Children's Rights Committee reviews reports of Japan under the Convention and Protocols on Involvement in Armed Conflict and Sexual explotation

Committee on the Rights of the Child
28 May 2010

The Committee on the Rights of the Child has concluded its review of the third periodic report of Japan on how that country is implementing the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Committee also considered the situation of children in Japan with regard to the involvement of children in armed conflict and the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, in accordance with the two Optional Protocols to the Convention on these issues.

Introducing the report, Hideaki Udea, Ambassador in Charge of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, said that since Japan had submitted its third periodic report under the Convention and the initial reports on the Optional Protocols in 2008, the Government had been steadily introducing both administrative and legislative measures. Mr. Ueda said that the Government had established a child allowance system. Due to the declining birth rate, a law was passed in April 2010 to the effect that a child allowance would be provided for children until their graduation from junior high school. This law was based on the viewpoint that society as a whole should guarantee and safeguard the growth of all children.

In addition, another new law entered into force in April 2010 which required tuition fees at public upper secondary schools to be waived; a new system for providing financial assistance for private school students would be established at the national expense. This law aimed to reduce the burden of education costs on families through supporting education by society as a whole, with the expectation that upper secondary school students would play important roles as responsible members of society in the future.

Concerning the report under the Convention, Committee Experts raised concerns about violence against women and children, the unequal status of children born out of wedlock, the stigmatization of children in single parent families, access by minors to harmful information and the juvenile justice system in Japan.

Regarding Japan’s report on the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, the Committee raised the issue of the growth in the sale of children, child pornography and child trafficking as transnational crimes and the criminalization of children who were the victims of such crimes. The Committee also raised numerous questions about what programmes were available for the treatment, protection and rehabilitation of child victims.

With regard to the Optional Protocol on children in armed conflict, Committee Experts voiced concern about the status of minors in the armed forces and military school education in the country, as well as the status of refugee children and asylum seekers who might have been involved in armed conflict.

In preliminary concluding remarks, Committee Expert Lothar Krappman, who served as Rapporteur for the report of Japan, said that drafting the concluding observations would not be easy due to the abundant information provided by the delegation and the changing situation in Japan that required the Committee to reconsider and re-evaluate what it had read in the State party report. Mr. Krappman said he expected the Committee to voice concerns about the well being of children in Japan and the large number of children expressing feelings of loneliness, the issue of competiveness in schools and the rise in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder diagnoses, children in poverty, children with disabilities and children born out of wedlock. This was a preliminary list, but the Committee’s hope was to better the condition of Japanese children.

The Committee will release its formal, written concluding observations and recommendations on the reports of Japan towards the end of its three-week session, which will conclude on 11 June 2010.

The delegation of Japan included representatives from numerous governmental bodies including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, the Ministry of Defence, the Permanent Mission of Japan to the United Nations Office at Geneva, and the National Police Agency.

As one of the 193 States parties to the Convention, as well as a party to both of the Conventions Optional Protocols, Japan 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 three meetings to present the reports and to answer questions raised by Committee Experts.

When the Committee reconvenes on Monday, 31 May at 10 a.m., it will consider the combined third and fourth periodic reports of Guatemala (CRC/C/GTM/3-4) in Chamber A and the second periodic report of Grenada (CRC/C/GRD/2) in Chamber B.

Report of Japan

According to the third periodic report of Japan (CRC/C/JPN/3), ever since Japan ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in May 1994, the country has been endeavouring to protect and promote the rights of the child in line with the spirit of this Convention. In a climate of significant changes in social environment surrounding children and families due to the influence of an increasingly complex society and development of an information-based society, such as globalization, development of a consumer society and trends toward nuclear families, problems such as child prostitution, child pornography, child abuse, drug abuse, and delinquency are becoming serious issues. In order to respond to such changes in social conditions, the Government of Japan developed the National Youth Development Policy in 2003, and has been, with the cooperation of relevant ministries and agencies, strongly promoting efforts for the protection of the rights of the child and their sound upbringing. In addition, the protection of rights and the sound growth of the children who will be major players in the next generation are the responsibility of the international society, and Japan takes part in various international cooperation endeavours to fulfil its international responsibility in the area of human rights.

Meanwhile, the protection of children from harmful information such as information related to sex and violence is an issue of particular concern in Japan. Efforts have been undertaken to respond to this situation through activities to eliminate illegal and harmful advertisements, promotion of media literacy education of the youth, and requests to relevant industries for the full implementation of self-imposed regulations. With regard to children with disabilities, comprehensive efforts have been promoted, in the light of the formulation of the Basic Plan for Disabled Persons in December 2002, and the amendment of the Basic Law for Persons with Disabilities in May 2004. Among the many measures taken to ensure the health of children, progress was seen in the field of food education, which represented a new approach. In order to protect children whose parents work, efforts have been made to reduce the number of children waiting for admission to day-care centres by enhancing day-care centres. The Government also plans to improve and expand the Project of After-School Measures for Healthy Growth of Children, which targets early elementary school children.
Presentation of Report

HIDEAKI UEDA, Ambassador in Charge of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, said that the Convention on the Rights of the Child was the principal mechanism to ensure the respect of and to promote the fundamental human rights of all children. To realize the protection and promotion of the rights of children, who were the future but were placed in vulnerable situations, it was crucially important to evaluate how the Convention was implemented domestically by each State party.

Mr. Ueda said the delegation was glad to have the opportunity to be examined by the Committee, through which they could review objectively the status of Japan’s implementation of the Convention from an international standpoint and reflect the outcomes in their future policies, in order to further improve the situation of the rights of the child in Japan.

Mr. Ueda said he was pleased to note that there were many observers from Japanese civil society attending the meeting. The delegation believed it was important to reflect the wide-ranging opinions in the implementation of the Convention. To this end, earlier this year the Government of Japan organized the “Symposium on the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Challenges for the Rights of Children” in Tokyo, with extensive participation from civil society, and the Government would continue its dialogue and cooperation with civil society.

