United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice
Defence for Children International
Geraldine Van Bueren and Anne-Marie Tootell
Faculty of Laws, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London, England
THE BACKGROUND TO THE BEIJING RULES
The Beijing Rules, adopted by the United Nations in 1985, provide guidance to States for the protection of children’s rights and respect for their needs in the development of separate and specialised systems of juvenile justice. Limited provisions concerning juvenile justice may be located in regional human rights treaties and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966. Similarly, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted in 1955, set out certain basic requirements for all prisoners but do not address specific issues in relation to young offenders. The Beijing Rules were the first international legal instrument to comprehensively detail norms for the administration of juvenile justice with a child rights and development oriented approach. They were a direct response to a call made by the Sixth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders which convened in 1980.
The Rules operate within the framework of two other sets of rules governing juvenile justice, both adopted in 1990: The United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (the Riyadh Guidelines) and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (the JDL Rules). These three sets of rules can be seen as guidance for a three stage process: firstly, social policies to be applied to prevent and protect young people from offending (the Riyadh Guidelines); secondly, establishing a progressive justice system for young persons in conflict with the law (the Beijing Rules); and finally, safeguarding fundamental rights and establishing measures for social re-integration of young people once deprived ot their liberty, whether in prison or other institutions (the JDL Rules).
Although the Beijing Rules predate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, several of the fundamental principles have been incorporated into that Convention and they are expressly referred to in its Preamble.
STATUS OF THE RULES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
The Rules are recommendatory and non-binding per se. Certain of the principles enunciated within the Rules, however, have been encompassed in provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a global treaty which is binding on all States Parties. The Beijing Rules do not prevent the application of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners adopted in 1955. Those rules should be extended to juveniles in detention pending adjudication and in institutions and applied in such a way as to meet the particular needs of juveniles.
The commentary specifically states that the Rules should also be interpreted and implemented in the light of other existing and emerging human rights texts, without prejudice to any provision of wider application which may be contained therein.
FORMAT OF THE BEIJING RULES
The Rules are divided into six parts and are accompanied by a commentary expanding upon and explaining each individual rule. These six parts are:
- General Principles;
- Investigation and Prosecution;
- Adjudication and Disposition;
- Non-Institutional Treatment;
- Institutional Treatment; and
- Research, Planning, Policy Formulation and Evaluation.
DEFINITIONS USED IN THE RULES
A juvenile is defined as 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. Thus the Rules look to the nature of the punishment of the offence rather than the offender in determining who is a juvenile. The later JDL Rules amend the definition of juvenile to any person under the age of 18, which is consistent with the definition of a child given at Article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
An offence is any behaviour that is punishable by law under the States respective legal systems.
This is a child or young person who is alleged to have committed or has been found to have committed an offence.
*Application of the Rules
The Rules also apply to juveniles who may be punished for any specific behaviour not punishable if committed by an adult, “status offences”, (e.g. truancy), juveniles in welfare and care proceedings and young adult offenders.
1.The fair and humane treatment of juveniles in conflict with the law. In particular, the aims of juvenile justice should be two-fold: the promotion of the well-being of the juvenile and a proportionate reaction by the authorities to the nature of the offender as well as to the offence.
2.The use of diversion from formal hearings to appropriate community programmes where the consent of the juvenile is encouraged.
3.Where diversion is not appropriate, detention of the juvenile should be used as a measure of last resort, for the shortest period of time possible and separate from adult detention.
4.Proceedings before any authority should be conducted in the best interests of the juvenile and in the manner which allows him/her to participate and to express himself/herself freely.
5.Deprivation of liberty should only be imposed after careful consideration for a minimum period and only for serious offences.
6.Capital and corporal punishment should be abolished for any crime.
7.Institutionalisation of juveniles should only be resorted to after consideration of alternative disposition measures.
8.Both personnel and police officers dealing with juvenile cases should benefit from continued specialised training.
9.Whilst undergoing institutional treatment, appropriate educational services and care should be made available to assist juveniles in their return to society.
10.Release should be considered both on apprehension and at the earliest possible occasion thereafter.
AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
Where States set the age at which criminal responsibility commences, that age should not be set at too low a level and should reflect emotional, mental and intellectual maturity.
The commentary encourages States to agree on a reasonable lowest age limit which would be applicable internationally.
AIMS OF JUVENILE JUSTICE
The juvenile justice system should emphasise the well-being of the juvenile and ensure that the reaction of the authorities is proportionate to the circumstances of the offender as well as the offence.
SCOPE OF DISCRETION
In view of the varying special needs of juveniles, discretion may be exercised at all stages of proceedings by persons specially qualified and trained to do so. Those exercising discretion should be accountable for their decisions.
RIGHTS OF JUVENILES
The presumption of innocence is applicable to all juveniles. Further procedural safeguards should be guaranteed: the right to be notified of the charges, the right to remain silent, the right to legal representation, the right to the presence of a parent or guardian, the right to call and cross-examine witnesses and the right of appeal. These provisions represent the minimum elements for a fair and just trial and should be read in conjunction with the provisions governing penal proceedings in both the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
PROTECTION OF PRIVACY
The juvenile’s right to privacy should be respected at all stages of the proceedings and in particular the identity of the juvenile offender should not be published. This is consistent with international and regional human rights treaties concerning the privacy of juvenile proceedings.
Parent or guardians of an apprehended juvenile should be notified immediately, or as soon as possible, and a judge or other competent official should consider the possibility of release of the juvenile without delay. Law enforcement agencies should behave in a way appropriate to the legal status and the promotion of the well-being of the juvenile and the avoidance of harm to him/her.
The Commentary highlights the benefit of diversion, such as the lack of stigma where there is conviction and sentence, and states that in some cases, such as non-serious offences, no intervention at all may be the optimal response, especially where there has already been some response by family or school or other informal social control institutions.
The police, prosecution or other agencies dealing with juvenile cases may at their discretion and without recourse to formal hearings dispose of cases in accordance with the criteria laid down in the respective legal systems and the principles contained in the Rules. Diversion may be to community programmes such as temporary supervision and guidance, restitution and compensation of victims.
A pre-condition to diversion will be the free consent of the juvenile or his/her parents or guardians reviewable by a competent authority on application.
SPECIALISATION WITHIN THE POLICE
Police officers involved with juveniles or the prevention of juvenile crime should receive specialised training. In large cities special police units should be established for this purpose.
DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Many of the United Nations rules concerning juveniles under arrest or awaiting trial reiterate provisions found in global and regional human rights treaties. The main thrust of the Rules in this area is that pre-trial detention should only be used after considering alternative measures such as close supervision, placement with a family or in an educational setting or home. However, once in detention, juveniles should be kept in a separate institution from adults or in a separate part of an institution also holding adults and only for the shortest possible period. While in custody juveniles should receive all social, educational, vocational, psychological, medical and physical care taking into account their age, gender and personality.
