COMMITTEE EXAMINES REPORTS OF FRANCE ON OPTIONAL PROTOCOLS TO CONVENTION ON RIGHTS OF CHILD
The Committee on the Rights of the Child today reviewed the initial reports of France on how that country is implementing the provisions of the two Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict and on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.
In opening remarks to the Committee, Mario Bettati, Counsellor in charge of international political affairs and human rights at the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of France, presenting the initial reports of France on the two Protocols, observed that France had been very active at the international level on questions concerning children in the domains of child soldiers, as well as the issue of child sexual tourism. In that latter domain, France had invested its efforts in a number of at the national level first, through raising awareness among French travellers to respect foreign children, and mobilizing French society as well as engaging professionals in the travel sector in the fight. Internationally, France had developed good police and judicial contacts in this area in the framework of bilateral and multilateral agreements and exchanges of best practices. On the involvement of children in armed conflict, on 24 September, a directive from the Ministry of Defence had been circulated to amend the Defence Code so that minors under 18 should not participate in conflicts abroad, and that if armed conflict broke out in national territory, those under 18 could not participate actively.
In preliminary concluding observations, Committee Expert Awich Pollar, Rapporteur for the report of France on the Optional Protocol on children in armed conflict, hoped for further information in a number of areas, including the provision of data; the position of the Optional Protocol within the United Nations Security Council Working Group on children in armed conflict, of which France had the leadership; further information on the sale of arms to countries that might recruit children; and clarification on the definition of direct participation in hostilities in French law.
In additional preliminary observations, Committee Expert Hatem Kotrane, Rapporteur for the report of France on the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, said that it was important that France continued to play an international leadership role in implementing the Optional Protocol. Turning to concerns, it was to be hoped that it would be possible for France to bring its data regarding crimes under the Protocol more in line with reality. France was also urged to continue and extend its training programmes and coordination with the various agencies that worked with children. Finally, France should broaden its extraterritorial jurisdiction to ensure that all crimes under the Protocol were covered.
The Committee will release its formal, written concluding observations and recommendations on the reports of France towards the end of its three-week session, which will conclude on 5 October.
Also representing the delegation of France was Christophe Guilhou, Deputy Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations Office at Geneva and other members of the Permanent Mission, as well as representatives of the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Labour, Social Relations and Solidarity.
As one of the 193 States parties to the Convention, France is obliged to present periodic reports to the Committee on its efforts to comply with the provisions of the treaty. The delegation was on hand to present the report and to answer questions raised by Committee Experts.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 28 September, it will take up the second periodic report of Venezuela (CRC/C/VEN/2).
Reports of France
The initial report of France (CRC/C/OPAC/FRA/1) under the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, says that, under the Members of the Armed Forces (General Regulations) Act, no one who is not at least 17 years of age may become a member of the armed forces. In fact, no minor below the age of 18 participates in operations abroad, both because of the length of the probationary period (six months) and because of the initial training given (four to seven months minimum depending on the area of training). The concept of direct or active participation in hostilities is not the subject of a detailed definition, whether in treaty law or in French domestic law. In French law, it is referred to in the Criminal Code under which participation in mercenary activity is illegal. Nevertheless, this legal concept is not subject to particular debate. Act No. 97-1019 of 1997 on national service reform brought conscription in France to an end. The Members of the Armed Forces Act further sets out that no one who is not at least 16 years of age may receive general and vocational training as a volunteer in the armed forces or as a pupil in a military school. Persons aged under 16 cannot, under any circumstances, take part in activities other than those which form part of general and vocational training.
