CRC. As outlined in Chapter 2, the best interests principle mandates an individual- ized assessment of all relevant facts in order to identify from the available options which is best. Since the admissibility procedure excludes from con- sideration the facts relating to the substance of the claim, it circumvents a best interests assessment. Having dealt with the matter of the personal interview at first instance, there are two remaining procedures which must be evaluated in the light of the right of the child to be heard: the procedures for withdrawing refugee status and the appeals procedures.
CRC. This chapter is devoted to an exploration of the meaning of this right, its implications in the asylum context and whether or not the relevant provisions of the CEAS instruments comply with it. The format of the chapter is similar to previous chapters. The first substantive section (4.2) is devoted to an elucidation of the meaning of the right. For ease of analysis, the right is explored along three lines: the right to a hearing (4.2.1); the conduct of the hearing (4.2.2); and the evaluation of the child’s views (4.2.3). The next section (4.3) scrutinises the extent to which the CEAS instruments are compliant with the three dimensions of right of the child to be heard. The final section (4.4) examines the prospects for enhanced compliance in Phase Two. In terms of which CEAS instruments are implicated by the right of the child to be heard, as might be expected, the APD is the critical instrument.
CRC. Indeed, the issue of resource constraints is expressly factored into the obligation of conduct in Article 27(3) which obliges states to act ‘in accordance with national conditions and within their means’. As such, resource constraints operate as a functional limitation on the right of the child to an adequate standard of living. In this context, the question arises as to the permissible limits of the limitation, or, in other words, the minimum absolute obligation. Recalling that the minimum obligation corresponds with the duty to take steps towards the full realisation of the right, it can be observed that Article 27(3) envisages two steps: 1) to take appropriate measures to assist parents to implement the right; and 2) to provide in case of need material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing. As regards the first, the term ‘appropriate’ leaves a large measure of discretion to States Parties about which measures they take to assist parents. Nevertheless, demonstrable measures must be taken. As regards the second, there is no leeway (c.f. ‘shall in case of need provide’). Consequently States Parties are under an obligation to provide for basic human needs. Any erosion of the right beyond this level would be incompatible with human dignity. This is consistent with the approach of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which states in General Comment No. 3: […] [a] minimum core obligation to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, minimum essential levels of each of the rights is incumbent upon every State Party. Thus for example, a State Party in which any significant number of individuals is deprived of essential foodstuffs, of essential primary health care, of basic shelter and housing, or of the most basic forms of education is, prima facie, failing to dis- charge its obligations under the Covenant [emphasis added].64 This is also consistent with the approach of the ECtHR in two recent cases in which the Court found a violation of Article 3 ECHR because the respondent state failed to ensure the most basic standard of living for the applicant asylum seekers with the result that there were homeless and destitute. In M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece, the Court revised its earlier case-law that Article 3 ECHR does not entail any general obligation to give refugees financial assistance to
CRC. The article relating to accommodation in kind is also improved from a child-rights per- spective. However, the article on reception conditions in situations other than direct provision is still arguably discriminatory when compared with the situation of similarly-situated national children and it remains possible under Chapter III to reduce or withdraw reception conditions of minors below the minimum essential obligation inherent in the right of the child to an adequate standard of living. It is unclear how these provisions interact with the broad statement of principle in the revised article on minors. Therefore, the standard of living for most, but not all, asylum seeking children is improved under the proposed recast. 75 COM (2008) 815 final, Article 17(5).
CRC. The inclusion of this provision in the direct- ive, with its specific reference to appropriate mental health care and qualified counselling, is praiseworthy. However, it does not accurately reflect the terms of Article 39 CRC. Notably the references to ‘all appropriate measures’ and to ‘an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child’ are omitted. This is not a question of squabbling over wording; these omissions are significant. The holistic approach advanced in Article 39 CRC is essential in the context of traumatized child asylum seekers where it is well established that the medical or ‘sickness’ model of rehabilitation is a limited one.38 First, the medical model pathologises responses to trauma rather than 37 Emphasis added.
