect UNICEF policies or approaches on some topics. The views expressed are those of the authorsand/or editors and are published in order to stimulate further dialogue on child rights.The Of ce collaborates with its host institution in Florence, the Istituto degli Innocenti, in selected areasof work. Core funding is provided by the Government of Italy, while nancial support for speci c projectsis also provided by other governments, international institutions and private sources, including UNICEFNational Committees.Extracts from this publication may be freely reproduced with due acknowledgement.Requests to translate the publication in its entirety should be addressed to:Communications Unit, [email protected].For further information and to download or order this and other publications, please visit the websiteat www.unicef-irc.org.Design and layout: BlissDesign.comCover photo: � UNICEF/INDA2010-00730/Pirozzi; Globe, Thinkstock� United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)October 2012ISBN: 978-88-6522-010-8Correspondence should be addressed to:UNICEF Of ce of Research - InnocentiPiazza SS. Annunziata, 1250122 Florence, ItalyTel: (+39) 055 20 330Fax: (+39) 055 2033 220[email protected]www.unicef-irc.org

AcknowledgementsThis executive summary presents the findings of acomprehensive study, which is the outcome of severalyears’ research, collaboration and consultation involvingmany partners.Vanessa Sedletzki, Child Rights Specialist at theUNICEF Office of Research, is the main author and leadresearcher for the study. Andrew Mawson, Chief of theChild Protection and Implementation of InternationalStandards Unit, supervised the study in its final twoyears, reviewing this text and overseeing its finalizationunder the guidance of Göran Holmqvist, AssociateDirector Strategic Research, and Gordon Alexander,Director of the Office of Research. Thanks go toAnastasia Warpinski, editor.The study was initiated by and has benefited fromthe guidance and expertise of Trond Waage, formerOmbudsman for Children in Norway and a formerSenior Fellow at the Innocenti Research Centre (IRC).The study began under the supervision of Susan Bissell,then Chief of the Implementation of InternationalStandards Unit, under the direction of Marta SantosPais, at the time Director of the IRC. Rébecca Stewardand Katherine Wepplo contributed research andanalysis; Claudia Julieta Duque carried out backgroundresearch on Latin America and the Caribbean; andNoortje van Heijst provided research assistance.Administrative support was provided by ClaireAkehurst and previously Sarah Simonsen.We extend warm thanks to Shirin Aumeeruddy-Cziffra, Jean-Nicolas Beuze, Marvin Bernstein,Richard Carver and Peter Newell, who reviewedthe complete draft of the technical report. Weare also grateful to the numerous individuals,ombudsperson network members and organizationsthat have supported the research process at variousstages by attending consultations and/or reviewingsections of earlier drafts: GeorgeAbuAl-Zulof,BegoñaArellano, PolinaAtanasova, Julien Attuil-Kayser,AudronéBedorf, Akila Belembago, Karuna Bishnoi,Xavier Bonal, SabrinaCajoly, Eva MariaCayanan,Clara Chapdelaine, Laurent Chapuis, MaryClarke,Janet A. Cupidon-Quallo, Anna Dekker, BrigetteDeLay,Jaap Doek, European Network of Ombudspersonsfor Children, HuguesFeltesse, ElizabethFraser,EmilioGarciaMendez, BrianGran, KarlHanson, KarinHeissler, CharlotteHelletzgruber, MariaCristinaHurtado,Inter-American Children’s Institute of the Organization ofAmerican States, Jyothi Kanics, Lena Karlsson, JaneKim,CindyKiro, Maarit Kuikka, Jean-Claude Legrand,Fran§oisLevert, Heidi Loening-Voysey, EmilyLogan,JeanneMilstein, GeorgiosMoschos, John Mould,Aida Oliver, DavidParker, DominiquePierre Plateau,RonPouwels, Paul Quarles vanUfford, BernardRichard,RobertaRuggiero, LioubovSamokhina, JohannaSchiratzki,Helen Seifu, ShanthaSinha, DianeSwales, TselisoThipanyane, JorgeValencia Corominas, Lora Vidovic,Christian Whalen, CorneliusWilliams and Lisa Wolff.The UNICEF Office of Research is very grateful to theGovernments of Norway and Sweden, whose supportas the main funders of the research made this initiativepossible. It also gratefully acknowledges additionalfinancial support provided by the Governments ofFrance, Italy and Switzerland.

ForewordOver the last two decades, progress in the developmentof independent human rights institutions for childrenhas been remarkable. In 1989, there were far fewerthan the more than 200 independent institutionsthat exist today in over 70 countries. Taking manyforms – children’s ombudspersons, human rightscommissions or children’s commissioners – they sharethe unique role of facilitating governance processesfor children, and have emerged as important actors forthe implementation of the Convention on the Rights ofthe Child. Their work remains little known, however,and their specification as both public and independentinstitutions is often difficult to grasp.Independent institutions bring an explicit children’sfocus to traditionally adult-oriented governancesystems. Often offering direct mechanisms for greateraccountability of the state and other duty bearers forchildren, they fi ll gaps in checks and balances and makesure that the impact of policy and practice on children’srights is understood and recognized. They supportremedy and reform when things have gone wrong orresults are inadequate. Far from taking responsibilityaway from the plethora of often better-knowninstitutions affecting children – schools, health services,government departments, local authorities, privatesector actors and parents themselves – the work ofindependent institutions complements and strengthenstheir performance to realize the rights of all children.Amidst the current global economic uncertainty,inequities between rich and poor are widening in somecountries. It is a period, too, of reflection on progresstowards achieving the Millennium DevelopmentGoals and in defining sustainable and equitable goalsto follow them. During such times, independentinstitutions are key players in promoting systems thatadvance and are responsive to the rights of children; theCommittee on the Rights of the Child has been theirmost unwavering supporter.Yet the role and position of independent institutionsare contested. Their recommendations are toooften left unattended by the very governments andparliaments responsible for their creation. In thecontext of significant economic constraint, thesetypically small offices are the targets of budgetarycuts. They need to constantly demonstrate theirrelevance in an area where the direct attribution ofresults is difficult. Challenges can also be internal; theeffectiveness of these institutions depends on theirability to reach out to the most marginalized childrenand provide an adequate remedy for rights’ violations.Leadership and capacity are core aspects of theirability to fulfi l their mission.This study, globally the fi rst comprehensive reviewof independent human rights institutions forchildren, takes stock of more than 20 years of theirexperience. It represents the fi rst phase of a body ofwork that will also explore, among other topics, goodgovernance, decision-making and coordination for theimplementation of children’s rights.An associated technical report provides practitionerswith a more extensive discussion of the issuessummarized in the pages that follow as well as aseries of regional analyses from around the world. Ouraim is to help readers understand the purpose andpotential of independent human rights institutionsfor children, what it is they do and how they operate.Both reports invite policymakers and practitionersto consider how the role of such institutions can bestrengthened and enhanced.What is at stake here is the place of children, andespecially the most marginalized and excluded, in oursocieties. In a political system made for adults, whatmakes an institution fit for children? Independentinstitutions are a window not only on the characterof childhood in a given country, but also on the wayadults and the policies they create really view andrespect childhood.

Championing Children’s Rights: A global study ofindependent human rights institutions for children1. IntroductionSince the 1990s, independent human rights institutionsfor children1have emerged globally as influential bodiespromoting children in public decision-making anddiscourse. More than 200 such public institutions havebeen established to independently monitor, promote andprotect children’s rights, and are now at work in over 70countries located on all continents around the world. Inthe vast majority of cases their creation has followed stateratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child(CRC), which is core to their operation.These institutions take a variety of forms and go bymany different names: in English, ombudsperson, childcommissioner, child advocate, child rights or humanrights commission; in French,défenseurormédiateur;in Spanish,defensoríaorprocuraduría;and in otherlanguages, alternative designations. Their role is tomonitor the actions of governments and other entities,advance the realization of children’s rights, receivecomplaints, provide remedies for violations, and offer aspace for dialogue about children in society and betweenchildren and the state. Defending the best interestsof the child and acting as champions for children arecentral to their mission. Their achievements span manylevels, ranging from influencing significant change innational policy to delivering interventions on behalf ofindividual children.The United Nations Committee on the Rights of theChild is one of their main advocates. But why haveit and so many states decided that such institutionsare needed? In most countries, there already existsa plethora of better-known institutions that deal insome respect with children’s rights, and many have along heritage. Implementation of the CRC is a nationalresponsibility requiring all the organs of the State to playtheir part. Legal action through the courts is a principalremedy for addressing violations of children’s rights.Parliaments are responsible for enacting legislation toenshrine child rights, and specialized parliamentarycommittees often play an essential role in overseeingthe implementation of policy and legislation. Lineministries or ministries for children have key practicalresponsibilities for developing and implementinggovernment policy that realizes children’s rights.Coordination mechanisms exist in principle to ensurethat all areas of government recognize the obligationsinherent in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.1The terminology commonly used by the Committee on the Rights of theChild has been retained for this study. The Committee on the Rightsof the Child General Comments 2, 5 and 12 refer to “independentnational human rights institutions” but the denomination has since beenmodified slightly, most likely to take into account the fact that many suchinstitutions are also established at subnational level.

Children’s observatories monitor children’s rights inorder to provide evidence to influence policy. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and otherelements of civil society, including the media, often playan important monitoring and advocacy role.Independent human rights institutions for children do notremove responsibility from these actors but work alongsidethem to strengthen their performance. Their key role isto facilitate governance processes involving others. Theyare the ‘oil in the machine’, bringing an explicit children’sfocus to traditional adult-oriented systems, filling gaps inchecks and balances as direct accountability mechanisms,making sure that the impact of policy and practice onchildren’s rights is understood and recognized, andsupporting processes of remedy and reform when thingshave gone wrong or procedures or policies are inadequate.They bring flexibility to political and institutional systemsthat can otherwise be rigid and inaccessible to thepublic, especially to children or those working on issuesconcerning them.While the precise mandate of independent humanrights institutions for children differs from placeto place, their ability to effect change results fromtheir combination of independence and ‘soft power’:the capacity to report, to convene, to mediate andto influence lawmakers, government bodies, publicinstitutions and public opinion. Indeed, it is the abilityto influence those with direct responsibility for policyand practice that distinguishes an effective institution.Yet the challenges faced by such institutions are many.Translating the vision of the child embodied in theConvention on the Rights of the Child into social andpolitical reality is never straightforward. Neither isnavigating national governance systems and the sociallysensitive issues – including normative attitudes tochildhood – that can lie at the heart of children’s rights.It is not uncommon for child rights to remain low on theagenda, whether because of a limited understanding ofthe practical implications, competing budgetary priorities,political or institutional inertia, or social resistance basedon anxiety that principles are irrelevant or inappropriate.Independent institutions often contribute to the creationof a concrete child rights framework, with national orlocal discussions around their establishment involvingdebate about child rights concepts and what they meanin practice. Once formed, the institutions demonstraterights in action, by advancing the rights of childrenthrough their interventions. The social, political andeconomic context to which they belong and contributeis a constantly shifting landscape, however, andcompeting interests continually affect institutions’ability to effectively carry out their mandate. While they

may remain independent of government and impartialin principle, numerous forces can, for good or for ill,impact on their actual independence, institutionalcapacity, funding, reputation, profi le and authority –even their existence.The Committee on the Rights of the Child – theinternational body in charge of monitoring and guidingStates Parties in the implementation of the Conventionon the Rights of the Child – considers that anindependent institution with responsibility forpromoting and protecting children’s rights2is a coreelement of a State Party’s commitment to the practicalapplication of the Convention. The Committee’s GeneralComment No. 2, adopted in 2002, provides guidance onthe role and characteristics of these institutions. Itbuilds on the Paris Principles – adopted by the UNGeneral Assembly in 19933as the primary set ofinternational standards for the mandate, function,composition, operations and competencies of nationalhuman rights institutions – and adapts these to thechild rights framework enshrined in the Convention.42Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment No. 2: The role ofindependent human rights institutions in the promotion and protection ofthe rights of the child, CRC/GC/2002/2, 15 November 2002, pp. 1–2.Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (the ParisPrinciples), adopted by General Assembly Resolution 48/134 of 20December 1993.Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment No. 2: The role ofindependent human rights institutions in the promotion and protection ofthe rights of the child, CRC/GC/2002/2, 15 November 2002, pp. 1–2.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child hassubsequently systematically recommended inconcluding observations to state party reports thecreation and strengthening of independent institutionsfor children’s rights. It has gone on to act as a primarydriving force for the development of such institutionsacross regions.This report, which summarizes a longer studyentitledChampioning Children’s Rights,published bythe UNICEF Office of Research, takes stock of thedevelopment of independent human rights institutionsfor children globally and identifies the specific roles theyperform. It also pinpoints core elements, characteristicsand features that contribute to their institutional successor otherwise.The origins of the research initiative lie in a long-standing interest in the progress of these institutions,manifest in previous publications produced by UNICEFIRC (now Office of Research).5Since 2001, the Centrehas received many enquiries about independentinstitutions from practitioners seeking advice andguidance, including policymakers, NGOs, donors,international organizations and ombudspersons5Flekkøy, M. G.,A Voice for Children: Speaking out as their Ombudsman,Jessica Kinsley Publishers, London, 1991; United Nations Children’sFund, ‘Ombudswork for Children’,Innocenti Digest 1,UNICEF InnocentiResearch Centre, Florence, 1997; United Nations Children’s Fund,‘Independent Human Rights Institutions Protecting Children’s Rights’,Innocenti Digest 8,UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2001.

