Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:54 pm
Time: 10:54 pm
Results for convention on the rights of the child
2 results foundAuthor: Parliamentary Ombudsman, The, Norway Title: Visit Report: Ullersmo Prison, Juvenile Unit East 7-8 February 2017 Summary: The Parliamentary Ombudsman's National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) visited Ullersmo Prison, Juvenile Unit East, on 7-8 February 2017. The date of the visit was not announced. Ullersmo Prison's Juvenile Unit East is a high security prison with four places for inmates aged between 15 and 19 years. The visit covered the whole unit. The juvenile unit's management and other staff members were forthcoming throughout the visit. Ullersmo Prison's Juvenile Unit is one of two prisons in Norway for juvenile inmates. The other one is Bjorgvin Prison's Juvenile Unit, which was established in 2009. Ullersmo Prison's Juvenile Unit East opened on 12 April 2016. At the time of the visit, the unit was only approved to hold two inmates. This was due to fire safety issues identified in October 2016. Statsbygg had been given until 1 April 2017 to remedy the situation. In accordance with the Norwegian Correctional Service's project description, the juvenile units' basic staff included both prison officers and milieu therapists. At the time of the visit, a total of 25 employees were working in shifts. An interagency team had been established at the juvenile unit. The management and employees who form part of the basic staff wear uniforms in their everyday work, except when they participate in leisure activities such as exercise or escort inmates on leave outside the unit. It emerged during the visit that the employees found the use of uniforms unnecessary and an obstacle to developing good relations. It also emerged that the duty to wear a uniform made normal activities for the juvenile inmates more difficult because the officers had to change for physical activities such as ball games in the outdoor areas. In accordance with a decision by the Norwegian Correctional Service's regional office, the juvenile unit had sometimes had to place juvenile inmates in prisons for adults while waiting for a place at the juvenile unit to become available. This is in violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states in Article 37 (c) that every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do so. At the time of the visit, three juvenile inmates were in this situation. Juvenile Unit East emphasised that this was a temporary measure pending the opening of the other two places at the unit. The interagency team at the juvenile unit was responsible for attending to these juveniles while they were temporarily placed in other prisons. The layout and furniture of the juveniles' cells appeared well planned and practical. There were no window bars. The communal areas were spacious with good access to natural light and views of the natural surroundings. The communal kitchen was closed to the juveniles except during fixed food preparation times and communal meals. One of the cells was adapted for persons with disabilities. The visit left the impression that the juvenile unit focused on welcoming the juveniles and creating secure relations and good dialogue from the start of their stay. It was a positive factor that the juvenile inmates were always given the name of their contact officer in writing. However, the information booklet handed out to the juvenile inmates on admission was not well suited for the target group - it was formal and inaccessible. There was no written information about the juvenile unit's routines and rules in any language other than Norwegian. According to documentation submitted by the juvenile unit, use of force was rare. It emerged that the psychologist worked to prevent violent incidents and use of coercive measures through work with the juveniles and guidance of the staff. The staff appeared to be aware of the importance of preventing the use of force. No information emerged about other specific conflict prevention methods used by the staff. The use of security cells for juvenile offenders is a highly invasive measure that is potentially very harmful. Juvenile Unit East had one security cell. At the time of the visit, the security cell was not approved by the Directorate of the Norwegian Correctional Service, and it had not been used. The security cell appeared much like an ordinary security cell in prisons for adult inmates. This contrasted with the security cell at Bjorgvin Prison's Juvenile Unit, which during the visit to that unit was found to have been designed to minimise the strain on juvenile inmates and give a more humane impression. Juvenile Unit East had a separate segregation unit. It was stated during the visit that it had been used once for a period of two days. The NPM's review of documents showed that decisions were made and supervision carried out and logged. At the time of the visit, Juvenile Unit East had not prepared its own procedures for body searches. From a preventive perspective, fixed procedures are important in order to ensure that body searches are conducted in the gentlest possible way. It emerged that female staff had been present during body searches of male juveniles on several occasions. At a meeting with the management, the NPM was told that the use of female staff to search male juveniles would be discontinued. It also emerged during the visit that the juvenile inmates were locked in their cells several times during the day, for example when they were not participating in outdoor exercise or preparing food. It is food for thought that the unit considers it necessary to lock inmates in their cells in this way despite the unit's good staffing level. According to the unit's weekend routines, juvenile inmates who are locked in their cells both during outdoor exercise and while the food is being prepared will spend six hours outside their cell per day. This is less than recommended by international guidelines, and gives particular cause for concern since these inmates are juveniles. It emerged that it varied whether the juvenile inmates were given the opportunity for outdoor exercise every day. A contributory cause of this was that the outdoor area was so poorly lit that the prison did not consider outdoor exercise in the afternoon sufficiently secure during the winter months. The health service appeared to function well, and the health personnel seemed to demonstrate a good understanding of their role in connection with any use of coercive measures. The schooling appeared to function well. No work activities were offered at the juvenile unit. There were a total of three visiting rooms at the juvenile unit. They were all sparsely furnished and not very welcoming. None of the visiting rooms had access to children's toys for visits by young siblings or were adapted for prolonged visits, despite the fact that the regulatory framework allows for juvenile inmates to receive visits over several days. Juveniles under the age of 18 had the opportunity to call their next of kin and friends for a total of one hour per week. This is half the telephone time that juvenile inmates at Bjorgvin prison are allowed. Details: Oslo, Norway: 2017. