6th meeting, 2nd session of the IGWG on an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the rights to early childhood education, free pre-primary education and free secondary education.

Excellencies, colleagues, I recognize it's almost three o'clock and we should start about now. But in the same vein, I also understand that there are a lot of colleagues on the way to join us for the afternoon session. So please, I indulge all of you to allow for a few more minutes, approximately three or four minutes, and then we'll start, please. Thank you. Excellencies, colleagues, we will now resume the afternoon session. As you know, we stopped on the list of speakers, and we're going to resume with the NGOs with ECOSOC status, and the first on the list is Global Forum for the Defense for the Less Privileged. I give you the floor, please.

I thank you once again for giving me the floor, Mr. Chair, and for your spiritual leadership that guided us through this process for the past two days. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, as we move forward from this process, let us reflect on the interventions made not only by the brave and courageous children present in this room, but also by everyone committed to making free education a reality for millions of children around the world. No one cares whether you are present in this room as a politician, as a lawyer, as a government official, or in any other position. None of these positions or titles should make anyone superior or inferior to this process. We are all gathered here at the Palais des Nations to achieve the same end result. We commit our time to this process because we care about the children affected by this issue. We are here because we cannot deny others the same opportunities that made us here, that many of us here were fortunate enough to receive. Sorry. This work is a collective effort. Without the word collective, we are simply working on a process that will eventually face a brick wall. So as we move forward in this process, let us not go in circles. Let us not fall back into questioning why are we all here today? Instead, let us remember the purpose that brought us together and the responsibility we have towards the children who are counting on us. Following this optional protocol, I wish to make a brief comment. By the end of the day, our priorities must remain clear. We must ensure that the right to free, quality and accessible education is guaranteed to every child without discrimination, regardless of their background or circumstances. We must ensure that this protocol does not remain simply a commitment on paper, but becomes a meaningful tool for accountability, implementation and access to effective remedies when a child's right to education is violated. Finally, we must ensure that their voice will continue to be heard and that no child is left behind. Ultimately, the success of this optional protocol will depend on our ability to work collectively. States must fulfill their duties as guardians and we must work as one from this process to make every opportunity for every child count. I thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. But look, you know there are interpreters. I will encourage you to deliver your speech in in such a piece that would allow for efficient and accurate interpretation, please. Thank you. I give the floor to OMEP. OMEP, you have the floor, please.

Thank you, Chair Rapporteur, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, child panelists, and colleagues. Thank you to Professor Baita for your clear legal rationale for the protocol that you presented this morning. On behalf of OMEP, the World Organization for Early Childhood Education, I would like to express our continued support for the continued work of this open-ended intergovernmental working group and for advancing this optional protocol to its next stage. OMEP was established in 1948 and works in 84 countries, and many member states are here present this week. This initiative represents a historic moment to strengthen the right to education within international human rights law and to provide greater clarity regarding states' obligations to ensure equitable access to education from the earliest years through to secondary education. OMEP wishes to remind the Assembly of the fundamental principle, children's rights begin at birth, not at school entry. The youngest children are rights holders from the beginning of life. Yet despite overwhelming evidence that the early years are foundational for learning, development, wellbeing and the realisation of all other rights, early childhood care and education remains insufficiently defined within international law. A clear recognition that the right to education includes early childhood care and education in our view is therefore essential. We welcome the proposed principles guiding this process. We support maintaining a focused mandate aligned with the Human Rights Council resolution 56/5 ensuring that the optional protocol addresses early childhood care and education free, public pre-primary education and free public secondary education without duplicating existing provisions of the Convention of the Rights of the Child. We also support the commitment to avoid regression in international law, strengthen international cooperation while preserving states primary obligations and provide effective monitoring through existing CRC reporting mechanisms. OMEP especially welcomes the recognition of children's participation in the development of this protocol. Children have the right to be heard in all matters affecting them and their views should continue to inform and strengthen this process. As discussions proceed, it is vital that the protocol establish a clear international legal foundation for early childhood care and education. Such recognition will help close longstanding gaps in implementation and reaffirm that education is a continuous right that begins at birth. In closing, OMEP urges Member States to ensure that the youngest children are no longer invisible in international law, public policy, implementation frameworks or funding decisions. This optional protocol offers a unique opportunity to make visible those who are too often overlooked, babies, toddlers, and young children, especially those facing poverty, disability, displacement, conflict, and other forms of vulnerability. Without explicit recognition of early childhood care and education, the children most in need remain the most likely to be excluded. A clear international legal definition will help ensure that early childhood care and education is therefore reflected in policy, prioritised in practice and supported through adequate and sustainable public investment. When young children are visible in law, they become visible in budgets, services, professional systems and accountability mechanisms. As Trond, our young person representing today, eloquently stated this morning, if the states are serious about children's voices and authentic participation, we need to act now on their views, especially about matters which affect them. OMA therefore strongly supports moving this protocol forward. We must seize this opportunity to affirm the right to education and that it begins at birth, and to ensure that every child from the very start of life is recognised, valued, protected and supported. The youngest children cannot wait and they must not be left behind. Thank you.

I thank you, Madam. And then we now move, except otherwise, I'm sure we've exhausted all delegation and I'm sure there is no one wishing to take the floor again. We move to the resource persons and I give the floor to Mr. Benoit Van Kistlich. Benoit, please.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to warmly thank the children for their substantive contribution. You have allowed us to keep in mind the reality in the ground that so many children are going through on a daily basis, making sure that the beneficiaries of our discussion are not lost sight of. And finally, you have clearly emphasized the sense of urgency. We cannot wait many more years to guarantee the right of free quality education for all. Thank you for that. Thank you for engaging so strongly in this process. To the Professor Beter, thank you so much for your thorough and rich analysis. I will have to go back to your contribution with a clear head to think about all the elements that you have raised. At this stage, I have two questions. You stated clearly that the obligation of the state to invest in education is already largely covered by international law. Yet, we know that it's far from being applied at this stage. So in your opinion, what are the concrete legal ways to oblige states to invest in the right to education when there is no political will in the country? Second question, when I read the Convention, I can see that there are many gaps in it. I can identify many of them. How do you draw the line between the ones who should be addressed through a new optional protocol and the ones who could be addressed through an interpretation by the CRC Committee based on the principle that the Convention is a living document? Thank you.

