Monitoring Torture and Ill-treatment of Children in the Context of Juvenile Justice
Preparatory meeting, Kiev, 18 – 20 October 2011
Report of the meeting
The above-mentioned meeting is part of an EU-supported project on juvenile justice reform that
includes strengthening the capacity of statutory child rights/human rights bodies and civil society
organisations to monitor the torture and ill-treatment of children in 8 countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan and Ukraine. It is part of the research
component of the project, intended to make potential participants familiar with the aims and
methodology of this component, to provide them with an opportunity to express their concerns and
recommendations the methodology and tools developed by the UNICEF Regional Office for CEECIS,
and to begin to develop national research plans.
The meeting was organised by the UNICEF Regional Office, in cooperation with the UNICEF Office in
Ukraine and the Ombudsman for Children, and in consultation with the UNICEF offices in the
countries concerned. The organisers decided, in principle, to invite one representative of each sector
(child/human rights body and civil society organisation) from each country. These parameters were
applied in most cases, as this table shows:
civil society organisations
Civil Society Institute
Child Rights Legal Clinic
Georgia
statutory rights bodies
Human Rights Defender
Office of the Commissioner for Human
Rights (Ombudsman)
Public Defender’s Office
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Moldova
National Human Rights Center
Office of the Ombudsman
Child’s Ombudsperson
Tajikistan
Ukraine
Ombudsman Institute
- Presidential Ombudsman for
Children
- Parliamentary Commissioner
for Human Rights
Penal Reform International
Youth Human Rights Group
Rehabilitation Center for
Torture Victims "Memoria"
Child Rights Centre
Kharkiv Human Rights
Protection Group
Armenia
Azerbaijan
n/a
The following resource persons also participated:
A. Danielyan, UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture*
E. Logan, Ombudsman for Children, Ireland
D. O’Donnell, consultant on juvenile justice, UNICEF Regional Office
N. Roy, Penal Reform International
D. Vig, Open Society Institute
S. Visanu, “Memoria” Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims, Moldova
*
Mr. Danielyan participate in his personal capacity
M. Yeranosyan, Advanced Social Technologies, Armenia
The main activities included:
1. Presentation on the aims, methodology and agenda of the meeting
2. Presentation of the concept paper on torture and ill-treatment in the context of juvenile justice
(see annexes)
3. Overviews of country situation in the countries represented
4. Presentation and discussion of the draft research plan and research tools
5. Monitoring ill-treatment in juvenile prisons and detention facilities
6. Engaging with children in the youth justice system: role of Ombudsmen
7. Surveys of children as a tool for estimating the prevalence of torture and ill-treatment
8. Identification and treatment of victims in the context of juvenile justice
9. Visit to the juvenile section of a pre-trial detention centre (SIZO) and exercise on interviews with
staff and observation of conditions
10. Preparation, presentation and discussion of draft national research plans
The meeting allowed participants to form a clear idea of the aim of this component of the project and
the underlying concepts. There was a consensus amongst participants on the importance of
improving measures to prevent and monitor torture and ill-treatment of children in the context of
juvenile justice and on the role that statutory human/child rights bodies and civil society can play in
this regard. There also was a consensus on the importance of research, and on listening to the voices
of children who have experienced the juvenile justice system.
Most of the participants noted that they were unable to make a commitment on behalf of their
institution or organisation, but would bring the proposal to the attention of those with authority to
do so as soon as possible. Many indicated that participation would depend, or might depend, on the
ability to identify funding on the national level. It was agreed that the timetable for carrying out the
research would need to be flexible, but that during the coming month or two every effort would be
made by all concerned to include this project into work plans for 2012. It also was agreed that the
results of research should be available by the end of the third quarter of 2012, because of the
Ministerial Meeting planned for the fourth quarter. The results should include conclusions and
recommendations, but need not necessarily, in all countries, include a final report. Another meeting
with participants from all the 8 countries will also be held mid-way, probably in June, in order to
discuss initial findings and potential bottlenecks. Furthermore, it was agreed that, in some of the
larger countries (e.g. Ukraine and Kazakhstan), within this time frame it would only be possible to
carry out empirical research in a few selected cities or regions.
