1st meeting, 2nd session of the IGWG on an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the rights to early childhood education, free pre-primary education and free secondary education.

Excellency, distinguished delegates and participants.
I hereby open the second session of the I intergovernment working group on an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the child on the rights to early childhood education, free primary education, and free secondary education.
It is my pleasure to welcome the participants and guests on the podium.
I now give the floor to miss Abdavo, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights to deliver her opening remarks.
Thank you.
Your Excellencys distinguished delegates, young people, children.
Good morning.
It is my pleasure to welcome you to the second session of the open ended intergovernmental working group on an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child concerning the right to education.
I would like to thank all of those who have contributed constructively to this process over the past two years and especially to all the children who have engaged with the working group.
To the children joining us this week, your presence enriches our discussions and reminds us of the purpose that brings us all together.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes children as rights holders and active participants whose views must be heard and taken seriously.
Your engagement is essential to ensure this process is anchored in the realities and the experiences and aspirations of children from all regions.
This working group established by the Human Rights Council provides a valuable space for dialogue and exchange on how international human rights law continues to advance the realization of the rights to education, children's rights to education through the collective commitment of member states.
At a time when multilateralism faces growing pressures, this convention continues to demonstrate the continued value of international cooperation.
It reflects a willingness to come together across regions and perspectives to consider how human rights norms can respond to modern day challenges whilst building on existing standards and commitments.
Your Excellencies, the right to education is both a fundamental human rights in itself and a multiplier right that supports the realization of many other rights.
Education contributes to equality, to inclusion and participation.
It helps individuals and communities develop the knowledge, the skills, the opportunities that they need to shape their future.
It is also a powerful tool to combat poverty, discrimination, and exclusion, and yet today, the realization of the right to education faces profound challenges.
Around the world, it is estimated that 273 million children remain out of school.
These are children living in poverty in rural and remote areas, children affected by conflict, children with disabilities, migrant refugee and asylum seeking children, girls, indigenous and minority children, and many others.
They continue to face challenges to accessing quality and inclusive education.
Financial barriers, including school fees, remain a significant obstacle to the realization of the right to education.
For many households, indirect costs associated with education, including the cost of school materials, of transportation, of meals, and digital access can make education unaffordable in practice, even when it is seemingly guaranteed free of charge.
Adré these barriers through adequate public investment and inclusive policies is essential to ensure that all children can access and benefit from quality education on an equal basis.
Persistent digital divides, coupled with gaps in digital media and information literacy continue to hinder children's access to two meaningful engagement in education, further deepening existing inequalities.
Millions of children still lack reliable access to devices, to Internet connection, electricity, and skills necessary to participate fully in learning, and yet, digital technologies also holds significant potential to expand educational opportunities, to reach marginalized learners, and to support more inclusive learning environments.
Realizing this potential requires rights based, safe, and inclusive approaches that respect the right to privacy and it ensures that digital transformation enhances access, participation, and quality rather than reinforcing existing forms of exclusion.
At the same time, we're also witnessing increasing attacks on education in situations of conflict and insecurity.
Schools are sometimes systematically damaged.
Other times, they're occupied by military forces or armed groups while school staff and students face mounting threats and violence.
The consequences of such violations extend far beyond the classroom.
When education is interrupted, children lose not only learning opportunities, but often also lose a place of safety, of stability, and of hope.
Safeguarding education is therefore an investment in peace and security.
Access to education helps foster social cohesion.
It strengthens trust in institutions, it reduces vulnerabilities and supports recovery in societies emerging from conflict and crisis.
Your Excellencies, these are only some of the questions that this working group might need to consider during its deliberation with OCHR's support.
We contribute to the development and clarification of human rights standards relating to education, including in areas such as non discrimination, equality of access to education, participation, digital technologies, education for peace and tolerance, and the challenges posed by conflict, crisis, and other disruptions to learning.
Through arithmatic work, reporting, and convening roles, we have helped to advance understanding of these issues and identify ways to address them through a rights based approach.
This is part of OHCHRs broader commitment to advancing the protection and promotion of children's rights, working with international human rights mechanisms in support of member states and through the United Nations and its partners more broadly.
In this context, we work closely with our UN partners, including with UNESCO, with UNICEF and ITU.
Recognizing that advancing the right to education requires a coordinated effort across the entire UN system.
Your Excellencies, as you begin this second session, I encourage you to continue building on the productive discussions held thus far, keeping the rights and realities and perspectives of children from across the globe at the center of your deliberations.
OHCHR stands ready to continue supporting your work and the important mandate entrusted to you by the Human Rights Council.
Thank you.
I thank you, the United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights for her opening remarks.
Distinguished delegates, we will now proceed to Agenda item two, the elections of the chair Reporter.
The floor is open for nomination for the chair Reporter of the session of the working group.
I recognize the distinguished representative of the Dominican Republic.
His Excellency Ambassador Evan Emilio de Jesus Uganooa.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Thank you.
Excellency, distinguished College.
It's a great pleasure and honor for me that on behalf of a group of states of cross regional group of states, including Armenia, Bulgaria, Colombia, Cyprus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgistan, Nuro, Panama, Gambia, Malawi, Romania, Sierra Leone, and my own country, the Dominican Republic, who are the main sponsors of the Human Rights Council resolution 56 slash five to nominate His Excellency Ambassador Samuel UB Safa, ambassador and Deputy Permanent representative of the Republic of Sierra Leone to the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and other international organizations in Geneva to serve as chair rapporteur of the second session of the open ended intergovernmental working group established under this resolution.
As we already know, his excellence brings with him a distinguished record of service and expertise.
A barrister and solicitor of the Superior Court of Judicature of Sierra Leone, he has over 25 years of experience in administration and other professional roles.
He also serves as co chancellor of the United Methodist Church in the Sierra Leone area, reflecting his continued commitment to public service and community engagement.
In Geneva, We are already aware of His Excellency continue and valuable contributions to Sierra Leone multilateral engagement, including through his involvement in the country's work as a regional representative on the Bureau of the International Organization for Immigration.
His extensive experience into international affairs and multilateral diplomacy continue to strengthen Sierra Leone engagement with the United Nations system.
We all have the honor to meet him on his prominent and active role in the Human Rights Council, where his professional contribution and enthusiasm as well as his leadership throughout this working group has become familiar to many colleagues.
His career reflects his deep commitment to promoting justice, the rule of law, and international cooperation and a deep unwaing love for commitment with education rights.
Ambassador Saffa's expertise in international arbitration and mediation is further demonstrated by his work as a mediator and arbitrator for the International Center of Settlement of Investment Disputes, especially Specialized World Bank Group institution.
This demonstrates his professional proficiency and diplomatic fines.
His Excellency has been deeply engaged and supportive both before and after the adoption of resolution 56 slash five, which has brought us to this important stage.
Through his extensive experience, spanning national legal reforms, international dispute resolution, multilateral diplomacy, and community service, Ambassador Safa has consistently proven himself to be a valuable asset to his country and the wider international community.
His firm commitment to advancing the right to education and human rights more broadly, coupled with these qualities makes him an outstanding candidate to continue guiding the work of this second session of the working group.
Excellency colleagues, it is therefore with a great confidence and honor that we put forward the nomination of His Excellcy Ambassador HB Safa for the position of chair Rapporteur.
Thank you very much.
I thank you Excellency, for nominating His Excellency Ambassador Samuel Bisaa to chair the second session of the working group.
Are there any other nomination or request for the floor before we proceed with the elections? I see none.
May I therefore take it that the working group wishes to re elect Excellency Ambassador Samuel His Safa by acclamation as CRA Porter.
I see no objection.
It is so decided.
Excellency Ambassador Safa, I would like to invite you to take the CR, please.
Thank you.
States business.
Thank you.
My apologies for a few seconds.
As you know, I need to settle down before the engagements of the session starts proper.
Thank you so much, Excellency's colleagues.
I will now deliver my opening remarks at this session meeting of the working group.
Excellencies, distinguished delegates, the representatives of the United Nations entities and mechanisms, national human rights institutions, civil society groups, academia, and my beloved and dear children.
Are you with us? Yes, they are.
Wonderful.
It is a profound honor to assume the responsibility of chair for the second session of the open ended intergovernmental working group.
When I assumed the role in 2025, I set myself three guiding elements for the conduct of this mandate, transparency, inclusivity, and efficiency.
These principles have shaped my approach a initial and will continue to guide my conduct pro tempo throughout this session.
I thank His Excellency, Ambassador Ivan Emilio de Jesus Ugado Loa for nominating me on behalf of the Cogo and I express my sincere appreciation to member states for the confidence reposed in me.
I will endeavor to discharge these responsibilities bona fide, impartially and with full respect for the intergovernmental nature of this working group.
The DeputyI Commissioner has reminded us of the centrality of the right to education and the stark realities confronting children across regions.
The Secretariat will shortly provide a detailed account of the extensive work undertaken since our first session.
I will therefore use these remarks to set out my vision for our work over the coming three days and to situate our deliberations within the legal and procedural context.
Let me now provide a context leading to the second session that we're in today.
This working group was established by the Humanit Council Resolution 565, adopted on 10th of July 2024, operative paragraph one.
The Council mandated the IGWG to explore the possibility of elaborating and submitting to the Humanit Council a draft optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
These constitutes our x specialist mandate, defining both Rchenet material and the Rchet persona, the scope of our work.
The council instructed the working group to address in earlier one, explicit recognition that the right to education includes early childhood and education.
Two, explicit articulation that public pre primary education should be made available free to all, beginning with at least one year.
Three, explicit articulate that public secondary education should be made available free to all.
Four, promotion and encouragement of international cooperation.
Finally, streamlined reporting under Article 44 of the CIC Convention.
This mandate is both our foundation and our guide.
It entrusts member states with the responsibility to determines nots, how best to advance the aims set out in the council resolution.
Following the establishment of the intergovernmental working group, the Office of the High Commissioner launched a global call for submissions, receiving contributions from 168 stakeholders and over 8,100 children as GS level of child participation in TT related negotiations.
The working group held its first formal sessions from the first to the 3rd of September 2025, during which the majority of member states expressed support for advancing this initiative.
On the 12th of December 2025, I convened a nationals, a global consultation to examine a spectrum of approaches ranging from soft law instruments to treaty based options consistent with the Council's mandate.
Informal intersectional consultations with regional groups were held from the 19, 29th, June to 4th of July this year, providing for clarity to member states views.
