COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

Thirty-sixth session

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 968th MEETING

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva,

on Wednesday, 2 June 2004, at 3 p.m.

Chairperson: Mr. DOEK

CONTENTS

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS OF STATES PARTIES (continued)

Second periodic report of France (continued)

The meeting was called to order at 3.05 p.m.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS OF STATES PARTIES (continued)

Second periodic report of France (continued) (CRC/C/65/Add.26; CRC/C/Q/FRA/2; CRC/C/RESP/60; HRI/CORE/1/Add.17/Rev.1)

At the invitation of the Chairperson, Mr. Aumônier, Mr. Ballet, Mr. Beigbeder, Ms. Berolatti, Mr. Bisson-Vaivre, Ms. Briand, Ms. Calothy, Mr. Cassone, Mr. Chièze, Ms. Cubaynes, Ms. Daix, Mr. Delalande, Mr. de Legge, Ms. Doublet, Ms. Farge, Mr. Giacomini, Mr. Guyetant, Ms. Hugot, Ms. Leyland, Mr. Lory, Mr. Kessedjian, Ms. Marot, Ms. Oui, Ms. Parienti, Mr. Strasser, Ms. Roig, Ms. Vassallo and Ms. Wingert (France) took places at the Committee table.

Mr. de LEGGE (France) said that the membership of the film classification committee had recently been expanded to include representatives of young people, the private sector, the Ministry of Culture and industry experts. A simple majority, as opposed to a two-thirds majority, was currently required to prohibit a film from being shown to children under 18 years of age.

When foreign minors arrived in France accompanied by their parents, the law applicable to the parents was enforced. Unaccompanied foreign minors could be in a different legal situation, particularly if they had come to France to be reunited with their family.

Ms. HUGOT (France) said that there had been very few cases of violence by members of the police or the gendarmerie when minors were arrested or taken into custody. Any such violence had been accidental and had been used to maintain public order or protect individuals or property. Acts of violence by the authorities that were not justified by the circumstances were punished. The Government had introduced human rights education in initial and ongoing training for police and gendarmes, and had established a code of conduct that prohibited the use of violence. Those measures were applicable to the treatment of minors.

Ms. WINGERT (France) said that the European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights was in the process of ratification. The European Convention would enhance children’s rights in a number of situations, including divorce proceedings. In France, the term “minor” applied to all persons under the age of 18 and had no negative connotations. While the Convention on the Rights of the Child took precedence over domestic legislation, only the judicial and administrative authorities recognized the individual’s right to invoke the provisions of the Convention. There had been several cases of domestic legislation based on the Convention, such as the recent law on parental authority, which took into account the interests of the child. All members of the judiciary received training in the Convention.

The minimum age for marriage had not been amended. Minors had the right to participate in associations, provided that adults were also involved. A draft law designed to simplify civil procedures regarding legitimate and natural children was currently before Parliament and would receive its first reading in June 2004. Since minors could not always be held responsible for their actions, civil liability legislation introduced the notion of vicarious liability (responsabilité du fait d’autrui), which allowed children’s civil liability to be assumed by their parents. A recent decision by the Court of Cassation had stipulated that, in such cases, the parents’ liability was without fault.

The CHAIRPERSON asked whether the reporting State planned to increase the minimum age of marriage for women. Although some provisions of French legislation specified that only children over the age of 13 had the right to be heard, other provisions allowed the judge to decide whether or not a child was capable of discernment. The reporting State should explain what action the judge would take in the latter case, and whether it planned to change that system.

Ms. WINGERT (France) said that, while judges could decide to hear a child if they deemed it to be in the child’s interests, children were not systematically informed of their right to be heard. There were no plans to change the system.

Ms. SMITH said that she did not understand why children under the age of 13 were not granted the right to be heard in custody cases. Regarding civil liability, she said that it was unclear whether the State party considered young children to be capable of taking responsibility for their acts.

Ms. HUGOT (France) said that, under article 1384 of the Civil Code, children were considered liable for any damage that they caused to a third party, and their parents bore joint and several liability for such damage. In practice, the parents’ liability was always sought.

