COMMITTEE ON RIGHTS OF CHILD EXAMINES REPORT OF KAZAKHSTAN ON OPTIONAL PROTOCOL ON CHILDREN AND ARMED CONFLICT
The Committee on the Rights of the Child today reviewed the initial report of Kazakhstan on how that country is implementing the provisions of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict.
In opening remarks to the Committee, Raisa Sher, Chairperson Deputy of the Committee on Protection of the Rights of Children at the Ministry of Education and Sciences of Kazakhstan, said children had not been the victims of armed conflicts in Kazakhstan for many years, as there was no conflict on the territory of the country. Ratification of the Optional Protocol was a fundamental position of Kazakhstan, and reflected its attitude on the issue. Kazakhstan had been working to implement the Optional Protocol, and was concerned for the effects on children of armed conflict. Creating a system to ensure the security of persons and the State was a result of the situation of the time, and this was done through education. There was mandatory education in senior schools, in which students learnt human rights, to love their country, and the basics of military science, and the law of Kazakhstan including international humanitarian law and the Optional Protocol.
Committee Expert Jacob Egbert Doek, who served as Rapporteur for the report of Kazakhstan in the absence of Committee Expert Ghalia Mohd Bin Hamad Al-Thani, said in preliminary concluding remarks that it was clear that Kazakhstan had very clear rules on drafting, the rules of military schools had been clarified, and the questions related to extra-territoriality had been responded to. The remaining issue which required examination was the issue of refugee status and the various options and alternatives in this regard.
Other Committee Experts raised questions related to, among other things issues related to reports of hazing and maltreatment in army schools, leading to deaths and suicides, and whether there were any reports on this; whether the Optional Protocol had direct impact on domestic law; what would the courts do to prosecute war criminals living within the country who could have recruited children for conflicts in other countries; and a request for information on what mechanisms had already been developed for information and what Kazakhstan intended to further develop.
The Committee will release its formal, written concluding observations and recommendations on the report of Kazakhstan towards the end of its three-week session which will conclude on 29 September.
The delegation of Kazakhstan consisted of representatives of the Kazakh Mission to the United Nations Office at Geneva, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defence, and the Ministry of Justice.
As one of the 192 States parties to the Convention, Kazakhstan is obliged to present periodic reports to the Committee on its efforts to comply with the provisions of the treaty.
When Chamber A of the Committee reconvenes on 12 September at 10 a.m., it will consider the initial report of Samoa. Chamber B will review the third periodic report of Ethiopia.
Report of Kazakhstan
The initial report of Kazakhstan (CRC/C/OPAC/KAZ/1) under the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict says the Optional Protocol takes precedence over domestic legislation. Information about its provisions has been disseminated among broad sectors of Kazakh society, including parents, through the media and by means of international and national conferences, round tables, seminars and training courses. There are State bodies and NGOs in Kazakhstan with adequate competence in matters relating to the provisions of the Optional Protocol. The mechanisms and procedures for periodic evaluation of the implementation of the Optional Protocol have not yet been fully developed.
Legal measures were in place in Kazakhstan prohibiting the enlistment of persons under the age of 18 years or their use as mercenaries. The Children’s Rights Act of 8 August 2002 was adopted for the purpose of protecting the rights and interest of children in Kazakhstan. Work was being done to disseminate and publicise the provisions of the Optional Protocol, and these were currently taught in schools.
Kazakhstan was troubled by the massive impact of armed conflicts on children and condemned attacks on targets such as kindergartens, schools and hospitals. The protection of children during times of armed conflict was especially relevant today. Kazakhstan was cooperating actively with the International Organization for Migration to provide legal assistance and urgent help to children who were victims of armed conflict. It was taking measures to protect child refugees and to afford them the help they needed. The list of guaranteed free medical aid for foreigners and stateless persons, including children, included medical assistance in emergencies, but also in the event of an illness that represented a danger to others, unless international treaties ratified by Kazakhstan provided otherwise.
Presentation of Report
RAISA SHER, Chairperson Deputy, Committee on Protection of the Rights of Children, Ministry of Education and Sciences of Kazakhstan, said children had not been the victims of armed conflicts in Kazakhstan for many years, as there was no conflict on the territory of the country. Ratification of the Optional Protocol was a fundamental position of Kazakhstan, and reflected its attitude on the issue. Kazakhstan had been working to implement the Optional Protocol, and was concerned for the effects on children of armed conflict. It was significant for the report to be given on this date, when all of progressive mankind noted the anniversary of the events in New York, when children became direct victims of the terrorist attacks, and the leadership of Kazakhstan, ensuring stability in the country, had been undertaking many measures of a preventative nature to prevent military and terrorist attacks in the country.
Military service was an obligation in order to protect the Republic, and drafting took place twice a year. Citizens from the ages of 18 to 27 were exclusively drafted. Reduction of the age of recruitment during times of emergency or conflict was exclusively on a voluntary basis, and was not provided for in law. Kazakhstan had taken measures to prevent the hiring of persons under the age of 18. Participation of mercenaries in armed conflicts was punishable by prison. Creating a system to ensure the security of persons and the State was a result of the situation of the time, and this was done through education. There was mandatory education in senior schools, in which students learnt human rights, to love their country, and the basics of military science, and the law of Kazakhstan including international humanitarian law and the Optional Protocol.
At national and regional institutes for teachers, courses were taught to teachers on basic military training, and this included the provisions of the Optional Protocol. Under the control of the armed forces, a cadet corps of defence operated, teaching children from the ages of 12 and above. This and certain other educational institutions aimed to provide free mandatory secondary education, including military training, and to instil respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, development of the personality, talents, and intellectual capabilities, and to prepare them for adult life in a spirit of mutual understanding and tolerance. The teaching of military skills was a voluntary choice of children and their parents, and the students in military schools could not be recruited or participate in any military action.
