Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE EXAMINES REPORTS OF ICELAND ON OPTIONAL PROTOCOLS TO CONVENTION ON RIGHTS OF CHILD
26 May 2006
Share
26 May 2006
The Committee on the Rights of the Child today reviewed the initial reports of Iceland on how that country is implementing the provisions of the two Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict and on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.
In opening remarks to the Committee, Ragna Arnadottir, Director of Legal Affairs at the Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs of Iceland, said, with regard to the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, it had to be borne in mind that Iceland had no national armed forces and thus had no military criminal code. Concerning the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, in the past few years two extensive statutes had been enacted, the Child Protection Act, in 2002, and the Children’s Act, in 2003. In addition, several amendments to existing legislation gave further protection to the rights of children covered by the Optional Protocol. A special provision on trafficking in human beings had been added to the General Penal Code in 2003 and that same year, penalties for sexual offences against children were increased.
In preliminary remarks, Committee Expert Hatem Kotrane, who served as Rapporteur for the reports of Iceland, said Iceland’s commitment to children’s protection was well-known and Iceland had played a role in the adoption and drafting of those Protocols. Indeed, the Committee had had difficulty in finding questions to put to the delegation, in particular with regard to the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict. The Committee could only encourage Iceland to continue moving forward and to continue setting an example of the best practices that a State could have regarding children.
The Committee will release its formal, written concluding observations and recommendations on the initial reports of Iceland to the Optional Protocols towards the end of its three-week session, which will conclude on 2 June.
Also representing the delegation of Iceland were Thordis Ingadottir, Legal Expert, University of Reykjavik, and Legal Adviser to the Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs, and Edda Magnus, Attaché, Permanent Mission of Iceland to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
As one of the 192 States parties to the Convention, Iceland is obliged to present periodic reports to the Committee on its efforts to comply with the provisions of the treaty. The delegation was on hand throughout the day to present the report and to answer questions raised by Committee Experts.
Reports of Iceland
The initial report of Iceland on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (CRC/C/OPAC/ISL/1) notes that Iceland has no national armed forces and that armed groups do not exist in Iceland. Iceland is a State party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which defines as a war crime the conscripting or enlisting of children under the age of 15 years and, in 2000, Iceland ratified the Convention of the International Labour Organization concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, which defines forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict as the worst form of child labour. In March 2003, at a meeting in Stockholm, Iceland agreed that if an unaccompanied child is returned to his or her country of origin, adequate provisions must be made to care for the child. In addition, Iceland’s support funding for development cooperation projects has increased fivefold over the past five years. In 2004 Iceland contributed a total of ISK 329.8 m to reconstruction in developing countries, including for reconstruction in Iraq, refugee aid, and reconstruction in Liberia.
The initial report of Iceland on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (CRC/C/OPAC/ISL/1) says the position of a Children’s Ombudsman was established in1994 to improve the standing of children and defend their interests, requirements and rights. In November 1998, the Child Protection Agency opened Children’s House to coordinate efforts of the authorities and other parties in this field, to prevent subjecting the child to repeated interviews by many agencies in different locations. In Children’s House, the child is interviewed in a special room by a trained interviewer. After the interview, the child can have a medical examination in the on-site medical clinic. Children’s House also provides treatment services for child victims of sexual abuse and their families, and during its first four years in operation, approximately 470 cases have been referred to it. In addition, the organization Save the Children Iceland, which works in close conjunction with the Icelandic police, launched an education and information campaign against child pornography on the Internet via its website, encouraging members of the public to notify the website if they come across child pornography.
Presentation of Reports
RAGNA ARNADOTTIR, Director of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs of Iceland, said that regarding the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, it had to be borne in mind that Iceland had no national armed forces and thus had no military criminal code. As was illustrated in their written replies to the Committee, Icelandic law did not contain specific provisions on the recruitment of children in armed forces or groups. It was, however, important to bear in mind that other legal provisions could be applicable in the prosecution of such a crime. The Government had increased substantially official development assistance in recent years. Last year, a comprehensive policy on Iceland’s development cooperation for the period 2005-2009 had been presented. That policy rested on two pillars, with children’s rights featuring prominently in both of them.
Contributions to UNICEF had more than doubled between 2004 and 2005. In 2006, the partnership with UNICEF would be further enhanced with the launching of a new programme for Icelandic junior professional officers. In addition, Iceland had for a number of years seconded experts to the United Nations Development Fund for Women in the Balkans to work on the promotion of gender equality and women’s rights, work that had direct relevance for efforts to help children victims of armed conflict, and the Government had decided to significantly increase its support for that programme.