ADJUDICATION AND DISPOSITION
The Rules emphasise several fundamental principles: the principle of proportionality, minimal use of deprivation of liberty and the well-being of the juvenile.
Where a juvenile offender has not been diverted and has proceeded to a formal trial, the proceedings should be conducive to the best interests of the juvenile and conducted in an atmosphere which allows the juvenile to participate and express himself/herself freely.
The juvenile should have the right to legal representation and to apply for free legal aid where such a system exists. The parents or the guardian should be entitled to participate in the proceedings. The competent authority should be empowered to either compel them to appear or to exclude them from the proceedings where this is necessary in the interests of the juvenile.
Prior to sentencing the background and circumstances in which the juvenile is living, or the conditions under which the offence has been committed, should be the subject of a social inquiry report in order to facilitate the adjudication of the case. Both capital and corporal punishment are specifically prohibited for any crime reiterating binding treaty standards.
In a case * decided before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 1967, it was proposed by the commission that a norm of international customary law establishing 18 to be the minimum age limit for the imposition of the death penalty was emerging. The implications of this decision, albeit non-binding, indicate that a State which pursues a policy of judicial execution of children may now be in breach of international law even where it has not ratified the relevant treaties.
Various disposition measures
Alternatives to institutionalisation of the juvenile are proposed under the Rules. The orders include: various care orders, probation, community service orders, compensation to the victim or financial penalties, group counselling and foster care or other educational establishments. The Rules do not advocate the separation of the juvenile form his/her parents unless the circumstances make this necessary.
Least possible use of institutionalisation
The guiding principle under the rules is that the placement of a juvenile in an institution should always be a disposition of last resort. Where, however, the juvenile is so place it should always be for a minimum period.
The commentary favours the establishment of open institutional of an educational nature rather than incarceration.
Avoidance of unnecessary delay
Each case should be handled expeditiously without any unnecessary delay.
The rationale behind the reiteration of this principle relates to the particular characteristic of a child whose ability to relate procedure to disposition deteriorates over time.
Records of juvenile offenders should be strictly confidential, only accessible to persons directly concerned with the disposition of the case or some other duly authorised person, Where the juvenile is subsequently the subject of adult proceedings his previous records may not be used.
Need for professionalism and training
All personnel involved in juvenile justice should receive regular training in the form of professional education, in-service training, refresher courses and other appropriate modes of instruction, Women and minority groups should be fairly represented in juvenile justice personnel.
Provision of needed assistance and mobilisation of volunteers and other community services
The Rules steps the importance of rehabilitation of the juvenile. To that end they require necessary assistance in the form of education, employment or accommodation to be given to the juvenile during the proceedings an call upon volunteers, voluntary organisations, local institutions and other community resources to assist in that process. This notion of rehabilitation has subsequently been replaced with the more recent concept of non-institutional re-integration of the juvenile into society to fulfil a constructive role, in both the JDL Rules and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Objective of institutional treatment
The end aim of institutionalisation is to assist juveniles to assume socially constructive and productive roles in society. Whilst in institutions all juveniles should receive social, educational, vocational, psychological, medical and physical assistance. Particular reference is made to the needs and problems of young female offenders who should receive no less care and assistance than their male counterparts. Inter-ministerial and interdepartmental cooperation is encouraged for the purpose of providing adequate academic or vocational training to institutionalised juveniles in order that they do not leave the institution at an educational disadvantage.
Frequent and early recourse to conditional release
Conditional release from an institution should be used to the greatest possible extent and at the earliest possible time. Juveniles released conditionally from an institution should be assisted and supervised by the appropriate authority and fully supported by the community.
The commentary states that offenders who initially have been deemed dangerous may be conditionally released where the is feasible.
Semi-institutional arrangements such ad educational homes and daytime training centres should be established to assist juveniles in their reintegration into society.
Research as a basis for planning, policy formation and evaluation
The Rules recognise the importance of keeping abreast with the changing problems and causes of juvenile delinquency as well as the varying particular needs of juveniles in custody. Research should therefore be organised and promoted both as a basis for effective planning and policy formation and for regular evaluation of the juvenile justice system with a view to future improvement and reform.
The commentary suggests the utilisation of independent persons and bodies and the views of juveniles themselves in carrying out such research.
Use of the rules
The Rules should be applied to juvenile offenders impartially, without distinction of any kind, for example, as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Each state should establish legislative provisions specifically applicable to juvenile offenders and institutions entrusted with juvenile justice. These provisions should be designed to meet the needs of juvenile offenders whilst protecting their basic rights and meeting the needs of society. The Beijing Rules should be implemented thoroughly and fairly within these provisions.
* Roach and Pinkerton. Affaire 9647. OAS / SER.L / V11.69
Van Bueren, Geraldine, ed., International Documents on Children, Nijhoff, 1993
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules
for the Administration of Juvenile Justice
Resolution 40 / 33
29 November 1985, 96th plenary session
The General Assembly,
Bearing in mind the Universal Declaration of Human rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as other international human rights instruments pertaining to the rights of young persons,
Also bearing in mind that 1985 was designated the International Youth Year: Participation, Development, Peace and that the international community has placed importance on the protection and promotion of the rights of the young, as witnessed by the significance attached to the Declaration of the Rights of the Child,
Recalling resolution 4 adopted by the Sixth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the treatment of Offenders, which called fore the development of standard minimum rules for the administration of juvenile justice and the care of juveniles, which could serve as a model for Member States,
Recalling also Economic and Social Council decision 1984/153 of 25 May 1984, by which the draft rules were forwarded to the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Milan, Italy, from 26 August to 6 September 1985, through the Interregional Preparatory Meeting, held at Beijing from 14 to 18 May 1984,
Recognizing that the young, owing to their early stage of human development, require particular care and assistance with regard to physical, mental and social development, and require legal protection in conditions of peace, freedom, dignity and security,
Considering that existing national legislation, policies and practices may well require review and the rules,
Considering further that, although such standards may seem difficult to achieve at present in view of existing social, economic, cultural, political and legal conditions, they are nevertheless intended to be attainable as a policy minimum,
1. Notes with appreciation the work carried out by the Committee on Crime Prevention and Control, the Secretary-General, the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders and other United Nations institutes in the development of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice;
2. Takes note with appreciation of the report of the Secretary-General on the draft Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice;
3. Commends the Interregional Preparatory Meeting held at Beijing for having finalized the text of the rules submitted to the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders for consideration and final action;
4. Adopts the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice recommended by the Seventh Congress, contained in the annex to the present resolution, and approves the recommendation of the Seventh Congress that the Rules should be known as “the Beijing Rules”;
5. Invites Member States to adapt, wherever this is necessary, their national legislation, policies and practice, particularly in training juvenile justice personnel, to the Beijing Rules and to bring the Rules to the attention of relevant authorities and the public in general;
6. Calls upon the Committee on Crime Prevention and Control to formulate measures for the effective implementation of the Beijing Rules, with the assistance of the United nations institutes on the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders;
7. Invites Member States to inform the Secretary-General on the implementation of the Beijing Rules and to report regularly to the Committee on Crime Prevention and Control on the results achieved;
8. Requests Member States and the Secretary-General to undertake research and to develop a data base with respect to effective policies and practices in the administration of juvenile justice;
9. Requests the Secretary-General and invites Member States to ensure the widest possible dissemination of the text of the Beijing Rules in all of the official languages of the United Nations, including the intensification of information activities in the field of juvenile justice;
10. Requests the Secretary-General to develop pilot projects on the implementation of the Beijing Rules;
11. Requests the Secretary-General and Member States to provide the necessary resources to ensure the successful implementation of the Beijing Rules, in particular in the areas of recruitment, training and exchange of personnel, research and evaluation, and the development of new alternatives to institutionalization;
12. Requests the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders to review the progress made in the implementation of the Beijing Rules and of the recommendations contained in the present resolution, under a separate agenda item on juvenile justice;
13. Urges all relevant organs of the United Nations system, in particular the regional commissions and specialized agencies, the United Nations institutes for the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders, other intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations to collaborate with the Secretariat and to take the necessary measures to ensure a concerted and sustained effort, within their respective fields of technical competence, to implement the principles contained in the Beijing Rules.
