5th 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.

Excellencies, colleagues and the most eloquent children that we have in the Old World War.
It's important to recognize their presence this morning.
I will now call this session.
I will now open this session.
We will continue with the list of speakers, as you're aware.
We stopped with the list of speakers yesterday.
We couldn't continue because we hadn't enough time to get all the speakers on the list.
And as a result, therefore, that is what we will continue with this morning.
As you know, we were dealing with Principals nine and ten.
Of one, and we'll continue with the list of speakers this morning.
On the list, we have Cuba, Egypt, Slovenia, and Belgium.
That will be the order that the speakers will make their statements.
I will start with Cuba to be followed by Egypt.
Cuba, you have the floor, please.
It doesn't appear as if Cuba is in the room.
We will move to Egypt to be followed by Slovenia.
Egypt, please.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair Rapporteur.
My delegation thanks Your Excellency and the distinguished panelists for your presentation on this cluster.
Principles nine and ten concern the mandate and the working methods of the working group are central to ensuring that the process remains faithful to the resolution 56/5 and guided by the collective assessment of member states.
Egypt offered the following observation in this context.
Regarding transfer number nine, Egypt recalls the mandate established by Resolution 56/5 must be read in its internet.
It reflects exploring the possibility of elaborating and submitting a draft optional protocol.
This element should not be interpreted as establishing an automatic an automatic transition from one or two grounds of consultation to a formal drafting.
The report of the first session records different views among the delegations regarding the necessity, the added value, as well as the legal and financial implication of a new optional protocol.
Neither the report nor the adopted recommendation recorded a consensus that a legal gap has been established or the exploratory phase has been completed.
According Consideration of the key principles should assist the member states in assessing either such a gap exists, either an additional instrument would be the most appropriate response.
It should not by itself be treated as a beginning of a drafting phase.
Regarding principle number ten, Egypt supports the efficient and effective conduct of the working group with the full awareness of the serious financial constraint facing the the United Nations.
Efficiency, however, should remain consistent with comprehensive intergovernmental consideration, consensus building, and the full implementation of the mandate.
The current liquidity crisis also makes it particularly important to assess the financial and the institutional implication of any proposed instrument, including its implementation, monitoring and reporting requirements.
Limiting its substantive scope may reduce duplication, but doesn't itself establish the need for a new protocol or eliminate the additional burdens it may create for the states or the treaty body system.
Egypt therefore considered that the future direction of the working group should be determined collectively by the member state through an inclusive, state led consensus oriented process supported by objective evidence based assessments that clearly distinguish a possible legal gap from challenges related to implementation, financing, and national capacities.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair Rapporteur.
I thank the delegation of Egypt.
I give the floor to Slovenia.
Slovenia, please.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Many thanks for giving me the floor to comment on work, methods, and future direction of the working group.
The very rich discussions over the past two days, including the valuable contributions of the many panelists have shown that while states and other stakeholders participating in this process share the same fundamental objective, which is, of course, advancing the right of every child to education, some divergent views remain as to the most effective means of achieving it.
For Slovenia, this is precisely why we believe the exploratory process should remain open and inclusive, allowing sufficient space further reflection, analysis, and consideration of different approaches.
Any next steps should provide states with sufficient time to carefully assess the possible added value of a potential new international instrument, including in the light of the draft key principles where a number of elements would benefit from further clarification, refinement, and analysis.
Stage to also have sufficient time to consult with capitals and considering the full range of legal, policy, financial, and practical implications, including for different national educational systems.
Most importantly, as we consider the way forward, our starting point should remain the best interests of the child and the question of how we can most effectively advance the enjoyment of their right to education for all children.
We should therefore remain open to different approaches and to examining the full range of possibilities of achieving our common objective without prejudging the final outcome of the process.
In this regard, Slovenia would also like to underline the particular value of the diversity of views expressed during this session.
We have heard from member states, from children themselves, UN human rights mechanisms, and expert bodies, civil society, as well as from some individual members of the CRC.
Each of these perspectives may not always point towards the same direction, but they are all valuable contributions to a discussion that is ultimately centered on improving the lives and opportunities of children.
We therefore believe that the process should continue to provide meaningful space for all these voices, even if divergent, while allowing sufficient time for reflection, analysis, and consultations.
Slovenia has engaged constructively throughout the discussion and has contributed comments across all four clusters.
At this stage, however, as we have already indicated throughout the session, we reserve our final position on any future possible instrument, as well as on its individual provisions until there is greater clarity regarding its content and scope, its relationship with the existing international legal framework, it added value and its implications for national systems.
We remain fully committed to our shared objective of strengthening the realization of every child's right education and look forward to continuing the discussion.
I thank you.
I thank the delegation of Slovenia.
I give the floor to Belgium.
Belgium, please.
Thank you, Chair Rapporteur.
Belgium considers that the exploration of the need for a fourth optional protocol to the CRC remains incomplete and that many concerns raised by states and other stakeholders committed to the realization of the right to education for all have yet to be adequately addressed.
Over the past days, several delegations have called for the continuation of the exploratory phase, as was the case during the first session.
We hope that this time around these views are given due consideration.
In this context, we believe it would be premature to move to the drafting stage, including through discussions on drafting principles or practical arrangements such as the circulation of a draft text.
In addition, Belgium welcomes the contribution of all stakeholders to this process, including civil society and members of the committee on the Rights of the Child.
The diversity of views and expertise they bring enriches the discussion and contributes to a more informed and inclusive debate.
While this remains a state led process, we do not believe that this should preclude the participation of other stakeholders or the sharing of independent expertise.
Indeed, one of the strengths of the Human Rights Council lies precisely in its ability to bring together states, treaty bodies, special procedures, civil society, and other experts in a constructive dialogue.
In this regard, we recall that resolution 56 slash five explicitly invites states, civil society, and all relevant stakeholders and in addition to the meaningful participation of children to contribute actively and constructively to the work of the working group.
It also foresees the participation of representatives of the committee on the Rights of the Child as resource persons, alongside special procedures and other independent experts.
Over the past days, we have had the opportunity to hear different perspectives of various members of the committee on the Rights of the Child.
In that spirit, we would encourage the chair to continue ensuring that the full range of perspectives and expertise and concerns is reflected and appropriately accommodated throughout the process.
I thank you.
Thank you, Belgium.
My understanding is Cuba is now in the room.
If that is a kiss, then, clearly, I think I will give you the floor, please.
Cuba.
Thank you very much, sir.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international Human Rights instruments have left direct to education as a poor relation for millions of people, especially for pre primary, primary and secondary level.
The Human Rights Council must give a strong view on this.
The draft principles submitted by the chair enabled the open ended IGWG to prepare and submit a draft optional protocol to the CDC, this exercise should be in keeping with the mandate approved by the Human Rights Council under 565 resolution 565, which guarantees to all children the right to free education despite the financial crisis in the United Nations and the Human Rights Council.
It is essential to allocate necessary resources to the group for its task.
These resources must be used towards our common goal, which could make a difference to thousands of people and the generations of the future.
We must act now.
Thank you very much, Cuba.
From the list that we have with us, I think we've exhausted the list of speakers, but that will not restraint any speaker or any delegates from taking the floor if you so desire.
I see Austria.
I give you the floor, please.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Dear Chair, thank you very much for your efforts in guiding us through this process.
Austria would like to emphasize the importance of an inclusive, objective, and transparent process that allows for all stakeholders to participate freely and to express their views as they see fit.
The views and opinions of experts in particular of great importance and constitute a valuable and useful contribution to the discussion.
Therefore, we would like to strongly encourage the chair to take all different opinions into account and to reflect them in the future process.
In this regard, Austria would also like to align itself with the statements made by Belgium and Slovenia.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Is there any other delegation wishing to take the floor? Saudi Arabia.
I see Saudi Arabia.
Say, please.
Thank you, sir, Saudi Arabia, at the end of this session is very happy with your good guidance of our work to strengthen dialogue and consensus.
We commend the efforts of the Secretariat and the OHCHR and we thank the children who've participated.
So that we have been able to hear their voice.
The protocol must be based on provisions which are feasible and applicable in various education systems and different legal contexts so that there can be access to this instrument by all countries.
It's necessary for the work of the working group to be in line with its mandate, the mechanism of the protocol and its follow up should be clear in legal terms.
We also must remember the capacities and priorities of each country.
In conclusion, we will continue constructive participation in the working group because we would like to see a practical and balanced protocol which would meet with consensus and promote education for all even in different legal contexts as the country by country.
Thank you very much, indeed, Saudi Arabia.
Any other delegation wishing to take the floor? I think we're all comfortable so far with the interventions delivered both from the high table in terms of the panelists and the reactions and reflections and comments from you member states.
I see we have one expert, Mr.
Benoit Kaspch.
Yes, you have the floor, please.
Thank you, sir.
First, to make clear that if I was understood yesterday as not respecting the principle of the responsibility of states in the drafting of an optional protocol, I must say this is not what I intended.
I fully do respect this process.
I am a part of a committee of experts which was requested to participate in discussions and clarify certain points in these discussions, and it is in the spirit that I contributed to the discussion by providing information on the role function, and manner in which the committee fulfills its mission.
It is in that spirit and that spirit alone that I spoke and I repeat that the objective of the working group and the final objective is to strengthen the right to education for all children without discrimination.
This is an objective which we all share and it also was the objective of my intervention.
Coming on to the substance now, I already have described some of our concerns.
There is perhaps one aspect which requires further consideration, namely, this protocol deals with an issue which is very important, which is that the education should be free of charge.
And we all agree that it is a major obstacle for many children when accessing education.
I'd like to stress the fact and various speakers and groups of children and young people who've spoken made this very clear themselves, I'd like to point out that there are many obstacles, in fact, there are a whole lot of many other obstacles we have to think about.
Classes are overcrowded in many countries.
Educational standards and quality are sometimes sadly lacking.
The curricula are not necessarily those which are approved by the Ministries of Education.
There's a lack of facilities.
Of the high quality that schools require.
There's the teachers qualifications, there's gender discrimination, various forms of violence.
Also, there is an increasing difficulty for children in situations of climate crisis, armed conflict, displacement, and a number of other very difficult situations.
All of these children also have major difficulties with access to education.
I note that unfortunately the draft protocol or the objective of this working group is not fully consonant with these concerns.
So what we need is a global coherent approach towards access to education, and I think that it is in this way that we will be able to succeed in our work.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr.
Sigo.
Okay.
I think that will be the last speaker for those experts who would want to take the floor.
I will now provide some brief reflection.
As you know, Principal nine and ten speaks to the working methods of this working group.
And I indicated when I addressed all of you on Monday that look, this process is guided by the mandate that you might cancel resolution 565 provides.
We will not, and I repeat, we will not act otherwise.
We will not go beyond what resolution 565, particularly the scope which is provided for in the operation of paragraph one.
We will not go beyond that.
And that is precisely the response that Principle nine provides both nine and ten.
Our mandate is to explore the possibility of elaborate and submit to the Human Rights Council an optional protocol.
It is a concur mandate that we all recognize continues from one ambit of the mandate to the other.
And as a result, therefore, each step that we take is embedded in what we all know are the precedents that we have, particularly with respect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
As you know, there exists three optional protocols And the most common process that is akin to this process is the third optional protocol.
Now, I'm taking my time to do all of this because when I addressed and responded to some of the comments that were made on Monday, I took my time, as I'm doing now, to provide deeper reflection on many of the comments and concerns that delegations, including experts, raised during that period.
And clearly so, I took into cognizance the three fundamental guiding principles that I establish that serves as my working tools during the course of this period, particularly as far as I continue as I remain chair port of this working group.
And I said, one is inclusivity.
And as you see, I have endeavored to listen to all shades of views, all shades of views.
And whilst I'm listening to all shades of views, including member states, experts, academics, the children over and above all, I have a duty to hold the balance.
And as chair rapporteur, I should be able to provide the requisite guidance that will take this process until the rest of our mandate.
And that is what I'll continue to do.
I said, the next guiding principle is transparency.
