Fighting for justice: Children in conflict zones

Dr Kumaravadivel Guruparan

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to this Chatham House event on Fighting for Justice – Children in Conflict Zones. Before I introduce the panellists today and give an introduction to the subject matter and the discussion, just a few housekeeping rules for the participants’ information. This event is being recorded, so be aware that this is being recorded and that if you wish to use Twitter, tweet about the event, please use the hashtag #CHEvents. You can submit questions through the ‘Q&A’ function. So we have disabled the raise hands function. I will take your questions, once we’ve had opening interventions from the panellists and once we’ve also had a conversation, based on some questions that I have for the panellists, and then I will take those questions as they come into the ‘Q&A’ box. But please feel free to start posing your questions – posting your questions into the questionnaire box, whenever you feel like doing so.

So, with that, may I warmly welcome our panellists today for this event. As we know and as the recent incident in Gaza reminded us, children are disproportionately affected by war. Of the 213 odd deaths that were recorded in Palestine, for example, 63 of them were children. The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres described the incident as, “If there is a hell on earth, it is the lives of Gaza children.” Now, while it is very clear from data, from people who have studied war, that children are affected by armed conflict disproportionately and by huge numbers, as this report finds out, and I’ll mention the report in a minute, they are pretty much invisible when it comes to discourse around accountability, human rights, fact finding, in international criminal law and international human rights law.

And this report, put out by Save the Children and by the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, titled “Advancing Justice for Children: Innovations to Strengthen Accountability for Violations and Crimes Affecting Children in Conflict,” speaks about this very important subject, as to why children are left out in this discourse in relation to accountability, in relation to fact-finding by international human rights institutions, and it sheds light into the attitudinal factors, the structural factors, and the financial factors that might explain why children, as the report describes, are invisible, what they call the invisibilisation of children in this discourse, and they come up with recommendations.

So we are here today to discuss this very important report, looking at the reasons why children do not figure in our current mainstream thinking, with regard to international criminal law, and to provide us with interesting – with the findings of the report – we have two panellists who are two of the authors. There are a number of authors of this report, but two of them are with us today. And this is our first speaker, Jelia Sane, who’s a Barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, where she has a broad practice, based on international criminal law, humanitarian law and refugee law. She is also a Member of Doughty Street’s Children’s Rights Group and has specific expertise in the nexus between these areas of international law and child rights in particular. She has worked as a Consultant for the Oxford Institute of Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, which I mentioned is the partner with Save the Children in this report, and she’s a joint author of this report.

We also have Veronique Aubert, who’s also a joint author of this report. She is a leader on children and armed conflict and works with Save the Children UK. Her previous experience includes working with Amnesty International, the Council of Foreign Relations, and she also served as Co-Chair of the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack.

And finally, we have Rocco Blume, who’s Head of Policy and Advocacy with War Child UK. War Child UK campaigns for children living in conflict to be protected and enabled to recover. And he has focused on child rights advocacy, developing campaigns to tackle child recruitment, child marriage, and increasing child participation advocacy. He also sits on the Board of Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict.

A very warm welcome to our panellists today, and without further ado, may I invite Jelia to comment by giving us an overview of the report and also talking about how accountability mechanisms and fact-finding missions have dealt with children, or failed to deal with children, in a systematic manner. So over to you, Jelia, first.

Jelia Sane

Thank you, Guru, for the introduction, and thank you to Chatham House for convening today’s discussion. I’ve only got about seven minutes, so as you indicated, I’m going to provide a very short overview of our main findings, in relation to the treatment of children by accountability mechanisms firstly, and then secondly, looking at some of the key barriers to the documentation and investigation of crimes against children, that we were able to identify during the course of this research.

So, what we did was, essentially, to analyse the approach of UN fact-finding bodies and international criminal courts and tribunals to crimes against children. And specifically, we looked at the Syria Commission, the South Sudan Commission, the Myanmar Fact-Finding Mechanism, as well as the ad hoc tribunals, the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the ICC. We also looked at the newer, more accountability-focused UN entities, chiefly UNITAD, the IIMM, and the IIIM. And I should say in relation to those three, that these are younger institutions, and that their investigations are confidential, so it’s a bit more complicated to meaningfully assess, you know, at this stage, their work on children. But overall, what I’ve also said, well, what we found, is that although the need to pay attention to crimes against children is increasingly recognised in the structure and in the mandates of accountability mechanisms, and to a degree, apparent in their work, these mechanisms have historically been adult-centric in their approach, and that largely remains the position today.