1. Fundamental perspectives
1.1Member States shall seek, in conformity with their respective general interests, to further the well-being of the juvenile and her or his family.
1.2Member States shall endeavour to develop conditions that will ensure for the juvenile a meaningful life in the community, which, during that period in life when she or he is most susceptible to deviant behaviour, will foster a process of personal development and education that is as free from crime and delinquency as possible.
1.3Sufficient attention shall be given to positive measures that involve the full mobilization of all possible resources, including the family, volunteers and other community groups, as well as schools and other community institutions, for the purpose of promoting the well-being of the juvenile, with a view to reducing the need for intervention under the law, and of effectively, fairly and humanely dealing with the juvenile in conflict with the law.
1.4Juvenile justice shall be conceived as an integral part of the national development process of each country, within a comprehensive framework of social justice for all juveniles, thus, at the same time, contributing to the protection of the young and the maintenance of a peaceful order in society.
1.5These Rules shall be implemented in the context of economic, social and cultural conditions prevailing in each Member State.
1.6Juvenile justice services shall be systematically developed and coordinated with a view to improving and sustaining the competence of personnel involved in the services, including their methods, approaches and attitudes.
These broad fundamental perspectives refer to comprehensive social policy in general and aim at promoting juvenile welfare to the greatest possible extent, which will minimize the necessity of intervention by the juvenile justice system, and in turn, will reduce the harm that may be caused by any intervention. Such care measures for the young, before the onset of delinquency, are basic policy requisites designed to obviate the need for the application of the Rules.
Rules 1.1 to 1.3 point to the important role that a constructive social policy for juveniles will play, inter alia, in the prevention of juvenile crime and delinquency. Rule 1.4 defines juvenile justice as an integral part of social justice for juveniles, while rule 1.6 refers to the necessity of constantly improving juvenile justice, without falling behind the development of progressive social policy for juveniles in general and bearing in mind the need for consistent improvement of staff services.
Rule 1.5 seeks to take account of existing conditions in Member States which would cause the manner of implementation of particular rules necessarily to be different from the manner adopted in other States.
2. Scope of the Rules and definitions used
2.1The following Standard Minimum Rules shall be applied to juvenile offenders impartially, without distinction of any kind, for example as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
2.2For purposes of these Rules, the following definitions shall be applied by Member States in a manner which is compatible with their respective legal systems and concepts:
a) 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;
b) An offence is any behaviour (act or omission) that is punishable by law under the respective legal systems;
c) A juvenile offender is a child or young person who is alleged to have committed or who has been found to have committed an offence.
2.3Efforts shall be made to establish, in each national jurisdiction, a set of laws, rules and provisions specifically applicable to juvenile offenders and institutions and bodies entrusted with the functions of the administration of juvenile justice and designed:
a) To meet the varying needs of juvenile offenders, while protecting their basic rights;
b) To meet the needs of society;
c) To implement the following rules thoroughly and fairly.
The Standard Minimum Rules are deliberately formulated so as to be applicable within different legal systems and, at the same time, to set some minimum standards for the handling of juvenile offenders under any definition of a juvenile and under any system of dealing with juvenile offenders. The Rules are always to be applied impartially and without distinction of any kind.
Rule 2.1 therefore stresses the importance of the Rules always being applied impartially and without distinction of any kind. The rule follows the formulation of principle 2 of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child.
Rule 2.2 defines “juvenile” and “offence” as the components of the notion of the “juvenile offender”, who is the main subject of these Standard Minimum Rules (see, however, also rules 3 and 4). It should be noted that age limits will depend on, and are explicitly made dependent on, each respective legal system, thus fully respecting the economic, social, political, cultural and legal systems of Member States. This makes for a wide variety of ages coming under the definition of “juvenile”, ranging from 7 years to 18 years or above. Such a variety seems inevitable in view of the different national legal systems and does not diminish the impact of these Standard Minimum Rules.
Rule 2.3 is addressed to the necessity of specific national legislation for the optimal implementation of these Standard Minimum Rules, both legally and practically.
3. Extension of the Rules
3.1The relevant provisions of the Rules shall be applied not only to juvenile offenders but also to juveniles who may be proceeded against for any specific behaviour that would not be punishable if committed by an adult.
3.2Efforts shall be made to extend the principles embodied in the Rules to all juveniles who are dealt with in welfare and care proceedings.
3.3Efforts shall also be made to extend the principles embodied in the Rules to young adult offenders.
Rule 3 extends the protection afforded by the Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice to cover:
a) The so-called “status offences” prescribed in various national legal systems where the range of behaviour considered to be an offence is wider for juveniles than it is for adults (for example, truancy, school and family disobedience, public drunkenness, etc.) (rule 3.1);
b) Juvenile welfare and care proceedings (rule 3.2);
c) Proceedings dealing with young adult offenders, depending of course on each given age limit (rule 3.3).