Being transparent is to ensure that the manner and approach that I will adopt in conducting not just me as chair reporter, but all of us as member states in the totality of our engagement with this process, I have a duty to ensure that it is open, everybody have access to it, and everybody understands what we do.
I don't keep some certain shades of opinions to my chest and divulge others.
No.
It is important that I reflect and provide deeper understanding on all of these issues because for me, the key principles as well as the resolutions itself is in plain English.
It is not in any sort of ancient language that you find difficulty to even identify what sort of language is this.
It's in plain English.
So when the principal says there will be no regression, I cannot understand what better language is as clear as that.
When the principal say we will not go back on the provisions that are already granted under international domestic framework, that is non regression.
That is clearly non regression.
I said, another guiding principle of this work is efficiency.
We repeatedly have been raising concerns about the liquidity crisis that is confronting the United Nations.
But again, as I said yesterday, the world is honestly not in economic crisis.
We're not.
The world is not in economic crisis.
I mean, let's be honest with ourselves for once.
It's simply a decision that is made not to pay and pay on time.
So once that decision is made to pay and pay on time with only a stock of a pen, then all these financial difficulties that the United Nations is confronted with will be a thing of the past immediately.
It will be a thing of the past immediately.
Now let's come down to our national jurisdictions.
On questions about funding.
The resolution provides for collaborations and cooperations with international institutions.
But aside from that, we recognize that the principal duty to fund education is in the hands of member states.
It's in our government hands.
There are a lot of loopholes, there are a lot of opportunities available to us that we could make use of in funding education.
As we speak, a number of states have been making striking measures to fund and provide for free education.
With the most recent is Zambia and previously Malawi.
They now guarantee free education for Pai to secondary levels.
Yes, I agree, much of it is really on political will.
But the most important thing is, is this something that we can do? From those two examples, the answer is clear.
Yes, it is a possibility.
Now, the next point we need to reflect on, which has been a recurrent issue repeatedly.
And I've said this time and time again that this process is largely lying on the opaque process.
This process is largely relying on the OI process, the optional protocol on communications procedure.
I'll give you a timeline.
If you have time after this session, I'll also invite you to thoroughly conduct your research to establish what was the working methods and how did they come about in concluding and adopting the optional protocol and communications procedure.
Let me just take my time to just reflect briefly on that so we understand what is the nexus between that process, which is serving as the precedent on which this process is building on.
As I indicated to you yesterday, the opique was established pursuant to te cancel resolution.
I'll give you the full reference for that resolution.
The reference is a slash IC slash res slash 11 slash one.
What was the operational paragraph one of that resolution? Designed to establish an open ended working group of the Human Rights Council to explore the possibility of elaborating an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to provide a communications procedure complementary to the reporting procedure under the Convention.
You see the link and the similarity of the scope of this topic and that of this working group.
I would ask Secretariat at this stage to please screen resolution 565 of this working group, please if you could screen it up quickly and go to OP one of that resolution.
It is very important that we understand all of this process.
So these continued concerns as if this working group is employing certain practice that is outside the due process of the cancel processes.
It's good to understand that clearly.
If you go to OP one, please, the operational paragraph one.
Thank you.
You see the language.
I read the language as provided for in 565 that established this working group.
I'll read it and then I'll read again.
That's which establish the OI working group.
565, which establishes our working group decides to establish an open ended intergovernmental working group of the Hit Council with the mandate of exploring the possibility of elaborating and submitting to the Humit Council a draft optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The interesting thing is whilst there's a clear mandate with 565 to draft, that is not the case for 111.
Let me read 111.
Deside to establish an open ended working group of the Units Council to explore the possibility of elaborating an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the child, to provide for communications procedure complementary to the reporting procedure under the convention.
Do you now see that resolution 111 do not in fact have a drafting outright mandate.
This is the process that we're largely relying on or we're building on for.
It doesn't even have it, but we'll come down to it as we go along.
We have the mandate to submit it.
At the time the resolution was submitted to the council, which was adopted, they do not have it at all.
Now, the next mandate as provided for 111, which is opaque.
It requests the working group to submit a report of progress to the council for considerations at its 13th session.
Of course, we also have similar mandates to submit PGS report.
But the fundamental question here is, do we have a mandate to submit to the might cancel an optional protocol? Yes, we do.
That is not an ancient language.
It is not.
From what I read from the OI, do they certainly not.
Now, let's look at the process that the OP adopted that eventually led to the adoption of the optional protocol and communications procedure.
So this resolution was adopted in 2009.
On the 16th of September 2009, that was when the resolution was adopted.
Let's go to the timeline.
On the 16th, between the 18th of December that year, In the space of one month.
In October, the resolution was adopted.
In December, the working group convened its first session.
And at that first session, upon the proposal of the chairperson, the working group agreed to all the general debate to be followed by expert presentations, discussions, and all the processes that followed.
Now, what happens as the next line of action from the OI? Of course, as requested by the resolution, it's tabled its first intergovernmental working groups report to the council in January of 2010.
Don't forget to bear in mind it's 2009.
In 2010, it copied the progress report.
In 2010 of April, they had to go to the Human Rights Council to request for a resolution mandating the elaboration of the optional protocol.
And what is the provisions of OP one of that particular resolution? It provides takes note of the reports of its first session held in Geneva from the 16th to 18th of December of the open ended intergovernmental working group to explore the possibility of elaborating an optional protocol to the convention on the rights of the child to provide for communication procedure.
So by April, it now confers that mandate to the working group.
Another mandate that was extended to it was it decides to extend the mandate of the open working group until its 17th session.
OP three of that particular resolution also decides to mandate the working group to elaborate an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the child to provide for communications with procedure.
In essence, what I'm trying to explain is by April, because it added the mandate to actually submit an optional protocol, a resolution was tabled to the council to now confer that mandate to the working group.
And the resolution was adopted, confine authority to the working group to table, to the council, an optional protocol.
29 2009, 2010, they now have that authority to table an optional protocol.
This is in April.
In May of 2010, and the precise date is on the 17th of May, the chair of the working group tabled or submitted to member states a non paper.
The non paper contains possible elements.
The non paper contains possible elements that will serve as the foundation and basis for a tax based negotiation.
Please follow through with the timeline as I'm taking my time to explain this.
So once I'm done, at least, this working group would be vindicated from the concerns of taking expeditious steps in pushing this process forward, which is not the case.
We are merely following procedural processes, due practice.
That is what we're doing.
And we're not acting outside our authority as alleged.
So the non paper was actually submitted to the working group in April after the council had conferred the authority, just a month after the council conferred authority to the working group to proceed to submit to the council an optional protocol.
What was the contents of this non paper? It elaborated the non paper containing possible elements of the draft optional protocol, which was circulated to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and to all permanent delegations.
The non paper was discussed during the informal consultations with member states and other states when on the sorry, on the 26th of May 2010, April, confer authority, May, non paper prepared, very May, and informal consultations conducted to review this non paper and to get reflections and reactions from member states.
On the 26th, as I indicated, the informal consultations were conducted.
That very May on the 21st, expert consultation was also done.
I could give you a reference to the Council's resolution that actually speaks to some of these expert perspective that was also shared.
If you look at paragraph five of resolutions A slash HIC slash 17 slash 36, please, I hope delegations are taking records of this.
Now, the working group conveyed its second intersectional meeting.
Part one of the second intersectional meeting, when was this conducted? It was done on the 10th of December.
So, it was done from the 6th of December to the 10th of December 2010.
So in May, a non paper was circulated.
In December, of 2010, the second inter sessional meeting of the working group was convened.
The working group agreed to devote the first part of the session, which was from the sixth to the 10th of December, to elaborate on the proposal for a draft optional protocol prepared by the chair.
On the basis of the discussions, a revised text of the proposal was prepared by the chairperson.
So when they meet at the second session, similar to what we now have as we're meeting for the second session, a text was presented to the working group.
We have not done that.
What we have done is to discuss keys, key principles, in fact, not even the elements.
We are now discussing key principles, essentially providing a framework of what the next step would be.
I will soon wound up on this process.
It's important we do this.
We have clarity, so we don't have somebody coming back to say, Oh, we're overstepping our mandate.
Now, between the first and second part of the second session, the chairperson met all five visions in order to introduce the revised proposals and exchange preliminary views on it.
As a result, the chairperson suggested some amendment to the revised proposals which were discussed during the second part of the session.
Next timeline.
Part two of the second session was convened from the tenth to the 16th of February the following year.
You see how systematic the progress of the Epic was.
So they convened the following year in February from the tenth to the 16th.
And what was the purpose of that second incision meeting, it was devoted to discuss the revised proposal with the chairperson had submitted to member states.
Posting on to paragraph 98 of the resolution at the last meeting, sorry, the reference to paragraph 98, sorry.
At the last meeting of the working group, which was concluded on the 16th, the chairperson tabled for adoption a text So at the second meeting, part two of the second intersectional meeting of the working group, the chairperson tabled a a text of a draft optional protocol.
And this text was previously circulated.
To delegations.
Introducing the text, the chairperson proposed oral amendments and indicated that the draft as or amended reflects the results of the negotiations of the working group and paragraph one on eight.
By paragraph one on eight, the working group adopted the text of the draft optional protocol by consensus.
This was in April in 2011.
Which was at the second meeting of the working group.
They now adopt the text of the draft optional protocol, and it was done by consensus impressively.
On the 14th of July 2011, resolution adopting the OIC.
I'll give you the reference A slash HRC slash res slash 17 slash 18.
What was the contents of this resolution? OP one, welcomes the work of the open ended working group and takes note of the reports of the second session.
OI two, adopt the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and communications procedures contained.
In the annex to the presents resolution.
OP.
OP three, comments that the General Assembly in accordance with paragraph five C of the Assembly's resolution 6251 of 15th March 22,006, adopts the following resolution.
Excellencies, colleagues.
That was the process of the Oque.
Within two years, a resolution was tabled to the General Assembly for adoption.
This is two years that this working group was established.
What we now have before us is not an optional protocol, but rather a document that provides only the foundation, only the foundation of what we want the optional protocol to be.
The OIque, as you know, speaks to communication procedure.
It's an optional protocol.
Optional, as the world says, it's at the discretion of member states to determine whether they will be bound by the provisions as provided for in that instrument.
This is an optional protocol.
Every delegation would have to subject it to its policies and whether it fits its policies and laws before it could ascribe itself to be bound by it.
Now, there was also a question with respect to if you adopt one resolution, one optional protocol, whether you'll be bound by the other.
I mean, that's basic international laws.
You can only be bound by an instrument.
If you sign and domesticate that particular instrument.
This is a mental international law.
So I have taken time to go through this process and procedure.
Do so I provide a deeper understanding of what our process is.
We will not do anything outside the usual practice within the framework of the Human Rights Council.
I assure you of that.
And let me now turn to the question of inclusivity.
From the word go, I have always endeavored to provide an opportunity where all shades of opinion are heard all.
Now, I don't want to speak to my competence in serving as chair.
But suffice it to say that I have a duty not just to hold the balance, but to provide an assessment where possible, where particularly, as you know, this is a state led process.
I cannot provide an assessment or an opinion on any delegation's statement.
That's completely outside my mandate.
I cannot do that.
I have that authority to do to any other contributors outside member states.
And I can do so by providing an opinion, only an opinion.
That does not by no means suggest to mean that I will restrict, particularly experts position, which, of course, I found to be very much useful during the course of this process.
I'll give you an example.
The S Reporter, for example, on education, has provided the most professional and constructive contributions to this process.
She has done so in a written format.
We've called her on this table repeatedly.
She has said opposition on a number of times.
Look, I have no issue with anybody.
Do not Think that I'm concerned with the positions of any particular expert? Certainly not.
But I have a duty to protect this process.
That is a duty that I hold and I hold it secret, and I have to discharge it without fear or favor.
I thank all delegations for your contributions.
And let me now inform you that following the last two days engagement and bear in mind the diverse views that have been expressed by both delegations and other experts, There is a draft recommendation which was shared with delegations last night, and we did so just so we provide ample opportunity for delegations to review the recommendations which will be adopted ad infinitum referendum, in the afternoon when we convene for the second session.