HistoryThe path to the creation of each institution is unique – each context differs socially, politically,economically and institutionally. Some bodies have originated in response to tragic failures toprotect children from abuse. Others have emerged as part of wider governance reform during timesof political transition or following social upheaval.While a handful of countries had a children’s ombudsperson before the adoption in 1989 of theConvention on the Rights of the Child – the first being Norway in 1981, followed by Costa Rica in1986 and the region of Veneto (Italy) in 1988 – the creation of independent human rights institutionsfor children has accelerated since its adoption.Early front-runners were countries in Europe and Latin America.In Europe, the Norwegian example was an influential model, with other institutions – usuallyspecialized ombudspersons – first set up in countries with democratic governance and strongindividual human rights traditions. Northern and western Europe led the way, with furtherinstitutions soon emerging in southern and eastern Europe, often in the context of democratictransition and usually integrated into general human rights bodies. In the same period,democratization in Latin America and the recognition of children as subjects of rights in law andpolicy paved the way for the creation of children’s offices within public defender’s institutions.Around the mid-2000s, countries in Africa (mainly in eastern and southern parts of the continent)and in Asia (chiefly in south and east Asia) began to set up independent human rights institutionsfor children as part of efforts to comply with international standards. Typically these wereestablished within existing human rights commissions and ombudsman offices; only India andMauritius have specialized structures.Common law countries, from North America and Jamaica to the United Kingdom, Australiaand New Zealand, have usually established specialized children’s advocates or commissionerswith a strong child protection mandate. This is often focused – at least initially – on protectingmarginalized children from violence and abuse.In federal states such as Australia, Austria, Canada,India, and also in Italy, the model was often established early on in a few states or provinces and thenprogressively adopted by most federated entities or regions.

themselves. The aim is to respond to some of thequestions often asked by providing a palette oflessons and experiences for use when establishing,strengthening and working with such institutions.Neither this executive summary nor the technical reportpurports to be a manual, however, but are invitations toreflection and dialogue informed by evidence.Both the summary and technical report are based oninformation from a review of different kinds of bodiesacross regions. This involved direct interaction viadialogue and a survey answered by 67 institutions, andthe review of academic literature, legislation, institutionreports, and reports and studies from relevantinternational bodies and NGOs. A limitation of thereview is that institutions with the most documentationavailable are likely to be those featured most often.The fact that a particular piece of work is given asan example does not necessarily reflect an overall

The Paris Principles and CRC General Comment No. 2Although fundamentally rooted in the Paris Principles (formally known as the Principles relatingto the Status of National Institutions), CRC General Comment No. 2 introduces significant newelements that reflect the child rights perspective. Important concepts include the best interests ofthe child and the significance of child participation. For example, children are citizens who do not– because of their age – have easy avenues for making their views known about issues that affectthem (children do not, for example, have the right to vote). Actively establishing ways of seeking andexpressing the views of children is therefore a fundamental responsibility.The Paris PrinciplesLegal and political statusAdopted by UN GeneralAssembly (all UNMember States)Non-binding but strongpolitical endorsementGeneral Comment No. 2Adopted by the Committee on the Rights ofthe Child (committee of independent expertsmonitoring States Parties’ compliance with theConvention on the Rights of the Child)Non-binding but significant practicalguidance valueConvention on the Rights of the Child must beincluded in mandate

and implementation of all other rights, namely non-discrimination; the best interests of the child; the right tolife, survival and development; and the right to expressviews with due regard to age and maturity.An important aspect of the Convention is that itdoes not consider the child as an isolated individual.Instead, it situates the child as a member of a familyand community, recognizing his or her need for supportto develop and thrive. Action to realize the rights ofchildren can thus be envisaged as taking place withinand through a triangular set of relations involving thestate, parents (and/or guardians) and child.6Independent human rights institutions for children areone of the general measures of implementation of theConvention identified by the Committee on the Rightsof the Child.7As such they complement other measures,including law reform, resource allocation, governmentalbodies and strategies, data monitoring systems,awareness-raising and the role of civil society.The distinctive significance of independent institutions liesboth in the activities they undertake and the approach theypromote. Where other actors may tackle specific issues(e.g., justice for children, education, health or women’sissues) from a particular governmental or non-governmentalvantage point, independent institutions foster child-centredstrategies that reflect the multiple dimensions of childhood,the indivisibility of the many rights children enjoy, and thefactors that directly or indirectly affect a child’s life and thefulfilment of those rights. A holistic analysis of child rightsissues lays the foundations for institutions’ policyrecommendations. Their public yet independent natureplaces them midway between government and civil society,enabling them to create a space for dialogue between thetwo.8They seek to bring together different parts of thepolitical and institutional system and society in the bestinterests of the child. They are bridge-builders – a role that isneither easy nor highly visible.

The institutions scrutinize policy decisions not onlyfollowing their implementation but also duringdiscussions prior to their adoption. It is common forchildren’s ombudspersons to be involved in draftinglegislation through the submission of advice toparliament, participation in drafting meetings andthe taking of public positions. Illustrative examples ofactivities include the systematic review of child-relatedlegislation by the Ombudsperson for Children inMauritius and the National Commission for Protectionof Child Rights in India. In 2009, the Australian stateand territory children’s commissioners made variousrecommendations in the context of federal tax systemreform for evidence on the impact on child developmentof various policies and practices to be taken intoaccount. The Australian Government took up someof their proposals, including in relation to tax benefitsfor families, parental leave and the cost of adolescents’schooling.9The National Human Rights Commissionof Indonesia recommended changes to citizenshiplegislation for children with non-national fathers, whichwere reflected in the nationality law adopted in 2006.10Taking a systematic approach, Scotland’s Commissionerfor Children and Young People (United Kingdom)has developed a methodology for carrying out childrights impact assessments of proposed policy. Severalindependent institutions and related organizationsin other parts of the world have since adopted thisframework for their own purposes.Many institutions carry out enquiries and producereports based on hearings and investigations. Thesehave often proven influential in identifying wrongdoingor weaknesses in practice and in effecting institutionalreform. In early 2012, for example, the Children’sCommissioner for England (United Kingdom) shedlight on the treatment of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children arriving in the United Kingdom fromFrance and their potential rapid return without dueconsideration of their best interests. As a result, theborder authorities undertook to stop the practice.11Numerous institutions conduct research to examine theroot causes of children’s problems. An example is ananalysis carried out in 2006 by the Defensoría del Puebloin Colombia of risk factors leading to vulnerability tochild soldier recruitment. This subsequently informed

2.1 Making children and their bestinterests visible in policymakingAs virtually all policy decisions affect children, ensuringthat the best interests of the child principle is brought tothe attention of policymakers is a critical role of humanrights institutions and one that they have extensivelyassumed. Analysis of law, policy and practice – whetherexisting or proposed – from the perspective of theConvention on the Rights of the Child is a core activityof many such institutions.6Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 5 and 18.SeeDoek, J. E.,‘Independent Human Rights Institutions for Children’,Innocenti WorkingPaperNo. 2008-06, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2008.Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment No. 5: Generalmeasures of implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,CRC/GC/2003/5, 27 November 2003.Smith, A., ‘The Unique Position of National Human Rights Institutions: AMixed Blessing?’,Human Rights Quarterly,28(4), 2006, pp. 908–911.

recommendations for effective programming to supportthe reintegration of demobilized child combatants.12Even the best resourced institutions can find it achallenge to influence law and policy developmenteffectively. Providing quality advice on the breadth oftopics that affect children requires highly specializedskills and corresponding resources, which institutionswith limited staff may not be able to access easily.Institutions often have to rely on policymakers toinform them of a policy initiative early enough so theymay have the opportunity to influence its outcome.Policymakers may not even consider recommendations,let alone follow them. The success of advocacy activitiesshould therefore also be measured against theircollateral impact, for example, defining the best interestsprinciple in debate, fostering coalitions around specificthemes and building capacities.

to one third of the countries reviewed, independentinstitutions are specifically mandated to monitorchild care institutions; many more make regularvisits to children in alternative care in order to assesschild well-being, respect for children’s rights andthe quality of services provided. For example, Peru’sDeputy Ombudsman for Children and Adolescentsvisits state residential centres for children and assessestheir functioning and the level of respect they affordchildren’s rights. The Deputy Ombudsman’s startingpoint is to consult children on their perceptions andexperiences, in order to guide further investigation.15Visiting detention centres and reviewing the conditionsof detention of children represents a major competencyfor these institutions. It is a function performed by theoverwhelming majority of institutions across regions– including human rights institutions that do not havea dedicated child rights department – as part of theirdetention centre monitoring activities. Independentinstitutions regularly advocate the separation ofjuveniles from adults and make recommendationsfor the improvement of juvenile detainees’ livingconditions. The Human Rights Commission ofMalaysia, for example, monitors the conditions ofdetention of juveniles as part of its review of detentionfacilities, which includes immigrant detention centres.16

2.2 Promoting environments thatnurture child rightsIndependent human rights institutions for children seek topromote environments conducive to children’s enjoymentof their rights. They are also concerned with the socialchanges needed to ensure the realization of child rights.As befits the centrality of families to child well-being,it is common for independent institutions to supportadvocacy on state obligations to provide families withnecessary assistance13and to advocate policies thatsupport families’ capacity to care for their children,including to prevent institutionalization. Examplesinclude advocating policies that assist poor families inAzerbaijan, and calling for legislation to recognize therole of grandparents in Mauritius and step-parents inFrance in response to changing social contexts.Independent human rights institutions for childrenoften address dimensions of education, includingaccessibility, quality of education and the school as asafe, healthy and protective environment that respectschildren’s rights and dignity. Many institutions carryout regular visits to schools and organize training andworkshops; they produce and disseminate child-friendlymaterial for schoolchildren and guidance tools to helpteachers address human rights.The situation of children in alternative care requiresspecific monitoring.14Independent institutions havea unique capacity to advocate on behalf of individualchildren as well as for children as a group. In close12 Defensoría del Pueblo Colombia and UNICEF,Caracterización de las niñas,niños y adolescentes desvinculados de los grupos armados ilegales: inserciónsocial y productiva desde un enfoque de derechos humanos,Defensoría delPueblo and UNICEF, 2006.13 Doek, J. E., ‘Independent Human Rights Institutions for Children’,Innocenti Working PaperNo. 2008-06, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre,Florence, 2008.14 Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children, adopted by GeneralAssembly Resolution 64/142 of 24 February 2010, para. 130.