The extension of the Rules to cover these three areas seems to be justified. Rule 3.1 provides minimum guarantees in those fields, and rule 3.2 is considered a desirable step in the direction of more fair, equitable and humane justice for all juveniles in conflict with the law.
4. Age of criminal responsibility
4.1In those legal systems recognizing the concept of the age of criminal responsibility for juveniles, the beginning of that age shall not be fixed at too low an age level, bearing in mind the facts of emotional, mental and intellectual maturity.
The minimum age of criminal responsibility differs widely owing to history and culture. The modern approach would be to consider whether a child can live up to the moral and psychological components of criminal responsibility; that is, whether a child, by virtue of her or his individual discernment and understanding, can be held responsible for essentially antisocial behaviour. If the age of criminal responsibility is fixed too low or if there is no lower age limit at all, the notion of responsibility would become meaningless. In general, there is a close relationship between the notion of responsibility for delinquent or criminal behaviour and other social rights and responsibilities (such as marital status, civil majority, etc.).
Efforts should therefore be made to agree on a reasonable lowest age limit that is applicable internationally.
5. Aims of juvenile justice
5.1The juvenile justice system shall emphasize the well-being of the juvenile and shall ensure that any reaction to juvenile offenders shall always be in proportion to the circumstances of both the offenders and the offence.
Rule 5 refers to two of the most important objectives of juvenile justice. The first objective is the promotion of the well-being of the juvenile. This is the main focus of those legal systems in which juvenile offenders are dealt with by family courts or administrative authorities, but the well-being of the juvenile should also be emphasized in legal systems that follow the criminal court model, thus contributing to the avoidance of merely punitive sanctions. (See also rule 14.)
The second objective is “the principle of proportionality”. This principle is well-known as an instrument for curbing punitive sanctions, mostly expressed in terms of just deserts in relation to the gravity of the offence. The response to young offenders should be based on the consideration not only of the gravity of the offence but also of personal circumstances. The individual circumstances of the offender (for example social status, family situation, the harm caused by the offence or other factors affecting personal circumstances) should influence the proportionality of the reactions (for example by having regard to the offender’s endeavour to indemnify the victim or to her or his willingness to turn to wholesome and useful life).
By the same token, reactions aiming to ensure the welfare of the young offender may go beyond necessity and therefore infringe upon the fundamental rights of the young individual, as has been observed in some juvenile justice systems. Here, too, the proportionality of the reaction to the circumstances of both the offender and the offence, including the victim, should be safeguarded.
In essence, rule 5 calls for no less and no more than a fair reaction in any given cases of juvenile delinquency and crime. The issues combined in the rule may help to stimulate development in both regards: new and innovative types of reactions are as desirable as precautions against any undue widening of the net of formal social control over juveniles.
6. Scope of discretion
6.1In view of the varying special needs of juveniles as well as the variety of measures available, appropriate scope for discretion shall be allowed at all stages of proceedings and at the different levels of juvenile justice administration, including investigation, prosecution, adjudication and the follow-up of dispositions.
6.2Efforts shall be made, however, to ensure sufficient accountability at all stages and levels in the exercise of any such discretion.
6.3Those who exercise discretion shall be specially qualified or trained to exercise it judiciously and in accordance with their functions and mandates.
Rules 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 combine several important features of effective, fair and humane juvenile justice administration: the need to permit the exercise of discretionary power at all significant levels of processing so that those who make determinations can take the actions deemed to be most appropriate in each individual case; and the need to provide checks and balances in order to curb any abuses of discretionary power and to safeguard the rights of the young offender. Accountability and professionalism are instruments best apt to curb broad discretion. Thus, professional qualifications and expert training are emphasized here as a valuable means of ensuring the judicious exercise of discretion in matters of juvenile offenders. (See also rules 1.6 and 2.2.) The formulation of specific guidelines on the exercise of discretion and the provision of systems of review, appeal and the like in order to permit scrutiny of decisions and accountability are emphasized in this context. Such mechanisms are not specified here, as they do not easily lend themselves to incorporation into international standard minimum rules, which cannot possibly cover all differences in justice systems.
7. Rights of juveniles
7.1 Basic procedural safeguards such as the presumption of innocence, the right to be notified of the charges, the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, the right to the presence of a parent or guardian, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and the right to appeal to a higher authority shall be guaranteed at all stages of proceedings.
Rule 7.1 emphasizes some important points that represent essential elements for a fair and just trial and that are internationally recognized in existing human rights instruments. (See also rule 14.) The presumption of innocence, for instance, is also to be found in article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights and in article 14, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Rules 14 seq. of these Standard Minimum Rules specify issues that are important for proceedings in juvenile cases, in particular, while rule 7.1 affirms the most basic procedural safeguards in a general way.
8. Protection of privacy
8.1The juvenile’s right to privacy shall be respected at all stages in order to avoid harm being caused to her or him by undue publicity or by the process of labelling.
8.2 In principle, no information that may lead to the identification of a juvenile offender shall be published.
Rule 8 stresses the importance of the protection of the juvenile’s right to privacy. Young persons are particularly susceptible to stigmatization. Criminological research into labelling processes has provided evidence of the detrimental effects (of different kinds) resulting from the permanent identification of young persons as “delinquent” or “criminal”.
Rule 8 stresses the importance of protecting the juvenile from the adverse effects that may result from the publication in the mass media of information about the case (for example the names of young offenders, alleged or convicted). The interest of the individual should be protected and upheld, at least in principle. (The general contents of rule 8 are further specified in rule 21.)
9. Saving clause
9.1Nothing in these Rules shall be interpreted as precluding the application of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners adopted by the United Nations and other human rights instruments and standards recognized by the international community that relate to the care and protection of the young.
Rule 9 is meant to avoid any misunderstanding in interpreting and implementing the present Rules in conformity with principles contained in relevant existing or emerging international human rights instruments and standards—such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the draft convention on the rights of the child. It should be understood that the application of the present Rules is without prejudice to any such international instruments which may contain provisions of wider application. (See also rule 27.)
Investigation and prosecution
10. Initial contact
10.1Upon the apprehension of a juvenile, her or his parents or guardian shall be immediately notified of such apprehension, and, where such immediate notification is not possible, the parents or guardian shall be notified within the shortest possible time thereafter.
10.2A judge or other competent official or body shall, without delay, consider the issue of release.
10.3Contacts between the law enforcement agencies and a juvenile offender shall be managed in such a way as to respect the legal status of the juvenile, promote the well-being of the juvenile and avoid harm to her or him, with due regard to the circumstances of the case.
Rule 10.1 is in principle contained in rule 92 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
The question of release (rule 10.2) shall be considered without delay by a judge or other competent official. The latter refers to any person or institution in the broadest sense of the term, including community boards or police authorities having power to release an arrested person.
