4. A child-friendly continuum of justice services: what works?
This chapter focuses on the assessment of the continuum of justice services in Latvia to respond to children’s legal and justice needs against the OECD criteria on people-centred legal and justice services, including evidence-based planning, equality, discrimination and inclusion, accessibility and availability of services, proactivity, timelines, appropriateness, and responsiveness.
Besides the governance enablers and infrastructure for collaboration, integration and evaluation (Chapter 3), establishing a child-friendly justice system in Latvia calls for understanding of justice pathways and service experiences from the perspective of children and families. To that end, the OECD Common Criteria on People-centred Legal and Justice Services (Figure 4.1) provide a roadmap for Latvia to design, establish and maintain legal and justice service delivery to facilitate the implementation of the child-friendly justice system and service delivery in Latvia. In particular the criteria emphasise the importance of putting people at the centre of public services, with a focus on meeting their needs, respecting their dignity and rights, and ensuring that services are accessible, responsive, and effective. They emphasise that it would be critical for governments to design and deliver services that are based on the principles of evidence-planning, understanding of legal and justice needs, equality and inclusion, accessibility and availability, prevention, proactivity and timeliness, appropriateness and responsiveness, participation and empowerment, as well as collaboration and integration. The application of these principles to the child protection and justice services in Latvia is described in the sections below.
Source: (OECD, 2021[1]), OECD Criteria for people-centred design and delivery of legal and justice services, https://www.oecd.org/governance/global-roundtables-access-to-justice/oecd-criteria-for-people-centred-design-and-delivery-of-legal-and-justice-services.pdf.
Making effective evidence-based decisions about where to deploy resources for the development of child-friendly justice requires high quality data. It can also support clear accountability and reporting mechanisms to support decision-making and adequate service delivery. The starting point should be identifying and understanding the legal needs of children, the groups of children who are most vulnerable, the barriers they face in accessing justice, and service models that are effective (OECD/Open Society Foundations, 2019[2]). The guiding principles for evidence based-planning within the child-friendly justice system involve identifying children’s legal needs through high-quality research, collecting comprehensive administrative data across the child justice system, and making such data publicly available. In addition, policies and services must be planned on the basis of high-quality of evidence (OECD forthcoming, 2023[3]).
In different countries, detailed administrative data are collected by, inter alia: courts; legal aid agencies; the police and prosecutors; Ombuds Office and human rights institutions for the protection and promotion of the rights of children; child helplines; and local authority services for children. In Latvia, each of the different state institutions with responsibilities for the protection of children’s rights collect and analyse administrative data. For instance:
The Ministry of Interior’s Information Centre collects data on criminal offences against minors, criminal offences committed by minors, support provided to children in vulnerable situations and crime prevention.
The State Inspectorate collects data from the Orphan’s and Custody Courts.
The Ministry of Welfare collects data on the social rehabilitation of minors who have suffered violence.
The Court Administration collects court data, including data on convictions of minors.
The Prison Administration collects data on children in detention.
The Central Statistical Bureau publishes an annual compendium of statistical data on children in Latvia from the above sources and other institutions, such as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education and Science, as well as external sources such as Eurostat (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2021[4]).
The State Inspectorate publishes an annual report providing detailed information on the results of the institution's work over the year, key programmes and initiatives and financial data on the implementation of the State Inspectorate's activities (Ministry of Welfare of Lativa, 2020[5]).
More broadly, adequate statistical systems seem to be in place. Yet, stakeholders identified several challenges in the data collected by state institutions, particularly at local level including the need for better quality, sufficiency and governance, particularly at municipal level were emphasised. It has been reported, for example, that some municipal police forces do not collect sufficient data on violence in families, meaning that the scale of the problem may be under-reported in official statistics. There is also limited and insufficient data available to municipalities upon which they could plan their service provision.
With such gaps in the existing evidence-base, making evidence-based planning and for the development of children’s access to justice can be difficult. To help address this challenge, administrative data needs to be complemented by a range of other evidence, including legal needs surveys, evaluations, and research studies in the field of child-friendly justice.
As part of this project, Latvia had the opportunity to be at the forefront of research into children’s legal needs as the OECD conducted a LNS of children in Latvia to identify the legal and justice needs. Its findings fed into this analysis and are hoped to inform the future development of child-friendly initiatives in Latvia. There is also an opportunity for Latvia to integrate this type of data collection more systematically in the process of policy-making and planning related to child justice and child protection services.
In addition, to ensure availability and robustness of data and evidence, many governments need to promote or invest further in high quality research into all aspects of child-friendly justice and dissemination of evidence. This can include funding academic institutions and NGOs to undertake independent research, as well as independent evaluations of government services, initiatives and programmes. In Latvia, it is noted that funding levels for research and innovation are below those in other countries and there is a need to develop the capacity, quality, scale and co-ordination of research activity (European Commission, 2018[6]). Much of the research on child justice that has been conducted in recent years appears to have been carried out by NGOs and financed by international development funds.
Specific research gaps include:
Ongoing research on children and young people’s access to legal advice, assistance and representation
Research on the sexual exploitation of children (ECPAT International, 2017[7])1, in a broader context of sexual violence, so as to include estimates on unreported vs reported cases.
Moreover, there appear to be limited efforts to collect data on the overall performance of child-justice system in Latvia, including its effectiveness and fairness. Yet, these are among the crucial guiding principles for the development of child-centred justice, in accordance with the OECD Framework on Child-centred justice (OECD forthcoming, 2023[3]) (see Box 4.1). As such, there is clear scope to boost the collection of relevant data in this regard, both from administrative sources, as well as through asking children and young people for their views on services, and to use that evidence to evaluate what works and what improvements can be made. Overall, there is an opportunity in Latvia to take a leadership role by providing adequate resources for data collection, management, analysis, reporting and dissemination. In addition, common standards and minimum datasets need to be established (Chapman, P. et al., 2021[8]).
Finally, while it was noted that some relevant State programmes have been subject to evaluations, and that the findings from these evaluations have been used to inform subsequent programmes (e.g., the Ministry of Interior’s current crime prevention programme), this is not a common practice. The implementation of policy planning documents is not systematically evaluated and as such there is a strong scope to strengthen this practice.
The OECD forthcoming Framework on Child-Friendly Justice recommends the following principles for the implementation of guiding principles on fairness and effectiveness:
Effective systems should be implemented to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of child justice services.
Evidence from monitoring and evaluation should indicate the effectiveness of child justice services, what works and areas requiring improvement.
Evidence from children and young people should indicate the extent to which they trust that actors in the justice system will treat them with respect, keep them safe, support them to obtain justice and act fairly.
Evidence from professionals working in or with the child justice system should indicate their trust in the system to be fair and effective for children.
Source: (OECD forthcoming, 2023[3]), OECD Framework for Child-friendly Justice (forthcoming)
Some of the practical barriers to access to justice for the population as a whole may disproportionately affect children. Thus, for children to have fair access to justice, not only must the general principles of justice apply equally to them—in the same way they apply to adults—but their access to justice should be prioritised (see Box 4.2). Further, the effects of barriers to access to justice may be particularly acute for groups of children who are disadvantaged or facing discrimination, necessitating additional provisions and targeted services to ensure their inclusion.
Equal access to justice and protection from discrimination
To guarantee equal access to justice for children, it is important to:
Ensure that the general principles of justice and due process that apply to adults, such as the rule of law, the principles of legality and proportionality, the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, the right to legal counsel, the right to access to courts and the right to appeal, should apply fully and be guaranteed to children.
Prioritise children’s access to justice, so that specific barriers in accessing justice that only affect children, such as a failure to be treated as full bearers of rights or a lack of age-sensitive services and procedures, are addressed.
Make additional provisions to protect marginalised groups and ensure no child is excluded from access to justice.
Children should be considered and treated as full bearers of rights, enabling them access to national courts and other legal remedies necessary to exercise their rights.
The rights of children should be secured without discrimination on any grounds such as sex, race, colour or ethnic background, age, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, socio-economic background, status of their parent(s), association with a national minority, property, birth, sexual orientation, gender identity or other status.
Discrimination in law, policy or general society against marginalised groups of children should be actively addressed.
Services for marginalised groups of children
Services should be designed to contribute to equality and social inclusion. Specific protection and assistance may need to be granted to more vulnerable children, such as migrant children, refugee and asylum-seeking children, unaccompanied children, children with disabilities, homeless and street children, Roma children, and children in residential institutions (Council of Europe, 2010[9]).
Equality and inclusion in legal proceedings
In addition to implementing robust measures to ensure child-sensitive services and proceedings (see sections on ‘Access & availability’ and ‘Appropriateness & Responsiveness’ for further details), legal proceedings in which children are involved may need to be prioritised and dealt with expeditiously in order to ensure children enjoy equal access to justice (Council of Europe, 2010[9]).
Alternative systems of representation may need to be developed for very young children and children without the full capacity to pursue their rights in order to avoid discrimination (Council of Europe, 2010[9]).
Child-friendly translation and interpretation services should be made easily available to children speaking minority or foreign languages, and information should be adapted to children using non-verbal and alternative modes of communication.
Arrangements need to include children with disabilities. Physical barriers that prevent children with disabilities from accessing judicial and administrative bodies should be identified and overcome. Provisions need to be set up to ensure the rights of children with intellectual or mental disabilities are upheld.
Source: (Council of Europe, 2010[9]), Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on child-friendly justice, https://rm.coe.int/16804b2cf3.
4.3.1. Equal access to justice and the legal framework for the protection from discrimination
The Constitution of Latvia establishes that: everyone in Latvia is equal before the law and the courts; human rights are respected without discrimination of any kind; everyone has the right to defend his or her rights in a fair court; everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty under law; and everyone has the right to legal advice (Council of Europe, 2010[9]). The Constitution also establishes protection and support for the rights of the child as a priority, specifically mentioning the duty of the state to provide special support to disabled children, children left without parental care and children who have suffered from violence (Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia, 2020[10]).2
The LPCR incorporates many of the rights set out in the UNCRC into the Latvian law, including the law on non-discrimination:
“The state shall ensure the rights and freedoms of the child to all children without any discrimination - regardless of the race, nationality, sex, language, party affiliation, political and religious beliefs, national, ethnic or social origin, place of residence of the child, his or her parents, guardians, family members, country, property and health status, birth or other circumstances.” (LIKUMI, 1998[11])
In addition, the UNCRC takes precedence over national law and therefore all of the rights in the CRC can be directly enforced in courts, (Child Rights International Network, 2016[12]) with the effect that children should be treated by the law as full bearers of rights. Thus, the principle of equal access to justice for children is incorporated in the legislative framework in Latvia, although implementation remains a challenge.