2.3 Promoting equitable approaches forthe most marginalized childrenIndependent human rights institutions for children playan important role in advocating policies that aim tocorrect the disadvantages experienced by some childrenand address exclusion.The majority of institutions reviewed address thesituation of the most excluded groups of children,although they are explicitly mandated to do so inonly one third of the countries studied. A number ofindependent institutions take a proactive approach(e.g., by disseminating specific material and visitingareas, places and institutions where vulnerable childrenare) to ensure their accessibility to these groups; onefinding of this study, however, is that this work could bestrengthened in many countries.In relation to children belonging to minority groupsor indigenous peoples, our review found that issuessurrounding education and language are commonlyaddressed. These can be particularly important becauseof the role of education and language in transmitting

culture.17For example, in 2010, the Canadian Councilof Child and Youth Advocates called for a nationalplan to improve the well-being and living conditions ofCanada’s Aboriginal children and youth. In particular,it recommended a coordinated strategy to narrowthe significant gaps in health, education and safetyoutcomes apparent between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children.18Several independent institutions have developedspecific strategies to reach children with disabilities andensure their accessibility to them. These institutionsadvocate accessibility to all services and inclusion insociety for children with disabilities. For example, sincethe intervention in 2009 of the Persons with DisabilitiesUnit of the Afghanistan Independent Human RightsCommission, most schools and other public buildingsbuilt in the country are equipped with ramps.19A few countries have specialized national human rightsinstitutions to address specific issues or protect certaingroups, e.g., the Equality Ombudsman in Sweden,the Ombudsman for Minorities in Finland and theNational Commission for Women in India. Effectivecollaboration between children’s rights offices and theseand other thematic offices (e.g., offices dealing withwomen, people with disabilities, migrants or indigenouspeoples) is crucial in promoting a holistic approach tochildren’s rights and in helping children in these groupsto realize their rights.Overall, however, the review of independent humanrights institution activities and reports suggests thatcollaboration across thematic programmes – whetherwithin a broad-based institution or among specializedoffices – remains limited. In the case of integratedinstitutions, paying attention to internal coordinationamong various departments is important.Many of the challenges of promoting equitableapproaches lie in the marginalization of the issuesconcerned in the wider social and political context.Bringing about change for excluded children requiressignificant efforts to increase the visibility of the issuesthat affect them and for these to be deemed worthy ofpolitical attention.Other challenges concern the nature of the individualinstitution itself. An institution’s ability to promotethe rights of the most excluded children oftenrequires specific consideration of its internal profi leand workings. For example, some institutions have17 Sedletzki, V., ‘Fulfi lling the Right to Education for Minority andIndigenous Children: Where are we in international legal standards?’,State of the World’s Minorities and Indigenous Peoples, Minority RightsGroup International/UNICEF, July 2009, p. 43.18 Canadian Council of Provincial Child and Youth Advocates, ‘AboriginalChildren and Youth in Canada: Canada must do better’, position paper, 23June 2010.19 Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, Annual Report,January 1–December 31 2009, AIHRC, 2010, p. 31.

2.4 Promoting child participationin societyIndependent human rights institutions for children arein a unique position to promote child participation inthe community and broader society. They can contributeto challenging and dismantling the legal, political,economic, social and cultural barriers that impedechildren’s opportunity to be heard and to participate inall matters affecting them.21Institutions have becomea source of expertise and support to governments andother stakeholders in creating opportunities for childparticipation; several have issued guides and handbookson the subject.22Institutions promote children’s right to be heardthroughout their many activities: monitoring,research, advocacy, handling complaints, carryingout investigations and advising. They have supportedprocesses, for example, aimed at involving childrenin school life and promoting children’s political voice.In 2010, the Northern Ireland Commissioner forChildren and Young People (United Kingdom) set upDemocra-School, a programme aimed at promotingdemocracy and youth participation in schools. TheCommissioner issued a guidance pack on the inclusionof pupils in school councils and various tools includingelection guidelines and sample ballot papers, formsand reports.23The initiative is endorsed by the mainteaching unions and led to a commitment from theDepartment of Education to set up children’s councils inall schools in Northern Ireland.In Europe, institutions in Austria, Flanders (Belgium)and Norway have advocated lowering the voting age(usually set at 18 years old) to give voting rights tochildren. This has delivered successful results in Styria(Austria), where the voting age has been lowered to16years, and in Norway, where several municipalitiesare testing a lower voting age.

20SeeHon. T. Hughes, ‘Final Progress Report on the Implementation of theRecommendations of the BC Children and Youth Review’, Representativefor Children and Youth, 2010, pp. 38–39, which recognizes the presenceof Aboriginal staff, including at senior level, within the office and theimportance of a specific mention in staffi ng advertisements in order toencourage Aboriginal candidates to apply.21 Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment No. 12: The rightof the child to be heard, CRC/C/GC/12, 20 July 2009, para. 135.22 For example, in Australia (New South Wales, South Australia and WesternAustralia).23 Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, AnnualReport and Accounts, for the year ended 31 March 2011, NICCY, 15December 2011, p. 16.

with particular features and advertising that targetedadolescents. The Ombudsperson mobilized relevantministries on the issue, leading the company to changeits strategy, put in place measures to prevent youngpeople under 18 years old from accessing the service,and introduce a special warning about the riskstousers.29In 2011, the National Commission for Protection ofChild Rights in India fi led a report with the policeagainst the owner of a mine in which nine childrenwere employed.30Involvement in judicial proceedingsis a major function of the Jamaican Office of theChildren’s Advocate; it has followed numerous cases,either by reporting on the case, monitoring proceedingsor representing a child. In 2007, for example, the Officeinvestigated and reported to the police a case of violenceagainst a child by his uncle, following which the unclewas arrested and prosecuted, while at the same timeobserving proceedings on behalf of the child.31Addressing specific situations is important forindependent institutions as it enables them to havedirect contact with children’s experiences; resolvinga problem also allows them to demonstrate concreteresults. There is the dilemma, however, that institutionsthat gain public recognition of their effectiveness can intime become overwhelmed with individual complaints,reducing their capacity to work on broader policy andsystemic issues.

2.5 Addressing individual orspecific situationsMost independent human rights institutions forchildren have the ability to address specific situationsin which child rights are at stake. The complaintmechanism is the route by which to remedy individualand collective child rights violations. Access to aneffective remedy for rights violations is integral to therealization of all human rights and is implicit in theConvention on the Rights of the Child. States Partiesare obliged to provide effective and child-sensitivemeans for children to have their complaints heardbefore competent bodies.26Additional internationalstandards relating to two groups of children identifiedas particularly vulnerable to rights violations –those in contact with the justice system and thosein alternative care – also require child-sensitivecomplaintmechanisms.27Examples of action based on complaints are many;what follows are just some examples. In Peru, theDefensoría del Pueblo intervened when the relevantauthorities failed to act upon reports of the sexual abuseof children by a teacher. The teacher was subsequentlyprosecuted together with those who had obstructedthe judicial process, and the education authoritiesinitiated administrative proceedings against him.28InMauritius, the Ombudsperson for Children receivednumerous complaints from parents concerned about amobile phone company’s new text messaging system26 Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment No. 5: Generalmeasures of implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,CRC/GC/2003/5, 27 November 2003, para. 24.27 United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency(The Riyadh Guidelines), adopted and proclaimed by General AssemblyResolution 45/112 of 14 December 1990; Committee on the Rights of theChild General Comment No. 10: Children’s rights in juvenile justice,CRC/C/GC/10, 9 February 2007, para. 89; Guidelines for the AlternativeCare of Children, adopted by General Assembly Resolution 64/142 of 24February 2010, para. 130.28 Defensoria del Pueblo de Peru, Annual Report 2009, pp. 167-168.

The role of parliamentsParliaments have a special role in relation to independent human rights institutions for children, whichwork with many public bodies that have a responsibility to advance children’s rights. Parliaments adoptthe law establishing the institution and its mandate and competencies – as well as any subsequentmodifications. In many instances, they have a say in the selection and appointment of the individualombudsperson or commissioner. Parliaments also oversee the performance of institutions.The majority of institutions reviewed submit an annual report on their activities to parliament; theyalso provide an analysis of the state of childhood in the country and outline gaps to be addressed. Theannual report and any additional publications are important sources of knowledge and information forparliamentarians and others. The study also found that ombudspersons for children often informallyinteract with and lobby key parliamentarians to press for legislative and other measures to advancethe realization of children’s rights.

Independent human rights institutions for childrenandnon-governmental organizationsThe work of NGOs complements and supports that of independent human rights institutions forchildren in numerous ways. In addition to being involved in establishing institutions32in line withthe Paris Principles, representatives of NGOs in many places are also members of human rightscommissions and therefore have the ability to influence an institution’s priorities.33Human rights NGOs are a source of knowledge and expertise, and independent institutions oftenuse the research that NGOs undertake. NGOs can also raise public awareness of the existence of anindependent mechanism for children’s rights and can work to redress violations. In some places,like Indonesia,34Jordan and Mexico, individual complaints received by independent human rightsinstitutions for children are channelled through NGOs, which have a more extensive field presence.Independent human rights institutions for children also have the potential to support NGOs.Because they have direct access to decision makers, the independent institutions can reiterate NGOrecommendations, enhancing their influence. Independent institutions can help to foster coalitionsthat can benefit NGOs working towards children’s rights. The Ombudsman for Children in Greece,for example, set up an NGO network for monitoring the implementation of the Convention on theRights of the Child and facilitating cooperation between civil society and the State.35Developing good relationships with children’s rights organizations can help institutions toprotect their independence and enhance their effectiveness. Connections can help an independentinstitution to deepen public legitimacy, reflect public concerns and priorities, receive feedback onits own work and tap into valuable information, expertise and networks.36Direct collaboration withchildren’s organizations enriches the work of independent institutions by supporting access to adiversity of children’s perceptions, opinions and experiences.

32 For example, in Sweden, NGOs established an ombudsman mechanism that paved the way for the creation of a public independent humanrights institution for children.33 Vuˇckovi´ -Šahovi´ , N., ‘The Role of Civil Society in Implementing the General Measures of the Convention on the Rights of the Child’,ccInnocenti Working PaperNo. 2010–18, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2010, p. 39.34 International Council on Human Rights Policy, ‘Performance & Legitimacy: National human rights institutions’, ICHRP, Versoix, 2004, p. 99.35 Ombudsman for Children – Greece, Ombudsman for Children Annual Report 2009, p. 54.36 International Council on Human Rights Policy, ‘Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions’, ICHRP, Versoix, 2005,p.15; Reif, Linda C., ’Building Democratic Institutions: The Role of National Human Rights Institutions in Good Governance and HumanRights Protection’,Harvard Human Rights Journal,vol. 13, 2000, p. 26.

Practical question:Whatstructure should anindependent institution take?The question of what an independent human rights institution forchildren should look like arises again and again. Research suggeststhat institutional structure influences certain capacities, for example,the accessibility of an institution to children. Yet there is no singlemodel that fits all.Of all the countries with an independent human rights institution forchildren, approximately one third has a stand-alone institution, onethird has an institution integrated into a broad-based human rightsinstitution with a legislated child-specific mandate, and one third hasan institution with an integrated child rights office without a mandatebased in legislation.37What are the considerations in deciding upon a stand-aloneombudsperson for children or one that is integrated into a broaderhuman rights institution?1. Children as specific rights-holders.The distinctive feature of astand-alone institution is its specialization in children; a broad-basedhuman rights institution, in contrast, concerns itself with all humanrights. Many stand-alone institutions were created in recognitionthat the protection of children’s rights requires specific action. Thefirst ombudspersons for children in the world appeared in Europeas stand-alone institutions; one such was created in Norway, forexample, a country that has a legal tradition of recognizing children asrights-holders.382. Accessibility to and participation of children.Research showsthat accessibility to, and involvement of, children is specified almostexclusively in the mandates of stand-alone institutions. An overviewof institution activities aimed at promoting systematic, direct contactwith children shows that it is primarily stand-alone institutions thatperform these activities. Where an integrated office is very active inthis area, it often features a highly identifiable ombudsperson forchildren with significant autonomy in carrying out its mandate, asis the case in Greece. Across all institutions, however, adults submitthe overwhelming majority of complaints, suggesting that childrenthemselves are generally unaware of the institution and its role.3. Indivisibility of human rights and coordination issues.Themain argument for an integrated institution is that it is needed to buildon the interdependence and indivisibility of all human rights and tomainstream children’s rights across all areas. A single institution islikely to foster greater communication, which can enhance the cross-fertilization of ideas and sharing of good practices,39and to favour aunified approach to issues affecting all children’s rights.40This can alsomitigate potential jurisdiction issues, where a particular problem (e.g.,discrimination against a child with a disability or an indigenous girl)could fall under the scope of various specialized institutions.4137 A few countries, including Spain and Serbia, have institutions at the local levelwith a combination of these features.38 Flekkøy, M. G.,A Voice for Children: Speaking out as their Ombudsman,JessicaKinsley Publishers, London, 1991.39 Carver, R., ‘One NHRI or Many? How Many Institutions Does It Take to ProtectHuman Rights? Lessons from the European Experience’,Journal of Human RightsPractice,vol. 3, issue 1, 2011, p. 9. For an example,see alsoDefensoría de losHabitantes de Costa Rica, Annual Report 2010–2011, DHR, San José, 2012, p.122,concerning a case related to refugee status involving women’s and children’srights, and the corresponding departments within the Defensoría.40 Carver, R., Dvornik, S., and Redžepagi c, D., Rationalization of the Croatian´Human Rights Protection System – Report of Expert Team, February 2010, p.50.41 Carver, R., (2011) op. cit., p. 9.42 Ibid. p. 1.