(See also the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 9, paragraph 3.)
Rule 10.3 deals with some fundamental aspects of the procedures and behaviour on the part of the police and other law enforcement officials in cases of juvenile crime. To “avoid harm” admittedly is flexible wording and covers many features of possible interaction (for example the use of harsh language, physical violence or exposure to the environment). Involvement in juvenile justice processes in itself can be “harmful” to juveniles; the term “avoid harm” should be broadly interpreted, therefore, as doing the least harm possible to the juvenile in the first instance, as well as any additional or undue harm. This is especially important in the initial contact with law enforcement agencies, which might profoundly influence the juvenile’s attitude towards the State and society. Moreover, the success of any further intervention is largely dependent on such initial contacts. Compassion and kind firmness are important in these situations.
11.1 Consideration shall be given, wherever appropriate, to dealing with juvenile offenders without resorting to formal trial by the competent authority, referred to in rule 14.1 below.
11.2 The police, the prosecution or other agencies dealing with juvenile cases shall be empowered to dispose of such cases, at their discretion, without recourse to formal hearings, in accordance with the criteria laid down for that purpose in the respective legal system and also in accordance with the principles contained in these Rules.
11.3 Any diversion involving referral to appropriate community or other services shall require the consent of the juvenile, or her or his parents or guardian, provided that such decision to refer a case shall be subject to review by a competent authority, upon application.
11.4 In order to facilitate the discretionary disposition of juvenile cases, efforts shall be made to provide for community programmes, such as temporary supervision and guidance, restitution, and compensation of victims.
Diversion, involving removal from criminal justice processing and, frequently, redirection to community support services, is commonly practised on a formal and informal basis in many legal systems. This practice serves to hinder the negative effects of subsequent proceedings in juvenile justice administration (for example the stigma of conviction and sentence). In many cases, non-intervention would be the best response. Thus, diversion at the outset and without referral to alternative (social) services may be the optimal response. This is especially the case 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.
As stated in rule 11.2, diversion may be used at any point of decision-making by the police, the prosecution or other agencies such as the courts, tribunals, boards or councils. It may be exercised by one authority or several or all authorities, according to the rules and policies of the respective systems and in line with the present Rules. It need not necessarily be limited to petty cases, thus rendering diversion an important instrument.
Rule 11.3 stresses the important requirement of securing the consent of the young offender (or the parent or guardian) to the recommended diversionary measure(s). (Diversion to community service without such consent would contradict the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention.) However, this consent should not be left unchallengeable, since it might sometimes be given out of sheer desperation on the part of the juvenile. The rule underlines that care should be taken to minimize the potential for coercion and intimidation at all levels in the diversion process. Juveniles should not feel pressured (for example in order to avoid court appearance) or be pressured into consenting to diversion programmes. Thus, it is advocated that provision should be made for an objective appraisal of the appropriateness of dispositions involving young offenders by a “competent authority upon application”. (The “competent authority” may be different from that referred to in rule 14.)
Rule 11.4 recommends the provision of viable alternatives to juvenile justice processing in the form of community-based diversion. Programmes that involve settlement by victim restitution and those that seek to avoid future conflict with the law through temporary supervision and guidance are especially commended. The merits of individual cases would make diversion appropriate, even when more serious offences have been committed (for example first offence, the act having been committed under peer pressure, etc.).
12. Specialization within the police
12.1 In order to best fulfil their functions, police officers who frequently or exclusively deal with juveniles or who are primarily engaged in the prevention of juvenile crime shall be specially instructed and trained. In large cities, special police units should be established for that purpose.
Rule 12 draws attention to the need for specialized training for all law enforcement officials who are involved in the administration of juvenile justice. As police are the first point of contact with the juvenile justice system, it is most important that they act in an informed and appropriate manner.
While the relationship between urbanization and crime is clearly complex, an increase in juvenile crime has been associated with.the growth of large cities, particularly with rapid and unplanned growth. Specialized police units would therefore be indispensable, not only in the interest of implementing specific principles contained in the present instrument (such as rule 1.6) but more generally for improving the prevention and control of juvenile crime and the handling of juvenile offenders.
13. Detention pending trial
13.1 Detention pending trial shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period of time.
13.2 Whenever possible, detention pending trial shall be replaced by alternative measures, such as close supervision, intensive care or placement with a family or in an educational setting or home.
13.3 Juveniles under detention pending trial shall be entitled to all rights and guarantees of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners adopted by the United Nations.
13.4 Juveniles under detention pending trial shall be kept separate from adults and shall be detained in a separate institution or in a separate part of an institution also holding adults.
13.5 While in custody, juveniles shall receive care, protection and all necessary individual assistance — social, educational, vocational, psychological, medical and physical — that they may require in view of their age, sex and personality.
The danger to juveniles of “criminal contamination” while in detention pending trial must not be underestimated. It is therefore important to stress the need for alternative measures. By doing so, rule 13.1 encourages the devising of new and innovative measures to avoid such detention in the interest of the well-being of the juvenile.
Juveniles under detention pending trial are entitled to all the rights and guarantees of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, especially article 9 and article10, paragraphs 2 b) and 3.
Rule 13.4 does not prevent States from taking other measures against the negative influences of adult offenders which are at least as effective as the measures mentioned in the rule.
Different forms of assistance that may become necessary have been enumerated to draw attention to the broad range of particular needs of young detainees to be addressed (for example females or males, drug addicts, alcoholics, mentally ill juveniles, young persons suffering from the trauma, for example, of arrest, etc.).
Varying physical and psychological characteristics of young detainees may warrant classification measures by which some are kept separate while in detention pending trial, thus contributing to the avoidance of victimization and rendering more appropriate assistance.
The Sixth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, in its resolution 4 on juvenile justice standards, specified that the Rules, inter alia, should reflect the basic principle that pre-trial detention should be used only as a last resort, that no minors should be held in a facility where they are vulnerable to the negative influences of adult detainees and that account should always be taken of the needs particular to their stage of development.
Adjudication and disposition
14. Competent authority to adjudicate
14.1 Where the case of a juvenile offender has not been diverted (under rule 11), she or he shall be dealt with by the competent authority (court, tribunal, board, council, etc.) according to the principles of a fair and just trial.
14.2 The proceedings shall be conducive to the best interests of the juvenile and shall be conducted in an atmosphere of understanding, which shall allow the juvenile to participate therein and to express herself or himself freely.
It is difficult to formulate a definition of the competent body or person that would universally describe an adjudicating authority. “Competent authority” is meant to include those who preside over courts or tribunals (composed of a single judge or of several members), including professional and lay magistrates as well as administrative boards (for example the Scottish and Scandinavian systems) or other more informal community and conflict resolution agencies of an adjudicatory nature.