Thank you. I now give the floor to another expert, of course, or resource person in our context, Professor Philip Jeffery. Professor Jeffery, you have the floor, please.

Thank you, Chair. Let me clearly, I take the floor as a member, independent expert member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, and I would like to share some reflections that I've percolated in my mind as I followed the very interesting discussions of the working group. Most of us, most, and I invite Professor Baita to react or comment to what I'm going to say when he has a chance. Most of us here will agree that the right to education as it now stands is not fulfilled for millions of children worldwide. And this current situation, if I can say of the right to education light as it now stands, as opposed to a right to education improved with a potential OP4, offers no avenue for children to really complain, file complaints about the rights that are violated. of education. I think OP4 would strengthen that. But then we do have OPIC, we have a third optional protocol, but that's a little bit rich because we only have 54 states that have ratified it, so most children can't complain if their rights to education are violated. So my point is, We pay a lot of attention to the child's participation, we praise them for participating, but participation is not enough if they can't complain and have their rights recognized and remedied. So again, could you clearly clarify how OP4 would enhance their participation to a fuller extent? Thank you.

Thank you very much indeed Professor Jaffrey, I think that's the end of the list of speakers. We will go straight to Professor Bita to provide some responses to those questions and comments from both member states and experts. Please, Professor Bita.

Thank you for the questions. We also had questions before the break, so I'm trying to go back to the questions that were raised then. There was a question from Canada on the interrelationship between various sorts of documents that you could have to regulate an aspect. So one option obviously does not exclude the other. I think every document has a different purpose, but I think it's also about having a bottom line, a bottom line that clearly states this is your minimum core obligation, if you do not comply with this, you are prima facie violating the right to education. But when it comes to detail of how States could go about realizing a right, then obviously a general comment may be a very instructive document. And I know that there are endeavors, for example, with UNESCO for guidelines on early childhood care and education being drafted, and that is obviously very difficult. So I mean soft law plays a very important role in international law. You know when I've said that I support an optional protocol as a possible means, it does not mean that other means do not have a role to play. Obviously soft law is easily created, it's easily changed, but this maybe at the same time is also its feature that it does not always convince states that what is being stated in a general comment is a bottom line rule, which if you do not comply with this, then you might actually be violating international law. So I think that is the importance here. But that's also why I say an optional protocol should be very clear and concise and really focus on what needs to be said. We had a question about the role of public and private education in this context. So the language that is currently being used in the Human Rights Council resolution refers to public early childhood care and education, public pre-primary education or public secondary education. I had initially an abstract in my talk of this morning which I left out for time reasons where I wanted to comment on that because personally I'm not 100% convinced that the use of the word public is actually in all respects a good idea. Obviously this is about strengthening public education but using the word public here might also create the impression that the existing text, which does not use the word public, for that reason actually does not mainly refer to public education. That was my concern. On the other hand, one might mention that there are the Abidjan principles, the expert principles drafted in 2019 by education and human rights law experts, which make it very clear that the obligation on the right to education in existing documents essentially requires of states to put in place a full-fledged high quality public education system which provides for free education, but at the same time this does not mean that there is not enough space for private education, this has always been a feature of the right to education from its beginnings, there is a right to establish and direct private schools, and this right is in no way affected by the way any right to early childhood care and education is being conceived at the moment. The problem rather at the moment is that with the right to early childhood care and education or right to secondary education actually not being properly provided for is that this leaves very much scope for private providers, and we can directly see it. So with the documents, international documents are very clear on the obligation of states to provide compulsory and free primary education, we see the lowest rate of commercial private providers in the system. Whereas as the obligations become more lax, for example, for secondary education, we see more commercial private educators in the system and in fact the highest system the highest rate of private providers in the sphere of early childhood care and education. And that is also a concern that the postulation of a clear right should solve. Then going on to the question of which rights are important enough to be stipulated in a document, I think since the primary texts were drafted, much has changed. At the time the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted or the International Covenants, education was conceived as important, but it was probably not realized how important it actually is. So I can tell you that I wrote my big book on the right to education at the turn of the 2000s and In those 800 pages, you will not find very much mentioned on early childhood care and education and pre-primary education. It was simply not a topic at the time. And that is just 20 years ago, because we know much better now. We have clear evidence of what early childhood care and education actually does achieve. So in a sense, stating it with the words of Hannah Arendt, you know, talks about the right to have rights. So I think we need to appreciate that when it comes to certain rights, especially now I'm thinking of these education rights that we're talking about, they are rights to have rights. They are fundamental. I know quite a number of education law scholars who say that any human rights document should start with the right to education because it is as elementary as the right to human dignity. So obviously it is always a difficult question which rights are important to be stipulated as clear rights, which rights are to be developed through interpretation. But I think as we agree on the importance of education, it will make a difference if we tell states here you've got a treaty, it tells you early childhood care and education shall be provided for, or if I tell them, go back to general comment number seven, there is a statement that says we recommend that, or we commend states that have started introducing free pre-primary education. Each of these statements have their purpose in their own different contexts, but we need a bottom line sometimes, we need a clear bottom line sometimes. And if you look at the development of socioeconomic rights in international law, you will realize that still in the 1990s, socioeconomic rights broadly were conceived to be programmatic rights that do not impose clear obligations. But then especially the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights said, no, we need to embark on a much clearer violations approach. which says that even for these rights which require positive action, there is a point when we need to tell you, you are not complying with this document. That's what I refer to as the of a human rights document to provide at least for minimum flow. And obviously, it's not my position to tell you what that minimum flow is, this is a state-led. process and the States here will have to decide on that, but my personal conviction is that the right to education at the early childhood care level is so fundamental that it needs much clearer prominence in the human rights document. At the moment there are simply no statements in **** **** legal documents referring to that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, Professor Baita. As you know, we would have to move to the next item of the agenda, and that is the adoption of the working group's recommendation. But before we go to that, it is important that I conclude item agenda item eight and I so do before we go to um item agenda nine we will take a five minute technical break and to allow Professor B to retire apparently Professor B is returning back to South Africa tonight and on behalf of the working group and on my personal behalf and of course the secretariat wish to convey our profound gratitude to you for your continued engagement and commitment to this process. We deeply appreciate all your support you've provided. It's been deeply helpful and supportive indeed. I want to thank you very much indeed. So we'll take a five minute technical break and we'll resume with the recommendations. In the interim, I would encourage the secretariat to please provide that on the screen, please, if you could screen them up, please. Thank you, Professor Bitzer. Excellencies, colleagues, it's five minutes. Let's proceed with the adoption of the recommendations. It is my pleasure to welcome the officer in charge of the Development, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Branch, Mr. Pradeep Wargo. Mr. Wargo, you're warmly welcome. Thank you so much for being here with us this afternoon for the closing. Now the recommendations that is before you was shared last night. And they are as a result of the views heard over the past three days of this session. They are circulated by the secretariats, as I said yesterday, to all delegations. And the fact that we screen it now is also an opportunity for you to thoroughly digest the content of it.