Yet an integrated structure alone does not guarantee a highly unifiedapproach to human rights; there must also be willingness within theinstitution to undertake cross-disciplinary work.4. Status and ability to influence child rights policies.Astrongargument for an integrated institution is the visibility and authorityof a single body as the beacon of human rights promotion andprotection in a country. In fact, a number of broad-based human rightsinstitutions have mandates established by the constitution and benefitfrom the high status this incurs; in contrast, specialized child rightsinstitutions are virtually always established by law and almost neverfounded in the constitution.There are risks associated with placing all work around rightsprotection under a single umbrella, however. An institution thatis weak – due to a restrictive mandate, its limited capacities, aninadequate institutional head or its failure to inspire trust – canjeopardize the whole human rights protection system. Furthermore,the vision of child rights enshrined in the Convention on the Rightsof the Child encompasses the responsibility of actors beyond thestate: parents, civil society and, by implication, the private sector. Itis only relatively recently that action by private bodies has begun tobe considered a legitimate concern of the wider international humanrights framework, and its extent and nature remains debated. For thisreason, the mandates of some broad-based human rights institutionsdo not yet provide for work in relation to the behaviour of the privatesector, which can limit the scope of action on behalf of children’s rights.Another related and significant issue is the visibility of children’srights within a broad-based institution. When one voice (the broad-based institution) speaks for all rights, topics across a wide range ofissues must be prioritized. A legislative basis for work on child rights istherefore crucial in giving a long-term voice to children’s rights. Stand-alone independent human rights institutions for children have directaccess to parliament and the government to raise matters of concern –and influence policies – with respect to children’s rights.5. Cost.Cost-effectiveness is often a major determinant of institutionalstructure. A broad-based institution can pool a number of functions,e.g., logistics and infrastructure. Innovative proposals to uniteadministrative functions while retaining specialized mandates on asubstantive level have also emerged.Should existing institutions be merged?An increasing number of countries are considering reforming andmerging existing human rights institutions, an impulse that oftenarises from a desire to rationalize administration and cut costs oris articulated at a time when a new, specialized institution is underconsideration.42Political factors can also prompt discussion aroundinstitutional merger. Merging pre-existing institutions is complex, andthe potential benefits that stand to be gained (e.g., cost savings) mustbe balanced against the potential risks (e.g., compromising advancesmade to date, uncertain added value and loss of capacity or profile onchild rights).

3. What makes independenthuman rights institutions forchildren effective?The effectiveness of an independent human rightsinstitution for children is a function of both the workof the institution itself and the responsiveness andsupport it receives from wider society and the otherpublic institutions around it. The elements that combineto advance child rights agendas differ from society tosociety and issue to issue and, of course, change overtime. While they may be agents of change, effectiveindependent institutions for children also need tobe able to adapt to changing circumstances in orderto remain significant. Attributing success in policydevelopment or reform to a single institution can becomplex, especially when that institution’s role is largelyto facilitate governance processes involving others.Nevertheless, in analysing how independent institutionsoperate, the dilemmas they face and the positiveoutcomes they yield, this study has identified a numberof features that underpin their ability to advance therealization of children’s rights.

There is an inherent tension related to an institution’sindependence and its existence as a public body. Withinmost countries’ traditional institutional landscape –which includes government, parliament and a judiciary– independent human rights institutions for childrenare both part of the public arena and beyond it, as theyare set up to monitor these institutions yet also workwith them.Being perceived as independent helps an institutioncarry out its mandateThe perception of an institution’s independence,particularly on the part of children, excludedcommunities and other actors engaged in rights-related work, is crucial to its ability to carry out itsmandate. Perceptions of independence may influencethe willingness of injured parties to fi le complaints withthe ombudsperson; the ability of the ombudspersonto engage children and vulnerable communities in itswork; the trust of all political factions and actors; andthe strength of the relationships and opportunities forcollaboration with NGOs.Perceptions of independence are influenced by a numberof elements including pluralistic representation withinan institution (e.g., gender balance and presence of stafffrom various social, ethnic and cultural backgrounds);its legal basis and mandate; its physical location (havingits own premises separate from other institutions isimportant); and its impartiality, often related to a fair andtransparent appointment process of its leadership.Establishment and appointment processes impact onan institution’s experience of independenceEnjoying a legal and especially a constitutional statusconfers on an institution a certain rank and legitimacy.For adoption of legislation, a vote by parliament istypically required, and there is some form of democraticdebate. Such an establishment process is likely toresult in institutions that are more independent andsustainable in the long term than those created bydecree of the executive branch. This latter process maylimit broader political ownership, create the perceptionthat the institution is a creature of the governmentof the day and leave the institution at risk of beingdismantled when a new government comes to power.Virtually all independent children’s rights institutionsacross the globe are created by law. In nearly half ofthe countries with an independent institution whosemandate includes children’s rights, the institution isprescribed by the national constitution. In addition toproviding guarantees of sustainability, constitutionalstatus indicates that the institution is considered a pillarof the state system.The legislative mandate of many institutionsstipulates independence. Such an explicit mention

3.1 IndependenceIndependence is the defining feature of human rightsinstitutions for children. It is their main strengthand their source of legitimacy and authority. It is thequality that allows them to keep child rights front andcentre regardless of political trends.43The degree ofindependence is pivotal in determining the success orfailure of institutions.44At the same time, independence is also their mostfragile quality.An institution’s actual experience of independence isa function of its mandate, resources and management.It is influenced by politics and, to a lesser extent, thestrength of the media and civil society surroundingit. Political conditions are a potent factor, determiningwho is appointed to lead the institution, how strongits mandate, its level of resources and whethergovernment pays attention to its recommendations.A strong institution, in turn, is able to influence all ofthese factors.43 Preparatory meeting for the Second Global Meeting of IndependentHuman Rights Institutions for Children, UNICEF Innocenti ResearchCentre, Florence, 11–12 November 2002.44 International Council on Human Rights Policy, ‘Assessing theEffectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions’, ICHRP, Geneva,2005, p. 12. Also, John Ackerman argues that four determinants forwhether an independent agency ends up as an “authoritarian cover-up”or a “positive force for accountable governance” are public legitimacy,institutional strength, second-order accountability and bureaucraticstagnation;seeAckerman, J. M., ‘Understanding IndependentAccountability Agencies’ in Rose-Ackerman, S. and Lindseth, P. (eds.),Comparative Administrative Law,Edward Elgar, London, 2010.

of independence in the founding legislation is anadditional guarantee of actual independence, as itdetermines the nature and status of the body within thenational institutional system.As previously described, mandates can cover a widerange of activities and powers, and explicitly definingthese can be important in giving an institutionauthority and a clear identity. Examples of significantlimitations inserted into institutional mandates in lawand practice exist in all regions of the world, however.Some institutions, for example, require government orjudiciary approval, or may face a government veto, whenundertaking an investigation. This is the case for theHuman Rights Commission of Malaysia, which needsgovernment permission to conduct visits to detentioncentres.45A review of the Children’s Commissioner forEngland (United Kingdom) found that the institution’sobligation to consult the Secretary of State for Educationbefore holding an enquiry, and the latter’s power todirect an enquiry and to decide whether to amendfindings or keep them from the public, are factors thatsignificantly reduce its independence.46The leadership appointment process for ombudspersonsand commissioners for children is also crucial to theindependence of institutions. It sets the tone for thelevel of trust institutions enjoy and creates a layer ofaccountability. The personal qualities and authorityof the individual ombudsperson or commissioner arefundamental to the actual experience of independenceenjoyed by the institution he or she leads.Financial autonomy: A key to independencein practiceInstitutions need sufficient and sustainable financialresources to carry out their mandates. At the sametime, funding sources must respect the legitimacyand independence of an institution. Human rightsinstitutions with no say over their finances willbe dependent on whichever body exerts financialcontrol.47While financial dependence on the statemight compromise the independence of an institutionwhen funds are restricted or unduly controlled, statefunding provides legitimacy to an institution as a public,regulatory agency.The Committee on the Rights of the Child hasconsistently noted in its concluding observations to45 Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999, Act 597, 1999, Section 4(2).See alsoAsian NGOs Network on National Human Rights Institutions,2010 ANNI Report on the Performance and Establishment of NationalHuman Rights Institutions in Asia, ANNI, 2010, p. 18.46 Dunford, J., Review of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner(England), Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Educationby Command of Her Majesty, November 2010, p. 33. A reform process isunder way as of mid-2012.47 United Nations Centre for Human Rights,National Human RightsInstitutions: A Handbook on the Establishment and Strengthening of NationalInstitutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights,United NationsCentre for Human Rights, Geneva, 1995, para. 73.

state party reports that efforts to provide reasonableand secure funds to child-related institutions areinsufficient.48External funding is necessary in manyplaces – especially for child rights programmes –because of resource shortages. In these countries,private and foreign donors have become involvedin supporting the work on children’s rights withinnationalinstitutions.49Such support is a double-edged sword: it keeps aninstitution operational and potentially shields it fromthe political fallout that a solely state-determinedbudget can elicit, but it can also compromise theindependence and sustainability of the institution,particularly over the long term. Donor agendasmay affect an institution’s own long-term strategy,especially where funding strategies are subject tochange. Our study shows that this is a particularconcern for children’s departments within broaderhuman rights institutions, whose funding is oftenproject based and provided directly by donors50rather than drawn from the institution’s own budget.Donor strategies therefore need to be geared towardsguaranteeing both sustainability and nationalownership, by promoting diversification of fundingsources and contributions by the institution andthe state. This also helps to address the perceptionthat the institution is a creature of foreign interests.In Morocco, for example, funding for recruitmentto the Consultative Council for Human Rights of astaff member specializing in child rights came fromUNICEF during the fi rst year but was subsequentlyincorporated into the Council’s budget.51Accountability mechanisms can help topreserve independenceIndependent human rights institutions for childrenare one kind of accountability mechanism. Othertypes of accountability mechanisms provide ongoingfeedback on the strengths and weaknesses ofthe institution itself, which is crucial in fosteringits independence and helping it to becomestronger over time. Like any other public body, aninstitution must be held accountable for its ownactions and performance, in a way that preservesits independence.Clear accountability mechanisms can build publictrust and reinforce legitimacy in the eyes of the public48See,for example, Committee on the Rights of the Child ConcludingObservations on Colombia, CRC/C/OPAC/COL/CO/1, 21 June 2010, para.11; on Guatemala, CRC/C/GTM/CO/3-4, 25 October 2010, para. 23; onNicaragua, CRC/C/NIC/CO/4, 20 October 2010, para. 16; on Panama,CRC/C/PAN/CO/3-4, 21 December, 2011, para 15; on Bangladesh, CRC/C/BGD/CO/4, 26 June 2009; on Maldives, CRC/C/OPSC/MDV/CO/1, 4 March2009; on the Philippines, CRC/C/PHL/CO/3-4, 22 October 2009; and onUzbekistan, CRC/C/UZB/CO/2, 2 June 2006.49 For example, in Afghanistan, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Malawi,Nepal, Pakistan and Zambia, among many others.50 As has been the case in Honduras and Nepal, for example.51 Interview with UNICEF Country Office, August 2012.

by helping to make action transparent.52They arealso a means to officially inform state bodies of theinstitution’s recommendations – and reinforce theresponsibility of state bodies to implement them.Accountability mechanisms include:Written reports of activities to parliament,government or the public on an annual or regularbasis. The level of accountability and oversightachieved by this process is highly dependent uponthe level of engagement by these other actors.Informing the general public. Research forthis study suggests that this practice is not yetwidespread; aside from the increased use ofwebsites and social media by institutions in somemiddle- and high-income countries, only a fewpublish regular bulletins on their activities.Monitoring by civil society. In Asia, for example,theAsian NGO Network on National Human

Rights Institutions issues an annual report on thefunctioning and independence of national humanrights institutions.Monitoring as part of network membership.The International Coordinating Committee ofNational Human Rights Institutions periodicallymonitors and accredits human rights institutionsthat comply with the Paris Principles. It does not,however, assess stand-alone independent humanrights institutions for children or those that areestablished solely at the local level.Assessment by international monitoring bodies(e.g., the Committee on the Rights of the Childand other treaty bodies, the Human RightsCouncil Universal Periodic Review, specialprocedures). The Committee on the Rights ofthe Child systematically considers the mandate,independence, financing and overall state supportof children’s ombudspersons during its periodiccountry reviews. Other treaty bodies also reviewthe role of national human rights institutions.The Universal Periodic Review of the HumanRights Council provides the opportunity to debatethe effectiveness of human rights institutions ineach country and makes recommendations tostrengthen them.

