Experts of the Committee on the Rights of the Child Commend Kazakhstan’s Approach to Artificial Intelligence, Ask about the Planned Social Media Ban for Children and Policies Addressing Pollution
The Committee on the Rights of the Child today concluded its consideration of the fifth and sixth combined periodic reports of Kazakhstan under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, with Committee Experts praising the State’s approach to digitisation and artificial intelligence and raising questions about its planned social media ban for children and policies addressing pollution and climate change.
Sophie Kiladze, Committee Chair, said she was very impressed by the unique way in which Kazakhstan dealt with digitisation and artificial intelligence. She encouraged the State to continue to make use of the opportunities presented by new technologies, while taking their risks very seriously.
Benoit Van Keirsbilck, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member for Kazakhstan, said that there was a plan to ban children’s access to social media. How would the State balance this ban with the right to access information and how would it conduct age assessments?
Mr. Van Keirsbilck said some 42 per cent of children in Kazakhstan were reportedly exposed to pesticides and pollution. Air pollution was also very high in many areas, including around schools and preschools. Were there rules to ensure that school buildings were resilient to climate change?
Introducing the report, Zhuldyz Suleimenova, Minister of Education of Kazakhstan and head of the delegation, said that since 2019, a comprehensive system of State support and protection of children had been gradually formed in Kazakhstan. Legislation had been improved, mechanisms for the protection of children from violence had been strengthened, measures of social support for families had been expanded, and the availability and quality of education had been improved.
To address teacher shortages, the delegation said, the State party was this year launching artificial intelligence-based platforms through which students in small schools could receive education. Education on artificial intelligence had been developed, and the State was preparing a policy framework on how children should safely use artificial intelligence in education.
The delegation also said Kazakhstan had prepared a draft law banning access to social media for children under 16. The State would ask platforms to independently conduct age verification to determine that users were over 16. Restrictions on social networks were applied to address risks of cyber bullying and manipulation.
The State had an Environmental and Climate Risks Committee that identified risks for children on their education and development, the delegation stated. Schools had mandatory safety and sanitary requirements, and every child needed to have permanent access to safe drinking water. The State also provided compensation for harms to health.
In closing remarks, Thuwayba Al Barwani, Committee Expert and Taskforce Coordinator, said the child-friendly laws, frameworks and action plans that the State party had adopted since 2022 were indicative of its political will. The Committee hoped that the State would pay serious attention to its concluding observations and continue to improve the wellbeing of children in the country.
Ms. Suleimenova, in her concluding remarks, said the Committee’s practical recommendations would help enhance the State’s child protection laws and policies and reveal remaining challenges and priority areas for future work. She expressed the State’s willingness to cooperate further with the Committee, international partners and civil society in this regard.
Ms. Kiladze, in closing remarks, said the delegation’s clear, well-structured answers gave the Committee a deeper understanding of the State’s reforms and the challenges it faced. The Committee’s concluding observations would seek to enhance the implementation of the Convention and promote the best interests of all children in Kazakhstan.
The delegation of Kazakhstan consisted of the Vice Minister of Culture and Information and representatives from the Judicial Administration; Ministry of Education; Ministry of Healthcare; Prosecutor General’s Office; Ministry of Labour and Social Protection; Ministry of Internal Affairs; Ministry of Justice; and the Permanent Mission of Kazakhstan to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue the concluding observations on the report of Kazakhstan at the end of its one hundred and first session on 28 September. Those, and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, will be available on the session’s webpage. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Friday, 18 September at 10 a.m. to consider the combined sixth and seventh periodic reports of Tajikistan (CRC/C/TJK/6-7).
Report
The Committee has before it the fifth and sixth combined periodic reports of Kazakhstan (CRC/C/KAZ/5-6).
Presentation of Report
ZHULDYZ SULEIMENOVA, Minister of Education of Kazakhstan and head of the delegation, said the President of Kazakhstan had consistently pursued a policy aimed at developing education, ensuring the well-being of children and protecting their rights and legitimate interests. Since 2019, a comprehensive system of State support and protection of children had been gradually formed in Kazakhstan. Legislation had been improved, mechanisms for the prevention and protection of children from violence had been strengthened, measures of social support for families had been expanded, and the availability and quality of education had been improved. Attention was paid to creating a safe environment for each child and providing timely assistance to children in difficult life situations.
Kazakhstan faithfully complied with the provisions of the Convention and all three Optional Protocols. About seven million children lived in Kazakhstan, almost a third of the population. The development of human capital, education, science and innovation were strategic priorities of the State.
Citizens of Kazakhstan were guaranteed to receive free secondary education in schools. During the reporting period, several systemic reforms were carried out in the education sector. Over the past seven years, education funding had tripled and reached 14.2 billion United States dollars. From 2018 to 2022, the gap between urban and rural schoolchildren in math and science literacy had decreased by five points. Some 80 per cent of students were trained to rate content generated by artificial intelligence. From 1 January 2027, mandatory licensing of kindergartens would be introduced.
All primary school students and children from low-income families in high school were provided with subsidised hot meals. More than 25,000 children from remote rural settlements attended school for free. Over the past five years, 1,120 schools for more than one million pupils had been built, more than 5,000 rural schools had been modernised, and more than 7,000 modern subject classrooms had been opened. The year 2026 was declared the “Year of Digitalisation and Artificial Intelligence”, and artificial intelligence was being introduced into the secondary education system to reduce the gap between urban and rural schools.