4.3.2. Services for marginalised groups of children
The State has made special provisions in the LPCR and other Latvian laws and policies for the protection of specific vulnerable and marginalised groups of children, including orphans and children in out-of-family institutions, (LIKUMI, 2002[13]) refugees and persons who have been granted alternative status, (LIKUMI, 1998[11])3 victims of human trafficking, (LIKUMI, 2002[14]) (Cabinet Ministers Republic of Latvia, 2022[15]) children with physical and mental disabilities, (LIKUMI, 1998[11])4 and Roma children. (European Commission, 2018[16]) Another vulnerable group that would need special attention are juvenile asylum-seekers.
Nevertheless, stakeholders reported that services may not be reaching children in the most vulnerable and marginalised situations, including child victims of abuse and violence.
The Ombuds Office report mentioned the need to strengthen the effectiveness of rights of the following vulnerable groups:
Children with mental health issues, including those in psychiatric institutions;
Children with disabilities, including those in institutions;
Roma children, specifically with regard to their engagement in education.
However, despite progress in reducing the number of non-citizen children, in Latvia, non-citizen children and minorities continue to be marginalised and to experience discrimination (Box 4.2).
ECPAT International has previously highlighted a lack of support and protection for child victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking. (ECPAT International, 2017[7]) Moreover, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child highlighted inequalities in access to health and education services for children with disabilities, children belonging to minorities, and children living in rural areas (United Nations, 2016[17]).
Children who are digitally excluded, or unable or unwilling to communicate by telephone for any reason, may struggle to access the Child Helpline. The services hope to reverse a slight decline in the number of calls from children since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic by increasing digital access (Ministry of Welfare of Lativa, 2020[5]).
Reports from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the CoE-FCNM (Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
Several international reports and frameworks highlighted the following challenges for non-citizen children and minorities: discrimination and racist violence against Roma children and other minorities;
the detention and treatment of, and prevailing negative attitudes towards, asylum-seeking and refugee children;
the stigma and prejudice still endured by children with disabilities and a lack of specific legislation to protect the rights of children with disabilities;
stigmatisation and discrimination of children in alternative care
bullying in schools of children based on perceived gender or sexual orientation;
a general problem of rising hate crime and intolerance towards minorities
Source: (Council of Europe, 2019[18]), National Minorities (FCNM), https://www.coe.int/en/web/minorities/country-specific-monitoring
As such, while the legislative framework provides for equal access to justice for all children without discrimination, this protection in law does not always fully translate into practice for all children. Enduring discrimination in society towards multiple groups of vulnerable and marginalised children, together with inequalities in access to services and complaints mechanisms presents substantial barriers for many children in exercising their rights, leaving them on the edge of justice.
4.3.3. Equality and inclusion in legal proceedings
Both prosecutors and judges reported that children’s cases were prioritised by the justice system, particularly where abuse or violence against children is involved. Interpreters are provided to parties, including victims and witnesses, in criminal and administrative proceedings, as well as to parties receiving legal aid in civil proceedings (European Commission, 2023[19]). The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice concluded that the essence of the right to a free interpreter is adequately guaranteed in the Latvian judicial system, but that additional efforts could be made in order to improve the quality of translation and interpretation services. (Council of Europe, 2018[20])
Arrangements in the justice system for children with disabilities to secure their rights could be improved. For instance, rights violations against children with disabilities living in institutions, including cases of sexual abuse, seem to be unreported, and that there is a need for an effective complaints mechanism for these children. (Leimane-Veldmeijere, I., et al., 2015[21]) (Mental Disability Advocacy, 2015[22]) It is also noted that the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities noted that the forced institutionalisation of persons with intellectual disabilities remained legal in Latvia and that there many children with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities have died in social care institutions. (OHCHR, 2017[23]) Whilst regulations have been introduced obliging the police to provide for any special needs of children at police stations, (LIKUMI, 1998[11]), (Cabinet Ministers Republic of Latvia, 2014[24])5 there are few special provisions for children with disabilities in court proceedings.
Although children may be provided with access to translation and interpretation services where required, arrangements for children with disabilities need to be improved. A few examples of good practices with regard to accommodating children with disabilities can be found in the box below Box 4.4.
Australia uses pictures/communication aids to enhance understanding.
Bulgaria uses Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) methods, a sign language interpreter, facilitated communication, auxiliary hearing devices; ensures physical accessibility; provides real-time captioning of court proceedings.
France uses interpreters; allows assistance by an expert or support person to explain the court process.
Germany uses interpreters; allows assistance by an expert or support person to explain the court process.
Ireland uses an intermediary, a sign language interpreter, AAC, closed-circuit television (CCTV) in court, facilitated communication and auxiliary hearing devices; obtains a victim impact statement; ensures physical accessibility; allows testifying via live video/television link and behind a screen as well as pre-recorded evidence, out of court testimony and judicial officers’ intervention; makes information accessible for those with visual and hearing impairments to enable them to testify; removes requirements pertaining to official courtroom attire (e.g., wigs, etc.); provides information about the proceedings in plain language, braille and in accessible and child-friendly formats; provides real-time captioning of court proceedings.
Israel uses the AAC and AAC toolkit, interpreters and facilitators to simplify language; allows for the involvement of a special investigator, testifying behind a screen, testifying outside the courtroom, testifying not on the witness stand, testifying in judge’s chambers, frequent breaks and linguistic simplification; conducts trial online; removes official attire requirements; involves an expert professional and an expert witness, provides support and explanations of proceedings in the courtroom.
Netherlands uses interpreters; allows for assistance by an expert or support person to explain the court process.
Spain uses an intermediary and appropriate and proper questioning strategies; allows for testifying behind a screen, via live video/television link.
South Africa uses an intermediary, CCTV in court, appropriate and proper questioning strategies, AAC, a sign language interpreter, facilitated communication, auxiliary hearing devices; ensures physical accessibility; conducts informal court proceedings in a relaxed and non-adversarial environment; provides real-time captioning of court proceedings.
The United Kingdom uses an AAC, interpreter, a sign language interpreter, facilitated communication, auxiliary hearing devices, an intermediary, appropriate and proper questioning strategies; ensures physical accessibility; provides real-time captioning of court proceedings; allows for testifying via live video/television link, the functional assessment of individual, removing official attire requirement, pre-recorded evidence, judicial officers’ intervention, assistance by an expert or support person to explain the court process.
The United States uses AAC, interpreter, a sign language interpreter, an intermediary, facilitated communication, auxiliary hearing devices (CCTV) in court, appropriate and proper questioning strategies; ensures physical accessibility; provides real-time captioning of court proceedings, allows guardian ad Litem, stuffed animals, and allows for leading questions, enough and extra time for testifying, a familiar person to help, assistance by an expert or support person to explain the court process; portions of the trial may be recorded; involves expert professional and expert witnesses; forbids protracted questioning of children and motions that cause needless delay of the trial.
Note: 1. AAC-Augmentative and alternative forms of communication, 2. CCTV-Closed circuit television
Source: (White et al., 2021[25]) Court Accommodations for Persons with Severe Communication Disabilities: A Legal Scoping Review, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, Vol. 27, No: 3, pp. 399-420. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000289.
For the vision of child-centred justice to be realised and for violations of children’s rights to be addressed in practice, legal and justice services - from the provision of information, early advice and complaint procedures to legal advice services and court proceedings - need to be fully accessible in practice to children, both physically and psychologically.
In accordance with the forthcoming OECD Child-friendly Justice Framework, in order to actively overcome the barriers children face in accessing legal and justice services, age-appropriate entry points to all-age services should be developed and separate services that have been designed specifically around children’s needs should be available.
Access to early information and advice
Child-friendly materials containing information on children’s rights should be made available and widely distributed, and special information services for children such as specialised websites established (Council of Europe, 2010[26]).
A wide range of services and professionals that could act as critical first points of contact for children requiring help (e.g., the police, health practitioners, teachers and youth workers) should be accessible to and capable of building trust with children and young people.
Free helplines for children should be established and should facilitate easy access for all children by providing a choice of contact methods (Child Helpline International, n.d.[27]).1
Drop-in centres for young people offering information, advice, counselling and support on a wide range of legal, social, emotional and health issues should be established in community settings (European Youth Information and Counselling Agency (ERYICA), n.d.[28]).2
Children should have free access to specialised lawyers for children and young people in places they feel comfortable. Such counsel should not only be available when children have already entered the justice system, but also for early intervention advice.
Authorities should endeavour to ensure that children are aware of the services that are available to them.
Access to complaints mechanisms
Children should have the right to access child-friendly, independent and effective complaints mechanisms whenever their rights have been violated by services or institutions.
A national independent children’s rights institution, such as the Ombuds Office for children or a children’s commissioner, should be established with adequate powers and resources to pursue complaints on behalf of children and address systemic issues with State institutions.
Access to remedies, courts and the judicial process
Children’s rights, as enshrined in the law, are meaningless unless children can take action when their rights are violated. As bearers of rights, children should have recourse to remedies to effectively exercise their rights or act upon violations of their rights. The domestic law should facilitate where appropriate the possibility of access to court for children who have sufficient understanding of their rights and the use of remedies to protect these rights, based on adequately given legal advice (Council of Europe, 2010[9]).
All obstacles impeding children’s access to the courts, such as the cost of the proceedings or the lack of legal counsel, should be removed (Council of Europe, 2010[9]).
In cases of certain specific crimes committed against children, or certain aspects of civil or family law, access to the court system should be granted for a period of time after the child has reached the age of majority where necessary. States are encouraged to review their statutes of limitations, making sure that no violence against children goes unaddressed (Council of Europe, 2010[9]).