A 2007 review of democratic institutions in South Africa, including the South African Human RightsCommission, pointed to the lack of engagement by the National Assembly. Institutions’ interactionswith Parliament were restricted to annual meetings with portfolio committees of very limited duration(e.g., two to three hours). Challenges to greater engagement included the workload of parliamentarycommittees and uncertainty among parliamentarians about their role in preserving the independenceof institutions.Recommendations from the review included creating a unit within the Office of the Speaker tocoordinate the oversight of these institutions; strengthening the relevant parliamentary committees (inparticular by ensuring their access to relevant expertise); and adopting legislation on accountabilitystandards to regulate the relationship between Parliament and the institutions concerned.53Followinga resolution by the National Assembly in 2008, the Office on Institutions Supporting Democracy wasformally established in 2010..54

Practical question: How can institutions withstand threats?The sustainability of an independent human rights institutionand, even more fundamentally, the regard for child rights, isnot guaranteed even in those countries with the most effectiveinstitutions. While ineffectiveness is the primary risk, thefindings and recommendations of human rights institutionscan sometimes be uncomfortable for those in authority or mayjar with different factional interests. In this context, a record ofachievements and strong independence can create a backlash,leading political decision makers to question the need for aninstitution. In other situations, financial challenges may leadto the questioning of institutions’ viability, perhaps especiallyif a country has multiple bodies to address different areas ofhuman rights.Independent human rights institutions for children have beendismantled in contexts as diverse as Ghana, Madrid (Spain)and New Jersey (United States of America). Their existence asstand-alone institutions has been questioned in a number ofcountries, including Croatia, England (United Kingdom), France,Ireland and Sweden. Motivations have included a combinationof the rationalization of institutional structures, concerns overcosts and political considerations. In light of the specificity ofchildren’s rights and the mobilization of child rights advocates,institutions were eventually maintained in all of the countriescited above except France. Here the institution became integratedinto a broad-based human rights institution in 2011; advocacyled to the specific visibility of children’s rights in the newlegislation, however.In the case of British Columbia’s Representative for Childrenand Youth (Canada), vocal support for the Representative byindigenous communities played an important role in reminding55 ‘Open Letter: UBCIC Supports Representative For Children And YouthPetition To Access Cabinet Documents’, dated 11 May 2010, IndigenousPeoples Issues and Resources website, <http://indigenouspeoplesissues.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5165:open-letter-ubcic-supports-representative-for-children-and-youth-petition-to-access-cabinet-documents&catid=52:north-america-indigenous-peoples&Itemid=74>, accessed on 2 October 2012.

the public and judiciary that the institution’s responsibility is toaddress the rights and needs of the province’s most marginalizedchildren – something these communities felt would have beencompromised had the institution’s legislation been weakened.55These examples point to the importance of institutions buildingrelationships beyond government and parliament, connectingwith partners that can mobilize and speak out on behalf ofthe institution if necessary. The media can be instrumental inhelping an independent human rights institution for children toestablish itself as a unique and permanent feature of the nationallandscape. Partnerships forged with civil society, and with childrights NGOs in particular, play an important role in enhancinginstitutional legitimacy; these are also the primary constituenciesto provide support if or when the institution faces threat.56Another way to withstand threats is to set up internalmechanisms that can identify and anticipate them. TheNorthern Ireland Commissioner for Children and YoungPeople (United Kingdom) has established an Audit and RiskCommittee composed of external representatives, whichprovides independent oversight and regularly identifies risksto the effectiveness of the office. These can be both strategic, forexample, risks to resources and independence, and substantive,for example, an adverse judicial decision on a child rights issue.The Commissioner also maintains a Corporate Risk Register,which it reviews monthly.57Effectiveness, measured through concrete results andcapitalizing on partnerships and public trust, is the bestprotection for and guarantee of institutional sustainability.

3.2 Child participationThe Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizesthat children have the right to express their viewswith due regard to the child’s age and maturity.58Theright of the child to be heard is a right in and of itself,but it is also important in realizing all other rights.59Independent human rights institutions for childrenhave a unique role in promoting and modelling therealization of the right to be heard.With child participation such a crucial aspect oftheir work, a number of independent human rightsinstitutions for children are finding ways to ensuredirect interaction with children. This is one area whereinstitution activities have been progressively developing58 Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 12.59 Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment No. 12: The rightof the child to be heard, CRC/C/GC/12, 20 July 2009, para. 2.

across regions since the 1990s. Engaging with childrenrequires specific skills, resources and commitment,and has proved extremely challenging for many of theinstitutions reviewed in this study.Children’s participation in the work ofthe institutionA legal basis for cultivating child participation (e.g.,the inclusion of child participation in an institution’slegislated mandate) provides an institution with thelegitimacy it needs to allocate resources to this areaof work and report on it to decision makers. Arounda quarter of existing independent human rightsinstitutions for children (many of them in common lawcountries) have founding legislation that contains one ormore of the following types of provisions:General provisions requesting that the office takesinto account children’s views.

A requirement to establish specific structures forconsulting with children.A link between child participation in the work ofthe office and the promotion of child participationin the broader society.The direct involvement of children in independenthuman rights institutions for children typically takesone of two forms. The fi rst consists of permanent,institutionalized mechanisms that involve somechildren on a regular basis such as youth advisorybodies, focus groups, child ambassadors and childombudspersons, and ongoing website fora. All of thesemechanisms can build participants’ capacity to expresstheir views and engage in policy dialogue. They tendto be quite structured and may not necessarily involvelarge numbers of children. In particular, youth councils– usually comprising around a dozen adolescentsfrom various walks of life – have been progressivelyset up in independent institutions across Europe andbeyond, serving as permanent advisory boards for officepriorities, approaches and communication strategies.They simultaneously build participants’ skills to takeinformed positions and to lead.The other broad form of involvement is ad hoc andcan include consultations, hearings and interviewswith children in a specific geographic area or on aspecific topic. Such work can be useful for obtaining theviews of a larger number of children than permanentmechanisms can reach, but it may contribute in lesserways to building children’s capacities. If conducted withimproper methodology, however, ad hoc involvementruns the risk of being tokenistic.Our research shows that the substance (topics) ofchildren’s participation spans many areas, ranging fromthe recruitment of a head of office to communications,research, monitoring and evaluation, via officeorganization and logistics. To give some examples,Ireland’s Ombudsman for Children conducted researchin 2009 with 35 separated children living in the city ofDublin.60Children contributed to the comprehensivestudy and the Ombudsman supported them in issuinga publication to tell their stories and in compiling ahandbook for those seeking to help children withoutparental care. In El Salvador, the Procuraduría para laDefensa de los Derechos Humanos has set up Unidadesde Difusión Juvenil de Derechos Humanos. Thesejuvenile dissemination units for human rights compriseapproximately 300 young volunteers aged 15 to 25 yearsold, based in local offices of the Procuraduría. Theactivities of the units have evolved from focusing onhuman rights promotion to monitoring State action.61In 2008, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights60 Ombudsman for Children’s Office – Ireland, Separated children living inIreland, A Report by the Ombudsman for Children’s Office, 2009.61 Procuraduría para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos – El Salvador,Annual Report 2010–2011, PDDH, p. 234.

Commission organized ‘child-to-child’ workshops totrain more than 2,700 children in various child rightstopics so that the participants could in turn traintheirpeers.62Accessibility to childrenAccessibility is the ability of an institution to comeinto contact with children. It is a fundamental issueof paradigm: interacting with children throughproactive, age-appropriate outreach, especially to themost marginalized, and maintaining child-accessiblemechanisms that enable children to reach theinstitution using their own initiative. Accessibility isthe key to fostering child participation in the work ofthe institution. It is far more than an issue of location,although this is, of course, part of it.This study has found that relatively few independenthuman rights institutions for children have mandatesrequiring their accessibility to children. Significantly,children themselves make proportionally fewcomplaints to independent institutions. The reasonsfor this need to be better understood but may includethe existence of other, better-known mechanisms forchildren to seek help (for example, child helplines),the still limited visibility of institutions amongchildren, and inappropriate or relatively inaccessiblecomplaint mechanisms.The overwhelming majority of institutions whosefounding legislation has provisions regarding directaccessibility to children are stand-alone, child-specific institutions, many of which were initiallyset up to protect children in contact with the welfaresystem, clearly requiring direct communication withchildren. Accessibility is featured in particular in thelegislation of many child rights institutions locatedin common law countries, namely Australia, Canada,Jamaica, NewZealand, the United Kingdom and theUnitedStates of America.AwarenessAwareness is the fi rst element of access, and theinstitutions covered by this report have used manydifferent strategies to increase children’s awarenessof their existence. These include distributing materialto children, partnering with the media and using theInternet and social networks. The very few assessmentsconducted of children’s knowledge of variousindependent human rights institutions point to lowawareness of the existence and role of the institutionin question, however. An evaluation of the Children’sCommissioner for Wales (United Kingdom), forexample, found that only a small proportion of childrenaged 7 to 16 years old (3 to 21 per cent, depending on62 Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, Annual Report,January 1–December 31 2008, AIHRC, 2009, p. 27.

Practical question: How do independent institutions get towhere children are?A local presence fosters the accessibility to children of anindependent human rights institution. It ensures that its workis in direct contact with children’s local circumstances anddaily lives.Independent institutions have increasingly expanded their locallevel work. The more localized and autonomous an institutionbecomes, however, the greater its complexity and challengesof coordination.Local-national structures generally fall into one offour categories:1. National institutions that perform some activities at thelocal level. A single, central office carries out work acrossthe country. Institutions with this structure are mostcommonly located in relatively small countries (e.g., Jamaicaand Mauritius), in places where resources are particularlyconstrained or where the national political system is highlycentralized, as in Jordan.2. National institutions that have branch offices at the locallevel. A single office initially established in a capital or majorcity creates sub-offices, while the main office remains theheadquarters. The presence of independent institutions atthe local level is particularly strong in Latin America, wherenearly all offices have a central headquarters and regional orlocal branches. Where a child rights office is part of a broad-based human rights institution, child rights work at thelocal level may be established immediately if branch officesare already in place, as was the case in South Africa andthe United Republic of Tanzania. While opening branchesimproves accessibility, limited resources can hinder theability of the central institution to establish them, especiallyin remote areas, resulting in inequities in geographiccoverage, a concern often voiced by the Committee on theRights of the Child.6565 CRC Committee, Concluding Observations for Panama, CRC/C/15/Add.233 30 June 2004, para. 13; CRC Committee, ConcludingObservations for Bolivia, CRC/C/15/Add.257 11 February 2005, para. 13;CRC Committee, Concluding Observations for Colombia, CRC/C/COL/CO/3, 8 June 2006, paras. 18 and 19.