Now, if your delegation is not in a seat because we acknowledge that when it was circulated yesterday, there were mails that couldn't go through at all.
I mean, this is a technical issue.
It's no fault of the secretaria at all.
But if your delegation is not in a set of the recommendations, please approach the Secretariat to notify them, and we would endeavor to promptly share a copy of the recommendations with you.
We have now exhausted principle nine and ten.
We have now exhausted nine and ten of the key principles, and I'll come back to do a follow up of all the comments and concerns, but I'm mindful of the fact that we have scheduled ourselves to commence a consolidated discussions at exactly 11:00 and thankfully, I have been able to keep to that time.
We have this item eight, which is consolidation of discussions of the key principles as a framework to guide the preparation of a draft option protocol.
On the podium, we would have myself, the secret and child representatives, we have Karen, we'd have Lana, we'll have Sonia and we'll have Todd.
Are we prepared? Wonderful.
They've confirmed with a nod of the head.
We will also have Professor Claus Beta from the Faculty of Law, Northwest University, South Africa as members of the panel.
We will therefore take just 2 minutes technical break to allow for the panel to be constituted before we start.
Thank you.
Two minute technical break, please.
Excellencies, colleagues, the resumption of this session will continue in the next 30 seconds.
Okay.
Excellency' colleagues, we will now begin our work to consolidate the discussions of one of the key principles as a framework to guide the preparation of a draft optional protocol.
I would like to invite delegates and participants who have not already pre registered for the list of speakers to register with the Secretariat in the room.
Registration for the list of speakers will close in 15 minutes.
I ask that delegations limit interventions to 2 minutes.
I'm pleased to invite our child representatives to present their reflections on the discussions over the past two days of the session.
With that, it is my esteemed pleasure to hand over to the children.
Please, you have organized yourself and you know how and when you want to deliver your presentation.
I'll hand the floor over to you, please.
Thank you very much, Chair.
After these days of dialogue, I would like to share numerous reflections based on our experience as girls and boys and teens that we have had in participating actively in this process.
The first is very simple.
Moving ahead with the protocol does not mean a slippage.
It means moving forward and guaranteeing the right to education.
Education is a fundamental right.
It is also a right that opens the door to the enjoyment of many other human rights.
When a girl or a boy or a teen can have access to education and remain in school, they have greater opportunities to develop, to participate, to build their own life project, and to contribute to their community.
For this reason, moving toward a protocol on free preschool education and primary and secondary school does not mean slippage on the commitments that already exist, but rather strengthening them.
The protocol can be a common basis that allows states to protect the progress that they have already made.
Also, it allows them to respond to the changes and new challenges that education faces.
For the countries that already have solid educational systems, this can be a tool to maintain those standards and to avoid slippage and to continue to improve.
For those that still face gaps.
They can put in the energy to ensure this progressive right for all girls, for all boys, and for all teens the world over.
We are not beginning from scratch.
We're not starting from scratch.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child already recognizes us as right holders and that states have the responsibility to ensure our right to education.
This protocol represents an opportunity to strengthen this commitment.
To give it greater clarity and to make progress to ensure that this right become a reality for all boys, girls, and teens.
Rights cannot merely be written down on paper.
The commitments we take on have to be felt in our schools, and our communities, and in our daily life.
I believe that this is particularly important.
Our realities have changed.
Societies, families, and our lifestyles, and the ways that we experience inequalities also have all changed.
The lives of boys and girls and teens today is not the same as when the Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted 36 years ago.
For this reason, we also need for international instruments to respond to the realities that we are currently experiencing.
We have the goal, and I think that everyone here shares this goal, and that is that no girl, no boy, no teen be left outside of the educational system because they can't pay for it.
When we talk about free education, we have to ask ourselves, what does free actually mean? Because it's not enough for there to be schools.
It's not enough for a girl to be able to enroll.
We also have to ensure that they can remain there.
Many families face expenses that are tied to education that can become a barrier, uniforms, school supplies, textbooks, transportation, food activities, and additional costs.
For some families, these expenses might just be small, but when they add up, they can become a reason, an obstacle, keeping a girl or boy or a school out of school, bringing them to dropout.
For this reason, ensuring education that is truly free means that we need to eliminate these barriers, barriers that are often invisible.
This discussion begins in our first years of life.
There are many boys and girls that cannot have access to preschool education, not because they don't want to, but rather because the economic and social conditions in which they are living do not allow for it.
Often, inequality begins even before we can enter into a school, and no one should begin their lives with less opportunities.
Merely because of the economic reality of their family members, early childhood is essential for development, for learning, for living with others, for discovering our abilities, and for building tools that will support us and serve us throughout our whole life.
For this reason, guaranteeing access to education from the early childhood stage is a way to move towards greater equality.
Specifically, because the decisions made on this right will have a direct impact on our lives, it has been so important that girls, boys, and teens, we have been able to participate in this process.
For this reason, I would like to briefly share what it has meant for us to be here today.
Being here has been a deeply important experience.
It's an historic experience.
We come from different countries, different regions, and different contexts.
Our realities are different.
But during these days, we have been able to listen to each other and hear each other and we've noted that we share the same concerns, some of the same challenges and many of the same hopes.
When we speak of our experiences, we are not speaking merely of us who are here, but we are speaking of more than the 80 some boys, girls, and teens that have been involved in the consultations, the meetings, and in different venues for dialogue.
Those who shared videos or responded to a question or allocated some time to express what it means to them when they think of the right to education.
We have had the opportunity to bring experiences born of our schools, born of our families, born of our communities.
But these are part of a collective voice.
It's much more broad.
Each participant allowed for the opinions of girls and boys from different parts of the world to be present in these conversations.
That's important.
It's important because the decisions being discussed here will be consequential in the lives of millions of boys, girls, and teens.
For this reason, we hope that this participation will truly contribute to reminding us of something that's important.
When decisions are made, when you make decisions on our rights, our experiences can help you, can help you to better understand the realities.
That your decisions are seeking to transform.
We want to contribute to this protocol and generate awareness among our communities.
We want to bring those efforts necessary to ensure that these commitments can be made reality.
We hope that what we have shared throughout this process can continue to support the decisions made in the future.
For those of us that have participated from different regions of the world, this venue has shown that participation by children, boys, girls, and teens can be much more than merely being present at a meeting.
We can listen, we can learn from each other, we can share our experiences, and we can build towards proposals.
Today, we were here, we spoke, we listened, we learned, and we made proposals.
We hope that this is not the end of our participation in this process.
We want this to be part of a path that allows for the decisions made around this optional protocol to reflect increasingly and better to the realities that we face as boys, girls, and teens.
Because in the end, those of us who will have to live with the consequences of these rights not being met, we will feel this.
We want to contribute to bringing better responses.
During these days, we have shown that boys, girls, and teens, we cannot merely be present where the decisions are made on our rights.
We can make contributions with our experiences, our ideas, and our proposals.
We know firsthand what the realities are, the realities that this protocol is seeking to transform.
It is for that reason that I firmly believe that there are no better specialists on children and youth and teens than the boys, girls, and teens.
I thank you kindly.
Thank you, Karen.
Looking back at the discussions, I think one of the most interesting parts was seeing how differently states approached the idea of a new optional protocol on the right to education.
There was clearly a lot of support for the importance of education and for making sure that every child can access it.
At the same time, there are many concerns about whether a common standard would work for all countries, whether a new protocol is necessary, and how realistic the process and the timeline would be.
I would like to reflect on some of those points, especially the ones where I agreed strongly with what was said, but also the ones where I had a different perspective.
One concern that came up was different national contexts could make it difficult to establish one common standard.
I agree that states have different resources and education systems, but I don't think that this should prevent us from establishing a common minimum right.
Flexibility should apply to how states achieve the right, not whether children are entitled to it.
For me, this distinction is really important.
States should have flexibility in how they implement the right to education.
Different countries may need different policies, approaches, and resources depending on the national circumstances.
But the basic right should not depend on where a child happens to be born.
A child should not have a weaker right to education simply because their country has fewer resources or different education system.
So I think the protocol should establish a clear common minimum standard while still recognizing that states may take different paths towards achieving it.
Another issue that stood out to me throughout the meetings was the timeline.
There was a lot of discussion about the need for further consultations, further discussions, and more time to consider different perspectives.
Of course, I understand why these discussions are necessary.
A protocol like this is important and we need to make sure that it is well thought through.
We need states, experts, civil society, and most importantly, children to have meaningful opportunities to contribute.
But at the same time, I found myself thinking about how often adults talk about further discussions when we have to act quicker.
For us, this process is not only about the document that will eventually be adopted.
It is about the rights that children should be able to exercise now.
Every day without the protocol is just another day where nothing changes and a child somewhere does not get to exercise their right to education.
That is why I'm concerned about the timeline.
I'm worried that instead of moving forward, we are moving backwards.
Of course, I'm not saying that we should rush the process and sacrifice the quality of the protocol.
Meaningful discussion is necessary and we need to get this right.
But urgency also matters.
For children, time is not abstract.
A child who is five today will not be five when this protocol is finished.
A child who is currently waiting for access to education cannot simply past their life until states reach an agreement.
So while I support meaningful discussion and consultation, I also strongly believe that the process needs a greater sense of urgency.
We need to keep moving forward and make sure that discussions lead to concrete progress.
Another point that I found particularly important was the argument that the problem is implementation, not a legal gap.
This came up particularly from states that were more cautious about the protocol.
I understand the argument.
We already have international commitments recognizing the right to education and in many countries, the challenge is not necessarily the absence of laws, but the failure to implement them properly.
But I don't fully agree with presenting these two as two separate problems.
There can be an implementation gap because there isn't a sufficiently clear legal obligation.
If the standard is unclear, it becomes easier from implementation to differ widely between countries.
A protocol could provide the standard that states are then expected to implement.
For me, it is therefore not a choice between having a legal framework and implementing it.
We need both.
A strong legal obligation without implementation is not enough, but implementation without sufficiently clear legal standard can also leave children with very different levels of protection depending on where they live.
That brings me to another argument that came up.
Existing frameworks are already enough.
Some states questioned what additional value a new protocol would bring if the right to education is already recognized in existing international frameworks.
I think this is an important concern and one that the drafting process should take seriously.
At the same time, the fact that the right is already recognized does not necessarily mean that it is adequately protected in practice.
For me, the protocol should build on existing commitments while addressing the gaps that remain and strengthening the protection children actually experience.
Ultimately, the important thing is not only what rights are recognized on paper.
The important thing is whether children can actually exercise those rights.
And that has probably been one of the biggest things that I have taken away from these discussions.
We can have commitments and national laws, but the real test is what happens in a child's everyday life.
For me, this means that the success of this process should ultimately be measured by its impact on children.
It should bring us closer to a situation where every child can exercise their right to education regardless of their circumstances or where they live.
It should also strengthen accountability and help us close the gaps that children are still experiencing today.
And we need to make sure that the process itself reflects that urgency.
The longer we wait, the longer children continue to live with those gaps.
For me, that should be at the center of how we move forward.
I understand that creating an international legal instrument is complicated.
I understand that states need to discuss, negotiate, and find common ground.
But I also believe that we should not allow the complexity of the process to make us lose sight of the reason why we are doing it in the first place.
We are doing this because there are children whose right to education is still not fully realized.
For me, one of the most important parts of this process has been that the children have actually been able to be a part of these discussions.
I'm here not only to speak about children, but to bring the perspectives and experiences of children into this room.
The other children involved in this process have shared their experiences, their concerns, and their ideas, and I think that that has a real value.
Our participation should not only happen at the beginning, through consultations and then disappear when the actual drafting and negotiations begin.
If this protocol is about strengthening children's rights, then children should continue to have a meaningful place in shaping it.
Meaningful participation means more than being given an opportunity to speak.
It means that what children say is genuinely listened to, considered, and reflected in this process.
There is something that I hope we can carry forward from these meetings.
My reflection is therefore that I support a protocol that establishes a clear meaningful standard while giving states flexibility in how they implement it.
I believe we need to adjust implementation, but also recognize that stronger legal clarity can be a part of the solution.
I believe existing commitments provide an important foundation, but that the gaps that remain still show us that more can be done.
