GROUP 3
A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members

Advisors

Ms. Meera Chaudhary
Mr. Rootman Estivens Perez Alvarado
Mr. Pablo Neri Pereira
Ms. Zaeema Nasheed Aboobakuru
Mr. Nakazawa Satoshi
Mr. Nakagawa Takahisa
Mr. Omega Jireh Deocares Fidel
Ms. Elly Elis Naphal
Mr. Collin Sakap
Mr. Luis Alberto Zegarro
Mr. Ghulam Ali
Professor Ayuko Watanabe
Professor Fumiko Akashi(Nepal)(Guatemala)(Brazil)(Maldives)(Japan)(Japan)(Philippines)(Papua New Guinea)(Papua New Guinea)(Panama)(Pakistan)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

I. INTRODUCTION
This paper aims to compare and contrast different practices, legal systems and best available choices ofour respective countries and to look for means and ways which may be practical and result oriented inaddressing Juvenile Delinquency. Irrespective of different environment, norms and mores and religious
backgrounds, we can agree upon minimum standards for the improvement in the juvenile justice system.
There need to be continued and sustained efforts in this regard. Considering the diversity of cultural, politicaland economic aspects of our countries and the varying differences in our criminal justice systems,
establishment of equal treatment for juveniles worldwide according to international standards and norms
may prove to be challenging.
But keeping in view the international instruments as explained through various conventions, guidelines
and rules, we are required to set certain criteria in the pursuit of our ideals. With the coming into being of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the evolution of human rights, a series of norms that
focus on the issue of juveniles in conflict with the law have been built gradually, including:A)

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (“The Beijing
Rules”);B)

The United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (“The Riyadh Guidelines”);

C)

The United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty;

D)

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

The scope of the discussion is limited to the topics which the group believed can help in the formulation of
workable policies and measures that will address, if not resolve, the current challenges in our respective
countries, as follows: the minimum age of criminal responsibility, diversion, special procedures for juveniles(compared to adults), inter-organizational cooperation among related agencies, and multi-agency cooperation
with the community and the private sector.
A. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility
1. Standards
The definition of “juvenile” in Article 2. 2 (a) of United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the
Administration of Juvenile Justice, “The Beijing Rules”, adopted by General Assembly Resolution 40/33 on
29th November 1985, is: “A juvenile is a child or young person who, under the respective legal systems, may
be dealt with for an offence in a manner which is different from an adult.”

237

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 102

In the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 1 states, “A child means every human being below
the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier”. Professor Matti
Joutsen1 says that General Comment 10 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child seeks to provide
guidance to be used in establishing age limits for criminal responsibility:“...MACR (minimum age of criminal responsibility) shall not be fixed at too low an age level, bearing in
mind the facts of emotional, mental and intellectual maturity. In line with this rule the Committee hasrecommended State parties not to set a MACR at too low a level and to increase the existing low
MACR to an internationally acceptable level. From these recommendations, it can be concluded that aminimum age of criminal responsibility below the age of 12 years is considered by the Committee not
to be internationally acceptable. State parties are encouraged to increase their lower MACR to age of
12 years as the absolute minimum age and to continue to increase it to higher age level.2”2.

Practice
Although most of countries have signed or ratified the CRC, discrepancies still exist in the minimum ageof criminal responsibility. However, efforts are underway to enhance this limit to 12 years.
The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility

age
Papua New Guinea
Nepal
BrazilMaldives
PanamaJapan
Philippines
GuatemalaPakistan