CRC. CRC shall not during the Term of the Management Agreement (a) be directly or indirectly affiliated with Manager or the Facility, whether as joint venturer or otherwise, (b) be employed by Manager or, to the knowledge of Manager, any entity having any contractual relationship with Manager, with regard to the Facility, or (c) directly or indirectly receive any payment or anything of value from Manager from or out of the Management Fee or any other payment made to Manager by the Band or the Facility. Manager agrees to indemnify the Band and its members and hold them harmless against all loss, liability and expense relating to claims, of whatever kind or nature, of CRC against any one or more of them. The Band consents to the execution and delivery by Manager of a certain Conditional Release and Termination Agreement between Lakes and CRC dated May 20, 1999, as amended by Amendment dated on or about July 7, 1999, true copies of which are attached as Exhibit F, provided that CRC executes and delivers to the Band and its members a general release in the form attached as Exhibit G. Manager warrants that it has no agreements or understandings with CRC in any way related to the Band or the Enterprise other than as set forth in Exhibit F. The Band further agrees that Manager may hold stock of CRC as collateral for Manager's guarantee of a loan to a third party, provided that on default it proceeds to liquidate such collateral in a reasonably prompt and orderly manner, and that Lyle Xxxxxx may continue to hold approximately 350,000 shares of CRC so long as he plays no role in the management of, and does not sit on, the board of directors of CRC.
CRC. CRC shall not during the Term of the Management Agreement (a) be directly or indirectly affiliated with Manager, Lakes or the Facility, whether as joint venturer or otherwise, (b) be employed by Manager or Lakes or, to the knowledge of Manager and Lakes, any entity having any contractual relationship with Manager or Lakes, with regard to the Facility, or (c) directly or indirectly receive any payment or anything of value from Manager from or out of the Management Fee or any other payment made to Manager by the Band or the Facility. Manager agrees to indemnify the Band and its members and hold them harmless against all loss, liability and expense relating to claims, of whatever kind or nature, of CRC against any one or more of them. The Band consents to the execution and delivery by Lakes of a certain Conditional Release and Termination Agreement between Lakes and CRC dated May 20, 1999, as amended by Amendment dated on or about July 7, 1999, true copies of which are attached as Exhibit M of the Development Agreement, provided that CRC executes and delivers to the Band and its members a general release in the form attached as Exhibit N of the Development Agreement. Manager and Lakes each warrant that it has no agreements or understandings with CRC in any way related to the Band or the Enterprise other than as set forth in Exhibit M of the Development Agreement. The Band further agrees that Lakes may hold stock of CRC as collateral for Lakes' guarantee of a loan to a third party, provided that on default it proceeds to liquidate such collateral in a reasonably prompt and orderly manner, and that Lyle Berman may continue to hold approximately 350,000 shaxxx xx XXX xx long as he plays no role in the management of, and does not sit on, the board of directors of CRC.
CRC. CRC, the ultimate beneficial owner of the Company and CR Gas, is a company established in PRC with limited liability and is a state-owned enterprise under the supervision of the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council of PRC. It is the holding company of CRH, and is a conglomerate which holds a variety of businesses in PRC and Hong Kong including but not limited to consumer products, integrated energy, urban construction and operation, healthcare, industrial finance, technology and emerging sectors.
CRC. UN, The New International Economic Order and the Promotion of Human Rights: the Right to Adequate Food as a Human Right, Report of the Special Rapporteur, Xxxxxxx Xxxx, UN ESCOR, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 39th Sess., Agenda Item 11, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1987/23, 7 July 1987, §§ 66-69; X. Xxxx, Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence and US Foreign Policy, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press 1980, p. 52 et. seq. He suggested three types of duties: to avoid depriving, to protect from deprivation and to aid the deprived; Ibidem supra note 6, UN CESCR, GC No. 14, § 33; In addition to the GC No. 14, this typology has been applied by respective bodies in a number of other authoritative sources, such as the GC No. 12 on the right to food, UN Doc. E./C.12/1995/5, 12 May 1999, the GC No. 15 on the right to water, UN Doc. E/C.12/2002/11, 20 January 2003, Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Doc. E/C.12/2000/13, 2 October 2000, § 6, General Recommendation No. 24 (CEDAW) and GC No. 15 of the CRC Committee on the right to health of the child (supra note 13) etc. A version of this typology (i.e. to respect, to protect, to promote and to fulfil) is adopted also in the 1996 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (as amended up to 2012), namely in Article 7(2).
CRC. This conceptualization could strengthen its practical applicability.
