4th 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.

Good afternoon.
Just a quick test for the captioner, please, one, two, three, one, two, three.
Is it okay for you? Good afternoon.
A quick test for the captioner, please.
123, one, 23.
Good afternoon, a quick test for the SI interpreter, please.
123, 123.
Is it okay for you.
Thank you for testing.
I Good afternoon and another test for the captioner, p123, 123.
Can you hear me? It's okay.
Thank you for testing.
Have a good afternoon.
I.
One, two, three, one, two, three.
It is test for SLA.
Can you open your camera up, please? Thank you.
All good.
Can you stay open your camera, please? All time before we start.
In half an hour.
Yeah.
Then I need to leave after my speech because, you know, I have to cheer to continue to cheer and I told them that I will come this time Excellency' colleagues, we'll resume the afternoon session in 40 seconds.
Excellency, colleagues, I hereby continue this afternoon session.
This session is called to order.
Colleagues, as you're aware, we stopped at the list of speakers and as it were, Saudi Arabia was to deliver their statement at about this time.
It is my pleasure to give the floor to Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia will be followed by Austria and Egypt respectfully.
I give the floor to Saudi Arabia, please.
S Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
With regard to Principle four and strengthening international cooperation for the realization of early childhood, early childhood education, and free public education at the pre primary and secondary levels, the Kingdom underscores the importance of international cooperation and supporting the implementation of commitments provided that such cooperation is voluntary in nature and that its provisions are drafted in a manner that does not give rise to interpretations creating new financial or technical obligations beyond the capacities of states parties, consistent with the position expressed by the delegation of the kingdom, its opening statement regarding the voluntary nature of the international cooperation, the Kingdom proposes retaining the original wording contained in the draft core principles, specifically with respect to the responsibility rather than the obligation of the state to provide free public education.
The text should be as follows.
The optional protocol shall promote international cooperation in the areas of early childhood care and education, free public primary education, and free public secondary education.
International cooperation should complement rather than replace the primary responsibility of states for ensuring free public education.
With regard to the provisions derived from the principle, the Kingdom proposes the following wording.
States parties shall bear the primary responsibility to the extent permitted by their available resources for ensuring the implementation of this protocol.
States parties shall take the necessary measures to strengthen international cooperation.
Three, states parties that are in a position to do so shall on a voluntary basis provide financial, technical, or any other forms of assistance with regard to the principle five on the effective monitoring of provisions of the protocol without establishing separate reporting mechanisms.
Kingdom reiterates its support for the approach aimed at avoiding parallel reporting mechanisms.
In this regard, the Kingdom supports the proposed principle providing for the inclusion of additional information on the implementation of the protocol within the periodic reports submitted to the committee.
However, the Kingdom considers that the second paragraph of Principle five and the proposed principle, which states that the committee on the rights of the child may request from states parties additional information relevant to the implementation of this protocol is ambiguous and lacks sufficient clarity.
Accordingly, the delegation of the Kingdom proposes its deletion in line with the requirements of legal certainty and the need for clarity in the definition of international obligations.
The speaker is going too fast for the interpretation to be accurate.
We support the rights of persons with disabilities in the ingdom and implementation of SDG four.
The Kingdom believes that this principle goes beyond the mandate of the working group according to decision 65 slash five.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Saudi Arabia.
Inasmuch as I have limited time in terms of the speaking time, but I mean equally flexible for member states to fully deliver their national statements, including posing questions and making comments where necessary.
But it is equally important as well, that as you deliver your statements, you do so at such a pace to allow for smooth, efficient and well delivered interpretation, please.
Take your time when you deliver your statements, please.
Thank you.
Next on the list is Austria to be followed by Egypt and Iraq.
I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Austria, please.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you very much for your efforts and for giving us the opportunity to share our comments and questions.
I would like to thank the panelists.
Problem with the microphone, apologies.
Thanks for the valuable contributions.
Sorry.
I've just been intimated that the interpreters cannot get you clearly from the mic you're using.
Do you mind to relocate to the next seats, please? Is it working? No, it's not very good.
I think it'd better if you could move along.
So the question that you move, please.
Am I now audible? Yes.
Yes.
It's confirmed.
Perfect.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you very much for your efforts and for giving us the opportunity to share our comments and questions.
I would like to thank the panelists and in particular the child representatives for the valuable contributions.
Your voice have been heard and your perspectives will be duly taken into account.
Approach sets forth in principle five, not to create additional parallel reporting systems is expressly supported by Austria.
The use of existing reporting mechanisms under the Convention on the Rights of the Child are appropriate, both in the interests of efficiency and avoid additional administrative burdens.
At the same time, the committee on the rights of the child should be able to develop supplementary guidelines and indicators to ensure effective and coherent implementation of the possible protocol.
Austria would like to raise a question regarding Principle five.
How should the situation be addressed in the context of country review when a state has ratified the CRC, but not the possible force optional protocol? In such a case, would progress regarding access to free secondary education still be assessed as part of the review of the state in light of Article 281B of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which expressly refers to secondary education and requires states parties to promote different forms of secondary education and make them available and accessible to every child, including the progressive introduction of free education, In other words, would these existing obligations under the CRC continue to be examined even where a state has not ratified the possible Force protocol? In terms of the progressive interpretation of the CRC, could this situation create a risk of a gap in protection with regard to pre primary and secondary education? More broadly, could this potentially result in a weakening of the protection of children's rights? Austria expressly welcomes Principle six and the recognition of children's participation in the consultation process, taking children's perspectives into account inconsistent with the Convention on the Rights of the child and contributes to the legacy of the ongoing negotiations.
In this regard, questions addressed to children should be properly tailored to the particular stage of the negotiations, facilitating a meaningful consideration of the views.
Principle seven concerning lifelong learning is also positively assessed.
With regard to Principle eight concerning the procedural arrangements of the optional protocol, the approach of establishing an optional individual communications procedure appears understandable and pragmatic from the perspective of the dynamics of the negotiations.
At the same time, it should be noted that an exclusively optional system of recognition may lead to a fed protection system within which the practical enforceability of the rights enshrined in the protocol would vary from one state party to another.
This could result in differences in the level of protection afforded, as well as in the remedies available to children concerned.
Against this background, care should be taken to ensure that the mechanisms advised remain core with existing procedures under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, while at the same time, ensuring the greatest possibility consistency in the level of protection.
Thank you for answering our questions.
Referring to our general statement, I would like to stress that Austria reserves a position on how to further proceed.
Thank you, Chair, for your efforts and for trying to take into account all the different aspects and views presented here.
Thank you, Austin.
Questions that are not within the competence of the panelists, clearly, I will endeavor to respond to them at the end of the session, please.
I give the floor to Egypt to be followed by Iraq and Slovenia.
Egypt, please.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair Rapporteur.
Egypt appreciate the presentation of Principle 428 and offered the following observations without prejudice to its position that their consideration remains part of the exploratory phase.
Regarding principle number four, Egypt welcome the emphasis on international cooperation, particularly for developing countries and states facing significant resources, constraints and hosting a large number of refugees.
Article 4 and 28 slash three of the CRC Convention already provides a clear pieces for a financial and technical cooperation, taking into account available resources and the particular needs of developing countries.
The central challenge therefore lies in ensuring adequate predictable and sustainable financing, technical assistance, and equitable burden and responsibility sharing.
Such cooperation should remain responsive to the national priorities, preserve national ownership, and be provided in consultation with the states concerned.
Regarding principle number five, Egypt supports integrating monitoring within the existing reporting system rather than creating a separate mechanism or report.
However, the scope of any additional information that may be requested by the committee should be clearly defined.
Otherwise, the proposed arrangement could still increase reporting burden on states and place further pressure on the treaty party system already affected by the United Nations the crisis.
Regarding principle number six, Egypt recognized children rights to express their views on matters affecting them.
Such participation should be implemented within the full framework of the CRC convention, including the best interests of the child and the child age and maturity and the appropriate guidance of parents and legal guardians.
It should be safe, appropriate, sensitive to children's developmental and psychological circumstances while preserving their state led and intergovernmental nature of the process.
Principle number seven, Egypt considered the concept of lifelong learning extend beyond childhood to adult education.
Its inclusion could generate uncertain interpretations and broaden the scope of the proposed instrument beyond the children pre primary and secondary education.
Egypt therefore considered that this reference should be amended so it doesn't create additional obligation or extend the mandate established by the resolution 56 slash five.
Regarding principle number eight, Egypt recognized the importance of legal certainty and appropriate remedies.
At the same time, we must maintain a clear distinction between the optional protocol on communication procedure and any future optional protocol on uication, including with regard the state's respective ratification status under each instrument.
A state ratification of any future optional protocol should not be automatically imply that it's acceptance or consent to be bound by the communication procedure.
Mr.
Chair Rapporteur, in conclusion, Principle five to eight are themselves largely grounded in the provision and safeguards and the mechanism already established under the Convention and its existing optional protocol.
This further demonstrates that the relevant legal and procedural framework is already in place.
The priority should therefore be to strengthen its effective implementation supported by adequate resources and the international cooperation, while continuing the state led exploratory assessment of either any additional instrument is necessary.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair Rapporteur.
Thank you, Egypt.
I give the floor to Iraq to be followed by Slovenia and Belgium, please.
Okay.
Sun Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Iraq reiterates its support to the goal to promote right to education and the implementation of such for all children in this respect.
It's important for any language or commitment to take into account the diversity of a national educational system and the capacity of institutions and the resources of the states to ensure realism of implementation and sustainability as well and we reiterate the need to clarify the concept of early childhood and to distinguish between educational commitments and services such as social care And Iraq attaches importance to the rights of children with disabilities to education and adapting education according to the needs to integrate them into society.
With regard to the utilization of resources, this should be taken into account in a gradual manner, taking into account national resources, promoting international cooperation and support and the monitoring arrangements should be in line with the CRC and that it should avoid duplicity in terms of reporting.
Thank you.
Thank you very much indeed.
I give the floor to Slovenia to be followed with Belgium and El Salvador.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Many thanks also to the panelists and especially the child representatives for their very valuable contributions.
Slovenia will primarily focus on principles four and five, since Principle six, seven, and eight will also be addressed in the next cluster discussion.
Regarding Principle four, Slovenia generally supports the important role of international cooperation in advancing early childhood care and education and access to free public, pre primary and secondary education.
We agree that such cooperation should complement rather than replace the primary responsibility of states to mobilize their resources to the maximum extent.
Um, we also believe that the relationship between the provisions under Principle one and four requiring immediate implementation and those subject to progressive realization ought to be clearly defined.
The latter should take into account different national education systems, starting points, and available resources while understanding a sufficiently clear minimum standard while establishing a sufficiently clear minimum standard to ensure genuine progress in the realization of the right of education.
Slovenia also generally supports Principle five, according to which the potential new protocol would not establish a separate reporting mechanisms at the same time.
As mentioned before, in general, Slovenia reserves its position on establishing proceeding with the new optional protocol.
I thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Slovenia.
I give the floor to Belgium to be followed by El Salvador.
Bj Chair.
Sorry.
Thank you, Chair Reporter, also from my end.
I would like to open with thanking the panelists for the very rich discussions this morning and to you, Chair Rapporteur for facilitating this discussion.
Regarding the cluster in front of us, allow me to share a few observations from my country.
And realizing the right to education for all children without any discrimination, including at pre primary and secondary levels, is already integral to states obligations under several binding international instruments, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.
State parties to the relevant treaties have an existing obligation to lift all barriers, including financial ones to respect, protect, and fulfill the right to education for all children under their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, including on the basis of age.
Free secondary education is already guaranteed by the Convention as a progressively realizable right.
The committee's longstanding jurisprudence confirms that it forms an integral part of the existing convention framework and should therefore progressively implemented and adequately financed by state parties.