Based on this input, the Secretariat circulated my GAT key principles in April this year.
This was followed by a one version, which is now before us for deliberation.
Having completed the consultations, received extensive written submissions, and held a formal sessions of the working group, I am of the legal opinion that the exploratory phase of the mandate has been fulfilled ex exte.
We are therefore procedurally and substantively positioned to advance our work in accordance with operative paragraph one of operation of the operation paragraph of resolution 565 without exceeding our mandates otherwise authorvis The mandates of the working group.
Our starting point must be the mandates entrusted to us by the Human Rights Council.
Resolution 565.
It's direct that this working group to explore the possibility of elaborating and submitting a draft optional protocol, whose aim is to include elements already enumerated Super.
This mandate is SLC specialist and our work must remain firmly anchored within it.
Now for my vision, My vision at this session is for a session that is purposeful, open, and results oriented.
We should approach our discussions with a willingness to examine different legal and policy perspectives, to identify areas of emergin convergence, and to understand clearly wherefore delegation is required.
The purpose of this session is not merely to state established positions.
It is to deepen our collective understanding, clarify, outstanding questions, and provide direction for the drafting phase.
One of the key principles is intended to assist us in that task.
It offers a structural framework around which delegation may consider the following the scope of the future optional protocol, its substantive elements, implementation alongside international cooperation.
Monitoring and reporting modalities, and finally, working methods for the drafting phase.
These principles do not replace intergovernmental deliberations, nor do they prejudge the position of any delegation.
Their value will depend on the quality, precision, and openness of our exchanges.
The objective of our deliberations.
I encourage all delegations and participants to help us answer four broad questions.
These are as follows.
One, where is there emerging convergence on the scope and objectives of a possible optional protocol? Two, which substantive and procedural elements require further examination, including in relation to existing international standards, implementation, international cooperation, monitoring, and reporting.
Three, how can the future work remain coherent, practical, and firmly anchored in the mandate established by the Human Rights Council.
Finally, what process would enable the work group to advance its mandate in an open, inclusive, efficient, and transparent manner? Those are the four pragmatic questions I would deeply appreciate if delegations reflect on when they're intervening during the course of the general debate.
Participation of children, which is at the heart of our engagement during this intersessional meeting.
Resolution 565 gives us a particular important instruction concerning the participation of children.
The working group is requested to ensure that children participate meaningfully, ethically, safely, and inclusively, and that their views inform the topic and substance of the proposed optional protocol.
This means that children's participation must be substantive, not symbolic.
Their perspective should inform our deliberations alongside those of states and other stakeholders.
I therefore invite all participants to listen carefully and respectfully to the children contributing to the session and to consider how their views bear upon the questions before us this morning.
The conduct of our work.
As chair Rapporteur, I will seek to create and I'll repeat that.
As chair Rapporteur, I will seek to create a condition for constructive exchange.
I encourage all delegations and participants to take note of the following.
One, to engage with the substance of the proposals before us as I enumerated the four key fundamental questions.
Two, to express positions clearly and concisely.
Three, to listen to different perspectives.
Four, to identify possible common ground, and five, to distinguish between issues that can be clarified during the session and those requiring further work.
Then finally, to maintain a respectful and accessible dialogue throughout these deliberations.
The council has invited states, civil sites and all relevant stakeholders, including parents, legal guidance and educators to contribute actively and constructively.
It has also provided for contributions from the committee on the rights of the child, special procedures and independent experts.
We should make full use of this breadth of knowledge while preserving the intergovernmental character of this process.
Looking ahead as I conclude my opening remarks.
By the conclusion of this session, I hope that we will have achieved three fundamental points.
One, a clear understanding of the views of member states and stakeholders, only of one of the key principles.
Two, it trans paint accounts of areas of convergence and issues requiring further consideration.
And finally, practical guidance on the next steps that may command the support of the working group.
Our task, as I have enumerated, is demanding, but it is also concrete.
We have a clear mandate and have endeavored to lay them out in such a well structured basis for discussions and a diverse range of perspective before us.
I invite all participants to approach this session in a spirit of seriousness, cooperation, and mutual respect.
I look forward to working with all of you and to listen keenly to every perspective from this working group session.
I want to thank you all for your attention, and I wish all of us a successful deliberation.
We now move to the adoption of the agenda.
And before I get to that, my understanding is the esteemed Deputy I Commissioner has all the engagements.
So we may suspend for just a few seconds to allow her to leave.
Thank you.
Let me thank, again, the Deputy Commissioner for a time and for a statement delivered because of the opening of the session.
The provisional agenda and program of work for this session are available on the Secretariat website.
As you may already know, due to financial crisis, this session is being held over three days instead of five.
As mandated by resolution 565, this session would include the participation of children.
Our aim is to ensure that this is a safe, friendly and empowering space for all participants.
To this end, please take note of the following one.
We encourage everyone to interact respectfully and to use clear, accessible language where possible.
Maybe that is where I would apologize to my children because I notice much of my statements in some legal languages that might be a little bit confusing, but don't worry, I'll find time to explain to you? Lovely.
Two, it is a shared responsibility to keep children safe to ensure that they can participate meaningfully and inclusively.
Finally, please do not take photographs or make videos recordings in the room, particularly of children without their consent.
If you have a safeguarding concern, please inform the HHR staff at the desk or the list of speakers or email to the following OCR children at un.org.
Before the preliminary discussions this morning, we will hear three statements.
The first is from the esteemed and Iodite Sophie Kaltzi, chairperson of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, and the second is my dear, formidable miss Fada Shahid, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to education.
And the third statement is from Mr.
Padip Uwego, their Chief of Branch, Development, economic, social, and cultural rights.
I will then present Revo of the key principles.
After, of course, the interventions of the panelists.
We will also hear expert perspective from five representatives, and these are the best children ever in the all wide world.
These are the best children, trust me.
And these are Karen.
Karen, are you there? Waive let me see you.
Lovely.
That's Karen.
Beautiful Karen.
And the next is Lana.
Is Lana there? Lana? Yeah, it is the most beautiful La.
Thank you so much, Lana.
The third is Roberto.
Roberto is there.
We'll get Roberto online.
Then the fourth is Sonya.
Yes.
She's so beautiful.
Then the final person would be Thord, the most outstanding todly.
We would also listen and see video statements from all the children who participated in regional consultations pull led by child representative over the past year with the support of civil society organizations.
We will then begin the preliminary discussions on one of the key principles.
The general debate will continue this afternoon until the end of the day.
Statements on this agenda item are limited to 2.5 minutes for joint statements by states and two statements and 2 minutes for individual statements.
Non stakeholders would have 2 minutes for joint statements and 1.5 minutes for individual statements.
How will the program look like for tomorrow? Tomorrow, which is Tuesday the 1st of September, our program of work is dedicated to discussions organized in the four clusters as enumerated in the program of work.
Each addressing the perspective of the sections of one of the key principles.
These thematic clusters will be supported by expert inputs from child representatives, academia, and civil society.
We will also benefit from the insights shared by representatives of member states on examples of national implementation in each of the clusters, which will be followed by an interactive dialogue.
The first cluster will address principles one, two, and three, which sets out the scope objectives of a future optional protocol, and will also address the complementarity with existing international frameworks.
The child representatives would open the session by sharing their perspectives.
Thereafter, we would hear the expert views of Jonathan Tedros, Professor of the College of Law, George State University, the United States, miss Sophie Lane, International Policy advocacy Officer from the organization Gs Not Brant.
Miss Dan Risler, special adviser on Inclusive Education at the International Disability Alliance.
This will be followed by national examples from the distinguished state representatives.
Doctor Ansel Chaka Mendoza, Vice Minister of Technical and Pedorical Services, Ministry of Education, Dominican Republic will deliver his statement by video.
Miss Florence Florencia Rizo, for Secretary of the Permanent Mission of Uruguay to the UN in Geneva.
The second cluster.
The second cluster will address Principles four through eight, which sets out the substantive elements of the future optional protocol, including its normative content and possible approaches to key obligations.
The child representatives will open the session by sharing the perspectives.
Thereafter, we will hear the expert views of miss Kathleen Carroll, Vice President for the European region, and miss Clare Bice, Wall Sector, both representing the World Organization for Early Childhood Education.
Miss Bahina Chukum, Director of the Division for Policies and Lifelong Learning Systems Uni School, and miss Fida Shahid, S Reporteur on the rights to Education.
Mr.
Li.
Yes.
The third cluster would address Principle six, seven, and eight, which concerns implementation and monitoring of a future optional protocol, including progressive realization and minimum core obligations, international cooperation, child participation, and streamlined reporting.
The child representative will also open the session by sharing the perspectives.
We will then hear miss Sophie Kilts, chair of the committee on the Rights of the Child.
This will be followed by national examples by miss Satu Conn, Deputy Director, Units of Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland.
Miss Pill Peters, Head of the Early Childhood Care and Development Divisions, Ministry of Gender Children and Social Protection of Ghana.
Miss Emily K.
Gorga, Deputy Minister, Basic and Senior Secondary Education of Ceylon, will deliver her statements by video link.
That will be concluded by DHM Chino Marina, Deputy permanent representative of the Permanent Mission of Gambia in Geneva.
The fourth and final cluster will address Principles nine and ten concerning the proposed working methods of the graft and phase of officional optional post score.
The HR representative will open the sessions by sharing the perspective thereafter, I as chair rapporteur, will present my views.
On the final day, which will be on Wednesday the 2nd of September and will be the third and final session.
We will be devoted to consolidating the discussions on one of the key principles as a framework to guide the preparation of a draft optional protocol.
The morning will begin with the reflections from the child representatives, followed by general overview of the working groups discussion over the previous two days by the esteemed Professor Claus Diba of the Faculty of Law Northwest University in South Africa.
I will then make a statement as chair rapporteur before the segment for general statements from the plenary.
In the afternoon of Wednesday, we will close the session with the adoption of proposed conclusions and recommendations of this working group, and we will conclude with remarks by Mr.
Kade Woggle, the official Chief of Branch Development, economic, social, and cultural rights.
Of course, I will also provide some brief reflections in closing the session on Wednesday.
Esteemed colleagues excellencies.
This is the proposed program of work for the three days of this session of the open ended intergovernmental working group.
Is there or does any delegation wish to make a statement on the provisional agenda or the draft program of work I see no objection.