I would go through and present these recommendations, and then I would entertain a few comments from the floor.

I also recognize that a couple of other delegations have also submitted to the secretariat. that unfortunately due to technical reasons they were unable to receive the recommendations. I will take all of that on board when we adopt the recommendations and I will provide some brief reflection after the adoption. So we'll move into the presentation of the recommendations. I will read through paragraph by paragraph, including the chapeau, to allow for clarity and further understanding of the issues as the text provides.

Now, building.

On the diverse positions articulated during the first and second sessions of the working group on the overarching.

Objective of strengthening the protection and realization of children's.

Right to education under international law and in accordance with the Human Rights Council resolution 56/5. So, as the Charter provides.

What you now have before you is clearly one, a clear understanding.

Which we all accept that we have a duty which international law provides as well, which is the protection of children's rights to education. And these past three days have given me a clear understanding of the issues, the concerns, and the comments that have been received from all delegations, including experts and other stakeholders. We go to paragraph A. Paragraph A. The.

Working group should continue its consideration of the issues falling within its mandate, including through open, transparent and inclusive intercessional consultations with a view to further explore.

The possibility of an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, facilitating a better understanding of the views, questions and proposals expressed by Member States and other stakeholders. Such consultations should be informal, without decision-making authority and without prejudice to the position of Member States or to the outcome of the group's deliberation.

Effectively, these recommendations express and reaffirms that the working group should continue entertaining all issues within its mandate, including through open.

Transparent and inclusive institutional consultations.

These consultations as provided by paragraph A will be informal and non-decision making.

As you know, these informal consultations do not have the authority to generate the much needed authority to determine all bits formally any decision. Paragraph B. Building on the discussion held during the second session, the key principles identified in the work of the working group should be further reviewed and considered in a structured and comprehensive.

Manner during the intersessional period, taking into account the different views, concerns and proposals expressed.

By Member States and other stakeholders or relevant stakeholders.

This review.

Should contribute to a clear understanding of the substantive legal and practical considerations relating to the key principles without prejudging their final formulation or the outcome of the working group's deliberation.

The recommendations invite delegations to continue reviewing the key principles and that in itself it should be in a structured manner. And the aim of it is clearly to deepen our understanding.

Or better understanding of the substantive legal and procedural issues. We go to paragraph c.

The working group.

Should continue to ensure the meaningful participation of children in an ethical, safe, inclusive manner throughout the drafting process. Appropriate, accessible and child-friendly modalities should be developed with the support of the secretariat in accordance with applicable safeguarding requirements to enable children to express their views on the topic and substance.

Of the possible optional protocol and for those views to be duly considered.

There is limited explanation I can give to this because the words are very clear.

We must endeavour to ensure that throughout the process including through.

Drafting the substantive instrument itself, as we've done since the start of this first session, sorry, the second.

Inter-sessional meeting, we endeavoured to get the children deeply engage throughout. As you could see, since the very first panel up until today when we were concluding.

We had the children themselves providing the perspective in each of the clusters with respect to the key principles.

That position will not change, it will continue, and I also take into consideration a comment which was made that we should also consider children with disability conditions.

That was a serious proposal which I would also take into consideration as we proceed with this process.

Paragraph d. Paragraph d, Member States and other relevant stakeholders are encouraged.

As appropriate to promote dialogue at the national, regional, and international levels on the subject matter falling within the mandate of the working group. You want to go further up? Such dialogue should facilitate the ethical, safe, inclusive, and meaningful participation of children and should respect applicable safeguarding standards. There is a link between both paragraphs and the emphasis adjusted, whilst the first paragraph speaks to our regular sessions, the second paragraph's emphasis is on both our sessions and that of local or within our national context as well.

That as we move along in engaging within our national parameters, we must endeavour.

To ensure that we get children involved as well.

And that also extends at regional basis. This paragraph also provides and encourages delegations to ensure that we continue this engagement. We develop in such a framework that it will gain the much needed interest

that it is desired. So I encourage delegations to truly indeed pay much attention to this paragraph, paragraph D. We go to paragraph E. Paragraph E, which is the final paragraph of recommendation, provides The drafting process should benefit from technical input as appropriate from relevant United Nations entities, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, other treaty bodies, relevant special procedures and other independent experts, consistent with human rights resolution 56/5. Subject to the availability of resources, a legal consultant with relevant expertise may be engaged in accordance with applicable United Nations rules and procedures.