Special attention was paid to children with special educational needs. More than 237,000 children received psychological, medical and pedagogical support, and about 17,000 were educated at home. There were 516 special educational organizations, and the draft law on comprehensive support for children with disabilities would strengthen interdepartmental cooperation. In 2026, schools would introduce mandatory courses on the Constitution, law and order and personal security.
Over the years of independence, the mortality rate of children under 5 years old had decreased by 7.5 times. Funding for children's health care had more than doubled - from 260 to 585 billion tenge. Every year, about 1.3 million children were vaccinated against 21 infectious diseases. The vaccination schedule included the vaccination of girls against the human papillomavirus. Since September 2025, a new school nutrition standard had been in effect that led to the reduction of sugar and salt content. The obesity rate among children had decreased from 50.4 to 43.8 per 100,000 children. Separate standards for children's palliative care and care for patients with orphan diseases had been introduced. Adolescents received medical, psychological, social and legal assistance in 90 youth health centres. Psychological support centres had been established in all 20 regions.
Since 2024, the National Fund for Children programme had been implemented. The “Keleshek” educational savings system provided special measures supporting orphans and created opportunities for children to receive education. In 2025, more than 1.4 million people received State benefits, and 606,000 large families received support. More than 113,000 parents and guardians of children with disabilities also received special payments. About 20,000 families received legal, psychological and social assistance in family support centres.
Today, more than 80 per cent of orphans and children left without parental care were brought up in family environments. In 2025, 1,476 apartments were provided to orphans. In 2026, the national children of Kazakhstan strategy for the development of the childhood system was adopted; it combined measures for the protection, development and support of children. Departments for the protection of children's rights had been established in all regions.
In all schools, personal safety lessons were held. Over the past three years, 10 laws had been adopted in Kazakhstan that strengthened the legal protection of children. The principle of zero tolerance for violence was introduced, and the scope of legal responsibility for crimes against minors had been broadened.
The law on combatting trafficking in human beings enshrined special guarantees for the protection of underage victims. Refugee and migrant children had unhindered access to education and health care, regardless of their situation. In 2025, Kazakhstan joined the Global Alliance to End Violence against Children. As part of humanitarian operations, Kazakhstan had returned 572 children from armed conflict zones for rehabilitation, education and further integration. Kazakhstan shared its experience in this regard on international platforms.
The level of bullying in Kazakhstan was below the average for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The average life satisfaction of the State’s schoolchildren was 8.63 points out of 10 – the highest rate among 83 countries and economies. The State was introducing children's SIM cards with parental control functions and had introduced a bill that provided for the restriction of registration on social networks of users under 16 years old.
The State party would continue to work on the implementation of the Convention and was ready for a substantive dialogue with the Committee.
Questions by Committee Experts
THUWAYBA AL BARWANI, Committee Expert and Taskforce Coordinator for Kazakhstan, said that the Committee was encouraged by the progress made by Kazakhstan since the last report. It recognised the efforts of the Government in incorporating the Convention into national legislation and the importance given to the wellbeing of Kazakhstan’s children. The Committee welcomed the State’s successes and took note of the challenges it needed to address.
Kazakhstan’s policy framework for 2026-2030 was the key strategic document concerning children. The Committee welcomed this but was seriously concerned by the 2026 Constitution, which had articles in it that no longer guaranteed that international treaties took precedence over domestic laws. The Constitution also allowed the Constitutional Court to overrule the implementation of decisions made by human rights bodies. Would the State party consider reviewing the Constitution to bring it in line with the Convention? What rights were protected by it? What laws and policies implemented the Convention in Kazakhstan?
In 2002, Kazakhstan had adopted a comprehensive law on the rights of the child. What was the status of this law in light of the new Constitution? What measures were in place to monitor the implementation of this law? Implementation rates varied across regions. How was the State addressing the limited numbers of trained child protection professionals in remote areas?
The Committee welcomed the establishment of the Office of the Commissioner for Children’s Rights and the establishment of the “Children of Kazakhstan” policy framework for 2026 to 2030. Did these have adequate resources and sufficient mechanisms to evaluate their impacts? The Committee for the Protection of Children’s Rights was responsible for coordinating policies and programmes on children’s rights, but it reportedly lacked an independent budget, staff and premises. How was the State ensuring the autonomy of this institution and giving it powers to effectively execute its mandate?
It was not clear whether Kazakhstan had a mechanism for establishing a child rights-based budgeting mechanism. What measures were in place to strengthen audits and anti-corruption measures, to ensure that sufficient resources could be devoted to children’s rights policies? What plans were in place to unify the State’s fragmented data collection on children? How was the State strengthening capacities to effectively collect data to inform policies for children?
The Committee welcomed that Kazakhstan had ratified the Optional Protocol on the communications procedure in 2024. What steps had been taken to ensure that children had access to confidential complaints mechanisms in schools, foster care, alternative care settings and places of deprivation of liberty? What training was provided to officials on child-friendly complaints procedures and remedies? What awareness raising campaigns were in place to educate children about their right to file complaints?
The Committee welcomed the appointment of the Commissioner for Children’s Rights and regional commissioners, but was concerned about the transparency of the appointment process and by the fact that they operated on a voluntary basis. How were these issues being addressed?
TIMOTHY P. T. EKESA, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, called for concrete examples of cases in which a child who had experienced discrimination was able to obtain an effective remedy and the sanctions imposed on perpetrators? How did the State monitor discrimination against vulnerable groups of children? How did the State ensure that children in disadvantaged regions benefitted equally from national child rights programmes?