Concerning the application of the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography in Iceland, it rested mainly with the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Social Affairs. In the past few years, two extensive statutes had been enacted concerning children, the Child Protection Act, in 2002, and the Children’s Act, in 2003. In addition, several amendments to existing legislation had been made giving further protection to the rights of children covered by the Optional Protocol. For instance, a special provision on trafficking in human beings had been added to the General Penal Code in 2003. That same year, penalties for sexual offences against children were increased.
Since the submission of the report, the Government had submitted two further bills amending the Penal Code, which contained provisions strengthening the protection of children in respect of sexual offences and child pornography. First, as young victims had little psychological or physical strength to defend themselves, and relatively little violence or minor threats could appear major to children, a bill proposed that if a victim were younger than 18 that should be considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. Second, there was a bill containing an amendment to the Penal Code relating to child pornography, which underscored that it covered not only procurement of child pornography through a computer system for oneself, but also for another person.
Cooperation between the Icelandic Police and Internet Service Providers in Iceland was under consideration, Ms. Arnadottir said, with respect to establishing content filters, preventing users to access websites containing child pornography. It was hoped that the alliance would be realized in a few months.
There was no record of cases of sale of children or child prostitution during the reporting period. With respect to child pornography, Iceland did have several cases on the possession of child pornography, as illustrated in a table in the report. Two or three cases involved Icelandic children or children within Icelandic jurisdiction.
Discussion on the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict
HATEM KOTRANE, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Iceland, welcomed the Icelandic delegation, thanking them for their report, their answers to written questions and their presentation. Iceland did not really pose any problems with regard to the implementation of the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict., as there was no national army in Iceland. Naturally, the Optional Protocol applied to all States.
Mr. Kotrane noted that Iceland had ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 2000, which was important as it made it possible to bring war criminals to justice. Similarly, he welcomed Iceland’s ratification of the ILO Convention on the worst forms of child labour, including the recruitment of children for armed conflicts, among them.
Another welcome development was the appointment by the Ministry of Justice of a working group to help children in special circumstances in Iceland. In that connection, he would appreciate more information on that working group and its activities. Also, what provisions were there to broaden the prohibition in the courts to ban recruitment of children so that it could cover groups linked to such activities that might be present in the country.
Another Expert asked whether there were any police training schools in the country, and if so, what the minimum age for recruitment was.
Would Iceland consider extending the age of prohibition for recruitment, which was currently 15, under the Optional Protocol and other international instruments, one Expert asked?
Response by Delegation
Responding, the delegation said that the working group addressed the situation of unaccompanied children or asylum-seeking children came to Iceland, and was elaborating rules for handling that situation. The delegation underscored that it was a very rare occurrence in Iceland. In 2003 there had been no unaccompanied asylum-seeking children arriving in the country. In 2004 there was one occurrence of a 17- year-old asylum-seeker without papers who was unaccompanied. That child had fled and the Government authorities had not been able to find him. In 2005 no such case had occurred.
With regard to raising the minimum age for a ban on recruitment, if that were to be changed in the Optional Protocol, of course Iceland would consider doing so.
There was a police academy in Iceland, the delegation affirmed, and one of the entry requirements was that the applicant had to be 20 years of age.
Responding to a question on the applicability of international human rights instruments in domestic law, the delegation noted that, aside from the European Convention on Human Rights, international conventions were not given legal force as such in Iceland. Nevertheless, as noted in the report, the legal effect of such amendments had grown in Iceland and there had been a marked tendency of the courts to make references to international human rights instruments. Also there had been many examples of courts nullifying laws that conflicted with human rights provisions in the Constitution.
Discussion on the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography
HATEM KOTRANE, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Iceland, thanked the delegation for their exhaustive report. During its final observations on the periodic report of Iceland in 2003, the Committee had welcomed the 2002 Child Protection Law, which was still a Bill at that time, and he congratulated Iceland again now. He felt that it would reinforce the rights of the child. He also commended Iceland for the amendment changing provisions in the Penal Code to reinforce provisions against human trafficking and to increase the sanctions for sexual offences committed against children.