Ms. PARIENTI (France) said that when juvenile magistrates intervened under the educative assistance procedure and decided that a child should be temporarily removed from the family home, the child had the right to be heard, as long as he or she was capable of discernment. The only exception was if the child was in immediate danger. A law adopted in January 2004 had introduced the requirement that judges should act in the strict interests of the child when initiating the educative assistance procedure.

There was no minimum age of criminal liability; judges exercised their discretion as to whether a child was capable of discernment. Educative measures were applied to minors under the age of 13, minors over that age could be sentenced to half the punishment that an adult offender would receive.

Mr. CITARELLA asked whether minors of all ages were informed of judges’ decisions.

Ms. PARIENTI (France) said that only minors over the age of 16 were notified of the judges’ decisions.

Mr. DELALANDE (France) said that, although the Government had been unable to report to Parliament every year on the implementation of the Convention, there was a high level of awareness about the rights of the child in Parliament and in France in general.

Ms. OUI (France) said that, in the near future, the Senate would consider draft legislation on the establishment of parliamentary committees on the rights of the child.

Mr. LORY (France) said that the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights had recommended a study on the impact that violent images in the media had on children. The study would be conducted by the recently established National Observatory for Children at Risk. The National Consultative Commission had also recommended that the findings of a working group on female genital mutilation should be incorporated into a campaign to combat that practice.

Mr. AUMONIER (France) said that, while there had been few cases of ill-treatment or torture of minors, the maximum penalty for such offences was life imprisonment. Violence in the family was a criminal offence. Intentional violence against minors by their legitimate, natural or adoptive parents was punishable by a minimum of three years’ imprisonment and a maximum of life imprisonment, depending on the injuries inflicted.

Mr. LORY (France) said that a number of preventive measures were available to discourage families from using corporal punishment. They included home visits by midwives and social workers, family counselling and temporary care of children outside the family home.

The CHAIRPERSON asked whether the provision in the Criminal Code prohibiting violence against children included the explicit prohibition of corporal punishment.

Mr. AUMONIER (France) said that French legislation did not expressly prohibit corporal punishment. While any intentional violence against children was regarded as a criminal offence, parents would not necessarily be punished for striking a child.

Mr. CASSONE (France) said that, since February 2004, all matters relating to the implementation of the Convention in French Polynesia had been handled by the local authorities. The only exceptions were criminal law, institutions and services for juvenile offenders, and the powers of the Ombudsperson for Children. Several government bodies monitored violations of children’s rights.

While the national telephone line for children who had been subjected to ill-treatment was not available in French Polynesia and New Caledonia, similar services were provided locally.

It was difficult to ascertain the civil status of children living in Guyana, since Amerindian communities moved frequently between Brazil, Suriname and Guyana. Although the situation had improved, particularly following a census in 1998, more work was needed to regularize the status of many children living in Guyana.

Shariah law did not apply in any of the French overseas territories. In the Territorial Collectivity of Mayotte, where both statutory law and local customary law applied, males traditionally inherited at least two thirds of their father’s estate. However, legislation adopted in 2003 prohibited such discrimination and stipulated that local customary law should not run counter to the application of French citizenship laws. The regional languages used in the overseas territories were recognized by law as being part of the nation’s linguistic heritage. France’s decentralization laws were applicable in the overseas départements. However, in the overseas territories that retained a certain degree of autonomy, the sharing of power between the State and the local authorities was defined in the statutory law that applied in those territories.

Ms. CALOTHY (France) said that, in 2003, French official development assistance (ODA) had been increased to €6.6 billion, representing 0.41 per cent of the country’s gross national product (GNP). The President of the Republic had pledged to increase ODA contributions to 0.5 per cent of GNP by 2007 and to 0.7 per cent of GNP by 2012.

Mr. de LEGGE (France) said that, as at the end of 2001, 135,700 children in France received some form of special protection from the State; 49 per cent of those children were in foster care and 37 per cent lived in institutions.

Ms. OUI (France) said that French legislation on the minimum legal age for voluntary enlistment in the armed forces was in conformity with the provisions of the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict. Although the minimum legal age for voluntary enlistment was 17, most recruits reached the age of 18 by the time they completed their six months’ compulsory training. Recruits under 18 were forbidden to participate in foreign operations.