I believe that children should remain part of that work as it moves forward because ultimately, we are not only discussing a legal instrument.
We are helping shape something that is meant to affect our lives and the lives of children who come after us.
I think that this is exactly why our choices belong on the table.
Lastly, I would like to leave one question for all the states in the room and also you, Mr.
Chair.
How will this process go further and what we will do together? Thank you.
Thank you, Lana.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Anya and I'm from Indonesia I'm a short representative from SEA.
I'm happy to have been a part of the second IGWG meeting about the new optional protocol for in the past two days.
And now I would like to share my closing remarks based on what I have learned and reflected from all the discussions.
I am particularly interested in sharing my views on the need of pre pre primary education to be focused on in the optional protocol four.
I have heard repeatedly many distinguished speakers who mentioned how important early childhood care and education is and we all share.
I believe that free pre primary education should be provided to all children from any kinds of backgrounds.
Either they are refugee children, children with disabilities, children in poverty, children in armed conflicts, and other kinds of children who are often excluded.
No child should be left behind, as we all agree.
Why is early childhood and care important? Because it builds a vital foundation for physical, intellectual, emotional, and social growth during critically early brain development.
We want all children to achieve their full potential.
Apart from learning academic foundations, such as introducing basic math, basic literacy, and problem solving skills in pre primary school education setting, children learn how to share, cooperate, take turns, and build positive relationship outside home environment.
Pre primary education also promotes teamwork, empathy, collaboration, and dispute resolution.
Moreover, children can learn routine and independent that will get them used to structure daily schedules and help them transition smoothly into formal primary school.
Point worth mentioning is that educators can spot learning disabilities, speech delays or behavioral challenges early, and provide timely support.
In the world that has become more complex and challenging due to economic crisis, environmental issues, political unels, health, and other issues, children need to be prepared to face them.
Government must provide education for children starting as early as possible.
By providing free pre primary education for every child, From any background, leaders in the world must do their best to prepare every child to be ready to face such challenging in life and to enable them to collaborate with one another with respect and integrity, to be interdependent and to be a part of the solution.
Despite such significantly important roles of pre primary education and care.
The reality is that the UN Convention on the Rights of the child only guarantees free and compulsory primary education under Article 28, and it does not explicitly mention early childhood or pre primary education because it is not written explicitly in the CRC treaty.
Government are not strictly legally bone or obligated to quaranty universal, free public, pre primary or early learning.
Without a clear legal mandate, pre primary education are privilege for children of wealthy families, leaving so many children globally to miss out on early education.
That is not okay because pre primary education must be provided for all.
There is also general comment number seven on early childhood care and education.
However, the nature of the general comment is interpretive guidance that is clarify unclear language to enable public understand their obligation.
General comment is not legally binding.
It serves as persuasive interpretation of the existing law.
To fill the gap in the UN Convention on the right of the child in early childhood education and care, the drafting of the optional protocol for becomes significantly urgent and important.
This is the reason why we are all here together, working together towards the betterment of children welfare in the world.
We are grateful to be here and voice up the real conditions of children in after part of the world and their recommendation.
We have shared with you how bad their condition are due to poverty, miss out the very basic and important right to free education and the poor condition development they are facing.
Please help these children by developing a universal treaty that can enforce all the state parties to be responsible in making a change in these children's lives.
You are the leaders of today and in your hand, you have the p filet to create leaders of tomorrow.
Please stand by us.
Hold the children's hand in the word and lead them towards the destiny that they deserve.
The need of optional protocol for that include the need of preprimary education is highly crucial.
Thank you.
Thank you for the floor.
I would first like to thank all the distinguished speakers, states, and NDOs who have shared us on and applauded our work this week.
We thank you for listening to us and considering our views.
Based on our consultations with children, we have realized that no state provide education that is completely free by the time a child reaches the school gate.
There are barriers that come in the form of uniforms, transport, exam fees, textbooks, voluntary contributions.
The right exists on paper, but in reality, the bill arrives.
Several delegations have said that the financial crisis in the United Nations is a reason to hesitate in supporting this protocol.
I understand where that comes from, but a right is not a line item to be postponed until the budget allows it.
If the United Nations is under financial strain, so are the families and the countries represented here.
Child poverty is racing in many of them.
That is not a coincidence, and that is not a reason to slow the process of drafting the protocol down.
A lack of resources should never be used as a reason to not fulfill children's rights.
The legal objections work the same way.
Much of this week has gone into scope, definitions, where one obligation ends and another begins, and I have listened carefully to all of it.
The problem is that states are not delivering free and accessible education for all.
We children see that it is because of the definition of that right is not precise enough.
This protocol would not repeat existing law.
It would complement it.
Discussions about fragmentation, definitions, and duplication have all been brought before us as reasons not to make the protocol a reality.
These are a matter of legal solutions.
In this room, sit the most brilliant legal minds on the planet.
I'm sure and have no doubt that you can figure those things out even going ahead with the protocol.
Your expertise should be used to build this text, not as an excuse to wait.
But there must be political will to make children's rights a reality.
I would also like to reiterate the issue of hidden costs.
This has been discussed as a secondary education problem.
I would like to clarify that it is not.
Children of every age, at every level, in every region we consulted told us the same thing.
They are being charged for school related costs, no matter what level of education they are enrolled in.
This brings me to why we are here at all.
Meaningful child participation does not end when we leave this room because then it was never participation to begin with.
We did our part.
We described what this unresolved tension looks like in a child's life in our own words from children who are living it.
Being consulted only means something if it changes the process.
We have an explicit right to be heard on every issue that affects us.
If nothing in the process moves because of what we have said this week, then we were only decoration and everyone in this room will know it.
Please carry our voices with you within the rest of your work.
Do not let this be remembered as the week children were only applauded.
Let it be remembered as the week member states actually listen to children.
Thank you very much.
Wonderful.
Wonderful.
Isn't it not emotional? If you think these children are only reading from a script, then I ask you to rethink it again.
They've not just expressed what their desires are, they've expressed what their futures are.
Did not throw the ball to you.
It's up to you, member state to determine how bright.
And as the key principles, Article 31 provides what is in the best interests of the child.
So it was very clear if you cannot take into consideration what they have said right throughout these three days, then the effect is that what they have said are only declarations.
Think about it, reflect about it, and let us take the action that is in the best interests of the children.
Thank you, Thord.
Thank you, learner.
You are the best.
You are brilliant.
You are exceptional, and you deserve another round of applause.
And so I encourage delegations.
Let's give it to them again.
So again, unfortunately, I would have to ask you to do another round of applause because apparently, I left two names out, Karen, Lana, Sonya, and Tod, including Does online, Roberto, and Robert, correct? Let's give them a round of applause again, please.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
We will now listen to the final panelist, who is the esteemed Professor Bitter.
Professor Bitter, please, you have the floor.
Chair Rapporteur, Ambassador Samuel Suffer, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen.
Allow me to begin by expressing my appreciation, Mr.
Chair, for the constructive way in which you've led the session of the intergovernmental working group once again.
I'm a research professor of law at Northwest University in South Africa, a member of the Academy of Science of South Africa and a member of the Republic of Namibia's Team of International Lawyers.
I've been researching the right to education for over 30 years.
I've written a standard monograph of almost 800 pages on the right to education international law.
You may all recall that I joined you in December of last year to present an analytical paper on pathways to fill the gaps in the international legal framework on rights, early childhood care and education, including free pre primary education and free secondary education.
In this, I deliberated on the pros and cons of the different pathways, and I had identified quite a number of hard and soft law modalities in which the gaps in international law on the rights concerned could be filled.
General comments by the Committee on economic, social and cultural rights or Committee on the Rights of the Child, a Human Rights Council resolution, a resolution by the United Nations General Assembly, an independent expert statement amending the ICS or the CRC, offering protocols to either of these instruments, a UNSCO recommendation or treaty or an independent UN Human Rights treaty.
Clearly, if I could have it my way, I would say we need hardcore legal obligations stating something like States parties shall protect the right to education, which includes early childhood care and education.
Amongst others, pre primary education shall be compulsory and available free to all for at least one year.
Primary education shall be compulsory and available free to all.
Secondary education shall be compulsory and available free to all.
Higher education shall be made available and accessible equally to all on the basis of capacity, in particular, by the progressive introduction of free education, et cetera amending the Convention on the Rights of the Child would be the best way to achieve this.
However, at the great risk that an opening of the convention might lead to a weakening of provisions.
I concluded at the time that taking into account the need for doctrinal coherence, urgency of protection, and practical realizability, some pathways, such an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, be stronger than others.
Yet, overall, I deliberately refrain from recommending a particular option.
As the chair reminded us yesterday, this is a state led initiative.
It is in this slide that my comments today should also be understood.
Let me just add, and I shall repeat today.
As a general comment suggested by some as a pathway is a solution with complications.
My intention today is firstly to point out that regarding a fourth Otra protocol, agreement on many factual questions regarding the importance of ECE, including free private education and free secondary education for any person's success in life exists.
But secondly, to shift the focus on legal questions that need to be addressed all relating to the overarching question, do we need an international law treaty creating legal obligations for the rights concerned? Thirdly, and traversly, also wish to emphasize that discussion so far insufficiently focused on an important aspect, the concept of minimum core obligations.
With regard to ECCE, including free primary education and free secondary education, it needs to be ensured that not just any type of legal obligation exists, but that minimum core obligations are in place.
It needs to be understood that once one is an agreement that states should bear legal obligations to realize CC, including free pre primary care ation and free secondary education.
Then the question whether current international law already lays down such obligations is a legal one.
But that's not the only question.
Even if legal obligations of some kind exist, it should be asked, are they of the legal quality we wish them to be? Are they legal obligations that give states a large measure of discretion in deciding how to implement them, or do they embody notably minimum core obligations including urgency and implementation? If one desires minimum core obligations, then the question whether the legal rules one may have in place to actually express minimum core obligations is also a legal question.
I've closely observed this in last year's session's proceedings.
There's agreement on many or most of the factual questions to reiterate, what are these questions? First question, are ECCE, including pre primary education, secondary education for all important objectives to be achieved? While last year's session perhaps also sought to broaden the consensus around the importance of these rights, such a consensus may now largely be stated to exist.
No one will query the importance to any person's prospects of success in life and the building of cohesive, tolerant, and socially just societies committed to world peace.
Early childhood presents a crucial time window during which substantial brain, cognitive, and socio emotional development occur.
Secondary education is also of crucial importance for full development and success in life.
The cost of not completing secondary education include reduced qualification for the labor market, reduced work productivity, higher costs for the social system, and the intergenerational reproduction of social inequalities.
The passionate consensus I've observed even among those skeptical of an opera protocol, is that ECCE, including pre prime education and secondary education for all are not only important but crucial for success in life.
Access to these forms of education is a basic necessity of life because such access is about the ability to participate in society, to escape poverty and exploitation, and to live in dignity.
In other words, ECCE, including pre primary education and secondary education for all fall within the typical realm of minimum core entitlements.
The second factual question, is free education important? We know that success in education, including at early childhood and secondary levels, is currently strongly related to household income.
School fees and all related access costs have a regressive effect on enrollment, attendance, and completion.
The negative impact of fees on access to primary education has been clearly demonstrated.
In the 1980s, the World Bank structural adjustment programs urged African states to adopt user fees in primary education.
This led to massive school dropouts.
Their abolition in the 1990s in turn led to significant increases in enrollments.
A World Bank report finds that when it comes to financial worries, 14% of adults worldwide consider school fees the most worrying expense.
The figures are even 20% for each of sub San Africa and South Asia.
Hence, there's also a consensus that enjoyment of ECCE, including pre primary education and secondary education as basic necessities of life is essentially linked to their being available without fees, direct charges, and many of the indirect costs of education, including textbooks, stationery, transport, school uniforms, school meals, et cetera Third, and perhaps the most difficult factual question.
Our ECCE, including free pre primary education and free secondary education within the financial capacity of states.