Mr. Kotrane remained concerned, however, that Icelandic law did not cover all the acts and activities covered by the Optional Protocol. For example, in cases involving the sale of children for the purposes of forced labour, it did not appear to him that there was a specific provision in Iceland making forced labour an aggravated circumstance and providing penalties for it. Also, regarding pornography, it seemed to him that Icelandic law covered more specifically cases regarding pornographic materials, as well as cases of serious cases of using the child for pornographic uses. But what about, for example, the attempt to use a child for such acts? A fine would not be sufficient to cover to such a crime, he felt. In that connection, he was pleased to note Iceland’s proposed amendment regarding a more extensive coverage against Internet pornography.
With regard to jurisdiction, Mr. Kotrane remained concerned that the State party should broaden the scope of its authority to cover such acts that occurred outside of their territory.
Other Experts raised questions and asked for further information on, among other things, awareness-raising campaigns for officials, parents and children themselves; cybercrime involving children; whether there was a central monitoring mechanism for implementation of the Optional Protocol; whether purchasers of sexual services were punishable under Icelandic law; statutes of limitations on prosecutions for child trafficking or child pornography; and the increase – albeit a slight one – in cases of child pornography brought before the courts.
One Expert, noting that Iceland did indeed have lots of separate legislation covering various aspects of the Protocol, suggested that it might be helpful if Iceland were to establish a unified national action plan to cover all their obligations under it.
Another Expert drew attention to the fact that the minimum age of consent for sexual activities was 14 in Iceland and hoped the delegation would clarify the implications of that for prosecuting sexual crimes against children.
Response by Delegation
Responding to the query on legislative provisions on forced labour, the delegation said that the 2004 amendment to the Penal Code on traffic in human beings explicitly covered “anyone guilty of acts for sexual purposes or forced labour”. There were also special provisions in Icelandic law outside of the General Penal Code, such as the act on health and safety at work, which addressed the issue of forced labour and made it a punishable offence. Moreover, child protection agencies existed at the municipal level. If they were aware of a case of a child’s ill-treatment it was immediately handed over to the authorities, which could lead to the child being sent to Children’s House for attention and care. Thus, Iceland had very comprehensive legislation for the protection of children and forced labour of any kind would fall under its scope.
Regarding attempted use of a child for pornographic purposes, that was covered in Icelandic legislation under the specific crime of attempt, as well as specific legislation criminalizing child prostitution, which covered engaging a person under the age of 18 for purposes of prostitution.
As far as jurisdiction was concerned, the delegation said that, while the Penal Code only covered Icelandic citizens or those who lived in Iceland, it could be used for violations that had occurred before someone had entered the country, as had been the case with certain war crimes prosecutions.
Responding to the query on awareness-raising, in general there had been huge discussions in Icelandic society in recent years on those issues, in particular on sexual violence against children. Civil society associations organized workshops and Save the Children Iceland had organized a hotline, which worked closely with the Icelandic child protection agencies, the delegation noted.
Concerning statutes of limitations, in 1998 there had been an amendment to increase those for cases involving sexual offences against children and new amendments were being considered. Currently, the statute of limitations only began to run when the child in question reached the age of 18, not 14 as previously provided for. While there were arguments on both sides, the delegation acknowledged, the Government preferred to extend the statute of limitations for such offences, rather than eliminate it altogether.
In further questions, Experts asked whether Iceland had a national focal point on child protection and how Iceland was collaborating with Internet providers.
Responding to the question of collaboration with Internet providers, the delegation said the Government was trying to get Internet providers to agree voluntarily to cooperate. Negotiations were ongoing and it was expected such an agreement would be reached in a few months.
There was no national child protection focal point that the delegation knew of. The two main bodies were the Child Protection Agency and Children’s House.
Preliminary Concluding Observations
HATEM KOTRANE, Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the reports of Iceland, expressed his thanks to the delegation for their presentation and said that the Committee had greatly appreciated the fruitful and productive dialogue. The Committee had known before it had this dialogue that Iceland was committed to children’s protection and it had played a role in the adoption and drafting of those Protocols. Indeed, the Committee had had difficulty in finding questions to put to the delegation, in particular with regard to the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict. The Committee could only encourage the delegation to continue moving forward and continue expanding its competence, especially covering the use of children over the age of 15 in armed conflicts.