The initial report of France on the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (CRC/C/OPSC/FRA/1) says that, in order to combat child pornography, a central unit for under-age victims was set up in 1997 as part of the Central Directorate of the Criminal Investigation Service. The National Division responsible for combating infractions against people and property has developed a national database index of pornographic images of children, for use by the national police and gendarmerie to facilitate identification of the perpetrators and victims of such offences. The Central Office responsible for combating trafficking in persons regularly participates in workshops with different associations that defend the victims of procuring or trafficking in persons. In terms of specific criminal legislation, among others, Act No. 2002-305 of 2002 establishes the prostitution of minors as an offence in the Criminal Code. Under that Act, in 2004, 52 cases were brought by the police against clients of child prostitutes; 42 men over the age of 18 were prosecuted; and 48 victims were identified. Article 225-7 of the Criminal Code also provides that punishment of the offence of procuring is heavier when the offence is committed against a child. Article 227-23 makes it a punishable offence to take, record or transmit a picture or representation of a minor with a view to circulating it. Other criminal characterizations establish the sale of children as an offence. The offence of trafficking in persons, with the aggravating circumstance of the victim being a minor, is defined under article 225-4-1 of the Criminal Code.
Presentation of Reports
MARIO BETTATI, Counsellor in charge of international political affairs and human rights at the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of France, presenting the initial reports of France on follow-up to the two Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict and on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, said that the measures set out in France's two reports went well beyond the framework of those Protocols, which were on very specific topics, as they represented France's comprehensive children's policy, which was cross-cutting and based on the primacy of the best interests of the child, as set out in article 3 of the Convention. In that connection, it was worth recalling that the provisions of the Convention had been directly applied by a number of judicial decisions in France.
France had been very active at the international level on questions concerning children in the domains of child soldiers, as well as the issue of child sexual tourism, Mr. Bettati observed. In that latter domain, France had invested its efforts in a number of at the national level first, through raising awareness among French travellers to respect foreign children, and mobilizing French society as well as engaging professionals in the travel sector in the fight. Internationally, France had developed good police and judicial contacts in this area in the framework of bilateral and multilateral agreements and exchanges of best practices.
France’s commitment had also been demonstrated outside the United Nations framework. In that regard, Mr. Bettati cited a number of examples, including France's ratification of the Council of Europe Convention to combat trafficking in persons in August 2007.
Turning to the involvement of children in armed conflict in particular, France was particularly active in this area, Mr. Bettati affirmed. Domestic legislation and practice were largely in conformity with the provisions of the Protocol. Nevertheless, some associations had criticized French legislation, insofar as there was no specific criminal provision against the participation of minors in hostilities, as set out in the Protocol. The Government had been somewhat stunned by that criticism, given the incontestable fact that no French minor had participated in hostilities since the First World War. However, that had provoked internal reflection on the part of the relevant Governmental bodies and, on 24 September, a memorandum from the Ministry of Defence had been circulated to amend the Defence Code so that minors under 18 should not participate in conflicts abroad, and that if armed conflict broke out in national territory, those under 18 could not participate actively.
On the international level, French diplomacy was very involved in activities to assist and cooperate in this area, both within the framework of the United Nations system, as well as within the European framework. To give one example, an international conference entitled “Free Children from War” had been held in Paris in February 2007, with the participation of 58 States. That Conference had marked an important stage in the implementation of an effective protection for children involved in armed conflicts and for helping them to rejoin their families and their communities. The participants had done that in adopting a political declaration, “the Paris Principles”, updating the 1997 Cape Town Principles, Mr. Bettati said.
Turning to the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, Mr. Bettati said that recent legislation reflected France's commitment to fighting paedophilia and sexual exploitation of children. There were five new laws in this area, including such reforms as stricter penalties for involving children in child prostitution or for human trafficking.
In terms of prevention, new crimes had been defined, such as that of inciting someone to commit a crime against a minor, including in the areas of proxenetism and child pornography, and sexual exploitation of a minor, which carried stiffer penalties if the child was under 15. Other new laws took into account new crimes that were emerging owing to new technologies Mr. Bettati said. In that connection, there was now a specific penal provision prohibiting the making available of pornographic images over the Internet. French law had also increased the statute of limitations for certain sexual crimes, so as to increase the possibility of successfully prosecuting criminals in this area, and those limits only began from the time children had reached majority.