What measures were in place to ensure that State institutions determined and documented the best interests of the child before taking decisions affecting children? How did the State ensure that the best interests of the child prevailed in cases of conflicts with parents or institutions? Did the State systematically consider the views of children under age 10 in matters affecting them?
What disparities existed between urban and rural areas in terms of child development? How did the State ensure that children living in poverty and vulnerable children in remote areas had equal opportunities to physical, emotional and educational development? How were children involved in developing anti-poverty measures? The Committee welcomed the “Children of Kazakhstan” policy framework for 2026-2030. How were children, including rural children, involved in its development? How would the Government ensure that the Child Wellbeing Index measured disparities between different groups?
BENOIT VAN KEIRSBILCK, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said that Kazakhstan had made important progress in recent years regarding nationality. Why were there still 277 stateless children in Kazakhstan at the time of the submission of the report? Had the State worked to resolve their situation? Children born to undocumented asylum seekers outside medical facilities reportedly had difficulties in obtaining nationality. Could the delegation comment on this? The State had done a great job in repatriating children from war zones, including in Syria and Iraq. How did it work to provide birth certificates to these children?
Had children been investigated, prosecuted and sanctioned for exercising their freedom of expression under new legislation concerning extremism and false information? A restriction on the dissemination of information concerning non-traditional sexual orientation was adopted last December. What safeguards were in place to ensure that children retained access to age-appropriate information on sexual and reproductive health, sexual orientation and gender identity?
Could the delegation provide information on children who had been prevented from organising peaceful assemblies? Could persons under 18 establish, register or lead an independent human rights association?
The “Digital Family Map” was an interesting tool, but it collected geo-location and photographic data. How did the State ensure that children’s right to privacy was protected in this context? There was a plan to ban children’s access to social media. How would the State balance this ban with the right to access information and how would it conduct age assessments?
There had been very important progress in the deinstitutionalisation of children. Was there a national strategy to prevent family separation and placement of children in institutions? How many families had been prevented from institutionalising their children through family support services? There had been an increase in the number of children deprived of a family environment in Kazakhstan over the last two years. Why was this and how was the State addressing this issue? Did children in institutions have access to complaints mechanisms?
There was only one women’s detention centre in Kazakhstan, and it held between 20 and 50 children. In what conditions were they held? How was the separation of incarcerated mothers and their children organised when children reached age three?
MARY BELOFF, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked about indicators and evaluation mechanisms used to measure the impact of the State’s road map on preventing violence against children, given the prevalence of violence against children, and the strategies that were implemented as a result? Could information be provided on early identification measures and measures to improve rehabilitation programmes and the protection of child victims? How could children report acts of violence confidentially? What safeguards were in place to prevent retaliation, stigmatisation or further harm to child victims?
What measures were in place to ensure a child-friendly response to cases of sexual abuse and exploitation of children and prevent revictimisation? How was it ensured that these children were able to report crimes safely and could access protection, assistance and redress during police investigations and judicial proceedings? How was the testimony of a child victim of sexual violence evaluated in cases of absence of physical evidence?
What preventive measures were implemented to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse facilitated by technology such as online grooming, cyberbullying, sextortion and child sexual material generated by artificial intelligence? Were there expedited procedures for the preservation of evidence and the removal of illegal content that did not affect the privacy of the child victim? How was the effectiveness of existing measures evaluated and ensured?
How was the State addressing challenges related to the prevention, reporting and investigation of cases of violence against children? Had the State identified provisions that may make it difficult to report, investigate, prosecute or effectively protect child victims of violence? What reforms were being considered?
How did the State assess the effectiveness of the legal prohibition of corporal punishment in practice? While the State reported a decrease in the percentage of parents who use violent forms of discipline, from 53 to 38 per cent, crimes against children had increased. What mechanisms were in place to monitor violence against children in the family and other care settings, and provide children with the necessary support?
Beyond the reform of article 125-1 of the Criminal Code that criminalised "coercion of marriage" and public campaigns, both very important measures, could Kazakhstan inform the Committee about the current situation regarding the protection of girls from child marriage and what additional measures were being taken to prevent them and protect girls at risk?
Early marriages reportedly continued, and there were reports of family and community pressure on girls not to report cases of abduction or forced marriage. How was the State ensuring that children could report such marriages safely and access protection and support without fear of reprisals? How did the State identify and monitor child marriages, including those celebrated through unregistered religious ceremonies, and did it plan to collect more data in this regard?
What measures had been taken to investigate and prevent physical and psychological violence against children in institutions? How were complaints of ill-treatment in institutions monitored and investigated promptly, independently and effectively? What safeguards ensured that the perpetrators were prosecuted and that child victims received adequate reparations?
With regard to the protection of children from sale and sexual exploitation, could the delegation please provide an update on the measures taken to implement the Committee's previous recommendations, particularly those relating to the investigation, prosecution and effective punishment of offences covered by the Protocol?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that according to the Constitution, Kazakhstan’s international treaty obligations formed part of State law. The revised Constitutional framework did not imply any withdrawal from the State’s international obligations. The provisions on international obligations were intended to ensure legal certainty and consistent application of the law, rather than to restrict the effect of international law. The ability to apply the Convention was enshrined in law. The Constitution strengthened guarantees for social protection, health and education, including for free schooling up to middle school. The Constitutional Court had directly cited the Convention when adopting a decision on a case involving adoption, deciding that the best interests of the child took precedence over those of adoptive parents.