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 12, 2019 at: https://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Visit-report-2017-Juvenile-Unit-East-Summary-and-recommendations.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Norway URL: https://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Visit-report-2017-Juvenile-Unit-East-Summary-and-recommendations.pdf Shelf Number: 154082 Keywords: Convention on the Rights of the ChildHigh Security PrisonJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesMaximum Security PrisonNorwegian Correctional ServiceUllersmo Prison |
Author: Child Rights International Network Title: Caught in the Crossfire?: An International Survey of Anti-Terrorism Legislation and its Impact on Children Summary: As terrorism has proliferated in the last 20 years, so have States' counterterrorism strategies and the legislation that underpins them, which has introduced new surveillance measures, restrictions on behaviour, powers of detention, and hundreds of new offences carrying heavy sentences. In developing their counter-terrorism strategies, States are obliged to ensure that human rights are promoted and protected in full. Approaches that undermine human rights are not only unlawful; they are now widely understood to be counter-productive, insofar as they consolidate the social conditions in which terrorism can flourish. Nonetheless, States commonly regard human rights as an operational impediment and are allowing them to erode. No group has been more vulnerable to this than children and young people, particularly from marginalised minority groups. This report presents the findings from CRIN's research of anti-terrorism legislation in 33 countries across five continents. It shows that counterterrorism measures are leading to extensive violations of children's rights: - Children's behaviour and interests are monitored in schools and online, without their consent and sometimes without their knowledge; - Children are criminalised for association with terrorist groups, even for marginal involvement, rather than treated as victims of grooming and calculated indoctrination by recruiters; - Children can be routinely detained without charge for long periods under counter-terrorism powers in many countries; - Children convicted of offences, such as association with a terrorist group, are punished with harsh and sometimes extreme penalties; life imprisonment is not unusual, and in some countries children have been executed; - Some State military and intelligence agencies use children as spies and informants, exposing them to undue and potentially serious harm. These effects of counter-terrorism measures are unambiguously incompatible with States' human rights obligations to children. In particular, the strategies violate several specific rights of the child, including: - The right to privacy and to freedom of expression; - The right to be protected from violence and exploitation; - The right not to be used by State military and intelligence agencies; - The right not to be deprived of liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily and the right to be treated with dignity; - The right to a criminal justice system designed for the particular needs of children, and which recognises their lesser culpability by virtue of their cognitive and emotional immaturity relative to adults; - The right of a child to have their best interests treated as a primary consideration in all actions concerning them. Where apprehended children can be subject to extended detention without charge or harsh penalties after conviction, their treatment defies cardinal principles of juvenile justice established by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international rules and standards. In the worst cases, such punishments amount to torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Where counter-terrorism measures target one social group disproportionately, they are also likely to amount to a violation of the right to be free from discrimination. States have favoured a 'firefighting approach' to counter-terrorism, by targeting suspected terrorists but not the social conditions in which terrorism can flourish. Structural risk factors that radically increase children's vulnerability to recruitment, such as poverty, marginalisation and the stigmatisation of certain social groups - all of which are human rights violation in themselves - have been largely overlooked. A 'human rights first' approach to counter-terrorism would begin to reverse these social conditions. A human rights approach would not criminalise children for association with terrorist groups, nor incarcerate them for terrorism offences. Instead, it would recognise children's vulnerability to recruitment, supporting them to develop their own awareness of the risks. If children had been groomed and manipulated, the State would recognise their victimisation and provide rehabilitative care. Counter-terrorism authorities committed to human rights would not snoop on children, but would allow professionals charged with their care to make informed and measured decisions about any threats to their welfare. Nor should States ever imperil children by using them in the fight against suspected terrorists. No State needs to violate the human rights of its public to tackle terrorism effectively, nor is there any advantage to be gained from doing so. A State willing to sacrifice children's rights puts them in harm's way, while handing an easy victory to terrorism. Details: London, UK: The Child Rights International Network, 2018. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 20, 2019 at: https://archive.crin.org/sites/default/files/caughtinthecrossfire.pdf Year: 2018 Country: International URL: https://archive.crin.org/en/library/publications/caught-crossfire-international-survey-anti-terrorism-legislation-and-its-impact Shelf Number: 154254 Keywords: Anti-TerrorismConvention on the Rights of the ChildCounter-terorrismHuman RightsJuvenile JusticeJuvenile OffendersSurveillanceTerrorismTerrorism Recruitment |