However, we've heard the experts last year as Olivier De Sretter, US Special Raporteur on extreme poverty and Human Rights and David Archer, head of Programs and Iflencing of Action eight London made it clear in a panel during the first session, more often than not, the resources for ECCE, including free pre primary education and free secondary education are in principle available domestically and globally, but wrongly planned, inadequately, dedicated, and inefficiently used.
While the question whether financial capacities exist is a factual question.
The question what counts as part of the state's financial capacities is a legal question.
In their calculations, many states treat the most important domestic source of finance that counts towards available resources incorrectly.
When international treaties such as the CRC state that states parties must realize rights by having recourse to maximum available resources, this covers resources from the installation of a fair, progressive and efficient tax system that effectively addresses tax exemptions, tax avoidance, and evasion and lacks tax collection.
These are not political issues, but legal obligations.
The Committee on economic social culture rights reiterates the obligation of progressive taxation to raise adequate revenue for economic social culture rights in the recent statement on tax policy and the ISS.
Similarly, eliminating corruption will release much needed funds.
Transparency International knows that corruption education is among the most significant barriers to realizing the universal right to education.
Adré corruption likewise is not a political issue, but a legal obligation.
And revenue is also available at the international level.
The international community has clear obligations to cooperate to achieve global tax justice.
The practice of multinationals shifting profits to tax havens must be halted.
Simultaneously, against the debt crisis experienced by many countries, debt relief, restructuring, or cancellation will need to be arranged to free finances for education.
Many states, especially also developed states, still regard these forms of international cooperation on tax and debt questions as political questions.
They are not, at least not anymore.
The various UN Human Rights treaty committees repeatedly explain that states bear extra territorial obligations under International Human Rights treaties to cooperate on these questions.
Just to add another word here, we have heard much about the financial crisis of the UN.
Also, this is not the result of a force of nature.
It is a man made crisis.
States have increased their military budgets and decreased their budget related to multilateral and international commitments.
The lack of finance is the result of a deliberate choice.
Even if somewhat sweepingly one may therefore state the economically affluent states certainly all can implement ECCE, including free pre primary education and free secondary education.
States broadly occupying a middle ground can also do so if they have adequate tax systems in place and eliminate corruption.
States in the lower third of the spectrum may face more struggles, but notably with international support, also they can implement the rights.
It should also be remembered that non compliance with a minimum core obligation for a genuine lack of resources will not constitute a violation of international law.
The point of minimum core obligations is just that this will have to be strictly and not just vaguely or reasonably demonstrated in the light of maximum efforts to recruit maximum available resources.
From this perspective, I dare say that a consensus exists, like primary education, ECCE, and secondary education of crucial importance, like primary education, pre primary education, and secondary education should be free.
States are financially capable of realizing these forms of free education and genuine inability to do so due to lack of resources does not amount to violation of international legal obligations.
Now, before I turn to some common questions regarding the option protocol, let me first say something about minimum core obligations.
In this general comment number three of 1990, the committee Economics Social, and Cultural rights held with regard to ICESco a minimum core obligation to ensure the satisfaction of at the very least minimum essential levels of each covenant rights is incumbent on every state party.
Thus, for example, a state in which any significant number of individuals is deprived of basic forms of education is prima facie failing to discharge its obligations under the covenant.
Hence, it is violating international law.
If the covenant were to be read in such a way as not to establish such a minimum core obligation, it would be largely deprived of its raison d'tre.
The same token, it must be noted that any assessment as to whether the state has discharged its minimum core obligation must also take account of resource constraints applying within the country concerned.
However, the test for non compliance now becomes a strict one.
The test changes from a discretionary one of whether the state has taken reasonable measures to achieve the right to a strict one of whether.
Every effort has been made by the state to use all resources that are at its disposition in an effort to satisfy as a matter of priority, those minimum obligations.
To repeat, if the covenant were to be read in such a way as not to establish such a minimum core obligation, it would be largely deprived of its raison d'tre.
Guided by the work of the Committee on economic, social and cultural rights, Committee on the Rights of the Child has also in 2007 adopted the concept of minimum core obligations.
Yet that committee has been very soft in its applications.
I would urge the committee to take a violations approach to convention rights more seriously.
As the First United Nations Speci aporte on the right to Education, Katrina Tomasewsk emphasized at the beginning of the century, nothing has more mobilizing power towards state compliance than calling reprehensible non compliance or human rights violation.
To repeat, noncompliance with the core right constitutes a prima facie violation of the underlying right that needs to be strictly, not just reasonably justified and core right needs to be realized immediately and with a high degree of urgency.
This point is very strongly emphasized by the principles and guidelines on the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights in the African Charter on Human and people's rights.
If some of you contend that there is no hierarchy of international legal obligations, I refer you to the famous report on the fragmentation of international law by Marcos Quiemi of the International Law Commission in 2006.
There he says that there is no single fixed set of hierarchical relationships between the rules of international law, yet this does not mean that such relations of superiority and inferiority would be nonexistent.
Hierarchy in international law arises in terms of Eosins and a lg omnis obligations, treaty rules of integral and interdependent nature, intransgressible principles, elementary considerations of humanity and listen carefully.
Trey clauses that cannot be violated without simultaneously undermining the object and purpose of the treaty, raison d'etre of the treaty.
Legal obligations related to basic forms of education are inherently related to the object and purpose of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
We could also say without minimum core obligations in this regard, the CRC would be largely deprived of its raison d'etre.
Now, some say the CRC already contains a right to ECCE.
It is implied in Article 62 on the child's right to development and Article 291 requiring education to be directed at the development of the child's personality.
On the Committee on the Rights of the Child and its general comment number seven on that basis, states that education can achieve the full development of the child only if it starts at birth.
However, already statements regarding free education are not very clear.
An analysis of the concluding observations issued by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, but also other treaty committees shows that the bodies often consider states parties to be obliged to provide ECCE or secondary education that is affordable rather than free.
A recent study by Touris Alexander, reviewing the committee on the rights of the child's concluding observations has shown that the committee has clearly called for universal preschool, pre primary education and only 5% and pre secondary education only 8% of its concluding observations.
The authors link this low rate of exaltation to an absence of hardcore legal obligations.
In this general comment number seven, the committee on the rights of the child states, we recognize with appreciation that some states are planning to make one year of preschool education available free of cost for all.
This is, of course, not the language of obligations, let alone the language of minimum core obligations.
This cannot be said to reflect the urgency underlying a minimum core approach.
A minimum core approach under a hard optional protocol would create a new culture of justification regarding insufficient progress in implementing ECCE, including free pre primary education and free secondary education, difficult to install under soft law.
Under an optional protocol, it would be much more difficult for states parties to succeed with easy excuses alleging that they do not have sufficient resources to realize these rights domestically but also extra territorally.
The question, of course, is whether a general comment by the committee on economic social and cultural rights or the committee on the rights of the child could confirm the existence of rights to ECCE, including free pre primary education and free sector education in the primary treaties, and also their status as claims giving rise to minimum core obligations.
In theory, a general comment could confirm minimum core obligations.
There are some complications, however.
Such an interpretation might not be accepted by many states parties because neither ICSCR nor CRC contain more direct references to ECCE or free pre primary education.
As for secondary education, requiring secondary education to be freely provided conflicts with the wording of both ICSC or and CRC, the former refers expressly to progressively free education.
While the CRC makes free education an option, under the CRC, secondary education is to be made accessible by measures such as the introduction of free education, offering financial assistance in case of need.
General Commons must render treaty interpretations that heat the rules of treaty interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Although the wording of treaties is not the only factor in treaty interpretation, the wording can also not be ignored, especially if the travou preparire show that the wording was deliberately chosen to avoid certain obligations.
The CRC opted for the such as clause because various states such as Japan at the time, insisted on this wording to avoid strict obligations relating to free secondary education.
Moreover, minimum core obligations cannot lightly be read into a treaty, especially where obligations are of a positive nature and claim on state resources.
A substantial claim on state resources would seem to require some form of legal rules as negotiated between states.
As for urgency of realization, core rights need to be realized immediately or with a high degree of urgency.
Human Rights Council resolution 506-52-0204 defines envisaged state obligations regarding free obligations as being to make free education at these levels available.
With minimum core obligations in mind, the protocol's wording should reflect the urgency or immediacy.
Now let's address a few more specific question.
Is there any value added by an option protocol? Some say states already expand ECCE free pre primary education and free secondary education.
Fact of the matter is half the world's children are not enrolled in pre primary education and nearly half of all pupils do not complete secondary education.
This according to the Secretary-General vision statement on transforming education of 2022.
Does the OP not create an illusion of progress? The problem is lack of implementation and focus on equality and inclusion.
While the lack of implementation and focus on quality and inclusion may well be related to the absence of obligations, minimum core obligations, non compliance with which constitutes a prima facie violation.
Let me repeat what the first UN Special aporteur on the right to education stated.
Nothing has more mobilizing power towards state compliance than calling reprehensible noncompliance a human rights violation.
Does an OP not duplicate existing obligations? Well, as far as ECCE is concerned, I can be short, as I've already explained that existing committee jurisprudence does not give these rights a status of urgency, the terms non compliance prima facie violations of the Convention.
What about secondary education? 35 years after the CRC's adoption, has the progressive obligation now not become immediate? Well, first of all, it is not an anomaly for a treaty to require immediately free secondary education.
Article 17 of the European Social Charter's revised version of 1996, there is an obligation on states to take all steps necessary to provide free, primary and free secondary education for all immediately.
Hence, at least European states should not have reservations to granting this right also to the rest of the world's children.
Let me also clarify the nature of free secondary education under the CRC.
While the ICSER still requires states parties to ensure that secondary education shall be made accessible to all by appropriate means and in particular, by the progressive introduction of free education, the CRC does not refer to progressive secondary education at all.
The CRC requires states parties to make secondary education accessible to every child by appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering free financial assistance in case of need.
Making secondary education is strictly speaking, optional under the CRC, measures such as the text permits cost sharing approaches in education.
It permits fee exemption schemes, which, as we can observe in South Africa, the country in which I live and teach horribly fail.
The CRC obligation is situated below any consideration of whether it is progressive or not whatsoever.
But even if we were to consider the original text as referring to an obligation to progressively make education free, then I do not think that it has become an immediate obligation.
That interpretation is not reflected in the Committee on the Rights of the child's general comments including observations.
In recent concluding observations directed at Qatar, a high income countries, the committee on the Rights of the child requires the state to progressively, not immediately realize secondary education.
Furthermore, you may recall that African states had many reservations to the text of the CRC at the time of its drafting.
The adoption of the African Charter on the rights and welfare of the child of 1990 in many ways, is a way of expressing those reservations.
The African Charter adopted just one year after the CRC therefore states that states parties shall make secondary education progressively free, removing the language of option and cost sharing in the CRC.
Moreover, UNICEF figures show while 85% of the richest students worldwide complete lower secondary education, only 43% of the poorest students do so.
69% of the richest students complete upper secondary education but only 15% of the poorest.
The prevalence of fees in secondary education may well indicate that states parties to the CRC at the moment do not consider the text of the CRC as covering a clear obligation to introduce free education whether immediately or progressively.
I read somewhere that the cost of dealing with most of the problems up to secondary education could be met by taking the money that people spend in a year on ice cream.
So the argument that the money is not available is not convincing to me.
Doesn't OPRA protocol not entail retrogression from existing legal standards? Doesn't OP not dilute obligations relating to ECCE to the extent that they already exist under the CRC? Non ratifying states may argue that as the OP protects the right, they have no obligation under the current CRC.
States parties to the CRC that do not ratify the option protocol cannot argue that there exist no obligations regarding ECCE, free pre primary education or free secondary education for them.
As shown, in some respects, these rights exist already by way of interpretation, even if rather diffusely and as rather discretionary rights.
It would be the duty of the committee on the rights of the child to remind non ratifying states parties of this fact when engaging with them in the discussion of state reports.
Is the existing right of parents to establish and choose private schools not prejudiced by postulating rights to public ECCE, including pre primary and free public secondary education? Public ECE, including primary education and free public secondary ucation are not an argument against the right to establish and choose private schools.
This right to establish and choose private schools is clearly protected by international law.
Private education institutions are entitled, cannot be forbidden to charge fees.