The same goes with early childhood care, and and education, which on a holistic reading of the CRC is already accepted as part of the right of education.
With regard to Principle five, we are the view that the committee on the rights of the child already examines states implementation of the obligations in this area within the existing framework of the Convention.
Against this background, we would welcome further clarification on the added value of addressing these issues through a separate optional protocol.
We're also concerned that the approach envisaged under Principal five could inadvertently create differing expectations between state parties that ratify the optional protocol and those that do not.
This could risk creating overlap and fragmentation rather than reinforcing the coherent and universal implementation of existing obligations under the Convention.
With regards to Principle eight, my country expresses concern regarding this proposal that would restrict the scope of the current optional protocol on the communications procedure, weaken its accountability and constitute a regression in international standards.
OIC once vertified applies to all optional protocols ratified by a state without the need of a further declaration.
This proposal would prevent the committee from receiving communications concerning states that have not made such a declaration and children affected by violations related to pre primary or secondary education from submitting complaints under the OPIC.
With regard to Principle four, which I should have put in the beginning, I'm sorry for that.
With regard to the concept of international cooperation, we note that both the CRC and the ICESCR already provide a robust normative basis.
I also had a question for the distinguished speaker from UNESCO, but since he's no longer present, I'm happy to share this in writing afterwards.
Thank you.
If you don't mind, you can equally share it now.
I mean, if something that is worth responding to, I mean, within my competence, clearly, I'll do so.
Otherwise, I would certainly convey whatever your request or concern or question is.
Please, you could read it out if you don't mind.
With regards to the state or just a question on the report of Uesco, we are very thankful that statistics are also provided to feed our discussions because it really helps to illustrate the scale of the challenge, the figure of 273 million children and young people, the school is deeply concerning and should reinforce our collective commitment to ensuring access to quality education for every child from early childhood through the adulthood.
In its report, UNESCO identifies several contributing factors, including population growth, conflicts, and crisis, the budgetary constraints, and also equity issues in terms of access to education.
I was wanting to ask the expert to elaborate also on these issues.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We've taken off of that question.
I give the floor to El Salvador, please.
You have the floor.
Thank you very much, Chairman, we're grateful to the panelists for their presentations.
We'd like to reiterate the importance of strengthening international cooperation, including technical and financial assistance, especially in support to developing countries.
We think it's vital that implementation of the provisions of the protocol should take duly into account national circumstances, available resources, and the principle of progressive implementation.
For that, we prefer language that clearly preserves primary responsibility of states, recognizing at the same time that the rhythm and modalities of implementation will depend on national capacities and available resources.
International cooperation should maintain a complementary nature, meet needs and priorities identified at national level.
Therefore, El Salvad welcomes the approach geared towards avoiding creation of separate reporting mechanisms as well as additional administrative burden for states.
We think that any additional information should be maintained within the already established reporting cycle under Article 44 of the Convention and should not generate any obligation for separate or parallel reporting in that context.
We think that efficiency and predictability, both for states parties and for the committee should continue to be primary considerations when elaborating these provisions.
With respect to participation of children, El Salvador fully supports recognition of their right to participate meaningfully in the matters affecting them.
At the same time, we think it's important to preserve legal consistency with the framework established under the CRC.
Therefore, we suggest maintaining full alignment with Article 12, including the reference that views of children should be duly taken into account based on their age and maturity.
We think that using the already agreed language in the convention would bolster the legal security and would avoid creation of any different standard or interpretations that might deviate from the existing legal framework.
With respect to lifelong learning, El Salvador supports this concept being kept exclusively as a Programmatic.
Public policy reference in the preamble.
We would not support including it in a substantive provision since it could make the scope of the protocol exceed the mandate of Human Rights Council 565.
As things stand, we have a good balance and should be preserved.
Finally, with respect to Principle eight El Salvador, welcomes favorably the voluntary approach.
We think any communication procedure should maintain strictly optional nature and be applied solely to those states who have expressly recognize the competence of the committee to that end.
That approach adequately guarantees consent of states and contributes to preserving legal security and predictability of implementation of the future instrument for those reasons.
We support keeping the current model based on a specific declaration of acceptance by states.
Thank you.
I thank El Salvador for the statements, and now move over to NHRI with good A status.
I think we have just one organization there, and that is the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines.
The Commission on Human Rights of Philippines, please, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair Rapporteur, Excellency, distinguished delegate.
The Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines strongly supports the drafting and adoption of the proposed fourth Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to early childhood education, pre primary education, and secondary education.
Article 28 of the UNCRC affirms that every child has a fundamental right to free and compulsory education.
To operationalize these rights, the Commission submits its inputs on the key principles for Cluster two.
On Principle five on effective monitoring and reporting, state parties should submit an initial implementation report three years after signing of the protocol followed by incinial updates aligned with the regular CRC committee reporting.
Principle six on historic roles of children, State parties shall regularly conduct inclusive and accessible consultations with children and relevant stakeholders to evaluate and improve educational programs and policies with particular attention to children with disabilities, indigenous children, children affected by armed conflict, and children conflict with the law, consistent with Articles 23, 30, 38, and 40 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Principal seven on lifelong learning, recognizing every child's right to holistic development, state parties are mandated to guarantee free, accessible, and compulsory basic education for all children, including those affected by armed conflict in detention with disabilities or from indigenous communities by providing reasonable accommodation, assistive devices, physical schools in geographically isolated areas, or alternative learning modalities.
This education must not only be free but culturally sensitive, guarantee uninterrupted access across all settings, and empower learners with modern technological skills, climate change adaptation, and life skills necessary to navigate a rapidly changing world while promoting community health and well being.
Supporting this principle, the commissioner enumerates the Philippines remains fully committed to collaborating with the international community to realize every child's rights to education.
Thank you very much for your kind attention.
Thank you very much indeed.
Truly, I acknowledge indeed that the Philippines NHI continues active engagement with this process.
I want to thank you very much for this.
I now move over to the next list of speakers, and we move to NGOs with Ecosx status.
And the first on the list is form Mediter Pardon me if I don't pronounce it well, please.
Yes, you have the floor.
There's not in the I give the floor to Lumos Foundation.
You have the floor, please.
Distinguished delegates, members of the intergovernmental working group, child members of the working group.
Las is pleased to be able to speak at today's session.
All children have the right to go to school, that is already established in international law.
However, we know that for too many children around the world, a lack of access to education services which are safe, affordable, accessible and inclusive means that they are unable to realize this right.
Children with disabilities are particularly at risk of being excluded from education along with children experiencing poverty, indigenous children, and others.
This happens, many children are separated from their families and placed in residential educational settings.
While these facilities may allow children to access education, they are typically institutional in character and deprive children of their right to a family life.
All children need to grow up in a safe, loving, family based care in order to develop and thrive, as clearly outlined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Children are raised in institutional settings, they are exposed to a wide range of potential harms.
They are at high risk of structural neglect and abuse, are isolated and segregated from their communities, and most experience adverse impacts on their development.
In order to prevent unnecessary separation of children from their families, it is important that safe, accessible and inclusive education is available free of charge to all children in their local area.
Therefore, we urge the intergovernmental working group to ensure that any optional protocol clearly defines the right to education as the right to inclusive education, consistent with Article 24 of the CRPD.
Also urge the intergovernmental working group to appreciate that children's right to education should never be placed in opposition to their right to be raised in a family.
Governments must be called on to ensure that children have safe and affordable access to accessible and inclusive education in their local communities so they can attend school while living at home with their families.
This obligation must be clearly outlined in any optional protocol resulting from this process.
By ensuring that this process is inclusive of all children, we can help to ensure that all children are able to grow and thrive in their families and communities.
Thank you.
Thank you very much indeed.
The next is this is Shan i Patriotic Volunteer Association, Sanji Patriotic Volunteer Association.
We will get that by video link.
That will follow.
Go ahead, please.
Go back.
I speak on behalf of the International Patriotic Pact Organization is in 2022.
Our organization has broadcast 306 NGOs, 98 of which hold EO consultative status.
We jointly formulated and adopted the International Patriotic Pact entered on the principle of loving one's own country without harming others.
We propose that principle six of the key principles explicitly cross reference article 2120 91d of CRC, the preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples.
This delineates the normative boundary for patriotic values during childhood.
National identity must be oriented towards respect for other nations and exclusive emphasis on loyalty to one's own country risk fostering non inclusive narratives.
Therefore, Article 21 91g must be enshrined as a substantive element.
Professor B's paper notes that early childhood is a critical period for rapid brain, cognitive and social emotional development.
And in UNIC reports it concludes that attitudes such as attitudes towards races are also formed in preschool.
Establishing the baseline of loving one's own country without harming other nations interests is pivotal to implementing Article 291D.
We urge that in the implementation of draft Principle six, particular attention be paid to children's perspectives that patriotism does not equate to rejecting others.
Our organization will continue to collect children's voices, and we request that the spirit of Article 291D of the CRC be recognized as a core substantive element of free education.
Thank you.
The next is also a video statement from New Sunshine Charity Foundation.
Please screen the video.
Distinguished Chair, Beijing New Sunshine Charity Foundation welcomes the working group's efforts to strengthen the right of every child to free public education.
As the working group considers the substantive elements of the future optional protocol, we would like to draw attention to a group of children who can easily remain invisible within education systems, children whose schooling is interrupted by serious illness, long term hospitalization, or repeated medical treatment.
These children may remain officially enrolled in school and their schools may already be free.
Yet, this does not necessarily mean that education is generally available to them.
Months or even years of treatment can prevent children from attending regular classes, separate them from teachers and classmates, and create significant difficulties when they eventually return to school.
Since 2012, New Sunshine has operated a hospital school program for children with serious illnesses.
Today, we operate 62 hospital schools across 29 provincial level regions in China, providing classrooms learning, one to one tutoring, psychosocial support, and assistance with school reintegration.
Educational support for hospitalized children can vary significantly in continuity and quality.
Learning arrangements may not fit treatment schedules and what children learn during hospitalization may not connect effectively with their original schools.
We therefore welcome Principal Ford's recognition and encourage the working group to consider how this responsibility can be fulfilled for children who cannot physically attend regular schools because of long term illness or treatment.
The future optional protocol should encourage states to ensure that education is not only free, but also accessible, continuous, adaptable, and supported by appropriate quality standards.
Flexible arrangements may include hospital based education, individualized learning support, coordination with children's original school, and structured support for school reintegration.
Illness may interrupt a child's schooling, but it should never interrupt the child's right to education.
Thank you.
Thank you, A.
The next is F Aerea.
I hope that pronunciation is right as well.
Fee.
I'll give you the floor video link, please.
My name is Queen Rosa Montero, sociologist and youth coordinator for F Agria Dominicana.
I have the honor of representing Generation 21 plus Network youth platform affiliated with Fen Agria which is active in Latin America, Africa, and Europe.
Our network brings together the voice and inspirations of more than 19,000 youth, especially from low income communities who are committed to defending the right to a just critical and liberating education.
Drawing on this experience, we wish to contribute to the discussion on international cooperation as a tool for realizing this right.
We support the proposal on international cooperation to realize this right.
We appreciate that it reaffirms the primary responsibility of states to mobilize the necessary resources to guarantee this right and at the same time, recognizes the importance of strengthening international cooperation, especially in light of the needs of developing countries.
However, we wish to emphasize that international cooperation must contribute to transforming the inequalities that still determine the educational opportunities of millions of people, indigenous communities, communities of African descent, rural peasant communities, people with disabilities, and other children and youth facing exclusion encounter barriers that require tailored responses and priority attention.
For this reason, we consider it essential that cooperation be guided by equity and sustainability, that it directs greater efforts towards those facing the greatest barriers, and that it strengthens capacities of communities, teachers, and education systems.