3. National institutions that co-exist with autonomousinstitutions at the subnational level. This configuration isfound most often in countries with federal or decentralizedstructures where competencies are shared betweensubnational and federal authorities. Examples includeAustralia, India, Italy and Spain. One challenge, as notedabove, is ensuring equitable coverage for children livingin different parts of the country. Coordination among theinstitutions is also needed. These issues have been addressedin different ways in different areas: for example, in Italy,the national children’s ombudsperson is legally mandatedto coordinate with regional ombudspersons, while in Indiacooperation between the National Commission and StateCommissions for Protection of Child Rights is informal.4. Autonomous independent institutions that co-exist atthe provincial, regional or municipal levels. This is alsomore common in countries with federal or decentralizedregions. Examples include Austria, Belgium, Canada, theUnited Kingdom and the United States of America. Anotherimportant model is where autonomous institutions arecreated at the municipal or community level as a decidedlylocally sponsored mechanism (examples exist in Japan, Peruand the Philippines). A system without a central institutionraises challenges for tackling issues that are national inscope, including connecting with national decision makers.Models to address this include establishing networks ofsubnational institutions adopting common positions (asin Austria and Canada) or designating one subnationalinstitution to deal with national issues (as in the UnitedKingdom). In some cases, difficulties with local level,autonomous constellations of institutions have subsequentlyled to efforts – supported by the Committee on the Rightsof the Child – to establish a national or federal independenthuman rights institution for children, for example, inAustralia, Italy and the Russian Federation, where nationallevel institutions are now inplace.66

age group) had heard of the Commissioner.63Sincechildren usually receive information about an institutionfrom adults, the fact that a survey commissioned byUNICEF France in 2010 found that only 4 out of 10adults in France knew about the Défenseur des enfants64suggests that the ombudsperson institution was notwell known to the public.One finding of this study is that school curriculaseldom include references to independent child rights63 Thomas, N., et al., ‘Evaluating the Children’s Commissioner for Wales:Report of a Participatory Research Study’,International Journal of Children’sRights,18, 2010, p. 33.64 Survey conducted by TNS Sofres on 24 and 27 September 2010 with arepresentative sample of 1,000 persons aged 18 years and above. Thesurvey was conducted with respect to the stand-alone institution, prior tothe merging of the Défenseur des enfants with the broad-based Défenseurdes droits.

Many independent human rights institutions forchildren in Latin America have localdefensorías.Thishelps rural and indigenous communities to accessthese institutions in the same way as people living inurban centres. In Peru, for example, there are 840 localDefensorías del Niño y del Adolescente, which dealtwith more than 130,000 cases in 2010.68Another way of enhancing the geographic accessibilityof institutions is to physically travel to remote areas forthe purpose of having direct interaction with people.In 2009, the Comisionado Nacional de los DerechosHumanos in Honduras set up mobile units to fosterpublic awareness of the Commission, collect complaintsand inform the public about pending cases and theoutcome of investigations.69In countries affected by armed confl ict, staff travelhas been used to enable the independent institutionto assess the situation of children and raise awarenessof their plight. The Afghanistan Independent HumanRights Commission has a Child Rights Field Monitoringteam; the Uganda Human Rights Commission visitedcamps for internally displaced persons at the height ofconfl ict in the north of the country.70Accessibility to all groups of childrenBeing accessible to all children, including the mostmarginalized, embodies the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in Article 2 of the Conventionon the Rights of the Child. In pursuit of equity,independent human rights institutions for children havemade increasing efforts to reach the most marginalized.Conventional lists of groups of children most at risk ofexclusion include those from the poorest backgrounds,those living or working on the streets, those notaccessing school, children from minority groupsand indigenous peoples, and those with disabilities,among others.Such categories serve as important guides but can bemisleading. The reality of exclusion is that multiplefactors tend to combine. For example, a girl from apoor, single parent family may be more marginalizedthan her brother who may still be attending school, hergender compounding her poverty and family situation.Institutions need to develop an analysis of exclusion thatidentifies and understands its specific local dynamics ifthey are to genuinely reach the most marginalized.Various studies, including this one, have found thelack of involvement of younger children a significant68 Directorio de Defensorías del Niño y el Adolescente Registradas, Ministryof Women and Social Development website, <http://www.mimdes.gob.pe/archivos_sites/dgnna/dna/directorio/index.htm>,accessed13October 2012.69 Comisionado Nacional de los Derechos Humanos de la República deHonduras, Annual Report 2009, CONADEH, p. 14.70 Uganda Human Rights Commission, Annual Report 2004, UHRC, p. 110.

shortcoming of child participation mechanisms.71Mostparticipatory structures studied include adolescents;some reach out to children as young as seven or eightyears old, but this is unusual.72Having said that categorization has its limits, childrenbelonging to minority groups or indigenous peoples,along with those who are refugees or migrants, areoften at the extreme end of exclusion, with very limitedaccess to effective remedies for violations of theirrights. Mistrust of state institutions may deter the mostexcluded children from accessing an ombudsperson.For example, despite the existence of branches ofthe Defensoría del Pueblo in all 32 departments ofColombia, the Committee on the Rights of the Childhas criticized the lack of access experienced by childrenin rural areas of the country, where high proportions ofchildren are Afro-Colombian, indigenous or displaced.73The Committee on the Rights of the Child has calledfor particular efforts to reach the most marginalizedand disadvantaged children.74Our review of existingpractices illustrates various approaches used toreach these groups. Some institutions promote theiraccessibility by publishing materials, including websites,in various languages. The website of the Defensoríadel Pueblo in Peru is available in Quechua and alsooffers a complaint form in this indigenous language.75The website of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales(United Kingdom) includes background notes on theoffice and its mandate translated into 10 languages ofimmigrant communities.76Being accessible to children with disabilities makesan institution’s advocacy efforts on behalf of childrenwith disabilities credible and legitimate. Informationrelating to the physical accessibility of institutions tochildren with disabilities is generally lacking. A numberof institutions studied, however, use appropriatemethods to communicate with and convey theirconcerns to children with disabilities, for example, byadapting their websites, offering messages to childrenin sign languages and physically visiting children withdisabilities to seek their views. In Ontario (Canada),the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Childrenand Youth makes monthly visits to special schools forhearing and vision impaired children and/or childrenwith severe learning disabilities to hear about theirexperiences of accessing services. Since other meansof communication present significant barriers to these71 Hodgkin, R., and Newell, P., Child Participation and Children’sOmbudsman Institutions within the European Union (PreliminaryReport), December 2008, p. 20.72 For more information on how to promote young children’s participation,see Lansdown, G.,Can you hear me? The right of young children toparticipate in decisions affecting them,Bernard Van Leer Foundation, 2005.73 CRC Concluding Observations on Colombia, CRC/C/COL/CO/3, 8 June2006, para. 18.74 CRC Committee General Comment No. 2, para. 15.75 < http://www.defensoria.gob.pe/quechua.php> accessed 13 October 2012.76 <http://www.childcom.org.uk/en/about-us/> accessed 13 October 2012.

students, they feel more comfortable raising concerns tostaff from the Advocate’s office in person.77The abilityof independent human rights institutions for children tocommunicate with those who have cognitive disabilitiesremains, however, little explored.General Comment No. 2 underlines the need forinstitutions to have access to children in alternative careand all other settings that include children.78This isparticularly important for children in ‘closed’ settings,who are separated from their families and communitiesand have fewer opportunities to fi le complaints abouttheir living conditions and interact in general with theoutside world.Independent human rights institutions for children oftenhave the power to make unannounced visits to detentioncentres, orphanages, children’s homes, schools andhospitals. Some independent institutions, in particularthose created in response to reports of abuse in the childcare system (e.g., those in Australia, Canada, New Zealandand the United States of America), undertake numerousvisits to ‘closed’ facilities. Queensland’s Commissionfor Children and Young People and Child Guardian(Australia) organizes monthly visits to children living inalternative care in the state. The Commission staff heartheir complaints directly and can advocate for the childrenif their needs and rights are not being met.79Accessibility to children in institutions presents anumber of challenges. Unimpeded and unannouncedaccess to places where children spend time is important,but in practice a number of barriers to this oftenexist. Several institutions, including the IndependentCommission for Human Rights (the Palestinian nationalhuman rights institution), have complained that staffwere often prevented from accessing detention centresand making unannounced visits.80Legal limitations can make it difficult for independentinstitutions to visit children in closed private settings(e.g., serving in homes as domestic servants or infactories as workers).81In only a few countries does thelegislation provide extensive powers to the institution77 Ontario Office of the Provincial Advocate, Annual Report 2010–2011, p. 19.78 CRC Committee General Comment No. 2, para. 15. This echoes theprovisions of the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of JuvenileDelinquency and United Nations Rules for the Protection of JuvenilesDeprived of their Liberty. United Nations Guidelines for the Preventionof Juvenile Delinquency (Riyadh Guidelines), adopted and proclaimedby General Assembly Resolution 45/112 of 14 December 1990, para. 57;United Nations Guidelines for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of theirLiberty, adopted by General Assembly Resolution 45/113 of 14 December1990, para. 77.See alsoGuidelines for the Alternative Care of Children,adopted by General Assembly Resolution 64/142 of 24 February 2010,para.130.79 Queensland Commissioner for Children and Young People and ChildGuardian, Annual Report 2010-2011, p. 52.80 Palestinian Independent Human Rights Commission, Annual Report 2007,p. 259.81 Many legal systems have privacy provisions that prevent publicinstitutions from entering private premises unless they have a judicialmandate.

3.3 Receiving complaints on specificchild rights violationsThe scope of the complaint mechanism depends onthe breadth of child rights issues covered and thelimitations of the legislative mandate.The ability to handle complaints concerning the fullspectrum of children’s rights rests upon a broad mandatethat makes explicit reference to the Convention on theRights of the Child and other international instruments; italso relies upon strong domestic legislation that is in linewith international standards on children’s rights. In manycomplaints brought before the institutions reviewed, therehas been no violation of national law per se. In fact, it maybe the strict implementation of the law that results in aninequitable situation or a negative effect on the enjoymentof children’s rights. Herein lies an important quality of theindependent human rights institution for children: it cantake up issues that may fall outside the traditional remit ofa country’s courts.Our study shows that independent institutions addresscomplaints across the entire spectrum of children’srights: sexual violence, child abuse within families,prolonged detention in juvenile facilities, lack of accessto education, inadequate provision of health services,bullying, custody, child support, child participation, ethnicand racial discrimination, treatment of unaccompaniedand separated children, and access to social services bychildren with disabilities, among many others.Some institutional mandates explicitly reflect theunderstanding that both public and private bodies arebound by the Convention on the Rights of the Childto respect the rights expressed therein, as is the casein Greece, Lithuania and Mauritius. Other institutionsare restricted from considering complaints regardingprivate bodies, however. This is common in traditional

ombudsman institutions that include work on children’srights as part of a broader spectrum of human rights.84Almost all independent human rights institutionsfor children are restricted from taking up cases thatare pending a decision by the courts or anotheradministrative body, including cases under appeal. Insome cases, institutions are prevented from consideringcomplaints regarding specific types of public bodies,e.g., those that deal with national security or militaryactivity.85A very small number of independent human rightsinstitutions for children cannot take on individualcomplaints. The Ombudsmen for Children inFinland, Norway and Sweden receive thousands ofcommunications per year, including from children, buttypically progress the cases by making referrals to othercompetent bodies, counselling and guidance.86Who can submit complaints?The mandates of independent human rights institutionsfor children vary greatly in regard to who may submita complaint. In some cases, no restrictions apply; inothers, the roles of the child and his or her parent(s) orguardian(s) are clearly specified. A legislative mandatethat allows for anyone to fi le a complaint is likely toensure better protection of children’s rights.