Does the inclusion of obligations of international cooperation in an OP not undermine existing international cooperation obligations? Obligations of international cooperation under an OP would be formulated specifically with regard to strengthening ECE, including free pre primary education and free secondary education in mind.
In that sense, they reiterate or international cooperation obligations that exist under the CRC.
K must just be taken to ensure that international cooperation obligations under an option protocol do not lower existing standards on the topic under the CRC.
It should be noted that also the option protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict and the option protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography stipulate international cooperation obligations.
It is part of international human rights doctrine that the duty to fulfill human rights obligations, first of all, is domestic in nature.
Extra territorial obligations to provide assistance are supplementary in nature to the extent that states may like these resources.
Beyond the provision of assistance level, obligations of international cooperation always operate concurrently with domestic obligations.
Thus providing for voluntary opting in by states to the communication procedure not prejudice justiciability of rights to ECCE, free pre primary education and free secondary education.
Some might say while such rights would be justifiable for states that have made a declaration under the current CRC, justicibability would cease on states ratify the OP but do not make a declaration in respect of the OP.
Now, for non ratifying states, they will retain obligations regarding ECCE, free pre primary education, and free secondary education to the extent that they currently exist under the CRC.
If these states have expressed an opt in to accept the individual complaints procedure, then complaints can be brought against them to the extent that obligations exist under the current CRC.
Situation for ratifying states.
These are bound by the more extensive obligations of the On protocol.
Also here if they opt in, complaints can be brought against them to vindicate the more extensive rights of the OP, but there is no situation that ratifying states who do not opt in, do not have to fear complaints anymore.
These states do not cease to be bound by the situation under the original CRC.
To that extent, complaints regarding ECCE and secondary tation can still be brought against them.
Should there not be a retrogression clause in the OP, a non retrogression clause should indeed be included in the ORM protocol.
Does an ORM protocol not lead to a fragmentation of the right to education? Specifically, is it not more important for an OP to focus on lifelong education? This would reflect trends in UNESCO policy that view education as a lifelong endeavor and right.
UNESCO the right to lifelong education, for example, in his recommendation on adult learning and education of 2015.
Human Rights Council resolution 566 does not contain a clear mandate to address lifelong education.
Moreover, nature of this right, its normative content, and its modalities of implementation are still contested and remain subject to normative clarification.
There are, in fact, many educational policy scholars who oppose the notion of a right to lifelong education in its current comprehension as they argue that its overall framing at the moment is neoliberal, conceiving of the individual as essentially a homo economicus who should enjoy lifelong education primarily in order to keep on contributing to the economy rather than someone entitled to education for broader purposes.
An option protocol should not preempt the outcome of these longer term clarification processes.
Various countries may accordingly prefer lifelong education not being regulated at the moment.
The option protocol could contain a reference to in the preamble.
Should an op protocol provide clear definitions of ECCE.
Various definitions of the term ECCE exist, should there not be a definition of the care element.
Now, according to UNESCO Tukin declaration and commitments to action for transforming early childhood to care and education of 2022, ECCE covers the period up to age eight in a child's life.
The term early childhood education and care is broader than early childhood education as it recognizes the holistic nature of child development, encompassing not only foundational learning, but also responsive care, nutrition, health, safety, protection, and play.
Hence, ECCE covers aspects that are also part of other children's rights.
Yet it cannot be denied that care is a precondition for any education to take place and might perhaps for that reason, be protected as part of the right to education.
In an option protocol.
As has been stated by Marua and Kaga, poor care, health, nutrition, and physical and emotional security can affect educational potentials in the form of mental retardation, impaired cognitive and behavioral capacities, motor development delay, depression, difficulties with concentration, and attention.
Now, the purpose of an OTA protocol would be to lay down minimum core obligations.
Naturally, these should be sufficient to precise.
A general comment could provide interpretive guidance as to the exact meaning of ECCE.
Potentially, however, an optional protocol might attempt a definition of the term, which of course carries the risk of only a minimum consensus being achieved.
Is it enough for an optional protocol to adopt a minimalist approach to fees? It's the last question I'm posing.
Should an OP not define the meaning of free education or expressly require the absence of indirect costs and education? That would prevent minimalist construction of obligations under the OP.
In my view, the OP should be as precise and concise as possible, yet the indirect costs of education are often more significant in their negative impact on school enrollment, attendance, and retention rates.
As Katerina Smachewsky, the first United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right Education, whom I still have the honor of knowing, explained in a 2006 report on free or fee, the charges of costs in education that need to be addressed include in levies imposed by parent or school committees, charges for examinations or certificates, expenses related to learning materials, school uniforms, school meals, school transport, extracurricular activities, boarding and similar costs.
While a more precise scope of the charges and costs prohibited could be clarified in a general comment, an OP could be rendered much more robust by including an obligation of states parties to eliminate the indirect cost of education for households.
The scope of the obligation could then be clarified by a general comment.
In conclusion, let me again refer to the words of the committee on economic, social, and cultural rights.
Without minimum core obligations, a human rights treaty is largely deprived of its raison d'tre.
Hence, if for basic necessities of life such as ECCE, primary and secondary education, no obligations of moral or legal urgency exist, whose violation constitutes a prima facie violation, the Human Rights treaty becomes a random document.
Presently, proper legal rights and obligations to ECCE, including free pre primary education and free secondary education, do not exist in the Convention on the Rights of the child in my view.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
My response, as the only panelists whose presentation has attracted a round of applause, would suggest that I should say no more.
But suffice it to say that this is what in academia is simply magial.
I mean, this is extensive elaborate and thorough analysis of all the questions and concerns that have emanated during the course of these last three days.
In fact, it puts me in a position where, how do I provide my concluding remarks with what Professor Bitter has delivered? Well, thank you so much.
This is extensive and thoroughly well delivered.
Thank you.
We deeply appreciate your presentation.
We would clearly accommodate delegations to provide reflections and concerns to the panelists.
In this case, I'm afraid As you know, I have restricted not to subject the children to strict proof, but to allow such questions to be directed only to proba.
So I would open the floor for delegations to respond and make their comments.
We have the list of speakers and a couple of delegations have indicated their interest to intervene.
It interests me to note with deep appreciation as well, that one of the most distinguished, the most brilliant child would want to respond first.
In this instance, it's my pleasure to give the floor to the child from Georgia.
You have the floor, please.
Excellencies, distinguished delegates and friends.
As we conclude these discussions, I want to express my delegation's gratitude.
The guiding principles established for this working group provide us with a solid and meaningful framework.
I'm grateful for such a unique chance to be part of something very important.
To witness this August body prioritize children's voices and concerns has been a tremendous experience, which gives me genuine hope.
At this juncture, let me use this opportunity and emphasize that Georgia's ongoing education reform goes beyond ensuring access.
It focuses on improving the quality of education, strengthening inclusive and student centered learning, supporting teachers, and guaranteeing that every child has equal opportunities to learn and develop, regardless of their background or individual needs.
Excellencies.
My hope is that we move forward with ambition to ensure every child has equal opportunities.
What is negotiated here in Geneva will directly determine what is experienced in classrooms around the world.
Thank you.
What's the name? What's the name? Asia.
Sorry? Anastasia.
Anastasia.
That was a brilliant speech.
There is nobody has ever delivered social speech.
Thank you.
Let's give another look and applause again.
The following list, the following states will now take the floor in the following order.
Armenia, Egypt, Austria, Saudi Arabia, Dominican Republic, DUO, Brazil, Qatar, Bangladesh, Peru, and Belgium.
If your name is not air and you're interested, please feel free to contact the Secretary.
It is my pleasure to now give the floor to Armenia.
Armenia, you have the floor to be followed by Egypt.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
As we conclude the substantive discussions of this second session, I would like to take this opportunity to thank previous speakers, especially the young speakers that we've been privileged to hear from, and also to offer a few observations from Armenia's national perspective and in light of the discussions that we have had over the past days.
Armenia, strengthening the international legal framework for the right to education is closely connected with ensuring that the rights were recognized in law, translate into genuine and equal opportunities for every child.
We believe that the value of any normative development should be measured by its ability to strengthen the effective enjoyment of the right to education in practice.
Secondary education in state educational institutions in Armenia is free of charge and 12 year general secondary or an equivalent vocational education is compulsory under national law.
At the same time, we're progressively expanding access to the pre primary education with the objective of ensuring access for at least 95% of children aged three to five and at least one year of preschool participation for every child entering school.
Our experience also demonstrates that removing tuition fees while essential is not by itself sufficient to make education genuinely accessible to every child on an equal basis.
Children may face barriers related to poverty, disability, geography, displacement, or other circumstances.
Armenia's approach to preventing children from leaving the education system is based on the understanding that this should not be viewed solely as the result of an individual child's decision, but as a multifaceted issue requiring coordinated action across education, social protection, community, and child protection systems.
This is why we attach particular importance to the principles of nondiscrimination, inclusion, and equal opportunity and to addressing the practical barriers that prevent children not only from entering education, but also from remaining in and benefiting fully from it.
As this process moves forward, we believe that the elaboration of an optional protocol should combine ambition with a clear and implementable legal framework.
Should strengthen the effective realization of the right to education while establishing clear obligation that can be implemented effectively across different national contexts, taking into account national education systems, capacities, and other circumstances.
We look forward to continuing our constructive engagement in the next stages of this process and to contributing our perspective on the various aspects of an optional protocol.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished delegation from Armenia.
I'll give the floor to Egypt to be followed by Austria.
Egypt, you have the floor, please.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair Rapporteur.
My delegation thanks, Your Excellency, for guiding the work of the working group during the last two days.
Following the guidance provided by the Secretariat, Egypt would like to use this session to present its comments on the draft recommendation circulated yesterday.
Egypt welcomes the balanced approach reflected in the draft recommendation, particularly the recognition of the diversity of views expressed during the two sessions and their emphasis on the continuing the consideration of the mandate without prejudging its outcome.
Regarding recommendation A, Egypt supports its explicit reference to further exploring the possibility of an optional protocol.
This clearly confirms that the process remains exploratory and no collective decision had yet been taken to proceed with the formal drafting.
Regarding recommendation B, Egypt supports the further consideration of the proposed key principles as a part of the continuing exploratory exercise.
We therefore suggest adding the words as a part of continuing exploratory phase after should be further reviewed or considered in a structured and comprehensive manner.
For legal perception, we also suggest referring to the term as chair rapporteurs proposed key principles, since we have not been collectively agreed or adopted by the working group.
The further review should neither imply acceptance of their content or constitute an automatic transition to formal drafting.
Regarding recommendation C, Egypt suggests replacing the reference tool participation through the drafting process with through the work of the working group.
The current formulation appears to presume that the drafting phase has already begun.
Children participation should be also framed in accordance to the CRC convention, including the child age and maturity, and the appropriate guidance of parents and legal guardians.
Egypt supports the promotion of dialogue under recommendation D, provided that it remains consistent with the national circumstances, applicable legal framework, and the state led character of the intergovernmental process.
Regarding recommendation E, the expression, the drafting process should similarly be replaced by the work and libération of the working group.
Egypt supports the objective Technical input from relevant UN entities and expert parties.
Any resulting legal advice from external legal consultant should remain purely advisory and without bridges to the collective assessment and the decision making authority of the working group.
With these adjustments, IT would be in position to support the recommendation that preserves the exploratory nature of the mandate reflects the full range of views expressed and enables collectively to to choose the most appropriate way forward.
We already sent our comments in writing to the Secretariat.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair Rapporteur.
Thank you.
Great.
This is.
We move to Austria to be followed by Saudi Arabia.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
We made our statement already in the previous part of the session.
At this point, I would just like to thank Professor Pita for his very comprehensive and insightful elaboration and we'll have our comments on the recommendation in the session in the afternoon.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Austria.
I give the floor to Saudi Arabia to be followed by Dominican the Pub.
Saudi Arabia, please.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
We have delivered our statement earlier and we'd like to thank you and to thank the children, representative of states and members of the Secretary within the OHCHR for conducting this session successfully.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
Distinguished Representative of Saudi Arabia.
