CYIL 2012

THE RIGHT OF THE CHILD TO LIBERTY AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETENTION … At one point the Committee on the Rights of the Child generalizes and highlights the socializing objective of education, 49 with socialization conceived as the process of acquiring the skills required for both social participation and incorporation of the individual within society. During the process of socialization, personal experience gains in basic direct influence. According to the Committee on the Rights of the Child the general aim of education is to acquire skills to the greatest possible extent so that the child has the real opportunity to participate fully and responsibly in a free society. 50 Hence upbringing and education in the individual sense practically converge around a socializing objective even though their true objectives are definitely not identical. However, the one process cannot exist without the other – education without upbringing and upbringing without education. Education and upbringing under institutional supervision in the European Convention justify the aim of the legal detention of minors. Both processes are necessary for the development and growth of the child. The same opinion is evidently held by the European Court of Human Rights in its decision-making activity over the deprivation of children’s liberty. In the Koniarska case the Court justifies why its deprivation of a child’s personal liberty must follow both educational and upbringing objectives. 51 The Court comments on why educational supervision should not rigidly be the same as classroom teaching. 52 The Court stated that Suzie Koniarska was placed in a special residential facility for seriously maladjusted young people. Within the framework of the educational programme the young people were as a rule taught on the basis of an interdisciplinary approach in small (two or three member) groups. 53 Depriving a child of its personal liberty is not intended for its social isolation or separation from its natural social groups, but follows a socializing objective and aims for its all-round development. Article 5 (1) d) justifies legal detention of a child in a case where the child is brought before the competent legal authority . In inter-textual correlation, i.e. within Article 5, two items intersect under c) and d). In relation to the child it is possible to proceed in accordance with both items. However, the item relating to the child is lacking the precision and specific objective of the previous item. Moreover, in the view of the Court the use of one reason does not exclude the application of the other reason. 54 Education, CRC/GC/2001/1, 17 April 2001, p. 2. 49 Ibid., p. 5. 50 Ibid.: “The overall objective of education is to maximize the child’s ability and opportunity to participate fully and responsibly in a free society.” 51 KILKELLY, U., Children’s Rights: A European Perspective. Judicial Studies Institute Journal , 2004, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 89-91. 52 Koniarska v. United Kingdom , decision as to the admissibility of application no. 33670/96 by Suzie Koniarska, 12 October 2000: “The Court considers that, in the context of the detention of minors, the words ‘educational supervision’ must not be equated rigidly with notions of classroom teaching.” See Bouamar v. Belgium , judgment of 29 February 1988, paragraph 52; D. G. v. Ireland , judgment of 16 May 2002, paragraph 81. 53 Ibid. 54 Witold Litwa v. Poland , judgment of 4 April 2000, paragraph 49.

23