So what we see, firstly, is that children are all too often eclipsed. So their experiences all too frequently go unrecorded, you know, in the case files, the transcripts, and the reports of bodies that are charged with pursuing accountability. And the narrative, all too often, of conflict that emerges is really about what happened to the adults. And this is a striking omission when one considers, and you touched upon this in your introduction, but, firstly, that in many conflict zones, children and young people will often comprise up to over half of the civilian population. Secondly, the harm inflicted upon children in war is absolutely egregious, you know, and there’s no question that they suffer the full gamut of international crimes. And thirdly, you know, while of course adults will also suffer in war, children’s exposure to conflict is likely to have incredibly far-reaching and long-term consequences on their overall wellbeing and development.

So really, our position is that children should be a central focus of the work of those pursuing accountability for international crimes, and that is not always the case. So when they are taken into account, when they do appear in the work, you know, of the accountability mechanisms, our analysis essentially revealed two main trends. Firstly, what we see is that, you know, although – and this is self-evident, right, children are not a homogenous group. But what we see is that they are frequently unsituated and almost ageless and so, what I mean by that is that, you know, they’re sort of, intersecting identities are unspecified. And of course, you know, all children will be harmed by virtually any violation of their rights during a situation of conflict. But it’s really essential that we recognise the differential impact that armed violence is going to have on a child in light of their personal characteristics, including their gender and their age, you know. And from an accountability perspective, this is absolutely essential, you know, to adopt this, you know, intersectional analysis, because if we don’t do that, we often miss why targeting children might be of strategic importance to perpetrators. So we have to ask ourselves, you know, was there an impact, you know, of committing a crime against that child in front of his or her parents or in front of that, you know, particular community? Is that a separate act of terrorising the community, for instance? You know, what were the perpetrators trying to achieve? What, sort of, message are they trying to send by targeting children? And I think unless we pose ourselves those questions, we often end up with overly narrow indictments, for example, because we don’t fully capture that reality.

The second conclusion that we drew, in terms of the treatment of children by accountability mechanisms, is that often the experience of children is understood in a manner that is overly reductive. So, for instance, and I’m generalising, but by and large, what we see is that the – you know, the entry point for understanding the experience of boys is going to be through the crime of child recruitment and use, and for girls, we’re going to be focusing on sexual violence. And so, what that means is that, you know, attempts to proactively collect evidence of all the other crimes against children, you know, such as killing, maiming, persecution, torture, starvation, you know, or even things like indiscriminate attacks against hospitals, against schools, all of these crimes affect a large number of children, but often, you know, such attempts are either quite weak or, you know, entirely missing. So really those were our main conclusion, in terms of the treatment of children by the institutions that we looked at.

I’ll briefly move on now to some of the barriers that we identified to the systematic inclusion of children in the work of accountability mechanisms. And really, they come down on the one hand to attitudes and on the other to structural and financial barriers, which tend to be mutually reinforcing. So if we look at attitudes, firstly investigating and documenting crimes against children is very rarely understood as forming part of a mainstream investigation, but it’s often instead perceived as something that warrants, you know, additional and separate consideration. And the reality is that when we investigate these situations, you know, it’s not about, sort of, adding the children back into the mix, right? We have to enter with the mentality that the children are already there. And you could even, you know, like, if you had good witnesses, construct an entire case, or tell the entire story, of a genocide, of a crime against humanity, purely from the perspective of what happened to the children, you know, alone. But we never look at it that way.

And because children aren’t mainstreamed, in practice, you know – so, for instance, if you look at the UN ad hoc mechanisms, which are often, you know, set up, it’s a mad rush, very urgent basis and etc. What that means is that investigators on the ground aren’t necessarily going to prioritise crimes against children. And this lack of prioritisation is compounded by a lack of training and guidance on crimes against children, provided, for instance, by OHCHR, either pre-deployment or in the initial phase of the mandate, and by the lack of standardised methodological tools for information collection. So that’s the first problem in terms of attitudes.

The second big issue in terms of attitudes is that there is a real tendency to conflate investigating child crimes with interviewing children. Now, I recognise that this is obviously a complex area, but you know, that there’s a real reluctance – nobody wants to interview children, nobody wants to talk to children, you know, everybody’s worried, and rightly so, of the risk of retraumatisation. You know, there’s often a lack of, sort of, specialist expertise, especially, you know, if you look at – I mean, I practise also domestically, so if you look at what the resources that we have at the domestic level, we simply don’t have that expertise at the international level. You know, but notwithstanding those issues, you know, we could also consider that it is possible to investigate child crimes by gathering information and evidence from other sources, and that it’s also possible, as we do, you know, in domestic jurisdictions, to safely interview some children, not all children, you know, subject to best interest always, but that it’s not an impossible task. That that is, you know, I – what we found, you know, as one of the key barriers at the international level.