Its impact should not be measured solely by the resources it provides, but also by the capacities and conditions it establishes to sustain these transformations over time.
International cooperation must serve as a tool to reduce educational gaps and strengthen the conditions that enable the right to education to be realized in a sustainable manner.
It is not a matter of replacing the obligation of states, but rather of contributing through international shared responsibility to their ability to fulfill those obligations, especially where inequalities are most profound.
Solidarity among member states is necessary in the face of challenges that transcend borders, but guaranteeing the right to education must remain a permanent responsibility of states and a shared commitment of the international community.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We actually have two more on the list, but I'm afraid we are challenged over time.
I will not deny you to take the floor, but I would encourage you to please limit your intervention to the 2 minutes as earlier on advised.
I have been magnanimous enough to allow you to speak beyond, to give you more time to speak, but then please, because we are really time constraint, the panelist is running to catch a flight.
The next panel is also already prepared to take the floor, so please, let's try to manage the time that is available now.
So I give the floor to human rights watch and would have the last and final speaker who would be one of the He was passing, Mr.
Benoit and Kas Blick.
And then the panelists will make brief remarks before we move to the next panel, please.
H watch you have the floor, please.
So much Chair.
The question before us is how to protect every child's right to education from the earliest years.
UNICEF estimates that as of 2019, 175 million children of pre primary age were not enrolled.
Access still depends too often on where children live and whether their families can afford it.
UNESCO evidence presented today shows that free pre primary education can significantly increase enrollment.
But progress remains stalled.
Some argue that we should simply implement the convention as it stands, yet without an explicit guarantee of free pre primary education, those who do the implementation lack a clear legal tool to advance this goal.
Others may question whether early childhood education justifies a new international legal instrument.
While the evidence presented today says otherwise, early childhood education strengthens cognitive language and socio emotional development with lasting benefits, particularly for disadvantaged children.
As UNICEF and UNESCO recommended in their first global report on early childhood education in 2024 and at the very same time when HRC resolution 565 was adopted, and I quote.
A new legally binding international framework establishing the right to early childhood care education is needed to articulate states obligation pertaining to this legal right, promoting greater state accountability and monitoring and ensuring minimum resource allocation for it.
I from Unicefsc report.
The optional protocol can turn these recommendations into a clear enforceable right for every child.
We therefore encourage this working group to begin drafting the treaty.
Thank you.
I thank you so much, HRC, Human Rights Watch.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We'll move to the final on the list of speakers, and I give the floor to Mr.
Benvs please.
Thank you very much, Your Excellency.
The committee on the right of the child, which I'm representing here, which is in charge of the monitoring and interpretation of the CRC reiterates its full commitment to continue more than ever contributing to strengthening the right to education in all its multidimensional dimension, seen as a crucial enabling right to implement the WO Convention.
The committee has carefully reviewed the draft key principle paper and a large majority of this committee has adopted a statement to express serious concern about the risk of regression in the protection of the right to education.
If anyone in this room has not received this statement, don't hesitate to ask for it.
While we appreciate the considerable work reflected in this paper, we remain concerned it does not capture the range of objection and concern raised during the 2025 meeting.
It also does not sufficiently consider alternative way to strengthen the right to education in the current standards and avoid unnecessary duplication and fragmentation.
We are also concerned the paper does not fully reflect the scope and complexity of the diverse obligation under the right to education.
In this regard, we share the concern expressed by UNICEF during the last meeting and by the one expressed by Professor Anne Skelton, former chair of the CRC in a recent publication.
Realizing the right to education for all children without any discrimination, including at pre primary and secondary level is already integral to state obligation under several binding international instrument.
State parties already have an existing legal obligation to lift all barriers, including financial one to respect, protect, and fulfill the right to education for all children under their jurisdiction without any discrimination of any kind, including based on age.
The main objection to the proposed optional protocol remain unanswered, namely that free secondary education is already guaranteed by the convention as a progressive right that should have already been attained by most of the state party 35 years after the ratification of the convention.
The jurisprudence of the committee reflected in our general comment, the concluding observation put to state, but also in our decision under individuals.
Be, I encourage you to consider the time, please.
This paragraph.
Jurisprudence makes it clear that free secondary education is already seen as guarantee as such and as such, needs to be implemented and financed by state party.
This has formed part of the committee's concluding observation for several years, increasingly in the last years.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Benoit.
But my assumption is the statement you delivered is done in your personal name, not as a member of the committee.
I can clarify that this statement has been endorsed by a majority of the members respond to the question.
Delivered on behalf of the committee or you delivered it on your personal behalf? It is delivered on behalf of a majority of the members of the committee.
Thank you.
Now, I give the floor to the panelists to provide brief reflections and clearly, I would also do so hopefully at the end of the session today, if you have any of the responses to provide, please, I give you the floor.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Um, we will, of course, refer to you from our positions as ECC professionals, so we'll answer questions and comments only in that regard.
I thank for your questions and for your comments.
I wish to reflect on several of them, first one being the one that actually Russia brought up and several other delegates concerning the role of the parents.
We read that concern as a protective, not oppositional necessary and nothing in what OMP stands for and is asking for touches the parental authority on how and where a child is cared for.
Naming ECC within the scope of the right education is about what state must make available.
It says nothing about compelling a family to actually use it.
Also, we think that parents should be recognized and are children's primary caregivers, and this is why we need to work with parents.
Think in terms of cooperation and partnership, not just a one way transaction.
The other thing I wanted to briefly comment on is the Austria's question.
I wrote it, could this potentially lessen the recognition of human rights? Well, structurally, I believe no optional protocol can lessen existing recognition.
It isn't simply built or it shouldn't.
The convention doesn't change a word.
Because of this protocol, what it can do is add on it.
New binding obligations for the states that choose to rectify it.
It cannot remove obligations that already bind every state party to the convention itself.
Um, the more serious version of this question, I would say is that it isn't really about listening, it's about unevenness.
A child and only child needs to be in the center of our work here.
And a child in a state that rectifies this protocol gains a stronger, more enforceable claim to ECC than a child in a state that does not, and we don't think that that risk in baiting is justified.
And maybe last thing to comment on is some question we've heard a lot today is, is CRC enough? With respect, I will comment that the convention itself in the question of ECC is not as the delegate from the Human Rights Watch just told us a moment ago.
Article 28 does guarantee free primary education, but it's silent entirely on the ECC.
And General Comment seven interprets the convention to reach ECC.
But again, general comment is a guidance.
It's not a obligation, not a text that states can be held to.
So if the convention already guaranteed this, we wouldn't need to refer it to the commentary.
We would only need to cite the article, which we can't.
That's it for me.
Thank you.
Please.
Annie, a very brief summary of everything I've heard today.
Just a reflection on the power and the privilege of those here in this building and that we collectively have an opportunity to ensure that all children everywhere can realize their rights and in particular in their right to an education.
And what we have seen over the last two days are examples where states have seen a real positive impact of being able to implement early childhood care and education policies as part of their states approach.
However, I strongly believe that without a clear legal definition for early childhood care and education, we are left without that clarity or anything for states to look at how they can implement because I believe that every child everywhere will continue to be at risk unless we make that legal definition.
So we can dither, we can delay, we can debate.
But I think children whose rights we claim to protect continue to have those rights that are unmet and this is our collective responsibility.
I've got three questions that we may want to consider.
When a child speaks, what do we hear? We've had children here as part of these panels.
How will our work here improve the lives of children? And how do we collectively ensure that children's voices are not drowned out by politics, conflict, and competing interests? That's just it for me, Chair.
Thank you.
Wonderful.
Wonderful.
I truly appreciate your interventions separately and inclusively.
It sends a lot of signals of how important it is, and I do value the support that we continue to receive from your organization in particular, and I'm looking forward to your continued engagement with this process.
Thank you so much and I wish you Clara.
Johnny back home, please.
Thank you so much.
All right.
Now, we would have to take just a few seconds break to allow for the next panel to be constituted before we proceed.
Let's, albeit 2 minutes technical break, please.
We have two minute technical break to constitute the next panel, please.
Excellency's colleagues, we'll start in the next 35 seconds.
Excellencies, colleagues.
We will continue with the next panelists and our focus will be on cluster three.
Cluster three, we look at Principle six, seven, and eight.
Essentiality of Principle six, seven and eight is on implementation and monitoring of the protocol.
It is my pleasure to welcome on the high table, the highly esteemed chair of the CIC, miss Silt.
And of course, we have two child representatives, Karen and Lana with us on the high table.
We have miss Satu Cestonin, the Deputy Director, Unit for Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland and my colleague De Hildit Legal officer, is that description befitting you? Very, very much.
Miss Bfujng, is official designation is Counselor Human Rights at the Permanent Mission of Gambia.
Thank you so much, colleagues, for joining us for this final session of today's last and final panel.
I would now like to introduce The remaining panelists who will join us online, and that is my Deputy Minister one at the Ministry of Basic Senior Secondary School Education.
Miss Emily K Gorga from the Ministry of Education in Slone she'll be deriving our statement through videolink.
That is the list of the panelists.
It is my pleasure to go straight to our main focus of discussion, and I will start with the esteemed Karen and Lana, who would deliver the statement separately.
Yes, I give you the floor, please.
Thank you.
My name is Karen I'm Mexica, 17-years-old representative of the Latin America region.
Thank you so much for inviting me.
I'd like to focus on one aspect of implementation that I think is vital.
What role does childhood play when states move from commitment to action? I think we must avoid understanding implementation as a process that occurs solely within governments and institutions and in which children's and youth are invited only to after to say if it's working or not.
Childhood should play a role throughout the whole implementation process.
This can begin even before ratification.
Children and youth can participate in national conversations on possible ratification of the protocol.
They can contribute their views on what it means to their rights and identify from their own experience what changes are needed.
In supporting that commitment.
But once a state ratifies the protocol, that participation cannot just vanish, it must continue in development, revision and implementation of laws and national policies related to the optional protocol because implementing doesn't just mean adopting a law or policy, it means converting international commitments and decisions into institutions, programs, and into action which ultimately have an impact on the everyday lives of children and youth.
And in that process, our participation should not just be an additional element, rather it should make part of how the protocol is implemented.
Regional consultations show moreover, that not necessarily we're not starting from zero, process exists already that can contribute.
Organizations led by children, child parliaments, councils, civil society organizations, and other participation mechanisms are there.
Now the challenges for those spaces not to be viewed solely as places to hear opinions.
What we need is that they have real connections with processes where decisions are taken.
If a state is developing a law related to the protocol, there should be a pathway for children and youth to be able to participate in that process.
If a policy is being reviewed, there should be a space where we can contribute to that revision.
If we are defining how to implement commitments again, we need to be able to participate in that conversation.
That requires something that I think is very important, continuity.
We cannot have intense participation during the drafting or ratification of the protocol and then afterwards just disappear for years.
Those years when implementation is being decided on, if the country is committed to the long term, then participation of childhood needs to be present.
For that to be possible, states need to recognize, bolster, and support mechanisms that already allow children and youth to organize and participate because participation cannot depend solely on at a specific point in time, an institution has or not the will to listen to us.
We need mechanisms and institutional channels that make it possible for our voice to be heard in the spaces where decisions are taken and where policies are implemented.
Moreover, I'd like to draw an important distinction involving children and youth in implementation doesn't mean shifting responsibility that states have The responsibility to comply with and implement the protocol continues to rest with states.
Our participation means something else.
It means being able to contribute our experiences, identify our priorities, question decisions, propose alternatives, and contribute to the measures adopted to truly respond to the reality of of children.
It also means that our participation should generate a response.
Not all our proposals will be accepted, but we need to know what happened to what we asked for, what was taken into account, what changed.
