CRC. This chapter is devoted to an exploration of the meaning of this right, its implications in the asylum context and whether or not the relevant provisions of the CEAS instruments comply with it. The format of the chapter is similar to previous chapters. The first substantive section (4.2) is devoted to an elucidation of the meaning of the right. For ease of analysis, the right is explored along three lines: the right to a hearing (4.2.1); the conduct of the hearing (4.2.2); and the evaluation of the child’s views (4.2.3). The next section (4.3) scrutinises the extent to which the CEAS instruments are compliant with the three dimensions of right of the child to be heard. The final section (4.4) examines the prospects for enhanced compliance in Phase Two. In terms of which CEAS instruments are implicated by the right of the child to be heard, as might be expected, the APD is the critical instrument.
CRC. As outlined in Chapter 2, the best interests principle mandates an individual- ized assessment of all relevant facts in order to identify from the available options which is best. Since the admissibility procedure excludes from con- sideration the facts relating to the substance of the claim, it circumvents a best interests assessment. Having dealt with the matter of the personal interview at first instance, there are two remaining procedures which must be evaluated in the light of the right of the child to be heard: the procedures for withdrawing refugee status and the appeals procedures.
CRC. The inclusion of this provision in the direct- ive, with its specific reference to appropriate mental health care and qualified counselling, is praiseworthy. However, it does not accurately reflect the terms of Article 39 CRC. Notably the references to ‘all appropriate measures’ and to ‘an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child’ are omitted. This is not a question of squabbling over wording; these omissions are significant. The holistic approach advanced in Article 39 CRC is essential in the context of traumatized child asylum seekers where it is well established that the medical or ‘sickness’ model of rehabilitation is a limited one.38 First, the medical model pathologises responses to trauma rather than 37 Emphasis added.
CRC. Indeed, the issue of resource constraints is expressly factored into the obligation of conduct in Article 27(3) which obliges states to act ‘in accordance with national conditions and within their means’. As such, resource constraints operate as a functional limitation on the right of the child to an adequate standard of living. In this context, the question arises as to the permissible limits of the limitation, or, in other words, the minimum absolute obligation. Recalling that the minimum obligation corresponds with the duty to take steps towards the full realisation of the right, it can be observed that Article 27(3) envisages two steps: 1) to take appropriate measures to assist parents to implement the right; and 2) to provide in case of need material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing. As regards the first, the term ‘appropriate’ leaves a large measure of discretion to States Parties about which measures they take to assist parents. Nevertheless, demonstrable measures must be taken. As regards the second, there is no leeway (c.f. ‘shall in case of need provide’). Consequently States Parties are under an obligation to provide for basic human needs. Any erosion of the right beyond this level would be incompatible with human dignity. This is consistent with the approach of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which states in General Comment No. 3: […] [a] minimum core obligation to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, minimum essential levels of each of the rights is incumbent upon every State Party. Thus for example, a State Party in which any significant number of individuals is deprived of essential foodstuffs, of essential primary health care, of basic shelter and housing, or of the most basic forms of education is, prima facie, failing to dis- charge its obligations under the Covenant [emphasis added].64 This is also consistent with the approach of the ECtHR in two recent cases in which the Court found a violation of Article 3 ECHR because the respondent state failed to ensure the most basic standard of living for the applicant asylum seekers with the result that there were homeless and destitute. In M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece, the Court revised its earlier case-law that Article 3 ECHR does not entail any general obligation to give refugees financial assistance to
CRC. The article relating to accommodation in kind is also improved from a child-rights per- spective. However, the article on reception conditions in situations other than direct provision is still arguably discriminatory when compared with the situation of similarly-situated national children and it remains possible under Chapter III to reduce or withdraw reception conditions of minors below the minimum essential obligation inherent in the right of the child to an adequate standard of living. It is unclear how these provisions interact with the broad statement of principle in the revised article on minors. Therefore, the standard of living for most, but not all, asylum seeking children is improved under the proposed recast. 75 COM (2008) 815 final, Article 17(5).
CRC. CRC shall not during the Term of the Management Agreement (a) be directly or indirectly affiliated with Manager or the Facility, whether as joint venturer or otherwise, (b) be employed by Manager or, to the knowledge of Manager, any entity having any contractual relationship with Manager, with regard to the Facility, or (c) directly or indirectly receive any payment or anything of value from Manager from or out of the Management Fee or any other payment made to Manager by the Band or the Facility. Manager agrees to indemnify the Band and its members and hold them harmless against all loss, liability and expense relating to claims, of whatever kind or nature, of CRC against any one or more of them. The Band consents to the execution and delivery by Manager of a certain Conditional Release and Termination Agreement between Lakes and CRC dated May 20, 1999, as amended by Amendment dated on or about July 7, 1999, true copies of which are attached as Exhibit F, provided that CRC executes and delivers to the Band and its members a general release in the form attached as Exhibit G. Manager warrants that it has no agreements or understandings with CRC in any way related to the Band or the Enterprise other than as set forth in Exhibit F. The Band further agrees that Manager may hold stock of CRC as collateral for Manager's guarantee of a loan to a third party, provided that on default it proceeds to liquidate such collateral in a reasonably prompt and orderly manner, and that Lyle Xxxxxx xxx continue to hold approximately 350,000 shares of CRC so long as he plays no role in the management of, and does not sit on, the board of directors of CRC.