There had also been a number of measures to increase detection and follow-up to such crimes through the creation of special structures – such as the Central Office for the Prevention of Violence Against Persons, which was mandated to combat child pornography, and the Central Office for the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons, as well as the creation of special investigative teams such as the cyberpatrols.
France's concept of child protection has been renewed and tested, and periodically updated and redesigned, Mr. Bettati continued. In terms of concrete projects in this area, France had set up a specialized structure to follow-up of the situation of young girls who had been victims of sexual abuse in 1996 in Agen.
Concluding, Mr. Bettati said that, as had been demonstrated, France's legislation was in conformity with its international commitments, but, more importantly, France was convinced that – in these areas in particular – the process of reflection and dialogue had to be continually renewed, the necessary means had to be constantly redeployed, and vigilance was ever-necessary.
Discussion on the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict
AWICH POLLAR, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of France on the involvement of children in armed conflict, began by highlighting France's financial assistance to and technical cooperation with other States on the issue of children in armed conflict. On numerous occasions since 1999, France had campaigned for the United Nations Security Council to put the issue of children in armed conflict on its agenda, and during 2005 and 2006 alone had contributed 100,000 euros to non-governmental organizations Coalition to stop the use of child soldiers. Moreover France was actively involved in the European Union Plan of Action on Children in Armed Conflict.
Turning to issues to discuss today, Mr. Pollar asked what France thought about the explicit criminalization of the recruitment of children under the age of 18 into armed groups distinct from its armed forces. He also asked about stronger safeguards against the possibility of recruiting children aged 17 into the Foreign Legion.
Mr. Pollar noted that there was no specific information in the report on the overseas departments and territories of France, and wondered if the Committee should infer that they were covered in the reports.
Of concern, Mr. Pollar said, was the lack of zeal exhibited in the collection of disaggregated data on migrant and asylum-seeking children from conflict zones, for example, children from Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo who had taken asylum in France. Finally, what was being done to ensure that professionals working with and for children were aware of the Protocol and its provisions?
LUIGI CITARELLA, Committee Expert serving as co-Rapporteur for this report, asked whether the provisions of the Optional Protocol applied to overseas territories directly. On military schools, were children in the secondary military schools trained in the use of armaments? Also, the report had indicated that children as young as 15 were admitted, and at the age of 16 could enlist in the army. He would appreciate clarification on that.
As for children from foreign countries, Mr. Citarella said that there was good legislation in practice regarding asylum-seeking and refugee children, but wondered if in practice there were mechanisms in place to help such children who had been affected by armed conflict.
Other Experts raised a series of questions pertaining to, among other things, training on human rights, and in particular on children's rights, for military personnel; what mechanisms there were for children wishing to bring a complaint against France's peacekeeping forces; whether the Children's Ombudsman or another institution had jurisdiction over the military schools, to ensure that children's rights were being protected there; whether there had been non-governmental organization participation in drafting the report; how France monitored the possible involvement of children in armed groups distinct from the French Army, and whether it was contemplating specifically criminalizing that practice; and what arms export controls were in place in France, and in particular whether France was a party to the European Code of Arms, which required that the human rights situations in the countries of destination had to be taken into consideration. An Expert also wondered at the lack of a mention of the Optional Protocol in the political declaration that had been issued at the international conference held last February in Paris on the issue of children involved in armed conflict. An Expert had cited a report that 17 children entering France had requested asylum on the basis of fleeing conflicts in their home countries, and asked if they had received asylum.
Response by Delegation
Responding, on the issue of the Paris Principles and the lack of clear reference therein to the Protocol itself, the delegation was also dismayed, but noted that in the original declaration that the Paris Principles were updating, there had been no mention of the Protocol.
As to methodology for drafting the report, the delegation confirmed that non-governmental organizations had been heard from via the National Council on Human Rights. There were some 10 children's non-governmental organizations that participated in that National Council.