When a proposal isn't adopted, we also deserve to know why or why not.
Because being heeded isn't the ultimate goal of participation.
The ultimate goal is that our participation should have a role within processes that yield results and decisions.
Therefore, one of the most important lessons learned from regional consultations is that we should not ask ourselves only whether children and youth participated in building the protocol.
Rather, we should ask what something broader We need a place in systems, in institutions, and in decisions to be taken when decisions are implemented in practice.
The challenge is not just opening the door for children to be heeded, rather, it's ensuring that that door stays open, when the time comes for implementation.
If we want the optional protocol to be truly meaningful for children and youth, then our participation cannot just end when definition of the instrument ends, rather, it needs to kick in, especially when implementation begins.
Thank you.
Thank you.
La, please.
For my part, I would like to focus on something that I believe is essential for making this protocol meaningful in practice, how implementation is monitored, how progress is evaluated, and most importantly, how children are involved in that process.
It is not enough for states to adopt laws or policies recognizing the right to education.
We also need to know what is actually happening in children's lives.
Monitoring should therefore look beyond what is written in national legislation or reflected in general government statistics.
It should help us understand whether children are actually able to access, participating and benefit from education.
Because a country can have strong laws on paper and still have children who cannot afford transportation, who lack the necessary support, who face discrimination, or who are unable to attend school because of where they live.
So implementation should be measured to children's actual experiences.
Importantly, monitoring needs to help us understand which children are still being left behind.
This means that data should be disaggregated wherever possible.
For example, by disability, gender, poverty, migration, or displacement, and location.
General statistics can show that a country is making progress while hiding the fact that certain groups of children are not benefiting from that progress.
States should therefore be expected to demonstrate not only what measures they have adopted, but also what concrete progress has been achieved, what barriers remain and which children continue to face them.
But monitoring should not only be something that is done about children.
Children should be a part of the process itself.
The consultations have clearly shown that children want to participate in monitoring.
I believe that this needs to go much further than consultations during the drafting of the protocol.
Children should be able to participate in its implementation in monitoring and evaluating progress in identifying barriers and developing solutions.
If children are only consulted when the protocol is being drafted but are no longer involved when it's implemented and monitored, then we are missing the children's perspective precisely at the moment when it matters the most.
This participation needs to be meaningful, safe, and ongoing.
It cannot simply mean giving children an opportunity to speak and then moving on.
Children should have a genuine opportunity to influence decisions.
We should also be able to see what happened with our contributions.
If children take the time to share their experiences and their recommendations, they should be informed about how their views were considered, what was changed, and where something was not taken forward, and why.
This is important because participation should not become tokenistic.
We also need to make sure that children who are most affected by barriers and are specifically included, a child with a disability, a child living in poverty, a child displaced by conflict, a child from a minority or indigenous community, or a child living in a remote area may experience the education system very differently from other children.
Their perspectives are therefore not simply an addition to monitoring.
They're essential evidence of whether implementation is actually working.
For this participation to be possible, we also need the right conditions.
Children need safe and child friendly spaces, accessible information and materials that we can actually understand.
The protocol and related reporting processes should be made accessible to children, not only to governments and legal experts.
We also need resources for participation.
Meaningful child participation cannot depend on whether there happens to be a funding available in a particular year.
If participation is considered an important part of implementation and monitoring, the resources need to make it possible should be protected.
This approach should also shape reporting.
Reports should not simply list laws, policies, budgets, or activities that states have undertaken.
They should show what outcomes have actually been achieved for children, what obstacles remain, and what children themselves say about those outcomes.
Reporting should also avoid unnecessary duplication between different international and UN mechanisms.
The goal should be practical, clear, and child rights focused accountability, not simply producing more documents.
Finally, international cooperation has an important role to play in making this possible.
When states face financial, technical, or structural barriers, international cooperation should help strengthen the capacity to fulfill their obligations.
It should particularly prioritize children who face the greatest barriers.
International support should strengthen public education systems rather than create powerless systems that leave some children behind.
Ultimately, I think monitoring should come back to one simple question.
Are children actually experiencing the right to education as a right that is guaranteed to them and children should have a meaningful role in answering that question because children should not only have a place when the protocol is being designed.
We should have a place in its implementation, its monitoring, and its evaluation.
Our participation should not end when the ding ends.
It should continue until the commitments in this protocol becomes something that children can actually experience in their everyday lives.
Thank you.
Please.
Thank you very much.
Of course, as always the case, the children would always want to go back to their usual seats and avoid regular contact with your eyes.
So I'll permit them to take their seats.
Thank you so much.
I recognize that the chair of the CRC is deeply is running out of time.
She she has another commitments within the coming minutes.
So I think it's important that I have that in mind to give her the floor now so that she do a presentation and then she could possibly proceed to our next assignment.
So please chair.
I give her the floor, please.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Excellencies, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen.
Once again, it's a pleasure and honor for me to speak again today after yesterday's speech and once again, I would like to congratulate the working group for advancing this excellent work on very important topic, which is the right to education for all children.
I would like to again warmly greet the children and congratulate them for really incredible work what they are doing also on behalf of other children.
Who are presenting different views of different children from across the world.
This is a very important point that no one should be left behind regardless where they live.
Now, let me highlight a very important issue, which is, I think we all agree on the importance of pre primary and secondary education.
But the question is, what is the best way to address this issue? How we can best guarantee the rights of every child everywhere of access to free pre primary and secondary education? Let me first highlight that the committee on the rights of the child has not made any decision yet on this topic.
Yesterday, I presented the two views, the one, which is for now the majority of the committee, which is not in favor for the optional protocol as mechanism, but you can be sure that each and every colleague of us, we all support the access of children to quality education at all levels.
There is another part of colleagues who think differently, including myself, we think that there is the added value of the optional protocol and the optional protocol can be a tool which will ensure that in different countries, this will lead to free pre primary and secondary education.
So why we think so? We think that there is the legal gap.
Legal gap in the convention itself, for me personally as a lawyer, I think that the convention is clear about this.
Once again, this is my personal opinion.
I reiterate this.
Other colleagues might think differently, but I think there is the legal gap, and we need to address this legal gap firstly.
For us for the committee, the concluding observations is a very important tool, the core mandate of the committee, how we call this.
And the concluding observations, this ensures that we address the state parties and support them how to implement the different provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in a most effective way.
And this is our guidance work of the committee and authoritative guidance of the committee.
Another point is that we can integrate this optional protocol if it is accepted by certain states, at least for the first stage.
We can include, this will not make any additional financial or human resources burden to the committee.
This is what we are doing anyway for other optional protocols.
I will recall our two optional protocols, so called Oscan OAC.
The third optional protocol, this is something which needs to be addressed differently.
That's why I'm not including in this discussion.
But for sure, Oscan OOC which we address in the framework of the concluding observations on state parties are coming to the committee.
This is very common process.
We could add this forced optional protocol also in this process and it will not once again require any financial severe financial burden and also human resources burden.
One additional argument is also that um the optional protocol in general, this raises the awareness of states.
We have seen on many different occasions, once the raw concrete processes led by certain countries, then other countries also are joining.
This leads to again to tangible results in our case for children, but it's the same for all other human rights mechanism as well.
But in our case for children, tangible results for children on the ground.
And I have said on various occasions, if this optional protocol will persuade even one country to open free pre primary education and secondary education for children on the ground, this optional protocol is worse of it because the Free pre primary education, especially.
This is the foundation.
This is the foundation for children where children begin to lay the bricks for their lives.
That's why it's so important.
Of course, all the rights of the children are very important, but I reiterate the special importance of this topic.
This campaign by the committee has led to the concrete results for many different countries, we see that there are growing numbers of the countries joining and ratifying the other optional protocols as well.
Of course, there is the very strong CRC work behind this.
It means that, for example, the last one today it was announced that Serbia has just joined the third optional protocol.
Despite the fact that we see that human rights in general and children's rights, especially are under crisis, we see certain countries are joining the optional protocols and taking more and more commitments with regards to children's rights, and this is something very important.
Once again, I will just conclude with this last question.
Is the optional protocol only way to guarantee the free, pre primary and secondary education for children? This is the main question, how this will help for children on the ground? Of course, we have many different tools in the Committee on the Rights of the Child for our implementation work.
We have these tools, and we of course use these tools.
We use every possibility.
We use concluding observations, awareness raising, many other field of work of the committee.
But in my view, the optional protocol will be much more stronger because it will reiterate and it will bring and lift this concrete issue at the different level because as I have already mentioned, the state's attention is something important and this movement to join the efforts for children to join efforts in this one specific direction, I think this will pay out with the h different countries joining this optional protocol and subsequently, we will have, of course, tangible results for children.
Opening doors for millions of children for the pre primary and secondary education.
I would like to conclude once again to congratulate and I hope that these discussions and all these efforts for so many stakeholders, it will contribute to better future of children in many parts of the world.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Chair.
Clearly, I know you're very busy.
If at all, you're able to wait for questions afterwards, of course, I give you the green lights.
You could leave.
But then we'll proceed.
As you know, this is the penultimate panel for today.
After this panel, we have the final panel, which will follow immediately after this panel.
I now therefore give the floor to miss Satu Cestonn, the Deputy Director of Unit for Human Rights Minister of Foreign Affairs of Finland.
Miss Cestonn, I give you the floor, please.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair Rapporteur and let me first join the others in congratulating you on your election as chair Rapporteur again.
I also want to thank all our children here for their participation.
I've been really, really impressed how you've participated and you've had long days and still sat here with us and like Madam Chair, I'm very impressed how you have coordinated the views of so many children.
It's very, very valuable.
We have been asked to provide a national example of how the issues covered by the mandate of this working group have been addressed in Finland and thus feed into the national implementation of the possible optional protocol.
Mr.
Chair Reporter, thank you for the opportunity to share our experience.
In Finland, education has long been regarded as a fundamental right, a cornerstones of societal success and important investment in the future.
For this reason, alongside compulsory and free comprehensive education, particular attention has been paid to ensuring access to early childhood education and care, as well as to pre primary and upper secondary education.
High quality early childhood education and care is seen as supporting children's learning, development, well being, and social skills from an early age.
It is also considered an effective way to promote educational equity by helping to reduce the impact of children's socioeconomic background on later educational outcomes.
Although early childhood education and care is not entirely free of charge in Finland, parental fees are regulated by law and are income based.
As a result, affordability is high and approximately half of the families with children in early childhood education and care currently pay no fee at all.
This reflects the Finnish view that access to early childhood education and care should not depend on a family's financial circumstances.
In total, 91.4% of children between the ages of three and five participate in early childhood education and care.
Free pre primary education and free upper secondary education are also considered important because of child's or young person's educational path should not depend on their family's financial circumstances.
The objective is to ensure equal opportunities to learn, develop, and pursue education according to individual abilities and aspirations.
In pre primary education, the focus is on children's development and readiness for school, while upper secondary education aims to support qualification attainment, further studies, employment, and social inclusion.
In Finland, pre primary education became a statutory right in 2001 and compulsory for six year olds in 2015.
Today, nearly all children, exactly 97.7% participate before entering comprehensive school.
Children are provided with free meals and free transportation is arranged for those living long distances from their place of education.
Free upper secondary education was introduced as part of the extension of compulsory education in 2021, which raised the compulsory education age 16-18 and requires young people to stay in education until they reach that age or complete an upper secondary qualification.
For students covered by compulsory education, studies are free of charge, including learning materials, equipment, and support for school travel costs.
Students also receive a free meal during the school day.
In both pre primary and upper secondary education, it has been recognized that removing financial barriers alone is not sufficient.
Even when education is free, some children and young people may still remain outside the education system.