Since Japan submitted the third periodic report to the Convention and the initial reports of the Optional Protocols in 2008, the Government had been steadily introducing both administrative and legislative measures. Mr. Ueda said with a declining birth rate, and based on the viewpoint that society as a whole guaranteed the growth of all children, the Government of Japan had established a child allowance system. The law was enforced in April 2010 and provided a child allowance for children until their graduation from junior high school.

In addition, another new law entered into force in April 2010 which ensured that tuition fees at public upper secondary schools were waived and a new system for providing for financial assistance for private school students would be established at the national expense. This law aimed to reduce the burden of education costs on families, through supporting education by society as a whole, with the expectation that upper secondary school students would play important roles as responsible members of society in the future.

Mr. Ueda went on to say that Japan had also passed a comprehensive policy of support for children and child rearing in January 2010 entitled, “Visions for Children and Childcare”. Under the plan, the direction of policies was drastically changed to the idea of “children first”, with policies such as: the Government securing a favourable environment for the growth of all children; society as a whole supporting child-raising families which were responsible for the growth of children; enabling young people and women to secure a stable base for their lives; and establishing a ministry of children and family in an attempt to centralize the relevant government structure in promoting children and childcare related policies. The entire Government would make efforts for the steady implementation of the Visions plan.

In addition, in accordance with the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the “Act on Promotion of Development and Support of Children and Young People” entered into force in April 2010, with the aim of promoting interrelated policies in a comprehensive manner. With this act, the Government formulated a new plan which aimed to support the development of all children and young people, as well as to specifically support children and young people with difficulties, through measures such as conducting citizenship education, adopting an outreach method, establishing local support network systems for children and young people and reforming adult society.

Mr. Ueda informed the Committee that these plans were formulated by a consultation body that was open to civil society, with the participation of representatives of the government at the political level and experts and practitioners on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. During the process, there were opportunities to exchange opinions with young people and to have hearings on various issues.

The Government of Japan was also attempting to protect children from harmful information widely available online or via mobile phones. Thus, the State had partially revised the Online Dating Sites Regulation Act and measures had been taken to enhance protection of children from crimes, such as child prostitution, caused by harmful information.

Mr. Ueda was pleased to inform the Committee that in 2004 the Act on Punishment of Activities Relating to Child Prostitution and Child Pornography was revised to raise the maximum penalties related to child prostitution and the distribution of child pornography. Japan had also established a working team on measures to eradicate child pornography, and would shortly develop comprehensive measures including raising public awareness, preventing distribution of child pornography through the Internet, and strengthening the crackdown on child pornography related crimes.

In conclusion, Mr. Ueda said Japan would continue to make the utmost efforts to respect and ensure the rights of the child, taking into account the surroundings and problems facing children given the passage of time and the changes in society. The Japanese delegation was ready to provide sincere answers on any matters of concern the Committee might have during the examination of this report.

Questions by Experts

LOTHAR KRAPPMAN, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the Report of Japan, said that he wanted to start with the fact that Japan had a declining birth rate. The Committee was aware that this diagnosis had led to the adoption of several laws and measures in recent years to reverse the low birth rate. It was stated that such targeted measures would absorb a large share of resources, which consequently would not be available for general improvements of the living conditions and development of children. The State party promised an evaluation of these birth encouraging measures, but the Rapporteur could not find such an evaluation. Were these laws and measures obsolete now that the Government had established a new comprehensive child allowance system?

Mr. Krappman went on to say that he agreed with Mr. Ueda that society as a whole had to guarantee the growth of all children. However, one could also concede the viewpoint that institutions like day-care, playgrounds, and other meeting places should be guaranteed by society as a whole. Didn’t the State need a combination of individual and structural support? Could the delegation provide more details on the role the child allowance system played in the overall strategy to support children and their parents? Would parents be asked to pay higher fees or accept other costs?

The Rapporteur noted that the budget allocations for children were very tight and according to the report, the expenditures for children and families in Japan were about one third of the expenditures allocated in comparable European countries. The poverty rate of children had grown across the years to more than 15 per cent. Mr. Krappman thus noted that the allowance system alone might not be enough to eradicate child poverty.

Mr. Krappmen went on to comment that he had found information that in the last few years the budgets for child allowances, day care facilities, teacher salaries and other titles were reduced, cut or no longer earmarked with massive consequences on the local level where children lived. At the same time, the costs of children’s facilities and programmes had remarkably increased, apparently as a result of privatization. In light of this information, Mr. Krappman asked the delegation if they could provide detailed information on budget and budget planning in the country.

The Rapporteur said that he had found information that the basic economic orientation of the Government put a great deal of responsibility on the individual. However, because of their responsibility for children, parents had only limited capacity to be mobile, flexible, and opportunity seizing when it came to benefits from such self-responsibility orientation. Instead, they might be marginalized in such processes and become losers and not winners, not because they were incapable, but because they were hindered by their responsibilities for their children. Mr. Krappman was interested in hearing from the delegation how parents and children were protected from such disadvantage.

It became very clear from the report that the implementation of children’s rights was a cross-cutting issue and coordination was obviously a huge problem. Would the Headquarters for the Development and Support for Children and Young People and its functions be replaced by the planned Ministry of Children and Family? Would the National Youth Development Policy be revised?

The National Youth Development Policy defined youth as young people from 0 to 29 years of age. Was there really a focus on children from 0 to 18, as the Convention defined children? What would be the future of other councils, which also had responsibilities for coordination: the Education Rebuilding Council, the Council for Measures against Declining Birth Rates and others? In the Committee’s view, a main problem was that civil society, non-governmental organizations and youth organizations were not included in the coordinating bodies. Would this change? There was information in the report that an evaluation of the National Youth Development Policy would be conducted, but the Rapporteur could find no such review. Was it done and if so could the delegation please provide the information?