Discussion
JACOB EGBERT DOEK, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Kazakhstan, in the absence of Committee Expert Ghalia Mohd Bin Hamad Al-Thani who was Country Rapporteur, said when looking at the Optional Protocol, it was clear that there were no problems on the territory of Kazakhstan, but there was a small problem with regards to people from neighbouring countries fleeing armed conflicts there to Kazakhstan. Conscription at 18 was in line with the Optional Protocol. There was a need to clarify whether there was indeed no voluntary recruitment of those under 18, in particular with regards to emergency situations. With regards to extra-territorial jurisdiction and recruitment of Kazakhstan nationals abroad, there was an article in the Criminal Code on this topic, and it was not clear that the law was what the Committee liked to see, and the issue required clarification.
If a Kazakh child was recruited by one of the armed groups in Afghanistan, Mr. Doek asked, would this be considered under Kazakh law as a crime and would prosecution of the person be sought. With regards to refugees, and that Kazakhstan was in an area where there was a certain quantity of refugees due to armed conflicts, there was a need to explain why a number of people in Kazakhstan who had fled armed conflicts had difficulties in obtaining a recognised status, including that of refugee or a permit to stay in the country. There was, for example, a large number of Chechens, whose situation remained unclear, and the delegation should explain to the Committee how these groups were dealt with.
Other Experts raised a series of questions pertaining to, among other things, issues related to reports of hazing and maltreatment in army schools, leading to deaths and suicides, and whether there were any reports on this; that military school curricula ensured that those over 16 learnt to handle dangerous weapons including Kalashnikovs, and whether there were any plans to change this; whether the Optional Protocol had direct impact on domestic law; what would the courts do to prosecute war criminals living within the country who could have recruited children for conflicts in other countries; a request for information on what mechanisms had already been developed for information and what Kazakhstan intended to further develop; whether students from military schools were later encouraged to join the military; and what Kazakhstan’s objections were to becoming a State party to the Rome Statutes.
Responding, Ms. Sher said Kazakhstan legislation did not provide for recruitment into the military forces of citizens who had not reached the age of eighteen, and even in extraordinary situations, the law did not provide for recruitment of those under the age of seventeen on a non-voluntary basis. There were no registered incidents of recruitment of any under 18. The recruitment abroad of those under 18 was also a criminal offence. There were 600 registered refugees, and others who were registered in the State migration agencies, and these were people who had not expressed a wish to be registered as refugees, and were in the country under temporary permits for up to three months, after which they had to leave the country. CIS citizens could not receive refugee status in another CIS country, and this applied to the Chechens. Chechen children had the same rights as Kazakh children.
On the military institutions and schools and reports of violations against the rules in these, Ms. Sher said that according to official statistics, there had been no registered instances of any violations including killings or deaths for the past two years, and this was due to the State making the transition to a contractual form of military service. On the training in firearms in these schools, from the age of 16, children in military schools were taught about various types of weapons, however they did not undergo practical firearms training, it was purely theoretical.
Regarding direct laws relating to the Optional Protocol, in Kazakh legislation there were constant references to international law, and the Constitution itself referred to the primacy of treaties to which Kazakhstan acceded over national legislation. Periodic changes to national law were made and these referred to international treaties. With regards to Kazakhstan and the International Criminal Statutes, Kazakhstan had been involved in the negotiations in Rome, but had not managed to accede to these. As of 2001, accession to the Statutes, was not possible, only ratification thereof. National legislation did not correspond to these provisions in every respect, but work was being done to make the necessary changes in order to ratify them, Ms. Sher said.
Dissemination of information to explain the provisions of the Optional Protocol should be done on a broader basis. This autumn, there would be monitoring of public opinion regarding the level of information on the provisions of the Optional Protocol and on the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in general, which would clarify as to what extent the mechanisms and the procedures for the periodic review had been implemented. The Government and NGOs were aware of this issue. Regarding refugee children and the number that had been involved in armed conflicts, Ms. Sher said 248 refugee children had been registered. In view of their emergence, as they came from, among others, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, all of these children could be classified as refugee children and victims, either directly or indirectly, of armed conflicts. All these children received the same text books as Kazakh children, and received them free of charge.
The Government was in the position, due to economic growth, of considering an allowance to refugees. Over a period of two years, in primary and secondary schools, a staff of social pedagogues and psychologists had been introduced, and their duties included talks and special lessons with children who had been psychologically traumatised, including refugee children. The mechanism for considering complaints from children, their guardians and parents had been elaborated, and was fully consistent with all the principles of the Convention.
In questions, Experts asked for more information concerning schools that were under the armed forces and whose objective was in-depth teaching of military schools. Ms. Sher said that students applied voluntarily to the schools, and according to the wishes of the parents. The aim was to have physical training of the children, and this was not the same as military training. Competition to get into the school was stiff, and admission was on the basis of a competitive exam. Education was under the supervision of the Ministry of Education. There were disciplinary rules, but they were not army-type rules, and no punishments were imposed on children.
There was a mechanism in place, Ms. Sher said, to deal with refugees. The Minsk Agreement stopped them from getting refugee status, but they could apply to the President or the Council to get citizenship status, and there were many cases of this kind.
Preliminary Observations
In preliminary concluding remarks, Mr. Doek said it was clear that Kazakhstan had very clear rules on drafting, the rules of military schools had been clarified, and the questions related to extra-territoriality had been responded to. The remaining issue which required examination was the issue of refugee status and the various options and alternatives in this regard. The newly-established Committee on the Rights of the Child in Kazakhstan was very welcome, as was the progress made on establishing an Ombudsperson for children.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CRC06038E