The same was true with respect to the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. The delegation’s responses, in particular, regarding criminalization of forced labour, had helped to clarify any outstanding questions. The Committee could only encourage Iceland to continue moving forward and to continue setting an example of the best practices that a State could have regarding children.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
The Committee on the Rights of the Child today reviewed the initial reports of Iceland on how that country is implementing the provisions of the two Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict and on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.
In opening remarks to the Committee, Ragna Arnadottir, Director of Legal Affairs at the Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs of Iceland, said, with regard to the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, it had to be borne in mind that Iceland had no national armed forces and thus had no military criminal code. Concerning the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, in the past few years two extensive statutes had been enacted, the Child Protection Act, in 2002, and the Children’s Act, in 2003. In addition, several amendments to existing legislation gave further protection to the rights of children covered by the Optional Protocol. A special provision on trafficking in human beings had been added to the General Penal Code in 2003 and that same year, penalties for sexual offences against children were increased.
In preliminary remarks, Committee Expert Hatem Kotrane, who served as Rapporteur for the reports of Iceland, said Iceland’s commitment to children’s protection was well-known and Iceland had played a role in the adoption and drafting of those Protocols. Indeed, the Committee had had difficulty in finding questions to put to the delegation, in particular with regard to the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict. The Committee could only encourage Iceland to continue moving forward and to continue setting an example of the best practices that a State could have regarding children.
The Committee will release its formal, written concluding observations and recommendations on the initial reports of Iceland to the Optional Protocols towards the end of its three-week session, which will conclude on 2 June.
Also representing the delegation of Iceland were Thordis Ingadottir, Legal Expert, University of Reykjavik, and Legal Adviser to the Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs, and Edda Magnus, Attaché, Permanent Mission of Iceland to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
As one of the 192 States parties to the Convention, Iceland is obliged to present periodic reports to the Committee on its efforts to comply with the provisions of the treaty. The delegation was on hand throughout the day to present the report and to answer questions raised by Committee Experts.
Reports of Iceland
The initial report of Iceland on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (CRC/C/OPAC/ISL/1) notes that Iceland has no national armed forces and that armed groups do not exist in Iceland. Iceland is a State party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which defines as a war crime the conscripting or enlisting of children under the age of 15 years and, in 2000, Iceland ratified the Convention of the International Labour Organization concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, which defines forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict as the worst form of child labour. In March 2003, at a meeting in Stockholm, Iceland agreed that if an unaccompanied child is returned to his or her country of origin, adequate provisions must be made to care for the child. In addition, Iceland’s support funding for development cooperation projects has increased fivefold over the past five years. In 2004 Iceland contributed a total of ISK 329.8 m to reconstruction in developing countries, including for reconstruction in Iraq, refugee aid, and reconstruction in Liberia.
The initial report of Iceland on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (CRC/C/OPAC/ISL/1) says the position of a Children’s Ombudsman was established in1994 to improve the standing of children and defend their interests, requirements and rights. In November 1998, the Child Protection Agency opened Children’s House to coordinate efforts of the authorities and other parties in this field, to prevent subjecting the child to repeated interviews by many agencies in different locations. In Children’s House, the child is interviewed in a special room by a trained interviewer. After the interview, the child can have a medical examination in the on-site medical clinic. Children’s House also provides treatment services for child victims of sexual abuse and their families, and during its first four years in operation, approximately 470 cases have been referred to it. In addition, the organization Save the Children Iceland, which works in close conjunction with the Icelandic police, launched an education and information campaign against child pornography on the Internet via its website, encouraging members of the public to notify the website if they come across child pornography.
Presentation of Reports
RAGNA ARNADOTTIR, Director of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs of Iceland, said that regarding the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, it had to be borne in mind that Iceland had no national armed forces and thus had no military criminal code. As was illustrated in their written replies to the Committee, Icelandic law did not contain specific provisions on the recruitment of children in armed forces or groups. It was, however, important to bear in mind that other legal provisions could be applicable in the prosecution of such a crime. The Government had increased substantially official development assistance in recent years. Last year, a comprehensive policy on Iceland’s development cooperation for the period 2005-2009 had been presented. That policy rested on two pillars, with children’s rights featuring prominently in both of them.
Contributions to UNICEF had more than doubled between 2004 and 2005. In 2006, the partnership with UNICEF would be further enhanced with the launching of a new programme for Icelandic junior professional officers. In addition, Iceland had for a number of years seconded experts to the United Nations Development Fund for Women in the Balkans to work on the promotion of gender equality and women’s rights, work that had direct relevance for efforts to help children victims of armed conflict, and the Government had decided to significantly increase its support for that programme.