Mr. Krappman said that in 2004 the Committee had asked whether the Headquarters for the Development and Support for Children and Young People and the National Youth Development Policy were based on child rights and he reiterated this question again. He asked because he saw that in the replies to the List of Issues, the authors several times used wordings such as “the ideal laid out in the Convention” or the “philosophy of the Convention”. The Rapporteur also heard such formulations in Mr. Ueda’s opening remarks and he wondered whether they indicated the provisions of the Convention were not regarded as obligatory rights in the strictly judicial sense, but just as an expression of a positive attitude towards children.

Mr. Krappmen then returned to another issue that was raised in 2004: the missing independent monitoring mechanism for child rights. In many States parties a human rights institute or an ombudsman reminded governments of the rights which they had accepted to implement by ratifying the Convention. The respective bill for the establishment of a Human Rights Commission in Japan was still pending. It was the opinion of the Committee that the Government of Japan, and also children, would benefit from an institution that could raise key questions about child rights and how to best realize those rights. The establishment of such an institution or office would underline that children were not only objects of adults’ generosity, but were rights holders and to be respected as such. Did the important changes envisioned by the delegation include a human rights institution or ombudsman at the central level?

Other Committee Experts asked if there were any means available for children to make complaints or to submit requests for health and support when they were in difficulties.

The delegation was also asked what measures had been taken for training personnel on gathering data on child rights and if there were any cooperation and exchange programmes to disseminate information on the Convention.

The Committee expressed concern that there did not seem to be any independent monitoring of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in Japan, and several questions were asked about the definition of a child. Twenty years was the age of majority in Japan, but how did the State party view the idea of children having the right to obtain medical treatment without parents’ permission?

Did the child have the right to petition the courts regarding domestic matters? What was being done to address gender related differences in the penal code?

A Committee Expert noted that in past concluding observations, it was recommended that the minimum age of sexual consent be raised from 13. What had been done about that and why was there a discrepancy in the marriage age of girls and boys, 16 and 18 years respectively?

What measures were in place to handle sex education and health matters for young people?

The Committee was interested in knowing whether any judges had invoked the Convention in legal cases, were they trained in the provisions of the Convention and were they told they needed to apply the provisions in relevant court cases? The Committee also wanted to know what was being done to harmonize domestic laws with international treaty law and what was the status of the establishment of the National Human Rights Commission?

The Committee then asked what happened to the recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child once they were given to the country. Were they analyzed or used as a benchmark?

According to an OECD report, Japan did well on the indicator of risk behaviours for children, but it did not fare well on the indicator of material well-being for children, and investment in early childhood development was very low compared to other countries as well. Were there any plans to increase public social spending and target low income families to reduce the poverty rate and create a more equitable society?

A Committee Expert raised concerns about the work/life balance in Japan. The deregulation of the labour market had affected women tremendously because they were more likely to be laid off and those who did work faced increasing work hours and workloads. How was this being addressed?

The delegation was asked if any parents had been charged and sentenced under the law outlawing corporal punishment and what provisions were made for mental health services for adolescents?

Were there any plans for Japan to harmonize all its laws on the child under one comprehensive child rights law?

A Committee member noted that the coordination among various ministries appeared insufficient and asked what more was being done to address this issue? Also, in terms of coordination with civil society, how did that happen in practice?

The Committee then turned to the issue of discrimination of children born out of wedlock, children with disabilities and discrimination in the penal code against victims of rape and sexual crimes. These crimes were defined as those against women and young girls and not boys, despite the fact that they could be victims too.

The Committee commented that birth registration also seemed to be an issue, with children of migrant parents facing challenges in registering their children.

Response by the Delegation

Responding to those questions and others, the delegation said that, in terms of harmonizing domestic legislation with international treaty law, domestic legislation must be in compliance with the international treaties Japan had ratified, so they would review all laws to ensure they were in compliance.

With regards to concluding observations from the Committee, Japan used these recommendations to implement changes and they also sparked a great deal of discussion domestically. A number of laws had been established or revised as a result of these recommendations, including laws on child pornography and child welfare.

Turning to the definition of the child, the delegation said that people had to reach 20 years of age to be recognized as an adult, despite the fact the Convention on the Rights of the Child defined an adult as someone 18 years of age, and there were no plans to change this. There were ongoing discussions about the possibility of developing a comprehensive child rights law, but this was an ongoing process and the delegation could not provide a timeline for the passage of such an act.

Several Committee members stopped the delegation to reiterate their questions about the harmonization of domestic legislation with international treaty law and whether the provisions of the Convention were applied in court cases. How were the provisions applied in practice?

The delegation said that before the Government acceded to a treaty, first it made sure that it met the minimum requirements for the treaty, then there was a thorough discussion with government bodies and civil society groups and then they reviewed every domestic law to make sure it was in compliance with the treaty law. This all happened before the Parliament even voted to accede to the treaty.

In terms of training judges in the provisions of the Convention and whether it was used in court rulings, the treaty was circulated to judges and there were special training seminars that included curriculum on children’s rights. There had been judgements handed down that referred to the Convention, including a 2008 Supreme Court ruling that involved a child born to a Japanese father and foreign mother and the court ruled that the child should have access to Japanese citizenship and invoked a provision of the Convention in this ruling. There were other cases as well.

The delegation went on to say that they consulted with civil society groups and non-governmental organizations in the preparation of this report and they had also created various opportunities for these groups to provide input into various areas of the Government, including listening opportunities to listen to the concerns of children themselves.

A Committee member raised concerns that there did not seem to be any attempt to modernize or adapt the official development assistance approach to the new laws enacted in the country, or the “visions” that were referred to in the presentation of the report.