Such expertise would be advising and would support without replacing the intergovernmental deliberations and decisions of the working group. Once we commence the drafting phase effectively, all inputs from wide-ranging stakeholders must be taken on board.

In effect, this is what this paragraph provides.

And this paragraph further reinforces with every clarity that the mandate which is conferred on this working group must stricto senso be applied throughout this process. And it also draws concerns that all of these actions would be taken with due consideration

as it relates to the availability of resources.

So in essence, we give due reference to the processes as they serve

within the Human Rights Council, that which relates to rationalization and efficiency measures.

Additionally, the use of a legal expert during this process will no doubt be very useful, but by no means the use of such an expert would replace they inherit authority and rights that is on member states. Their role or his or her role will only be advisory.

That is in effect what will be the role of the legal experts. So those are my reactions or reflections

on the recommendations that I present to you, Member States. I would open the floor for brief comments from delegations and I'm afraid at this stage only States procedurally will be allowed to make comments on the recommendations.

As I said, even though this is a state driven process, yes, we recognize the inputs and contributions of all stakeholders, but procedurally, this stage is only for member states. I will provide further reflections once I receive comments and concerns from delegations.

I now open the floor.

At this stage, I know we would be challenged to request you to go to the secretariat and I hope I'm not challenged in terms of identifying

flags up, but you'll be encouraged to put up your flags if you want to speak. And for those who have spoken, I think it's okay, that's fine,

we've taken note of what you said during the closing. will give the floor now to those who have not spoken before. I mean to be fair to this process and I give the floor to Finland to be followed by Austria and the Russian Federation.

Finland please.

Thank you Mr. Chair rapporteur. We want to thank for the draft recommendations of the working group. Overall, we think that they seem to reflect quite largely the different views expressed and we would like to provide at this stage the following comments which we wish to be reflected in the text of the recommendations. We would first like to note that in our written comments submitted on the draft key principles before this session, We stated that in our view too, taken into account the positions expressed in the first session of the working group and the mandate of the working group, any decision concerning the exploratory phase is better placed to be taken by the working group in one of its sessions. In light of this and taken into account the various views expressed, we would like to see paragraph B embedded in the mandate of the working group rather than in the draft key principles. Thus, we would like to add the text within the scope defined in paragraph one of the Human Rights Council resolution 56/5 after the text, the intercessional period. It's in the middle of the paragraph. Additionally, we would like to replace their final formulation with the text whether or how the key principles may be reflected in a possible optional protocol. This way the text concerning the intercessional work would reflect the scope expressly defined by the Council and the paragraph would not prejudge which, if any, of the key principles will ultimately be reflected in the optional protocol. As to paragraph C and E, we also think that the expression throughout the drafting process is too narrow as it leaves out the exploring part of the mandate. Thus, we suggest that the drafting process in both paragraphs could be replaced, for example, with the work of the working group. Moreover, we see that paragraph E is not quite in line with the mandate of the working group set out in resolution 56/5. Thus, we think that paragraph E should be better aligned with paragraph seven of the resolution at the minimum, as appropriate, should be deleted from the text. In addition, technical in front of input should be deleted. Finally, we also would like, would appreciate a clear timeline for intercessional work. Thank you.

I thank the delegation, the delegates from Finland. I give the floor to Austria to be followed by the Russian Federation and Egypt.

Thank you, Chair. We support the draft recommendations and in particular welcome the emphasis on maintaining an open, transparent and inclusive process during the intersessional period. We would like to underline that the work on the working group should remain fully consistent with its exploratory mandate. The intersessional consultations should therefore serve to deepen our understanding of the different views, legal and practical considerations, and possible avenues and alternatives, without prejudging the outcome of the working group's deliberations or the need for, desirability of, or possible content on the optional protocol. We also strongly support meaningful participation of children. In our view, such participation should be focused on concrete questions relevant to the mandate, and should allow for appropriate feedback to children on how their contributions have been taken into account in the further process. This would help ensure that child participation is informed, effective, and genuinely meaningful. Finally, we welcome the possibility of appropriate technical expertise, while stressing that such input should remain strictly advisory and should support rather than replace the intergovernmental nature of the working group. We submit our comments on the recommendations in writing. I thank you.

Thank you very much indeed. We deeply appreciate and we see them in writing indeed. Thank you. I give the floor to the Russian Federation to be followed by Egypt and Bulgaria, please.

Thank you, Chair, rapporteur. It's the first time that I'm taking the floor, so I would like to thank you once again for your efforts throughout this session. We have already submitted our proposals for the draft recommendations, but in the interests of transparency, we would like to present it in the room First of all, we welcome the draft recommendations and believe that these reflect the discussions held throughout the session. We also believe that please have carefully followed the discussions during the session. I'll begin with the chapeau. This is the first substantive point. I think that we should see the full name of the working group here, the open-ended intergovernmental working group, and we propose that the name be indicated in English, open-ended intergovernmental working group. And now a few amendments regarding the recommendations. We would have a comment to make on B. We agree with several comments made by Finland. But we would like to make a few clarifications. When we are talking about key principles, we should perhaps indicate the complete title and that they have been drafted by the Chair-Rapporteur. We propose that we include that after second session. So the key principles of the chair rapporteur for drafting an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on free public pre-primary and secondary education. And then we should see should be further reviewed. Then a number of proposals. When we speak about the final formulation at the end of the paragraph, in the interests of clarity, we would like to add in English and their status within the framework of a future drafting process. I'd also like to add the fact that we do not want to determine what the status of these principles will be. This is a document that is being drafted that could be legally binding. Turning to CENR. We have a few specific points regarding children's participation. We've already said that it's very important to underscore the role of parents and the legislative framework I'd like us to refer to Article 5 of the Convention. And then we can propose some words. And then we can include in an inclusive manner. With reference to guidance from parents. according to local customs or tutors or those that are responsible with responsible for the children this is stemming from article five of the convention then our colleague from finland made a proposal relating to the drafting process and I'd like to support Phyllan's proposal when speaking about the work of the working group.