The provisional agenda and program of work as amended are hereby adopted.
As I said, we would immediately after the adoption of the agenda, get into business.
And so, therefore, it is my pleasure to start off with the esteemed chair of the CIC, miss Sophie Kelty, to deliver a statement.
Miss Kelty, the floor is yours.
Thank you very much, Your Excellency.
Excellences, distinguished delegates, dear colleagues, and most importantly, dear children.
I'm especially glad to warmly welcome the children from different parts of the world, and it's crucial to involve children in important decisions and that no decision is made without children concerning the issues which concern them.
Education is one of the principal pathways through which a child enters into full enjoyment of the almost every rights guaranteed by the Convention on the Rights of the child.
Without education, there can be no full realization of children's rights.
Equality remains a challenge, participation remains out of reach, and the child's evolval capacities cannot fully unfold.
Free pre primary education is particularly important because it reaches children at the moment when the foundations of their lives are being laid.
It nurtures language, curiosity, confidence, and social and emotional development.
It supports families.
It enables needs to be identified earlier, and it can narrow inequalities before they become entrenched.
In an era or in an era defined by AI and rapidly emerging technologies, we must ask ourselves, what future are we creating if some children are already learning how to shape AI and others are left behind without even the opportunity to access kindergarten.
Such a divide risks deepening existing inequalities, but also creating entirely new ones, inequalities that may shape a child's opportunities, participation, and placed in society for generations to come.
Pre secondary education is equally essential.
It keeps an adolescent future open at precisely the stage when poverty, exclusion, child labor, other circumstances may push a child out of education.
It strengthens autonomy, expands opportunities, and prepares young people for dignified employment and meaningful participation in the society.
In this context, I wish to recognize the important work of open ended intergovernmental working group.
Its first session brought together different member states, together with children, experts, United Nations organizations, national institutions, and civil society, academia to examine legal gaps, implementation, financing, international cooperation, and possible normative approaches.
Its recommendations reflected the diversity of views expressed while a subsequent consultation engaged significant number of member states.
These breadths of participation and the fact that many states are already providing free pre primary and secondary education, demonstrates the value of an intergovernmental forum capable of bringing different experiences together and translating them into practical progress for children.
So I would like to congratulate Your Excellency for this important work and congratulate all the involved stakeholders who participated in this intergovernmental working group and especially once again, thank children for their very active involvement.
As chair of the committee on the Rights of the Child, I must first bring to your attention the diversity of views within the committee.
It is important that we acknowledge these differences openly and with mutual respect.
A majority of committee members consider that the present discussion overlooks important dimensions of the rights to education, does not yet provide the holistic approach required by the convention and may risk weakening the very rights it seeks to protect.
They are also deeply concerned that the current liquidity crisis of the United Nations already constraints the committee's capacity to full discharge its existing mandate.
In this view, the committee cannot assume traditional responsibilities without adequate resources, and they therefore recommend that serious considerations be given to alternatives to a force optional protocol.
Other members, however, of the committee, take a different view.
They consider that precisely because free pre primary education and free secondary education are not expressly guaranteed in the convention in the same manner as free primary education.
This important legal and normative gap should be addressed.
I belong to this latter group.
I do so for three principal reasons.
First, as a lawyer, I believe deeply in the power of enduring value of international law, despite the considerable pressure it faces today.
Where important dimensions of the rights to education have been addressed, while these guarantees remain incomplete, I believe the issue deserves a clear legal response.
Second, I believe the new optional protocol will support the committee in its monitoring process and prioritize the right to free pri primary and secondary education.
In its legal nature, the optional protocol is a strong binding tool, and often different states look at each other's good examples to join international efforts and movements.
If other states do so.
The committee can actively draw attention to state parties which do not provide it.
We do this constantly for optional protocol on individual communications, OSC and OAC, including through dedicated recommendations in our concluding observations for the CRC review.
These efforts have proven themselves as successful due to the fact that we have growing number of those states which ratify three optional protocols.
This will significantly increase number of states joining the optional protocol for it is adopted if it is adopted, leading to opening doors to free pre primary and secondary education to millions of children.
At the same time, I do not consider that optional protocol four must create an entirely new supervisory architecture or impose an additional burden upon the committee.
A force optional protocol would bind only those states that ratify it.
Its implementation could in principle, be integrated into the committee's existing reporting and monitoring process, as is already the case with the two optional protocols on children in armed conflict and on the sale of children, child prostitution, and child pornography, so called OAC and OSC.
Third, my conviction is also grounded in my personal experience.
Several years ago in my homeland, Georgia, I saw what the absence of access to early education meant in the lives of thousands and thousands of children.
Before the 2013 reform, children from poor families, remote and rural communities, and vulnerable groups could be unable to attend kindergartens.
For some children, exclusion had begun before the school.
Then a small country with very restricted resources as a lower middle income country at that time in 2013 made the political choice to guarantee free pre primary education for every child.
The change was not abstract.
The kindergarten classrooms doors open for hundreds of thousands of children.
Children who had previously been excluded entered educational environments alongside their peers.
Families gained new opportunities and support, and children who might otherwise have started their lives already behind were given a fairer beginning.
That experience taught me something important as a future decision maker.
When there is a political will of the state, even countries with modest GDP can ensure free education at all levels.
I'm confident that state parties will make right choice when it comes to the optional protocol for.
I think that if this optional protocol will persuade even one country to make free pre primary and secondary education free, It was worse of it because when the classroom doors opens freely, it opens to far more than education.
This is the most important point here.
It opens to dignity, equality, development, participation, and simply better chance to better life for every child.
It opens a pathway to the full enjoyment of the rights that the convention guarantees again to every child.
Thank you very much.
That touch stoning remarks by the chair of the CIC.
I take particular notes of the fact that when your statement has provided a clear understanding of the sense of divergent views within the CIC itself, But I appreciate the fact that the members or some members of the committee do acknowledge that indeed, there are normative gaps within the international legal framework that this working group is seeking to address.
That's the beauty of your statement on the one hand.
And what I equally appreciate, on the other hand, is your national perspective, which for me, sends a clear message of the stark reality that is confronting the entire world, and that is what we as a working group seek to address.
So I thank you so much, Madam Chair, and I trust that you will continue to engage with us during the course of the next few days.
I bear in mind that your session starts, I think today or tomorrow, tomorrow.
But please, every moment you have, please, the working group will truly appreciate your perspective at every stage of our engagement.
I want to thank you very much for your statement, and I think it is now time for me to invite one of the most formidable stakeholder in this discussion.
Otherwise, if she's not here, this engagement will not go ahead.
Madam Fahad Shahid, it is my pleasure to give you the floor, please.
Thank you, Excellency, and congratulations on the continued chairman and rapporteur for this working group.
Excellencies, honored delegates of all ages, genders, experiences, and institutions.
First, let me thank the sponsors of the resolution 565, which is clearly intended to strengthen the right to education in international law around early childhood care and education, free pre primary and secondary education, and the meaningful inclusion of children.
I'm grateful to be included in the deliberations of this important working group.
Right to education, of course, is the right to lifelong learning opportunities for all without distinction of age, location, or context, which is only achievable if it is free of direct, indirect, and hidden costs as underlined by young people, including children and youth, including those from the Right to Education Youth Network reign, which was established by my mandate to elicit young voices to guide us into the future.
Since the working group's first session, significant progress has been achieved through the negotiations, consultations, research, and other intersectional activities.
Importantly, the chair has proposed key principles to outline the content of the draft optional protocol.
As the special rapporteur in education, I fully support the strengthening of the right to free education, free early childhood care and education, pre primary and secondary education.
In this states led process, my role as Special Rapporteur is to help ensure that any discussions or future texts fully complies with and preserves and strengthens existing international standards on the right to education.
To start with, I'd like to stress that a new optional protocol must not repackage existing obligations as future aspirations.
Or fragment the right to education, or distract from immediate implementation of current obligations.
I also want to point out that the United Nations, excuse me, as mentioned by the chair of the committee, is experiencing financial constraints.
These have reduced the monitoring process for human rights mechanisms, including the work of treaty bodies.
A crucial question therefore is whether sufficient resources would be available for effective monitoring of the proposed optional protocol.
In terms of the proposed key principles, I acknowledge that these address some of the concerns that have been expressed in the past, but I would like to stress the following points for people during the discussions and deliberations, some of which resonate a lot with what the Deputy High Commissioner of Human Rights just said.
First, it is crucial that free secondary education is not presented as new legal aspiration, the right to progressively introduce Free secondary education is already embedded in the CRC and the International Covenant on Economic, Social Cultural Rights.
The problem here is not normative silence, but decades of under implementation, weak financing, and insufficient political will.
Progressive realization must not be allowed to become a loophole.
Any reference to progressive implementation in the optional protocol would be counterproductive as a caveat regarding such a progressive realization of existing obligations show that states sometimes use it to justify the lack of progress despite very strong language maximum available resources and non retrogression.
Secondly, it is vital that the legal questions in early childhood care and education, pre primary and secondary education be separated out.
Secondary education is already clearly protected and should not be rhetorically downgraded.
Early childhood care and education from birth to three years usually, and pre primary education, usually one to two years before compulsory schooling, may require further clarification, especially on the relationship between care, education, families, communities, and the state.
Indeed, the care element of the very young is an essential foundation for a child's cognitive and other developmental processes, aided by a stimulating and safe home environment and not just high quality early childcare and educational programs.
Third, the optional protocol must not fragment the right to education or weaken the understanding of education as lifelong learning for everyone at all ages, in all contexts as interpreted by all treaty bodies dealing with this right.
Nor should it isolate pre primary and secondary education from broader issues such as quality, inclusion, segregation, conflict, displacement, care, and safe learning environments.
Fourthly, the protocol must not create a two tier system in which children's right to education depends on whether their state has ratified the new instrument or not.
A non regression clause is necessary but insufficient.
Simply stating that stronger existing protections remain intact does not fully address the risk that monitoring bodies, states or advocates may begin treating free P primary and secondary education as obligations only for states that ratified the protocol.
Monitoring must continue to cover all states, not just ratifying states.
The Child right Committee should continue asking all states about free pre primary and secondary education under existing obligations.
Implementation tools should continue to advance in parallel with optional protocol negotiations.
Updated general comments, unified interpretive guidance, strengthened concluding observations, technical assistance, and follow up mechanisms may produce quicker impact than the treaty process alone.