And finally and very briefly, the other, sort of, cluster of barriers related to, sort of, structural and financial factors and these are all, sort of, interlinked. So number one, there’s a lack of buy-in from states and a lack of, sort of, sustained high-level advocacy, you know, also from international organisations on the issue, in contrast, for example, to sexual and gender-based violence. And part of the difficulty here is that many, if not most of the UN agencies are international organisations, all have a mixed, sort of, humanitarian or child protection mandate, which isn’t the case necessarily for entities working on SGBV. And this has, you know, very tangible implications on their ability to pursue and prioritise accountability. So the lack of focused advocacy means that in turn there’s, you know, limited funding, that would be required to overcome some of the barriers to accountability, for instance, you know, funding to deploy expertise directly into mechanisms, funding to train, sort of, local documentation entities. It’s also relatively rare for investigative mechanisms, for instance, to have a dedicated child focal point, and when we do see that expertise, you’ll often have a Children and Gender Advisor, for instance, and because there are greater levels of awareness around SGBV, in practice, there’s a risk that children are overlooked.

And my final point is that, you know, the lack of advocacy, combined with a lack of funding and expertise, all of those things will often, you know, filter down very quickly into the messages and the resources that local documentation groups, working on the ground receive, vis-à-vis the importance or lack thereof of, you know, documenting crimes against children. And that’s a massive gap, when it comes to accountability, because, you know, these are the actors that are the first to be there on the ground, and these are the bodies that, you know, play a key role in laying the foundations for future accountability. So some of the just – those are just some of the barriers that we were able to identify. And I think I’ll stop there, ‘cause I think I’ve gone horrendously over time. Thank you.

Dr Kumaravadivel Guruparan

Thank you. Thank you, Jelia. Now we’ll move on to Veronique, who’ll talk about the imperatives surrounding the issue and what can be done, and she’ll talk specifically to the recommendations in the report, in terms of what can be done to address the issues that Jelia has very helpfully identified for us. Thank you.

Veronique Aubert

Thank you, Guru, and thank you Chatham House, and a huge thank you to Jelia, not only for this fantastic presentation, but for her incredible effort on this report. As presented by Jelia, and as you can read in the study, with more than one fifth of children globally living in war zones, and the fact that they are actually the primary target of the violence in many, many cases, that their absence from legal accountability process and completely rampant impunity for the crime they suffer, is not just an outrage, but it also requires urgent action. And this is why we focus on what our small team of Doctor, but also the extended team of experts, like – who’s, like Jelia or myself, have been investigating or working on this issue for many, many years and together we came up with a set of recommendations that you can find in the study. There are many, and I will try to summarise and articulate as clearly some of the key points. But we are really addressing to those who can and should make the biggest difference.

And therefore, first, member states and governments, Jelia explained the situation, and this is why we are at the moment really trying to engage with government and a lot of member states, and really calling on them to prioritise accountability for crimes affecting children. The report gives a very good sense of the affair and a really good picture of how few and not prioritised these crimes are. And so we are calling on governments to use their political support to ensure that the documentation and investigation are included in the founding instrument of accountability mechanism. And that includes in UN’s resolutions and in budget. If government don’t make this a priority from the very beginning, the founding instrument, then it’s very unlikely that suddenly this will become a priority.

This can only be done if states enable these mechanism to deliver justice for children by allocating sustained funding. But to set a pool of child-specific dedicated expertise. And I cannot emphasise enough the added value of having Shamira [inaudible – 22:55] in the IIMM on Myanmar, who’s a real expert. Or, as Jelia mentioned, to have Hadeel Salman who is drafting a thematic report for the Commission of Inquiry, who after – on Syria and on crimes committed against children, or Diane Amann, who’s been the Special Adviser on Children in the ICC. I’m naming them, because there are just too few of them. They are wonderful, but they are too few of dedicated and prioritised expertise on this issue.

We’ve also asked the UN entities in particular, such as the UN Security Council, the Human Rights Council, the General Assembly, to establish international and hybrid accountability mechanisms, which prioritise justice for children affecting children – for justice for crimes affecting children by also including a dedicated budget, but also by requesting specific reporting and investigations of crimes affecting children, again, in a resolution, but also by demonstrating that way the importance of such focus. But not only at investigation stage, but also, all the way to trial and reparation stages. The report and the study really focused on the investigation stage, primarily, and touched over the trial procedure and reparation, but there is so much to look into these questions.

Thirdly, we proposed that accountability mechanisms themselves could adapt their structure by building staff capacity and add on specific strategics and policy. And by that I mean that at the moment, I think, and there’s not enough awareness and use of existing domestic rules and national expertise. And therefore it is essential that domestic expertise, those investigators and prosecutors who are working on crime affecting children at the domestic level for decades, that can be made available, including through secondment and loans from domestic experts to judicial and non-judicial accountability mechanisms. That those accountability mechanisms do integrate those child-centred effective thematic policies.