10
*
*

11

12

13

14

15

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* : Including this age

As we observe, the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Japan is fourteen years, while in somecountries variation in minimum age of criminal responsibility ranges from ten to fifteen years. Therefore, theneed of the hour is to have unanimity regarding the minimum age of criminal responsibility.
B. Diversion
The baseline definition in Article 11.1 of “The Beijing Rules” is: “Consideration shall be given, wherever
appropriate, to dealing with juvenile offenders without resorting to formal trial by the competentauthority…”3Diversion, invoking removal from criminal justice processing and redirection to community support
services, is commonly practiced on a formal and informal basis in many legal systems. This practice serves tohinder the negative effects of subsequent proceedings in juvenile justice administration, e.g. the stigma ofconviction and sentence. In some cases, non-intervention would be the best response. This is especially thecase where the offence is of a non-serious nature and where the family, the school or other informal social
control institutions have already reacted, or are likely to react, in an appropriate and constructive manner.
The first analysis of the differences among the diversion systems of the countries in question looks at the
JOUTSEN Matti. From Soft to Hard Law. Tokyo, Public Lecture, 2017, p. 23.
JOUTSEN Matti. From Soft to Hard Law. Tokyo, Public Lecture, 2017, p. 23 (citing General Comment 10 of the Committee on
the Rights of the Child).
3
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (“The Beijing Rules”) Adopted by General
Assembly resolution 40/33 of 29 November 1985.
1
2

238

165TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR

points where diversion is available, i.e., the police, social workers, prosecutors, courts, etc. Commonly useddiversion measures are caution, reprimand, counselling, referrals, warning, apology, compensation, restitution
and affidavit/bond. Further, differences have been noted in the formal procedures and measures of diversion
among the countries under discussion.
In Brazil, the prosecutor can handle diversion without trial but these measures have to be approved by
the judge. The Brazilian diversion system provides juveniles with educational measures by prioritizing theirreintegration instead of placing them under protection. The Brazilian Federal Law 8. 069/90 “Statute ofChildren and Adolescents,” adopted an ideology based on the theory of integral protection, placing children
and young people in the special category of human beings under development and considered vulnerable.
The Guatemalan legal system expressly establishes in the “Law on the Comprehensive Protection ofChildren and Adolescents and Adolescents in Conflict with the Criminal Law”, the minor offences: 1.
Reconciliation 2. Remission 3. Opportunity Criterion (Imposing on the adolescent the obligation or prohibitionof performing certain actions such as attending therapies or restraining visits to certain places). One of the
weaknesses of the diversion measures in Guatemala is that the relationship between the justice system andcitizen participation is still weak. Strengthening community participation is needed. In that sense, it isimportant to make the public aware to avoid misconceptions about juvenile offenders, particularly about therehabilitative measures.
Japan, as a policy, refers all cases to the family court, and the diversion takes place through the family
court. However, the family court can refer juveniles who commit heinous crimes to the prosecutor. The mostcommonly applied diversion measures in the Japanese system are probation (non-custody) or referral to thejuvenile training school (custody). These diversions come in to effect at the hearing stage. Prior to the hearing
stage, another diversion system exists. During a social investigation by the family court investigating officer,
various types of educative measures for juveniles take place, e.g. “on-site learning,” “group work,” “equippingknowledge,” “employment assistance” and so on. These measures are intended for juveniles, who commit
minor offences. Using these steps, Family Court investigating officers enhance the juvenileʼs perception ofdelinquency, remorse, and self-recognition. These measures assess the reflection of juveniles and thelikelihood of their transformation. In most cases, these measures are effective. Then, the judge dismisses thecase after hearing (or without a hearing). According to the statistics (Final Rulings in 2014), dismissal without
hearing takes place in 51% of all cases, and 20% percent are dismissed after hearing. Family court
investigating officers have to select the most efficient measure based on the particular juvenile. Findings are
based on three viewpoints: Biological, Psychological, and Sociological (the “BPS” model).
In Maldives: There are two stages of diversion being practiced. Matters relevant to children in conflictwith the law are governed by the Regulation on Conducting Trials Investigation and Fair Sentencing ofJuvenile Offences. The first is at the police level where juveniles are provided with an “informal caution” in thepresence of a parent or guardian, followed by a “formal caution” if they persist in criminal behaviour. Next,
the Prosecutor General has discretion to issue a formal caution and to divert the child to a rehabilitation
programme under the guidance of the Juvenile Justice Unit (JJU), or to sign an agreement with the juvenile tocomply with certain conditions (attending an educational or vocational centre) and to refrain from criminal
behaviour. The JJU operates under the Ministry of Home Affairs and is tasked to provide support andassistance to children in conflict with the law. There is no court-level diversion in the Maldives. However, theOffice of the Prosecutor General often withdraws cases registered at the court, in order to provide thejuvenile with the chance to rehabilitate. Except for serious offences, or offences that warrant a sentence
under Islamic Shariʼah, the general approach is to divert juveniles away from trial.
Nepal has no specific legal framework regarding diversion. However, measures like caution, reprimand,
warning, apology, conciliation, compensation and affidavit/bond are being practiced at police units. If thesemeasures are incorporated in the legal system of the country, their efficacy and effectiveness is expected to
improve.
Pakistan, like Nepal, has no specific legal framework regarding diversion. However, measures likecaution, reprimand, warning, apology, reconciliation, compensation, fine and affidavit/bond are informallybeing practiced at police stations and in the courts. If these measures are incorporated into the legal systemof the country through legislation, their efficiency and effectiveness is expected to improve. Since these239