Guidelines for states to implement all levels of the right to education would necessary regardless of the outcome of the OP negotiations.
Fifth, the process must not create an illusion of progress.
Excuse me, meaning that the risk of mere symbolic ratification must be guarded against.
For instance, when there's ratification without ensuring the necessary classrooms, teachers, meals, safe spaces, and public financing that are necessary.
And we've just heard that the optional protocol was not there when Georgia did the wonderful act of making sure that all children receive their early age education.
Children must experience concrete improvements in access quality, inclusion, and safety.
The need to avoid duplication and reduce burdens is valid, but should not lead to an instrument so narrow that it fails to address the real barriers that so many children face in enjoying free public education from birth onwards.
Sixth, existing state practice should inform the protocol discussions.
Many states have expanded early childhood care and education, pre primary and secondary education regardless of the perceived gap and legal obligations leading to the current discussions on an optional protocol.
They did this through existing treaty guidance, concluding observations, and domestic policy reforms.
These experience should inform the drafting rather than be treated merely as peripheral examples.
Finally, the chair's principles rightly referred to efficiency, legal certainty, and avoiding duplication.
But the drafting should be guided by how well the protocol responds to what children identify as unfairness in practice, costs, exclusion, unsafe schools, lack of meals, underpaid teachers, segregation, and unequal access to quality public education as identified by surveys conducted by my team among members of the RAN Network of Youth and children.
Protocol should not imply that children are excluded from free public education because international law is silent.
In many contexts, the obstacle is the failure to mobilize maximum available resources, the prioritization of debt servicing and austerity measures over public education, weak tax justice, inequitable budgets, and insufficient political will.
My latest report to the General Assembly this year finds that many states confronting sanctions and debt repayments merely suspend all future development of their educational systems.
To conclude, therefore, I believe that a credible legal instrument must also address public investment, financing, debt pressures, and resource allocation.
Otherwise, it risks naming a right without confronting the conditions that will make that right realizable.
Thank you, sir.
And I thank you so much, miss Shahid, for your remarks.
I have certainly taken note of the following, including the fact that you clearly acknowledge the level of progress that has been made since the adoption of resolution 565.
I also take note of the fact that you are in clear support of a process that strengthens education.
However, I also take note of the series of concerns that you enumerated in your statement, which I would summarize in four, that includes fragmentation, duplication, and aggression, and of course, funding as well.
But clearly, these are similar concerns that have been raised by all the delegations and those concerns they are fair.
But as you could see, the key principles by themselves have clearly provide an avenue as to how we would address all those concerns and I assure you that we'll continue to take steps in addressing those concerns as we move this process forward.
Thank you again so much, miss Shad.
It is my pleasure to move to our next and final panelist.
Before I present the key principles, I will now give the floor to Mr.
Padep Wog, the OHHR officer in charge of the development, economic, social, and cultural branch to deliver statements.
Mr.
Wogo, the floor is yours.
His Excellency chair, Excellency distinguished delegates, their children.
As we begin the second session of the intergovernmental working group today, allow me to recall the process that has brought us here.
Since the first session in September last year, a significant amount of work has taken place in support of the mandate entrusted to this working group by the Human Rights Council.
Throughout this period, OHCHR has sought to support the process in the spirit indented by the Human Rights Council is a state led discussion informed by widest possible range of expertise and perspective.
Much of the work undertaken since the first sesson has therefore focused on creating opportunities for listening, as, and participants.
I would like to first to acknowledge the chair Reporter for the extensive consultation he has conducted.
I wish to thank all member states, United Nations entits, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Special Rapporteur on the right to education, National Human Rights institutions, independent children's rights institutions, civil society organizations, academia experts, and importantly, children and young people who have contributed their expertise, experience, and reflections throughout this intersectional period.
The chair Reporter's draft key principles circulated to states in April 2026 provided an important basis for exchanges in the international period.
The Secretariat was pleased to support this process through outreach, consultations, and the collection of returns on business from a broad range of stakeholders.
The contributions have helped identify the principal issues before the working group and provide evidence base for member states deliberation.
Submissions received reflect diverse legal traditions, national experience, and perspectives on implementation.
While views differ on a number of issues, they also reveal broad engagement with questions concerning the scope and states of the mandate, the relationship between a future optional protocol and the existing international legal framework.
Implementation and international cooperation, monitoring arrangement, and the participation of children in the monitoring of a future optional protocol.
At the same time, many contributions underscore the importance of quality, inclusive and accessible education, particularly for children in vulnerable situations.
These exchanges have helped identify both areas of convergence and issues requiring further consideration by member states during this session.
The Secretariat's role in this regard has been to help create the conditions for an informed, inclusive and transparent intersectional process.
Beyond facilitating participation, it has also sought to ensure that many contribution received could be reflected in a structured manner and translated into materials that support focused discussions by memory stage.
In line with the resolution 565 and under the leadership of the chair, the Secretariat also prepared the progress report requested by the Human Rights Council for presentations to its 62nd session, providing an objective reflection of the discussions and views expressed thus far.
Resolution 565 also underscored the importance of ensuring that children actively participate in the working groups discussion in a safe, meaningful, and ethical manner.
Accordingly, the Secretariat has placed particular emphasis on supporting children's participation throughout the process, including through the development of child friendly materials.
These explain the working groups mandate, process, and the issues under discussion.
Together with our civil society partners, we have also created opportunities for children to contribute to the discussions at the working groups session.
Throughout the intersectional period, efforts were made to ensure that children's perspective inform discussions alongside those of states, experts, and other stakeholders.
These collective efforts reflect a recognition that children are right holders whose views should be given due weight in matters that affect them.
The perspectives shared by children have brought in and insights to the realities they face in accessing and enjoying the rights to education and have health ground discussions in lived realities.
distinguished delegates.
The documentation before the working group this week, including its program of work, reflects the extensive consultation process undertaken during the intersational period.
Together, they provide a foundation for informed discussions as the working group continues its consideration of the important mandate.
The sustained and inclusive engagement demonstrated over the past year attest to the importance stakeholders attached to these discussions.
We trust that the discussions during this session will benefit from the reach, range of expertise, perspectives that have been shared throughout this process and will help provide for clarity and directions for the work ahead.
The Secretariat remains fully committed to supporting the chair and all delegations in an impartial, inclusive, and transparent manner as the working group advances its work.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Mr.
Wegle.
Clearly, as you could see, that is nothing short of a professional and technical analysis of the engagement and processes since this working group was established from the Office of the High Commission.
I want to thank you so much and I particularly note the fact that you do acknowledge the level and extensive nature of the consultations that we've done since this process began.
Thank you so much, Mr.
Woggle.
I deeply appreciate your questions and the statements you've delivered and I acknowledge the same to you, Madam Shad and Madam Kiladze.
I thank you so much for your statements this morning.
This will be the end of the statements from the panelists for the first session.
We will take just a five minute technical break or less so that we realign ourselves for the next session.
We will certainly get the children will come on board, will come to the high table.
And they will do their presentations.
But then before that, I would have to present the key principles.
But let's take a 5 minutes break.
Thank you so much.
So 5 minutes break, please.
Excellency's, colleagues, we'll resume in the next 30 seconds.
Excellencies, colleagues.
We now move to agenda item five, which is presentation of one of the key principles.
I'd like to thank all of you for your continued engagement with this process.
Now, before I get to presenting the key principles, it is important that we have a clear reflection on similar processes with similar mandates.
And as a result, therefore, I would ask kindly the Secretariat to provide a brief analysis of precedents that have such mandates as ours.
And I'll give the floor to Lady Sony for just 2 minutes.
Please, Lady Sony, you have the floor, please.
Thank you, Chair Rapporteur.
Good morning, Excellency's, distinguished delegates.
I'm Salini Sargasso with the OHCHR, the Secretariat to the working group.
At the request of the chair Rapporteur, the Secretariat has been asked to provide a brief overview of timelines and practices from previous intergovernmental working groups on optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, of which there have been three, examining particularly transitions from initial discussions to text based negotiations.
Looking at the earlier practice, the working groups on the optional protocols on the involvement of children in armed conflict and on the sale of children were established in 1994 under the auspices of the then Human Rights Commission and concluded their work in 2006 years later.
Over this period, the initial phase of general discussion and exploration lasted approximately one year.
Thereafter, the work proceeded to text based discussions and elaboration of the draft positions for the following five years.
The optional protocol on a communications procedure followed a more accelerated trajectory and lasted two years, created under the auspices of the Human Rights Council.
Text based negotiations began early on.
Draft elements prepared by the chairperson, together with informal and intersessional consultations with member states, including regional groups, supported the conclusion of that processes.
Across these processes, certain common features are observed in connection with the shift from the exploratory discussions to the drafting stage.
The progressive consolidation of member states views, the development and circulation of written materials, including principles, guidelines, or draft elements, and the evolution of discussions from general exchanges towards engagement with texts, concerning the present intergovernmental working group.
Human Rights Council Resolution 56 slash five states that the intergovernmental working group has the mandate of exploring the possibility of elaborating and submitting to the Human Rights Council a draft optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
From reading this text, this mandate articulates a phased procedural approach encompassing initial consideration of scope and content, followed by a mandate for progressive development of a draft instrument.
I thank you for your attention.
The Secretariat remains available to respond to any questions and to serve as a resource in support of this working group.
Thank you very much, Lady Sony.
Clearly, I've requested that overview on the principle basis because even before we commenced the regional consultations on the DA principles, there has been repeated concerns about the pace and speed of this process.
My answer has always been that for the purpose of our work, there is no way that we would engage in any process that is outside the mandate that has been delivered to us as a working group.
So as you could see from our analysis, we are building on from the OIC, the optional protocol on communications procedure.
That is a similar pattern that this working group is building for.
As a result, therefore, I will now move to a brief explanation of the key principles which were initially shared with all delegations in April this year.
After we concluded regional consultations with the various United Nations regional groups, we now they have one of the key principles taking on board, much of the contributions, the concerns that were raised during the course of those engagements and during those regional meetings.
I want to use this opportunity to thank all delegations that were deeply engaged during the course of those regional consultations.
I will now provide an analysis of the ten key principles which are before you.
And for the purpose of the interpreters, I will take my time to do so because apparently, this brief analysis have not been shared with them, so I will take my time so that they will be able to provide a thorough interpretation of what I'm saying.
We have one key principles establish the conceptual, legal and procedural foundation for drafting the optional protocol.