We, for example, have a brilliant ICC policy, which remains a really useful tool, but it needs to be really implemented effectively. Or we know that a mechanism such as the IIIM are currently looking at developing their strategies. How can these different institutions can also communicate and collaborate between themselves better and make the most of what is already being produced and that is existing, both at international and a domestic level?

And then, last point with regard to the accountability mechanism, it’s so important that with local organisation and communities, this current lack of outrage and engagement be tackled. Because that really implies that family and community are not relating and trusting the accountability mechanism, and this impacts obviously the collection process. So there is a need for a better and sustained outreach witness protection, but also psychological support to really enhance the communication and co-operation between local actors, victims, and affected communities, with accountability mechanism.

Fourthly, we ask that entities that are supporting accountability mechanism through the provision of staff, and we mean by that OHCHR or Justice Rapid Response, be encouraged to work towards increased sustainable funding with a roster of experts, and to develop as well child-centred standard operating procedures and guidelines that reflect best practice for the documentation and investigation of crimes affecting children. They can help on that front as well. This can only address the conflation between investigating and interviewing children that Jelia explained very clearly. And it’s really important that with each process the investigating of crimes be understood, first of all, as not only necessary to be engaging with the child directly and talking to children, but that when it’s actually being undertaken carefully, the risk of retraumatisation can be very limited and their testimony can be reliable.

And then, finally – I’ve overrun probably as well – to us, NGOs or academics, or civil society in general, while we also must play our part in effectively influencing governments, agencies and institutions, in order to secure political and financial support for accountability mechanism, but we can also play a role in strengthening the collaboration between the accountability mechanisms or/and with the local communities, we as national and local organisation and with the victim themselves. So these recommendations are much more developed in the study, and I really recommend that you go and look at them. Thank you.

Dr Kumaravadivel Guruparan

Thank you very much, Veronique. And finally, last but not least, Rocco Blume, who will speak on civil society and because the UN Secretary also that gave me this question and other related audio.

Rocco Blume

Thank you, Guru. Thank you all. It’s great to be part of such an important discussion, and it’s a great report you’ve produced. It’s full of challenges, but also solutions. So, War Child has an operational mandate. We don’t work to pursue criminal accountability for crimes in conflict, but – so I’m going to be sharing with you what I see in our programmes to some other contextual issues. So three points only that I wanted to raise.

First is how the absence of accountability drives protracted conflict. So, we operate programmes to support children that have been recruited into armed groups, that have experienced other acute forms of rights violations, and we help the children reintegrate back into their communities. And we know from children who’ve joined armed groups that revenge is often cited as a motivation for becoming militarised, because of the violence that they have experienced, witnessed, been forced to enact themselves. So, in a context where there’s no possibility of redress from the state or any other mechanism, or it seems so vanishingly small, taking up arms is a real option. And a case in point is that of Iraq, where it’s been 18 years since the Allied invasion of Iraq, so all children in Iraq have only ever known a state of war.

Rights violations have been inflicted by all sides, international forces, the state, armed groups. And what we’ve seen, over the last couple of decades is, wave after wave of new evolutions of the conflict, marginalisation evolving into armed rebellion, while the Islamic State group has been defeated, we await to see what the next manifestation of violence may be. So, it’s perhaps obvious, but it’s worth restating that accountability is, of course, centrally an issue of justice, but the absence of accountability drives insecurity and instability.

The next point I want to make is around the need for political will to drive change. And the report correctly predicated international action, whether it’s increasing funding or other action, on generating increased political will, and this is challenging when armed conflict is so highly politicised. So, a big example of this is that the United Nations has in place a process for identifying and holding to account states that – states and armed groups that have committed rights violations against children. 25 years ago, what was called the “Children and Armed Conflict Agenda” was created, and every country where there’s armed conflict, evidence is gathered on child rights violations, because they are so egregious. Every year the Secretary General launches a report, which identifies those state and non-state parties to conflict. However, we also see, every single year, the most powerful states and their allies being omitted from that list. So we’ve never seen the International Coalition in Afghanistan be listed, despite its having a huge responsibility for civilian death and child death. Equally, the Israeli Defence Forces, the Saudi Coalition in Yemen is – has been delisted a number of times. So, this is, I know, separate from the report that we’re discussing today, because the Security Council is not seeking criminal prosecution, it’s seeking to exert pressure on states. But it’s a good bell weather to indicate the commitment or lack of by powerful states to accountability agendas, and the UK is a good example of this.

The UK government has extensive partnered military operations, with five states whose armed forces are committing rights violations, and those rights violations are being recorded: Nigeria, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia. It’s instructive that the organisation Justice Rapid Response, that I believe was a partner in producing this report, it’s funded by governments, but none of which are in the P5 or G7. So, the leadership is coming from a certain part of the international community, and that’s wonderful, and that needs to be supported and celebrated.