Mr. KOTRANE noted with satisfaction that, in the 2002 Parental Authority Act, the term “paternal authority” had been replaced by “parental authority”. However, he wondered why the term “parental responsibility” had not been used, since that term would have been in conformity with article 18 of the Convention.

Foreign children whose parents were legal residents of France but who had not entered France under the official family reunification procedure were not eligible for social welfare benefits. He wondered whether any steps had been taken to bring French legislation on that subject into line with the provisions of the Convention.

A child’s right to know his or her origins was not recognized in France as being an absolute right. The 2002 Act on access to the origins of adopted persons and children in care provided that mothers who placed their children in care could remain anonymous if they so desired. The Act also limited the right of children to know their origins in cases of artificial insemination. Under article 7 of the Convention, States parties were obliged to take all possible measures to guarantee the right of children to know their parents.

Although considerable progress had been made in the field of education, inner-city schools with a high immigrant population ranked low in the school results tables. Children in such schools faced various kinds of segregation, and he asked what was being done to address that situation.

The delegation should indicate what measures were being taken to ensure that the educational aims of religious schools and schools operated by sects were in conformity with the provisions of article 29 of the Convention. By excluding girls from public schools for wearing a religious symbol, the Government was condemning them to an environment in which they were vulnerable to religious indoctrination. Legislative reforms were needed to ensure that the best interests of the child were taken into account.

By placing emphasis on penal rather than corrective measures, the new legislation on young offenders constituted a step backwards in the implementation of the Convention. Under the new legislation, children as young as 10 could be prosecuted in a court, children between the ages of 10 and 13 could be held in pre-trial detention for a renewable period of 12 hours, and minors could be held in preventive detention for up to 48 hours without access to a doctor or lawyer. He would welcome the delegation’s views on those matters.

He requested statistical information on child asylum-seekers. He wished to know whether there were any plans to increase the number of facilities equipped to receive child asylum-seekers, and to speed up the family reunification process. He asked whether the Government intended to finance the development of a more accurate method of determining the age of child asylum-seekers, since the current method allowed for an 18-month margin of error.

Mr. CITARELLA asked what measures were being taken to encourage schoolchildren to participate in decision-making.

He expressed concern that the law did not establish a minimum age of criminal responsibility and that decisions regarding corrective measures for juveniles were not taken by a judge. He wondered what steps were taken to guarantee a minor’s right to legal counsel. He enquired whether corrective measures for juveniles were subject to review. With regard to the detention of minors in institutions, the State party should make a clearer distinction between minors and young adults.

Ms. ORTIZ said that, in view of the high number of children living in institutions in France, it would be useful to know whether measures were being taken to promote domestic adoption, in particular the adoption of older or disabled children and children who had brothers or sisters. The delegation should explain the absence of statistical information on domestic adoptions and provide disaggregated statistical data on the ages of children adopted from abroad. The Prime Minister had recently pledged to double the number of intercountry adoptions by 2006. In order to achieve that target, significant pressure would have to be placed on the authorities in countries that put children up for intercountry adoption. Adoption should not be used as an economic or political tool, and adoption procedures should be carried out strictly in the best interests of the child.

She would be interested in knowing why 77 per cent of the foreign children adopted in France came from countries that had not ratified the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in respect of Intercountry Adoption. She was concerned that less than 40 per cent of the intercountry adoptions that took place in France were processed by an accredited agency.

Mr. LIWSKI asked whether foreign minors who were detained on entry into France were entitled to legal protection. He wondered whether there were any mechanisms to evaluate the situation of such minors in their country of origin. He asked whether young people residing illegally in France had access to basic social services and whether the Government had issued a specific set of guidelines for protecting the rights of such individuals.

Given the high teenage suicide rate, it would be useful to know what measures had been taken to promote the mental health of children and adolescents and what psychiatric services were available to that population group.

Ms. LEE asked whether any measures had been introduced to assist children with learning difficulties or behavioural or emotional disabilities, given that the “Handiscol” plan was designed only for children with intellectual, motor, hearing or visual impairments. In view of France’s long history of special education, she was surprised that the State party found it difficult to measure the concept of disability. She asked why 63 per cent of the children placed in institutional care were male. She also asked why such an alarmingly high number of children with disabilities were not enrolled in mainstream education.