By the way, can I ask the Secretariat to please screen the PowerPoint presentation so those who are not with the copies of the key principles in their hand will be able to follow through on the screen.
Please Secretariat Wonderful.
Thank you so much.
They ensure that the OP remains firmly within the confines of the mandate as provided by the you might council resolution 565.
Now, Secretariat, as I do this introduction, please just be going through one after the other until you get to ten when I want to start, I'll tell you to start again.
But for the purpose of my introduction, please be screening them one after the other so delegations will follow through on the key principles.
Each principle is designed to address specific concerns raised during the consultation and to provide clarity, predictability, and legal coherence for the drafting phase.
As we consider one key principles, it is important to recall that our approach follows well established precedents.
From other open ended intergovernmental working group.
And as indicated by La Dulani, in this instance, the OIque which was also established by a resolution of the Human Rights Council, and that resolution established a working group, and within the space of two years, they started negotiating the instrument.
In earlier, the ADOc committee that negotiated the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of persons with disability, the working group that prepared the optional protocol to the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, and in this instance, the Human Rights Council's own intergovernmental working group that elaborated on the optional protocol on communications procedure all adopted guiding principles ex ante.
Conducted open and inclusive consultations, circulated successive draft, all of which aligned procedurally with provisions with existing treaty practice.
These provisions demonstrate that the structured framework before us, which is the revised key principles, neither is a novel, but rather consistent with the mandates entrusted to us by resolution 565.
Additionally, it ensures that our work proceeds firmly within the limits of what is legally permissible, avoiding any step that could be considered otherwise at vice or null and void.
Now, I go to an explanation of each of the key principles.
Already, as you know, there has been concerns repeatedly, and those concerns, I have summarized them in four elements.
One is fragmentation, two is duplication, and three is regression, and finally, concerns about funding.
In all of these concerns, we have ensured that these key principles speaks to each and every one of those concerns.
The key principles before you is not a document that has been created in isolation.
Never.
It is a document that has taken on board the concerns of delegation even before the establishment of this working group.
And ask me why.
And my answer is this, as acknowledged by the OHHR, we have conducted extensive, thorough, and if you like, exhaustive consultation and engagement with all delegations and all stakeholders.
This commenced through seas of engagement, including side events.
By the way, for all of us who are familiar with the processes of the Human Rights Council, you know for a fact that there is no way a resolution could be adopted by the Council without at least one informal consultation.
So during the course of those conversations, and by the way, we organized well over five.
Procedurally, it's just one, but we said no, given the fact that we are cognizance of the level of concerns that has been raised repeatedly, let us do so exhaustively.
And that is precisely what we did.
We had series of negotiations on the draft on the resolution resolution 565.
And all what you see before you as the key principles are embedded Singly with resolution 565.
I will now go through each of those principles to provide very brief explanation before we get the children who would come to the high table as well to the high table, to provide their perspective as it is.
Secretariat, please let's go with principle one.
Principle one, as you know, speaks to the scope, and the scope of this key principle is embedded in the operative paragraph one of resolution 565.
This principle, of course, anchors family within the mandates provided by the council resolution.
It focuses exclusively on early childhood care and education, free public pre primary, and free secondary education.
And this matters because this particular key principle is responding to the concerns that have been raised by many delegations.
I have the list and names of delegation, but for the purpose of what was the language that was used? Attribution.
For the purposes of attribution, I will refrain from identifying those states who raise those concerns.
Let's go to principle Two.
Principle two, as you see in black and white, no duplication or revision of all CRC.
I was amazed that we still continue to receive this same concern, the questions about duplication, regression, which is the concern by many delegation.
Even though the key principles itself speaks to it that look, we will take every measure to deal with issues of duplication.
We cannot repeat what has been provided, for example, in the CRC, or what is provided for in the International Covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights, which talks about progressive realization of secondary education.
We will not duplicate Even a non legal mind will read clearly that this optional protocol will address issues of duplication.
This would, of course, ensure that the optional protocol complements rather than compete with existing treaty provisions.
So even the questions about regression is also addressed.
Principle three.
Principle three speaks directly that there will be no regression in international law.
This principle ensures that the OP cannot and will not weaken existing protections under the CIC or the International Covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights, or even our individual domestic laws.
It mirrors Article 41 of the CIC with similar clauses in other CIC optional protocols.
It matters because it responds directly to concerns raised by delegations, as I said earlier on.
It ensures that ratification of the OP cannot reduce existing state obligations to all the treaties.
This is where the question about regression delegation should take comfort in by Principle three.
Principle four.
Principle four talks about strengthening international cooperation.
We are not being oblivious of the fact that individual states should not take owner or responsibility in engaging, for example, in innovative funding mechanisms, in addressing questions about funding.
This is one of the very strong questions that has been raised repeatedly.
Indeed, Principle four addresses questions about funding.
Principle five.
Principle five talks about monitoring without additional reporting burdens.
This is also another concern that has been raised repeatedly that already states have even outstanding reporting obligations to other mechanisms or other treaty bodies.
We knew, and by the way, the members of the core group are also members.
They are members of other delegations.
So we recognize that yes, indeed, reporting obligation, we cannot have a separate reporting obligation under this optional protocol.
It should fall under Article 44 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
So there will be no means of reporting separately under this protocol.
And why it matters.
It matters, of course, because delegations have raised concerns on this.
And it also ensures that feasibility and sustainability of monitoring is ensured.
Principle six Principle six, which is from every indication is at the heart of the conduct of this working group is the rule and participation of children.
This principle recognizes the historic contribution of children to this process and embeds the participation in the Opis perambula paragraph.
The participation should be meaningful, and it should be in such a safe environment.
Principle seven.
Principle seven talks about lifelong learning and acknowledge, but not expanded.
This principle acknowledges lifelong learning in the preamble, but does not include substantive provisions keeping the OP within the mandate.
We recognize that we should have limits in terms of what this working group is mandated to do.
We are not mandated to bring other extraneous, if you like, subjects or elements that has no bearing to what the mandate of this working group is.
It avoids expanding the OP beyond resolution 565 and maintains an alignment with SDG four.
Principle eight.
Principle eight speaks to procedural provisions within existing CIC optional protocols.
These principles shows legal certainty by mirroring procedural articles from the OP of CIC, which is children in armed conflict and communications procedure.
Why it matters.
It matters because, of course, principally, it responds to the questions and concerns raised by delegations.
It ensures predictability for states and avoids creating new procedural models that could complicate ratification.
Principal nine.
Principal nine Principal nine mandates includes elaborating and submitting a draft optional protocol.
Clearly, this is the mandate of this working group.
Explore the possibility of elaborate and submit to the Human Rights Council an optional protocol.
That's our mandate.
It is concurrent, and that has been the process that we have followed since the working group was established last year.
It responds, of course, to questions and concerns raised by some delegations and also provides legal clarity and procedural direction, which is extremely important.
For the final principle ten, Principle ten addresses efficiency and financial consciousness.
This principle ensures the OP is drafted in a manner consistent with the UN rationalization measures and CIS financial constraints.
It of course response to the series of questions that have been raised by delegations.
And in addition, it ensures that the OP is implementable, and at the same time feasible.
These remains the concerns even from one of the panelists this morning.
So those are the ten key principles which you and I know from the explanation I have provided addresses not some, but all the questions that have been repeatedly raised even when we were negotiating.
The resolution that gave birth to this working group.
So as I sit here, one thing I can assure you of is the fact that I'm familiar with all of these concerns that have been raised repeatedly, we will continue to work earnestly that despite the fact that we have a very clear mandate, but that's questions that have repeatedly been raised by delegation, we will continue to take every step in addressing them, including once the optional protocol, the substantive instrument itself, is ready for negotiations.
I thank all delegations for their continued engagement with this process, and we will not stop in terms of our engagement.
This will be our approach to ensure that we are, as I said, my three guiding principles, inclusivity, transparency, and efficiency will guide this process as we move along.
Thank you again.
I will now invite the children who would come up the podium and they will provide their individual perspective on the key principles.
Please give the children time.
Let them sit properly and observe to ensure that they are safe so that they'll be able to present properly.
Todd, are you okay? Yes.
Lana, are you okay? Sonia, are you fine? Wonderful.
Of course, Karen, are you good? Lovely.
The child representatives Colleen, Lana, Roberto Online, Sonya and Thord will now share the reflections, experiences, and proposals put forward by children who participated in the five virtual regional consultations on the mandate of the working group.
Which the child representatives co led between December 2025 and July of this year with the support of the organizations.
I now turn to the child representatives to make the presentations, and I'll start with Karen and by the way, Karen will be speaking in Spanish.
This will be an opportunity for me to learn Spanish today.
For those of you who are not familiar with Spanish, I encourage you to listen with your headphones.
I would also do the same.
Before Karen starts, let me just provide an advice that the children's segment will last approximately 40 minutes or less.
It will take the form of a chain of questions among the child representatives in past with video segments from all the children.
The children will ask one another the questions directly.
There will be no modator.
Karen will open and close the segment in Spanish.
No further intervention for me would be made at all.
It's exclusively the children's day.
So it's my pleasure to give the floor to Karen to hit the ball rolling.
Karen.
The floor is yours.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Chairperson.
Good morning to everybody.
I'm Karen from Mexico.
I'm 17.
Since I was seven, I've been participating in the defense of the human rights of children and adolescents.
I've been part of the participation group Chics Psendf in Latin America, emphasizing our right to be heard as children adolescents and participate meaningfully in the decisions that affect us because I strongly believe that there are no better specialists in childhood and adolescence issues than ourselves.
It's an honor for me to be here today and to welcome you to this space and today I participate representing children and adolescents from my region in Latin America, sharing the voices of those who have been part of the consultations on a right to free preschool and secondary education.
To hear these voices, we made a call convening children and adolescents who are defenders of children's right to talk about the barriers that exist to accessing education in different parts of the world.
We also shared information about the process that's underway at the United Nations and the possibility of creating a new optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Something that for me is really important is that it was the children and adolescents themselves who invited others to learn about this process and to participate as is stated in Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guarantees our right to express our opinion freely and to be taken into account in the processes and decisions that affect us.
Throughout this session, we're going to be sharing the reflections, experiences, and proposals of children and adolescents who participated in the five virtual regional consultations on the right to education held in Africa, Asia, Europe, Canada, and Latin America and the Caribbean, North Africa, and the Middle East.