The delegation said it was painful to have it pointed out by an outside body that their official development assistance was shrinking due to financial difficulties faced by the country. Despite this they tried to keep the level, substance and quality of official development assistance at the same level with a focus on vulnerable people like children and women. A priority area was the fight against poverty and assistance for Africa in the form of support for UNAIDS, the construction of schools and the training of teachers. They also supported the Millennium Development Goals and encouraged investment from the private sector.

The delegation said the Government was also providing assistance and programmes for Japanese children in difficulty and the community would try to support them by providing education, welfare and employment to reduce poverty. There was also the child allowance, secondary education free of charge, and scholarships to assist families as well as child rearing allowances for single parent families.

With regards to human rights monitoring mechanisms, the delegation said the Ministry of Justice had a number of bodies that monitored the promotion and protection of human rights as well as independent human rights organizations throughout the country. The Government was also working on ways to provide more effective remedies for victims of human rights abuses, including the establishment of the Human Rights Protection Bill, but it had not been adopted yet because in 2003 the lower house of parliament was dissolved and the bill was shelved and it was also shelved in 2005. The ongoing discussions continued about the possibility of a new human rights remedy system bill and the talks included questions about the scope, investigative powers and remedies of a new human rights law.

Additional Questions by Experts

LOTHAR KRAPPMAN, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Japan, said there was a UNICEF Innocenti study on Children’s Well Being in Rich Countries. He was surprised and worried by the result that in Japan 30 per cent of 15 year olds indicated they felt lonely, remarkably more than adolescents from other OECD countries. Forty per cent of the 15 year olds declared that their parents did not talk to them sometimes “just for talking”. Only 19 per cent of the 5th and 6th graders of a study conducted by the Japanese Association for Sociology of Childhood declared: “I am happy today”. Also, Japanese children had told the Committee deplorable stories about disregard, loneliness, and missing relationships.

The Committee and many others looked for an explanation and pointed to the highly competitive educational system. Mr. Krappmen said that the authors of the State party report obviously did not share the view that the high competiveness of the educational system was a heavy burden on the lives and personality of many children. He said he understood that Japan wanted to strengthen its competiveness in the global economy by high competence of its labour force. According to the results of numerous comparative achievement studies, Japan was extremely successful in this regard. Wasn’t it time to consider whether the pressure imposed by the educational system was still warranted?

Several educational systems in the world had found ways to combine excellence with an effective and child-friendly promotion of the capacities of all children. In Japan, however, recent reports delivered the impression that the separation of school and courses for the elite from the rest of children generated a split in the young generation between winners and losers.

Another explanation was that Japanese children did not have enough time to play. According to the aforementioned sociological study, forty per cent of 5th and 6th graders never played and the other 30 per cent played alone only. Another figure in the State party report also gave a caution signal: the number of public playgrounds in Japan. The number looked impressive, said Mr. Krappman, but it was small when compared with the number of playgrounds in other rich countries. Did the central government or local communities respect children’s right to play and did they have a helpful children’s play and playground policy?

Mr. Krappman also added another worrying mental health observation, which might be connected to these problems: ADHD, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The Japanese prevalence figures reported in an article of the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2007 were relatively low, but the rates of increase were alarming. It was assumed a large portion of ADHD diagnoses reflected life situations, in which the basic needs of children were not met. Were medical and psychological services aware of this behavioural syndrome and its increase? There was a growing conviction in the world that medication alone was an inadequate reaction.

The Rapporteur observed that children who did not fit into the scheme of good boy or good girl were mostly transferred to a Child Guidance Centre, also referred to as the child guidance system. These centres were the most mentioned institutions in children’s lives in the State party report, mentioned 108 times in 118 pages. Mr. Krappman got the impression that hundreds or thousands of these centres existed and nothing in the report comprehensively and lucidly described the activities of these centres. Who ran these centres, which kinds of professionals provided the treatment, who supervised such activity, what was the definition of guidance, which sanctions were applied? It was not counselling, advise, therapy, or dialogue and such concepts were not to be found in the report. There was no indication that children’s views were given weight, and from the report one had to conclude that it was a kind of juvenile justice measure without any safeguards or transparency, and possibly a child rights violation. Mr. Krappman asked the delegation to elaborate on these guidance centres.

The Committee asked about the status of adoptions and whether they were subject to judicial authorization and if there was a registry of adoptions? Also, what measures were in place to ensure a Japanese national by birth did not lose their citizenship by force?

The Committee expressed concern about the treatment of children born out of wedlock and the difficulties they faced. It also asked the delegation what help was available for single parent families, and whether fathers who did not live in the home were responsible for maintenance of these children? The Committee also asked whether there was support for the foster care system.

Several Committee members raised concerns about domestic violence, abuse and neglect of children and asked the delegation to please provide information on what was being done in terms of criminalizing such acts and educating people about the dangers of domestic violence.

In terms of the pressures on children to perform, a Committee Expert observed that it was not only in school where children faced this pressure, but also at home from their families. Were there any initiatives to change home life and dynamics within the home?

The Committee asked whether human rights were included in the culture of the country and not just as part of the curriculum in schools.

A Committee member had a number of questions about education in Japan. The Expert wanted to know if the child allowance, which provided for support of children until they graduated from junior high school, included children of migrants, and what provisions were made to ensure these children had access to education. What access did disabled children have to education and educational facilities and what programmes were in place to address their special needs? The Expert went on to ask about the increasing rates of truancy and high school dropouts and what was being done to combat this, as well as the phenomenon of bullying and violence in school. The delegation was asked if it could outline any measures that were being taken to provide a safe and secure learning environment in school.

In terms of juvenile justice, the Committee asked why the age of criminal responsibility was reduced from the age of 16 to the age of 14, and why was the length of pre-trial detention increased from six weeks to eight weeks. The delegation was asked what access children had to legal representation and legal aid in the event they could not afford a lawyer. The Committee also expressed concern about the detention of asylum seeking children and refugee children. These children hailed largely from Myanmar and Sri Lanka and they were almost always placed in detention. Why was that?