The procedure for dealing with juvenile offenders shall in any case follow the minimum standards that are applied almost universally for any criminal defendant under the procedure known as “due process of law”. In accordance with due process, a “fair and just trial” includes such basic safeguards as the presumption of innocence, the presentation and examination of witnesses, the common legal defences, the right to remain silent, the right to have the last word in a hearing, the right to appeal, etc. (See also rule 7.1.)
15. Legal counsel, parents and guardians
15.1 Throughout the proceedings the juvenile shall have the right to be represented by a legal adviser or to apply for free legal aid where there is provision for such aid in the country.
15.2 The parents or the guardian shall be entitled to participate in the proceedings and may be required by the competent authority to attend them in the interest of the juvenile. They may, however, be denied participation by the competent authority if there are reasons to assume that such exclusion is necessary in the interest of the juvenile.
Rule 15.1 uses terminology similar to that found in rule 93 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Whereas legal counsel and free legal aid are needed to assure the juvenile legal assistance, the right of the parents or guardian to participate as stated in rule 15.2 should be viewed as general psychological and emotional assistance to the juvenile — a function extending throughout the procedure.
The competent authority’s search for an adequate disposition of the case may profit, in particular, from the co-operation of the legal representatives of the juvenile (or, for that matter, some other personal assistant who the juvenile can and does really trust). Such concern can be thwarted if the presence of parents or guardians at the hearings plays a negative role, for instance, if they display a hostile attitude towards the juvenile, hence, the possibility of their exclusion must be provided for.
16. Social inquiry reports
16.1 In all cases except those involving minor offences, before the competent authority renders a final disposition prior to sentencing, the background and circumstances in which the juvenile is living or the conditions under which the offence has been committed shall be properly investigated so as to facilitate judicious adjudication of the case by the competent authority.
Social inquiry reports (social reports or pre-sentence reports) are an indispensable aid in most legal proceedings involving juveniles. The competent authority should be informed of relevant facts about the juvenile, such as social and family background, school career, educational experiences, etc. For this purpose, some jurisdictions use special social services or personnel attached to the court or board. Other personnel, including probation officers, may serve the same function. The rule therefore requires that adequate social-services should be available to deliver social inquiry reports of a qualified nature.
17. Guiding principles in adjudication and disposition
17.1 The disposition of the competent authority shall be guided by the following principles:
a) The reaction taken shall always be in proportion not only to the circumstances and the gravity of the offence but also to the circumstances and the needs of the juvenile as well as to the needs of the society;
b) Restrictions on the personal liberty of the juvenile shall be imposed only after careful consideration and shall be limited to the possible minimum;
c) Deprivation of personal liberty shall not be imposed unless the juvenile is adjudicated of a serious act involving violence against another person or of persistence in committing other serious offences and unless there is no other appropriate response;
d) The well-being of the juvenile shall be the guiding factor in the consideration of her or his case.
17.2 Capital punishment shall not be imposed for any crime committed by juveniles.
17.3 Juveniles shall not be subject to corporal punishment.
17.4 The competent authority shall have the power to discontinue the proceedings at any time.
The main difficulty in formulating guidelines for the adjudication of young persons stems from the fact that there are unresolved conflicts of a philosophical nature, such as the following:
a) Rehabilitation versus just desert;
b) Assistance versus repression and punishment;
c) Reaction according to the singular merits of an individual case versus reaction according to the protection of society in general;
d) General deterrence versus individual incapacitation.
The conflict between these approaches is more pronounced in juvenile cases than in adult cases. With the variety of causes and reactions characterizing juvenile cases, these alternatives become intricately interwoven.
It is not the function of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice to prescribe which approach is to be followed but rather to identify one that is most closely in consonance with internationally accepted principles. Therefore the essential elements as laid down in rule 17.1, in particular in subparagraphs a) and c), are mainly to be understood as practical guidelines that should ensure a common starting point; if heeded by the concerned authorities (see also rule 5), they could contribute considerably to ensuring that the fundamental rights of juvenile offenders are protected, especially the fundamental rights of personal development and education.
Rule 17.1 b) implies that strictly punitive approaches are not appropriate. Whereas in adult cases, and possibly also in cases of severe offences by juveniles, just desert and retributive sanctions might be considered to have some merit, in juvenile cases such considerations should always be outweighed by the interest of safeguarding the well-being and the future of the young person.
In line with resolution 8 of the Sixth United Nations Congress, rule 17.1 b) encourages the use of alternatives to institutionalization to the maximum extent possible, bearing in mind the need to respond to the specific requirements of the young. Thus, full use should be made of the range of existing alternative sanctions and new alternative sanctions should be developed, bearing the public safety in mind. Probation should be granted to the greatest possible extent via suspended sentences, conditional sentences, board orders and other dispositions.
Rule 17.1 c) corresponds to one of the guiding principles in resolution 4 of the Sixth Congress which aims at avoiding incarceration in the case of juveniles unless there is no other appropriate response that will protect the public safety.
The provision prohibiting capital punishment in rule 17.2 is in accordance with article 6, paragraph 5, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The provision against corporal punishment is in line with article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as well as the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the draft convention on the rights of the child.
The power to discontinue the proceedings at any time (rule 17.4) is a characteristic inherent in the handling of juvenile offenders as opposed to adults. At any time, circumstances may become known to the competent authority which would make a complete cessation of the intervention appear to be the best disposition of the case.
18. Various disposition measures
18.1 A large variety of disposition measures shall be made available to the competent authority, allowing for flexibility so as to avoid institutionalization to the greatest extent possible. Such measures, some of which may be combined, include:
a) Care, guidance and supervision orders;
c) Community service orders;
d) Financial penalties, compensation and restitution;
e) Intermediate treatment and other treatment orders;
f) Orders to participate in group counselling and similar activities;
g) Orders concerning foster care, living communities or other educational settings;
h) Other relevant orders.
18.2 No juvenile shall be removed from parental supervision, whether partly or entirely, unless the circumstances of her or his case make this necessary.
Rule 18.1 attempts to enumerate some of the important reactions and sanctions that have been practised and proved successful thus far, in different legal systems. On the whole they represent promising opinions that deserve replication and further development. The rule does not enumerate staffing requirements because of possible shortages of adequate staff in some regions; in those regions measures requiring less staff may be tried or developed.
The examples given in rule 18.1 have in common, above all, a reliance on and an appeal to the community for the effective implementation of alternative dispositions. Community-based correction is a traditional measure that has taken on many aspects. On that basis, relevant authorities should be encouraged to offer community-based services.