I will now give the floor to the Distinguished represents of Dominican Republic to be followed by DOE.
The Dominican Republic, please.
President.
Chairman, the Dominican Republic, thanks the Chair for the recommendations made.
We reiterate our support for the entirety of the key principles.
We wish to express our support for the transition to the next phase of the process.
This includes the preparation of a first draft from the rapporteur on a possible optional protocol.
We believe that after the discussions held throughout this session and the global consultations in 2025, as well as the regional consultations, we have a basis sufficient to move ahead in an organized manner towards a more complete discussion.
The drafting of a first draft, regardless of the positions of the states, does not limit the debate to the contrary, this could provide a common basis for identifying points of agreement and pending issues in a matter that is more precise.
We can better understand the differences between our legal systems.
Or between our public policy practices.
The recommendation set forth that the draft can incorporate the different positions expressed serving subsequently as a basis for discussion on that text.
We also understand the concerns over resources.
Specifically for this reason, we believe it's important that the process be efficient and proportional, vis-à-vis the mandate.
A organized movement towards drafting would allow for us to take advantage of the resources already invested and move toward new results.
Further, we have taken note of the concerns over the alleged alacrity of the process.
In our opinion, moving toward a first draft would not mean closing the consultation process.
The recommendations maintain the possibility of informal consultations that are transparent and inclusive throughout the session.
However, we believe that prolonging this would bring greater costs when specifically, this is what we seek to avoid.
We're wondering what should be the time reference be on the process? As we understand it, this should be based on instruments of a similar nature in the past.
For example, that set forth by the Secretariat.
There should be time for streamlining and also there should be a higher level of diplomatic presence and greater speed in communications with capital.
We also understand the concerns regarding the capacity of states to ensure free education at all levels.
As this is an optional protocol, this will not affect the binding nature of the commitments taken on Vis vis the convention, and different capacity is part of the discussion.
This should not prevent us from establishing a clear normative objective with international cooperation and support and mechanisms that allow for progressive implementation that is also sustainable.
For this reason, the Dominican Republic supports the recommendations from the chair.
We believe that we can move forward in a prudent and constructive manner toward the drafting of a text.
This would allow for this dialogue to continue with greater clarity and precision.
Thank you very much.
I thank the distinguished representative of the Dominican Republic.
I now give the floor to the representative of the UE to be followed by Brazil.
Mr.
President.
While we conclude this session, we would like to stress once again our meaningful participation in this working group on exploring the possibility of drafting an optional protocol on the right to education in early childhood and pre primary and secondary education.
We have followed with great interest the constructive discussions held during this session, and this has provided an important opportunity to exchange views regarding key principles.
This interest is reflected in the utmost priority we attach to education as this is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution and our laws.
This is a development goal that we want every citizen and resident to enjoy.
Hence, our delegation would like to thank the president for efforts made to prepare the document on the key principles.
We stress that it is very important to take into consideration the visions of UN bodies.
It is equally important to listen to the views of children in order to have a balanced and realistic text reflecting the different views.
In light of the discussions held during this session, we look forward to continuing this constructive dialogue regarding the pending issues.
In this regard, we stress that it's important to cooperate internationally while respecting the state's sovereignty taking into consideration legal and economic interests.
It is also important to ensure that the OP will be limited to the mandate in the Human Rights Council without imposing any additional obligations in this context.
It is crucial to benefit from the monitoring and reporting mechanisms under the CRC to avoid duplication and to promote the efficiency of implementation and monitoring mechanisms to conclude the UAE stresses it is principled commitment to ensure high quality education in communities that suffer from difficult contexts.
This is part of our humanitarian and moral mission as we believe that education is a fundamental human right for all human beings regardless where they are.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
I thank the distinguished representative from DE.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative from Brazil to be followed by Qatar and Bangladesh.
Brazil, you have the floor, please.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
We would like to thank you for your work in the organization of this session, as well as to all member states, panelists, mandate holders, members of the committee on the Rights of the Child, civil society representatives, and in particular, the children who have participated in our discussions.
Allow me a short sentence in Spanish, which Graz Thank you very much to Karen speaking on behalf of Latin American Boys and Girls.
Creations and Fields are welcome and it is through the exchange of different perspectives that we can find solid common ground and move forward.
Brazil has listened carefully to the concerns raised during this session with regard to the questions raised about the extent to which a potential protocol could affect progress already being made, as well as the monitoring work carried out by mandate holders and by the CRC, Brazil believes that instead of looking at this issue as an argument against the protocol, we could start considering how to address it in the context of a future protocol.
Possible solutions could include the principle of non regression and carefully crafted language ensuring that in seeking to move forward, we do not undermine existing achievements.
The general comment could also be explored as a possible complementary tool to reaffirm that the rights and provisions enshrined in the CRC remain fully valid and applicable.
With regard to concerns about the costs of expanding free education to primary and secondary levels, we believe that we need to take a holistic approach and also consider the costs of maintaining the status quo.
The economic and social costs of an underskilled labor force, the consequences of child marriage, as was so clearly explained by the representative of girls, not brides, the long term impact when children with disabilities do not have early access to education, and the risk of children becoming vulnerable to recruitment by organized crime, paramilitary or mercenary groups.
We should also consider the compounded costs of keeping women out of the labor market because they cannot afford adequate support for the care of their children.
Ensuring access to free childhood education can directly alleviate the burden on families and help prevent situations of social vulnerability that may ultimately lead to institutional or family based alternative care and the disruption of family ties.
These are also costs that we should take into account when assessing the financial implications of expanding free access to education.
We remain committed to this process and agree with the view that this working group has a mandate to elaborate a draft text.
We would therefore suggest that the questions and concerns raised during this session could be further considered through intersectional activities, allowing us to take more concrete steps during the coming session of the working group.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you very much indeed.
I now give the floor to Qatar to be followed by Bangladesh.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
At the outset, I would like to extend my thanks to the chair Rapporteur for the valuable efforts made in drafting the document at hand.
We give due attention to education at all levels and we have taken a number of regional and international efforts in order to provide quality education for all, especially primary education for those who had been deprived of it for reasons related to lack of security or armed conflict.
Hence, our participation in any initiative aims to provide and safeguard education, which is extremely important to us.
A general comment regarding the linking between compulsory free and quality education.
The range of access to free education should not undermine the quality of education and the services provided to students.
We encourage the insertion of a language that strikes the balance between access to education and quality outcomes regarding Article 1 of the proposed optional protocol, the current interpretation could be understood as establishing immediate financial obligation for countries.
Hence, the different economic and developmental levels of countries have to be borne into account when drafting obligations in the proposed optional protocol.
Regarding principle number four on international cooperation, the State of Qatar stresses that international cooperation should be voluntary and should be carried out in accordance with the national priorities and specificities and that no financial or technical obligations be Forced on countries, we stress the importance that the optional protocol should not have any additional responsibilities of reporting unnecessarily.
Regarding principle eight on reporting, we stress that reporting should be merely voluntary based on the explicit consent by the countries concerned in a manner that fully respects the national capacities and the political considerations without adding obligatory, automatic obligations on countries.
We will submit our comments in writing to the Secretariat of the working group.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Bangladesh to be followed by Peru and Belgium.
Bangladesh, you have the floor, please.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair Reporter.
Bangladesh appreciates your continued efforts in facilitating the work of this working group, as well as the contribution of the experts and in particular, the excellent contribution made by the children who remain at the heart of our discussion and represent the future of our world.
Mr.
Chair Rapua, the government of Bangladesh attaches the highest importance to ensuring equal opportunities and access to quality education for all children.
Bangladesh therefore supports state led constructive processes aimed at identifying genuine legal gaps and developing practical and implementable action to advance the effective realization of the right to education.
Mr.
Chair, in our view, an evidence based assessment supported by facts and statistics is central to any determination of a legal gap.
Such an assessment should be robust enough to remain relevant across different national context.
Equally important is broad support and ownership among member states regarding the identification of illegal gap emerging from an inclusive intergovernmental process.
Mr.
Chair, even where a gap is identified, it is essential to address a further question.
That is as important as identifying legal gaps, whether the measures being contemplated would effectively address that gap and deliver the intended outcomes on the ground.
My delegation tends to believe that the existence of a gap does not in itself establish that a new international legal instrument would always be the most appropriate or effective response.
Before proceeding towards drafting a new instrument, there should be adequate discussion of its necessity, added value, practical implication, and implementability across member states.
As several delegation have highlighted during this session, Bangladesh also recognizes it is important to assess whether the intended objectives could be achieved through the full and effective implementation of the existing legal obligation and policy frameworks, and if so, to identify the factors that continue to impede the implementation of them.
Mr.
Chair Aabuta, we see value in drawing guidance from similar processes, but we also recognize that the content and substance of the discussion and the issue at hand can also guide the process.
Bangladesh is also of the view that further consultation on the identification and assessment of the legal gaps could have added greater value to the process.
The same applies to the question of whether the fullest and effective implementation of the existing obligation could adequately address the concern identified.
Mr.
Chair Reporter, Bangladesh remain engaged in the work of this working group in a constructive spirit and will continue to do so.
Should the working group decide to proceed with the principle presented at this session, Bangladesh would like to reserve its position on them in their entirety and will reflect on them in the light of the future discussion in the process.
I thank you, Mr.
Chair Reporter.
Thank you very much indeed.
I give the floor to the distinguished representatives of OEO to be followed by Belgium.
Thank you very much, Chairman.
First, allow me to thank you for your leadership.
Thank you to the Secretariat and to the delegations and stakeholders for their reach, contributions, and discussions during the second session.
For my country, this process is of particular importance.
We hope that it will lead to an ambitious instrument.
This bearing in mind that in many national systems such as the Peruvian system do offer broader protections.
In the case of P, this establishes that the primary and secondary is obligatory and free.
Also, at early levels of school, there are obligatory health nutrition programs as well as school supplies provided.
We also agree with the need to move ahead accelerating the process.
We favor the recommendations that were circulated.
In particular, we support the ongoing consultations intersectionally that are open, transparent, and inclusive.
Preserving at the same time their informal nature.
Likewise, we appreciate the ongoing evaluation of key principles structurally.
Chair, we appreciate a clear calendar for the next meetings, informal and formal alike so that delegations can properly prepare, undertaking necessary internal consultations.
Looking toward the next discussions, Peru would like to reiterate numerous considerations that we believe should remain present First, and we indicated this as other delegations have done, the terminology should adequately reflect the diversity of national education systems.
Any future instrument should expressly preserve the possibility of states keeping or adopting standards that provide higher levels of protection.
Third, the future instrument cannot be interpreted as altering, reducing, or limiting the rights and levels of protection already recognized in the Convention or in domestic systems, whichever is more favorable.
Lastly, Chairman, my country affirms its support for meaningful participation of girls and boys throughout the process that is appropriate to their level of development and age.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much indeed.
I now give the floor to Belgium to be followed by Bulgaria, Uruguay, and Canada.
Belgium, please.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair Rapporteur also from my end, I want to thank the panelists for, again, a rich discussion this morning.
With that, I would like to request the chair to allow me to share some initial comments from my delegation on the recommendations that were shared yesterday by the chair, while reserving to submit additional written comments at a later stage.
Belgium welcomes the continuation of the exploratory phase as reflected in recommendation A.
In our view, the exploration of the need for a fourth optional protocol remains unfinished and further reflection is warranted.
Keeping the exploratory phase open will allow states to continue assessing both the potential added value and the challenges associated with such an instrument.
It will also ensure that any future discussion on the possible scope and content of an optional protocol is informed by a comprehensive and balanced assessment of all views expressed.
Belgium attaches great importance to the meaningful participation of children and welcomes the overall approach reflected in recommendation C.
We nevertheless consider that restricting such participation to the drafting process would be unnecessarily limiting, particularly as the exploratory phase remains ongoing as recognized in recommendation A.
Furthermore, as we have indicated, we consider it premature to enter into a drafting phase at this stage.
We would therefore suggest deleting the word drafting before process so as to preserve the broader scope of children's participation throughout this process.
With regard to recommendation E, Belgium welcomes the contributions of all stakeholders to this process.