In 2024, Kazakhstan set up a special mechanism to identify, transfer and assist minors who were victims of trafficking in persons. The State had ratified the Optional Protocol on the sale of children and prohibited the practice.
The State had set up the Committee for the Protection of Children’s Rights, which oversaw the implementation of policies and programmes on children’s rights. A survey of children was conducted to seek their views on the State’s framework policy for children.
The State party had in 2015 set up a hotline that children could use to submit complaints of violence. It had received more than 250,000 calls from children thus far, and psychological assistance had been provided to more than 3,000 children. If children did not wish to disclose their confidential data, they did not need to do so.
Since 2020, the State operated a Children’s Wellbeing Index, which included indicators on budgets for children and shares of expenditure on children’s needs. The Index comprised 61 indicators, 25 of which were based on surveys of children and adults. It was a core component of how the State shaped policies on child protection. For each budget programme, Government authorities needed to report on the full amount spent on children. Over the last three years, the budget for children had increased by 51 per cent. Expenditure had particularly increased in priority areas such as education and disability support.
In the past few years, the number of non-governmental organizations in Kazakhstan had increased by 3,000. The new Constitution created a solid basis for work with civil society. Some 156 non-governmental organizations worked to provide support for families and children.
The status and working methods of the Children’s Commissioner were established in 2016. The Commissioner considered complaints from children, established whether rights had been violated, and made recommendations to the Government based on its assessments. The Commissioner had considered around 15,000 complaints. Based on the Commissioner's reports, the State party developed action plans on protecting children’s rights.
Kazakhstan’s laws did not impose a minimum age on children’s views being considered. Children had the right to express their views in any court or administrative investigation. The age of 10 was the threshold for mandatory consideration of children’s views.
All forms of discrimination were prohibited by the State’s Constitution and laws. A working group had been set up to formulate an anti-discrimination law; a draft of this law was currently being assessed by Government bodies.
Under the social support programme, 1.3 million families received benefits amounting to 1.4 billion United States dollars. The State also provided benefits to preschool children and to persons with disabilities; 880 million United States dollars had been provided in disability benefits thus far.
Unaccompanied minors were provided with the same degree of protection as Kazakh citizens. Some 277 stateless children had renounced their former citizenship and would be provided with Kazakh citizenship pursuant to a decision by the Government.
The State party had in 2025 built a penitentiary facility for children with 200 places. It currently held 99 minors. The facility had a medical block, a modern sports facility and educational facilities where convicted children could learn a trade.
Pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers with children could not be placed in solitary confinement or undergo disciplinary measures. Prisons had play areas for children and women with children aged up to two were kept with their children in separate facilities from other convicts. Family support centres worked with women on release to ensure their social adaptation.
The State had provided documentation for children repatriated from Syria and Iraq and excluded the place of birth from birth certificates to prevent future stigmatisation. Among repatriated children, there were high-achieving students and winners of academic prizes. The State party had set up measures for monitoring the quality of services provided to returned children.
In Kazakhstan, around 82 per cent of orphans were brought up in a family environment. A significant portion of these children were raised by relatives. The State party conducted follow-up of foster care services to prevent re-entry into institutions. The State party had organised 218 training sessions for foster carers and set up a professional foster care institute, which was working to ensure that all children could benefit from a family environment. There were quotas for the enrolment of orphans in vocational training and education.
Independent monitoring and unannounced visits of restricted institutions and alternative care were carried out. Anonymous surveys were conducted annually in institutions; in 2026, 236 children reported cases of violations of their rights. Children in institutions could lodge complaints through the 111 helpline; in 2025, the helpline had received over 500 such requests. One complaint of violence had led to a teacher being dismissed.
The State had recently changed its model for caring for child victims of violence to ensure that such children could receive all support services from the State in one place. Last year, a new law on the prevention of offences established a body responsible for coordinating support work for victims. An inter-ministerial plan had been devised to combat violence against children. The State had revised its approach to interviewing child victims, setting up dedicated interview rooms and employing qualified pedagogues. Some 46,000 individual consultations had been carried out in centres for medical and psychosocial support in 2025, and around 600,000 child victims of violence had benefited from rehabilitation services. Police officers, psychologists and educators underwent annual training on responding to violence against children.
The Constitution guaranteed children’s right to freedom of expression and freedom to disseminate information. The law banning lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex propaganda did not ban persons belonging to this community. There was no requirement for organisers of peaceful assemblies to be over 18 years old. State law did not prohibit the dissemination of sexual and reproductive health information. Sexual and reproductive health education was included in the school curriculum and schools organised a reproductive health week.
Kazakhstan had prepared a draft law banning access to social media for children under 16. The State’s approach in this regard was more humaine than others. The State asked platforms to independently conduct age verification to determine that users were over 16. Restrictions on social networks were applied to address risks of cyber bullying and manipulation
The official age of marriage in Kazakhstan was 18 years. The marriage age could be reduced to 16 only under certain conditions, such as in cases of pregnancy. Imams were strictly forbidden from conducting marriage rights without official marriage certificates from authorities. The abduction of brides was viewed as a serious offence. This year, 14 cases of abductions had been referred to the courts. The State party was conducting awareness raising on preventing early marriages and pregnancies in high-risk areas. Over the last 10 years, the number of marriages involving minors had halved, from more than 1,000 annual cases in 2013 to 664 in 2025.
The State party was working to improve infrastructure for rural schools. It had modernised more than 3,000 schools in 2023, improving educational conditions for over a million pupils. There were plans to construct a further 84 rural schools and to renovate several existing schools. The State party was implementing a project to introduce artificial intelligence in all schools. The law on the status of teachers provided for a salary increase of no lower than 20 per cent for rural teachers. The law on education established the equal right of all citizens to a quality education.