The ability to receive complaints from any sourcefacilitates the reporting of concerns about the welfareof children and establishes the independent humanrights institution for children as a body that anyonecan approach with a concern. Such an open mandateencourages greater public ownership of the institutionand underscores the fundamental notion that protectingchild rights is everyone’s responsibility.Complaints can be fi led directly by children with all ofthe institutions reviewed in this study. In some settings(primarily integrated institutions) the law does notexplicitly state that children can make complaints, butthis is implied.Complaints fi led collectively (cases submitted jointlybecause they involve several children in a similarsituation) provide an independent human rightsinstitution for children with additional opportunities toidentify systemic issues.Another critical way to approach the complaintmechanism is for an institution to enquire into a childrights violation on its own initiative. Three quartersof the countries with an independent institution forchildren’s rights have explicitly equipped them withthe mandate to take on cases on their own initiative.Such a mandate, whether explicit or implicit, empowersan institution to look into child rights violations nomatter what the initial source of information. It is alsoan important legal tool that enables institutions to beproactive rather than reactive.Carefully monitoring and recording complaints providescrucial information for evaluating the performance ofan independent human rights institution for children.Complaint data can provide a picture of who is

Many institutions have created free-of-charge phone helplines for children and adults to use tocontact them with concerns and make complaint forms (often with child-friendly versions) availableon their websites. Numerous institutions, in particular in Europe,87have created child-friendly onlineforms to file complaints with the office, and the websites of many broad-based institutions88featurecomplaint forms.To give some examples of the breakdown of how complaints are made, between 2008 and 2009 twothirds of complaints received by the Office of the Children’s Advocate in Jamaica were by phone; theremaining complaints were submitted by walk-ins, in writing or during meetings and public educationsessions.89In the Republika Srpska, more than a third of complaints are made in person by visitingthe office, a quarter are made by phone and another quarter by mail, with the remaining complaintscoming by email, fax and from the media.90

accessing an institution’s services, and thus serve asone measure of effectiveness in reaching target groups.Monitoring patterns of rights violations reflected incomplaints is also a crucial advocacy tool. It is thereforeimportant that data regarding the individual and thenature of his or her complaint are properly recordedand disaggregated.Procedures for fi ling a complaint vary but in generaltend to be significantly more flexible than most judicialor administrative proceedings. Institutions’ complaintmechanisms are free of charge and do not require thecomplainant to have legal representation. The formalityof the process varies from institution to institution. Inthe majority of cases, the office can be contacted by anymeans – letter, phone, email or personal visit – and moststrive to offer child-friendly ways to fi le complaints.Responding to complaintsInstitutions have developed ways to ensure thatcomplaints are handled in the most ethical and child-sensitive manner.One aspect of child-friendliness is the timely handlingof complaints. As pointed out in one institution’s report,“A child or youth’s sense of time is not the same as foradults. A month can seem like an eternity … processesneed to be timely and move at a faster rate than thosethat respond to adult concerns.”91Some complaints mayrequire urgent action as a child is in immediate dangeror a decision has irreversible effects; others may be lessurgent, but should nevertheless be tackled swiftly.The nature of an ombudsperson’s complaint mechanismis largely quasi-judicial. Consequently, when aninstitution receives individual complaints, it doesnot issue binding decisions on individual cases butinstead facilitates a mediation or conciliation processbetween the relevant parties in order to address theconcerns involved.It is essential for independent institutions to have astrong mandate to hear and respond to individualcomplaints. One important tool for this is subpoenapower, whereby institutions can compel the productionof evidence or summon witnesses to testify; failure tocomply is associated with a civil or criminal sanction.More than half of the countries with an independentinstitution have given it such powers. In other places,tools for compliance primarily include the request fordisciplinary sanctions and special reports to parliament;here the institutions must rely chiefly on goodwillfor compliance.Around a quarter of independent human rightsinstitutions for children have the mandate to take a case91 Joint Special Report, BC Representative for Children and Youth andOmbudsperson, ‘Hearing the Voices of Children and Youth, A Child-Centred Approach to Complaint Resolution’, January 2010, p. 3.

Where high-profi le cases of serious child abuse haveoccurred, significant media attention and public concerncan also contribute to agency compliance and policyreform. Publicity in the media about child deaths inCanada’s care system,94in conjunction with high-profi lepersonalities publicly expressing concerns about theshortcomings of the child protection system, led tothe initiation of a comprehensive system review.95InSerbia, the lack of follow-up to the recommendations ofthe Protector of Citizens about discrimination againsta Roma girl in school was addressed by a televisionshow, which used the case to highlight the role of theProtector’s office and the importance of implementingits recommendations.96The complaint mechanism as an opportunity tostrengthen independent institutions and furtherchildren’s rightsThe complaint mechanism operates as a remedy forspecific cases of rights violations affecting an individualchild or a group of children and also serves to revealbroader, systemic problems in the realization of92 Hodgkin, R., and Newell., P.,The Role and Mandate of Children’sOmbudspersons in Europe: Safeguarding and promoting children’s rights andensuring children’s views are taken seriously,ENOC, December 2010, p. 13.93 Defensoria del Pueblo de Peru, Annual Report 2011, pp. 191-192.94 Especially where the media is involved, due respect must be given toconfidentiality and the need to protect the child’s privacy.95See,for example, Hon. T. Hughes, BC Children and Youth Review:AnIndependent Review of BC’s Child Protection System, 7 April 2006,pp.7–8.96 Protector of Citizens of Serbia, Annual Report 2010, p. 87.

child rights. It can itself trigger greater governmentopenness to changes needed to curtail rights violationsand promote children’s rights. Information gatheredthrough the complaint mechanism may potentiallybe as important to advocacy and reform efforts asother institutional functions (e.g., research andpolicy analysis). The complaint mechanism can be anopportunity for those people most affected by particularissues to speak out for themselves.Because complaints and communications received byan independent institution can stretch institutionalcapacity to carry out this and other functions effectively,it is important to ensure that the complaint mechanismis used to advance an office’s overall strategic agenda– again, to further a proactive approach rather thanremain primarily reactive. Some triage of cases isnecessary: one expert has said that criteria for caseselection should not only reflect the office’s strategicplan but should also be well publicized so that the officeis more likely to receive the kinds of cases it wants toprogress.97While this makes practical sense, offices alsoneed to remain constantly vigilant that by so doing theyare not contributing to the exclusion or marginalizationof children or emerging issues.Ultimately, a child-sensitive complaint mechanismfollows a number of principles: centrality of the bestinterests of the child; respect for the dignity, privacyand views of the child; non-discrimination; relevantinformation in an appropriate form; professionalassistance; and timeliness.98These elements requiresignificant capacities in terms of skills, settings andresources, which can be lacking in some environments.Evaluation of the child sensitivity of complaintmechanisms by independent institutions, with thesignificant involvement of children, has been limited.Some institutions have been effective at strengtheningchild sensitivity in handling complaints and in findingcreative ways to remedy problems. The low proportionof complaints made directly by children themselves andanecdotal evidence suggest, however, that ensuringchild accessibility in practice remains a challenge forinstitutions in all regions.

A number of networks of institutions exist, most ofwhich are organized along geographic lines, gatheringinstitutions from the same region or subregion, forexample, the Central American and Panama Networkof Children’s Defenders and the Asia Pacific Associationof Children’s Commissioners. Some networks includesubnational institutions while others only accept thoseat national level. In-country networks of institutionsalso exist, such as those in Austria and Canada.Networks may also be based on other common traits,including history, language and culture, like the Ibero-American Network for the Defense of Children’s andAdolescents’ Rights and the francophone networks ofombudspersons and human rights commissions.Generally, networks of independent institutionscorrespond to, and are supported by, internationalintergovernmental organizations that bring togethercorresponding countries, such as the Council ofEurope, the Organization of American States and theOrganisation internationale de la Francophonie as wellas specialized United Nations agencies such as theOffice of the High Commissioner for Human Rightsand UNICEF.Also important are the relationships with internationalmonitoring mechanisms such as treaty bodies(committees of experts that review compliance withcertain human rights treaties). The most strategic andmutually beneficial relationship for independent humanrights institutions for children is with the Committeeon the Rights of the Child. Other treaty bodies suchas the Human Rights Committee, the Committeeagainst Torture and the Committee on the Eliminationof Racial Discrimination are also relevant. So too arespecial procedures (special rapporteurs and specialrepresentatives, such as the Special Representative onviolence against children and the Special Rapporteuron the sale of children, child prostitution and childpornography) and the Universal Periodic Review of theHuman Rights Council (a periodic review of the humanrights situation of each United Nations Member State).Regional mechanisms such as the African Committee ofExperts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child and theOrganization of American States Special Rapporteur onthe Rights of the Child are regionally significant.The value of interactions between national humanrights institutions and treaty bodies is captured well bythe report of a 2007 workshop in Geneva organized bythe Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.Referring to independent human rights institutions ingeneral, not just those working on children’s rights,the meeting concluded: “While national human rightsinstitutions are the key element of strong nationalhuman rights protection systems, the internationalrole is critically important. The more national humanrights institutions are able to contribute informationto, participate actively in the international humanrights system, and follow up to their recommendations,

the more they enhance and strengthen their nationalposition. National human rights institutions and UNhuman rights Treaty Bodies are natural partners in theprotection and promotion of human rights.”99Networks of institutionsDespite working in partnership with a wide range ofactors, the unique position of independent institutionsimplies some form of isolation at the national level.Networks can act as peer support groups for individualinstitutions, thus contributing to their effectiveness.100They provide fora where good, creative practicescan be shared and future initiatives inspired. Oneimportant outgrowth of networking is a convergence ofinstitutional practices. Child participation, for example,is an area for which a body of common practiceshas developed among independent human rightsinstitutions for children.Networks can take public, common positionson sensitive topics. This enhances an individualinstitution’s feelings of legitimacy when taking a stanceon the issue at the national level. A network can alsooffer visibility and support when an institution isthreatened, operating as a system to alert and mobilizesupport for its members. Importantly, networks create99 Conclusions of the Workshop on National Human Rights Institutions andTreaty Bodies’ (Geneva, 26–28 November 2007), para. 3.100 On international networking of public bodies in general,seeSlaughter,A.-M.,A New World Order,Princeton University Press, 2004.

solidarity among members beyond meetings and otherofficial events. By nurturing interpersonal relationshipsand a sense of belonging, they foster collaborationamong individual institutions outside formal settings.Networks also tend to foster compliance withinternational standards among individual institutions.They do so particularly through membership criteriaand peer monitoring. Indeed, networks of independenthuman rights institutions are often based on selectivemembership criteria.While networking offers significant advantages forindividual independent institutions and for institutionsas a group, it can also present a number of challenges.The degree of openness of a network is always acontentious subject and largely depends on how thenetwork balances its role as an information sharingand peer support group and its function as a vettingmechanism for individual institutions and the groupitself. Entry barriers can have a paradoxical effect: newand fragile institutions that could benefit greatly fromnetwork support risk exclusion. Networking is alsocostly and takes time.One risk of the exigencies of networking is thedevelopment of power imbalances within networks,skewing their functioning towards the concerns andissues of better-resourced institutions. Offsetting thisrisk involves providing space for institutions withmore limited capacities to participate in key networkfunctions and to influence decisions.

The European Network of Ombudspersons forChildren (ENOC)Formed in 1997, the European Network of Ombudspersons for Children is composed of independentchildren’s rights institutions that are from Council of Europe member states and meet the criteriaset by the network’s statutes.101In addition to its role in the strategic implementation of theConvention on the Rights of the Child, ENOC works collectively to support joint lobbying forchildren’s rights; serves as a forum for information exchange, capacity building and professionalsupport; and promotes the development of effective independent offices for children within Europeand worldwide.The network has had success in engaging in high-level dialogue on regional and international policyconcerning children, including through the elaboration of child rights strategies for the Council ofEurope and the European Union; the development of Council of Europe guidelines on child-friendlyjustice; its Committee on the Rights of the Child activities; and involvement in the World Congress IIIAgainst the Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adolescents. By mid-2012, the European Network ofOmbudspersons for Children included 39 institutions from 31 countries.102101 The European Network of Ombudspersons for Children Statute, as approved May 2006, Dublin.102 ENOC website <http://www.crin.org/enoc/about/index.asp> accessed 18 July 2012.