For this reason, both reforms also introduced participation obligations.
The aim of compulsory pre primary education was to ensure that every 6-year-old benefits from high quality educational activities before starting school at the age of seven and receives support for learning difficulties when needed.
Early support is often more effective and can help prevent later challenges.
The extension of compulsory education sought to ensure that all young people continue their studies after comprehensive school until at least the age of 18 or until completing an upper secondary qualification.
Before the reform, almost one in five young people did not obtain such a qualification.
And what do our research and evaluations tell us about these reforms? Research suggests that pre primary education provides a strong foundation for later learning, promotes educational equity, supports school readiness, and helps prevent later social exclusion.
Also, the findings of the extension of compulsory education have been encouraging.
The proportion of young people leaving education before the age of 18 has decreased, and a larger share now completes an upper secondary qualification.
These results suggest that the reform has succeeded in its key objective of keeping more young people in education.
At the same time, the research highlights that participation alone is not enough.
In pre primary education, the quality of teaching and staff competence remain the most important factors influencing outcomes.
High quality provision matters more than simply increasing the length of participation.
In upper secondary education, evaluations indicate that some young people need considerably more support than the current system can provide.
Those who discontinue their studies often have longstanding learning or support needs.
Teachers and students alike report growing demand for guidance, student welfare services, and individualized support.
These issues will remain particularly relevant as we in Finland face demographic change and increasing pressure on public finances.
Thank you for your attention.
Thank you so much, misses Sonen for such an insightful indication of the means and methods of the provision of free education in Finland is quite encouraging.
Thank you so much for that reflection.
We move to the next panelists.
Which would be a video statement from misses Emily K.
Goog, the Deputy Minister one, Ministry of Basic and Senior Secondary Education from Ci Leon.
Please, Secretariat, could you play the video? Chairperson who serves as apatoi excellences, distinguished personalities.
I bring you greetings from Cera Leon and from His Excellency, the President, Brigadier Julius Mave, and the leadership of the Ministry of Basic and Senior Secondary Education.
Delivering this statement today is Honorable Emily Kadia Gaga, the Deputy Minister one of the Ministry of Basic and Senior Secondary Education.
Our country Sierra Leone is pleased to take the floor today.
We begin by warmly welcoming the drafts key principles and by reaffirming without hesitation the governments of C Leon's firm and irrevocable support for the chair and for advancing to the next stage of drafting the optional protocol.
We believe the key principles offer a clear, coherent and practical foundation for strengthening the rights to education worldwide.
Our own national experience shows that pre primary and secondary education is not an aspiration, but an attainable reality.
Sid Leon achieve this by making education a national priority under the leadership of President Julius Mad, the government allocated 22% of the country's recurrent budgets to education, one of the highest proportion in our region.
This was made possible through the introduction of the single treasury accounts, which consolidated government's revenue and expenditure, reduced leakages, and ensure the public resources were directed where they are needed most.
This reform was reinforced by broader public financial management, improvements, stronger domestic revenue, mobilization, ast education plan, and strategic partnership with development partners.
Together, these mechanisms ensure that free education in y alone went beyond tuition fees to include school supplies, school meals, transportation, school buses, and other essential costs that make education truly accessible.
Chair distinguished personalities and excellences.
Sea Aeon supports the key principles, emphasizes on practical implementation and efficient monitoring.
We welcome the recognition of children's participation and the commitment to avoid unnecessary reporting burdens while strengthening accountability.
Sea Allen stands ready to continue working constructively with all delegations.
Finally, I want to emphasize we fully support moving into the draft phase.
We are confident that the optional protocol will help all states advance the rights to education for every child.
I thank you very much for listening.
Indeed, thank you very much, Honorable Minister, for your presentation on affirming, Sen firm and unequivocal support to this process.
Thank you so much.
We move to our final panelists.
Miss Bafujng, Counselor Human Rights at the Permanent Mission of the Gambia to deliver statements.
Please, miss en, Thank you, Mr.
Chair, Reporter, and good afternoon, Excellencies, distinguished colleagues and their children.
Gambia, thanks to you and the Secretariat, Mr.
Chair, for the opportunity to share our national experience on the discloster especially on the progressive implementation of the right to education.
Um, the progressive implementation of the right to education in the Gambia is grounded in our 1997 Constitution and relevant national legislations, including the Children's Act of 2005.
Section 30 of the 1997 Constitution guarantees equal educational opportunities and provides that basic or primary education shall be free, compulsory, and available to all.
It further provides that secondary education shall be made generally available and accessible to all including through the progressive introduction of free education.
This constitutional framework has been implemented progressively through successive education policies, targeted interventions, and financing measures.
An important part of that experience was the initial focus on addressing the particular disadvantages faced by girls in accessing education.
Around the year 2001, the government of the Gambia began introducing scholarships and free support measures targeted at girls, particularly those in rural and disadvantaged communities.
This form part of a progressive approach to reducing gender disparities in enrollment and retention before those measures were later brought in to benefit both boys and girls.
The girls' free secondary education was a major milestone in that regard.
Over time, these targeted measures were followed by broader reforms benefiting Buddhas and girls, and it demonstrated that progressive realization may involve beginning with groups facing the greatest barriers and subsequently extending protection more broadly at national systems as national systems and resources develop.
A significant further step was the introduction of the school improvement grant program.
The program was introduced at lower basic level in 2013, and it was extended to upper basic education in 2014 and subsequently to senior secondary education in 2015.
Through this approach, the government progressively replaced school fees and levies in public schools with grants intended to support schools in meeting their operational cost.
The education sector policy in 2016, to 2030, subsequently consolidated this approach.
It provides for the abolition of fees and levies in public, basic and secondary education and for school improvement grants to be provided annually to public schools.
The policy expressly recognizes the need to reduce the cost burden on households while ensuring that schools have resources to undertake school improvement activities.
This experience also shows that simply declaring education free is not sufficient.
The state must consider how schools would continue to operate once fees and levies are removed and must put in place the necessary financing mechanisms.
At the pre primary level, Mr.
Chair, implementation for us is at a different level.
The Gambia has not yet achieved universal free pre primary education, but government has made a clear policy commitment to expand access to early childhood development and education.
The education sector policy of 2016 to 2030 sets a target of increasing the gross enrollment ratio in early childhood education to 75% by 2030, with particular attention to rural areas.
The government has also progressively expanded ECD provisions, including centers attached to lower basic schools, that's the primary schools and community based provisions.
This is important for us because inequalities in education often begin before primary school.
Therefore, expanding access to quality early childhood education forms part of the broader effort to improve school readiness, participation, and later educational outcomes for every child.
Mr.
Chair, these commitments are supported through public financing.
In the 2026 national budget, approximately $5.9 billion was allocated to the Ministry of Basic and secondary education, representing an increase of about 16.2% over the previous year.
Within this allocation, the government provided 352 million for school improvement grants, 230 million for the West African Examination Council examination fees, and 250 million for school feeding.
These measures shows that free education cannot be understood only in terms of tuition fees.
However, as we have heard from our Ecant children panelists yesterday and as well this morning, even where formal school fees have been abolished, examination cost, meals, transport, learning materials, and other household expenses can still affect whether children are able to enroll, attend regularly, and complete their education.
This has led the government of the Gambia to pay increasing attention to fees, levies and other churches that may arise at school level.
The education sector policy is clear that fees and levies in public, basic, and secondary education are abolished and replaced by school improvement grants.
More recently, in 2026, the Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education has reinforced this policy by directing schools nationwide to discontinue unauthorized charges imposed on parents and requiring any proposed school or parent teacher association levy to receive prior approval from the regional directorates.
This is an important aspect of implementation because the objective of free education can be undermined if formal fees are removed, but families continue to face compulsory or unauthorized charges in practice.
The Gambia therefore considers that implementation under a future optional protocol should take account of both direct and indirect barriers to education, especially because progressive implementation must not only ask whether the tuition fees has been abolished, it should also examine whether other costs continue to prevent children, particularly those from poorer and more vulnerable households from fully enjoying the right education.
Mr.
Chair, monitoring is equally important.
The Gambia uses its education management information system and sector planning framework to monitor enrollment, access, completion, and disparities across different levels of education and geographical areas.
We consider that monitoring under a future optional protocol should as far as possible build on existing national systems and the reporting framework of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
This will help strengthen accountability while avoiding unnecessary duplication, particularly for states with limited institutional and reporting capacity.
At the same time, as the Special Rapporteur on the right to education reminded us yesterday, progressive realization should not become a justification for the continued under implementation of existing obligations.
We share that view because progressive realization should not mean indefinite postponement.
Rather, it should require states to continue taking deliberate, concrete, and measurable steps towards the full realization of the right to education.
The Gambia's own experience illustrates this progression from targeted interventions intended to address particular inequalities, including those affecting girls, particularly towards broader measures benefiting both boys and girls.
We have also at the pre primary level, where progressively address all the financial barriers through support for examination fees and school feeding.
For us, this is what progressive implementation should mean in practice.
Mr.
Chair, as rightly stated earlier by learner, a child rights representative, international cooperation also remains important and should not be understood only in financial terms.
It can include technical cooperation, exchange of good practices, teacher training, support to strengthen education data systems, and south south cooperation between states facing similar implementation challenges.
Such cooperation can help states learn from one another and strengthen national systems while maintaining domestic ownership of implementation.
For example, a state that has successfully developed systems to monitor hidden school charges, improve teacher deployment, or expand low cost early childhood education could share that experience with other states through technical exchanges or peer learning.
This kind of cooperation can support implementation without creating dependency.
The ability of states to make progress should therefore be considered alongside the importance of international cooperation and assistance, particularly for developing countries and states with limited fiscal capacity.
It is precisely for this reason that we see value in the proposed optional protocol.
Importantly, we also want to provide that the protocol can provide the structure while recognizing that states may begin from different legal, economic, institutional, um, uh, starting points.
We also believe that a future framework should build as far as possible on existing national systems, and for the Gambia, the value of the protocol lies in providing that structured pathways.
With these remarks, Mr.
Chair, it is my pleasure to conclude by reiterating that progressive realization does not mean waiting until every condition is perfect.
It means identifying the barriers, taking concrete steps to address them, measuring progress, progressively extending protection, and continuing to move towards the full realization of the right for every child.
The Gambia remains committed to contributing constructively to this process and I hand over, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much and we are truly looking forward to the Gambia's continued engagement with this process.
To this end, I would like to thank both Finland and the Gambia with me on the high table for the engagement, and so we come to the close of this segment.
But before we do so, I think it's important that we provide an opportunity for member states to also reflect on the presentations by both Finland in particular and Gambia In any event, for many of the other panelists, including the Leon delegates online, I would provide the opportunity now for member states to provide their reflections with their comments, questions as the case may be.
I opened the floor and I think I have already a list of speakers with me.
I would ghost get away with Slovenia who is on the first on the list.
Slovenia will be followed by Saudi Arabia, India, Ghana, Peru, Cuba, and Iraq.
These are the lists of states on the list of speakers so far, but I open the floor still if you also desire to take the floor, clearly, I would give you the floor to do so.
We start off straightaway.
Slovenia, please, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Many thanks also to all the panelists for their valuable contributions.
Um, we have quite many specific comments on draft Principle six, seven, and eight, since we didn't deliver them in previous class or discussions.
Principle six, Slovina supports the direction of it and of course, the recognition of children's substantive contribution to the process.
We believe their ethical, safe, inclusive, and meaningful participation should be indeed ensured throughout the work of the working group, including during any further deliberations.
Particular attention should be paid to the inclusion of diverse groups of children, including children from disadvantaged communities and those whose voices are often less heard in decision making processes.
Slovenia also generally supports the reference to lifelong learning under Principle seven and a holistic approach to education.