Questions by Committee Experts
MARY BELOFF, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked about measures taken to implement the Committee’s previous concluding observations on prosecutions and punishments for offences covered by the Optional Protocol on the sale of children. Had there been difficulties in carrying out investigations into these crimes? Had the State party compiled data on the efficacy of recovery and reintegration measures for child victims? Did child victims continue to benefit from follow-up and monitoring after receiving rehabilitation services? Was there a protocol for interviews of children? Did police officers and judicial officials receive training on child-sensitive interviews?
What measures were in place to protect families with children from forced evictions? Ms. Beloff highlighted efforts by the State to ensure that multilingual education was provided. Was the Coordination Council for combatting the worst forms of child labour effective in addressing this systemic issue? In agricultural areas, a high proportion of children were active in labour. What measures were in place to address the economic and social causes that led to child labour? Did the State assess the efficacy of its measures in this regard?
Did children in street situations benefit from protection measures such as early detection and referral? How did the State oversee the reintegration of these children into society?
Kazakhstan had undertaken a major transformation regarding juvenile justice. How was it addressing remaining challenges in this field? Had the transfer of management of medical services in detention centres from the Ministry of Interior to the Ministry of Health been effective? Was there a public-private partnership regarding the provision of education in institutional facilities for minors? What were the criteria for placing children in secure facilities?
BENOIT VAN KEIRSBILCK, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said that the Ombudsman was appointed by the President and did not have access to independent finances. Could the delegation comment on its independence? What awareness raising and training was provided on the Committee’s communications procedure? What measures were in place to help former adoptees to access information on their origin? How were the children of incarcerated parents supported to keep in contact with their parents and protected from stigmatisation?
Some 75 per cent of Kazakhstan’s territory was exposed to the growing risks of climate change. Some 42 per cent of children were reportedly exposed to pesticides and pollution. Exposure to hazardous waste in contaminated areas such as Shymkent was prevalent. Air pollution was also very high in many areas, including around schools and preschools. Were there rules to ensure that school buildings were resilient to climate change? How did the State ensure the meaningful participation of children in developing climate and disaster response policies? Were there specific disaster response policies that aimed to protect children? Did environmental impact assessments address impacts on children?
THUWAYBA AL BARWANI, Committee Expert and Taskforce Coordinator, congratulated the State on the adoption of legislation promoting the rights of persons with disabilities and the 2030 concept on inclusive policy. The State’s disability policy was still built on the medical paradigm. How would it transition to a human rights-based model? What awareness raising campaigns on disability rights were being conducted? Children with disabilities continued to face stigma in communities. Medical practitioners continued to refer children with disabilities to segregated settings and closed institutions. How was the State working to correct this practice? How did the State ensure that early intervention and prevention facilities were available in rural areas and for migrant children? The State needed to address the declining value of the disability benefit, which prevented access for other social benefits.
There were some schools in remote areas that struggled to employ qualified teachers. How was the State addressing the shortage of teachers in these areas? The reduction in the gap in performance between urban and rural areas was positive, but more effort was needed in this regard. How did the State ensure that students attending small schools achieved equal outcomes to those in large schools?
How did the State ensure that its language policy did not affect minority learners’ educational outcomes? What impact did trilingual education for children in rural areas have? How did the State guarantee educational opportunities for children whose first language was neither Kazakh nor Russian?
Some 50.5 per cent of children with disabilities were integrated in regular schools. What reasonable accommodation policies were in place to ensure that they were fully included in these schools?
TIMOTHY P. T. EKESA, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, noted measures taken to reduce the under-five mortality rate. What were current mortality rates by region? What barriers remained for vulnerable women to access prenatal and maternal health care? Could data on current vaccination rates for children be provided? The Committee congratulated the State on the Eurasian Fund for Stabilisation and Development, which promoted breastfeeding. What percentage of infants were exclusively breastfed up to six months of age? What measures were in place to enforce the ban on the sale and marketing of unhealthy foods and sugary drinks?
Could the State party provide data on access to healthcare for migrants, refugees and asylum seekers? Could information on the system for safeguarding the mental health of children be provided? What measures were in place to ensure that “minor parents” could continue their education and receive social and psychosocial support without discrimination? What assessments had the State conducted on the impact of air, water and soil pollution on children’s health, particularly in industrial regions?
The State party was concerned by the increase in offences involving children and narcotic drugs in recent years. What was driving this increase and what measures were in place to prevent such cases and promote rehabilitation outside of the criminal justice system?
Other Committee Experts asked about the age from which children could access SIM cards; plans to harmonise the Family Code with the Convention regarding the requirement to present an identity card when registering the birth of a child; measures to combat illegal adoption practices and promote free-of-charge birth registration; whether children without civil status could be registered in schools; measures to ensure oversight of the use of artificial intelligence in schools; procedures to ensure that police officers proactively investigated family abuse cases; and how the State ensured the accountability of schools for cases of bullying of children.
Other questions included how the State planned to conduct independent monitoring of professional foster carers; who was responsible for ensuring the protection of children during investigations of family abuse cases; the timeline for achieving full deinstitutionalisation and services being developed to support children to return to a family environment; the status of care for children repatriated from Iraq and Syria; whether the Optional Protocol on the sale of children could be considered as legal grounds for extradition of a perpetrator of crimes under the Protocol; obstacles to increasing the minimum age of marriage to 18 without exception; actions to prevent digital violence against children and identity theft using artificial intelligence; and age limits for children held in the State’s accommodation facilities for children.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the Committee for Child Protection was a state body that worked to protect children in the areas of foster care, guardianship and international adoptions. It was competent under the Hague Convention.