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 102

diversions are being practiced without a specific legal framework, sometimes it causes complications forpractitioners.
Panama has the following forms of diversion provided by law: 1- remission, in which the judge, in specificcases designated by the law, dismisses the case. 2- Criteria of opportunity. The prosecutor decides to refrainfrom prosecuting the case. 3- Conciliation. The teen has met the obligations imposed. Additionally, in the mostrecent amendment to the law, enforcement was established: “reparation of harm”, community service and theobligation of an assistance programme and orientation.
Papua New Guinea Juvenile Justice Acts provide for a wide range of diversion programmes in dealing
with minor juvenile offenders. Forms of diversion include caution and discharge, formal apology, counselling
service, community service, reconciliation, restitution, compensation, juvenile/family conferencing, andrestorative justice approaches such as mediation. Diversion takes place at two stages (i). Diversion by PoliceInitial Contact and (ii). Diversion by Court ‒ Pre-hearing.
In the Philippines, when a juvenile/child over the age of 15 but under 18 commits an offence, the childshall be referred to a social worker who shall determine whether the child acted with discernment. If withdiscernment, the child will be subjected to a diversion programme as the case may be. If without
discernment, the child shall be referred to his parents through the barangay (“village”) for a properintervention programme. A child aged 15 and below who committed a minor offence shall be referred to theparents through the social worker for proper intervention, and if the child committed a serious offense or is arepeat offender, the child shall be referred to a youth rehabilitation centre for proper intervention.
C. Special Procedures for Juveniles (Compared to Adults)
Since juveniles are the most vulnerable section of the society and they are yet to attain maturity, special
procedures are of utmost importance for the investigation, adjudication and imposition of punishment,
wherever necessary for offences committed by juveniles. Preference shall be given to the best interests of thechild by rehabilitation without imposing punishment on such child.
Brazil: The statute addresses all issues related to children and adolescents including the rights ofjuveniles as well as the obligations of parents and family, and public servants involved in the processes andthe State. The law created a specific structure, parallel to the ordinary criminal justice system, to deal withthe misconduct, treatment, and rehabilitation of juveniles. For the Brazilian law, young people cannot formallycommit crimes; rather they commit “infraction acts.” Therefore, they are treated differently and held in
detention until the fulfillment of socio-educational measures in specific establishments.
Guatemala: since 2003, the Law of Integral Protection of Children and Adolescents and Adolescents inConflict with the Criminal Law has been approved. This law is in consonence with the international standards
and norms. This law establishes the creation of special courts, specialized prosecution and specialized police
units for juvenile justice. They are supported by Specialized Juvenile Courts (Courts of First Instance and the
Appeals Chamber), and the Prosecutorʼs Office is specialized in adolescents in conflict with the criminal law(assistance by interdisciplinary teams of experts).
Japan: There are three basic principles in the procedures for juveniles: the educational principle, theprinciple of individual treatment, and the inquisitorial principle. These principles promote educational
treatment for rehabilitating juveniles that have fallen into delinquency (educational principle). Family courts
should strive to eliminate delinquency by protective measures. Imposing penalties on juveniles is the
exception. Moreover, all juvenile cases are referred to family courts. Family courts should perform treatment
according to the needs of each juvenile delinquent (principle of individual treatment). Treatment is decided
according to the problems of the juvenileʼs nature and the juvenileʼs environment. Treatment is not decided
only according to the weight of the facts/evidence constituting the alleged delinquent acts. In addition,
because of the special nature of juvenile hearings, it is not open to the general public. Family courts presideover the procedures themselves (inquisitorial principle). At the hearing, prosecutors and juveniles do not
oppose each other, and judges speak directly to the juveniles. All attendees of the hearing have the purpose of
rehabilitating juveniles.
Maldives judicial procedure mandates that the cases of juveniles must be referred by the Police to the240165TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR

Juvenile Justice Unit (JJU) immediately. It is pertinent to mention that JJU is under the administrative controlof the Ministry of Home Affairs. The JJU will then assign a case worker who will provide support andassistance to the juvenile throughout the criminal justice process. No child can be questioned without thepresence of a parent or guardian or a representative of the JJU. It is mandatory for the JJU to attend all
hearings at the court including remand hearings and trial. Social Inquiry Reports are obtained during remand,
trial, pre-sentencing and the post-sentencing rehabilitation stage, which will provide background informationon the juvenile to the authorities in the disposition of the case. The juvenile court proceedings are closed tothe public. There is a specialized unit of the Police (Family and Child Protection Department), but otherdepartments also deal with juveniles accused of serious offences. Except for serious offences, juveniles areusually placed on house arrest subject to conditions.
Nepal, after the ratification of the CRC, has passed different laws and initiated various policies toimplement the juvenile justice system. The Childrenʼs Act 2048 (1992) and Juvenile Justice (Procedure) Rules
2063BS (2007) are the primary laws that stipulate juvenile justice procedures. The Childrenʼs Act, 2048 (1992)
introduced the concept of juvenile justice as a separate branch of the justice system which includes the legal
provisions in order to protect the rights and best interests of the children for physical, mental and intellectual
development. The Women and Children Services Directorate of the police is specially tasked to deal withmatters of juvenile and other vulnerable social groups. It has established 23 separate buildings for the Womenand Children Service Center (WCSC), 40 districts with juvenile justice officers, and 20 child friendly rooms at
the district level. As a special measure, adolescents cannot be investigated during the night and even not for
more than one hour per day. Juvenile offenders may not be handcuffed, cannot be compelled to provide
statements and have the right to be silent. Free legal assistance to the juvenile is the responsibility of thestate. Their cases must be tried expeditiously. On the initiative of the Nepal Police, the state of Nepal has
formulated “Gender Policy 2069”. It has facilitated the incorporation of gender issues in various police training
curricula, separate posting of 1,344 personnel for WCSC units, establishment of a national centre for children
at risk with a hotline number 104, and formulating victim support SOP- 2070. The police and legal counsel
shall appear in civilian clothes in closed proceedings. Provisions relating to the investigation include arequirement that all police staff shall introduce themselves by showing identity and explaining the cause forthe arrest, informing the child about his or her constitutional rights in a language understood by him/her,informing both parents of the child as far as possible, at least one if both are not available, and he or she shall
examine the physical and the mental health of the child.
In Pakistan, no proper or separate procedure to deal with juvenile offenders has been established.
However, the country, being a signatory of the CRC and other related international treaties, has promulgatedthe Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 (JJSO), Child Welfare Commission Act and the Bursal InstituteAct to deal with the offenders. Moreover, with the approval of High Courts, the District and Session Judges
have been declared as juvenile judges to handle the cases of adolescents. Statements of the accused cannot berecorded without the presence of his/her guardian or counsel. No other hearing is fixed on the date when thejuvenile case is to be heard by the judge. All hearings are in camera. Juvenile offenders are provided with freelegal assistance by the state. All juvenile cases must be decided within four months. The victim is allowed toparticipate in the hearing. Juveniles have the right to remain silent. If the police officer wants to join theproceedings, the police officer must not be in uniform; instead he/she should participate in plain clothes.
Media coverage is not allowed.
In Panama, there is a separate family court to deal with the affairs of children, and there are criminal
courts for juvenile offenders. These courts are part of the judiciary. There is also a police unit of childhood
and adolescence, specialized in protection of minors when they are victims and a special adolescents unit totake care of juvenile offenders judicially, under the control of the Ministry of Security. Moreover, there is the
specialized division of adolescents, charged with the responsibility of assisting the prosecution of teenagers ininvestigation. There are specialized prosecutors to prosecute juvenile cases supervised by the Public
Ministry.
Papua New Guinea: The Juvenile Justice Act and Juvenile Justice Policy provide for special Juvenile
Justice Procedure with strong emphasis on community-based treatment options such as diversion measuresand non-custodial sentencing (Probation, good behaviour bond and fine). These measures are effective intreating juvenile offenders, and custodial sentences are only ordered as a last resort and for the shortest
necessary period. Diversion takes place at two stages: the juveniles cannot be placed in police cells; rather
241