Children should have access to international human and children's rights protection mechanisms for the pursuit of justice and protection of rights when domestic remedies do not exist or have been exhausted.
Access to legal advice, assistance and representation in judicial proceedings
If children are to have access to genuinely child-friendly justice, states should facilitate access to a lawyer or other institution or entity which according to national law is responsible for defending children’s rights. They should be represented in their own name, including where there is, or could be, a conflict of interest between the child and the parents or other involved parties. Adequate representation and the right to be represented independently from the parents should be guaranteed, especially in proceedings where there is a conflict of interest between the child and the parents or other involved parties (UNICEF, 2018[29]).
An effective system of legal aid is central to the rule of law. It ensures accountability in the event that public bodies breach the law, including those laws which breach children’s rights, by allowing people to file complaints with the courts. Legal aid is crucial to ensuring that children are able to access the court to challenge breaches of their rights. Children should have access to free legal aid, under the same or more lenient conditions as adults (UNICEF, 2018[29]).
Lawyers representing children should be trained in and knowledgeable of children’s rights and related issues, receive ongoing and in-depth training and be capable of communicating with children at their level of understanding (Council of Europe, 2010[9]). A system of specialised youth lawyers is recommended, while respecting the child’s free choice of a lawyer (Council of Europe, 2010[9]). Children should be considered to be full-fledged clients with their own rights, and lawyers representing children should bring forward the opinion of the child (Council of Europe, 2010[9]).
In cases where there are conflicting interests between parents and children, the competent authority should appoint either a guardian ad litem or another independent representative to represent the views and interests of the child (Council of Europe, 2010[9]).
← 1. Child Helpline International coordinates a network of Child Helplines in 140 countries and territories around the world.
← 2. The European Youth Information and Counselling Agency (ERYICA) is the membership body for national and regional youth information, advice and counselling co-ordination bodies and networks in Europe. Services typically target young people aged 13-25.
Source: (Council of Europe, 2010[26]), Passport to your rights, https://rm.coe.int/passport-for-your-rights-eng/1680a35876; (Council of Europe, 2010[9]); Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on child-friendly justice, https://rm.coe.int/16804b2cf3; (Child Helpline International, n.d.[27]) Child Helpline International coordinates a network of Child Helplines in 140 countries and territories around the world. https://www.childhelplineinternational.org/about/reports/; (European Youth Information and Counselling Agency (ERYICA), n.d.[28]), The European Youth Information and Counselling Agency (ERYICA) ,https://www.eryica.org/; (UNICEF, 2018[29]), Guidelines On Child-Friendly Legal Aid, https://www.unicef.org/eca/media/5171/file
4.4.1. Access to early information and advice
Children and young people in Latvia receive a certain amount of education about their rights at school. However, interviewees considered this was insufficient and ineffective in equipping children with the information they might need in the event of a breach of their rights (See also section on Empowerment for further information regarding rights education). There is some basic information about children’s rights on the website of the Child and Adolescent Helpline (State Inspectorate for Protection of Children's Rights, n.d.[30]) and State Inspectorate, (State Inspectorate for Protection of Children's Rights, 2011[31]) as well as some child-friendly material on safety on the State Police website (State Police Republic of Latvia, n.d.[32]). Indeed, many such resources were found to be useful for children and young people, when they needed to find information for their problem. Thus in accordance with the LNS of children in Latvia6, more than two-thirds of respondents (70%) reported that they had found helpful information. Websites (56%), social media (38%), and videos or podcasts (25%) were rated as most valuable. Leaflets, brochures, self-help guides (5%) and apps (7%) were rated as the least helpful. Among respondents with moderate issues (3-5 rating of the most recent problem), websites and social media were rated as the most useful. However, there are differences in answers when comparing girls and boys, age groups, and location, as well as the type of problems children and young people have faced. Girls are more likely to seek help (48%) than boys (31%); additionally, older respondents (15-18) are also more likely to look for information regarding their problem. Children and young people who live in regions outside Riga or its surroundings are more likely to look for information online. Respondents with more serious problems (5+ score of their most recent issue) are less likely to look for information to help them understand their issue.
More broadly, when children in Latvia need help or advice, they will usually turn to an informal source, most commonly a parent or a friend. Some will turn to a trusted adult professional, such as a guidance counsellor in school, a youth worker or an NGO. Thus. more than half of respondents of LNS of children in Latvia (69%) had turned to parents or guardians, 14% received advice from a friend and 13% got support from another family member. However, in general, few children and young people turn to professional services for advice and assistance, acting independently from their parents. For example, LNS of children in Latvia found that when asked whether they received support from professionals or organisations (e.g., a helpline, mental help expert, ombudsman, etc.), only 5% of children and young people replied that they had turned to a teacher for advice face-to-face. They rated the support they received as being helpful. The other 95% replied that they had not used any help from professionals or official organizations, explaining that they had changed their mind about getting advice (44%) or that they did not know how to go about getting help (11%). Some 11% replied that their issue was not significant enough, they did not think it would make any difference (11%), they did not think anybody would listen to them (22%), or they did not want anyone to find out about their problem (11%).7
Indeed, common barriers preventing children from approaching services seem to include: fear; shame; guilt; a lack of awareness of services; and a lack of trust in adult services and professionals to listen to them, take them seriously and believe them. Among the list of professionals in whom children tend to lack trust, according to interviewees, are: social workers, the police, school psychologists and general practitioners. In accordance with LNS of children in Latvia, lawyers and the justice system are perceived most negatively by young people, while the helpline for children and teenagers as well as social workers are regarded most positively. Overall, children and young people have a more positive opinion of the police in comparison to lawyers. The average agreement rate with positive statements was 46% and negative statements received a lower strongly or mainly agree response rate. When asked their opinion on the Orphan’s and Custody Courts, most respondents appear to have a limited understanding of it, as this question received the highest average rate of Neither agree nor disagree answers (63%). Children’s reluctance to approach such professionals for help may limit the identification of children’s rights violation and to be referred to the appropriate authorities at an early stage of the process.8
There are also notable differences in answers when comparing the types of problems children and young people experience and whether or not they seek help. Respondents who are most likely to look for information are those children and young people who have experienced a problem getting support from social services (69%), whereas children and young people who have been bullied are least likely to look for information online or in a document (48%). In general, children and young people who have experienced issues related to medical professionals and social workers are more likely to seek information, whereas respondents with problems related to school, family/housing are less likely to do so.
When asked where they looked for information that would help them with their problem, the most popular responses were social media (56%) and websites (51%). Videos or podcasts are the third most popular choice among all respondents (42%). Age differences are reflected in the choices of help resources. While social media is the most popular choice among both 12-14 and 15-18 year old respondents, the younger respondents are more likely to also rely on videos or podcasts (56%) in contrast to the 15-18 year old category (33%).
Similar to the practices in many countries (Child Helpline International, n.d.[27])9, in Latvia, the service children are most likely to contact for help on a range of issues is the Child and Adolescent Helpline, which was established in 2006 by the State Inspectorate. The helpline provides toll-free counselling and support to children, parents and other adults supporting children. Since 2015, the service has been available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Children and adolescents can access the helpline by telephone, e-mail or, since 2019, webchat. In 2020, the Helpline was contacted 6 728 times, of which 61% were from children and adolescents directly, with 12-15 year olds the most likely age group to use the service. Telephone calls made up 95% of contacts, 3% by webchat and 1% by email (Ministry of Welfare of Lativa, 2020[5]). The low number of contacts made by digital methods may reflect the fact that the Helpline’s website is fairly basic (State Inspectorate for Protection of Children's Rights Republic of Latvia, n.d.[33]). The State Inspectorate’s annual report cites its “conscious and purposeful work promoting the Helpline” as a reason why children trust the service (Ministry of Welfare of Lativa, 2020[5]).
Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic there has been a reduction in the number of calls to the Helpline directly from children, but the State Inspectorate reports that the issues presented have become more complex, with increases in calls about relationship problems between children and parents, emotional and physical abuse and neglect within families, and mental health and emotional problems (including a doubling of calls related to suicide or suicidal feelings to 118 in 2020). The changed pattern of issues has led to an increase in the number of referrals from the Helpline to social services, the Orphan’s and Custody Courts or the police for potential violations of children’s rights (up from 132 referrals in 2019 to 177 in 2020). (State Inspectorate for Protection of Children's Rights, n.d.[30])10 Calls to the Helpline can also be referred to the Inspectors of Children’s Rights Department (BTAD) of the State Inspectorate, which can provide face-to-face, telephone and email consultations. The State Inspectorate also has the power to investigate complaints, initiate administrative violation cases, inspect institutions and issue sanctions (See further information below under ‘Access to complaints mechanisms’).
An alternative helpline is provided by the Safer Internet Centre, which provides counselling to children who have been exposed to illegal or inappropriate content and online sexual abuse and exploitation. The Centre also provides a hotline for adults and professionals to report illegal material. The Centre stated that few calls to the Helpline from children and young people are referred to other authorities, due to the fact that many callers choose to remain anonymous.11 Other interviewees shared that children and young people are reluctant to report online abuse and exploitation, thus preventing such incidences from being further investigated.
Work on a framework for the development of youth information points in Latvia appears to have been initiated in 2008, based on ERYICA, Council of Europe and European Union best practice. (Council of Europe and European Commission, 2009[34]) However, OECD analysis did not identify any community-based information, advice, counselling and support services for young people in Latvia. (Youth Access, n.d.[35]) Many municipalities do have a youth centre, but stakeholders reported that these tend to focus on the provision of sporting activities rather than the provision of one-to-one advice and support. It is noted that no co-ordination body for youth information, advice, or counselling/support services exists in Latvia. Based on some good country practices shown in the box below, Latvia could establish centres that could provide one-to-one advice and support to youth. Some examples of youth centres can be found in Box 4.6 below.