Legislative and other norms applied to minors in armies were directly applicable to territories overseas, the delegation confirmed. Recently, the Ministry of the Interior had issued a directive, which came into force on 24 September, prohibiting the direct involvement of children in hostilities. Indeed, that directive was much broader than involvement in armed conflict, the delegation underscored, as it included participation in all military operations conducted abroad: including war, peacekeeping, emergency and rescue operations.
There was no Ombudsman specifically for children's rights in France. There was, however, a Defender for Children's Rights in France, which had jurisdiction over children in military schools. The Defender did not have an investigative mandate, the delegation confirmed. However, the Defender was empowered to hear complaints by children and could ask questions for clarification.
As for child asylum-seekers, France took the child's best interests into account in all phases of the asylum process, the delegation confirmed. The Code of Entry for stay of foreigners stipulated that asylum seekers had to be held in a holding zone pending an administrative decision. Checks were made on civil status and family links. If the Public Prosecutor believed that an asylum-seeking minor was at risk, the case was referred to the children's judge. In the case of unaccompanied foreign minors, children's judges were obliged to assign them guardians, and they were cared for under a separate regime. Minors were held separately from adults. In 2006, there were 600 minors being held in holding centres and, as of 31 July 2007, 374 minors were being held there.
Responding to a follow-up question, the delegation stressed that the holding centres were not detention centres, and were not under the penitentiary authorities. They were open centres, where non-governmental organizations and others had access. The Red Cross and CIMADE (an ecumenical mutual aid association that helped foreigners in France) were present in all holding centres. Educators and police officers working in those centres had received specialized training, and the officers were unarmed.
In cases of refusal of asylum and repatriation, a guardian or parent had to be identified who could take responsibility for the minor when they were sent back, the delegation said.
The delegation had no information about the children who had claimed asylum on the basis of fleeing armed conflict.
Concerning prosecution of those who recruited minors in France for involvement in armed conflicts, the delegation said the Criminal Code had provisions on mercenary activities that covered that situation, which carried a penalty of seven years' imprisonment and a fine. The same was true for a French citizen abroad carrying out such activities, as well as for legal persons, i.e. armed groups or security companies. There were no stiffer penalties provided in the event that the person being recruited was a minor.
Clarifying the rules on arms exports, the delegation said France was under the European Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, which prohibited exports of arms to countries that employed child soldiers; in addition the rights of the child had to be taken into account in the country of export.
In terms of protection of children in peacekeeping operations, the delegation affirmed that French military personnel involved in such operations were bound by international humanitarian law, as well as French law. In addition, the French military authorities undertook awareness-raising and other measures to ensure that such troops were aware of their responsibilities towards children in the context of peacekeeping operations.
Discussion on the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography
HATEM KOTRANE, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of France on Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, highlighted the voluntary nature of French legislation and the fact that it was in conformity with most of the provisions of the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. The legislative structure in France, even before the entry into force of the Protocol had been an example for other States in this area. Among model legislative provisions: the law of July 2005 on adoption, which created the French Adoption Agency, had been a milestone; and a 2006 law on fighting sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, which made it punishable to make any kind of pornographic image available. In addition, four laws had been adopted in 2007, strengthening the conditions under which the testimony of a minor victim of a sexual crime was gathered and the rights of such children to be heard and to a lawyer; coordinating government activities in this area; and addressing new technologies, such as the Internet, among others.
Mr. Kotrane also noted with satisfaction that, by a decision of the Court of Cassation of 8 May 2005, the direct applicability of the Convention, and of its Protocols, had been confirmed.
Turning to sources of concern, it had been reported that between 3,000 and 8,000 children in France were working as beggars or as child prostitutes, which was not in line with the figures given in the report or by the Children's Rights Defender. Mr. Kotrane then asked what measures and programmes were planned to gather statistics on the various crimes covered in the Protocol.
Organizations in France had noted the contradiction between the legislative provisions in France in this area, which were quite good, and the situation on the ground.