Discussion of the draft research plan, in the light of the various presentations made, led to a
consensus on the need for flexibility, within the parameters of the project approved by the European
Union. The UNICEF Regional Office, as agency with overall responsibility for coordination of the
project, presented the following conclusions with regard to the ways that the draft plan can be
adapted to the circumstances of each country, based on issues raised during the discussion:
1. Three kinds of actors can potential carry out the research: statutory human/child rights
bodies, NGOs and independent research organisations (e.g. Advanced Social Technologies,
which carried out a survey of children in Armenia or the Centre of Social Expertise of the
National Academy of Science’s Institute of Sociology of Ukraine, which carried out a survey of
children and their parents in Ukraine). For various reasons (e.g. mandate, access, resources),
some may be in a better position than others to carry out different components of the
research, and some components might be carried out jointly. Such decisions should be made
on the national level. Ideally, the participation of both the most relevant statutory
child/human right body and one NGO is expected, but if the statutory child/human right body
in some country decides not to participate and an NGO is prepared to carry out the essential
components of the research, this may be approved by the coordinators of the project.
2. The research plan covers four distinct parts of the juvenile justice “context”:
a. interactions between children and police (wherever they occur - the street, police
stations, etc.)
b. “pre-trial” detention facilities (SIZO)
c. juvenile prison colonies, and
d. “special schools”
There was agreement that it should be feasible to the first three during the time frame
agreed upon, and that covering all three should be considered essential for participation in
the project. Coverage of “special schools” is optional.
3. There are five basic components of the research:
a. analysis of the legal, regulatory and institutional/administrative context (tools A and B)
b. survey of children’s experiences (tool C)
c. collection of available data on complaints/investigations and their outcomes (by the
offices of the General Prosecutors and statutory human/child rights bodies, and possibly
internal police/prison mechanisms)(tool D)
d. case studies of victims and analysis of mechanisms for identifying and assisting them
(tools E and X)
e. general analysis, conclusions and recommendations
It was decided that all of these components except “d” should be feasible in all countries
within the agreed timeframe, and should be considered essential for participation in the
project. The case studies of victims will only be done where an organisation that provides
assistance to child victims exists and is willing to participate.
4. Decisions on other issues raised include the following:
a. When the national law requires parental permission to interview persons under 18 years
of age, it must be respected. (The delegation from Kazakhstan indicated that, to
circumvent this problem, they probably will limit interviews to young adults having
recent experiences in the juvenile justice system.)
b. There was a broad consensus that interviews of children should be carried out by two
person teams, and that one of the two should be a psychologist or medical doctor.
c. No information should be made public that would permit the identification of any child
interviewed, and this should be made clear to any child (or parent) interviewed.
d. The aim of interviews is to document or illustrate the present situation, and therefore
should focus exclusively on recent experiences. There is some flexibility as to how this
will be interpreted. For various reasons, some delegations thought that using data from
2010, 2011 or 2012 would be most feasible, and all these options are acceptable.
e. The samples interviewed should include both females and males.
f. The samples should include, as a minimum, coverage of the capital and one other
city/region.
g. The emphasis should be on individual interviews; focus groups also may be appropriate
in some circumstances.
Tentative outlines of national research plans were developed by participants from each of the
participating countries, except the Ukraine. It was agreed that the institutions and organisations that
decide to participate in the project, should prepare a research plan before the end of November, and
forward it to the UNICEF Regional Office and consultant on child rights and juvenile justice (Mr. Dan
O’Donnell – danodonnell@hotmail.com) for comment and approval.
It also was decided that three participants having skills and experience in specific areas will provide
technical advice to other participants regarding their areas of expertise. They are Dr. Svetlana
Visanau (psychiatry and medical issues – svetlanavisanu@mail.ru), Ms. Meri Yeranosyan (surveys of
children – meri.yeranosyan@ast.am) and Ms. Natalya Utesheva (interviews with children and
inspection of facilities – nutesheva@gmail.com).
The research plan and some of the tools have been revised to take into account the discussions
during the meeting (in annex). Suggestions that were incompatible with the aims and methodology of
the project document approved by the donor were not taken into account. Some other comments
also were not taken into account in revising the plan and tools because they were only relevant for
one or two countries. The plans and tools may be adapted to the circumstances of each country, in
consultation with the UNICEF Regional Office.
List of documents appended below:
1. Concept paper
2. Research plan and tools (as revised)
3. Agenda of the meeting
4. List of participants
5. Notes on draft plans presented by seven delegations*
*
The Ukrainian participants were to prepare their plans later on.