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 102

they are released or handed over to their parents or guardians or are kept in juvenile remand centres
pending trial. The country has a separate court with trained juvenile court magistrates and trained police
prosecutors. The police shall appear in civilian clothes, including legal counsel, in closed proceedings. Free
legal aid is provided by the government. Social Inquiry Reports are mandatory before disposition. Juveniles
who commit serious offences are sent to juvenile institutions or to a separate juvenile section in a correctional
institution depending on the nature of the offence and surrounding circumstances. It is mandatory for juvenile
justice officers to be present at any juvenile court proceeding. In addition, the police protocols and the juvenile
court protocols on magistrates provides for juvenile police officersʼ, juvenile court magistratesʼ, police
prosecutorsʼ, juvenile court officersʼ and the correction services officersʼ duties and responsibilities in handling
juvenile cases.
In the Philippines, during the initial contact (the term “arrest” is avoided), the Women and Children
Protection Center/Desks of the police handle cases involving children. Juveniles shall be turned over to asocial worker within 8 hours for proper disposition. Custody of the child while undergoing diversion orintervention shall be referred to the parents, youth rehabilitation centre or to the social worker. Additionally,
the juvenile shall be provided with a lawyer (Public Attorneyʼs Office) during investigation. In the case of
adults, the general investigation of the police shall handle the criminal case, which shall be referred to theProsecutorʼs Office within 9 hours for minor offences, 18 hours for less serious offences and 36 hours forserious offences. The prosecutor, upon determination of probable cause, shall file the case with the court fortrial. The adult shall be committed to jail.
D. Inter-Organizational Cooperation among Related Agencies
Bearing in mind the intricacies of the issue, the objectives of the system cannot be achieved without interorganizational cooperation among the relevant stakeholders and organizations. Since juvenile justiceinstitutions are directly involved in the process while some have to be involved for the well-being of the child,such as health, education, social welfare, etc.; therefore, there has to be close collaboration and cooperation
among them.
Brazil: Without a doubt, one of the biggest challenges for the Brazilian system is cooperation. Interagency cooperation throughout the criminal justice system chain is considerably integrated and rapid. The
problem is that to the extent the new legislation imposes a system based on protective measures, a structureof protection, shelter and re-education for young offenders is needed. At the moment, the demand comingfrom the criminal justice system, due to the high participation of youths in crimes, does not find institutional
support for the reception of youth. The Brazilian State urgently needs to improve and expand the institutions
that work with juvenile offenders after passing through the system of justice.
Guatemala: It has been made possible to establish a workspace composed of the highest level officials ofeach of the public institutions involved in the juvenile justice system: the Public Ministry; the judiciary; theInstitute of Public Criminal Defense; the Ombudsmanʼs Office and the Secretariat of Social Welfare. As aresult, a Strategic Plan on Adolescents in Conflict with the Criminal Law has been implemented in a holistic
way for the cases of adolescents as a vulnerable group, which deserves adequate intervention and protectionof the State. As a recommendation, good practices and procedures should be institutionalized so that juveniles
do not depend on a particular person.
Japan: When family courts make final rulings, the courts receive input from juvenile classification homes
and probation offices (both of them are organizations of the Ministry of Justice). In addition, family courts giveinformation to juvenile training schools, probation offices and childrenʼs self-reliance support facilities (which
operate under the organization of the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare) for determining concrete
educative measures for the juveniles.
Maldives: There is a good level of inter-agency cooperation in Maldives. The Police work in close
collaboration with the Juvenile Justice Unit and notify the unit if and when an arrest is made. Consultations
take place between the different agencies on how best to deal with a particular juvenile. The Prosecutor
Generalʼs Office also takes into consideration the recommendations made by the JJU as to the circumstancesof the individual child in deciding on the alternatives to prosecution. Agencies have cooperated in the recent
diversion programmes run by the Police and the JJU. However, there are calls for improvement. All police
personnel handling juveniles must be trained in juvenile justice principles and standards, regardless of242

165TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR

department or division. In addition, the Prosecutor Generalʼs Office must also train special prosecutors who
may only handle juvenile cases, in order to make the system more efficient. Further, parental cooperation is
crucial to the successful implementation of juvenile justice policies. The State therefore needs to raiseawareness about juvenile justice matters.
Nepal: Inter-organizational cooperation among related agencies is in place. The national and district levels
are composed of different departments (social welfare, police, justice, education, health, etc.) to supervise theimplementation of the juvenile system. The Co-ordination Committee conducts meetings to review
administrative policies on the juvenile system.
Pakistan operates the Ministry of Human Rights, the National Commission for Human Rights, the Social
Welfare Department, and the Probation and Parole Department at the national level. Whereas in private
sector, relevant INGOs/NGOs are also working, the Ministry of Human Rights is a monitoring body for thissystem since the government has multiple departments to look into this issue and all are state owned.
Therefore, strong cooperation, coordination and collaboration exists among them.
Panama: The Ministry of Social Development through the National Secretariat of Children, Adolescentsand the Family (SENNIAF) provides training and education for juveniles. The Commission of Parliament isworking on new laws for juvenile protection according to the international standards. The Ministry of Public
Security and Office of Citizen Participation (responsible for the national police) developed community
programmes in coordination with the General Prosecutor (independent), which aim to provide protection ofjuvenile offenders, prevent crimes, contribute to public safety and to reduce the social cost of crime.
Papua New Guinea: The main agencies involved in the PNG Juvenile Justice System are the Police, theCourts, the Ministry of Justice (Community-Based Correction (CBC) ‒ Probation, Parole and the Juvenile
Justice Services Office of the Public Solicitor, which provides free legal service, the Office of the Public
Prosecutor, which prosecutes heinous crimes in the National Court), the Ministry of Correctional Service andMinistry of Community Development ‒ Juvenile Welfare. Apart from these, NGOs and churches in PNG
assist in rehabilitation programmes.
Philippines: Inter-organizational cooperation among related agencies is in place. The Juvenile Justice andWelfare Council was created at the national level composed of different departments (social welfare, police,
justice, education, health, etc.) to supervise the implementation of the juvenile system. The council regularly
conducts meetings to review administrative policies on the juvenile system.
E. Multi-Agency Cooperation with the Community and the Private Sector
The baselines of prevention initiatives or programmes regarding the strengthened relationship between
government and the private sector are necessary to carry out the objectives of the juvenile justice system.
Some countries have a strong partnership with the INGOs/NGOs, and other agencies are left to their own
fate. The latter system remains weaker and vulnerable to unwanted interventions.
During the discussion, it was identified that all the countries have a multi-agency framework to implement
between the community and juvenile working groups including INGOs/NGOs, which work in the area ofjuvenile justice. In some countries, Volunteer Probation Officers (VPOs) are working closely with thegovernment authorities to provide juvenile rehabilitation services. Moreover, it highlighted the importance of
close networking among the government authorities and INGOs/NGOs.
Most of the countries under discussion are working closely with UNICEF to streamline and strengthen
their juvenile justice systems. However, due to overlaping mandates of government agencies, stakeholders
and INGOs/NGOs, it is difficult to work together. Most of the INGOs/NGOs have their own plans of action,
which sometimes conflict with government stakeholdersʼ mandates or action plans. Moreover, some of the
INGOs/NGOs are working self-centeredly, which creates complications and hindrances to the way forward.