Since the last review, there had been a significant increase in the quality and quantity of data on children collected in Kazakhstan. There was no single centralised database but a broad system of data on children’s health, social protection, disability and alternative care. The Children’s Wellbeing Index allowed the State to compare the situation of children across regions. Since 2024, data had been disaggregated by sex, age and region. The State was working to address gaps in data and to make it more comparable.
The Children’s Commissioner produced reports each year that had a practical impact. Following the 2026 report, more than 150 response measures were implemented. The Commissioner had over the last three years considered more than 15,000 complaints from adults and children and conducted follow-up, which in some cases led to criminal investigations. Regional commissioners had carried out visits to more than 75 villages and 200 families to respond to complaints.
To prevent the revictimisation of child victims, children had access to assistance from a psychologist and interviewers used a standardised list of questions that considered the age of the minor. There were specialised women investigators who investigated sexual violence against minors. Over the last three years, eight seminars had been held in the judicial academy on investigating sexual violence cases. A new decree was adopted in February that broadened the definition of crimes of sexual assault.
The hospitalisation of children took place in accordance with the law, based on medical expertise. Oversight of hospitalisations was carried out and complaints could be submitted. Crimes of torture against minors carried the highest penalty under State law, and investigations of such crimes followed the Istanbul Protocol.
The State party had adopted comprehensive measures to investigate and identify crimes under the Optional Protocol on the sale of children. In 2024, a law was adopted to counteract trafficking in persons. The Criminal Code provided penalties for online exploitation and for providing sexual services of any kind. Persons who used prostitution services involving minors were held criminally responsible.
The State party was strengthening assistance for children who left care institutions. Individual support plans were developed for each child leaving an institution. The State had trained 20 mentors and psychologists on working with these children.
There were courses on the fundamentals of the Constitution and on law and order that were being introduced into education curricula. The State party had carried out a broad information campaign to inform children about how to use the Committee’s communications procedure. There was an interministerial procedure for assessing communications. The State had yet to receive communications through the Protocol, but it would assess such communications as required.
The State protected the confidentiality of adoptions but also protected children’s right to know their own origin. The State had received 15 requests for information on biological parents, and children were provided with this information with the approval of the parents.
In 2023, a child SIM card was introduced in Kazakhstan to address the fact that more children were using the internet from a young age. Some 60 per cent of children aged nine and 10 already had a social media account. The “kids SIM cards” automatically restricted content related to suicide, drugs and gambling. There was no formal age limit for the SIM card, and more than 300,000 parents had expressed interest in it. The State wished to control the digital environment surrounding children, not the children themselves.
Kazakhstan took constant measures to ensure the universal registration of child births. In 2025, the State adopted a rule making it easier for mothers who were undocumented to register the births of their children. The rule also made it easier to register births outside of medical facilities. The lack of documents on past education was not an obstacle for enrolment in educational institutions. If children did not have identity documents, they were provided with migration status that allowed for their enrolment.
There were provisions introduced to the Code on Administrative Offences that established penalties for failing to respond to a child’s report of violence. The State had held 348 individuals to account for this in 2024. In all regions, there were mobile groups working to detect individuals in difficult situations and provide them with necessary support. The State party conducted various awareness raising campaigns on the prevention and identification of violence against children.
The State party was working to achieve deinstitutionalisation by 2030. When children could not remain with their biological families, alternative care measures such as professional foster families were provided. Legal changes had been made to ensure that children in foster care could receive all support services available for children in institutions. Surveys of foster families were carried out periodically to identify cases of abuse of children, and carers were held to account in all such cases.
The State party prioritised early detection and intervention for children with disabilities. It had trained several thousand doctors on early detection of development problems. Women were given free prenatal screening and referred to child support services if defects were found. Two home visits were conducted each year for families with children with disabilities to address potential problems.
The Government had adopted the Code on Inclusive Education and a law on increasing the quality of life of persons with disabilities. There were more than 237,000 children with special education needs, around 90 per cent of whom were already receiving specialised psychological and medical support. Some 121,000 children with disabilities studied in normal schools. The State devised individualised curricula for children with disabilities and had enhanced school infrastructure to allow for more medical and psychological consultations. A new inter-agency plan for inclusive education was drawn up for 2026 to 2030.
There had been a significant reduction in child and infant and mother mortality in recent years, particularly in northern Kazakhstan. The Government was working to modernise health infrastructure and provide support for pregnant women. Each region had a health plan, and the State monitored critical health indicators for pregnant women and children in remote areas and organised tele-medical consultations and transport to health facilities as required. Free assistance was provided in perinatal centres and children’s hospitals.
Refugees and asylum seekers living permanently in Kazakhstan were guaranteed free medial care on an equal footing with Kazakh citizens. For temporary residents and migrants, the share of coverage by the State was determined by law. Full vaccine coverage was provided for all. For 2025 and 2026, obstetric and midwife care had been provided to 5,000 foreign women.
In 2025, the State party unified methodologies for identifying the risks of bullying and harassment. Social support services were widely provided in schools. When extreme risks were detected, children were immediately referred to support services. In 2025, 190 children lost their lives to suicide. Most cases occurred in the southern regions of the country. The State party was working to identify risks early and provide constant assistance to children.
