MONITORING VIOLATIONS AGAINST CHILDREN DURING ARMED CONFLICTChristine Watkins & Subajini JayasekaranInternational child protection consultants

chris@cwatkins.force9.co.uk sjayasekaran@gmail.com

Impact of grave violations against children

Impact of grave violations against children

In 1996, Graca Machel presented her ground-breaking study on the Impact of Armed Conflict on Children to the UN General Assembly. Her work brought international attention and focus on how modern wars and conflicts were affecting the lives of children in a myriad of ways.

SC Res. 1820SC Res. 1960

SC Res. 1888

SC Res. 1325

SC Res. 1261

Milestones in the children and armed conflict agenda

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

20012002

2003

2004

2007

2008

Study on the impact of armed

conflict on children,

prepared by Ms. Graça Machel

SC Res. 1379 SC Res. 1612

2009

SC Res. 1882

Optional Protocol to the CRC on the Involvement of

Children in Armed Conflict

Rome Statute of ICC

SC Res. 1460

SC Res. 1539SC Res. 1314

Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention

Convention on Cluster Munitions

Paris Principles

2005

2006

2010

Articulating the need for monitoring in conflictAn effective international system for the protection of children's rights must be based on the accountability of Governments and other actors. This in turn requires prompt, efficient and objective monitoring…” (Machel, 1996)

In 2004 the UN Security Council called for the urgent establishment of a monitoring and reporting mechanism. (UN SC Resolution 1539)

Efforts to Measure and Monitor Children’s Rights in ConflictMany initiatives at local and global levels. For e.g.. Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers -

research and monitoring and the regular publication of the Child Soldiers Global Report

Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict – formed by leading human rights and humanitarian organisations, in order to better monitor and report violations against children in conflict.

The UN Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism on Grave Violations Against Children in Conflict (MRM)

THE MRM

• Establish Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism in selected countries in conflict (currently implemented in 13 countries);

• A Working Group is established at the UN Security Council in New York to specifically focus on Children and Armed Conflict issues and reports;

• Task Force established at country level lead by UN;• The country Task Force submits information to the UN Secretary-General; whose team reviews

and prepares reports for the Security Council;• The UN should engage with armed forces/groups who are parties to the conflict to develop

action plans for children affected by armed conflict; • Support national institutions and local civil society networks for response mechanisms to

violations;• Bringing perpetrators to justice: Member States are called upon to take decisive and immediate

action against persistent perpetrators of violations

UN Security Council Resolutions 1612 and 1882 mandated the UN Secretary General to establish a Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism on grave violations against children in situations of armed conflict. Main implications of the Resolutions:

The MRM is NOT conducted to directly secure criminal prosecutions or contribute to national or international criminal processes.

The MRM – Violations to be Monitored

1. Killing and maiming

2. Use and recruitment of children by armed forces or armed groups

3. Sexual violence against children

4. Attacks on schools and hospitals

5. Abduction of children

6. Denial of access to humanitarian assistance

The MRM focuses ONLY on grave violations committed against children by armed forces and armed groups, in the context of an armed conflict.

*In some countries additional violation(s) were added as serious concern for that context. For example: illegal detention, torture, forced displacement, piracy

Challenges to monitoring in ConflictMonitoring children’s rights amidst conflict is challenging; to monitor grave violations of these rights perpetrated by parties to conflict compounds these difficulties further.

This affects the ability to collect and analyse data in a consistent, uniform and rigorous methodology.

Challenges of monitoring in conflict• Lack of access

- Armed forces or armed groups deny access- Agency’s security personnel limit movements- Geographical impediments (e.g. roads impassable in rainy season)- Transport limitations

• Direct security risks- Fear of, or actual retribution (victims or witnesses), for reporting violations- Threats to staff & their families- Risk of kidnapping of humanitarian staff

• Data management- Working in a climate where maintaining confidentiality maybe alien to the culture- Lack of electronic means to transfer information- Telephone network is not secure

• Responses- Lack of services to enable an appropriate response for victims- Lack of access to the parties to carry out advocacy- Implications of advocacy on local organisations or victims/families

Monitoring ApproachesFrom our experience, we highlight three different debates that recur frequently in the design of monitoring systems.

1. Accuracy versus Coverage

2. Approach of Human Rights Organisations vs. Humanitarian Organisations

3. Quantitative vs. Qualitative Approaches

In exploring these dilemmas, we present different case studies that illustrate how these issues have been addressed in different country contexts. These draw out best practise with regards to data collection, development of indicators and information analysis.

1. Monitoring Approaches: Accuracy versus Coverage

While this is a challenge for any monitoring methodology, the dilemma here is particularly acute. How high or low should the bar be kept for verification?

Accuracy – Monitoring and reporting of violations has serious implications for armed forces or groups who are reported on. Accuracy also means more credibility; and greater weight to advocate for change.