To achieve this, we, child representatives of the regions of the world met as members of the advisory group of the committee on the rights of the child.
Of Child Rights Connect, a global collective of children's adolescents who defend human rights, supporting us with other civil society organizations with the main objective of ensuring that children's voices are heard and genuinely incorporated into the decisions and policies of the United Nations.
For each regional consultation, we held preparatory meetings where we defined how we wanted to develop things and built the questions to guide the conversations.
In each regional consultation, one of the child representatives here today explained the process that is being carried out at the United Nations so that children could learn about the intergovernmental working group and the sessions that are being held.
This was a process that generated a lot of interest in some regions because of the number of participants, we even had to hold two meetings.
In total, through the five regional consultations, we had participation by some AT children and adolescents who are defenders of children's rights.
We also had a Child rapporteur responsible for taking notes to record the main ideas and write the draft of the reports.
We had a consultation with other children on the draft of key principles of the presidency, but we will talk about that tomorrow.
For us, it was essential that participation did not end at the end of the consultations and so the participants have continued to be informed about the progress of the process and the spaces where their contributions have been shared.
In fact, the reflections that we will present today were previously reviewed to ensure that what we're sharing really represents what we built collectively in the consultations.
Furthermore, the results of the consultations have been published and shared in different spaces for dialogue and dissemination so that these voices continue to contribute to the discussion on the right to education.
Therefore, the interventions that we will hear below are based on these experiences, reflections, and proposals.
We greatly appreciate the openness and the space given to us to bring these voices to this important table.
We invite you actively to listen to them and to reflect their contributions in your reflections, discussions on the next steps of this process.
To start our dialogue, I would like to ask From who is 12-years-old and represents the Western European and other states reached a question.
Fn is from Sweden and is a member of the Board of Directors of Save the Children Youth Sweden.
Front what barriers and obstacles to children mention regarding access to pre primary and secondary education? Thank you.
Thank you for the question.
When people talk about free education, they usually picture only the tuition.
Zero fees to enroll and the job is done.
But that's not what the children we spoke to described.
What they described was something quieter, something that doesn't show up in a government budget line, but decides just as much whether a child actually makes it into the classroom.
If there is one thread that connects every region we consulted, it's this hidden costs, not a headline fee, not the number that gets written into law, but everything around it.
Transport, uniforms, supplies, meals.
We heard it from children in Africa, in Asia, across Europe, in Latin America, and in the Middle East and North Africa.
Different countries, different languages, completely different circumstances.
And somehow, the same barrier kept coming up again and again.
These costs don't stay financial for long.
They turn into something else.
A child in Europe who can't afford lunch and gets bullied for it, a child in Asia who has to risk their safety on an unlicensed motorcycle just to physically reach a school that's supposed to be free.
A family in the Middle East and North Africa forced to choose between sending their child to a class or getting through the week.
This isn't a side effect.
It's the actual lived experience behind a policy word like hidden costs.
Here's how it sounds directly from the children who told us this themselves, starting with Sarah, from the Canada and Latin America Consultation.
She is a member of the Child Advisory Team of Child Rights Connect and leader of an association in Canada, fighting for the right of education for students with developmental disabilities.
Overall, participants emphasize that making education truly inclusive means more than just removing school fees.
Schools must also feel safe, welcoming, and equipped with the resources children need to succeed.
One of the main topics discussed during the consultation was the barriers that prevent children from accessing preschool and secondary school.
Although education is often described as free, participants explained that families are still expected to pay for transportation, uniforms, books, school supplies, Internet access, and extracurricular activities, and these hidden costs can make education inaccessible for many low income families.
Here.
On the other side of the world, in Africa, Kamsi described something very similar.
Kams is a child advocate from Nigeria and a member of the Children's Advisory Team of Child Rights Connect.
During the consultation, children from several African countries spoke about the barriers that prevent many children from accessing education.
They highlighted that school costs, including fees, uniform, and transport are often too expensive for families.
Children also mentioned the lack of learning materials, unsafe learning environments and long distances to school.
In some communities, girls face discrimination and unlikely to attend school than boys.
From two completely different parts of the world, we are hearing the same core message.
Now I want to hand over to Sona, who's going to tell you why this hits some children far more than others.
Sonia is a young activist since the Segua Foundation in Indonesia, which the members come from various areas of Jakarta and Bagor.
She is the representative of the Asian region.
Sonya, can you tell us more what you heard about poverty as a barrier to education and the reality of low income families? Based on children consultation, I would like to focus how unpved poverty remains a major barrier to children access to education.
This is something which was raised at every regional consultation as a major barrier.
There are many problems faced by children due to poverty that families have to face.
They have to accept realities that they cannot go to school because parents cannot afford the school expenses.
Even if children can go to school, they have to accept very poor conditions.
For instance, in some communities, schools have to be relocated because of development projects, such as airport construction or other infrastructure development.
As a result, children have to attend school that are much far away from their homes.
Participants mentioned at the Asia Consultation that to get to school, many children have to cross ricti bridges or ride on unlaed motorcycles because there is because there is no public transportation available.
As we heard at the African and the Asia Consultation, poverty makes education very unfair.
In big cities, schools have modern and complete facilities, in remote areas, poverty slows down progress.
So many schools end up damaged and poorly, making it difficult to learn in a safe and comfortable environment.
On top of that, as it was set at the Latin America Consultation, these poor area suffer from a shortage of teachers.
Very few are willing to stay because of low pay and a lack of benefits.
As a result, children in remote areas don't just like the money for school.
They also miss out on good facilities and qualified teachers that city children have.
Others only have one school uniform that they wear every day because buying another one is too expensive.
Poverty also affects children's daily lives at school.
Some children wear sandals because their families cannot afford school shoes.
Poverty can become an even bigger barrier when children reach different stages of education.
When families have to choose between these costs or their daily necessities, early childhood education may not be seen as a priorities.
As a result, some children enter primary school without having had the opportunity to experience pre primary education, even though these early years are important for developing basic skills, confidence, and readiness to learn.
Poverty can also affect whether children are able to stay in school.
Some children may have to help their parents earn money, take care of younger siblings, or support their families in other ways.
We heard about this even at the European Consultation.
This can reduce the time they have for studying.
In some cases, make them stop attending school altogether.
This is especially concerning because leaving school early can limit their opportunities in the future and make it harder for them to break the cycles of poverty.
Another important issue is that poverty is not only about whether a child can enter a school.
It is also about whether they can learn and participate equally once they are there.
A child might technically have access to education, but if they cannot afford transportation, learning materials, proper clothing, or other basic needs, their experience at school can be very different from that of children from wealthier families.
Our children, at all consultations said that education should not depend on where a child lives or how much money their families has.
Every child should have equal opportunities to access quality pre primary, primary or secondary education.
Reducing property related barriers means making education affordable and accessible, improving schools in remote areas, providing AD transportation, and ensuring that children have the basic support they need to stay and succeed in school.
I want to turn back to you, Tron.
What were the concrete suggestions from the original consultation? Thank you for the question, Sona.
During our consultations, children from the Middle Eastern and North African region raised the point that the potential protocol isn't just about naming what costs exist.
It's about the fact that if we don't define what free actually means, a government can say on paper that it has fulfilled its obligation under this protocol, while a child is still sitting at home because their family couldn't afford that bus for the morning.
Put together what we've just heard.
Sarah told us this is real in some of the wealthiest countries in the world.
Cams told us it's just as real in Africa.
Sona just showed us how it hits family in poverty hardest of all.
Children in the Manor region told us that unless we name these costs specifically in the text of the protocol itself, none of this changes.
Here's our ask coming from children across five regions who never spoke to each other, but arrived at the same conclusion.
The optional protocol needs to explicitly define what free means.
Not as a general principle, not as a footnote, written directly into the text, covering transport, uniforms, and learning materials at minimum.
Because right now there is a gap, a gap between what gets promised in a ratified treaty and what's real for a child standing at the school gate without the bus fer in the pocket.
Closing that gap is not a technical detail.
It is the entire point of this protocol.
Now, let me give the floor to Lana, who represents the Eastern European region.
Lana is from Croatia, Opaa if I'm saying that right.
She's a member of the Children's Advisory Team of Childres Connect and her local children's City Council of Opthya in which she has been active for several years.
Lana, can you tell us what you heard at the regional consultations? Can every child equally access education? Thank you, Tron.
When we talk about the right to education, we often ask whether education is free.
But I think that we also need to ask a different question.
Can every child actually access that education? Because saying that education is free does not automatically mean that every child can reach it, enter it, participate in it, and actually benefit from it.
And this is something that all regional conations made very clear to us.
Children do not all experience education in the same way.
The barriers faced by a girl in one country may be completely different from those faced by a child with a disability, a refugee child, or a child living in a rural area.
But these barriers can also overlap.
A child may face several of them at the same time.
For example, a child living in poverty may also have a disability.
A refugee child may face both language barriers and discrimination.
A girl living in a rural area may have fewer schools available to her while also being expected to take care of her family.
So when we create policies, we cannot assume that one solution will work for every child.
I would like to share some of the experiences that children told us across different regional organizations.
So let's start with Nazari from McCain, a participant of the Eastern European consultation.
So among our key principles, we pushed for a guarantee that quality education is available for vulnerable groups, especially children with disabilities, children from minority, and indigenous groups and curves.
For instance, low income families struggle so much with healing fees and children with special needs are too often left without the proper infrastructure or support they need to study.
No child should be left out because of who they are.
The experiences of indigenous and migrant children also showed us how important it is for children to feel that they belong.
A child should not have to give up an important part of their identity in order to access education.
We can hear more about this from Nizer from Indonesia, who is moderating the Asian regional consultation.
Indigenous children also face challenges to be able to attend and do well in school, due to many factors such as lack of bilingual education, distance from school or discrimination due to different beliefs, norms, and culture.
In the meantime, children from migrant families often struggle to get access to education due to discrimination, poverty, or simply they do not have birth certificate.
Their right to learn and grow is unfulfilled.
Jon can also face discrimination because of their culture, language, nationality, or background.
Access is not only about getting to the school gate.
It is also about whether a child feels welcome once they are there.
Can they understand what is being taught? Can they communicate, participate? Can they ask for help and do they feel safe? Are their culture, identity, and experiences respected? This is also clear from the European consultation.
A school may technically be open to a child with a disability, but if there are no accessible facilities, appropriate learning materials, or support, that child is still being excluded.