Kazakhstan had developed laws on the dissemination of harmful information and on the use of artificial intelligence, which included provisions prohibiting the use of artificial intelligence to manipulate children and protecting the privacy rights of child users. The State took legal measures in response to cases of cyber harassment, including fines for the perpetrator. When perpetrators were minors, parents could also be held accountable.
The State had a comprehensive plan to address underage use of narcotic drugs. A system had been set up that allowed for the automatic detection of persons seeking narcotics on the Telegram network. The Government had blocked 11,000 pieces of illegal online content. A tool had been developed that allowed families to block access to gambling websites, and 6,000 such sites had been blocked by the State.
Kazakhstan was fighting forced child labour. It had ratified relevant International Labour Organization Conventions on the worst forms of child labour. Labour legislation prohibited children from participating in hazardous work and held persons who involved children in such work criminally liable. Labour inspectors conducted visits to schools and employment sites to detect cases of child labour and had issued fines to several employers. Awareness raising campaigns were also carried out on the dangers of child labour. The State had a system for monitoring labour contracts, which allowed for the detection of contracts with minors.
The State had an Environmental and Climate Risks Committee that identified risks for children on their education and development. There was an Environmental Code in place, a strategy for achieving carbon neutrality by 2060, and a framework policy for shifting towards a green economy. Schools had mandatory safety and sanitary requirements. Every child needed to have permanent access to safe drinking water. The State also provided compensation for harms to health and social protection measures. During the 2024 floods, more than 120,000 people were rescued and evacuated, including many children. The State had since carried out 765 anti-flood measures. The Environmental Code enshrined the responsibility of corporate entities for conducting environmental impact assessments.
Questions by Committee Experts
MARY BELOFF, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked whether the State was competent to investigate cases of recruitment of Kazakh children in armed conflict abroad. Did the State plan to adopt measures to address gaps in legislation related to implementation of the Optional Protocol on the sale of children? What criteria were used for placing children in places of deprivation of liberty? The number of reports of violence against children in Kazakhstan remained low despite recent legal amendments; why was this?
THUWAYBA AL BARWANI, Committee Expert and Taskforce Coordinator, asked what the Government was doing to ensure regular and detailed reporting on the impact of business activities on children’s rights. What family-friendly policies were in place? Who appointed regional children’s commissioners? Were they compensated for their work? How did the State monitor the impact of its inclusive educational policies for children with disabilities?
BENOIT VAN KEIRSBILCK, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said that several categories of persons, including refugees, single parents and pregnant women, did not receive targeted social assistance and there were obstacles to benefitting from it. Would the State reconsider the obligation to be employed to receive this assistance? The introduction of voucher-based financing for early education in Kazakhstan indicated that this education was not free. Would the State work to make early education free? How much would this cost? How did the State ensure that children could exercise religious freedom? Was there an example of a child receiving compensation for harm caused by a company?
TIMOTHY P. T. EKESA, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked how the State prevented young people from being affected by deepfakes. Had the new programme providing free meals for children in schools commenced in September as planned?
Other Committee Experts asked about the average time taken to determine children’s migration status; plans to investigate the large number of mental health problems affecting girls in rural areas; the number of children who did not receive full health coverage and the potential cost of expanding coverage; how the different helplines provided for children complemented each other; the number of children with disabilities currently living in residential institutions and the authority responsible for protecting their rights; how children in residential institutions could make confidential complaints, and follow-up actions implemented in response to complaints.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Kazakhstan did not participate in any armed conflicts and did not allow the participation of children in them. The recruitment of minors in armed conflict abroad was a very serious crime under State legislation. Such crimes were monitored by law enforcement bodies. The State was working to prevent the indoctrination of citizens in terrorist ideologies. The prosecution of crimes committed abroad was carried out in accordance with international treaties to which Kazakhstan was a party. If Kazakh citizens committed crimes abroad, they could be held to account in Kazakhstan if they had not been previously prosecuted in another country.
The State party had developed its legislation concerning business responsibility. It defined social responsibility for entrepreneurs in the Entrepreneurial Code. There were fines issued to businesses that did not comply with their obligations. The new Environmental Code foresaw mandatory environmental impact assessments for activities that could have a significant impact on the environment and health of the population. In 2024, 2,600 administrative fines were issued for breaches of the Environmental Code. There were measures in place to eradicate environmental damage and impose remedial work when full restoration was not possible.
The Regional Children’s Commissioners worked directly with children in regional areas. There was no guaranteed State budget for their activities yet.
The State party had an inclusive education centre that assessed the school performance of children with disabilities. It established a standard for pedagogical support for children with disabilities in 2020. Support for these children was determined on an individual basis. There were 11,000 specially trained teachers working with children with disabilities. The State expected the rate of children with disabilities enrolled in mainstream schools to increase to 60 per cent by 2030.
The State was working to enhance the social support system. By 2027, it planned to optimise 14 forms of social benefits that were linked to family wellbeing. The digital family map made it possible to identify citizens in need of assistance and begin payment of social entitlements. Targeted support was provided to 144,000 families living below the poverty line. Migrants and stateless persons who were permanent residents could receive targeted social protection if they met the conditions set out in law. Benefits were also provided for children of preschool age.
Children had the right to refuse invasive medical treatment, including prophylactic treatment, and surgical abortion procedures required the consent of parents. In cases of early pregnancies, holistic, confidential support was provided. Abortion was provided when there were dangers to the mother’s health.