Youth Legal is a community-based youth centre based in England. It was established in 2013 with a purpose to provide free legal advice either on their premises or online to young people and their advisors. The centre provides legal advice on community care, housing, debt and money, immigration and welfare benefits. The centre also supports young people through providing public legal education, organising training sessions and seminars. (Youth Legal UK, n.d.[36])
Child and Youth Legal Centre is a local youth organisation based in Vancouver, BC Canada. The centre provides free and confidential legal advice and legal representation to young people. It also refers them to other resources in matters related to family law, child protection, human rights among others. The centre helps young people up to 19 years of age. However, if the legal problem started before the person turns 19, the centre may still help. (Family Law Brtish Colombia Canada, n.d.[37])
Source: (Youth Legal UK, n.d.[36]), Youth Legal, https://www.youthlegal.org.uk/about; (Family Law Brtish Colombia Canada, n.d.[37]), Child and Youth Legal Centre, https://family.legalaid.bc.ca/visit/child-and-youth-legal-centre
Similarly, there are no specialist legal advice services available to children and young people who might need early advice in instances where their rights may have been violated but their case has yet to reach the formal justice system. It should be noted that there is a limited understanding among state institutions of a hypothetical scenario in which a young person might need legal advice in their own right following estrangement from their family due to becoming homeless or needing social care. It remains unclear whether this is because these situations do not arise in Latvia or because the concept of children needing legal advice in such situations is outside the scope of professionals in the country.
In summary, children reportedly often do not reach out to professionals who could act as critical early problem identifiers. The system relies on the Child and Adolescent Helpline to act as the main provider of advice and emotional support to children. However, whilst the service is used by children and young people in reasonable numbers, it is accessible largely by telephone – a mode of access that many children and young people are often reluctant to use (Kenrick, 2009[38]).12 Indeed, several respondents to the LNS for children in Latvia highlighted that they would benefit from a helpline that offers a chatroom. As such, there is scope to establish a wider range of modes of service provision, including community-based services that children and young people can turn to in person for age-appropriate help on a range of legal, social, emotional and health issues, or for specialist child-friendly legal advice.
In addition, there is a clear scope for the improvement in available services, with varying satisfaction scores across different services (See Box 4.7). Moreover, more than one-quarter of respondents of the LNS of Children noting that they preferred that the treatment they received from social workers, teachers and psychologists would improve. In particular the respondents highlighted a lack of respect, unfriendliness, poor listening skills, low motivation and lack of interest in their problems as the main issues that they wished to be resolved. They also noted the need for faster response from institutions such as the Orphan’s and Custody Court or professionals like social workers or lawyers when dealing with their issues. Respondents to the LNS of children also emphasised that there is too much bureaucracy in Latvia and not enough professional help from social workers, doctors and teachers when a child experiences serious issues such as dyslexia and ADHD. Given such results, involving children and young people in the design of justice services becomes extra important as their involvement ensures that existing services are tailored to the needs of the users of those services.
When it comes to satisfaction with existing services, more than half of the respondents to the LNS of Children had specific suggestions for improving legal and related services in Latvia:
Quick response (2%). A small number of children and young people reported that they needed faster responses from institutions such as the Orphan’s and Custody Court or professionals like social workers or lawyers, when in contact with them.
Treatment (23%). More than one-quarter of respondents noted that they wished that the treatment they received from social workers, teachers, and psychologists would improve. They reported lack of respect, unfriendliness, poor listening skills, low motivation, and low interest in their problems as the main issues that they hoped would be resolved.
School (2%). Two percent of respondents pointed out that bullying was a significant issue in their school and they thought that expelling those students who engaged in bullying from school would be a good solution.
Helpline (6%). Several young people replied that they would benefit from a helpline, which the chatroom, because they disliked talking on the phone.
Professional help (29%). A high proportion of young people pointed out that they would benefit from a free mental health professional’s assistance (e.g., psychologist, psychotherapist), which clearly demonstrates that free psychological help is not available in Latvia. Several young people also replied that they are in need of easily accessible lawyers, youth day centres, and social workers.
No problems (3%). A small number of respondents reported that they did not have any specific recommendations as they did not have any issues, or even if they did, they could be solved with the help of their parents.
Finances (5%). Less than 10% of respondents argued that improving their financial situations would significantly help with their current problems.
Medicine (0,5%). A small proportion of young people pointed out that they have had issues with health care, in particular, the long waiting lines for doctors.
Institutional improvement (13%). A sizeable proportion of responses included recommendations for improving various institutions in Latvia. For example, several respondents remarked that there are significant issues with corrupt politicians and the education system. Others argued that there is too much bureaucracy in Latvia and very inefficient professional help from social workers, doctors and teachers whenever a child experiences serious issues (e.g., dyslexia, ADHD, etc.).
Housing (2%). A small number of responses included recommendations for providing free housing for those who are experiencing poverty.
Family support (2%). Five respondents pointed out that their problems are best solved with the help of parents or other relatives and argued that family support would be the best solution to the issues that young people are facing in Latvia.
Anonymous help (2%). Several respondents expressed the need for anonymous, confidential psychological help. They also highlighted that lack of anonymity was a significant issue that they themselves had experienced.
4.4.2. Access to complaints mechanisms
Complaints to the police
Children can seek help directly from the State Police and can submit complaints about violations of their rights that may constitute a crime, either in person or by calling the 24/7 assistance telephone number 110. Stakeholders reported in interviews that investigations by the State Police into sexual offences reported by children tend to take a long time and rarely result in prosecutions. In 2020, 190 children were registered as victims of sexual crimes by the Police.13
Complaints mechanisms in services and institutions
Under the LCPR provisions, state and local government institutions in the fields of education, social care and protection, health care and the justice system are required to establish child-friendly systems for receiving complaints from individual children and to make these systems known and accessible to children. Institutions are required to review complaints from children immediately, to provide assistance to children and to act appropriately to report and/or refer cases in which children’s rights may have been breached. (LIKUMI, 1998[11])14
A detailed analysis of such complaints systems was published by the Latvian Child Welfare Network in 2017. (Latvian Child Welfare Network, 2017[39]) Most systems required children to complain in the first instance to the institution against which they were complaining. Generally, the systems were described as neither child-friendly nor accessible to children, and children tended to report having little trust in the systems or the adults administering them. In relation to specific service areas:
In the field of education, children can submit a complaint directly to the management of their school or to the State Service for Education Quality (SSEQ). Children interviewed by the Latvian Child Welfare Network believed there was no point in complaining about schools because they didn’t think it would change anything and none of the children had heard of the SSEQ.
In the area of social care and protection, including the Orphan’s and Custody Courts, residential social care institutions and Social Services, children can submit a complaint directly to the service provider or, if their rights have been violated, to the State Inspectorate or the Ombuds Office. Children in residential care institutions who were interviewed by the Latvian Child Welfare Network reported that their complaints to social workers were ignored and they were not aware that they could submit a complaint outside the institution.
In the field of health care, children can submit a complaint to the Health Inspectorate through its website. There is no special procedure for complaints from children. The general procedure for submitting complaints appears to be complex and not always child-friendly.
Children involved in judicial proceedings are required to submit complaints through their legal representative acting on their behalf. Children in detention can submit complaints to the management of the institution by following the same procedure that applies to adults. Young people who were in detention were aware of the procedure but did not believe that submission of complaints would change anything or that they would be taken seriously.
The Latvian Child Welfare Network concluded that, overall, “children are missing a protection mechanism that would shield the child against eventual negative consequences, pressure and would secure an objective mechanism for filing complaints. In particular, this refers to children who stay in institutions and where adults objectively have substantial authority, can impact children and apply various sanctions against them”. (Latvian Child Welfare Network, 2017[39]). A separate analysis found that children with learning disabilities experienced additional barriers to accessing an effective complaints mechanism, as there was rarely an easy-read version of the complaints form or any assistance to help children to submit complaints. (Mental Disability Advocacy, 2015[22])
National children’s rights institutions
There are two main national institutions that are responsible for pursuing complaints about violations of children’s rights.
The Ombudsman Office performs the function of an ombudsperson for children, although it is not an institution dedicated to children alone. It has a mandate to examine complaints regarding violations of individuals’ human rights, including children’s rights, paying particular attention to violations committed by state or local government institutions and their employees. Complaints can be filed with the Ombuds Office by email or letter. (Ombudsman Office of the Republic of Latvia, n.d.[40]) There is no special access pathway for children.15 Complaints from children are dealt with by the Ombuds Office’s Children’s Rights Department, which consisted of five staff members in 2020. In 2020, the Ombuds Office received 1 009 complaints regarding the rights of children and young people. Only one of these complaints was submitted directly by a child. In 2019, the Ombuds Office received 964 complaints, including three from children. The vast majority of complaints concerning breaches of children’s rights are made by parents on behalf of children. Focus groups with children held by the Latvia Child Welfare Network found that very few children were aware of the Ombuds Office or how it could help them. (Latvian Child Welfare Network, 2017[39]) The Ombuds Office said that children are not involved in most cases concerning them. However, if the child wishes, the Ombuds Office can hear the views of a child in confidence, without the presence of their parent(s) or guardian(s) or any staff from any institution that is a subject of their complaint. (LIKUMI, 2006[41])16 The Ombuds Office also has a mandate to visit children and young people in institutions, such as prisons and care homes, as part of its investigations. If a breach is detected, and if it is necessary for the benefit of society, the Ombuds Office may represent the rights and interests of a child in an administrative court. It should be noted that filing a complaint with the Ombuds Office does not prevent any other concurrent legal action by a court from proceeding. The Ombuds Office can also refer cases to the State Inspectorate, as the latter has the authority to issue sanctions, a power that the Ombuds Office does not possess.