Ms. KHATTAB asked whether a mechanism was in place to monitor the situation of Muslim girls who dropped out of public schools because their parents did not allow them to remove their headscarves. She wished to know what was being done to address the alarming increase in religiously and racially motivated violence.

According to paragraph 200 of the report (CRC/C/65/Add.26), polygamous men residing in France with their first wife could not apply for family reunification for another wife, and the children of another wife were ineligible for family regrouping. She wondered whether the Government had considered other ways of combating polygamy. According to a recent report by the French Ombudsperson for Children, family reunification was impossible for children from countries where they were subject to the kafalah of Islamic law. The report also indicated that the French law on adoption prohibited the adoption of certain foreign minors. The delegation should clarify those issues.

She wished to know more about the inequalities that existed in France with regard to access to health care. She wondered whether the Government intended to establish more health and civic education committees. She also wished to know what was meant by the term “sensitive” schools. Additional information should be provided on measures that had been taken to promote breastfeeding. She requested further information on measures to prevent illegal child labour and child prostitution.

Ms. AL-THANI asked what monitoring mechanisms were in place to ensure that children with disabilities received the same standard of care throughout the country.

She requested information on progress in the consideration of the bioethics bill and asked what measures were taken to ensure that ethical issues arising in connection with assisted fertilization were adequately addressed. She was concerned at the prohibition on the disclosure of the identity of donors in cases of medically assisted procreation with a third-party donor. That provision was in violation of children’s right to know their parents.

The delegation should provide detailed statistics on breastfeeding and explain why France had only three accredited baby-friendly health-care facilities. She wished to know whether the Government intended to harmonize relevant domestic legislation with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes.

She asked whether the 2004 Conference on the Family would discuss the mental health of adolescents. She wished to know whether drug abuse and eating disorders among adolescents were a serious problem in the reporting State, and whether any prevention, early detection and rehabilitation programmes existed.

Ms. SMITH asked whether the delegation agreed that the non-discrimination principle implied that child asylum-seekers should be granted equal access to education and social services. She wondered whether private educational establishments were monitored to ensure that their curricula and teaching methods were consistent with the principles and provisions of the Convention.

Ms. OUEDRAOGO said that it would be useful to receive individual reports from France’s overseas départements and territories. In that connection, she wished to know whether the overseas départements and territories needed to accede separately to the Convention or whether accession by metropolitan France automatically included those départements and territories.

She asked whether specific programmes were in place to address the problem of child disappearances in France and to alert children to the danger of abduction. She requested information on measures taken to increase the security of children in the context of increased violence in schools.

Since suicide among adolescents was frequently linked to labour market insecurity, it would be useful to know whether any action had been taken pursuant to the recommendations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on unemployment and its impact on children’s rights.

Street prostitution in Paris was a matter of grave concern and posed a number of legal, social and health-related problems. She asked how the Government intended to address the problem.

She requested information on the situation of the Roma in France. She asked whether there were any programmes to keep Roma children off the streets, and how those children’s right to equal access to education and health care was guaranteed.

Ms. ALUOCH said that she was concerned that the provisions of the Family Law were not applied to children of second wives of polygamous men residing in France. Children’s separation from imprisoned mothers was also cause for concern. She asked whether legislation took account of the special circumstances of breastfeeding mothers by providing for non‑custodial sentences in such cases.

Mr. FILALI said that he had not yet received a reply to his earlier question concerning legislation on visiting rights, custody, and maintenance allowances for children of mixed marriages.

Ms. SARDENBERG said that the delegation should comment on the disparities in access to extracurricular activities organized by the Ministry of Education. The exclusion from the programme of cities that lacked the necessary resources raised questions regarding equality.

She asked whether the Government would take account of the outcome of the Conference on the Family when it drafted youth policies and strategies.

She wished to know how France’s periodic reports and information on its discussions with the Committee were disseminated, and what body was responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Convention.

She asked whether it was true that allowances were suspended for families of children who played truant from school and, if so, whether the Government had considered changing that practice. She requested specific data on the national plan to facilitate the access of unskilled young people to the labour market and asked the delegation to evaluate the plan’s success to date. She requested additional information on the placement of children in care.

