Statement by SRSG Radhika Coomaraswamy at the Ministerial Follow-Up Forum to the Paris Commitments and Principles on Children Associated with Armed Forces or Armed Groups
Statement by Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy
SRSG for Children and Armed Conflict
Ministerial Follow-Up Forum to the Paris Commitments and Principles on Children Associated with Armed Forces or Armed Groups
Mr. Ambassador, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to thank our co-organizers, the government of France and UNICEF for making this event possible. Every year we use this occasion to highlight important themes relating to children associated with armed groups. Today, I will focus on the issue of justice for these children.
The Paris Principles are very clear when it comes to the treatment of children associated with armed groups: girls and boys should not be prosecuted or punished solely for their membership in armed forces or groups. Two weeks ago, my office launched a working paper on Children and justice during and in the aftermath of conflict available in this room. This publication builds on the guiding principles established in Paris in 2007 and explores the fact that children are increasingly coming before the justice system as victims, witnesses, and perpetrators.
The importance of justice for children in situations of armed conflict cannot be understated. Last month, I attended the closing statements in the Lubanga case before the International Criminal Court. Thomas Lubanga is a former warlord from eastern DRC who is accused of recruiting and using child soldiers in the Ituri conflict from 2002 to 2003. This is the ICC’s first trial and will likely be the first to be completed by the world’s only permanent court mandated to try war crimes. It will also be the first case that sets out international jurisprudence on the crime of recruiting child soldiers. This case is a crucial step in ending impunity for violations against children during armed conflict. It sends a clear message to commanders that child recruitment is a war crime and will be prosecuted.
It is also encouraging attitudinal change in national courts, which are increasingly prosecuting child recruitment and thus preventing and deterring violations against children. In many of my negotiations with non-state armed groups for the release of children, my interlocutors have questioned me about the possibility of appearing before the ICC. There is some fear about of the ICC, and this fear serves as a deterrent.
The fight against impunity at the international level demonstrates the commitment of the international community to halt and prevent the crime of child recruitment. To be truly effective, however, there must be action at national level. Domestic legislation and national prosecutions must be set up if the struggle against the recruitment and use of children is to be sustainable.
Over the past few years, a number of innovative ideas have been developed to protect the rights and best interests of children while ensuring that justice is done. We must all watch closely and learn, and encourage States to apply these new concepts in cases before national courts.
The difficulty for victims to come forward in judicial proceedings and face their memories and their assailants directly is often underestimated. If they speak, could there be reprisals on them or their families? If they testify, will they be able to withstand a vigorous cross-examination that often results in an attack on their character and the re-living of horrific events? Balancing participation with the protection of children during court proceedings, highlights the need for special measures.
Closed sessions, voice and image distortion, screens between the witness and the accused, as well as pre- and post-statement counseling are all useful methods to protect child witnesses from possible consequences when they testify.
Giving children affected by conflict “victim status” is an alternative, less intrusive way of ensuring that children have access to justice. Child victims can choose to attend hearings in person or to participate through legal representatives. This form of participation may be less stressful for a child and is less likely to cause re-traumatisation. Children are not required to attend the court, allowing them to focus on rebuilding their lives rather than worrying about having to face the accused.
Justice must also mean reparations to victims. For children, justice includes far more than punishing a perpetrator. Equally important is the restoration of their rights and an element of reparation to address their loss of childhood, loss of family, loss of education, and loss of livelihood. Courts should include reparations in their judgment and sentencing hearings, providing victims with assistance in the form of physical rehabilitation, education, and psycho-social support. Reparation programmes should be designed to meet the special needs of children, as well as encourage reconciliation within the communities. Governments and donors play a key role in providing sustainable resources to make such initiatives work.
Children also come into contact with the justice system as so-called security risks or perpetrators. States are increasingly arresting, detaining, and prosecuting children because they are alleged members of an armed group or have participated in hostilities. Children who are captured and placed in detention are often kept in conditions which do not meet the minimum standards set out in various international legal instruments.
In some situations, States place children in administrative detention, rather than charging them with a criminal offence and bringing them before a court. These children are often detained for long periods of time without being granted legal safeguards. When deprived of their liberty, children are especially vulnerable to abuses.
In other situations, States prosecute children before national courts or military tribunals, which do not generally apply juvenile standards. As a result, these children are frequently tried without legal assistance, without the presence of their parents and without a clear understanding of the charges brought against them.
Given the forced nature of their association with armed groups, children should be treated primarily as victims, not as perpetrators. Emphasis should be placed on prosecuting adult recruiters and commanders based on the concept of command responsibility. The detention and prosecution of children for crimes arising from their active participation in hostilities should at all times be a measure of last resort.
However, the need for some form of accountability is acknowledged. Children must be made to face the consequences of their actions, and victims of their violence must feel that justice has been done. Nevertheless, diversion away from the judicial system is more suitable for children and society as a whole. Alternatives that take the best interest of the child into consideration and promote the reintegration of the child into his or her community include restorative justice processes, truth-telling, traditional healing ceremonies, and reintegration programmes.
Finally, Mr. Ambassador,
We have launched this working paper on children and justice in remembrance of the many children we have met who were both victims and offenders at the same time. I remember Moi from Northern Uganda – the LRA abducted, drugged, abused him, and eventually forced him to attack and pillage his own village full of relatives and friends. There is often a thin line between children as victims and children as perpetrators. Although children must be made to understand the moral implications of their actions, they should do so in the context of reconciliation and reintegration into society. Having initially failed to protect these children from armed conflict, we cannot then become their accusers. We must support them to acknowledge their wrongdoings and assist them to begin a better life.
Thank you.