State Inspectorate – is the institution, which amongst other functions, provides advice to individuals and organisations about violations of children’s rights, and has the power to investigate complaints, initiate administrative violation cases, and inspect and issue sanctions against state institutions. One of the main functions of the State Inspectorate is to ensure operation of a national helpline. It provides psychological and emotional support in critical situations to children and their families; and offers answers related to the rights and duties of children, their parents and teachers, children’s development, addictions and other issues. The Department for the Protection of the Rights of the Child (DPRD) of the State Inspectorate can also receive complaints from children and others about violations of a child’s rights. In 2021, the DPRD received a total of 474 reports and complaints (570 in 2020) and provided 805 consultations to individuals and institutions (737 in 2020). (State Inspectorate for the Protection of Children's Rights, 2022[42]) In 2020, 95% of consultations were by telephone or email and 5% were face to face. Reports and complaints were most likely to be received from parents, followed by other relatives of children, schools, social services, pre-school institutions and out-of-family care institutions. The number of complaints from children, if there were any at all, is not reported. (Ministry of Welfare of Lativa, 2020[5]) Complaints in 2021 were most likely to be lodged against educational institutions and pre-school educational institutions and to relate to episodes of emotional or physical abuse on the part of staff in institutions where children were staying. (State Inspectorate for the Protection of Children's Rights, 2022[42]) Similar to the Ombuds Office, the DPRD has the right to interview children without the presence of other persons, investigate state institutions and look into systemic issues. Unlike the Ombuds Office, the DPRD is also able to initiate investigations that are not based on a specific complaint and can investigate the actions of NGOs and individuals as well as state institutions. (Mental Disability Advocacy, 2015[22]) However, in cases involving violence against children, the State Inspectorate will only intervene if the violence has taken place at a state or local government institution. In other cases involving violence, the State Inspectorate will refer the case to the police or another relevant institution. In 2021, the DPRD initiated 91 administrative violation cases for the physical and/or emotional abuse of a child by employees of institutions, mostly related to pre-school education institutions and educational institutions, with small numbers related to the Orphan’s and Custody Courts, out-of-home care institutions and sports camps.
While mandates of both institutions are very important and they may identify and conduct investigations into systemic issues affecting children, neither seems to undertake much direct work with children. Moreover, there appears to be scope to delineate the two services more clearly from one another to ensure that there is no overlap or duplication of roles and responsibilities between them. This may require establishing clear protocols and procedures for collaboration, coordination and referral pathways between both institutions, as well as possibly defining more clearly areas of responsibility and strengthening mechanisms for information-sharing.
4.4.3. Access to remedies, courts and the judicial process
Although there are limitations to their procedural rights (see below), children can bring cases in domestic courts to challenge violations of their rights under the CPRL, the CRC (which is directly enforceable in courts), or any other legislation that protects children’s rights. (Child Rights International Network (CRIN), n.d.[43]) Depending on the nature of the case, children’s rights are considered in the Orphan’s and Custody Courts or adjudicated in district or regional courts.
The Orphan’s and Custody Courts ensure protection of children in family cases and represent their rights and interests where this cannot be done by the child’s family. They deal with issues concerning guardianship, custody, contact, adoption and out-of-family care and protect the personal and pecuniary rights and interests of children.17 Despite their name, the Orphan’s and Custody Courts are actually institutions established and financed by municipalities and staffed by municipal workers. Although it is theoretically possible for children to access the Orphan’s and Custody Court independently - by turning up at their offices or sending an email, for instance - it is much more common for children to be referred, for example, by a social pedagogue, a doctor or an NGO.
In accordance with stakeholders and as highlighted in the Ombuds Office’s 2020 annual report, (Ombudsman Of the Republic Of Latvia, 2020[44]) the effectiveness of the Orphan’s and Custody Courts in protecting children’s rights could be strengthened through: 1) greater training of staff; 2) making sure children’s views are properly heard; 3) ensuring that the interests of adults are not prioritised over those of children; 4) addressing staff members’ fear of the potential overturning of their decisions; and 5) strengthening the Orphan’s and Custody Courts independence. In this regard, a reform programme is currently underway to address quality concerns, transparency and accountability; to promote higher professional standards, to give more room to children to express their opinions; strengthening qualification requirements for staff and bringing the Orphan’s and Custody Courts under the functional supervision of the State Inspectorate from July 2021 to increase their independence from municipalities in small communities as in serious cases urgent action is needed. (Ministry of Justice Republic of Latvia, 2021[45])
Cases concerning violations of children’s rights can be filed in the district court, which is the court of first instance for most civil and criminal matters. The regional courts handle appeals from district courts and are also the courts of first instance for certain criminal and civil matters, including sexual offences committed against children. There are no specialist children’s or family courts in Latvia.
In civil cases, the procedural rights of children to bring their cases before a court of law by themselves in their own name is limited. Court proceedings can normally only be brought on behalf of children by their ‘legal representatives’. Until reaching the age of 18, a child is legally deemed the responsibility of his or her parents, (LIKUMI, 1937[46])18 who are deemed the child’s legal representatives, with an obligation to safeguard the child’s rights and legal interests. (LIKUMI, 1998[47])19 Where children are between the ages of 15 and 18 and have been deemed to have capacity to act, the court is required to invite them to participate in proceedings. (LIKUMI, 2005[48])20 In cases when children are “entitled to independently exercise their civil procedural rights” in “cases prescribed by law”21, the court has the discretion to call upon a legal representative to assist the child in conducting the case. (LIKUMI, 2005[48])22 In practice, however, judges and lawyers reported that civil cases brought by children in their own right, independently from their parents or carers, rarely, if ever, end up in court. It is also understood that it is practically unheard of for children, acting independently, to sue state institutions for violations of their rights or a failure to provide services to which they are lawfully entitled.
Children’s ability to initiate legal proceedings is similar in administrative proceedings as it is in civil proceedings.23 A child has procedural rights from the age of 15. Yet these rights are exercised by their legal representative, usually their parents, unless the law has conferred on the child the right to independently have recourse to an institution, in which case the child has the right to independently appeal an administrative act or actual action of an institution to a court. (LIKUMI, 2004[49])24
In theory, children have the right to appeal a civil or an administrative decision to a district administrative court. A district court judgment may be appealed in the regional court, and a regional court judgment may be appealed to the Senate of the Supreme Court. A legal challenge may also be brought before Latvia’s Constitutional Court. However, a complaint to the Constitutional Court is the ultimate remedy for protection of human rights and all other legal avenues must be exhausted first—unless the Constitutional Court considers that the matter is of public interest or that other avenues cannot prevent harm to the complainant. (Child Rights International Network, 2016[12])
In practice, children’s rights of appeal against court decisions are limited by their understanding of the process, their capacity to access and instruct lawyers and a culture in which children are not expected to exercise such rights. In relation to decisions of an The Orphan’s and Custody Court, whilst parents have a right to appeal in the regional administrative court, children may only appeal through their legal guardian who may have a conflict of interests. Thus, a child who has been placed in a residential care institution against their wishes, for example, would require the institution to appeal that decision on their behalf, which does not happen in practice. (Latvian Child Welfare Network, 2017[39])
In criminal matters, the duty to initiate proceedings lies with public prosecutors. Child victims have the right to participate in court proceedings and are represented by a parent, a guardian, a caregiver or a representative of a governmental or nongovernmental organisation working in child protection. Children under 15 may provide witness testimony and express their views to the court, but must otherwise be represented by their representative acting on their behalf. For children over 15, the representative shall represent the interests of the child victims together with them. In deciding who to allow as a child victim’s representative, the person presiding over the proceedings should take into account the interests and wishes of the child, in order to “truly protect the interests of the victim”.25
The statute of limitations governing the period within which a case of sexual violence against a child can be addressed by the courts was increased in 2015 to 20 years.26
In civil cases, the remedies available include monetary damages, recovery of property (in kind or in value), and imposition of a duty to perform a remedial action. In administrative cases, the court may order an institution to take specific remedial or preventative actions and may impose financial penalties on the institution or the responsible official.27
Latvian nationals, including children, can turn to international and regional complaint mechanisms, when they feel their rights have been violated. These include the UN Treaty Bodies’ complaint mechanisms, the European Court on Human Rights, the European Social Charter and the Committee of Social Rights, the Commissioner for Human Rights, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, the Ombuds Office of the European Parliament and the UN HRC.28 Complaints to some of these bodies, including The European Court of Human Rights, will be admissible only if all domestic remedies have been exhausted.29
4.4.4. Access to legal advice, assistance and representation in judicial proceedings
Children’s rights to receive legal advice, assistance and representation in proceedings depend on the type of proceedings, the procedural status of the child and the child’s age.
Child victims who have been granted procedural status of a victim are normally represented in criminal proceedings by a ‘representative’. This is not a lawyer. The representative is usually a parent, guardian, other family member or trustee. (LIKUMI, 2005[48])30 A child can also be represented by an authority, an institution or an NGO that protects children's rights, (LIKUMI, 2005[48])31 most commonly the Orphan’s and Custody Court.32 The representative of the child acquires all their rights and may participate in proceedings alongside the child. (LIKUMI, 2005[48])33 When deciding on the recognition of a person as the representative, the judge shall take into account their suitability for the role and their ability and willingness to genuinely protect the interests of the child. (LIKUMI, 2005[48])34 Whilst parents are most likely to act as children’s representatives, they do not always act in children’s best interests. They often have conflicts of interest, for example in cases where the alleged perpetrator is their partner whom they may be trying to defend. In other cases, the parent might not make efforts to represent the child at all, again leaving no one to protect the child’s interests.
Child victims are also entitled to a court appointed lawyer, if this is necessary to guarantee the child’s rights. (LIKUMI, 2005[48])35 This can be done when their representative decides one is needed or if the judge insists that one is necessary. (LIKUMI, 2018[50])36 The provision of legal assistance to a minor victim and their representative is mandatory in sexual violence cases and in cases where violence has been committed by a person upon whom the juvenile victim is financially or otherwise dependent. (LIKUMI, 2005[48])37 However, judges rarely assign legal representation to the child. In addition, children cannot instruct a lawyer in civil cases before the age of 18. Thus, whilst supposedly representing the child, the sworn attorneys actually seem to consult the parents, not the child in such cases.
In civil and administrative proceedings, children are normally represented by a representative (as above, most commonly a parent) or an institution (such as the Orphan’s and Custody Court). (LIKUMI, 1999[51])38 In family proceedings, whilst parents may be represented by lawyers, it is common for children’s views and opinions to be presented to the court second-hand by a member of staff from the Orphan’s and Custody Court, such as a psychologist..
In compliance with an EU directive, Latvia is obliged to provide legal assistance without delay to a child who is in a police station and is under arrest. Children have a right to legal assistance during interrogation; a right to communicate with their.39 There is some anecdotal evidence on cases where children were not informed about their rights in a police station. However, according to the law, there is an obligation to inform children about their rights during any meeting with authorities.