Mr. KRAPPMANN asked the delegation to explain why France’s poverty‑eradication strategies had not been effective.

The meeting was suspended at 4.45 p.m. and resumed at 5 p.m.

Ms. OUI (France) said that statistics on adoptable children in State care institutions were updated twice a year. Of the 3,200 children awaiting adoption in 2001, 1,100 had been given up at birth, while the remainder had been declared abandoned after the courts had ascertained the loss of all ties with the biological family. Moreover, 135,000 children in need of special protection lived in care institutions or foster homes and maintained regular contact with their families.

It was considerably more difficult to find suitable adoptive families for older children or children with physical, mental or emotional disabilities. Consequently, many of those children remained in institutional care. In 2003, a special databank had been created to centralize information on such children and on parents who were in a position to care for children with special needs. In addition, adoption agencies specializing in older children and children with health problems or disabilities received State financial support. Efforts were being made to improve the preparation of adoptive children and their future parents, and to strengthen post‑adoption support structures.

Ms. VASSALLO (France) said that the intercountry adoption process took place in full compliance with the provisions and principles of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in respect of Intercountry Adoption. Bilateral agreements had been concluded with source countries of foreign-born children adopted by French nationals in cases where those countries had not yet ratified that Convention.

Only one third of adoptions were processed through adoption agencies; two thirds were privately arranged. Considerable efforts had been made to strengthen the role of adoption agencies, which worked on a non-profit basis, and financial resources had been allocated for that purpose.

Under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as well as bilateral agreements concluded with a number of North African countries, France cooperated with other contracting States in reuniting families with children of mixed marriages and ensured that such children maintained regular contact with the parent who resided in another country.

Mr. de LEGGE (France) said that, according to recent changes in legislation, school absenteeism was no longer punished by the suspension of family allowances. Instead, emphasis was placed on prevention. Social workers cooperated with teachers and families in identifying the causes of absenteeism, and sustained efforts were being made to raise awareness regarding parental responsibility in that regard.

Legislation on children with disabilities was currently under review and a draft bill on the subject had passed in its first reading. The changes under consideration concerned the inclusion of psychological disorders in the definition of disabilities; the elimination of disparities in services provided to children of different age groups, particularly in the area of special needs education; and the adaptation of services for children with disabilities on a case-by-case basis in order to take maximum account of individual needs. In 2003, a number of posts had been created for classroom assistants with a view to facilitating the enrolment of children with disabilities in regular schools.

The topic of the 2004 Conference on the Family had been chosen in recognition of the need to devise strategies to address specific problems of adolescence. The inter‑ministerial teams responsible for preparing the Conference had identified areas of concern, in particular the increasing difficulty in associating adolescence with a clearly defined age group. Other issues included the loss of meaning of traditional rites of passage, and the need for programmes tailored to the various age groups included in the term “adolescence”.

While the vast majority of minors in France encountered no major difficulties during their childhood and adolescence, 10 per cent were in need of special support, particularly with regard to health. Substance abuse and eating disorders were of particular concern and preventive measures were needed to eradicate the root causes of those problems.

It was important to change public perception of adolescents. Traditionally, French society tended to view adolescents solely as pupils. Consequently, responsibility for their upbringing had often been left to the education system, to the detriment of parental involvement. However, children’s lives were not limited to their school experiences, and it was therefore necessary to redefine and strengthen the role of parents and the family. The Conference on the Family was an important instrument for raising awareness in that regard.

Children in France who had been placed in a social welfare institution or juvenile correctional facility were not necessarily from poor families, although it would be an exaggeration to claim that there was no relationship between poverty and such placements. Since one of the main causes of poverty was unemployment, steps should be taken to facilitate the provision of childcare, which would support families, particularly women, in their efforts to obtain employment. Approximately 1 million children in France were poor; however, 70 per cent of poor children were from households whose incomes placed them no more than 20 per cent below the poverty line.