Response by Delegation

With regard to the child allowance, the delegation said the Government did not just give the family money, they had also invested in day care facilities and they had undertaken initiatives to increase the number of childcare workers by 50,000 workers per year; 353 billion yen had been allocated in the 2010 budget for the operation of day care centres to help facilitate increased enrolment. The child allowance was 13,000 yen per child per month until graduation from junior high school because the Government believed it had to support children today who would shoulder the burden of society tomorrow.

In terms of single parent families, apart from the child allowance there was an additional allowance for single parent families as well as policies to help single parent families. These policies included assistance with employment as well as help securing child support and welfare benefits. These policies were undertaken in a comprehensive way and recently the benefits were extended to single father families as well.

A Committee Expert expressed concern that the building of day care centres was not part of a comprehensive plan for the overall development of the child and instead just a place to house children while the parents were at work.

The delegation then turned to the numerous questions regarding education in Japan. In terms of competition to get into high school, there were a number of factors that went into admissions decisions, not just entrance exams. They also examined sports participation, community service, recommendations from teachers and other extracurricular activities. Since the birth rate was declining in Japan and hence the population of people under the age of 18, the competition for placement in high schools was also declining.

Foreign students, including Korean nationals, were also covered by the child allowance and other subsidy programmes. Accredited international schools were also eligible to receive government subsidies.

Regarding the education of children with disabilities, the delegation said that the Government encouraged schools to make their facilities barrier free in order to accept children with disabilities and the curriculum should be made flexible to take into account the needs of children with disabilities. Training of teachers was also part of their policies. These approaches also covered learning disabilities such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, not just physical disabilities.

The local education board made the determination of where the child would go to school, but the views of parents and children were also taken into consideration.

The delegation said that bullying and suicide were both problems in Japan, and they were trying to address these issues. Corporal punishment was expressly prohibited by law in schools.

The Committee asked if the school curriculum reflected the history of different ethnic groups in the country and whether Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder was considered a disability.

The delegation said it was recognized that children with developmental disorders needed special assistance and this included Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

The delegation returned to the issue of suicides and stated that police investigated suicides and compiled statistics on suicide cases. In 2009 there were 565 cases of suicides of children under the age of 19 or 2.5 people for every 100,000. There was also special training for doctors and counselling available.

The Committee had additional questions surrounding suicides in Japan because it was unclear to the Experts from the delegation’s answer what was being done to prevent children from taking their own lives. Did they try to identify at risk youth and what did they do about people who attempted suicide, but were not successful? Were there counselling services available to them?

The delegation said suicide was not limited to children, but was an issue across society, particularly among middle aged people. There was a Government policy on suicide prevention that included partnerships with local governments. There was also a move to strengthen the coordination of services offered to older people to help them, and data collection by prefectures would enable the Government to tailor its response to the regional needs of people. Japan was also a member of the child helpline and in 2008 the hotline received 18,311 telephone calls.

In terms of protecting children’s human rights, there were a number of ways children could access the Ministry of Justice if their rights were being infringed including a hotline, letter writing, walk in counselling centres, and the Internet. The children were also given stickers with the number for the Ministry of Justice as well as addressed, pre-paid postcards they could use to contact the Ministry of Justice.

Regarding domestic violence and child abuse, the delegation first responded to the issue of corporal punishment at home. In Japan there was a child abuse prevention law which outlawed corporal punishment and violence against children, but parents could discipline children within the proper confines and certain limitations. The delegation stressed that actions should be appropriate.

The Committee Chairperson said that if anyone had questions about the difference between corporal punishment and discipline there was a General Comment that addressed this issue.

There were a number of questions raised about juvenile crime in Japan and the delegation said it would attempt to address these issues. For the penal code, when anyone engaged in sex with a girl below the age of 13 it was considered rape no matter what the circumstances. The child pornography law stated that if a person was under the age of 18, this would be considered child pornography. With regards to increasing the age of consent from 13 years old, the delegation said there were many factors to be taken into account and the Government did not want to have excessive interference in the private lives of people so this would require very careful and serious consideration. There were Child Prostitution and Child Welfare Laws that sought to protect children from sexual exploitation and these crimes were punishable by law. The delegation agreed that boys could be raped and be victims of sexual assault as well, and this crime was considered forcible indecency. Rape was only considered a crime against women because the physical structure of women required greater protection for them. Sometimes one had to make a distinction and this was not always discrimination. There were laws to punish people who raped boys or men.

Returning to the issue of juvenile justice, the Committee had asked why the age of legal responsibility was lowered from 16 to 14 years of age. The delegation said children under 16 could commit heinous crimes and now with the change of the law they could be held accountable for these crimes. The intention was to raise awareness, particularly in civic life, on the part of young people. The lowering of the eligibility age for criminal punishment did not mean that children would and should always be held accountable for criminal punishment. Only in a very limited number of cases had the criminal disposition been imposed upon children who committed heinous crimes. According to the delegation, the reason the detention period had been increased from four to eight weeks was to allow ample time for the investigation of cases involving juveniles and in order to avoid false accusation of young people.

A Committee Expert wanted more information on the conditions of detention and wanted to know if it were not possible to have the child housed outside a facility while the investigation took place. Also, were inspections of these facilities carried out and were they conducted by an independent body?

The delegation clarified that the family court reviewed the cases every two weeks so it was not automatic that children stayed in custody the entire eight weeks. This was entirely up to the family court judge.

