CYIL 2012

DALIBOR JÍLEK CYIL 3 ȍ2012Ȏ section of this legal definition is basic and regulatory, setting out the general upper limit of the child’s age, as well as formally and legally recognizing childhood at a universal level. The second part of the definition may be designated as special, being of an exceptional and supplementary nature. This part contains the second principle term maturity . Both the terms age and maturity operate as qualifying characteristics. As usual, maturity is associated with reaching the age of eighteen years. 102 This is a logical and lexical meaning. As a result there is no hierarchical relationship between the two terms or conditions. The Committee on the Rights of the Child observes on this point that the internal regulations governing the behaviour and status of children cannot define a child in a way that diverges from the standards determining the age of maturity. 103 Nevertheless the second part of the definition anticipates an exception when the majority of internal legal systems take into account the development of the child’s cognitive, volitional and moral abilities. 104 These internal legal systems recognize competence on the part of the child to perform legal and illegal acts (responsibility) in various matters even before the age of eighteen has been reached, depending on the respective system’s particular legal history developments and cultural conditions too. For example, internal legal systems govern the criminal responsibility of children on the basis of a lower age than eighteen years. 105 As the Committee notes, the lowest age for criminal responsibility is seven years. 106 The Committee concludes from the Beijing Rules 107 that twelve years is the absolutely lowest age for criminal responsibility. 108 However, the internal legal regime of the contracting parties set out a lower age for the criminal responsibility of children than the conceptual view of the Committee on the absolute limit. 109 The lowest age for a child as regulated by internal legal systems is characterized by various normative conditions . In theory the same 10-year-old child committing the same act in different states bound by the Convention on the Rights of the Child would both be and not be criminally responsible. 110 105 ZEZULOVÁ, J., Justice nad mládeží. In.: JÍLEK, D., ZEZULOVÁ, J., VĚTROVSKÝ, J., OBROVSKÁ, L., KAPITÁN, Z., HOŘÍNOVÁ, A., Studie o právech dítěte. Implementace zkušeností dobré praxe ve vzdělávání v oblasti práv dětí ve Švýcarsku do podmínek ochrany práv dětí v České republice . Brno-Boskovice: Česko britská o.p.s., p. 92. 106 Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 10 (2007), Children’s rights in juvenile justice, CRC/C/GC/10, 25 April 2007, p. 10. 107 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, GA resolution 40/33 of 29 November 1985, paragraphs 4.1. 108 Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 10 (2007), Children’s rights in juvenile justice, CRC/C/GC/10, 25 April 2007, p. 11. 109 T v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 16 December 1999, paragraph 71. 110 Ibid. New York: UNICEF, 2007, 3 rd Edition, p. 149. 102 See § 8 (2) of the Czech Civil Code (No. 40/1964). Z 103 Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No.6 (2005), Treatment of unaccompanied and separated children outside their country of origin, CRC/GC2005/6, 1 September 2006, p. 6. 104 See Article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

30