As to Principle eight, we believe the principle requires further elaboration and examination, particularly regarding the proposed relationship between the potential new protocol and the existing optional protocol on communication procedures, opaque.
To us, the proposal appears to make the application of Oque to rights contained in the new protocol subject to an additional declaration by states concerned, and I think that's also something that previous speakers have phrased.
Consequently, state party to both Oque and the new potential protocol would have to explicitly opt in before the committee could receive communications concerning rights set forth in the potential new protocol.
In our view, this approach could potentially lead to protection gap and legal uncertainty.
While we understand the general idea under Principle eight to ensure consistency to avoid additional administrative burdens, and of course, we support this objective in principle.
We also believe that reducing administrative burden should not result in regression in legal protection or access to remedies.
We therefore suggest that the proposed opt in approach under Principle eight be revisited and subject to thorough legal review, including in the light of non regression objective under Principle eight.
I thank you.
This will be it for now.
Thanks, Ravi.
I now give the floor to Saudi Arabia.
Please.
Sra Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
With regard to Principle eight concerning procedural requirements that are consistent with the previous optional protocols to ensure legal certainty, consistency and predictability for states parties, the kingdom is of the view that the competencies of the committee on the rights of the child should be based on explicit provisions contained in the convention, the CRC, as the instrument that established the committee and defined its mandate or in its relevant optional protocols.
Since the convention itself does not confer upon the committee the competence to receive individual communications, the establishment of such competence through a subsequent protocol would constitute an expansion of its mandate beyond the original framework.
This matter has already been regulated independently through the optional protocol on the communications procedures, making the creation of a parallel mechanism unjustified and potentially leading to overlap or duplication within the treaty body system.
The kingdom, furthermore, emphasizes that the proposed principle exceeds the scope of the mandate entrusted to the working group under resolutions 56-5 as it addresses matters that do not fall within the mandate conferred upon it accordingly.
Any procedural principles principles or proposals should remain within the limits of the mandate established for the working group.
On that basis, the Kingdom proposes the deletion of the proposed provision together with the three accompanying paragraphs.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
I give the floor to India to be followed by Gunna.
India, please.
Chair, India, thanks to Chair Reporta for facilitating this discussion and for presenting the draft keys.
India attaches the highest importance to the right to education and to ensuring equitable access to quality education for every child.
India's Constitutional and legislative framework provides a strong basis in this regard.
Article 21A of the Constitution guarantees free and compulsory education to all children 6-14 years of age.
This constitutional guarantee is operationalized through the right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, which places obligations on the appropriate governments and local authorities to provide free and compulsory elementary education and to ensure access, enrollment, attendance, and completion.
At the same time, India's policy framework recognizes the importance of education both before and beyond the constitutionally guaranteed elementary stage.
The National Education Policy 2020 adopts a comprehensive five plus three plus three plus four curricular structure, incorporating three years of anganwi or preschool education within the foundational stage and covering education through the secondary stage.
It envisages strengthen early childhood care and education and expanded access to secondary education.
India therefore recognizes the importance of continued efforts towards universal, inclusive and equitable access to education, including early childhood care and and education and secondary education in considering the proposals before us.
However, India underscores the importance of respecting national constitutional and legislative frameworks, differing national circumstances and capacities and the existing architecture of the Convention on the Rights of Child.
We also attach importance to avoiding duplication and ensuring coherence with existing international obligations.
India remains committed to the constructive engagement in the working group.
At this stage, we believe that the discussions are exploratory in nature.
India reserves its position on the substance, scope, and eventual outcome of the discussions and look forward to further deliberation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, India.
I give the floor to Garner to be followed by PU.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Education remains one of Ghana's foremost national development priorities, firmly anchored in the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees every child's right to free, compulsory and universal basic education.
Over the past two fiscal years, my government's combined investment across its four flagship basic and secondary education financing programs has experienced an increase of 55.7%.
The government of Ghana finances education primarily through domestic public resources.
At the level at the basic education level, Garner implements the free compulsory universal basic education policy, covering kindergarten, primary and junior high schools.
Government financing supports teacher remuneration, school infrastructure, curriculum implementation, learning materials, teacher professional development, quality assurance, and educational supervision.
To reduce financial barriers to school participation in government continues to implement the capitation grant, which provides direct financial support to public basic schools and eliminate school levies for pupils.
Mr.
Chair, at the secondary level, Garner introduce the free senior high education policy in 2017 to eliminate financial barriers to secondary school.
Under the program, government finances tuition, boarding where applicable textbooks, meals, examination fees, and other approved academic expenses for students attending public senior high school and technical and vocational institutions.
Recognizing that financing must also promote equity, Garner direct additional investments towards under saved communities, girls education, children with disability, and other vulnerable population.
While Garner had made significant measurable progress in expanding equitable access to education, we acknowledge that challenges remain Rising enrollment, rapid population growth, infrastructure deficit, teacher demand, and fiscal pressure continue to require sustained investment and innovative financing mechanism.
As discussion continues on the optional protocol on the right to education, we reiterate our commitment to ensuring that every child enjoys access to free, inclusive, equitable and quality education without discrimination.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you very much, indeed.
I give the floor to PIU to be followed by Cuba and Iraq.
PU, please.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you for the presentations.
Quickly, I'll refer to two Principle six and eight on six, Pu supports recognition of participation of children and of their contribution during that process.
Nevertheless, we think it's important for the wording in the instrument to explicitly reflect that participation should take place in an adequate manner based on their development and age in line with Article 12 of the Convention.
And on Principle eight, Prus shares the goal of maintaining consistency with the existing optional protocols and guarantee, legal security consistency and predictability and procedural provisions in the new future instrument.
Nevertheless, with respect to the communications mechanism, and as was said by other speakers, we think this still requires greater clarity, including on its relationship with the existing optional protocol with the goal of avoiding duplication or interpretations that could lead to regression obligations assumed by states.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, indeed.
I give the floor to Cuba to be followed by Cuba, please.
Chair, I'd like to begin our intervention by thanking the panelists and you for your stewardship of this process.
Education is the driving force of any society, despite multiple individual and collective advantages associated to that human right, the number of children and youth who haven't stayed in school have grown by the seventh year consecutive reaching 263 million.
Only two out of three children complete secondary education.
It's an urgent problem that must be addressed by all states.
That's why Cuba formulates the following proposal with respect to the substantive elements of the future international instrument, which also will include observations and articles four and five, since we were unable to speak during the previous cta first, we'd highlight the importance of the future instrument.
There should be recognition of the importance of lifelong education in all stages of life.
Two, we need to expand language on international cooperation and solidarity for the implementation of the right to high quality education.
We think we should include provisions on the need to provide technical assistance and to promote capacity building and access to financing in preferential conditions for developing countries.
Three, It's necessary to carry out a clear call to eliminate UCMs in the sphere of education.
These measures create major difficulties for countries affected in guaranteeing access to education systems, acquisition or production of school equipment, access to new information, IT tools, access to the Internet, and advanced teaching programs, among other disadvantages created.
Fourth, the future instruments are specifically enshrined principles of equality and non discrimination as cross cutting guarantees for the full enjoyment of the right to education, ensuring equality of opportunities and access to public, free of charge, inclusive, high quality education for all persons without distinction of any kind.
And fifth, we'd be grateful if you could include provisions that ensure that states parties to the Convention on the rights of the CRC should incorporate reports on obligations deriving from the protocol within the periodic reports pursuant to Article 44 of the Convention.
This would contribute to reducing the burden on reporting and streamline and improve the work of the committee.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much indeed.
I give the floor to Iraq, the final on the list.
Just in case there's another delegation wishing to take the floor, please feel free to do so.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
With regards to Principle six, Iraq, emphasize that it is important to listen to the children voices in all matters regarding their lives in line with the CRC.
This has to take place while respecting the role of the parents and the family.
As for principle number seven, Iraq considered that it's very important to include in these provisions the mandate that has been given to the working group according to resolution 56 slash five.
Lifelong learning shall not lead to new obligations that goes beyond our mandate.
We also emphasize the need to ensure legal certainty as well as consistencies in terms of communication procedures.
We shall not add additional mechanisms that will not fall under the mandate of our working group and will lead to additional burden on states.
Thank you.
Status.
I give the floor to stitching and Global Human Rights defense.
You have the floor, please.
Respected Chair Reporteur.
The Global Human Rights Defense Group welcomes the key principles and in particular Principle six, which recognizes children whose participation shaped this protocol and affirms drawing on Article 12 of the CRC, every child's rights to be heard in matters affecting them.
However, this recognition currently appears only in the preamble.
This commitment to children's participation should also take practical effect in states parties.
Pakistan is a key case of concern.
Its constitution guarantees free education to every child aged 5-16.
Yet more than 25 million children remain out of school, the world's second largest such population.
Pakistan is now in the midst of a national education emergency that remains unresolved, with children hindered by chronic malnutrition, insufficient infrastructure, and disabilities, which have prevented their inclusion in the education systems and produce high dropout rates.
The persistent of Pakistan education crisis suggests that children's themselves have not been meaningfully heard and their needs not adequately weighted in the design of the state's response.
We therefore urge that children in Pakistan be actively consulted in shaping the education policies that affect them and that reporting under Article 44 of the CRC give weight to whether states have done so.
It is only then that the aims of Principle six will be realized.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
I give the floor by video to Matt for peace.
Secretariat, please.
Mr.
Sir Reporto, statistics indicate that the number of children involved in kindergartens in West Asia and North Africa has doubled since 2000.
This is good news, of course, but at the same time, millions of children in Africa and the Arab region, especially in countries experiencing armed conflict, have never attended pre primary education.
Mad for peace also knows that despite the increase in law guaranteeing the right to pre primary education, implementation still faces numerous obstacles.
Out of 196 countries that have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the child, only 52 have ratified the optional protocol on children's comps.
That's why we need a clear and easy mechanism so that if any child feels the right to education has not been respected, they can complain and have their voice heard.
Mr.
She, in principle seven of the draft principle, it refers to the recognition of lifelong learning by the optional protocol, but the draft doesn't clarify how this can be achieved.
Mr.
She, could member states clarify how they will promote lifelong learning opportunities and how these opportunities will be integrated into the optional protocol? Thank you.
Thank you so much and I give the floor.
You have the floor, please.
Hi.
On.
Hello, good afternoon.
I'm Lisa Ting chair of the Representative of Fla Grace.
It's an honor to represent the Generation 21 plus link lint Allegri, present in America, Africa, Europe, raising the voice of billions of youth and the conviction that the right to education is much more than a written right.
It's an opportunity to transform lives.
We appreciate that this process recognizes the right of children and youth to be heeded, to contribute actively to decisions that affect their lives.
We think nevertheless that that recognition should be converted into meaningful participation that goes beyond consultations and allows a real impact on decision making processes.
We're not just subjects of policies, we're rights holders, actors with experience, knowledge, and capacities that contribute to building solutions.
That's why the decisions affecting their present and future should not be contributed without the active participation.
From our experience, we have seen that when there are spaces for Informed accessible participation, then patient allows not just to express reality in everyday realities, but also contribute to its transformation.
This requires giving special attention to those who historically have been excluded from spaces where decisions are taken and ensure necessary conditions that they can now participate in equal conditions.
Our comment on Principle six is to do with being heard is crucial, but it's not enough.
Participation should be substantive and have mechanisms that enable that perspectives and proposals of those affected be considered in decisions that concern them.
It cannot be limited to occasional moments of consultation, rather, it should be consolidated as a sustained practice in educational processes and in building public policy because education policy built with those who everyday live with education are more democratic, relevant, and capable of responding to realities of communities.