During criminal proceedings, the rights of a child accused of a crime or a child victim to defence or representation are provided for by the Criminal Procedure Law. Where children have been accused of a crime, their right to a defence counsel is mandatory in criminal proceedings. (LIKUMI, 2005[48])40 Legal aid covers the pre-trial and trial period, representation and defence at pre-trial and trial stages, as well as legal advice before the court hearings. The provision of legal aid in criminal matters is organised by the Latvian Council of Sworn Advocates. Sworn attorneys are allocated to cases according to a roster and it is not possible to ask to have a particular lawyer. (Fair Trials Initiative, 2015[52]) However, sworn attorneys allocated to children’s cases must complete training in child protection.41 Latvia can further reflect on how to provide legal aid to children that is age-appropriate and child-centred. It can draw inspiration from legal aid schemes for children that have been set up in other countries.
Scottish Legal Aid Board
The Legal Aid Board regulates distribution of legal assistance to children. In order to receive benefits, children can apply directly to the board. A solicitor acts on a child’s behalf provided that explicit and direct instructions have been given directly by the child. In cases where the child cannot instruct a solicitor, a guardian could be appointed by a court to protect the interests of the child.
United States: legal assistance for young people at parole hearings
Children and Family Justice Centre was launched in 2010 and provided legal assistance at their parole revocation hearings via the Parole Revocation Representation Project. The pilot case involved the representation of over 150 young people and secured release in 83% of the cases.
Thailand: legal clinic for stateless children
Thailand implemented a new clinic programme to support stateless children in Thailand aged between 13-20. The programme aimed to inform stateless children about their legal rights, in particular about their right to apply for a birth certificate under the Civil Registration Act of 2008. As of 2012, 120 youth leaders were trained to help children navigate Thailand’s bureaucracy and spread awareness about stateless children’s rights.
Australia: online legal assistance for children
The National Children’s and Youth Law Centre (NCYLC) provides online free legal advice to children and young people for a range of legal problems that involve criminal law, child abuse, bullying, and discrimination.
Source: (Child Rights International Network (CRIN), n.d.[43]), Examples of legal assistance that has helped Children, https://archive.crin.org/en/home/law/legal-assistance/examples-legal-assistance-has-helped-children.html.
In civil and administrative proceedings, children are normally represented by a representative (as above, most commonly a parent) or an institution (such as the Orphan’s and Custody Court). (LIKUMI, 1999[51])42 In family proceedings, whilst parents may be represented by lawyers, it is common for children’s views and opinions to be presented to the court second-hand by a member of staff from the Orphan’s and Custody Court, such as a psychologist. Legal aid provided by sworn attorneys is also available in civil and administrative cases under procedures set out in the State Ensured Legal Aid Law and administered by the Legal Aid Administration (LAA). (Cabinet of Ministers Republic of Latvia, 2009[53])43 Provided children satisfy a means test, which is applied to all persons, they may receive state-provided legal aid in civil cases and in certain types of administrative cases, including asylum appeals and appeals against decisions of the Orphan’s and Custody Court regarding protection of the rights of the child. The State also provides legal aid to victims of violence to submit a request for temporary protection against violence, to contest a court ruling to fully or partially deny the provision of a temporary protection measure, or for the resolution of a civil dispute.44
In practice, children rarely access legal assistance in civil and administrative cases (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2017[54]). Indeed, an evaluation of the Latvian judicial system found that overall, “the Latvian justice system provides for a rather low level of legal aid, limited both in terms of available budget and in terms of categories of persons who can qualify to receive legal aid”. (Council of Europe, 2018[20]) In addition, there are common views in Latvia that the quality of legal representation received by children through legal aid is variable, with children having no choice of lawyer. There is no system of specialist children’s or youth lawyers in Latvia, apart from specific NGOs45.
Challenges in the current arrangements for adequate representation for children, whether from a representative or a lawyer, may leave many children without effective support from an adult who is acting in their best interest, particularly in cases where prerogatives differ between parents and children. It was reported that not only does this act as a major barrier to children accessing justice, it can also lead to cases getting stuck in the courts for an intractable period. Many interviewees considered that there was a need for Latvia to adopt a system of guardian ad litem, or another similar model in which children can be supported by a ‘person of trust’ who can provide consistent practical and emotional support, act as an intermediary between institutions and courts, and represent the child’s views and interests throughout the proceedings. It was felt this role should be financed by the state, but independent from the Orphan’s and Custody Court and social services. Since children’s voices are at risk to be mediated or misrepresented by a parent or legal guardian, service quality from the Orphan’s and Custody Courts and other courts could benefit from further direct representation of children to hear their views and opinions.
There is also scope to strengthen children’s access to independent, expert, age-appropriate legal advice, assistance and representation in judicial proceedings, particularly in civil and administrative cases. Similarly, the support to children during proceedings from a ‘person of trust’ who is guaranteed to act in their best interest could be improved.
In addition, children have limited procedural rights to initiate civil or administrative proceedings independently from their parents. Moreover, children whose interests may differ from those of their parents, and children in residential institutions, have limited options when it comes to taking independent action in respect of violations of their rights or challenging institutions’ failures to provide them with care or services or to otherwise uphold their rights.
The cumulative effect of a lack of early advice, a lack of child-focussed complaints mechanisms and a court system that does not prioritise listening to the voice of the child throughout the process is that children may have no one on their side at multiple critical stages of the problem resolution process (also see section on Empowerment and participation).
Child-friendly justice services within a people-centred justice system aim to proactively contribute to the prevention of legal problems and a timely resolution. Indeed, it helps address recurring legal problems on a systemic basis to address underlying causes thereby preventing reoccurrences.
The OECD forthcoming Framework on Child-Friendly Justice recommends the following principles for the implementation of prevention, proactivity and timeliness:
Preventative and proactive approach to justice for children
The state’s approach to justice for children should recognise that the root causes of children’s legal needs are linked to social, health and economic factors and that a joined-up, cross-departmental approach, with early intervention and prevention at its core, is more effective than waiting until children have ended up in the justice system. (OECD, 2021[55]))
Effective age-appropriate, multidisciplinary support should be provided to children and young people in the community to address a range of psychosocial issues, including family and relationship problems, emotional and mental health issues, substance abuse, housing problems, violence and offending behaviour.
Effective crime prevention programmes should be implemented, emphasising the social development and well-being of children and young people.
Effective measures for preventing and detecting sexual offences against children should be implemented.
Alternatives to judicial proceedings
The minimum age of criminal responsibility should not be set too low and should be clearly determined by law. (Council of Europe, 2010[9]) Alternatives to judicial proceedings such as mediation, diversion (of judicial mechanisms) and alternative dispute resolution are encouraged whenever these may best serve the child’s best interest. However, the preliminary use of such alternatives should not be used as an obstacle to the child’s access to justice. Alternatives to court proceedings should guarantee an equivalent level of legal safeguards. (Council of Europe, 2010[9])
Timeliness of proceedings – avoiding undue delay
In all proceedings involving children, the urgency principle should be applied to provide a speedy response and protect the best interest of the child, while respecting the rule of law. (Council of Europe, 2010[9]) Children’s cases should be prioritised and dealt with expeditiously.
National authorities should take all necessary steps to facilitate the execution of judicial decisions/rulings involving and affecting children without delay. (Council of Europe, 2010[9])
Rehabilitation & reintegration
Where children have been victims of sexual abuse and exploitation, they should have the right to compensation. See note below
Child victims of neglect, violence, abuse or other crimes should receive high quality support, including health care and appropriate social and therapeutic intervention, to enable their recovery. See note below
Children in detention should have the right to receive education, vocational training, medical care, legal support and access to appropriate programmes that prepare them for their return to their communities. On release, children should receive employment, housing and legal support and other services necessary for their reintegration into society.
Note: The Council of Europe guidelines state that the child’s lawyer, guardian or legal representative should have a mandate to take all necessary steps to claim for damages during or after criminal proceedings in which the child was a victim, and that, where appropriate, the costs could be covered by the state and recovered from the perpetrator. For a full exploration of this issue, see ECPAT International (2017) Barriers to Compensation for Child Victims of Sexual Exploitation: A discussion paper based on a comparative legal study of selected countries, Bangkok: ECPAT International.
Source: (OECD, 2021[55]), OECD Framework and Good Practice Principles for People-Centred Justice, 10.1787/cdc3bde7-en; (OECD forthcoming, 2023[3]), OECD Framework for Child-friendly Justice (forthcoming); (Council of Europe, 2010[9]), Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on child-friendly justice, https://rm.coe.int/16804b2cf3; See Part IV B and Guidelines 50, 76 and 80.
4.5.1. Preventative and proactive approach to justice for children
Policy and planning
As discussed earlier, Latvia’s plans and strategies for improving access to justice focus heavily on the formal justice system and contain little recognition of a joined-up, cross-departmental approach to access to justice for children. However, there are several policy programmes, across various government departments, focussed on preventing justice problems among children and young people. Almost exclusively, over the last decade, such programmes have promoted the importance of the family and focussed on prevention of criminal justice problems, with an emphasis on preventing criminal behaviour by young people and violence against young people. As in many other countries, this trend is evolving into the holistic approach to child-friendly justice, considering a wide range of legal needs (including those of a civil and administrative nature), and throughout the justice pathway (from prevention to post-resolution support).
Several new policies and programmes are currently in development that provide opportunities for a broader approach to prevention to be embedded. The draft ‘Guidelines for Development of Children, Youth and Family for 2021-2027’ (Ministry of Welfare of Latvia, n.d.[56]) is based on the ‘National Development Plan for Latvia for 2021-2027’ and sets the basic principles, goals and tasks of the state policy for children, youth and families. The main goal of the draft plan is a child and family-friendly society that promotes the well-being of children and youth, healthy development, equal opportunities and the reduction of the risk of poverty and social exclusion for families with children. There are four objectives, one of which is to promote the safety, development, psychological and emotional well-being of children and young people. One of this objective's area of intervention is to reduce all forms of violence through:
Educational activities for school children about how to recognise violence and respond to risks of violence;
Public awareness-raising campaigns to reduce tolerance of all forms of violence;
Expanded protection and rehabilitation services for victims of violence;
Activities to reduce discrimination and violence (harassment and abuse) in educational institutions and online;
Establishment of an evidence-based and joint methodology-based violence monitoring system.