Thus, the first sentence of the recommendation C would end with the words "throughout the process". Further clarification to the recommendation which we'd like to add the ending duly considered, we'd like to change that and put in the 12.1 article wording.

Due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. I'd

like to point out to you that in the course of today's meeting and in previous days, you've referred to the Optional Protocol on Communications and its provisions. In that Optional Protocol and other Optional Protocols, there is a reference also to the age and maturity of the child. As for d, Recommendation d, we also have a proposal. First, we welcome your principle that there should be dialogue at national and regional level, but as we see it, the problem is the wording. In the current draft, the recommendation gives the impression that the states and other stakeholders are invited to launch some sort of alternative process at international level. and we'd like to propose that it should be only the national and regional level and change the wording a bit. I'll read it in English.

It's another relevant stakeholders arm. It was just to add the following, invited to contribute to the ongoing discussion on the issue of a possible optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child by promoting as appropriate dialogue at the national and regional levels.

And again, since we are talking about participation of children, we would propose the wording of Article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, second sentence, after significant participation by

children, guidance of their parents or where applicable the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom. legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child.

And we think this reflects reality on the ground because as we've seen over these past few days, our dear participants, the children, were actually enjoying guardianship of their families or other guardians and even the EU Secretariat and rapporteur and chair. So we think it's very important to keep this guardianship approach with respect to children. And finally, for recommendation E, we also have a few proposals. Logic is similar to that of Finland. We would also recommend formulating this section in accordance with operative seven of resolution 56/5 of OHCHR. We also think it should be process, not drafting process, and after input we could support eliminating as appropriate But after that, we would like to correct the wording. I'll read in English. After the word input, we propose

from representative of the Committee on the Rights of the Child as resource, sorry, representatives of the Committee on the Rights of the Child as resource persons, as well as where appropriate, relevant special procedures of the Human Rights Council, and the source is OP 7 of 56/5.

We think that some other bodies, like the Committee on Social and Cultural Rights, could also make an input. They have a mandate on the right to education, but we do have our own mandate, and we think that we should follow that mandate. and not refer to other treaty bodies, and the same goes for other structures of the United Nations Organization. We think that Resolution 56/5 doesn't prevent us, however, from involving in the work of our working group experts from other bodies. Since we are advocating following the mandate very closely, we cannot however support that passage which is about the legal consultant and we would ask that this sentence be removed because we are afraid is that this would lead to too broad interpretation of resolution 56/5. However, nothing in our mandate prohibits us from involving in our work other stakeholders and experts, including legal consultants. So that is implicit already and we don't need that sentence. And then in the last sentence, I have a question to the rapporteur. In the last line, are we talking about decisions of the Working Group? Because you said the Working Group can't take decisions. So which are these decisions which are mentioned here? Does it mean recommendations or conclusions? Maybe we have to think about some alternative word. As we understood the word decision, We could agree with it if we add the word "adopted or developed by States". In English we could say "States-led decisions". All our comments have been submitted to the Secretariat in writing. I hope this will help.

I thank the Russian Federation. I give the floor to Egypt to be followed by Bulgaria, Belgium. Okay, so far, that's the list.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Rapporteur. My delegation thanks Your Excellency for presenting the draft recommendations and appreciates the opportunity provided to present our comments on the draft recommendation during the previous session. My delegation wishes to reaffirm the position expressed in that statement and in its written comments submitted to the Secretariat. Our proposed amendments are intended to preserve the exploratory nature of the current phase of the process and to ensure that the recommendations don't imply that a decision has been taken to commence formal drafting. In particular, our comments on replacing the reference to drafting processes by the work of the working group are intended to ensure legal and linguistic clarity and to avoid creating the impression that two parallel processes, the exploratory phase and the formal drafting phase, are proceeding at the same time. Egypt considers that the proposed key principles remain subject to further consideration as a part of the exploratory exercise. Egypt looks forward to its comment being duly taken into consideration in the final version of the recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Chair Rapporteur.

Thank you. I give the floor to His Excellency Ambassador of Bulgaria. Your Excellency, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, distinguished colleagues. The draft recommendation, as they stand on the screen, represent a good compromise between a wide variety of views that were expressed during the deliberations, some of them excluding each other, including on the mandate, on the phase in which we are or in which we should proceed. So for us, the recommendations as they are proposed are acceptable. Thank you.

I thank His Excellency's comments and I give the floor to Belgium.

Thank you, Chair. I will not be long since I welcome the opportunity to have shared our views in the morning session. Although I was not planning to share it in the morning session, I was advised to do so. So I will briefly put on record the points we made this morning. So with regards to recommendation C and as mentioned by other delegations, we would like to have the word drafting in front of process taken out. Uh, in our view, um, it would create an impression that the drafting phase has already commenced while the exploratory phase remains ongoing, then, um, with recommendation E, the same proposal. taking out the word drafting in front of process and also bringing the wording as mentioned also by other delegations bringing it more in line with operative paragraphs seven and eight of resolution 56/5 and therefore we would also like to see as appropriate in the first line deleted that will be the most thing and I thank you for your patience in hearing my comments again thank you.

Thank you very much, Belgium. I'm sure we've exhausted the list of speakers and I'm sure there is no more delegation. Okay, I see Canada. Canada, please.