Networks provide a channel for independent humanrights institutions to access regional and global fora, and toparticipate in discussions at the international level. Thereis evidence that network efforts have resulted in greatersystematic engagement by institutions in political dialogueat the regional and global levels, particularly in standard-setting activities. Increasingly, the direct participation ofindependent human rights institutions has been integralto such activities, for example, the drafting of the thirdOptional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights ofthe Child on an individual complaints procedure andthe elaboration of Committee on the Rights of the ChildGeneral Comments.Most networks of independent human rightsinstitutions for children have close connections to eitherregional or global intergovernmental organizations.UNICEF’s The Americas and Caribbean RegionalOffice supports the Ibero-American Network for theDefense of Children’s and Adolescents’ Rights while theSecretariat of the European Network of Ombudspersonsfor Children is located on Council of Europe premises(although it maintains an independent status).International organizations, including NGOs, oftenhave access to resources that can be used to supportnetwork activities – as Save the Children has done withthe Children’s Rights Ombudspersons’ Network inSouth and Eastern Europe.The Committee on the Rights of the Child and otherhuman rights mechanismsIndependent human rights institutions for children andthe Committee on the Rights of the Child (based inGeneva) have a particularly close relationship of mutualbenefit. The independent institutions provide ongoingmonitoring of the Convention on the Rights of theChild and concluding observations at the national level;in turn, they are supported and strengthened by theCommittee and other bodies. The Committee’s strongsupport and advocacy help to enhance the legitimacyand credibility of independent human rights institutionsfor children at the national level.While engagement by the institutions can yieldmutually beneficial outcomes, maximizing thisengagement requires access, visibility, resources andan understanding of the entry points in the process.Independent institutions have submitted separatereports on the situation of children’s rights in theircountries. Many have participated in special dialogueswith the Committee on the Rights of the Child,although this has been most usual among Europeaninstitutions, which are geographically closer to Genevaand often have greater financial resources. The capacityof institutions from other regions to engage so directlywith the Committee is an issue.Being involved in the work of the Committee onthe Rights of the Child can bring about positive

returns for individual independent human rightsinstitutions. Interaction with the Committee canenhance an institution’s legitimacy and credibilitynationally, support reforms aimed at strengtheningits independence and effectiveness, and assist it inadvocating change.The Committee on the Rights of the Child regularlyissues concluding observations aimed at strengtheningthe institutions’ effectiveness. These recommendationsoften echo concerns regarding the resources allocatedto institutions, their structure and their ability tooffer a child-sensitive complaint mechanism for childrights violations.Our research shows that institutions and other childrights advocates in a number of countries have usedthese observations to promote structural and legislativereform and prompt increased investment in support ofthe efficacy of the independent institution. Followinga Concluding Observation regarding the impact on itsindependence of the use of seconded civil servants bythe Ombudsperson for Children’s Office in Mauritius,this office began to recruit its investigators and someof its support staff using its own budget.103Ireland’sOmbudsman for Children refers to recommendationsby the Committee on the Rights of the Child andother international monitoring bodies in support of itsadvocacy efforts to strengthen the institution’s mandatethrough law reform.104Independent human rights institutions for childrencan benefit greatly from following up concludingobservations which have the political and moralweight of the Committee on the Rights of the Childbehind them. In 2011, Panama’s Unidad de Niñez yAdolescencia de la Defensoría del Pueblo, with thesupport of UNICEF, set up an Observatorio de losDerechos de la Niñez y la Adolescencia for the ongoingfollow-up of recommendations by the Committee andother UN treaty bodies together with civil society.105Independent institutions can use other internationalmonitoring mechanisms to further advance children’srights. Reports to other treaty bodies can givevisibility to specific children’s issues in relation to theimplementation of other international treaties thatcomplement the Convention on the Rights of the Child.The Universal Periodic Review of the Human RightsCouncil, consisting in a comprehensive review of thehuman rights record of a given country by the UNHuman Rights Council, also provides an importantchannel for independent institutions to voice theirconcerns. Several institutions have begun to use103 Information submitted by the Ombudsperson for Children’s Office inMauritius, 10 March 2010.104 A report by the Ombudsman for Children on the operation of theOmbudsman for Children Act, 2002, March 2012, p. 12.105 Defensoria del Pueblo de Panamá, Annual Report 2011, p. 92.

Looking to the future: The role of independent humanrights institutions for children in the Conventioncommunications procedureThe UN General Assembly adopted a third Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights ofthe Child on a communications procedure on 19 December 2011. This allows the Committee on theRights of the Child to receive and review communications on cases alleging violations of the rightsof individual children or groups of children, and to conduct enquiries (including country visits) intoallegations of grave and systematic violations of children’s rights.Given their role at the national level, independent human rights institutions for children arelikely to be a primary domestic link supporting access to this international communicationsprocedure.106They are in an opportune position to provide a preliminary assessment for eligibilityfor consideration under the Optional Protocol, and to refer and support potential complainantsthrough the process or provide documentation to the Committee. They are also expected to monitorstates’ compliance with the recommendations made by the Committee for cases admitted under theOptional Protocol.Independent human rights institutions can play a fundamental role in informing children and theircommunities about the existence of an international remedy; they can also carry out targeted efforts toreach those children whose rights are most at risk of being violated.106 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure, Preamble.

act independently to understand children’s situationsand defend their rights. Yet while the number of suchinstitutions has increased since the 1990s, they also facechallenges to their independence, insufficient funding,poor responses to their recommendations, and, in somecases, even threats to their existence.One of the most common questions asked by thoseseeking guidance in setting up or working to strengthen(or defend) independent institutions is what formshould the institution take. No one form fits all isthe answer arrived at in this review. The national orlocal realities of institutional context, politics, financeand societal support for children’s rights must allbe taken into account. Mandates differ according tocircumstances, histories and national engagement.There are pros and cons to all arrangements. In the end,the form and scope of the institution must be a productof national and local political and social processes thatconfer legitimacy and broad ownership.Similarly, the set-up of an independent human rightsinstitution for children as either an ombudsperson’soffice or a commission makes little difference. In bothcases, the function tends to be highly personalized,with the individual ombudsperson or commissioner (orthe chair of the commission, as in India) acting as themain voice for children and having a decisive role inbuilding partnerships.

4. Conclusionand recommendationsThe work of independent human rights institutionsfor children is characterized by many achievements.Examples include the early adoption of the institutionalconcept and its strong proliferation across Europe andLatin America; pioneering work in comprehensive childrights policies and legislative reform in Latin Americaand the Caribbean; the active involvement of NGOsin watching over the concept in Asia; the creation ofspecialized child rights departments in national humanrights institutions in Southern and Eastern Africa;the blossoming of discussions around the creationof child-focused independent rights institutions inthe Middle East and North Africa; and the importantfocus on children in difficult circumstances in manycommon law countries. In each of these settings,states have recognized the need for institutions that

Child rights institutions integrated into broad-basedhuman rights institutions can face particular challenges:work for children can be at risk of being squeezed byother organizational priorities, and organizationalmechanisms and procedures do not necessarilyencourage child accessibility. It is important thatstructures and leadership contribute to sustaining theinfluence and visibility of the children’s unit. Some ofthe ways to do this include giving the unit an explicitlegislative status, a ring-fenced budget defined as part ofthe national allocation, and its leadership a recognizedsenior status within the institution.There is one non-negotiable attribute of all independenthuman rights institutions for children: a mandate rootedin the Convention on the Rights of the Child. There arealso several factors that must be taken into account (andconstantly reasserted) if an institution is to enjoy publicsupport and trust. These include effectiveness andindependence, which naturally reinforce one another.Features that contribute to effectiveness includethe capacity to identify and analyse child rightsviolations (including through child-accessiblecomplaint mechanisms); to formulate and advocaterecommendations; to communicate concerns; and tomediate, convene and build bridges between otherpublic institutions and between government and widersociety on child rights issues. The skills, characterand profi le of the staff of the institution, especially itsleadership, are important. The serious consideration bygovernment and other actors of its recommendationsis critical.As this report has described, independence is not justa product of an institution’s mandate, but also of itsfinancing and leadership. The wider political contextand the engagement of media and civil society influenceboth the perception and reality of an institution’sindependence. The processes involved in establishing aninstitution – in essence, the degree to which this entailsbroad discussion and debate involving a representativevariety of political and social interest groups – and thetransparency of senior staff appointment processes allcontribute to independence. Financing, of course, iskey: sustained direct support from national budgetsis optimal, but in the context of low- and middle-income countries further funding often comes frominternational donors, which carries with it both benefitsand risks.Child participation is a key issue that remainschallenging for all, and most particularly forchildren’s institutions integrated into broad-basedhuman rights institutions. Many strides forwardhave been made in this regard, but it remains anarea requiring further attention across the board.While participation as an issue concerns much morethan the receipt of complaints alone, one of the

fi ndings of this review is that children themselvesmake proportionally few complaints to institutions.There will be many reasons for this, but it stronglysuggests that many complaint mechanisms remaininsufficiently child-sensitive.The following recommendations summarize moredetailed recommendations laid out in the fullertechnical report:Governments and parliamentsshould ensurethat institutions are founded on adequatelegislation, which includes a number of coreprovisions. It must explicitly set forth theinstitution’s grounding in the Convention on theRights of the Child, its role in representing thebest interests of the child and its independence.Legislation should provide for open andtransparent appointment processes and containguarantees for the allocation of resources fromthe national budget. These resources should besustainable and adequate for the institution toplan its work in the medium to long term, andthey should be allocated in a way that contributesto the institution’s ability to fulfi l its mandate.Legislation should grant the institution adequateinvestigatory powers to freely access the places,documents and testimonies needed to performits monitoring role (including of private entities).It should require the institution to be accessibleto all children and to promote child participationboth in its work and in broader society.Governmentsshould instruct relevantdepartments and public bodies at all levels to fullycooperate with institutions in all of their phases ofoperation, including investigations, and should holdaccountable those that do not do so. Due regardshould be given to implementing recommendations.Thorough discussions of the institution’s findingsand proposals – in government, parliament andsociety (including the media) – are essential tothe institution’s long-term sustainability andeffectiveness. It is the particular responsibilityof governments to ensure the follow-up ofrecommendations by demonstrating their seriousconsideration and taking adequate measures.Parliamentsshould engage actively withindependent institutions. They should consult withthem in the process of developing and adoptinglegislation that affects children; support open andtransparent appointment processes; and providerigorous oversight by thoroughly reviewing anddiscussing annual and other reports, and throughregular, comprehensive evaluations.Independent human rights institutionsfor children,especially those integrated into

a broad-based human rights institution, shouldreview their effectiveness in encouragingchild participation, especially of younger andmarginalized children,107and take steps tostrengthen this where necessary. Particularattention should be paid to providing child-accessible complaint mechanisms. Institutionsshould be proactive in finding ways to increaseawareness of their role among children and adultswith responsibilities in relationship to them.They should strengthen collaboration betweenthemselves and other human rights bodies,including other departments within broad-basedinstitutions, particularly those dealing with genderissues and other institutions for special interestgroups. Finally, independent institutions havea responsibility to measure state compliance,highlight obstacles and identify concrete outcomesfor children.Civil societyshould support independentinstitutions by cooperating with them, sharinginformation, supporting children and other actorsin making complaints, supporting the follow-up ofrecommendations and, where appropriate,107 Meaningful child participation must be based on the evolving capacitiesof the child. In other words, different methods need to be used andparticipation may have differing scope and objectives depending on theage and situation of the child.

sharing technical expertise. NGOs should becritical friends, working alongside independentinstitutions, but also pointing out whereperformance requires strengthening. Academiacan support the institution’s work with researchand evidence. The media plays a critical role inechoing the institution’s recommendations andmaking it known. Above all, civil society shouldpromote and defend independent institutions,ensuring awareness of their work and coming totheir support if social and political forces threateninstitutions’ effectiveness.Donors and intergovernmental organizationsshould provide technical assistance in establishingand strengthening independent institutions, raiseawareness of their role, advise on their legislativemandate and build supportive capacities withinthe country. When providing financial assistance,due consideration should be given to the need forthe long-term sustainability of child rights workand national ownership of institutions. Donors andinternational organizations should facilitate theestablishment and consolidation of regional andinternational networks of independent institutionsby offering technical, financial and logisticalbacking. They should support the participation ofindependent institutions in relevant regional andinternational bodies and debates.

ISBN: 978-88-6522-010-8

Stock no: 663U

UNICEF

Office of Research - Innocenti

Piazza SS. Annunziata 12

50122 Florence, Italy

Tel: +39 055 20330

Fax: +39 055 2033 220

[email protected]

www.unicef-irc.org