Free hot meals were already provided to 1.6 million school students and to 99 per cent of children from socially vulnerable categories. There were various measures in place to expand access to preschool education, which was free of charge. For example, the State was expanding existing preschools and constructing new ones. By the end of 2027, the State intended to open an additional 68,000 new places in preschools. The voucher-based model for preschool education was being rolled out in 20 cities as part of a pilot project in 2026 and would be expanded if it was successful.
State law enshrined the right to freedom of conscience and religion for children and there were no legal restrictions on this right.
In 2020, children’s digital literacy rate was around 67 per cent; it was 87 per cent in 2025. The ban on social media for children under 16 aimed to protect children.
The birth of a child could not be used as grounds to stop a minor’s education. When necessary, individualised flexible curricula could be developed for minor parents. Minor parents had the right to live with their child and participate in bringing them up. Minor parents younger than 16 shared guardianship with an adult relative. These minors were not separated from their children.
Applicants for refugee status had their applications assessed over a three-month period, though this period could be extended up to one year. These persons were given temporary residency status that allowed them to access education. There were currently 28 asylum-seeking children and 64 refugee children in Kazakhstan.
The State party was implementing measures to set up centres that provided psychological assistance to children. Primary healthcare centres had provided mental health treatment to around 1,500 children per year. There were 93 child psychologists and remote consultations were available.
In 2024, the State created the “111” contact centre, which unified its different helplines. The centre tracked whether children who made complaints received assistance and followed up on their cases periodically to assess whether further help was needed. It had encouraged an increase in reports of violence against children. Not all reports led to the registration of court cases, but they allowed for early detection of violence.
Kazakhstan had 21 residential centres for children with disabilities. The State was developing its family support system to help children with disabilities to remain in a family environment. The national preventive mechanism carried out independent monitoring of closed institutions to assess the living conditions of children with disabilities. In 2025, it visited 71 such institutions, including three institutions for children. Local social protection authorities had also carried out monitoring visits and had identified more than 100 children whose rights were violated.
The State party introduced a new juvenile justice system in 2026 that expanded possibilities for identifying juvenile offenders and children in street situations, as well as child victims of violence. There were four special organizations that received children who committed administrative offences regularly, and one special regime for children below the age of criminal liability who committed criminal offences. These organizations aimed to ensure education and resocialisation. Children were not automatically institutionalised.
In Kazakhstan, there were 71,000 children studying in Uzbek, 14,000 in Uigur and around 3,000 in Tajik. The State’s language policy aimed to preserve the opportunity for pupils to receive education in their mother tongue while ensuring the study of the State language.
To address teacher shortages, the State party was this year launching artificial intelligence-based platforms through which students in small schools could receive education. Education on artificial intelligence had been developed and the State was preparing a policy framework on how children should safely use artificial intelligence in education.
The minimum age of marriage for men and women was 18 but this could be reduced to 16 when there was a pregnancy or with the consent of the minors themselves and their parents. This was a protective measure that ensured that pregnant girls could live in a family environment. The State party would consider other ways of protecting pregnant girls without allowing marriages before age 18.
Questions by a Committee Expert
BENOIT VAN KEIRSBILCK, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said that conversion therapies were still practiced in Kazakhstan, and unnecessary surgeries were still imposed on intersex children. Were there plans to ban such interventions? Under which conditions could a child change their gender?
Concluding Statements
THUWAYBA AL BARWANI, Committee Expert and Taskforce Coordinator, thanked the delegation for its participation in the dialogue. She said that the Committee was encouraged by the State party’s dedication and enthusiasm to improve the well-being of all children in the country. All the child-friendly laws, frameworks and action plans that the State party had adopted since 2022 were indicative of the Government’s political will.
Kazakhstan had not shied away from its challenges, so the Committee was confident that these would be addressed. New challenges would continue to emerge, and the Committee hoped that the State would pay serious attention to its concluding observations and continue to work to improve the wellbeing of children in the country. It also hoped that the State would pay special attention to aligning its laws with the Convention, promoting coordination between sectors serving children, eliminating violence in all settings, and providing care for children in difficult life situations.
ZHULDYZ SULEIMENOVA, Minister of Education and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the opportunity to present Kazakhstan’s achievements in the sphere of child protection. The President was pursuing systematic reform to enhance children’s capacity and wellbeing. The State affirmed its dedication to the purposes and principles of the Convention and its Optional Protocols. It intended to continue to consistently strengthen its child protection system.
Ms. Suleimenova thanked the Committee for the constructive dialogue. The Committee’s practical recommendations would help enhance the State’s child protection laws and policies and reveal remaining challenges and priority areas for future work. She expressed gratitude to all international partners and organizations for their work on children’s rights in Kazakhstan and expressed the State’s willingness to cooperate further with the Committee, international partners and civil society in this regard.
SOPHIE KILADZE, Committee Chair, said the delegation’s clear, well-structured answers gave the Committee a deeper understanding of the State’s reforms and the challenges it faced. It was very important that Kazakhstan understood these challenges and what needed to be done to realise the rights of all children in its territory. The Committee’s concluding observations would seek to enhance the implementation of the Convention and promote the best interests of all children in Kazakhstan. Ms. Kiladze expressed hope that the State party would implement them before its next dialogue with the Committee.
She said that she was very impressed by the unique way in which Kazakhstan dealt with digitisation and artificial intelligence. This was important work, but it needed many safeguards for children. She encouraged the State to continue to make use of the opportunities presented by new technologies such as artificial intelligence, while taking their risks very seriously.
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CED26.017E