Thank you, Chair. Canada welcomes the balanced nature of the draft recommendations and appreciates the efforts undertaken to reflect the diversity of views. We support the continuation of consultation and further reflections. Throughout the session, delegations and experts have identified a wide range of legal, financial, policy, and implementation issues relevant to the realization of children's rights to early childhood education, free pre-primary education, and free secondary education. At this stage, Canada believes it would be helpful for the working group to also consider the potential contribution of complementary measures alongside a possible optional protocol. Accordingly, Canada proposes that the recommendation explicitly encourage further reflection on the relationship between a possible optional protocol and other complementary measures, which may contribute to what I believe is a shared objective. I'll provide one possible textual formulation, but this is an idea which I'll be happy to send in writing and we'd be very open to alternatives. This would be potentially as a new paragraph B bis, and it would read, "The Working Group, As part of its exploration, may also consider the respective roles that a possible optional protocol and other complementary legal policy, technical and operational measures may play in strengthening the realization of children's rights to early childhood education, free pre-primary education, and free secondary education. Our intention here is to encourage a deliberate consideration and a discussion among states of how different types of tools may complement each other. Thank you.

Thank you. That's much appreciated. And please be reminded, not just you, but the rest of other delegations to please submit those proposals in writing. And without prejudice, with all these comments that have been made, we will proceed to adopt the recommendations at the referendum.

And we'll proceed to do that.

In the face of the comments received, and without prejudice, as I said, to the comments that have been received so far, we hereby adopt the recommendations add referendum. Thank you so much. We have now concluded consideration of agenda item nine, and I thank.

All of you, particularly member states, and with particular reference as well to.

Those member states who traveled all the way thousands of miles away from the capitals, including our resource persons who have traveled as well thousands of miles to come to Geneva during the course of this three days intersessional meeting.

I will remiss in my duty should I fail to recognize the stunning and exceptional and profound importance of the role played by our exceptional children Okay, okay. Thank you.

So this is the beauty of having the secretariat close to you. So when you want to go beyond what the procedures provides, the just have you, please, please come down and go back to the timetable. Thank you so much, Solomi. So please, I'll come back to awards of appreciation to the guests of you, including the exceptional children on the other side, and of course, the secretariat themselves. But before we do so, we have concluded agenda item nine. We now move to agenda item ten, which is the closing of this session. And so we'll take just two minutes as opposed to five, because I was hoping that that's against five o'clock and hopefully so we would close this session. So we'll take just two minutes technical break before we resume, please.

So two-minute technical break, please.

Let's constitute the high table again.

Just bring the chair over here. Yeah.

Colleagues will resume in the next 20 seconds. Excellencies, colleagues, we are now at item number 10, which is the closing of the session. And as you know, we have our children with us, and it's important as we also give them the opportunity to provide closing remarks as we close this session. The children, as you know, includes Tord, Karen.

Sania, and Lania.

All of them will provide very brief closing remarks as we close this session. So I hand the floor over to you. Toar, would you like to start?

Thank you for the floor. We finish here today, but I urge the states represented in this room to reflect on what you have heard from us. You hold the political will. So we call upon you to use that will, because it is only through decisive action that you can resolve the challenges that have confronted delegations during this session. I urge you to take our views into account to ensure that the decisions made here reflect the lived experiences and urgent needs of children worldwide. Consider the consequences of inaction. Will we allow bureaucratic obstacles to outweigh the right of education? We ask you to recognize the responsibility you hold in this room. By listening to our perspectives and acting on it, you have the power to shape a future where every child's right to education is not just a promise, but a reality. Let us move forward together with clarity and determination. so that no child is left behind. Thank you.

Thank you, Trond. Today, I want to say goodbye on behalf of all the children of Latin America whose voices, realities and experiences cross borders to come and be heard here. We hope that these discussions do not remain just in the air but that they become reality for all children and adolescents in our world. Thank you very much for allowing us to be part of this process because the future of education should not be decided without those who are going to be part of the future. Thank you for showing your commitment and thank you for hearing us throughout these sessions.

Thank you, Karen.

Being part of the IGWG as a child representative has been a very meaningful experience for me. I have learned that children from different regions may face different challenges in accessing education. But we share the same hope for education. That is free, inclusive, safe, and accessible to every child. I'm grateful for the opportunity to participate in the creation of this new optional protocol. Thank you.

Thank you, Sanya. As we come to the end of these sessions, I just want to briefly repeat how meaningful it has been for me and the other children to be a part of these discussions. I hope that our voices will continue to be heard and taken into account as this process moves forward. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to be on this table and be a part of shaping something that will hopefully affect children around the world.

Okay, that's so wonderful. Can we put our hands together for them please? Of course, if there are children.

Who are so committed to this process, who are so brilliant, who are so exceptional, they are just you.

And therefore, I would ask that you put hands together for the final time. Thank you. We will continue and I will give the floor to, and I will invite Mr. Pradeep Wargo, officer in charge of the development, economic, social and cultural rights division of the OHCHR to deliver closing remarks.

Mr. Wogel, please.