In terms of an incident in Hiroshima in which juveniles were abused by detention facility staff while in custody, the delegation said the four staff members and the principal involved were arrested and prosecuted and the case was still pending. The Government took the case very seriously and took the following measures: juveniles could now file complaints directly to the Ministry of Justice, training programmes with a focus on the respect of human rights were undertaken with senior staff members of juvenile facilities, and an expert panel was initiated to study juvenile correctional facilities. The Ministry of Justice was now also conducting periodic examinations of this facility, but perhaps after this incident in Hiroshima the Government should examine the possibility of third party inspection teams for juvenile training schools. This would be addressed by the expert panel.

In terms of work/life balance, relevant ministries and agencies were working on this, including looking at the possibility of a reduction in work hours and the ability to take childcare leave of absence. They were also trying to address the fact that women were often the first fired in this difficult economic environment, including due to pregnancy.

The State was working with non-governmental organizations to improve programmes for foster parents and foster placements and increase the number of foster parents. In Japan, in accordance with the civil code, if a family wanted to adopt a minor this required permission of the family courts. This helped to protect the rights of the child.

The Committee posed additional questions about adoption by family members in the case of death, how Japan monitored international adoptions, visitation rights in cases of divorce and collecting child support payments.

The delegation said that if a parent died and a child was to be adopted by an immediate family member, no permit from the court was required. The delegation went on to acknowledge that Japan was not a signatory to the Hague Convention, but they would look at their laws and discuss whether to accede to that Convention or not. In cases of divorce, the divorce court and the parties involved would work out visitation rights.

The delegation addressed concerns about discrimination against children born out of wedlock. Current laws dictated that children born out of wedlock were only entitled to half of the inheritance that children born in wedlock received. They had to weigh the desire to encourage legal marriages with the desire to provide equality to children born outside these marriages. The subject of revising the civil code dealt with very important issues and the provision of equalizing inheritance laws was now under discussion in the Japanese Parliament.

A Committee Expert pointed out that when children were born it was noted in the birth registry whether they were born in or out of wedlock and this distinction could be the basis for discrimination.

The delegation responded that the registration was done based on the facts so this did not represent discrimination, but nonetheless in 2004 the law was revised so that children could be registered the same way, no matter what the circumstances of their birth.

With regards to children of refugees, the delegation said that if they were minors their guardians could apply for refugee status on their behalf and when it came to deportation orders, special consideration was given to minors. Also, there was a system of provisional release which could be applied in a flexible way to avoid keeping children in an immigration detention bureau. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ Japan office had also been working with the State to provide training to officials who worked with refugees.

The Committee then raised concerns about the treatment of unaccompanied minors who were asylum seekers and might not have papers.

The delegation said they tried to avoid the detention of minors as much as possible and this was why they had the policy of provisional release. The child was also given the choice of whether they stayed with their family in a detention centre or went to other facilities or stayed with family members who were not in detention.

The delegation turned to the topic of child guidance centres as there were a number of concerns raised about these facilities. Large cities and prefectural governments installed these centres and they employed 8,804 staff members nationwide. There were also 2,428 child welfare officers in Japan working in these centres. These professionals were trained in psychology and other relevant fields in college and they worked alongside psychologists and therapists. Local governments paid the costs of these facilities and the federal government provided some subsidies to strengthen their functions.

Committee members had a number of follow-up questions regarding these guidance centres including what the Government did to address the root causes of the children being sent to these facilities, who supervised these centres, who established standards for them, whether there was difficulty finding professional staff, how were children referred to these facilities, and who held ultimate responsibility for these transfers.

The delegation admitted there were many problems, including child abuse, which could lead to a child being housed in one of these facilities. The centre, in coordination with other agencies, worked to address these problems. These centres were established in accordance with the Child Welfare Law.

The delegation responded to the issue of truancy by saying that they took a flexible approach to addressing truancy and had hired more guidance counsellors and other education workers to help children remain in school. The high school drop out rate was 2 per cent.

The delegation also addressed the question of forcible loss of nationality. If the child met the requirements for citizenship they could apply for reacquisition of citizenship through the Ministry of Justice and if they did not meet the requirements they could apply for naturalization, which provided an easier path to citizenship with fewer requirements.

Discussion on the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography

SANPHASIT KOOMPRAPHANT, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the Report of Japan on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, expressed concerns that the sale of children, child pornography and child trafficking were increasing and affected the safety of children in many countries around the world. This serious crime against humanity could widely increase because of transnational organized crime so that a single State could not cope with this problem alone. Therefore, a strong partnership among countries was needed. Mr. Koompraphant said there was not much information in the State party report regarding regional or transnational cooperation, and he requested more information on what the Committee could do to help and support the State party in the implementation of this Optional Protocol. Mr. Koompraphant asked if there were any plans to criminalize the possession of child pornography, what educational measures were in place to prevent children from being victimized, especially children from foreign countries, what monitoring mechanisms were in place for at risk children, what tools were used to identify child victims, and were support and witness protection programmes available to child victims?

The Committee asked if Japan had any plans to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse. Also, what was being done to combat the role of organized crime in the sale of children, child pornography, and child trafficking, taking into consideration evolving technologies?

A Committee Expert wanted to know what had been done to harmonize domestic laws with the Optional Protocol and they remarked that there did not appear to be much information related to child pornography in the report.

The delegation was asked who was responsible for the investigation of such crimes against children and did they receive specialized training to deal with these cases. It was also noted that there appeared to be no limit on the number of times that a child had to testify and this could lead to secondary victimization. Was there a way to limit the number of times a child had to give a statement or testify as a witness? Were audio or video recordings admissible in court as evidence? What was the State party’s stance on extradition, either of foreigners who committed such crimes or Japanese nationals who committed such crimes abroad?

The Committee then raised the issue of adoptions. What safeguards were in place to ensure that adoptions did not mask the sale of children and the delegation was asked again whether they would consider joining the Hague Convention on international adoptions. It was also noted that Japanese law as written could lead to the child victim being charged as a perpetrator of an offense, such as in the case of prostitution where the child who was being exploited could be charged with a crime.