CRC. CRC shall not during the Term of the Management Agreement (a) be directly or indirectly affiliated with Manager, Lakes or the Facility, whether as joint venturer or otherwise, (b) be employed by Manager or Lakes or, to the knowledge of Manager and Lakes, any entity having any contractual relationship with Manager or Lakes, with regard to the Facility, or (c) directly or indirectly receive any payment or anything of value from Manager from or out of the Management Fee or any other payment made to Manager by the Band or the Facility. Manager agrees to indemnify the Band and its members and hold them harmless against all loss, liability and expense relating to claims, of whatever kind or nature, of CRC against any one or more of them. The Band consents to the execution and delivery by Lakes of a certain Conditional Release and Termination Agreement between Lakes and CRC dated May 20, 1999, as amended by Amendment dated on or about July 7, 1999, true copies of which are attached as Exhibit M of the Development Agreement, provided that CRC executes and delivers to the Band and its members a general release in the form attached as Exhibit N of the Development Agreement. Manager and Lakes each warrant that it has no agreements or understandings with CRC in any way related to the Band or the Enterprise other than as set forth in Exhibit M of the Development Agreement. The Band further agrees that Lakes may hold stock of CRC as collateral for Lakes' guarantee of a loan to a third party, provided that on default it proceeds to liquidate such collateral in a reasonably prompt and orderly manner, and that Lyle Berman may continue to hold approximately 350,000 shaxxx xx XXX xx long as he plays no role in the management of, and does not sit on, the board of directors of CRC.
CRC. This right involves the require- ment that the decision maker informs the child of the outcome of the process and to explain how the child’s views have been considered, for example in the matter of why a specific sentence was decided upon (CRC/C/GC/12 2009, para. 45). The fact that a child is involved in the proceedings as a suspect inevitably influences the extent to which his views can be incorporated in the decision-making. When a decision is taken against the wishes of the child – which is often the case in youth justice proceedings – it is important that there is an explanation given as to how the decision has been reached, to what extent the child’s views have played a role in the considerations and what the decision means for the child (Archard and Skivenes 2009). To explain the process and its outcome – such as a sentence – is of great importance, because it might help the child to understand what the consequences are of his behavior and to accept the decision (Cashmore and Xxxxxxxxx 2007; Xxxxx 2006). Yet in many countries no special attention is paid to explaining the judgment and the sentence to the child, as insufficient time and opportunity is set aside for it (Rap 2013).
CRC. Yet many problems persist. Children want greater opportunities to participate in proceedings concerning them and, unfortunately, they often have a lack of trust in authority (Xxxxxxxx 2010). Most children appear to feel that justice systems are beset with problems, that adults do not adequately communicate with them, and in the words of one child, they perceive that: “[T]hey work too slow while children suffer” (Xxxxxxxx 2010). While much research and thinking has occurred in the area of hearing children in private civil law proceedings, greater research is needed into what the right to be heard can and should mean in criminal proceedings, where a potentially punitive approach may mean that the right to be heard goes unrecognized. This is particularly true for adversarial court procedures. Although the child has an autonomous legal position, and he is considered criminally respon- sible and can be held accountable for his behavior, he cannot always exercise his right to be heard adequately. Proceedings have largely remained the same as before Article 12 CRC came into force. In spite of useful guidelines (e.g., the Guidelines on child-friendly justice), sweeping child-friendly changes in civil law proceedings have not occurred. Chil- dren still lack adequate information, professionals are often not sufficiently well trained and adequate resources are not ensured for children to be heard or for their needs to be adequately provided for. There have undoubtedly been modest changes here and there – in Norway there have been moves towards attempting to hear under- 7s, for example (seven years is usually the cut-off point for being heard), and in England child defendants are allowed to sit next to their parents and lawyer in court (Judicial Studies Board 2010). Yet there is an overwhelming sense that fitting children into adult proceedings is not working, that children often remain unheard and that adults regularly do not relate well to them when they are involved (see for example FRA 2017). Perhaps one major problem is that there is a misplaced emphasis on a “right to be heard” as a gold standard for children, when in reality it is a rather limited tool for ensuring children’s autonomy and dignity when crucial matters are being decided about them (Xxxx 2018, forthcoming). The right to be heard is something which adults often interpret to mean that small modifications to justice systems will be sufficient for children’s involvement. In fact the research around childr...
CRC. CRC, the ultimate beneficial owner of the Company and CR Gas, is a company established in PRC with limited liability and is a state-owned enterprise under the supervision of the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council of PRC. It is the holding company of CRH, and is a conglomerate which holds a variety of businesses in PRC and Hong Kong including but not limited to consumer products, integrated energy, urban construction and operation, healthcare, industrial finance, technology and emerging sectors.