A final point is on the recommendation to – for the need to build a focused constituency on accountability for children, and Veronique raised this point of the role of civil society. And this is of great interest to us, because we don’t want to be a part of one of these barriers. A lot of children’s rights NGOs probably feel they don’t have the expertise to navigate the human rights landscape. And as operational agencies, we have limited ability to engage on pursuing legal accountability, though that shouldn’t limit our ability and our desire to advocate publicly and privately. And there is a pretty lively coalition of actors in Geneva around the Human Rights Council where more work could be done. So we as a sector need to find our voice more on legal accountability. But thank you.

Dr Kumaravadivel Guruparan

[Pause] Sorry, I’ve been – sorry, so I’m conscious of the fact that we’re running short of time, and so I’ll restrict my questions to the panellists to a few and then make space for more questions to come from the floor, where there were some important questions that have been asked in the Q&A already. The first is, I want to pose this to Jelia if I may, is around the – I mean, you talked about the fact that when you speak of children in armed conflict the focus is on either child soldiers or sexual and gender-based violence, and that there is a need to mainstream children’s experiences with armed conflict when it comes to accountability. Can you speak a little bit more about the benefits of this mainstreaming? Is it about understanding the crime that is being prosecuted, whether it’s war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, or is there more to it? What would we achieve by mainstreaming children’s experiences of armed conflict in the way that you describe in the report, as opposed to dealing with the distinct ways in which these approach, like, for example, child soldiers, sexual and gender-based violence, and otherwise?

Jelia Sane

I mean, there are, sort of, many benefits, right? I would say that the starting point is that children are rights holders and similar to every person who’s the victim of a serious, you know, violation of human rights, IHL. or international crime, that individual has a right to an effective remedy. So, I think, at a very, sort of, basic level, there is a fundamental issue around, sort of, access to justice being afforded to everyone, and that individuals who often comprise the largest community of victims, because of what we know about the composition, right, of populations in conflict zones not being wholly marginalised. So I would say that that’s the starting point.

Secondly, and I touched upon this already, I think we do ourselves a real disservice if we either fail to consider the experiences of children altogether or if we understand those experiences reductively in the sense of, you know, what is the point of having an accountability mechanism? What is the point of, you know, having fact-findings and trying to reconstruct records of war? It’s about understanding what happened, you know, repairing the harm, and I’ve explained why that’s important, and understanding those lessons to ensure, you know, that there isn’t a repetition. And again, I think if we exclude an important group from that exercise, in terms of, you know, sowing the seeds for future, long-term, durable peace, I think we do ourselves a disservice in that regard.

So I think, you know, those are two reasons why it’s really important, I think, to ensure that we fully capture, you know, to the extent that it’s possible, of course, the experiences of children, you know. And obviously, international mechanisms do not have the resources, you know, to pursue, investigate, indict, prosecute every single violation that’s perpetrated everywhere, and also domestic states have a role to play. But I think what we want to start seeing is at least a shift in the attitudes and a recognition that, yes, children are victimised, and B, they are victimised in many, many different ways, and we need to start, you know, addressing the ways in which they’re victimised in a manner that is more comprehensive.

And I think the third reason also is because if one considers, you know, and again, I touched upon this briefly but, the very serious long-term implications for children in terms of, you know, their physical health, their mental health, their development, etc., you know, this is a particularly vulnerable constituency, and I think access to justice and to reparations has a critical, you know, role to play.

And perhaps the final point, and I promise I’ll end there, is that, you know, documentation and accountability, in my view at least, is all the more urgent, necessary, vis-à-vis communities of survivors that are already marginalised, discriminated against, you know, invisibilised. So we saw this, you know, for many years in the international justice fields in relation to women, you know. That community wasn’t fully recognised. And I think, you know, where you’re dealing with groups that are already marginalised, it’s a form of double victimisation, if you don’t have documentation, investigation, and then that pathway being laid to accountability. So I think I would say those are four reasons why it’s important to really look at this issue fully.

Dr Kumaravadivel Guruparan

Thanks, Jelia, and one question that I would probably direct more to Veronique and Rocco, if both of you are – and if you want to take this, is the question of, I mean, Rocco made eloquently the point that returns is an important issue here, and the need for accountability mechanisms to focus on this is to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. But how do you get this on the agenda of states? I mean, there seems to be a varying commitment, both politically and financially towards international criminal justice as a whole. So what strategies in specific would you say need to be taken by civil society to attract states’ attention, particularly to child-related crimes?