Rule 18.2 points to the importance of the family which, according to article 10, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, is “the natural and fundamental group unit of society”. Within the family, the parents have not only the right but also the responsibility to care for and supervise their children. Rule 18.2, therefore, requires that the separation of children from their parents is a measure of last resort. It may be resorted to only when the facts of the case clearly warrant this grave step (for example child abuse).
19. Least possible use of institutionalization
19.1 The placement of a juvenile in an institution shall always be a disposition of last resort and for the minimum necessary period.
Progressive criminology advocates the use of non-institutional over institutional treatment. Little or no difference has been found in terms of the success of institutionalization as compared to non-institutionalization. The many adverse influences on an individual that seem unavoidable within any institutional setting evidently cannot be outbalanced by treatment efforts. This is especially the case for juveniles, who are vulnerable to negative influences. Moreover, the negative effects, not only of loss of liberty but also of separation from the usual social environment, are certainly more acute for juveniles than for adults because of their early stage of development.
Rule 19 aims at restricting institutionalization in two regards: in quantity (“last resort”) and in time (“minimum necessary period”). Rule 19 reflects one of the basic guiding principles of resolution 4 of the Sixth United Nations Congress: a juvenile offender should not be incarcerated unless there is no other appropriate response. The rule, therefore, makes the appeal that if a juvenile must be institutionalized, the loss of liberty should be restricted to the least possible degree, with special institutional arrangements for confinement and bearing in mind the differences in kinds of offenders, offences and institutions. In fact, priority should be given to “open” over “closed” institutions. Furthermore, any facility should be of a correctional or educational rather than of a prison type.
20. Avoidance of unnecessary delay
20.1 Each case shall from the outset be handled expeditiously, without any unnecessary delay.
The speedy conduct of formal procedures in juvenile cases is a paramount concern. Otherwise whatever good may be achieved by the procedure and the disposition is at risk. As time passes, the juvenile will find it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to relate the procedure and disposition to the offence, both intellectually and psychologically.
21.1 Records of juvenile offenders shall be kept strictly confidential and closed to third parties. Access to such records shall be limited to persons directly concerned with the disposition of the case at hand or other duly authorized persons.
21.2 Records of juvenile offenders shall not be used in adult proceedings in subsequent cases involving the same offender.
The rule attempts to achieve a balance between conflicting interests connected with records or files: those of the police, prosecution and other authorities in improving control versus the interests of the juvenile offender. (See also rule 8.) “Other duly authorized persons” would generally include, among others, researchers.
22.Need for professionalism and training
22.1 Professional education, in-service training, refresher courses and other appropriate modes of instruction shall be utilized to establish and maintain the necessary professional competence of all personnel dealing with juvenile cases.
22.2 Juvenile justice personnel shall reflect the diversity of juveniles who come into contact with the juvenile justice system. Efforts shall be made to ensure the fair representation of women and minorities in juvenile justice agencies.
The authorities competent for disposition may be persons with very different backgrounds (magistrates in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and in regions influenced by the common law system; legally trained judges in countries using Roman law and in regions influenced by them; and elsewhere elected or appointed laymen or jurists, members of community-based boards, etc.). For all these authorities, a minimum training in law, sociology, psychology, criminology and behavioural sciences would be required. This is considered as important as the organizational specialization and independence of the competent authority.
For social workers and probation officers, it might not be feasible to require professional specialization as a prerequisite for taking over any function dealing with juvenile offenders. Thus, professional on-the-job instruction would be minimum qualifications.
Professional qualifications are an essential element in ensuring the impartial and effective administration of juvenile justice. Accordingly, it is necessary to improve the recruitment, advancement and professional training of personnel and to provide them with the necessary means to enable them to properly fulfil their functions.
All political, social, sexual, racial, religious, cultural or any other kind of discrimination in the selection, appointment and advancement of juvenile justice personnel should be avoided in order to achieve impartiality in the administration of juvenile justice. This was recommended by the Sixth Congress. Furthermore, the Sixth Congress called on Member States to ensure the fair and equal treatment of women as criminal justice personnel and recommended that special measures should be taken to recruit, train and facilitate the advancement of female personnel in juvenile justice administration.
23. Effective implementation of disposition
23.1 Appropriate provisions shall be made for the implementation of orders of the competent authority, as referred to in rule 14.1 above, by that authority itself or by some other authority as circumstances may require.
23.2 Such provisions shall include the power to modify the orders as the competent authority may deem necessary from time to time, provided that such modification shall be determined in accordance with the principles contained in these Rules.
Disposition in juvenile cases, more so than in adult cases, tends to influence the offender’s life for a long period of time. Thus, it is important that the competent authority or an independent body (parole board, probation office, youth welfare institutions or others) with qualifications equal to those of the competent authority that originally disposed of the case should monitor the implementation of the disposition. In some countries, a juge de l’exécution des peines has been installed for this purpose.
The composition, powers and functions of the authority must be flexible; they are described in general terms in rule 23 in order to ensure wide acceptability.
24.Provision of needed assistance
24.1 Efforts shall be made to provide juveniles, at all stages of the proceedings, with necessary assistance such as lodging, education or vocational training, employment or any other assistance, helpful and practical, in order to facilitate the rehabilitative process.
The promotion of the well-being of the juvenile is of paramount consideration. Thus, rule 24 emphasizes the importance of providing requisite facilities, services and other necessary assistance as may further the best interests of the juvenile throughout the rehabilitative process.
25. Mobilization of volunteers and other community services
25.1 Volunteers, voluntary organizations, local institutions and other community resources shall be called upon to contribute effectively to the rehabilitation of the juvenile in a community setting and, as far as possible, within the family unit.
This rule reflects the need for a rehabilitative orientation of all work with juvenile offenders. Co-operation with the community is indispensable if the directives of the competent authority are to be carried out effectively. Volunteers and voluntary services, in particular, have proved to be valuable resources but are at present underutilized. In some instances, the co-operation of ex-offenders (including ex-addicts) can be of considerable assistance.
Rule 25 emanates from the principles laid down in rules 1.1 to 1.6 and follows the relevant provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
26. Objectives of institutional treatment
26.1 The objective of training and treatment of juveniles placed in institutions is to provide care, protection, education and vocational skills, with a view to assisting them to assume socially constructive and productive roles in society.
26.2 Juveniles in institutions shall receive care, protection and all necessary assistance — social, educational, vocational, psychological, medical and physical-that they may require because of their age, sex, and personality and in the interest of their wholesome development.
26.3 Juveniles in institutions shall be kept separate from adults and shall be detained in a separate institution or in a separate part of an institution also holding adults.
26.4 Young female offenders placed in an institution deserve special attention as to their personal needs and problems. They shall by no means receive less care, protection, assistance, treatment and training than young male offenders. Their fair treatment shall be ensured.