There did not seem to be any ongoing, systematic training of magistrates. The same was true of professionals in the tourist industry. In addition, Mr. Kotrane was concerned that the programmes in place did not have sufficient monitoring and follow-up. In that regard, what measures was France contemplating to ensure implementation of its legislation, in particular with regard to training and awareness-raising activities.
Mr. Kotrane was also concerned about whether France had extraterritorial jurisdiction over the crimes targeted by the Protocol.
There were fewer and fewer child psychiatrists in France, and Mr. Kotrane was worried that there did not appear to be enough of an emphasis on providing psychiatric care for minors.
With regard to asylum-seeking children, Mr. Kotrane was worried that children received the same procedural safeguards as adults. According to his information there were some 500 foreign minors in holding zones. What procedures were in place to ensure that such minors were not sent back to their countries if they were at risk? And what was done to ensure follow-up on repatriated minors, as well as those in holding zones, so that they did not come in contact with prostitution rings.
Other Experts raised a series of questions and expressed a number of concerns pertaining to, among other things, the fact that the number of child prostitutes was increasing in France; the small number of cases investigated, as compared with the scope of the phenomenon; concern about techniques to determine age of children in holding centres; what body was responsible for coordination, monitoring and evaluation of efforts to implement the Protocol; whether there was a gender component in the awareness-raising activities undertaken with regard to the crimes covered by the Protocol; measures to assist, rehabilitate and compensate victims of crimes under the Protocol; what was being done to address concerns expressed by the Committee regarding adoption in French Polynesia; and concern that French law treated child victims as delinquents, as in the case of child prostitutes.
Response by Delegation
Responding to Experts' questions, the delegation said that there was no specific coordination body for France's activities undertaken under the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. That was inconsistent with France's holistic approach on children's rights. The Prime Minister's Office was responsible for coordination of national policies.
As for statistics and data, since 2004, the National Monitor for Children at Risk had been operational, which ensured the protection of childhood, the delegation said. The National Monitor was responsible for collecting data on prevention, screening and social and judicial information on ill-treatment of children. Every year the National Monitor was tasked with presenting a report to the Ministry of Justice. All government departments were required to set up their own monitoring centres, to conduct surveys and collect data for submission to the National Observer. The National Observer would then analyse and collate the data for publication. The first data would be available in 2008.
An Expert, in a follow-up question, was concerned that the National Monitor only gathered data on cases where there had been convictions, and that those included all sorts of crimes against children. There was a great discrepancy then, between statistics provided and the reality on the ground in France with regard to the crimes laid out in the Protocol. An Expert also was concerned specifically to know how many victims there were, so that it would be possible to know if the number was on the rise or dropping, for example.
The delegation, responding, said, with regard to the figure of 3,000 child prostitutes in France cited by an Expert earlier, that that had come from a press article published some years ago. That figure was erroneous and based on inaccurate reporting. The figure of 8,000 minors who were allegedly either working as child prostitutes or begging could not be commented upon, as by definition it mixed the two categories. However, the Office on Trafficking in Persons dealt with information collected by the police on persons who were soliciting. In 2006, there had been 2,054 procedures undertaken for children involved in prostitution and, in 2005, there had been 2,859. So there was a downward trend.
Turning to child victims of sexual violence, such children benefited from procedural protections, the delegation underscored, focusing on the best interest of the child. In 1998, a law had been adopted that provided for the possibility of audiovisual testimony for child victims of sexual abuse, and recently that practice had been made mandatory. There were no age limits for how old a child had to be to testify; the authorities tried to take testimony for any child who was able to express itself.
As for specialized units in hospitals, about 50 departments had such judicial emergency rooms where a legal and medical examination of a child victim could take place to determine what had occurred. At that facility a child psychologist would then be called in to assist the child. The delegation pointed out that big headway had been made in this area in particular, as the question of the credibility of the child was no longer discussed in this context.
A number of Experts raised concerns about the uneven treatment children received at the hands of the justice system in different areas of France. An Expert noted that, in his 2002 report, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and pornography had recommended that France set up a systematic training programme for all children's judges. Had that been done?