Veronique Aubert

Maybe I can go first. Thank you so much, Guru, and I think that’s – in the report there is a very interesting analysis with another international criminal law crime, sexual violence, that is analysed. And, in some ways, you can see some similarities between the marginalised groups in, you know, both suffering a little bit from the same challenges. And, you know, it’s a really interesting approach to look at and see how gradually, over the years, there has been an increased funding, focus, political support for investigating and prosecuting SGBV. I remember, I was a Researcher in Crimes International in the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 99/2000, and documenting a lot of sexual violent cases against children, against men, against women. And the initial reaction from some of the key governments, the UK and others, were, “You must be exaggerating. Your report can’t be true,” and it took quite a lot of time to really build up an understanding.

And I think the report really explained how, you know, the importance of a multidisciplinary team has been really important, and the build-up of the different experts working together, and that’s what Rocco was mentioning, we lack a little bit in the children sector, is to have a larger number of experts that are ready to collaborate to try to advance the issue in the same way we saw with SGBV. And this led to some of the key appointments, like some special – and for a Special Representative on Sexual Violence and so forth, which is really to your question on whether we should mainstream the whole issue of accountability for crimes against children, or we should establish dedicated expertise. I would say both.

And we’ve seen how this has worked for SGBV crime, and how it is so important that we manage to achieve the same for crimes committed against children, whereas the appointment of dedicated expert is essential, whether it’s a specific unit, whether it’s special individuals, because very often these are the ones that will, inside the organisation, that need to prioritise. And then the mainstreaming is so important, ‘cause way too often crimes committed against children are not prioritised, because nobody feels the responsibility to do that, or there is a specific unit doing it, and so therefore, they fall into the cracks.

So – and finally, I think another point that really helped getting – is building trust with the communities. And I think that’s where government, by seeing how the mobilisation and how, you know, from a domestic – some lessons learned from the domestic sector, there’s been also the creation of Justice Rapid Response, and its specific dedicated responsibility in documenting SGBV, has all made it impossible for government not to prioritise. And that’s what we need to do. We really need to learn the lessons and together, bring some of those changes in order to make government in the impossible position not to prioritise crimes against children. Thank you.

Dr Kumaravadivel Guruparan

Thank you, Veronique. Rocco, did you want to come in?

Rocco Blume

Yeah, just a couple of points. I think it’s obvious that states aren’t monoliths. So, states and governments, they comprise individuals in different roles. So, in our advocacy we work with Politicians and Civil Servants and you can find – we have found Civil Servants in the British Government that are incredible champions and experts on rights issues and they want to move forward the agenda. Likewise, you find some Politicians who do and equally, you find Civil Servants and Politicians who are blockers, who it may not be in their interest, or they may not understand the issues that we’re putting to them. So critically, it’s finding the people, the right people, who you can pursue an agenda with, and find those great allies.

Two additional points. In terms of Politicians and political agendas, we have to speak to the interests of whatever the advocacy target we’re trying to approach. And so much of the last 20 years has been shaped by the counterterrorism agendas and operations of Western states, that we’ve seen, and I think everyone in government, you know, quietly acknowledges, or fears publicly acknowledging, which is that those campaigns have contributed towards violence and policies of detaining people and detaining children in particular, in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, is driving the conflict. Bringing that to life and making that lesson something that can be understood and acted upon by policymakers is critical. And to that end, working with people who have been undertaking those operations, former soldiers, former security professionals, who have been at the hard end of this, they have a huge amount to say about what is and isn’t a valuable way to pursue a counterterrorism agenda.

Finally, the point that the report makes about the invisibilisation of children is central, because that’s absolutely true across the humanitarian sector, that we – the fact that children don’t have a voice means that they are deprioritised, their needs are deprioritised, and the roles that serve them, like Child Protection Advisors, and as the report identifies, experts within human rights missions. So, we can bring to life the voice of children. You can work with children directly by supporting them to find their own voice and to articulate their own voice. And something that we do is to work with adults who, in their childhood, experienced rights violations. So, we have a colleague in Southern Sudan who’s a former child soldier, who undertakes a lot of advocacy, talking about his experiences, because he is now in a place where he’s able to articulate them safely for himself. So there are methods by which we can bring these issues alive.

Dr Kumaravadivel Guruparan

Thank you. Thank you, Rocco, and let’s move onto some questions from the audience. I’ll – there are two questions from – this Marcus Gage and I’ll, sort of, combine them. The first is directed towards Jelia, about – in relation to the issue of underreporting. It says, “Jelia’s point about recording the plight of children in conflict and accountability in the camps sits somehow strangely with public communication policies where children are very prominent. Example, public communication of aid organisations. Would Jelia agree? How would Jelia respond to that observation?” And the other question that he asked is, sort of, related. There are a lot of protection frameworks and summarising the question now, so how would you respond to states that argue that there are a lot of protection frameworks out there, and hence, how would you situate the criticisms and observations of the report, given that there are a number of these protection frameworks? Jelia?