Inclusion means more than allowing a child into a classroom.
It means making sure that they can participate and learn equally.
Then there's the question of gender.
Do from Ecuador, from the Latin American consultation can explain more about this for us.
We share a concern.
Education cannot be truly free if there are barriers and we are concerned at the problems faced by girls.
We believe that this protocol must provide free access to education.
It must also be safe and inclusive, as pointed out by the girls in the North African consultations.
The right to education cannot depend on gender.
A girl can be a scientist, she can be a doctor or any other profession.
We want to take part in decision making.
Education must prepare us to transform our communities.
For girls in particular, education can be limited by expectations about what their future should look like, and gender is only one example.
Children can also face barriers that are less visible.
Even when school itself is free, families may still have to pay for transportation, books, uniforms, meals, school supplies, or internet access.
Sometimes children themselves have to work or take care of family members instead of attending school.
A child can technically have the right to education while in reality being unable to exit that right.
And this is why I think that we need to look beyond school fees when we talk about free education.
We also need to listen to children when deciding how these barriers should be removed because children are not only affected by education policies, we are also the ones who experience them.
We know the difference between simply being allowed into a classroom and actually feeling included.
Children facing the greatest barriers should not be an afterthought.
They should be at the center of the solution.
Perhaps the question is not only is education free, but can every child access it? Because education is only truly free when it is truly accessible and when no child is left behind.
Now, I would like to ask Roberto, the child representative from the Africa region to tell us more about how children in conflict experience the burden of education fees.
What if children said at the original consultation about this? Thank you, Lana.
Good afternoon, Excellencies, and fellow child leaders.
I am Roberto from Liberia, representing the African region.
To answer your question directly, in the African Regional consultation, children told us that conflict does not just close schools.
It makes education expensive in ways it wasn't before.
When families are displaced, they often lose their income, but school fees, uniforms, and books doesn't become free just because a family has nothing left.
Children said, even where education is technically free, the hidden costs around it becomes impossible to afford once conflict strips a family of its livelihood.
So the burden of fees doesn't disappear during conflict.
It gets heavier at exactly the moment families.
This is one of the quiet, lasting consequences of conflict.
Children stop learning sometimes for months, sometimes for years.
Not only because a school building is destroyed, but because the cost of staying enrolled becomes unbearable.
With that, let's hear from Maa first.
Maa is from Morocco.
She is a child rights advocate and a member of the Morocco Children's Parliament.
She will talk about how conflict and displacement disrupt children's access to education in the Middle East and North Africa, one of the key challenges raised around free, pre primary and secondary education in that region.
In parts of North Africa and the wider Mia region, conflict, displacement, natural disasters and other emergencies can severely disrupt children's access to education.
When families are forced to leave their homes or when schools are damaged and transformed into emergency shelters, learning can be interrupted for months or even years.
But education is not a luxury that can wait until the crisis is over.
It is a fundamental right in the source of stability, hope, and opportunity.
For a child, losing years of education can have long term consequences on their development, future opportunities, and ability to fully participate in society.
Therefore, even in times of crisis, we must ensure that children can continue learning in safe, inclusive, and supportive environments.
What Ma described isn't unique to one region.
In the African consultation, children said, what makes it difficult to keep schools running.
In the Canada and Latin America consultation, children said that when there is violence, schools shut down, sometimes for weeks, same problems, different regions.
And this is exactly why the issue needs solidarity, not just local fix.
When we talk about international solidarity on the right to education, we mean something concrete, international assistance and cooperation between states.
Many countries face the same challenges or the same challenge, conflict, displacement, or simply a lack of resources to form free education for every child.
No country facing these pressure should have to solve it alone.
Global forums like this one exist precisely so that countries with more resources or expertise can support those who need it most.
This is also why the conversations around the optional protocol matters so much to bring the question of solidarity to the center of the discussion, the responsibility of states to cooperate, to help finance free education where it's needed, to share technical assistance and treat this as a shared responsibility across the international community, not the breading of any single government acting alone.
Here is Sarah from the European Consultation.
She's from North Ireland, currently a member of the Northern Ireland Commission for Children and Young People, and a Children advisory team member of Chi rights Connect.
Then when we discussed the importance of this optional protocol, this was the first consultation that discussed international solidarity.
Because realistically, if this was to be a thing and it was to come to reality.
It's going to affect more than just your country.
We have to think outside of our own countries as though we may have free education in other places, that may not be the case for other countries.
We need to think what this could do.
This could change the lives of many children and young people across the globe and that they could get that education and they can achieve the futures they want.
Children in Africa, Europe, Asia, and Latin America, whatever speaking to each other said the same thing.
In Asia, society cannot advance if half of their population is left behind.
Here in Africa, we all need to work together so no child is left behind.
In Europe, supporting this protocol means standing up for every child's right to education everywhere.
That's international solidarity, a right denied to one child anywhere is a risk to all of us.
Now, I have a question for you, Karen.
What do we need to change so that the participation of children and adolescents does not end with a consultation, but has a real place in the implementation and monitoring of a potential optional protocol.
Roberto.
Thank you for that question, Roberto.
I can answer it by saying that when we talk about children adolescents taking part in this process, we have to look beyond the mere drafting of the optional protocol.
Participation can't be understood just as the moment in which you consulted us or gathered our opinions.
If we're talking about meaningful participation, we also have to ask what role are we going to play when decisions start to be implemented, when results are evaluated, and when we need to work out what needs to be changed.
In the regional consultations, We got a key takeaway.
Children adolescents want to be part of this process still.
They want to promote ratification and monitoring.
One of the participants in one of the African consultations told us that we're not here to talk about children, we're here to talk to children so that their experiences are really listened to.
We must acknowledge something which is absolutely vital.
We're not starting from scratch.
In the European consultation, it was highlighted that there are already opportunities for participation linked to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
There are organizations, councils and national processes in which children adolescents already take part.
That's why rather than building new systems, we've got an opportunity to strengthen and connect the already existing mechanisms.
The video message from Morrison in Africa helps us understand this opportunity better.
He's been defending children's rights in Sierra Leone and also acted as a moderator of the consultations.
Thank you.
Engage with the monitoring under the CRC convention.
The optional protocol must work the same way.
Sent must structurally participate in monitoring child data, information, and benchmarks that are absolutely essential to access the tool situational grant.
Third, students should be recognized not only as contributors to the development of the protocol, but as active participants in its implementation and monitoring.
Children can contribute to advocacy efforts aimed at promoting the development, the revision, implementation, and monitoring of national laws, and the advocacy for joining and ratifying the protocol.
Morrison's message tells us something which is absolutely vital.
There are experiences and mechanisms which can help us strengthen implementation and monitoring of the protocol.
States have follow up procedures on their international obligations.
Our participation shouldn't be understood as an additional burden, but as an opportunity for strengthening these processes.
We agreed in the consultation on Asia that we can contribute something which is hard to gather through mere indicators, statistics or reports.
We've got direct experience of how rights can be enjoyed or not in our daily lives.
It doesn't mean that we're going to replace the institutional mechanisms, it means we're going to complement them.
The challenge is to ensure that existing mechanisms have the ability to listen, take on board, respond and follow up on our contributions.
Taking part in monitoring doesn't mean that we just look back on what's happened, it means that we have to be in the room when decisions start to be translated into policies, laws, programs, and budgets, and tangible action because one thing is what's written on paper as a policy, but something quite different is what you experience in your daily life.
I'd now like to share a video message from Sarah from Northern Ireland.
In this journey, both in the framework, and the implementation of it in countries to ensure that when the laws and policies come out, they are accurate to what young people are experiencing at the time.
Sera is raising something which we talked about in the Latin American consultation is absolutely vital.
You can have a policy which is designed on paper, but which doesn't really respond to what the supposed beneficiaries need.
That's why our participation must go hand in hand with the implementation evaluation decisions about what to keep, what to change, or what to strengthen.
We'd like to draw your attention to three tangible proposals based on our consultations.
Firstly, integrating but not overlapping.
We can incorporate children's participation into already existing implementation follow up and accountability mechanisms and coordinate them with the mechanisms which already exist for the convention and other national and regional platforms.
Secondly, take advantage of what we already have.
There are councils, organizations, consultations, child parliaments, and many other participatory mechanisms in many countries.
We need better pathways to ensure that these voices reach those who design, implement, and assess decisions.
If we've taken part and shared our experiences made proposals, we shouldn't need to start back from scratch every time there's a new initiative.
Participation requires institutional memory as well.
Thirdly, to complete the cycle of participation.
Participation doesn't mean just being listened to, it means to be informed about what's happened to what we've said.
We need to know what recommendations have been taken on board and what changes have occurred.
If a proposal can't be taken on board, we need to know why, we need to be explained why.
Participation can become advocacy and accountability.
We advocate, we get a response.
There's something which is absolutely vital that we have to recognize.
Participation doesn't mean that all our ideas need to be converted into decisions.
What it means is that our opinions need to be listened to, taken into serious consideration, there should be a response as to how they have been considered.
Our participation has no expiry date.
It has to carry on whenever the protocol is promoted, when we're looking for ratifications, when it starts to be implemented, and when the assessment is made as to whether or not it's producing change in our daily lives.
We're not asking for another process just because we want to participate.
What we want is for existing participations to recognize us as legitimate stakeholders.
Because as children adolescents, we are rights holders and we feel the results directly.
If we want this protocol to produce change, then we need to think about participation as a prerequisite for effective and responsible implementation.
Because the decisions that affect our lives should not be taken just by the adult world.
We need to take part in them as well.
When these decisions are up for discussion, we want to make sure that our role is not those we just consulted at the beginning, we need to be part of the process which transforms our opinions into reality.
I'd like to thank you once again for the opportunity for being here as the spokesperson for the voices we heard through the five regional consultations.
We want to share the experiences, concerns, and the proposals that children adolescents from different regions of the world continue to raise.
These are voices which don't just talk about the barriers which still exist to free education, but they also talk to us about their capacity to make proposals and be true agents for change.
Children adolescents are not just talking about our future.
We are participating actively in building our present.
The voices that we've heard today come from different parts of the world in different contexts, but they share the same call.
Priority must be given to education and that our voices must become tangible action.
Thank you for listening to these voices, and we do hope that they'll be reflected in the decisions which are going to be taken today.
We will now share the last videos from Nissa and Natalia.