The draft plan also states that two additional policy documents will be developed: a “Plan to Promote Safety, Psychological and Emotional Well-Being of Children and Young People for 2021-2027”; and a draft “Plan for the Prevention of Child Crime and Protection of Children against Crime for 2022-2024”. (Ministry of Interior Latvia, 2021[57])
Preventative services
Latvia faces several challenges related to measures of child and youth well-being, physical and mental health, violent relationships with peers, social tensions and inequality. (Latvian Child Welfare Network, n.d.[58]) One of the most consistent messages received from interviewees was that there was a critical lack of preventative services available to children and young people in local areas. Stakeholders reported that the problem is particularly acute in smaller municipalities and rural areas, where a lack of financial resources leads to poor provision of social services, youth services, mental health services, parenting programmes and other support.
It is also noted that the draft ‘Guidelines for Development of Children, Youth and Family for 2022-2027’ outline plans to develop a comprehensive range of preventative support services, including prenatal and early childhood programmes; intervention programmes for children and young people with disabilities and special educational needs; and education programmes for parents to increase family literacy. (Ministry of Welfare of Latvia, n.d.[56])
Looking first at the role of schools in the wider prevention ecosystem, high rates of bullying46 and truancy47 persist. (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2021[4]) Whilst social pedagogues seem to play an important role in supporting and guiding children in school, stakeholders consider that social and relationships education delivered by schools could be improved. Indeed, much of the work conducted in schools to counteract bullying and violence is led by NGOs. (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2021[4])
Centre Dardedze is an NGO that advocates for a childhood free from abuse and has set a strategic priority: the prevention of children sexual abuse and exploitation for the period of 2018–2022. Dardedze implements several prevention programmes for children, parents and professionals. For example the Dzimba Safety Program (Dardedze, n.d.[59])focuses on the prevention of sexual abuse of preschool and primary school children and their parents. Program Guardian Angel (Dardedze, n.d.[60]) includes group sessions for parents who are raising a child aged 0-2 years. Dads Can! (Dardedze, n.d.[61])includes group sessions for fathers who are raising children aged 3-8 years. Program Child Safe and Friendly Kindergarten (Dardeze, n.d.[62]) is implemented together with the association
SOS Children’s Villages Latvia and focuses on timely identification and prevention of risks of violations of children’s rights; building positive co-operation between children, parents and staff of the institution; and maintaining a positive environment in which the child’s interests and needs are central. More than 40 pre-school educational institutions in Latvia have been involved in the implementation of the programme.
Association MARTA Centre is a children and women’s rights NGO with offices in Riga, Liepaja and Rezekne. MARTA implements prevention programmes with a gender perspective for youth aged 12-18 years on relationship violence, sexual bullying and similar topics. Its youth group methodology and pilot mobile application, which has been rolled out in some schools, connects youth to psychologists and other specialists outside of schools. Their Youth Group Methodology consists of 17 lessons, delivered once a week and aims to help young people acquire life skills that will help them build healthy and mutually supportive relationships with peers and adopt non-violent conflict resolution approaches when they face injustice. (MARTA Centre, n.d.[63])
Latvian Safer Internet Centre is coordinated by the Latvian Internet Association. The Centre has developed a website (DROSS Internets.lv, n.d.[64]) that includes educational and informative materials on various child safety matters on the internet, including sexting. Several educational tests, videos and informative materials for children (up to 11 years old), youth (12-18 years) and parents, are available on the website together with a compilation of resources developed by other organisations. The Centre has a Youth Council that meets 2-3 times per year and helps to reach children and youth, develop informative materials and plan activities throughout Latvia. The Youth Council is formed by 12-15 active young people between ages 13 and 18 from different regions in Latvia.
Association Papardes zieds works in the field of sexual and reproductive health. The association offers educational programs for grades 5-7; 8-9; and 10-12 that include topics on safe relationships. (Papardes zieds, n.d.[65])
Source: (MARTA Centre, n.d.[63]), MARTA Centre, Interview with MARTA Centre” on July 30, 2021, https://marta.lv/lv/marta-darbiba/jaunatnes-programmas/kops-2010-gada-marta-aktivi-strada-ar-jauniesiem-vecuma-no-12-lidz-18-gadiem-veidojot-un-vadot-nodarbibas-skolas-un-jauniesu-centros-visa-latvija-30/; (DROSS Internets.lv, n.d.[64]), DROSS Internets.lv, https://drossinternets.lv/; (Papardes zieds, n.d.[65]), Papardes zieds, https://papardeszieds.lv/
A significant and growing area of need amongst children and young people is mental health. In 2016, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child highlighted the high level of youth suicide in Latvia and recommended strengthening psychological counselling services. (United Nations, 2016[17]) Since then, there has been mounting evidence that the Covid-19 pandemic has led to a severe worsening of mental health problems amongst children and young people. One study found that the majority of adolescents in Latvia had experienced clinically significant mental health decline during the pandemic and that 37.6% of young people reported needing counselling or psychotherapy. (Konstantinovs and Lapa, 2021[66]) The Child and Adolescent Helpline has reported dealing with increasing numbers of children and young people with depression, suicidal ideation and eating disorders. (State Inspectorate for Protection of Children's Rights, n.d.[30])48
There was a consensus amongst stakeholders that there was an urgent need to improve access to mental health support for children and young people in community settings. Responsibility for funding such services lies with municipalities. There are currently long waits for help in some towns, and there is a severe shortage of child psychologists and psychiatrists across Latvia. In response, the Children’s Hospital is developing early intervention mental health services for young people and a free drop-in service for 12–25-year-olds is being trialled in Riga. (ENGLSM.lv, n.d.[67])
Interviewees reported pressures on social services due to a lack of resources and severe shortages of social workers. This is impacting efforts to provide children, young people and families with long-term, in-depth support to address multiple and entrenched problems, as well as the quality and safety of the care in residential social care settings that children receive. The Orphan’s and Custody Courts contribute to family support by running parenting training programmes (both mandatory and voluntary programmes) and parent support groups.
Crime prevention programmes
Stakeholders reported that young people may get involved in crime due to the lack of early intervention support and preventative activity programmes, as outlined above. The LPCR makes clear that specific crime prevention measures are the primary responsibility of municipalities, working in collaboration with parents, schools, the State Police and other institutions. (LIKUMI, 1998[47])49 Generally, local areas have discretion to organise crime prevention work as they see fit, which has led in the past to a range of different approaches being adopted. (Kronberga and Zermatten, 2012[68])
The State Police established a crime prevention unit in 2014 and have developed programmes related to issues such as substance abuse, violence and school safety. Often these programmes have involved training for practitioners and awareness-raising talks in schools, although it was acknowledged that there was a need to replace traditional police-led ‘lecture’ approaches with cooperative work with municipalities, schools and NGOs that are better placed to engage effectively with key target groups. Stakeholders reported that there has been major progress in recent years in embedding prevention into the day-to-day responsibilities of police officers, although the reality on the ground varies across the country. In 2022, this work is planned to expand through the establishment of new teams of prevention officers.50
Latvia has implemented a range of policies and programmes focussed on preventing crimes by, and against, children. However, the effectiveness of measures taken to date is reportedly limited. Generally, prevention programmes suffer from a lack of sufficient resources, joined-up planning, and focus on the provision of support to vulnerable children and young people.
Prevention, identification and detection of sexual offences against children
With prevention of abuse in Latvia having been identified as the weakest link in tackling the issue of violence against children in Latvia, there has been a significant focus in this area in recent years. (SAFEGE Baltija, 2018[69])
A ‘Plan for the Protection of Minors against Criminal Offences against Morality and Sexual Inviolability for years 2018-2021’ was a cross-departmental plan led by the Ministry of Justice. (LIKUMI, 2019[70]) The aim of the plan was to reduce the risk for children, by addressing international recommendations to promote the implementation of the children’s rights treaties. The plan contained a host of prevention measures, with a greater focus than in previous policy on the target groups of children and young people, specialist professionals and abusers, and less focus on parents, potential abusers and the wider community. (Linde-Ozola, 2019[71]) Expected outcomes by 2021 included: a system where high-risk target groups would be informed about how to receive help; a stable support system for children who have suffered from sexual abuse; and a system of compulsory measures for convicted abusers after serving their sentences. There is no evaluation available yet to assess the effectiveness of the programme.
Stakeholders reported that the police are struggling to detect sexual offences against children. The State police themselves acknowledged that children often do not come forward to report offences; and those professionals, such as social workers, psychologists, teachers and youth workers, needed further training to improve their identification of potential cases of abuse. Other interviewees felt the lack of children’s access to trusted sources of early support in the community meant there was insufficient long-term, skilled work taking place that would enable children to open up about their experiences and to support families to break cycles of violence. It was also suggested that the reporting systems in place in schools were ineffective and insufficient, and that medical professionals were reluctant to report cases for fear of becoming embroiled in time-consuming proceedings. Particular challenges include the detection of online abuse, child victims not accessing support and a police force that is overwhelmed by the scale of the problem.
Despite challenges faced by various institutions, there is an opportunity to ensure that forthcoming policies and plans for children, young people and families, crime prevention and children’s safety and well-being take a broader and more joined-up approach to prevention.
4.5.2. Timeliness of proceedings – avoiding undue delay
According to the LPCR, any motions or complaints connected with children’s rights protection shall be reviewed immediately. (LIKUMI, 1998[11])51 In addition, criminal proceedings involving child offenders shall take priority over similar criminal proceedings involving adults or where the victim is a minor, (LIKUMI, 2005[48]) (LIKUMI, 1998[11])52 meaning they must be dealt with first and within a reasonable timeframe. (ECPAT International, 2017[7]) (LIKUMI, 2005[48]) 53 In practice, police, prosecutors and judges report that cases involving children are given priority and ‘almost always’ are started without delay, although other stakeholders expressed some scepticism that the police would always prioritise cases involving juvenile victims of violence.
It is understood that various amendments have been made to the civil, administrative and criminal procedural laws in the past decade to improve the efficiency of the court system. However, several stakeholders reported that cases involving children can still take too long to resolve. Whilst some cases can progress quite rapidly, it is not uncommon for complex cases to take two or three years.