As with recommendation C, the reference to the drafting process may create the impression that the drafting process has already commenced while the exploratory phase remains ongoing.
Moreover, limiting stakeholder engagement to a drafting phase would be inconsistent with the broader scope envisaged in operative paragraph seven and eight of resolution 56 slash five, which encouraged the active participation of civil society, relevant stakeholders, and independent experts throughout the process.
Would therefore suggest deleting the word drafting before process.
In addition, we would suggest deleting the qualifier as appropriate so as to ensure that the full range of perspectives, also in recommendation, excuse me, to delete the qualifier as appropriate, so as to ensure that the full range of perspectives, expertise, and concerns is reflected and appropriately accommodated throughout the process in line with the inclusive participation as envisaged in operative paragraph seven of the same resolution.
I thank you.
I think Belgium.
I give the floor to you G.
I actually wanted tot responding at this stage, but I think it's important to understand that there is an opportunity for you to make references to the recommendations before or after their adoption.
But to do that at the conclusion now as we speak, well, it's your choice.
But I felt it's important that I make that known to you that we would have an opportunity for reflection on the recommendations.
Anyway, we proceed.
I give the floor to Bulgaria to be followed by Uruguay and Canada.
Mr.
Chair, I would like to thank Professor Beer for his brilliant presentation.
Professor Beer, you provided us with a wide range of verified facts and legal considerations which proof in a very convincing way that there is a substantial legal gap in the existing legal framework preventing us from the full realization of the right to education.
You equally convincingly proved that this gap could be addressed through the development of a new legal instrument in the form of an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the child without infringing, fragmenting, or duplicating already existing legal obligations, which confirmed our conviction that this is the right way to proceed in addressing the a full realization of the right to education.
I would like to profit from your presence and ask you if time allows and the chair will tell us if we have this possibility to elaborate further if possible on the correlation between free education and the existence simultaneously of private education because in our belief, the two could coexist without infringing the right to education and to free education.
Also, secondly, to elaborate on how best to provide free education through public or some other form of education system.
Thank you very much in advance.
I thank His Ecellcy Ambassador Banof for his reflection and I give the floor to you guys to be followed by Canada.
Senor proceed.
Mr.
Chair Rapporteur, we wish to thank you for your conduct of this work and we appreciate the work of the panelists, which contributes to discussions, and particularly to the boys, girls, and teens that have participated and that have shared their opinions and experiences.
Your participation has been a valuable reminder that you should remain at the center of this process.
Throughout the session, we have sought to and strengthen the effective right to education based on our own experiences and realities, remembering that we need to look at it from a holistic and ongoing manner that includes early childhood and that looks at the different stages of development of boys and girls.
The draft recommendations is a useful basis for continuing our work and for delving deeper into the analysis of the legal substantive and practical issues that still require more consideration.
In this process, we believe it's important to continue to listen to and take good note of the different positions and concerns expressed by the states parties and other relevant stakeholders.
Believe that this second session has allowed for us to consolidate important middle ground, clarifying numerous elements that should guide the next steps.
Based on this, we believe it is timely that we move ahead in a constructive manner in the process, the goal being to draft an optional protocol.
We are willing to continue to actively contribute to this work.
Much obliged.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
I now give the floor to Canada, please.
Chair, let me thank you and all the panelists for the presentations this morning.
We'll comment on the recommendations themselves either this afternoon or later in writing.
At this stage.
We have a question for Professor Bitter.
First, let me commend Prosoriter for the careful and extensive analysis and the consideration of the various options and issues that have been raised, which of course supplements your paper, which we also appreciated earlier this year.
From a lawyer's perspective, I share his view that conceptually the cleanest option would be an amendment of the CRC while recognizing that that is probably impractical and beyond the mandate of this working group.
At the same time, I was struck this week by the range of barriers to education that have been raised, including on tuition costs, various resource constraints, and the differing needs of particular groups of children.
I'm thinking in particular of the presentation from Inclusion International.
This leads me to wonder whether in addition to considering the possible contribution of an optional protocol, it may be useful for the working group to explicitly reflect on the contribution of other complementary legal policy or other measures.
For example, I note the proposal or at least idea from Brazil for exploration of the role that a general comment could play as a complimentary measure.
And thus my question to Presser Bitter is whether from your legal expert perspective, there may be value in thinking about the full range of instruments and measures available to advance the objectives, both binding and non binding, and how such measures might complement one another.
Given the range of objectives and challenges, are there some for which complimentary measures by which I mean complimentary to a legal protocol might be helpful and productive and maybe even more efficient and effective? Thank you.
Thank you very much, Canada.
I think that's the last member states on the list.
I'm not sure if there's any delegation wishing to take the floor.
I can't see any.
In the absence of member states, we would move to the next list of speakers.
We'll go to NGOs with Ecosox status, and it's my pleasure to give the floor to International Disability Alliance.
Be mindful that if we're unable to conclude in terms of giving the opportunity to the panelists, Professor Vita in this case, to respond to your questions.
Be rest assured when we resume in the afternoon, Prosita will be up here to respond to those questions.
I go with the list, the first organization on the list, International Disability Alliance.
And that will be followed by Alliance Defendant Freedom.
I think this one is in Portuguese.
I wonder how pronouncing it in English would be appropriate.
All right.
Joint statements with the global campaign for Education, Campana, Latino, America, Paul Aula.
Education.
I hope that's correct.
Please forgive me.
That will be followed by Human Rights Watch, global form for the defense of the less privileged and OMEP will be the final EcoSc on the list.
Then we'll have the persons before we close.
But in the event we are enled when we zoom, we'll certainly come back to them.
We go with the first International Disability Alliance, please.
There you go.
Distinguished Chair and esteemed delegates, we want to say that we currently, as the International Disability Alliance, still want to underscore the challenges that we have for children with disabilities to exercise and enforce their right to inclusive education in many countries across the world.
As we go through this process, the exploratory process of the fourth Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, we urge that further attention be given to the rights and needs of children with disabilities.
We want to take this opportunity to applaud the children who have spoken here today and yesterday and who have underscored the hidden costs that accompany education, free education for children at pre primary, primary and secondary levels.
However, as the International Disability Alliance, we also would like to call upon the involvement and participation of children with disabilities at these sessions as well within the modalities of this working group going forward.
We also want to recall that the CRC and the CRPD have embraced inclusive education according to human rights standards, and we want to say that as we move forward with exploring the fourth Protocol on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that we do so through a disability inclusive and responsive lens, bearing in mind that all means all.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you so much, indeed.
We've taken due note of your comments.
I now move to Alliance Defendant Freedom to be followed by a joint statement with the global campaign for Education.
Yes, please, you have the floor.
Alliance.
Mr.
Chair Rapporteur, the range of views expressed over the course of this session and the weight of the issues raised have made clear that the exploratory phase has not exhausted its purpose.
Numerous stakeholders have pointed to the need for more discussions, particularly on two questions.
The first is how to best address the gaps and challenges in making pre primary and secondary education free and available, noting that various options identified remain before this working group.
The second is the legal clarity yet to be established on the scope of any obligations that may be envisaged and their bearing on existing rights.
In this regard, one question is fundamental for ADF International, how would a right to early childhood care and education relate to the prior right of parents to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children or to the liberty of non state actors to establish and direct educational institutions.
Mr.
Chirportur, these questions will not answer themselves in the drafting.
To treat the exploratory phases concluded would not, in our respectful view, fulfill the mandate set out in the HRC resolution 50 slash 56-5.
However, its mandate is read, exploring a possibility means this working group must first satisfy itself that an optional protocol is warranted and that its aims are clear.
ADF International therefore supports the continued consideration of the issues within the working group's mandate with room for all views and questions raised to be meaningfully addressed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I give the floor to a joint statement by the global campaign for Education, please.
Chair, Reporter, Excellencies, we congratulate the panelists, especially Professor Bitter, and wish to underline the importance of today's discussion and how the fourth optional protocol can strengthen international law and importantly advance the right to early childhood care and education, free pre primary education, free secondary education for all in practice.
While early childhood care and education is already recognized as an integral part of the right to education, international law does not explicitly guarantee the provision of free public pre primary education for all.
The absence of a clear legal framework guaranteeing an equivalent explicit guarantee for free public pre primary education has left this fundamental stage of life market by deep inequalities.
In low income and the least developed countries in the least developed communities from middle income countries, children from the wealthiest households are age times more likely to participate in early childhood education than those from the poorest households with cost barriers disproportionately affecting disadvantaged families.
These reinforced segregation.
Those who can afford to pay have access while the poorest are left behind.
Chronic underfunding remains a major barrier that must overcome sustainability.
Today, half of low incoming countries spend more on debt servicing than on education.
Educating their children.
We notice as well the expansion of private and commercial provision, particularly in early childhood education, risking reinforcing inequalities when accessing quality depends on families ability to pay.
Where public provision is insufficient, education can become increasingly stratified with children from wealthier family accessing better resources services while disadvantaged children are excluded or concentrated in lower quality provision.
In the case of secondary education, although there's already a substantial normative basis for the right to education, implementation remains extremely uneven.
Stronger international obligations can provide another important tool to push for better laws, adequate budgets and effective delivery, particularly from children living in crisis settings, girls, children with disabilities, and those facing intersecting forms of discrimination and exclusion.
Providing for the public and free provision of pre primary and secondary education, the optional protocol would represent a progressive development of the International Human Rights framework by strengthening protections for children and adolescents most at risk of being left behind.
For this to happen, a strong commitment to public education is also essential.
Bold financial commitments are needed across all levels of education, starting with early childhood.
Expanding public resources is possible, including through progressive tax reforms and the ongoing negotiations towards UN tax convention which offer an important opportunity to expand country's revenue basis.
Harmful debt conditions that force cuts to education must be eliminated.
Thus, the reform of the global financial architecture, including debt systems is equally critical.
With sustained commitment and effective measures, the right to free, inclusive, and quality education for all can become a reality.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much indeed.
I give the floor, I think apparently it will only be DMI W to make their statements and then we'll come to the close and resume in the afternoon with the list of speakers.
I give the floor to DMIs Watch and the others will continue when we resume in the afternoon.
Do HMIisw please.
Thank you, Chair.
Over the past three days, virtually every speaker has affirmed a strong commitment to realizing the right of education for every child.
The main points of disagreement are whether there's a normative gap in the existing legal framework, whether an optional protocol is the best way to forward, and whether it would add value.
First, we've heard strikingly different interpretations of existing international law on free education.
Distinguished legal scholars such as Professor Ber have identified clear gaps and weaknesses, while other experts argue that existing standards already guarantee it.
Member states equally have different interpretations.
These divergent views themselves demonstrate the need for a clear precise standard that clarifies states obligations.
Second, a number of member states have said they need more time to consider alternatives.
Yet a range of hard and soft law options have already been identified and assessed and in the two years since the Human Rights Council adopted resolution 56 slash five, no alternative has gained significant support.
Continued reliance on existing standards has not delivered sufficient progress.
If member states have a credible alternative, they should put it forward.
Further exploration should not become an excuse for inaction.
Third, some states have questioned whether a new legal standard would make a difference.
Consider the CRPD.
Since its adoption, legal and policy protections for the right to education for persons with disabilities rose from 74% of countries in 2016 to 87% just five years later.
This is just one example.
International standards can and do drive change at the national level.
Finally, during yesterday's discussion, there was, in fact, quite broad agreement regarding the ten key principles.
Where there are areas of disagreement or unclarity, as some delegations have pointed out, the best way forward may be through the negotiation of actual text.
Ultimately, we share three goals, ensuring quality, inclusive education for every child, removing the financial barriers that exclude millions, and accelerating progress towards universal education.
We remain firmly convinced that the proposed optional protocol can be a powerful tool to achieve all three.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
And just on time, we will come to a close of this morning's session and would certainly resume in the afternoon and we will continue the list of speakers.
I want to seize the opportunity to thank Officer Beta for his presentation and indeed all delegations, including stakeholders, for their support and constructive engagement.
This morning session is hereby closed.
Thank you.
Thank you, Paul.
It was a pleasure to be here.
Thank you.