Thank you.
For this matter as we are the ones who understand the unfortunate condition that many children around us are still facing.
We are agent of change, urging decision maker to create the change that we are hoping for.
The new protocol will hold government in developing countries accountable, turn rights into action, help to reduce dropouts and transform children's lives.
Towards new possibilities and a better future.
Small steps today can completely change children's lives tomorrow.
Let's make it happen together.
Education is always a priority.
Thank you.
Wonderful.
What else can I say towards the children? This is what we often see.
We've had it from the horse's mouth.
They have said it very unequivocally in the most clear terms, what are the priorities as we move this process forward.
I recall one of their comments when we started this initiative, they insisted and that is in tune with the provisions of the resolution itself.
There is nothing for us without us, and that is exactly what we have done today to create this platform for them, to share with us what are the priorities, and I want to thank all of them to Lana, Cara, Sonya, Todd, Roberto, and the others online.
Thank you so much for your time.
Your contributions have been very, very much meaningful, and we deeply appreciate your contributions.
Be rest assured that you will continue to be involved in this process, okay? Thank you so much for your contributions.
Can we please put our hands together for these kids, please? This has been truly awesome and I thank you again very much.
Now, we move to the general debates.
Before we go for lunch, we have only 15 minutes, so we'll go quickly to the general debate.
But I want to kindly invoke my authority.
Albeit the fact that I need your consensus on that as well.
There are kids who are here who have just left their school and they've been with us since this morning.
I think it's important, and it's about fair that we give them the opportunity to take the floor first so that they have the opportunity to go back to school for those who have not given up the AD to be with us throughout.
If your child is here and that child would have to go back to school, please indicate that to the Secretariat so that I would endeavor to call them as early as possible.
We'll go get to the list of speakers, and I would start with one such child who is from C Leon, who is so excited.
And so determined to deliver a statement.
It is my pleasure to give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cey Leon to deliver a national statement.
Cey Leon, you have the floor.
Chair aperire Excellencies, and my fellow children.
Sarah Leon is pleased to join other delegations at this second intersessional meeting of the working group to discuss free education at the pre primary and secondary levels.
Sarah Leon's implementation of this vision is now in its eighth year, thanks to the visionary leadership of His Excellency, doctor Julios Marabo, president of the Republic of Sera Leon.
We thank the chair Reoire for preparing one key principles.
Many people helped put this document together, including children whose ideas are important.
We agreed that the working group is now ready to begin drafting the new optional protocol.
So I learn supports this next step and let me say this again.
We agreed that the working group is now ready to begin drafting the new optional protocol.
So I learn supports this next step.
We appreciate that the optional protocol will focus on one main goal, ensuring that all children have access to free pre primary and secondary education.
We also agree that it should not duplicate on the Convention of the Rights of the child.
Sun believes that countries should work together to support one another.
However, each country must also do its best to provide free education to all children.
We are glad that children's voices are being respected.
We hope that this approach continues until we successfully adopt the new optional protocol.
We believe that the new key principles provides a solid foundation for drafting an optional protocol that ensures every child has the right to end education.
I thank you.
Mercy.
Thank you so much to distinguished representative of Sierra La and I want to thank delegations as well.
I mean, with a view to appreciating these children, I would encourage us to please applaud them each time they deliver their statements.
Thank you so much.
Now, procedurally, as you know, we should start with group statements.
So in the absence of any other child who's here to deliver the national statement, I will move straightaway Before we move to the regional group statement, wonderful.
I think there's another child.
We have another child from Georgia and it's my pleasure to give the floor to the distinguished representative of Georgia to deliver his national statement.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair, Excellencies, and distinguished delegates.
It is a profound honor to address this assembly today on behalf of Georgia.
As one of the child delegates in this room, I'm aware that the legal framework we discussed here directly determines whether millions of children are granted the opportunity to learn, grow, and fulfill their potential.
Georgia strongly supports the drafting of an option protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the child.
Free pre primary and secondary education cannot be treated as a privilege.
We believe it is a fundamental human right that must be guaranteed to every child everywhere.
In recent years, Georgia has made meaningful decisions to turn these values into practice.
Georgia guarantees free access to public pre primary education.
Our goal is to give every child, regardless of their family background, a fair and healthy start to life.
In addition, public pre primary institutions provide fully funded meal and nutrition programs, ensuring that foundational learning is supported by proper childhood health and care.
This removes hidden financial burdens for low income families.
As for public, primary and secondary education in Georgia, it is tuition free as well.
The state provides free textbooks and digital learning resources to public school students.
First graders receive personal laptops supplied by engaging educational programs designed specifically for children.
We, the children, are the future, and one day, it will be up to us to lead our society to better things, and in this respect, it will be shaped by the decisions made in the present.
I thank you.
Thank you so much.
Let's put their hands together.
That was excellence.
Thank you so much.
I'm not sure there's any other child in the room.
That's fine.
Procedurally, let me just deliver this brief remarks.
I would like to invite any delegates or participants who have not yet registered to register with the Secretariat to be added on the list of speakers.
The list of speakers will close in 15 minutes.
I ask the delegations from states limit their interventions to 2 minutes and joint statements are given an additional 30 seconds.
As per protocol, I will first give the floor to the delegations representing the group of states, followed by state representatives who would speak in their national capacity.
I will then invite all the participants to speak in the following order.
The United Nations Special Agencies, funds, and programs, intergovernmental organizations, national human rights institutions, non governmental organizations in consultative status with EcoSoc.
So persons are understood in paragraph seven of resolution 565 to be representatives of the committee of the Rights of the Child, relevant special procedures of the Human Rights Council, and the relevant independent experts will be called upon to deliver their inputs at the end of each segment.
All delegates are kindly requested to send an electronic copy of their statements to the Secretariat.
The email address is or children at un.org.
These will be published.
These will be published on the public website on the working group following the conclusion of the second session.
I now invite delegates and participants to deliver the general statement.
First, in my list is a joint statement delivered by Bulger on behalf of the group constituting the core group of resolution 565.
It's my pleasure to give the floor to His Excellency, Ambassador Banjov.
Your Excellency, please.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Excellencies, distinguished, ladies and gentlemen.
This statement is made on behalf of the 13 states, Armenia, Bulgaria, Colombia, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Gambia, Kyrgystan, Kazakhstan, Malawi, Nauru, Panama, Romania, and Sierra Leone, composing the core group of the initiative to strengthen the right of children to education by an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on pre primary and secondary education.
Highly appreciate the opportunity to have the current consultations in the open ended intergovernmental working group established by resolution 56 slash five, which was adopted by unanimity in 2024.
We support and commit to an inclusive, constructive, and transparent process.
We thank all delegations who engage in goodwill and provide a range of views, comments, and concrete suggestions to inform our work.
We listen carefully to and welcome the views of children whose right to education is at the heart of this initiative.
The evidence is compelling.
UNESCO reports that the global out of school child population has increased for the seventh consecutive year.
At the current pace, 95% completion of upper secondary education would not be achieved until 2105.
UNICEF estimates that as of 2019, 175 million children of pre primary age are not enrolled.
We must therefore ask whether the international legal framework is adequate enough to meet children's needs today.
Free primary education is not explicitly guaranteed under the Convention on the Rights of the child, yet early childhood education has lasting effects on learning and development.
Removing the financial barriers to pre primary education can give every child a fair start.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child requires states to make secondary education available and accessible and to take appropriate measures towards this goal.
However, there is no immediate legal guarantee for free secondary education.
Secondary education equips the young people for their further education, employment, and full participation in public life.
Without secondary education, there are no architects, no engineers, no teachers, no doctors, no judges.
Without such specialists, the states cannot build efficient public institutions, healthcare, or school systems.
Without enough such specialists, there is no economic development.
Therefore, it is extremely difficult to achieve stability and prosperity while children are excluded from either pre primary or secondary education because of their families because their families cannot afford it.
We do not need to choose between stronger implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child or the establishment of additional and stronger international standards.
We need both because 60 years after the adoption of the International Covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights, and 37 years after the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the right of children to education is still very far from its full realization.
An optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child could strengthen the implementation, bring precision, and complement the already existing international legal framework on the right to free education.
Such a protocol could provide greater coherence and legal clarity.
This will facilitate the efforts of the governments, the civil society, the parents, and the children to guarantee the full enjoyment of the right to education.
Furthermore, it will provide a clear framework for monitoring, budgeting, and international cooperation.
The process of the elaboration of such an optional protocol can already by itself focus the public attention on the long overdue necessity to guarantee fully the right to education.
Led by this consideration, we call upon all member states to concentrate on the ultimate goal, a legal framework that delivers universal free education for every child from the earliest years through to the end of the secondary school.
Thank you for your attention.
Thank you, Ambassador Banjo for the joint statements.
As you know, we should break at 1:00 so we could only accommodate one more speaker and that's the European Union.
You have the floor, please.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
The European Union welcomes the discussion and opportunity to engage in the process mandated by the HRC resolution 56 slash five without prejudice to the outcome of the discussions.
At the same time, the EU underlines the importance of the effective implementation of existing international obligations under the Convention of the Rights of the Child and its optional protocols.
The EU supports every child's right to quality, inclusive and equitable education, emphasizing the foundational role of early childhood and secondary education.
The EU and its member states are the world's largest collective provider of ODA to education and together, we contribute more than half of all aid to education worldwide, supporting education in more than 100 countries.
We're committed to ensuring that the right to education is not only recognized on paper but realized in practice.
We thus welcome the discussion on the most effective tools to achieve the objectives, building on the important work of the Committee of the Rights of the Child as well as other stakeholders.
We believe that the exploratory process should remain genuinely open and inclusive.
It is important to allow sufficient time for the process to be carried out in a thorough manner.
More time is needed to assess existing international frameworks and evaluate the added value of a new instrument and avoid negative consequences for a common objective.
We should also be mindful of the UN's financial and liquidity crisis and the need to use limited resources strategically.
We would respectfully invite the chair Rapporteur to ensure the reflection of the full range of views expressed during the consultations.
The EU stands with children and their right to education.
We remain committed to finding the most effective means of making that right a reality.
I thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of the European Union.
And clearly, as you can see, it's now 1:00 and we must adjourn at this stage, and we'll continue with the list of speakers this afternoon on the same agenda item.
We will resume at exactly 3:00 and we will conclude at 6:00 in the evening.
I thank you again and this session is hereby adjourned.