Excellency Chair, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, dear children. As we conclude the second session of this intergovernmental working group, I would like to express our sincere appreciation to all participants for their active engagement. and contributions over the last three days. The discussions this week have underscored the significance of the task entrusted to the Working Group by the Human Rights Council. The issues under consideration go to the heart of efforts to strengthen the realization of the right to education for every child and affect the lives rights and opportunities for millions of children around the world. Throughout this session, a range of perspectives have been expressed on this issue before the Working Group. While different views were expressed regarding the scope, content and implication of a possible optional protocol, The discussions also highlighted a common recognition that barriers to realizing the right to education remains substantial for millions of children and requires sustained international attention from the international community. The constructive and substantive nature of these exchanges demonstrate a shared commitment to engaging seriously and transparently with this process and the mandate entrusted by the Human Rights Council. The deliberations have benefited from contributions by children, as we just heard, Member States, United Nations mechanisms, agencies, academia and civil society. We thank all those who have contributed during this session and throughout the intersessional period. In particular, we thank the children whose participation has helped keep discussions grounded in the lived reality of the most directly affected. The exchanges over these three days reaffirmed the global community's shared goal of advancing inclusive, equitable and quality education for all children. The mandate of this working group resonates strongly with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and in particular its Goal 4. Targets one and two, which call for all girls and boys to complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education, and to have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education. At a time when the international community remains largely off track to achieve these targets, intergovernmental discussions on how best to strengthen the realization of the right to education remain particularly relevant. In a world facing growing inequality, conflicts, displacement and multiple intersecting crises, ensuring access to inclusive, equitable and quality education remains essential for the resilience of communities and the protection of children's rights. Ensuring inclusive, equitable and quality education for all is not only a development objective, but also a human rights obligation and an important foundation for inclusive, peaceful and sustainable societies. The realization of the right to education supports the enjoyment of a broad range of human rights and enables children to participate meaningfully in society and realize their full potential. This session has demonstrated the value of continued dialogue, informed by international human rights law, the sharing of national experience and the perspectives of stakeholders, especially children themselves. As work advances, the exchange held this week will provide an important foundation for further consideration of the question entrusted to the Working Group by the Human Rights Council. As the Working Group advances its work, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights remains fully committed to the mandate entrusted to the Office by the Human Rights Council. The Secretariat will continue to support the Chair-Rapporteur and all Member States in an impartial, transparent and inclusive manner. Excellencies and distinguished delegates, Allow me to conclude by thanking the Chair Rapporteur for his leadership and all participants for the dedication, expertise and spirit for cooperation that they have demonstrated throughout this session. We look forward to continuing our support to this important process. Thank you.

I thank Mr. Wogo for his closing remarks and I will now deliver in my capacity as chair of the closing remarks as follows. Excellencies, colleagues, and my dear children, we conclude this second session of the working group with a collective acknowledgement of the seriousness and depth of the discussions held over the past

three days.

Your contributions have reaffirmed the importance of strengthening the protection and realization of children's rights to education under international law, in full accordance with the mandate entrusted to us by the Human Rights Council resolution 56/5. The diversity of perspectives expressed has enriched our collective understanding and will guide the next phase of our work.

It is important to emphasize that diversity does not indicate failure. Whilst views remain diverse, this should be understood as a sign of meaningful engagement rather than division. Across all discussions, delegations demonstrated a collective commitment to strengthening the rights to education and ensuring that our work remains anchored in the best interest of the child as articulated in Article 3, paragraph 1 of the CRC. Diversity of views is a natural and necessary part of our intergovernmental deliberations, and it reflects the seriousness with which Member States are approaching this mandate. Throughout our deliberations, delegations engaged with several core questions that lie at the heart of this mandate. A central issue concerned whether normative gaps exist within the current international framework. Our discussions have succeeded in identifying the core questions that will shape the next phase of our mandate. Delegations raised important issues regarding potential normative gaps, added value of the possible optional protocol, the relationship with existing instruments and the need to avoid duplication, fragmentation and regression. These issues have been accordingly given due consideration by the one of the key principles. Delegations also considered whether the exploratory phase of our mandate has been fully exhausted. Based on the global call, for submissions, the unprecedented contributions of more than 8,100 children, the first formal session, the global consultation conducted on the 12th of December, 2025, the intercessional discussions with regional groups, and the focused exchanges during this session, it is my considered view, legally speaking so, that the exploratory phase of the mandate has been completed ex ante. At the same time, and I will repeat that, at the same time, and in full compliance with recommendation A, it is clear that continued open, transparent and inclusive intersessional consultation will be essential to deepen understanding of the diverse views expressed with a view to clarifying outstanding questions and to ensure that no delegation's position is prejudged as we move towards the drafting phase. These consultations, informal, non-decision-making and without prejudice to national position, will allow the Working Group to advance its mandate under resolution 56/5 in a manner that is procedurally sound, substantially grounded and fully respectful of the intergovernmental nature of our work. A further question concerned the added value of a possible optional protocol. Both substantially and procedurally, many delegations, including experts, highlighted the potential of such an instrument to clarify the meaning of "free education", strengthen implementation, address indirect costs, reinforce international cooperation and ensure meaningful participation of children. Others emphasized national context, legal systems, capacities, progressive realization and questioned whether an optional protocol is the most appropriate vehicle. These perspectives would be essential as we refine the key principles and consider the drafting recommendation before us. And as I indicated, the mandate of this working group is concurrent, even though it says explore the possibility of All this falls concurrently. And we by no means will leave out that the exploratory phase is completely exhausted. It will continue even as we negotiate. The exploratory phase is part of it. Across all interventions, questions Delegations emphasized the importance of avoiding regression, duplication and fragmentation within the broader human rights framework. Any instrument must remain coherent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and with existing international standards and must not create unnecessary reporting burdens. This principle is coherence. and will guide the refinements of the key principles during the intercessional period and will inform the drafting phase. Delegations also reiterated the need for strict adherence to the mandate of resolution 56/5 as it directs this working group to explore the possibility elaborating and submitting to the Human Rights Council whose aims include explicit recognition of early childhood care and

education, free pre-primary and secondary education.

In effect, it will strengthen international cooperation and streamlined reporting. Our work must remain firmly anchored within these parameters. and I will continue to ensure that our engagement with all delegation is duly taken into consideration. Several delegations reminded us that existing international instruments already guarantee free education. These instruments must be taken into account as we consider whether and how a new optional protocol could add value without duplicating or contradicting existing standards. This brings to view the need for a careful, structured analysis during the inter-session period and for drafting, both in terms of taking into consideration how coherent and complementary it will be. What has been our achievement during the course of these past three days?

Which for me is the most important question that we must reflect as we close this session.