Recognizing our participation is not a symbolic gesture, it's a prerequisite to build more legitimate decisions and education that truly responds to those who live it and who to those who negotiate this protocol, we call for this principle to be strengthened with courage from the member states, especially we urge specific support from the Latin American states who presented certain reservations.
There's not enough time.
There are so many challenges to face together.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you so much.
We have one more person on the list and that's under the category of recess persons, Benoir Casbch, please.
Thank you, Chairman.
I'm still speaking on behalf of a large majority of members of the CRC.
To add on the monitoring of the convention, I would like to share the following.
As I said earlier, we already put many recommendation to states about their obligation to implement and to ensure free secondary education and to increase access to early childhood education.
And in this regard, the committee has never received a complaint from a state claiming that the CRC recommendation were going beyond the existing standards.
That means that there is a global consensus that education has to be free from primary to secondary level.
Does that mean that we cannot do better? Certainly not.
We are permanently working on improving our recommendation and strengthening the monitoring of the convention.
The committee has set up a small working group to look into our work and identify how and where we can do better.
More focused recommendation, systematic question to state party on this very issue, better follow up, and so on.
Today, we are concerned by the real risk of lowering the standard and weakening the existence of the protection.
Let me take two concrete examples.
If today a state submits its periodic report to the CRC in the current context, the committee reviewing the state can raise questions and recommend to implement free secondary education and early childhood and care education.
If in the future this optional protocol is adopted and the state A comes to us without ratifying this protocol, it can tell us, you do not have the right to ask us for that because we did not ratify this protocol.
Another concern, if state B, having ratified the Epic and a child from state B can submit an individual complaint to the committee about the cost of education that limits its right to attend school, tomorrow, if state B has ratified the optional protocol, but without opting in the application of the Epic to it, the same child would not be allowed to complain about the lack of access to free secondary education under individual complaint mechanism.
This is just to explain that I believe and I'm convinced that we have the same objective.
We want to achieve a full right to education in all its dimension.
Where we do not completely agree is how to do that and how to ensure that this is done.
I think that it's important to hear the concern of lowering the existing protection in the future.
I thank you.
Thank you very much for those reflections.
I will now give the floor back to the panelists.
Before the next set of panel, assume the high table, I think I want to provide some brief reflection on my observation as they seem to be the case.
I would have to do that immediately, please.
Yes.
Let me just offer the floor to members of the panel.
If you have any you're okay.
Please.
Miss Sunan, please.
Thank you, Chair.
This is not really concerned the content of our earlier intervention, but we as Finland submitted written comments to the draft key principles, and those are still initial as we are still coordinating position on the details, and we too raised the question that should the um Ending of the exploratory phase be decided in the working group.
But one thing that I wanted to comment as Finland is maybe the OPIque as well.
We are one of the member states that have ratified OI and we have several communications pending before the committee.
We too noted that if we were to ratify the potential optional protocol, we would have the possibility not to include it in the In our OPIque selection, when we ratified OI, we had no such choice.
We had to have it cover the convention and to optional protocol.
So for us, we also think that this is something that we need to think about.
Still that is this the solution that we want to have? I know there are arguments to opposing it and supporting it.
But I think there's something that needs to be carefully considered.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, misses Toning.
Miss Jang, I'm sure you're okay.
Wonderful.
Thank you.
I want to convey on behalf of the core, the working group, our profound appreciation to particularly misses Toning, you traveled thousands of miles to come to this podium to deliver your national statement.
This is deeply and truly appreciated.
Thank you so much in any event, but thank you so much.
I also thank Buff Jean for your contribution and support to this process.
It's truly appreciated.
Thank you so much to you as panelists.
Yes, please.
You're allowed to go.
Before we resume or continue with the final panelist, I think it's important to provide a brief reflection on the consistent intervention of Mr.
Benoit as a member of the committee.
Now, while as a committee as a working group, sorry, we deeply appreciate the input that have been provided particularly from you and as you said, some members of the committee.
It is very important and extremely so that we have certain understanding While the resolution 565 provides for inputs of the members of the committee, it is equally important that such inputs are being mindful of the fact that this is a state led process.
I give you an analogy.
Now, there are various arms of government.
You have the legislature on one hand, you have the executive on the other, and of course, the fee, and you have the judiciary.
That process is not detail with what operates within the UN system, but it is also similar.
You have member states.
We have the primary authority to adopt, negotiate and adopt international treaty.
And because we recognize that by ourselves, we need an additional arm that would provide the means to aid the means of us implementing our state obligations under these various treaties, it is the very member states that created the treaty bodies.
And the treaty bodies duty is to principally provide interpretation and monitoring of these treaties.
It is a serious risk for the treaty bodies to now tend to, in my opinion, influence the decision or direct the member states as to what sort of approach or mode of adopting a legally binding instrument should be.
It is a serious risk, and I want you to be very mindful of this.
There are certain guidelines as provided for.
The Da guidelines, for example, it provides an array of how treaty body members should conduct themselves.
I think it's important to provide this brief reflection.
During the opportunity that I have with the members of the committee, I shall share both procedural and legal perspective with respect to some of the contributions that I've seen because I am mindful of certain concerns.
I take particular notes with reference to you influencing member states by way of telling member states, if you are not in receipts of the concerns that we've raised, we are willing to offer them.
The danger there is, you risk that sense of impartiality in the event where member states will adopt this treaty.
It is really a serious situation that you're mindful of the certain contributions and comments that you provide and how you do so.
It's a serious matter.
I think it's important to provide this reflection as we proceed.
Thank you.
You want to take the floor? I'm afraid.
I've only provided an opinion as chair on the subject which I feel it's important.
No, please.
We need not have exchanges.
I've provided an opinion on something which I felt it's important that I do so at this stage.
Thank you very much for your continued engagement to this process.
It's deeply appreciated.
Thank you.
We will have a five minute technical break and we'll resume and continue with the last panelists for this session.
Thank you so much.
Excellency colleagues, we would start in the next 30 seconds.
Okay.
Excellency, colleagues, we will now move to cluster four that includes Principles nine and ten, and this effectively speaks to the working methods for the drafting phase of the optional protocol.
I will now move on to the last of our panel discussions, as I said, is cluster four, working methods of the drafting phase of the optional protocol, which addresses principles nine and ten of one of the principles.
I would now like to introduce our distinguished panelists.
The most beautiful ladies ever in the old wide world are the ones I have with me this evening to conclude the last set of panelists.
The child representative for Latin America and the Caribbean states is Karen.
Karen, you want to wave to the CO? Beautiful.
P wave to hi again, send it back.
Thank you.
The next is from Asia Pacific States.
Sonya, you want to do the same? Lovely.
Lovely Everybody appreciates you.
These are with us today.
We would also hear two video statements, one from Roberto, the child representative from African region, and one from Robert, who would serve as a child representative from Western Europe and other states during the first session of the working group and who turned 18 earlier this year.
I would like to invite delegations and participants who have not already pre registered for the list of speakers to register with the Secretariat in the room.
The registration for the list of speakers will close in 15 minutes.
I ask the delegation limit the interventions to 2 minutes.
With that in mind, I invite the Secretariat to screen the video statements by Roberto, the child representative from African region, and Robert, the former child representative from Western Europe, at the first session of the working group.
Secretariat, please.
Excellence, distinguished delegates, partners, and fellow child leaders.
Good morning.
My name is Roberto, and I'm from Liberia, and I speak today as the representative of the African region.
Together with Karen and Sonia, we bring you a message about child participation, not participation that stops once a consultation ends, but participation that continues, including potentially in the drafting of this protocol.
If states decide to move this process forward.
We want to start by naming something important.
What has already happened in this process is historic.
This is the first time in the history of the United Nations that children have been directly involved in shaping a human rights treaty from its earlier stages.
That is not a small thing, and it did not happen by accident.
It happened because child representatives and other child advocates around the world pushed to make it happen, orbanizing these consultations ourselves region by region with the support of Child rights Connect and other civil society organizations.
It happened through regional consultations across Africa, Europe, Asia, the Americas, and the Mina region where dozens of children share what matters most to them about their right to education.
It happened through the key principles consultation where we reviewed and give feedback from the foundation of what to become this protocol.
And it happened again just last Saturday where we met to prepare our own contributions for this very session.
Each of these steps matter, but each of them also raises the same question, what happened next? Excellence is.
If this process moves forward and if a protocol is eventually drafted, we believe children's participation should not end here.
It should continue into the drafting phase itself.
We have already shown through everything you have heard this week that children can contribute real thoughtful and specific input as symbolic gest strokes.
That contribution should not be treated as complete once this session ends.
This also connects to what we raised earlier on international solidarity.
Meaningful participation should not depend on which region a child comes from or whether their country has the resources to send them to consultations like this one.
The children who have the least access to these spaces are too often those in conflict affected or un resourced countries.
The very children this potential protocol is meant to protect.
If participation is only available to those of us fortunate enough to be in this room, then it isn't truly representative.
So our ask is simple.
Build on what has already been started.
If there is a protocol, let children remain part of shaping it, not only to this stage, but into the drafting process ahead in a way that is accessible to children everywhere, not only those with a seat at this table.
Thank you.
Hello.
My name is Robert Punon.
I'm 18 and based in Scotland in the United Kingdom.
At this moment, I'm currently studying my early education in childcare at college.
I'm a former member of the Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland's Young Advisors Group.
Last September, I had the pleasure of being a part of the IGWG's Child Advisory Group last year and got to address the working group in person at the United Nations in Geneva.
It was an amazing experience for me to be part of as I was getting a chance to speak about the importance of barriers to education for children and young people.
It was special because it was the first time the UN Human Rights Council involved children in the treaty drafting process.
When I walked into room 17 at the Palace des Nations, I got a sense of how important the UN thought listing to young people like me was.
It was a huge room, and all the countries who were going to be there had their places clearly marked in the rows of seats.
I was nervous, but in a good way.
I saw people setting uploms and name plates on the stage, which made it all seem real, but I knew that I could do it.
The working group is considering an optional protocol to the UNCRC to require countries to provide free pre primary and secondary education.
And in my speech, I explained the situation in Scotland.
Here, children have attended free preschool education for more than 20 years.
Parents have a choice between attending a preschool class within a primary school or a state or private preschool.
Both state and private preschool places are now funded by the government for 1,140 hours per year.
This is around 22 hours a week all year or 30 hours if only used during school term time.
This is available for three to five year olds and some two year olds.
Parents can pay for extra hours at some preschools, for example, if they need childcare, they may be able to get help paying for these.
But there are some barriers that children face that can prevent them from attending nursery and preschool education, like parents not value in preschool education.
Preferring a family member to look after a child or a lack of flexibility.
For some families, particularly in rural and island areas, a lack of transport can prevent their child attending preschool education.
I spoke three times for a working group and felt like my participation was real and meaningful.
The young people there weren't just taking a box.
I felt very lucky to have the opportunity to take part and have this opportunity now to explain to you what my role was.
Thank you for watching.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, indeed, Robert for your presentation.
I think the most elegant ladies with me will now take the floor, please.
Lana and K.
What is it? Thank you very much.
I'd like to put out there an idea of something that's fundamental for me at this stage, a protocol that seeks to protect the rights of all children cannot be built viewing childhood as being unique, homogeneous, or universal.
Childhood doesn't live a soul reality, and I think that something we've been able to see during this process, especially during regional consultation was specifically the value of listening to boys, girls, and youth from different contexts.
There are five of us here today from five different regions.
I think this is not just something symbolic, rather, it's a virtue of this process because our differences don't mean that we have less in common, means that we can show how the same right can be experienced in different ways depending on context.
That's something that a drafting process should not lose sight.
Regional consultations allowed us to hear about experiences that probably wouldn't have appeared in the same way if we had tried to speak about childhood as if it was just a single group, a girl living in poverty, a migrant girl, a boy working, a boy with a disability, or a girl living in a context of violence can run into completely different barriers.