Concerning the application of the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography in Iceland, it rested mainly with the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Social Affairs. In the past few years, two extensive statutes had been enacted concerning children, the Child Protection Act, in 2002, and the Children’s Act, in 2003. In addition, several amendments to existing legislation had been made giving further protection to the rights of children covered by the Optional Protocol. For instance, a special provision on trafficking in human beings had been added to the General Penal Code in 2003. That same year, penalties for sexual offences against children were increased.
Since the submission of the report, the Government had submitted two further bills amending the Penal Code, which contained provisions strengthening the protection of children in respect of sexual offences and child pornography. First, as young victims had little psychological or physical strength to defend themselves, and relatively little violence or minor threats could appear major to children, a bill proposed that if a victim were younger than 18 that should be considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. Second, there was a bill containing an amendment to the Penal Code relating to child pornography, which underscored that it covered not only procurement of child pornography through a computer system for oneself, but also for another person.
Cooperation between the Icelandic Police and Internet Service Providers in Iceland was under consideration, Ms. Arnadottir said, with respect to establishing content filters, preventing users to access websites containing child pornography. It was hoped that the alliance would be realized in a few months.
There was no record of cases of sale of children or child prostitution during the reporting period. With respect to child pornography, Iceland did have several cases on the possession of child pornography, as illustrated in a table in the report. Two or three cases involved Icelandic children or children within Icelandic jurisdiction.
Discussion on the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict
HATEM KOTRANE, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Iceland, welcomed the Icelandic delegation, thanking them for their report, their answers to written questions and their presentation. Iceland did not really pose any problems with regard to the implementation of the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict., as there was no national army in Iceland. Naturally, the Optional Protocol applied to all States.
Mr. Kotrane noted that Iceland had ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 2000, which was important as it made it possible to bring war criminals to justice. Similarly, he welcomed Iceland’s ratification of the ILO Convention on the worst forms of child labour, including the recruitment of children for armed conflicts, among them.
Another welcome development was the appointment by the Ministry of Justice of a working group to help children in special circumstances in Iceland. In that connection, he would appreciate more information on that working group and its activities. Also, what provisions were there to broaden the prohibition in the courts to ban recruitment of children so that it could cover groups linked to such activities that might be present in the country.
Another Expert asked whether there were any police training schools in the country, and if so, what the minimum age for recruitment was.
Would Iceland consider extending the age of prohibition for recruitment, which was currently 15, under the Optional Protocol and other international instruments, one Expert asked?
Response by Delegation
Responding, the delegation said that the working group addressed the situation of unaccompanied children or asylum-seeking children came to Iceland, and was elaborating rules for handling that situation. The delegation underscored that it was a very rare occurrence in Iceland. In 2003 there had been no unaccompanied asylum-seeking children arriving in the country. In 2004 there was one occurrence of a 17- year-old asylum-seeker without papers who was unaccompanied. That child had fled and the Government authorities had not been able to find him. In 2005 no such case had occurred.
With regard to raising the minimum age for a ban on recruitment, if that were to be changed in the Optional Protocol, of course Iceland would consider doing so.
There was a police academy in Iceland, the delegation affirmed, and one of the entry requirements was that the applicant had to be 20 years of age.
Responding to a question on the applicability of international human rights instruments in domestic law, the delegation noted that, aside from the European Convention on Human Rights, international conventions were not given legal force as such in Iceland. Nevertheless, as noted in the report, the legal effect of such amendments had grown in Iceland and there had been a marked tendency of the courts to make references to international human rights instruments. Also there had been many examples of courts nullifying laws that conflicted with human rights provisions in the Constitution.
Discussion on the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography
HATEM KOTRANE, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Iceland, thanked the delegation for their exhaustive report. During its final observations on the periodic report of Iceland in 2003, the Committee had welcomed the 2002 Child Protection Law, which was still a Bill at that time, and he congratulated Iceland again now. He felt that it would reinforce the rights of the child. He also commended Iceland for the amendment changing provisions in the Penal Code to reinforce provisions against human trafficking and to increase the sanctions for sexual offences committed against children.