What coordination mechanisms were in place to ensure that the provisions of the Optional Protocol were being implemented? Was there a data collection available on the sale of children, child pornography and child trafficking?

The Committee was interested to know more about the role of civil society and non-governmental organizations in combating such crimes, and what portion of the budget was allocated to the prevention and prosecution of these crimes.

Response by Delegation

Responding to Experts' questions, the delegation said it was using a consortium organization in Asia to increase its international cooperation to address the trafficking of children and other transnational crimes. It had also partnered with the International Organization for Migration to provide return and reintegration assistance to the victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation. Japan had also increased its law enforcement cooperation with other countries since 2002.

In terms of the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, a decision had not been made as to whether Japan would join this Convention, but it was under discussion.

With regards to extradition and dual criminality, the delegation said that when a Japanese national committed an offense outside of Japan there were laws in place to punish that person under Japanese law as well, even if they committed the crime outside of the country. There had in fact been cases of child pornography in which a criminal had been prosecuted and sentenced for such crimes committed outside of Japan. The State also had a number of extradition treaties with other countries, but even without an extradition treaty it was possible for them to demand a Japanese criminal be returned to the country or to hand over an offender who was a foreign national. Even if a person was sentenced by a foreign court, this did not preclude the Japanese Government from trying the crimes in a Japanese court and passing their own sentence.

The Committee asked a follow up question regarding someone who committed a crime abroad, but was a resident of Japan. Could that person be tried in Japan as well and did the crime have to be recognized as such in both countries?

The delegation said that someone who was a resident of Japan and committed a crime abroad would be subject to the penal code of the country where they committed the crime, but they could still be judged in Japanese courts.

Regarding investigations of these crimes, police and prosecutors could interview child victims with parents in attendance, but special consideration was given to these crimes. There were some difficulties using videotaped testimony and interviews from child victims because the Japanese Constitution guaranteed the rights of the accused, and they had a right to cross examine witnesses, including child victims. So at this point, it was difficult to use videotaped interviews as admissible evidence in a court case. The National Police Agency was studying the technique of forensic interviews.

There were no limits as to the number of interviews that a child would have to give, but due consideration was always given and care taken to minimize the impact on the child. In practice, lawyers for the child did not attend these interviews, but if the child was very young parents were asked to attend. Prosecutors were given special training and seminars to deal with these cases.

The delegation said that youth support centres were attached to the National Police Agency and provided protection of child victims; they were often the first people notified when sexual abuse was perpetrated against children. Although they were attached to the police agency, clinical psychologists were also staffed at these youth support centres.

The Committee wanted to know whether the State used technology, such as tracking IP addresses of computers used to transmit child pornography, to investigate and prosecute these crimes. Also, could the person who posted, or transmitted child pornography also be prosecuted?

The delegation said that simple possession of child pornography with no intention to distribute it was not criminalized and there were no penalties or punishment for this. As for the tracking of IP addresses, private Internet providers could report such information to the police and they could investigate it or people could anonymously report such activities to the police as well.

The Committee noted that there seemed to be several hotlines for children to call, including one to report sexual exploitation. The delegation clarified that there were indeed three separate hotlines for reporting various rights abuses for children.

Concerning the action plan to combat human trafficking, it was a comprehensive one that dealt with education, prevention and prosecution. There was also a cabinet level body that dealt with the overall monitoring and oversight of trafficking in persons.

The Committee noted that Japan had a 2004 National Action Plan against Trafficking as well as a law against the commercial sexual exploitation of children. Which of these laws was the relevant one with regards to this Optional Protocol?

The delegation reiterated that it was the 2004 National Action Plan against Trafficking, but this worked with the law to oppose pornography and sexual exploitation. Unfortunately, the delegation did not have the materials at hand to answer the Committee’s questions regarding budget allocations for this area.

A Committee Expert asked if a child witness had to testify in front of the defendant or accused perpetrator and what sort of qualifications did these child guidance centres have?

The delegation said a child was not obliged to testify in front of a defendant, they could testify behind a partition or in a separate room using a video monitor. In terms of the youth support centres, the child welfare officers had specialized expertise to deal with these situations. There were also child psychologists and psychiatrists working in these centres.

After several requests for clarification from Committee members, the delegation said that the child guidance centres and youth support centres were two different things. The youth support centred were under the jurisdiction of the police and were for delinquents, whereas the child guidance centres were a different network and addressed a wide range of issues. The Committee said if this was true, then child victims were handled by the same people handling juvenile delinquents. The delegation said that the youth support centres would do the initial intake of the victims, then hand them over to the child guidance centres.

The Committee followed-up this discussion with a question on how long a child could stay in a youth support centre. The delegation responded that the youth support centre had no sheltering abilities so if a child needed longer term care, they were sent to a different facility.

With regards to treating victims as offenders, in cases of child prostitution for example, the delegation said that due consideration was given to their victim status. It was possible for a child to be considered an accomplice to an offence, but in practice the child was considered a victim and due consideration was given to that fact.

The Committee suggested the State should have a clear mandate to protect children who were victims in these cases, and noted that a child could never be considered as having given their consent. This was according to the definition of a child as laid out in the Convention and the Optional Protocol.

Discussion on the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict

AWICH POLLAR, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the Report of Japan on the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, said Japan had witnessed serious destruction of life and property during the Second World War, but since then Japan had pursued a peaceful path to development.

The Japan Maritime Self-Defence Force and the Japan Air Self-Defence Force had suspended enrolment of youth cadets after the 2006 recruitment year. Also, regarding the Japan Ground Self-Defence Force, amendments were made to relevant laws to change the status of youth cadets of the self-defence forces from “self-defence officials” to simply students.

Japan continued to offer international assistance to help countries affected by armed conflict to manage the rights and welfare of children affected by armed conflict. Despite this positive historical path to development and policy, there were still some issues to be raised in relation to the implementation of the Optional Protocol in Japan.