II. CHALLENGES, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Challenges
In line with the international standards and norms, the participants are encouraged to improve their243

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 102

respective juvenile justice systems. But due to various reasons, despite having good legislation, they have notbeen able to achieve standardized results. To outline the hindrances and obstacles in the process ofimprovement, the following points have been identified:
1.

Lack of community participation and mobilization of the public;

2.

Juvenile justice systems in every aspect in terms of resources and capacity are lacking priority;

3.

Untrained personnel;

4.

For some countries, key pieces of legislation remain pending;5.

Some countries lack a systematic rehabilitation programme that clearly identifies target groups and their
particular risks and needs;

6.

The difficulty of implementing a successful rehabilitation scheme due to lack of arrangements, likeinstitutional arrangements, become crucially important especially in the case of juveniles;

7.

Lack of inter-agency/multi-agency cooperation and coordination;

8.

Unreasonable delay in the investigation and prosecution of matters involving minors is a great concern;

9.

Lack of specialized programmes and the expertise in dealing with drug offenders;10.

Lack of legal frameworks to institutionalize diversion;

11.

Non-compliance with UN standards and norms to implement a minimum age of criminal responsibility.

B. Recommendations
1. Strengthen the community participation/mobilization of the public by utilizing community police andVolunteer Probation Officers (VPOs);
2.

More research is required to understand the causes of juvenile offending and ways to better implement
juvenile justice policies;

3.

Specialization within their respective agencies and departments is vital for the successful implementationof juvenile justice policies. Competent officers would be better to comply with the laws and internationalguidelines concerning juvenile offenders, thereby contributing to the development of institutions;4.

Authorities need to step up efforts to pass the relavent juvenile justice bills and regulations in order toestablish a comprehensive mechanism for the administration of juvenile justice in relevant countries;

5.

Some countries need to devise comprehensive rehabilitation and reintegration plans for juveniles thattake into acount the different categories of offenders in their particular needs and risks;

6.

Establishment of relevant institutions;7.

Networking with international organizations and foreign governments and institutions would be great
help in improving the current situation of juvenile justice;8.

Agencies working within the juvenile justice system must enforce a concerted effort in the expeditious
processing of juvenile offences at every stage. It is expected that this would provide some remedy to the
problem of delayed submission of cases;

9.

For some countries, establishing a child-centered drug rehabilitation facility is of utmost importance tocombat drug addiction among minors, and existing structures and facilities need to be strengthened aswell as compliance and monitoring mechanisms;244

165TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR

10.

Countries should establish a legal framework to institutionalize diversion;

11.

In compliance with UN standards, countries with ages of criminal responsibility below age 12 areencouraged to increase the age to this level.

C. Conclusion
The participating countries have made significant improvements in the field of juvenile justice since theratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Investigation, prosecution, adjudication, andtreatment and supervision of juvenile offences have been streamlined according to international standards
and norms.
The participating countries have also incorporated the Restorative Justice Model into their juvenile
justice policies, and have had some measure of success in the implementation of rehabilitation andreintegration programmes. And still there is room for more improvement. Capacity, lack of resources andexpertise stand out as the most challenging factors for further development in this area of the law. The
participants aim to maintain a sustained effort towards the commitment to the development of the juvenile
justice system in their countries.
References
JOUTSEN Matti. From Soft to Hard Law. Tokyo, Public Lecture, 2017, p. 23. Thirteenth United Nations
Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Doha, 12-19 April 2015.
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (“The Beijing Rules”)
Adopted by General Assembly resolution 40/33 of 29 November 1985.
United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (The Riyadh Guidelines) A/RES/45/
112, 68th plenary meeting, 14 December 1990.
United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty Adopted by General Assembly
resolution 45/113 of 14 December 1990.
Convention on the Rights of the Child Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by
General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989 entry into force 2 September 1990, in accordancewith article 49.

245