Mr. Kotrane remained concerned, however, that Icelandic law did not cover all the acts and activities covered by the Optional Protocol. For example, in cases involving the sale of children for the purposes of forced labour, it did not appear to him that there was a specific provision in Iceland making forced labour an aggravated circumstance and providing penalties for it. Also, regarding pornography, it seemed to him that Icelandic law covered more specifically cases regarding pornographic materials, as well as cases of serious cases of using the child for pornographic uses. But what about, for example, the attempt to use a child for such acts? A fine would not be sufficient to cover to such a crime, he felt. In that connection, he was pleased to note Iceland’s proposed amendment regarding a more extensive coverage against Internet pornography.
With regard to jurisdiction, Mr. Kotrane remained concerned that the State party should broaden the scope of its authority to cover such acts that occurred outside of their territory.
Other Experts raised questions and asked for further information on, among other things, awareness-raising campaigns for officials, parents and children themselves; cybercrime involving children; whether there was a central monitoring mechanism for implementation of the Optional Protocol; whether purchasers of sexual services were punishable under Icelandic law; statutes of limitations on prosecutions for child trafficking or child pornography; and the increase – albeit a slight one – in cases of child pornography brought before the courts.
One Expert, noting that Iceland did indeed have lots of separate legislation covering various aspects of the Protocol, suggested that it might be helpful if Iceland were to establish a unified national action plan to cover all their obligations under it.
Another Expert drew attention to the fact that the minimum age of consent for sexual activities was 14 in Iceland and hoped the delegation would clarify the implications of that for prosecuting sexual crimes against children.
Response by Delegation
Responding to the query on legislative provisions on forced labour, the delegation said that the 2004 amendment to the Penal Code on traffic in human beings explicitly covered “anyone guilty of acts for sexual purposes or forced labour”. There were also special provisions in Icelandic law outside of the General Penal Code, such as the act on health and safety at work, which addressed the issue of forced labour and made it a punishable offence. Moreover, child protection agencies existed at the municipal level. If they were aware of a case of a child’s ill-treatment it was immediately handed over to the authorities, which could lead to the child being sent to Children’s House for attention and care. Thus, Iceland had very comprehensive legislation for the protection of children and forced labour of any kind would fall under its scope.
Regarding attempted use of a child for pornographic purposes, that was covered in Icelandic legislation under the specific crime of attempt, as well as specific legislation criminalizing child prostitution, which covered engaging a person under the age of 18 for purposes of prostitution.
As far as jurisdiction was concerned, the delegation said that, while the Penal Code only covered Icelandic citizens or those who lived in Iceland, it could be used for violations that had occurred before someone had entered the country, as had been the case with certain war crimes prosecutions.
Responding to the query on awareness-raising, in general there had been huge discussions in Icelandic society in recent years on those issues, in particular on sexual violence against children. Civil society associations organized workshops and Save the Children Iceland had organized a hotline, which worked closely with the Icelandic child protection agencies, the delegation noted.
Concerning statutes of limitations, in 1998 there had been an amendment to increase those for cases involving sexual offences against children and new amendments were being considered. Currently, the statute of limitations only began to run when the child in question reached the age of 18, not 14 as previously provided for. While there were arguments on both sides, the delegation acknowledged, the Government preferred to extend the statute of limitations for such offences, rather than eliminate it altogether.
In further questions, Experts asked whether Iceland had a national focal point on child protection and how Iceland was collaborating with Internet providers.
Responding to the question of collaboration with Internet providers, the delegation said the Government was trying to get Internet providers to agree voluntarily to cooperate. Negotiations were ongoing and it was expected such an agreement would be reached in a few months.
There was no national child protection focal point that the delegation knew of. The two main bodies were the Child Protection Agency and Children’s House.
Preliminary Concluding Observations
HATEM KOTRANE, Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the reports of Iceland, expressed his thanks to the delegation for their presentation and said that the Committee had greatly appreciated the fruitful and productive dialogue. The Committee had known before it had this dialogue that Iceland was committed to children’s protection and it had played a role in the adoption and drafting of those Protocols. Indeed, the Committee had had difficulty in finding questions to put to the delegation, in particular with regard to the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict. The Committee could only encourage the delegation to continue moving forward and continue expanding its competence, especially covering the use of children over the age of 15 in armed conflicts.
The same was true with respect to the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. The delegation’s responses, in particular, regarding criminalization of forced labour, had helped to clarify any outstanding questions. The Committee could only encourage Iceland to continue moving forward and to continue setting an example of the best practices that a State could have regarding children.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record