Children's and Young Persons’ Rights

Primary tabs

This guide has been produced to help those working towards the advancement of children's rights to understand what strategic litigation is, and to consider using the law in...

Developed by an ESCR-Net Member

This toolkit explains the international complaints mechanism for violations of the Convention on the Rights of the Child so you can help children...

Developed by an ESCR-Net Member

In 2001 Aberew Jemma Negussie abducted and raped 13-year-old Woineshet Zebene Negash, with the aid of several accomplices. Her abduction was reported to the police, who rescued her and arrested Mr. Negussie in Ethiopia. Evidence of the rape was documented in a medical report. Mr. Negussie was freed on bail and abducted Ms. Negash again, this time hiding her in his brother’s house for a month and forcing her to sign a marriage contract. She managed to escape. In 2003 Mr.

In 2002, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) accepted this communication as admissible for consideration. This case concerns the plight of K.L., a 17-year-old who was pregnant with an anencephalic foetus. Anencephalia is a condition incompatible with life for the fetus, and that jeopardizes the pregnant woman's health. Her doctor informed K.L. that her pregnancy complications exposed her to a life-threatening risk.  Upon his advice, she decided to terminate her pregnancy.

Children with learning disabilities are among the most disadvantaged in Malaysia, and many thousands of them find themselves unable to access even basic education. The ...

On 17th July, 2014, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held the Romanian government accountable for violating the human rights of Valentin Câmpeanu, a youth with severe mental disabilities and HIV positive, who died in 2004. Abandoned at birth, he lived in public institutions all his life. When he turned eighteen, he was shifted to a social care home for adults, and afterwards, to a mental hospital. Here, left in isolation, and in the cold, without necessary health care and treatment, and deprived also of food and proper clothing, he died within seven days.

The case was brought by disadvantaged children in need of accommodation and treatment in high support units.  The children asserted that the state was under a constitutional obligation to provide them with special care and appropriate educational facilities.  The state agreed that such facilities were necessary and had begun the planning process for building them.  However the projects suffered many administrative and logistical delays.  A High Court Judge issued a mandatory injunction (an order requiring the performance of a specific act), incorporating the state’s plan and ordering the go

The petitioner, Lakshmi Kant Pandey, an attorney, wrote to the Supreme Court (Court) alleging neglect and malpractice on the part of social organizations and private adoption agencies facilitating the adoption of Indian children to foreign parents.  He noted the long and hazardous journeys these children made to foreign countries, along with instances of neglect they experienced from their adoptive parents resulting in impoverishment or sexual exploitation of the children.

This public interest litigation case (PIL) was filed via Article 32 of the Indian Constitution directly before the Supreme Court of India and petitioned the Court to direct the State of Uttar Pradesh (UP) to take steps to end child labor. Thereafter a Court-appointed committee reported the enormity of child exploitation in UP’s carpet industry, finding that many children were kidnapped from Bihar, that the industry largely employed minor children under 14 years, and that many experienced physical abuse. 

The Juma Masjid Trust had allowed the Juma Musjid Primary School, a public school, to operate on its private property for an extended period of time. A dispute arose when the provincial Department of Education responsible for the school did not pay the Trust for rent or out-of-pocket expenses to run the school, and also did not adequately respond to a notice and other communications from the Trust to vacate the premises. The Trust then sought an eviction order to remove the School from its property.