A central achievement of this session has been the constructive engagement with the key principles. Delegations expressed a wide range of views, questions and concerns on, for example, definitions, scope, implementation, international cooperation, monitoring, reporting and working methods. I wish to underscore that we have one of the key principles has already provided preliminary responses to many of these concerns, as I indicated earlier. The offer initial clarification of scope and objectives, and a preliminary articulation of substantive elements, early guidance on implementation and cooperation, and a structured approach to monitoring and reporting, and a clear outline of working methods for the drafting phase. The refinement during the intersessional period will allow us to address all outstanding questions with greater clarity and precision. Children, as you know, have been central to this process. Their interventions were substantive, courageous, and deeply informed by what they experienced themselves, have gone through. And thankfully so, even our panelists, who is a teacher from a preschool was here to share lived experience as they proceed with their work. Those have been of substantial and contributed enormously to our deliberations. And of course, They reminded us that free education must be meaningful, enforceable, and accessible, and that their participation must be, of course, as provided by the resolution, must be ethical, safe, inclusive, and continuous, and not just symbolic. And I assure you, children, that your contributions would continue to be part of our work leading up onto the drafting phase of the mandate of this working group.

You are assured of that, okay?

Wonderful. Let me turn my attention to the draft recommendations. The draft recommendations as circulated today provide a structured basis for the next steps. They outline how the working group may continue its consideration of issues within its mandate, review the key principles during the intercessional period, ensure meaningful participation of children, promote dialogue at national, regional, and international levels, and benefits from technical expertise while preserving the international, the intergovernmental nature of our process. By the conclusion of this session, we have achieved important outcomes. One, a clear understanding of the diverse positions of member states and stakeholders. Two, a transparent account of areas requiring further examination. And three, a practical guidance for advancing our mandate in an open, inclusive, efficient and transparent manner. As I conclude, our task, of course, is demanding. But the good thing is our direction is clear. We have a strong foundation, a structured basis for discussion, and a common purpose anchored in the rights and dignity of children. As one of the children reminded us so powerfully, and I quote, "If you cannot listen to all we have said during this session, then it will be decoration." I repeat that. If you cannot listen to us, all we have said, during this session, then it will be decoration. Think about it and have a reflection of it. These words capture the essence of our responsibility to ensure that children's contributions are not ornamental, but integral to our work. Let me now use this opportunity.

To thank all delegations, experts.

Civil society, especially the children, for their valuable and meaningful participation, cooperation, and deep sense of commitment throughout this session. As I look forward to continued our engagement with all of you, I would encourage all of you to reflect on the key outcome of this session. And to this end, let me now provide few words of appreciation to the following. And I'll start off with no less of a group of people who, as many of you know, this session has been to the large part very successful. And the success of it is what you see, but the work behind the scene is what is even more important. And that is why I want to convey on behalf of my personal self, members of the core group, and I pay particular respects with the presence of His Excellency Ambassador Banjo, who has been with us throughout the session, to express our profound gratitude, first and foremost, to the esteemed Lady Soloni Sayagusa who is the chief coordinating working alongside her colleagues to ensure that what you now see as a successful outcome comes to fusion. Lady Soloni, I thank you most profoundly from the depth of my heart. And including that of the members of the core group. We appreciate you. You are wonderful, you are wonderful kind. You've been exceptional and we truly appreciate the support you've provided. Thank you so much. I also want to thank the erudite, Lady Ellen Griffiths, who has also been, she's seated on the extreme end. She's quiet, as you would see, but she's doing the work and delivering. And what you have done has reflected to the success of this outcome today. Thank you so much. I also wish to convey my personal appreciation to Lady Yasmin. Lady Yasmin Kashfi. Lady Yasmin, do you mind to stand?

Please.

The success of the performance of these children, colleagues, Lady Yasmin has been integral in ensuring that that happens. So if you see the exceptional performance of these children, yes, they have, you know, a support team of parents and guardians that are with them. But the coordination has actually been done by Lady Yasmin.

And so I say thank you very much.

And I truly appreciate you. I also convey my personal appreciation to Kiara Polimino. Kiara, are you there? Yes, with a wave of an arm. Thank you so much. I convey my appreciations to David Molanos. David, are you there? Okay, my understanding he left a little bit earlier, but please convey our appreciation to him. And Benoit Line, Benoit, are you there? Yes, we have dual Benoit, Benoit part one, Benoit part two. Thank you so much Benoit, we truly appreciate you. And of course, Daria, Thank you. Thank you. You've been wonderful. I also thank Georgie Georgie, please let me just call the first name. Georgie. Georgie, okay, she's left. Georgie has been wonderful and we truly appreciate support and our help. But look, take it or leave it. there is someone providing general administration to all of the staff. And that person, unfortunately, because of personal commitments, could not join us at this session.

But as many of you would know, she was with us at the first session and doing the cause of some of the consultations that we had with some delegations.

And that is Mrs. Emma Guez Delgado. She has been exceptional. She's also not a very quiet personality, but she's at the background providing all the useful and meaningful support that is needed to provide an outcome that we now have today. At this stage, let me have the singular honor of requesting all the members of the core group to please stand, including His Excellency Ambassador Banjo. Kindly, please stand. so that we recognize your formidable supports, cooperation, and support over the years. Please, be proud of what you have done. Please, please stand. Please stand, please.

Thank you. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you so much.

You've been very much supportive and helpful. Now, the final appreciation goes to two sets of people, and one is the interpreters, and of course, my personal team who have provided support and assistance to me, including, Doctor, please. Could you wave over hand? Thank you so much for your support and assistance over the past three days. And the general appreciation, of course, goes to all of you member states, because what you've shown is your commitment to this process. The diverse views you've expressed, I will tell you that I deeply and truly so appreciate all of the comments and concerns you've expressed. Eventually, we want to see an optional protocol that we receive near ratification as that of the CIC itself. That is what we'll seek to see happen. And so therefore your contributions, I hope and I trust it will continue. Thank you very much once again. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Esteemed colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, I hereby declare this second intersessional meeting of the working group with the mandate to explore the possibility of elaborating and submitting to the Human Rights Council an optional protocol closed.