Mr. Pollar asked whether civil society organizations and other stakeholders were consulted in the preparation of this report, whether Japanese law explicitly criminalized the recruitment or use in hostilities of children, and if the State party enforced and ensured extraterritorial jurisdiction for these crimes when they were committed by or against a person who was a State party national or ordinarily resided in the State party.

How did the State party coordinate the implementation of this Optional Protocol?

A Committee Expert said that on the occasion of the ratification of the Optional Protocol, the Government of Japan submitted a declaration that was legally binding, specifying the minimum age for voluntary recruitment as 18 years of age or older for those recruited as self-defence forces personnel and noting that 15 and 16 year olds were only exceptionally recruited as youth cadets and solely received education and training. Could the State party explain the debate and any further development that may have taken place regarding this declaration? Mr. Pollar also asked if the delegation could provide more information on the status of the military receiving training on human rights, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols.

Was there any data available on children present in the State party’s jurisdiction who had been recruited or used in hostilities? Also, was there any training provided to people who dealt with child asylum seekers or refugees who may have been involved or used in armed conflict?

Mr. Pollar noted that there was no conscription system in Japan, but asked if the State party could explain how personnel were recruited, either though examination or selection. Were the examination and selection procedures completely voluntary? The Rapporteur also wanted to know what measures were in place to ensure proper birth registration of children of foreign nationals, especially those who had no legal status.

The Committee asked for more details about military schools and youth cadets who had to be at least 15 years old. How were these students recruited and was there data available on the social background of the cadets, some of whom may come from poor families and were lured by the stipend and educational opportunities offered at such schools. Also, who monitored these schools and was there any complaint system in place for cadets?

The Committee noted that Japan had ratified the Rome Statute, which made it a crime against humanity to recruit kids under 15. Had the domestic legislation of Japan been harmonized with this international treaty?

Regarding the export of arms, could the delegation assure the Committee that no arms were exported to countries where children were used in armed conflict?

Response by Delegation

Responding to the issue of recruitment of children into armed groups, the delegation said this was a crime punishable by both child welfare laws and labour standards laws. There were also penal codes against coercion and the abduction of minors, which were applicable in these cases as well. Abduction of minors across national borders would also allow Japan to invoke extraterritorial jurisdiction, as well as provisions in the Rome Statute.

The delegation said staff members dealing with refugees were given training in dealing with children who had been involved in armed conflict, and they had also offered specialized training in conjunction with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Tokyo office.

The delegation said there were quite a few questions concerning minors and the self-defences forces and they wanted to respond to them. The law had been changed in April 2010 that required all people employed as uniformed self-defence personnel to be 18 years or older. There was no conscription in Japan and recruitment was voluntary and not done through coercion or force. In order to be uniformed self-defence personnel, one had to be a Japanese citizen. In the self-defence forces they took advantage of all opportunities to provide education in human rights laws, although there was not a specific curriculum for this Convention and its protocols. There was no formalized system of third party monitoring of military schools, but the Government had no objection to third parties visiting the facilities. Since enrolment at military schools was voluntary, the State did not look into the socio-economic backgrounds of the students, but there were various financial assistance schemes for students to allow them to focus completely on their studies.

The delegation said arms exports from Japan were banned, regardless of whether the country involved used children in armed conflict or not.

The Committee pointed out that due to the fight on terrorism, Japan was allowed to ship some components of weapons to certain countries. But the delegation said due to their advanced technology it was difficult to control whether the components they exported were used for arms or for peaceful uses, but in principle arms exports were outlawed. Japan did export military technology to the United States, but not actual arms, and this was the only exception to the rule that they had.

With regards to refugees and asylum seekers, when they arrived in Japan they were given physical and psychological evaluations and provided appropriate treatments. The delegation said they did not have statistics at hand on refugees from conflict zones.

The delegation wanted to return to several issues from the previous day that it felt needed further clarification. The delegation began with the issue of corporal punishment, which it felt had not been fully addressed. Parents had the right to discipline their children, but this was distinguishable from corporal punishment. The child abuse prevention law stated that if physical trauma was visited on the body of the child such use of force was banned, and the act of obscenity or neglect was also banned by this law.

The minimum age of consent for marriage was another topic the delegation wanted to address. The minimum age of consent was 18 for men and 16 for women. There were differences in the age because of differences in the physical development between men and women, and the delegation did not think that this was in violation of the Convention.

Preliminary Concluding Observations

LOTHAR KRAPPMAN, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the Report of Japan, in preliminary concluding remarks, said that the Committee had learned a great deal through its dialogue with the delegation of Japan on their reports to the Convention and the Optional Protocols. Mr. Krappman extended the Committee’s thanks to the cross cutting delegation, who answered numerous questions posed by the members.

The Rapporteur said drafting the concluding observations would not be easy due to the abundant information provided by the delegation and the changing situation in Japan that required the Committee to reconsider and re-evaluate what it had read in the State party report. Mr. Krappman said he expected the Committee to voice concerns about the well being of children in Japan and the large number of children expressing feelings of loneliness, the competiveness issue in schools and the rise in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder diagnoses, children in poverty, children with disabilities and children born out of wedlock. This was a preliminary list, but the Committee’s hope was to better the condition of Japanese children.

HIDEAKI UEDA, Ambassador in Charge of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, in concluding remarks expressed the delegation’s sincere appreciation for the Committee’s examination of the status of Japanese children through this vigorous dialogue. There had been a number of policy changes since the State submitted its report, but thanks to the Committee’s questions they were able to clarify this information. No country was perfect, but Mr. Ueda said Japan was continuing its efforts to improve the status and rights of children. There had been successes, but there were still shortcomings. They would take the Committee’s suggestions back to the relevant ministries and engage civil society, international neighbours, and other stakeholders in the hopes of creating a better future for children all over the world.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record