Jelia Sane

Yes, great, I don’t know if I should thank you, Marcus, but thank you for these questions. I’ll deal with your second point first, because Rocco essentially answered that. You know, what we found in the research, what was reported to us by key informants, in terms of the lack of state engagement, I mean, I guess the first point is that, you know, this is part of the issue. Protection is not the same as criminal accountability, right, and somebody, sort of, ending up in prison for, you know, an international crime perpetrated against the child. So – and what we’ve seen, when we looked at, for instance, you know, the efforts that are being placed by states now, or recently, in terms of SGBV, comparing it to the gap that we identify, in terms of children, and this is a point that Rocco made, is that often states, you know, they might be happy to have, you know, protection frameworks in place, but when it comes to accountability, and really shedding a light on, you know, a number of violations, it creates problems, you know, for a number of states who, in the pursuit of a counterterrorism agenda, in pursuit of a national security agenda, for example, engage in practices, such as the detention of children on national security grounds. And that’s not a problem or an obstacle that arises in relation to SGBV, for instance. So that’s certainly one reason that we’ve identified, when it comes to states, you know, not aggressively pursuing, you know, the issue of criminal accountability, when it comes to children, because it has implications on, you know, other agendas that they are pursuing.

The other point, in relation to visibility, again, I think, you know, we’re not suggesting that when it comes to protection or humanitarian action, that, you know, actors involved in those processes aren’t doing what they can, in terms of, you know, casting a light on the plight of children, when it comes to their access to relief, aid, you know, education, healthcare, etc., even though, of course, you know, there is still limitations, you know, I think, in relation to that. What we’re saying is that if one looks at a) the extent to which children are legally protected in war, you know, the child is often the most protected subject of international law, the scale and the magnitude of the violations and crimes perpetrated against them, so those two things, and then you look at the very limited opportunities or strategies for justice, you know, there’s a real imbalance there. So, just because they might feature prominently in an aid campaign, that doesn’t mean that they’re going to feature prominently in an investigation or documentation strategy, because, you know, those are two entirely different, you know, sets of issues that we’re talking about. So, I don’t actually think that there’s necessarily a contradiction, and I would hope, you know, that perhaps justice actors can work more closely with, you know, humanitarian actors to perhaps bridge that gap more effectively.

Dr Kumaravadivel Guruparan

Thanks. I’ll move onto this question by Jeremy Roth. “Can the panel address the issue of children and the young performing acts of violence, while also being victims of violence, abuse, etc.? Can the experience of trauma effectively excuse the violent acts of child perpetrators?” And I’ll leave that open to any of the panellists wanting to respond on that. A request to keep your answers to the minimum possible, because I want to accommodate as many questions as possible. Thanks. Anyone wants to take that? Rocco?

Rocco Blume

I could just say a few words, which would be, this brings to life the case of Dominic Ongwen in Uganda. It’s very important to remember that he was being prosecuted for crimes that he committed after the age of 18. If it’s a child below the age of 18 that commits acts of violence, there are international juvenile justice standards in place for them to be tried. But in terms of a child that is recruited into an armed group, they are the victim of a grave violation of their rights, and the actions they commit have to be seen in that context. So, that – I’m going to stop there, because there are legal experts on the panel that could say much better than me about that.

Jelia Sane

Can I just very briefly – I don’t want to, sort of, dominate the space, but I think the Ongwen case is a really interesting example. What I will say is that, first of all, the Rome statute excludes criminal liability for individuals who are aged under 18. So, a child perpetrator can’t actually be prosecuted before the ICC, at least not whilst they’re still a child. Secondly, this is an issue that came up in Sierra Leone, where you did have, you know, so many child soldiers, and there the statute did not – you know, it allowed for the possibility for 15-18 year olds being prosecuted, but the prosecutor made a policy choice. You know, they have prosecutorial discretion not to, you know, investigate, prosecute, crimes perpetrated by – while – you know, by children whilst they were still children. So I think there’s always a margin of discretion. And then when it comes to former child soldiers for instance, you know, looking at, you know, the experience of trauma, I guess it depends what you mean by ‘excuse’. If you mean ‘excuse’ in legal terms, i.e. does it constitute a defence, you know, you would have to show either that they were acting under duress, which is what Dominic Ongwen tried to do, and the court said, “Sorry, you haven’t produced enough evidence of that,” but he was still allowed to raise that defence. Or you would have to show, you know, that they were somehow lacking in full mental capacity because of the experiences of trauma. So that really then becomes a question of your evidence and what you have in place. But even if it doesn’t serve to fully exclude your liability, I would have thought that that’s something that is really relevant when it comes to sentencing, you know, as something that can play a part in mitigation, subject always to what evidence you’re able to present to that effect.