26.5 In the interest and well-being of the institutionalized juvenile, the parents or guardians shall have a right of access.
26.6 Inter-ministerial and inter-departmental co-operation shall be fostered for the purpose of providing adequate academic or, as appropriate, vocational training to institutionalized juveniles, with a view to ensuring that they do not leave the institution at an educational disadvantage.
The objectives of institutional treatment as stipulated in rules 26.1 and 26.2 would be acceptable to any system and culture. However, they have not yet been attained everywhere, and much more has to be done in this respect.
Medical and psychological assistance, in particular, are extremely important for institutionalized drug addicts, violent and mentally ill young persons.
The avoidance of negative influences through adult offenders and the safeguarding of the well-being of juveniles in an institutional setting, as stipulated in rule 26.3, are in line with one of the basic guiding principles of the Rules, as set out by the Sixth Congress in its resolution 4. The rule does not prevent States from taking other measures against the negative influences of adult offenders, which are at least as effective as the measures mentioned in the rule. (See also rule 13.4.)
Rule 26.4 addresses the fact that female offenders normally receive less attention than their male counterparts, as pointed out by the Sixth Congress. In particular, resolution 9 of the Sixth Congress calls for the fair treatment of female offenders at every stage of criminal justice processes and for special attention to their particular problems and needs while in custody. Moreover, this rule should also be considered in the light of the Caracas Declaration of the Sixth Congress, which, inter alia, calls for equal treatment in criminal justice administration, and against the background of the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
The right of access (rule 26.5) follows from the provisions of rules 7.1, 10.1, 15.2 and 18.2. Inter-ministerial and inter-departmental co-operation (rule 26.6) are of particular importance in the interest of generally enhancing the quality of institutional treatment and training.
27. Application of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
adopted by the United Nations
27.1 The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and related recommendations shall be applicable as far as relevant to the treatment of juvenile offenders in institutions, including those in detention pending adjudication.
27.2 Efforts shall be made to implement the relevant principles laid down in the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners to the largest possible extent so as to meet the varying needs of juveniles specific to their age, sex and personality.
The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners were among the first instruments of this kind to be promulgated by the United Nations. It is generally agreed that they have had a world-wide impact. Although there are still countries where implementation is more an aspiration than a fact, those Standard Minimum Rules continue to be an important influence in the humane and equitable administration of correctional institutions.
Some essential protections covering juvenile offenders in institutions are contained in the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (accommodation, architecture, bedding, clothing, complaints and requests, contact with the outside world, food, medical care, religious service, separation of ages, staffing, work, etc.) as are provisions concerning punishment and discipline, and restraint for dangerous offenders. It would not be appropriate to modify those Standard Minimum Rules according to the particular characteristics of institutions for juvenile offenders within the scope of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice.
Rule 27 focuses on the necessary requirements for juveniles in institutions (rule 27.1) as well as on the varying needs specific to their age, sex and personality (rule 27.2). Thus, the objectives and content of the rule interrelate to the relevant provisions of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
28. Frequent and early recourse to conditional release
28.1 Conditional release from an institution shall be used by the appropriate authority to the greatest possible extent, and shall be granted at the earliest possible time.
28.2 Juveniles released conditionally from an institution shall be assisted and supervised by an appropriate authority and shall receive full support by the community.
The power to order conditional release may rest with the competent authority, as mentioned in rule 14.1 or with some other authority. In view of this, it is adequate to refer here to the “appropriate” rather than to the “competent” authority.
Circumstances permitting, conditional release shall be preferred to serving a full sentence. Upon evidence of satisfactory progress towards rehabilitation, even offenders who had been deemed dangerous at the time of their institutionalization can be conditionally released whenever feasible. Like probation, such release may be conditional on the satisfactory fulfilment of the requirements specified by the relevant authorities for a period of time established in the decision, for example relating to “good behaviour” of the offender, attendance in community programmes, residence in half-way houses, etc.
In the case of offenders conditionally released from an institution, assistance and supervision by a probation or other officer (particularly where probation has not yet been adopted) should be provided and community support should be encouraged.
29. Semi-institutional arrangements
29.1 Efforts shall be made to provide semi-institutional arrangements, such as half-way houses, educational homes, day-time training centres and other such appropriate arrangements that may assist juveniles in their proper reintegration into society.
The importance of care following a period of institutionalization should not be underestimated. This rule emphasizes the necessity of forming a net of semi-institutional arrangements.
This rule also emphasizes the need for a diverse range of facilities and services designed to meet the different needs of young offenders re-entering the community and to provide guidance and structural support as an important step towards successful reintegration into society.
Research, planning, policy formulation and evaluation
30. Research as a basis for planning, policy formulation and evaluation
30.1 Efforts shall be made to organize and promote necessary research as a basis for effective planning and policy formulation.
30.2 Efforts shall be made to review and appraise periodically the trends, problems and causes of juvenile delinquency and crime as well as the varying particular needs of juveniles in custody.
30.3 Efforts shall be made to establish a regular evaluative research mechanism built into the system of juvenile justice administration and to collect and analyse relevant data and information for appropriate assessment and future improvement and reform of the administration.
30.4 The delivery of services in juvenile justice administration shall be systematically planned and implemented as an integral part of national development efforts.
The utilization of research as a basis for an informed juvenile justice policy is widely acknowledged as an important mechanism for keeping practices abreast of advances in knowledge and the continuing development and improvement of the juvenile justice system. The mutual feedback between research and policy is especially important in juvenile justice. With rapid and often drastic changes in the life-styles of the young and in the forms and dimensions of juvenile crime, the societal and justice responses to juvenile crime and delinquency quickly become outmoded and inadequate.
Rule 30 thus establishes standards for integrating research into the process of policy formulation and application in juvenile justice administration. The rule draws particular attention to the need for regular review and evaluation of existing programmes and measures and for planning within the broader context of overall development objectives.
A constant appraisal of the needs of juveniles, as well as the trends and problems of delinquency, is a prerequisite for improving the methods of formulating appropriate policies and establishing adequate interventions, at both formal and informal levels. In this context, research by independent persons and bodies should be facilitated by responsible agencies, and it may be valuable to obtain and to take into account the views of juveniles themselves, not only those who come into contact with the system.
The process of planning must particularly emphasize a more effective and equitable system for the delivery of necessary services. Towards that end, there should be a comprehensive and regular assessment of the wide-ranging, particular needs and problems of juveniles and an identification of clear-cut priorities. In that connection, there should also be a co-ordination in the use of existing resources, including alternatives and community support that would be suitable in setting up specific procedures designed to implement and monitor established programmes.