That's why for me, the diversity of those who participate shouldn't be viewed solely as a question of representation.
It is also a way of improving the substance of decisions that are taken.
Because when we hear about experiences that are different, we can discover problems that we wouldn't have identified otherwise.
We can question these assumptions that seemed universal and see that the same measure can function for some children and leave others marginalized.
Here is where child participation can contribute something different.
It's not just a matter of asking ourselves, what do children want.
We could also ask, What are we not seeing here? In consultations, boys, girls, and youth, not only did we share opinions, we also shared experiences, concerns, and specific situations that enable us to identify where there are barriers and what aspects of a decision could have different effects depending on the person involved.
That's why I think that children and youth, I think we can play a particularly valuable role during the drafting.
Not just as persons who give opinions, but as a source of knowledge for putting the decisions that are being taken to the test.
This also leaves another important lesson.
It's not enough to just organize a consultation and say that there was child participation.
We have to see who was able to participate, who wasn't able to participate and what did we do to try and correct this? Because not all voices reach these spaces with the same ease.
If we genuinely want to apply the principle of non discrimination we have to draw up participation mechanisms that are able to reach those who normally are left outside, those who live in poverty, those who migrate, those who work, those who have disabilities, those who live in rural areas, or those who are in context of conflict, violence, or displacement.
Here, I think that the experience of regional consultations has left a very tangible lesson.
We shouldn't wait for the voices to come of their own accord.
If we want to know certain realities, then we have to create the conditions to allow that to happen.
Because the absence of a voice doesn't mean that that reality doesn't exist.
It can mean that the space was not accessible, that the information didn't arrive, that there weren't safe conditions for participation, or that a genuine opportunity was never really provided for that person to participate.
That's why when a specific childhood is not present in a conversation, then we shouldn't just assume that its necessities are the same as those who are present.
We should ask the question, what barrier stop that voice from being present here and what can we do to change that? I also think that there's something else that we have to be very careful about going forward.
We need to diversity should not just be present only during consultations.
While the experience of different regions and contents were important in building this process, Also, they need to be important in future steps.
Diverse participation should not just be an element to be complied with, rather, it should be a prerequisite that we should maintain.
For me, this is the true strength of principles nine and ten.
It's not just a matter of drafting a protocol which prohibits discrimination.
It's a matter of building a drafting process that's capable of finding discrimination there where we're not looking and if these experiences have shown us anything, it's that listening to children and youth from different contexts doesn't make the process any more complicated.
On the contrary, it makes it more comprehensive because our differences can help us identify what a single viewpoint cannot achieve.
If we can ensure that those differences of context aren't just a side note, we can make sure that they are a source of knowledge to build better decisions.
Then we won't just be writing a protocol for all girls and all boys.
We would in fact be building a protocol that can recognize their different realities and can also respond to them.
This, I think is the difference between just saying that no one should be left behind and building a genuine process in which nobody is left aside from the very start.
I give the floor now to my friend, Sona.
Thank you.
Thank you, Karen.
When we talk about the optional Al, we are not only talking about governments, laws or international commitments.
We are also talking about children as children are directly affected by the New treaty.
Due to this, we should have opportunity to help shape the new protocol.
We want to build solutions together with authorities.
Our personal experiences matter because they help decision makers understand realities that they may not see themselves.
When children speak, decision makers can better understand the challenges we face in education and other areas that affect our lives.
As one child from SES said, when adults listen to children, they can make a better plan.
And we have already seen that child participation is possible.
Look at the consultation we have had across different regions.
Children from Africa, Europe, Asia, Canada, Latin America, and Mya have all shared ideas, experiences, and solutions.
So moving forward, we should not only ask, how can adults involve children? We should also ask, how can we create spaces where children can take action? In taking actions, children can raise awareness.
We can advocate, we can work with government, we can monitor progress, and we can help make the optional protocol a reality.
As one child from Europe said, we are active participant in building this optional protocol.
I believe that is exactly how we should see ourselves, not simply as the future, but as participants in creating change today.
Having said that children can work directly with governments and decision makers.
We should not only be invited to speak, but also be included in discussions where decisions are made.
As children from Canada and Latin America set, we want to build solutions together with authorities.
Children can also encourage their governments to implement the optional protocol once it is developed.
Several children from SEA set, they wanted to bring the protocol to their own governments and ask them to implement.
This shows that the protocol should not be something that belongs only to adults or international organizations.
It is a tool that belongs in children and as much as adults.
But participation must be inclusive.
We need to make sure that the voices of children in poverty, refugee children, children with disabilities, and other children who are often excluded can also be heard.
We cannot talk about meaningful children participation if only some children are given the opportunity to participate.
Children can help with implementation and accountability.
Our role should not end once a government join the protocol.
We can continue to monitor what happens, share our experiences, and ask whether commitments are actually being implemented.
There could be stronger mechanism to observe and follow up on implementation of the protocol.
Once important idea was the creation of an accountability body to monitor and follow up on the implementation of the protocol.
This shows that children rely on the CRC committee and trust that they will do their best to monitor this optional protocol as well.
Most importantly, we should remember that children are not passive recipients.
We are also active participants and contributor to change.
Finally, across all regions, the message is clear, education is not a privilege, but it is a right and every child deserve the opportunity to learn, grow, and build their future.
In this opportunity, I would like to urge that The decision makers who will write the new protocol once it developed to create the change that we are hoping for, the new protocol will hold governments in all countries accountable, turn stride into action, help to reduce dropouts, transform children's lives toward new possibilities and better future.
We want a better for children as they are the leaders of tomorrow.
Education may not be a luxury for a small group, but as the basis of an equal and sustainable life for all.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Each time you speak, it sends the message that, look, the task we have at hand is a task that the children are saying to us, you have to fulfill.
This is our interest, and this is over and above all, as the fundamental principle of the CIC provides, which is Article 3 0.1, the best interests of the child must be secured in every of our actions with respect to children.
I want to thank all of you, including our panelists online, but before we conclude and also allow member states to provide brief reflection or make comments as the case may be in my capacity as chair, but it's also important that you have understanding for me on this very important aspect of our proceedings which speaks to our working methods.
Now, as we turn to the item on working methods for the dating phase of the optional protocol, I wish to recall and rightfully so that Principles nine and ten of one provides the procedural backbone for how this working goal will advance its mandate.
Now, Principle nine, as I explained when I was presenting the key principles earlier on yesterday, basically affirms that our mandates entrusted to us by the Council 565 is not merely exploiting.
We have a concurrent mandate.
Explore the possibility of elaborate and submit to you might cancel a draft optional put score.
It is expressly to elaborate and submit to the canceled draft optional protocol.
This is what the law would refer to as the Sis, meaning the special law will take precedence over the general law.
In effect, we have a lay down scope which is a mandate of this working group.
We must endeavor to keep and follow strictly stick to CNO the provisions of our scope.
On Principle ten, this provides that this drafting phase must be conducted in a manner that is efficient, practical, and concise.
Of the financial constraints, bear in mind the financial constraints affecting the United Nations system.
But it's important that we reflect on this language, liquidity crisis, financial constraints.
You and I know where the problem is.
It is not that the world is in financial crisis.
We don't have a pandemic.
We don't have such a serious financial situation that is wrecked the world financial system.
No.
What we're confronted with is clearly a situation where somebody refuses to pay.
It is intentional.
It is a decision that is made, and that decision can be reversed for any good reason to whoever is concerned.
And so leaning on the fact that we are confronted with financial crisis, that suggests that our progress should be constined.
I ask you to rethink and reflect on that again.
It is a situation that can be addressed as we speak only with the stroke of a pen.
This means that our methods of work should avoid unnecessary duplication.
Rely on existing CIC procedures wherever possible and ensure that the drafting process is streamlined, predictable, and feasible for all delegations.
It also means that we must make full use of intercessional consultations, expert inputs, and written submissions while preserving the intergovernmental character of the process.
Expert input does not imply influencing wrongfully, the decisions of member states.
In practical terms, this entails, one, conducting open informal consultations to clarify questions, identify areas of convergence, which has been the case.
I have taken my time just to ensure that I get every detail as articulated by every delegation.
I have refused to use my computer so that I don't miss somewhat.
I've written I do handwritten notes.
Of course, that is supported by the most outstanding secart that you could think of.
That is what I have.
So I'm safe and you're all safe.
We have recorded accurately all of your concerns and questions.
Three, two, sorry, once we prepare the draft, we would ensure to circulate the draft well in advance, allowing sufficient time, not just you that are here in Geneva, but particularly your instructive capitals, who gives and provides direction as to what decision you should take as we proceed with this process.
We would ensure that the draft is available way in advance to allow for time for further reflections and instructions from your capital.
And showing that the drafting proceeds in a transparent and inclusive manner with all delegations able to contribute meaningfully.
So as I insist, every comment, every concerns would be taken on board.
And for situations where we cannot get absolute consensus, views of the other side would be accurately, and I repeat would be accurately reflected in the record.
Four, maintaining a lean and rationalized process consistent with UN efficiency measures.
Now, despite my opinion of the state of play in terms of firm or resources, we recognize that the situation as it is, we have to deal with it and work around it.
Bear in mind the rationalization processes that are in force.
Ensuring that children's views continue to inform our work in a safe, ethical, and substantive manner.
Their views will continue to play an integral part as we proceed with this process.
I will always and at all times, ensure that I take on board, particularly their views when we proceed with this process.
These working methods are not new.
During my closing remarks yesterday, I reiterated one precedent that has informed the working methods of this working group, and I referenced the Oique For obvious reasons, we're employing the OIC process because of obvious reasons.
One, the OIC is the optional protocol to the same CIC, which is a foundational document or the principal document governing all of these optional protocols.
Two, the working methodologies and prosthesis is what we're also employing.
It was established pursuant to a cancels resolution, and that resolution established a working group and that working groups methodology is what we're following.
Now, we have been here for almost two years, if not plus, if you want to include the pre adoption of the resolutions dates, within two years, that optional protocol was adopted by member states of the UN.
Look, I take note of the comments as articulated by Professor Jaffe.
I'm doing my research as well.
I know this was very clear that there is no negotiation intergovernmental process that is done without other states having different views from others.
There is no These processes comes with their own challenges.
One such is the International Covenant on economic and social and cultural rights.
If you look at the records or you do a research, you would understand how challenging that process was in terms of member states agreeing on the adoption of that of that instrument.
But eventually, it was adopted.
What we're experiencing now It's not new.
It's basically not new.
This is a process of negotiating instruments.
It is a process.
You may have even the slightest of majority in support, but you also have another set not in support, that's acceptable.
That's the process.
Which is why in my capacity as chair rapporteur, I would always hold the balance to ensure that we listen to all sides and not just listen to all sides, but ensure that their views are reflected in the records.
That I will continue to do.
The work of this intergovernmental working group are the established practice of previous IGWG processes that successfully elaborated optional protocol into earlier, those related to the CIPD, for example, and as I discussed, the ICESR, we are almost close to time and clearly, I think I would have to stop at this point, and we'll continue our discussions tomorrow.
We're mindful that they are interpreters and we have time limits.
As I said, we want to consider the current rationalization measures that are in force.
I cannot go beyond that.
I will stop so far.
We'll continue tomorrow morning.
The children will be here.
Well, of course, we had said initially that we want to avoid any direct interface for you to pose questions to them.
They've already provided their interests and what is at stake for them.
But the other panelists would also have the opportunity to provide reactions to your questions.
So Excellency colleagues, it is my pleasure that given the time constraints that we are faced with, I hereby bring to close today's session and adjourn accordingly.
The meeting is adjourned.
Thank you, colleagues