Dr Kumaravadivel Guruparan

Thanks. We’ll move onto this question by – from Lesley McKenna. “What effect has the pandemic has on conflict affected children? What recommendations do the panellists have for ending and preventing violations, as we move forward with post-COVID recovery?” And I want to combine this question with the one that Emily Harding has asked, which is important, about the children’s voice in this whole process. “Do modern technology and social media provide a way for children and young adults to gain a political voice, in the midst of a conflict that will enable them to become stakeholders in moving towards peace?” Any of the panellists want to take either of those? Veronique?

Veronique Aubert

Yeah, I think, in terms of violations we – the pandemic definitely had an impact, and I think it can be a direct impact related to the absence of investigations and monitoring of violations against children. So, in a way, impunity can only increase when those who are supposed to document, to investigate, to supervise, are not around or are not able to travel to some of those most unstable places. And then you have some more remote aspects, which has – education, school is very often a safe place for children in a situation of armed conflict, one where they should be protected in access to their right to education. During the pandemic we’ve seen how the vacation of school has increased and also the denial of access to education for a lot of the children in war zones, but also, how then the schools have been used increasingly – and the recruitment of child soldiers has – there has been such an increase. So, I think combined, both of them, the direct impact, the lack of supervision, and the direct targeting of children, which has been able to take place, of really an impunity, a complete impunity before, but during the pandemic, everybody was losing an eye on what was going on. And then there is – yeah, I’ll stop here, because I think Rocco wanted to add something.

Rocco Blume

Yeah, just to add to that, the increase in economic insecurity in a conflict situation will usually result in negative survival strategy. So in, you know, essentially joining armed groups, having to engage in survival, sex, that increases. So we, in our programme in the Central African Republic, have seen an increased number of young people working in mines. and the mining sector and militarisation of youth are very closely related. There’s a, like, a very fluid movement between the two.

Just on that second point about modern technology. Yes, where modern technology exists and it’s accessible, but I think what we find is that children have a voice, every child has a voice. And wherever they are, they can be supported to articulate that voice and to reach power where there’s no technology at all. Again, in the Democratic Republic of Congo and CAR we have a programme called VoiceMore where we work with young people to support them to just reach the right people they want to reach to influence. But they have everything – they know everything they want to say already. So, it’s important, but it’s not relevant everywhere, I guess.

Dr Kumaravadivel Guruparan

And the final question that we have here, which might not be very relevant to our discussion, but still I think for the sake of completion, I’ll ask this, for – if any of the panellists want to answer this. Former law enforcement Intelligence Analyst Mr Euan Grant, “What has the impact been on the arrival of private military companies and their own subcontractors in conflict zones in recent years?” Who’s interested are now doing so?” I’m leaving it open to any of the panellists. Rocco, do you want to?

Rocco Blume

Oh, I’ll just raise a question. Who is holding them to account? What rights frameworks are they? What – where is the pressure for them to feel accountability? The states that are hiring them have a direct responsibility and that needs to be brought to life.

Dr Kumaravadivel Guruparan

Thank you. Do any of the other panellists want to say something, and that we may have missed in part of this conversation, do they want to add? We just have two more minutes, so any points quickly? Veronique or Jelia or Rocco [pause]? So, that can be…

Veronique Aubert

I…

Dr Kumaravadivel Guruparan

Sorry, sorry, Veronique, go ahead.

Veronique Aubert

Just, I look at the question by Jeremy Roth on – I suspect that many violent adults have experienced significant individual and family trauma. Having worked very recently in Iraq with a team of ISIS, it’s been really striking to see how the experience in a young age of some of the ISIS fighters, whether in the domestic sphere, in terms of sexual violence and incest and abuse at home, but also the general constant abuse, has actually many psychological experts made the link with some of these. This is not an excuse, but I think that’s underlined how everything – there is an interlink between violence that has been committed against the child, his or her upbringing, with no access to justice, remedy, including an awareness and understanding and the risk of committing the same or similar type of abuses. And I think we need to work much more – in a much more multidisciplinary context, with having the psychologic expert working with the legal expert. We are working with protection experts to really have a holistic approach and understanding of how best to tackle crimes committed against or affecting children, and to really build on each other’s expertise of how different they are, because there are some interaction and repercussion to what one has experienced in his or her young age.

Dr Kumaravadivel Guruparan

Thank you, Veronique. So, with that, we’ve come to the end of this session, which leads me to thank you brilliant four panellists, three panellists who have joined us today. Thank you very much for you time, and for speaking about this very important report. I hope that the important recommendations coming out from this report gets the attention it deserves. I also wish to thank the participants for engaging with the panellists with their questions, and I look forward to seeing you all in a future event, hosted by Chatham House. Thank you very much.