Coverage – On the other hand, security and access already limit information that is available. There is criticism for example that the MRM does not reflect the actual realities on the ground; and that imposing rigid verification criteria means that many reports are not included.

Finding a BALANCE.

Case Study 1: Coverage in Central African Republic and Accuracy in Sudan

A nationwide household survey in the Central African Republic enabled a measurement of the extent of violations occurring and showed that previously only a small percentage had been reported through the conventional monitoring as opposed to the neighbourhood survey conducted. Argument that whilst there will be false positives this is outweighed by the ability to measure the extent of the violations.

In contrast, in Sudan the MRM documented 40 cases of recruitment and use of children by one specific armed group. But as this was well documented, in advocacy with the armed group, the leaders of this group accepted that this was an issue. This provided a basis for discussion on release of children and prevention of further recruitment. Hence, accurate evidence which established a pattern was sufficient to take dialogue forward.

2. Monitoring Approaches: Human Rights vs. Humanitarian Organisations

To what extent should the system rely on human rights monitoring or can humanitarian organisations provide credible information? Human Rights organisations have capacity and knowledge to undertake

sensitive monitoring work. But often, they are not present or their work is restricted in areas of conflict.

On the contrary, humanitarian organisations are usually more present on the ground with affected children and communities. Yet participation in politically sensitive monitoring activities could jeopardize their ability to provide life saving humanitarian activities. Some humanitarian organisations have argued that there is a responsibility to bear witness to atrocities; while others point out that this risks expulsion which would result in communities not receiving life saving aid.

FINDING SAFE AND TRUSTED CHANNELS FOR HUMANITARIAN STAFF AND ORGANISATIONS TO SHARE INFORMATION CONFIDENTIALLY.

Case Study 2: Information gathering in an African country

• Monitors with a specific remit to gather information on violations against children

• Monitors with a specific remit to gather information on human rights violations• UN organisations who collect information on specific violations

- OCHA: denial of humanitarian access- WHO: attacks on schools- Education cluster: attacks on schools

• UN & NGO programme field staff, service providers• NGO networks, child protection committees – ways for humanitarian actors to

‘alert’ monitors; feedback to humanitarian actors on how information is reported to ensure that identifying information is removed.

To respond to the challenges, one country where we work in Africa, sought to access information when and where possible, from a range of organisations and using a mix of methods. For example:

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY INFORMATION IS PROVIDED

… but implementation challenges:• Standardisation• Data validation• Coordination• Security of information• Information management systems• Confidentiality vs public information• Feedback to organisations and maintaining motivation• Duty of care for staff working in an insecure environment

3. Monitoring Approaches: Qualitative vs. Quantitative

The MRM calls for establishing patterns and trends of grave violations against children some quantitative analysis is required. But quantitative methodologies are relatively new to human rights monitoring work.

Arguments for a Qualitative Approach:

Archer (2010) highlights the preference of some human rights practitioners for qualitative approaches as opposed to quantitative. He notes that reservations fall into two categories.

(a) Principle: Aggregation of data takes away the personal nature of many human rights violations;

(b) How: Difficulties in applying quantitative techniques in human rights monitoring. For example, many have criticised the MRM of under-reporting and that data maybe misinterpreted to represent the sum of grave violations rather than only what is reported and verified.

Some have argued that the pure presentation of numbers of violations takes away from the horror experienced by each victim and survivor.

3. Monitoring Approaches: Qualitative vs. Quantitative

Arguments for a Quantitative Approach:

On the other hand, we have experienced great benefits in establishing patterns and trends of grave violations against children.• Patterns or trends carry more weight when undertaking evidence based

advocacy with senior ranks of armed forces/groups; as opposed to single isolated incidents. This can help to push the case for systemic changes in the armed entity.

• Patterns and trends of violations can help prioritize areas and services to support and respond to survivors; and plan targeted interventions for the prevention of violations.

• For the purposes of the MRM reporting to the Security Council, armed forces and groups are only “listed” for repeated violations which establish a pattern, rather than for isolated incidents.

AGAIN, FINDING A BALANCE. INCORPORATING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE DATA.

Case Study 3: Advocating in Sri LankaDocumented evidence of child recruitment enabled analysis that was used for advocacy with the LTTE and for briefing others

Case Study 3: Impact in Sri Lanka• For many years the LTTE strenuously denied recruitment of

children but with the evidence, they admitted that they did have children and developed an Action Plan to release children and reintegrate to their communities.

• The European Union imposed travel sanctions on senior LTTE members

• Monitoring trends closely enabled humanitarian agencies to identify specific patterns and put in place prevention mechanisms:

It had been noted that significant recruitment occurred during temple festivals; humanitarian organisations organised a rota to be present at the festivals and no recruitment occurred at the festivals attended.

Result – child soldiers reunited with families