The delegation maintained that France's position was that the treatment child victims received had to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, in the best interests of the child. There was therefore no systematic treatment of children who were victims of a specific offence per se.
As for action taken on the sale of children, the delegation cited a concrete case, the so-called Bulgarian babies scandal, where pregnant prostitutes from Bulgaria were brought to Paris to give birth and their babies sold. There had been six perpetrators identified in the case, and 22 babies sold. All the perpetrators had received prison sentences, including seven years for the leader. The adoptive families also received admonitory sentences.
With regard to children involved in prostitution in France, the delegation said that the law of 2002 stipulated that any minor involved in prostitution would systematically receive protective measures. For foreign trafficked minors involved in prostitution in France, there was a 24 July 2006 law that provided a whole slew of cooperation measures to identify trafficking networks and to dismantle them. A residence permit could also be given to foreign victims, along with lodging and accommodation.
On the issue of extraterritoriality, the delegation said that sexual tourism was not defined as a
crime per se, but was covered by provisions criminalizing sexual offences committed by French citizens or residents abroad. A French citizen could be convicted of sale of a child abroad, if there was a law on the books of the country where that sale took place against that crime. Moreover, extraterritorial cases were one's that put a heavy burden on the police and prosecutorial authorities. Enormous means were needed for that, including bilateral cooperation systems, just to prosecute a couple of cases a year. For France it seemed that it would be more efficient to focus efforts on pornography involving children, and raising awareness among the public that French citizens committing such crimes abroad would be prosecuted, rather than expending efforts on the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction for the sale of children.
Regarding monitoring of sexual tourism, France was not aware of exactly how many French citizens or residents were engaged in that activity the delegation said.
On adoption, the delegation said that, out of 3,967 international adoptions in 2006, 68 per cent had been conducted with countries outside the Hague Convention on adoption. So ensuring that those adoptions were properly done was of great concern to France. France checked in the countries of origin to make sure that all adoptions were legally done, with the consent of the parents. To give one example, in Nepal a girl who was the object of adoption proceedings, and who had been represented to be an orphan, had admitted in an interview with a French Counsellor official that her parents were living and that she knew them. Those adoptions proceedings were dropped and since then, France had suspended all adoptions from Nepal. As another example, France did not allow adoption from Guatemala, given concerns about reports of trafficking in children there.
There was no specific crime of the sale of children in France. Such cases were dealt with under the criminal provision of incitement to abandonment. Intermediaries in that process could be prosecuted at the same level of the other perpetrators, the delegation confirmed. Another provision under which such crimes were persecuted was on trafficking in persons.
Preliminary Concluding Observations
In preliminary concluding observations, Committee Expert AWICH POLLAR, Rapporteur for the report of France on the Optional Protocol on children in armed conflict, thanked the delegation for the discussion and their answers. However, he hoped for further information in a number of areas, including the provision of data; the position of the Optional Protocol within the United Nations Security Council Working Group on children in armed conflict, of which France had the leadership; further information on the sale of arms to countries that might recruit children; and clarification on the definition of direct participation in hostilities in French law.
In additional preliminary observations, Committee Expert HATEM KOTRANE, Rapporteur for the report of France on the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, also expressed gratitude for the constructive and fruitful exchange with the delegation. France was a great friend of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and was doing well in implementing the provisions of the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. If the Committee was demanding in its questions, it was because France's role internationally was very closely observed, and thus the expectations and demands put on it went beyond its territory. It was important that France continued to play an international leadership role in implementing the Optional Protocol.
Mr. Kotrane welcomed the information with regard to new measures on gathering statistics, and hoped that it would be possible for France to bring its data regarding crimes under the Protocol more in line with reality. France was also urged to continue and extend its training programmes and coordination with the various agencies that worked with children. Finally, France should broaden its extraterritorial jurisdiction to ensure that all crimes under the Protocol were covered.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CRC07033E