Ms. FARGE (France) said that new correctional measures for juvenile offenders, based on the principles of rehabilitation, specialization and sentence reduction, had been introduced. The new measures focused on strengthening existing detention and educational facilities for juveniles, as well as establishing new facilities with special educational programmes. Judicial youth workers, whose functions were essentially educational, were currently employed on a continuous basis in certain correctional institutions. Beginning in 2007, they would be employed in all correctional facilities for minors in order to develop specialized education programmes. Such workers were recruited at the university level and subsequently received two years of special training at an institute run by the Ministry of Justice. They worked on multidisciplinary teams, which took the personality, social background and family situation of juvenile offenders into account in decisions relating to rehabilitation.

Mr. CITARELLA wished to know whether educational measures were ordered by judges or administrative authorities.

Ms. PARIENTI (France) said that educational measures were ordered by a magistrate or a court either prior to a judgement or when the judgement was pronounced.

Mr. AUMONIER (France) said that, under the Constitution, both judges and public attorneys were responsible for guaranteeing individual freedoms. In cases where a juvenile committed a minor offence, the public attorney could propose alternatives to prosecution, such as the juvenile’s appearance in court, reparations in cash or in kind, or completion of a citizenship training course. If such alternative measures were successful, the juvenile’s police record remained free of convictions. Failure to comply with the alternative measures would result in prosecution in a juvenile court.

Ms. MAROT (France) said that family benefits were reserved for parents whose children had either been born in France or had entered the country under an official reunification procedure. The Government was currently considering extending such benefits to children who had entered the country under procedures stipulated in international agreements. The length of examination proceedings was set at six months from the date on which the request for family reunification had been filed. Although the authorities did their best to respect the prescribed deadlines, the large number of requests in some parts of the country could require an extension of the six-month period.

Under regulations concerning the entry of foreigners into France, the family reunification process could not be extended to children whose guardian had been appointed by a court in a country that did not recognize the system of adoption, particularly full adoption. Thus, family reunification was not allowed for children from countries where they were subject to the kafalah of Islamic law. An exception was made for children from Algeria, provided that the kafalah had been authorized by a judge and not by a public recording officer.

Ms. DOUBLET (France) said that unaccompanied minors requesting asylum or entry into France at the border and held in “waiting zones” benefited from the appointment of a legal representative, known as an ad hoc administrator. The ad hoc administrator represented unaccompanied foreign minors in all legal proceedings concerning their request for asylum or entry into France and also offered social and humanitarian assistance. While the authorities strove to ensure that foreign minors were held for as short a period as possible, it was also important for the protection of such minors to take the time to verify their identity and family ties. A number of centres, including a day reception centre in Paris, had been established to provide accommodation and assistance for unaccompanied foreign minors.

Mr. BISSON-VAIVRE (France) said that legislation adopted in 1998 strengthened the standards required of private schools and provided for annual inspections.

The CHAIRPERSON asked what measures the Government was taking to deal with girls who were not attending school because of the ban on Muslim headscarves in public schools.

Mr. BISSON-VAIVRE (France) said that the law stipulated that disciplinary procedures should be preceded by a dialogue between the girl and the school authorities during which various options were proposed. If the dialogue failed, the girl could either apply to a private school or enrol in a distance‑learning programme. There had been very few such cases in schools, and officials had been able to follow up each case individually.

Ms. BRIAND (France) said that France’s bioethics legislation was currently under review. Sperm donors were subject to the rules applicable to body part donors; such rules included the maintenance of anonymity. Recipient couples of donated sperm were required to give their consent before a judge or public recording officer for medically assisted procreation by a third-party donor. Such consent prohibited all subsequent challenges of filiation. Since the child born to such a couple was considered to be their child and not the child of the sperm donor, the Government was of the view that the principle of anonymity did not contradict article 7 of the Convention.

Mr. KOTRANE, speaking on behalf of the Committee, thanked the delegation of France for its informative replies. He welcomed the progress made in adopting new legislation and strengthening institutional capacity in the field of children’s rights. The conclusions and recommendations would place emphasis on such issues as the criminal responsibility of juveniles, treatment of unaccompanied foreign minors, the minimum age for marriage, and efforts to ensure non-discrimination and equality for all children in France.

Mr. de LEGGE (France) said that France looked forward to submitting its next periodic report and continuing its dialogue with the Committee.

The meeting rose at 6 p.m.