Several reasons for delays in proceedings were cited by interviewees, including:
Delays in police identifying perpetrators, for example due to the police being overwhelmed with cases or children needing a long time in therapy before disclosing details about the offender.
The sheer number of bureaucratic processes that the justice system needs to go through.
Waits for psychologists and psychiatrists to conduct assessments with children and then deliver their reports, due to shortages of these experts.
A lack of support for children in family disputes, which can slow down the whole process.
In many cases, such delays can have a detrimental impact on the well-being of the children involved or the outcome of the case. The process can feel very long and confusing for children; being expected to keep re-telling their story can have the effect of re-traumatising children. More broadly, timeliness of services is crucial for children who are involved in the justice system, to ensure that their rights are protected, that they have timely access to appropriate support services and to meet the variety of their needs. In addition, delays could give perpetrators in child abuse cases more opportunity to manipulate the evidence put forth by children or other witnesses. In some instances, however, it was felt by judges that justice would be better served by giving more time to explore the situation of the family and hear from children directly.
Overall, the analysis reveals that the justice system in Latvia tends to prioritise cases involving children and new amendments to criminal procedural law were introduced in 2020 to speed up the court proceedings. Yet, the impact of the reform is still to be investigated and cases are still subject to lengthy delays at various points of the investigatory and judicial processes, which can have a deleterious impact on the children involved and the delivery of just outcomes.
4.5.3. Rehabilitation & reintegration
Compensation for victims
Any citizen whose rights have been violated without legal justification has a right to claim compensation. (LIKUMI, 1922[72])54 The Code of Criminal Procedure (LIKUMI, 1998[73])55 and the Law on State Compensation to Crime Victims (LIKUMI, 2006[74]) 56 provide for the right of victims of any criminal offences to request compensation for injuries, which include moral injury, physical suffering or financial loss. Where a victim believes that the entire harm caused has not been compensated, they have the right to request compensation.
Where the perpetrator(s) of a crime cannot be identified or held criminally liable, the victim who suffered from severe or moderate offences, including sexual abuse, may be entitled to state compensation. (LIKUMI, 2006[74]) 57 In 2021, the maximum amount of state compensation was EUR 2 500. Some stakeholders felt that such a level of compensation is often insufficient to cover the cost of rehabilitation for child victims of sexual abuse and exploitation.
Furthermore, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has noted that children and their legal representatives often lack information about the procedure for and possibilities of receiving compensation. (OHCHR, 2016[75]) ECPAT International have reported that few victims of human trafficking, for example, are successful in claiming compensation. (ECPAT International, 2017[7])
Importantly, while state compensation is available to child victims, the process for children to access compensation is reportedly not straightforward and that the level of compensation provided is low.
Support to child victims for recovery and rehabilitation
Children and young people who have been victims of crime may need to receive services for many years in order to aid their recovery. Social rehabilitation for child victims of violence has been provided in Latvia since 2000. (ECPAT International, 2017[7]) 58 The LPCR states that a child who is a victim of a criminal offence, exploitation, sexual abuse, violence or any other unlawful, cruel or demeaning act shall be provided with emergency assistance so that they may regain physical and mental health and reintegrate into society. Such support should be provided free of charge and should take place in a confidential, child-friendly environment. (LIKUMI, 1998[11])59 Specific resources are required to establish specialist services for child victims. (LIKUMI, 1998[11])60
When children encounter justice systems, they are often in great distress, experiencing trauma or in need of protection. Yet all too often they encounter professionals they find hard to trust, settings they find intimidating and procedures they find confusing – or, worse, that re-traumatise them.
In order to obtain just outcomes for children, justice systems must treat children with dignity, respect, care and fairness. This requires justice systems to be age-sensitive and tailored to children’s needs. (Council of Europe, 2010[9])
At all stages of cases involving children, including child victims, witnesses and offenders, it is important that the justice system provides a child-friendly environment and child-friendly arrangements, guided by the best interest of the child. (OECD, 2019[76]) This means that specific measures could be taken to ensure all of the following are child-friendly:
The way professionals interact and communicate with children.
The physical settings children will access, from entrance areas and waiting rooms, to interview rooms, medical examination rooms, court rooms and places of detention.
The way that children’s privacy, confidentiality, safety and well-being are protected.
The methods used for gathering evidence and hearing testimony from children.
The type of support that is provided to children before, during and after proceedings.
The OECD forthcoming Framework on Child-Friendly Justice recommends the following principles for appropriateness and responsiveness of the justice system.
Training and capacity-building
Specialised training programmes and academic curricula should be developed to build a professional and competent workforce of child justice and child protection actors.
Training needs to be systematic and ongoing - initial training and re-training.
All relevant professionals working with children (including police, prosecutors, lawyers, judges, prison officers, mediators, social workers, professionals handling complaints, doctors, psychologists and other experts) should receive adequate and appropriate interdisciplinary training on:
States should consider creating specialist children’s professional roles within key professions, including the judiciary, the police and the legal profession.
Clear and robust protocols and guidelines should be developed to support professionals in implementing child-friendly justice procedures.
Professionals working with children in the justice system should receive adequate supervision and support.
There should be effective mechanisms for professionals to share best practices, including on a multi-disciplinary basis.
Treatment of children by the police
Police officers should respect the personal rights and dignity of all children and have regard to their vulnerability, taking account of their age, maturity and any special needs.
Whenever children are apprehended by the police, they:
Should be informed of the reason for being taken into custody in a manner and in language that is appropriate to their age and level of understanding.
Should be provided with access to a lawyer and given the opportunity to contact their parents or a person whom they trust.
Should be questioned or asked to make a statement in respect of criminal behaviour only in the presence of a lawyer, a parent or another person they trust.
Should be detained in conditions that are safe and appropriate to their needs.
Police and prosecutors should ensure that child-friendly approaches are used throughout the investigation process.
Subjecting children to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment should be prohibited by law and eradicated in practice.
Processes for securing evidence
Interviews of children, the gathering of statements from children and medical examinations of children should follow detailed international guidance with a view to ensuring, whenever appropriate and to the extent possible, that:
Procedures are carried out by trained professionals in child-friendly settings and conditions.
The number of interviews and their length are as limited as possible.
Child victims and witnesses avoid direct contact, confrontation or interaction with alleged perpetrators and can give evidence without the presence of the alleged perpetrator.
Child-friendly arrangements in proceedings
All premises where children are heard in criminal, civil or administrative proceedings –including police stations, prosecution offices, courts, administrative bodies, centres for social work, child protection agencies and other premises – should provide unintimidating, child-friendly settings. This may include establishing:
Court hearings involving children should ensure a range of adaptations and modifications are made to account for the child’s age, level of understanding and well-being, which may include, inter alia:
The security, privacy, confidentiality of the personal data of children involved in judicial or non-judicial proceedings and other interventions should be protected. Specifically, inter alia:
Children must be protected from harm, including intimidation, reprisals and secondary victimisation.
Whenever children are being heard or giving evidence, the proceedings should be filmed.
All relevant authorities should adopt a comprehensive, holistic approach for children involved in proceedings that supports the psychological and physical well-being and legal, social and economic interests of the child.
Deprivation of liberty
Any form of deprivation of liberty of children should be a measure of last resort and be for the shortest period of time possible. Special efforts must be undertaken to avoid pre-trial detention.
When deprivation of liberty is imposed, children should be held separately from adults. When children are detained with adults, this should be for exceptional reasons and based solely on the best interest of the child. Regardless of the circumstances, children should be detained in premises suited to their needs.
Children’s rights are respected and upheld when in detention or prison, including their rights:
to maintain regular and meaningful contact with parents, family and friends;
to receive appropriate education, vocational guidance and training, medical care, and enjoy freedom of thought, conscience and religion and access to leisure, including physical education and sport;
to access programmes that prepare them in advance for their return to their communities, with full attention given to them in respect of their emotional and physical needs, their family relationships, housing, schooling and employment possibilities and socio-economic status.
The deprivation of liberty of unaccompanied minors, including those seeking asylum and separated children, is never motivated or based solely on the absence of residence status.
Source:, The 2021 World Congress on Justice With Children: Global Declaration On Justice With Children, www.justicewithchildren.org; (Council of Europe, 2010[9]), Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on child-friendly justice, https://rm.coe.int/16804b2cf3; (OECD forthcoming, 2023[3]), OECD Framework for Child-friendly Justice (forthcoming).
4.6.1. Training and capacity-building
Training programmes and professional specialists
The LPCR requires professionals working with children in several areas of practice to have special knowledge in the field of the protection of the rights of the child. These professionals include, amongst others: teachers; social pedagogues; staff in children’s care homes and other residential institutions; social workers; youth workers; psychologists; members and staff of the Orphan’s and Custody Court; police officers, prison officers and probation officers; lawyers, prosecutors and judges; and staff at the State Inspectorate. (LIKUMI, 1998[11])61
The procedures for the acquisition of special knowledge in the field of the protection of the rights of children, as well as the content and quantity of training, are determined by the Cabinet of ministers. Many professionals, including police officers, prosecutors, lawyers and judges are required to undertake a 40-hour training programme on the rights of the child, with a 24-hour refresher course to be undertaken within five years. Courses typically cover topics such as the developmental needs of children, communication skills for working with children, identifying violence, and key principles for protecting children’s rights.
The State Inspectorate is responsible for organising much of the compulsory training, although legislation provides for the Ministry of the Interior to organise training for police officers who work with child victims of criminal offences; the Prosecution Office for prosecutors; and the Ministry of Justice for judges. (LIKUMI, 1998[11]) 62 Policy guidelines also include provisions for regular training of health professionals on how to recognise and prevent violence ,and provide services in cases of violence against children. (Police of Latvia, 2020[77]) (LIKUMI, 2018[78])63
Some courses are organised on a multi-disciplinary basis. For example, lawyers and judges are trained on the standard 40-hour course together, which provides a useful opportunity for inter-disciplinary learning. Various organisations, including NGOs, deliver additional short continuous professional development courses on topics such as violence against children.
Stakeholders reported that the standard 40-hour course was critical to developing a child rights culture within key services. Generally, interviewees felt that the training was of good quality, was effective and had improved over time as participants and trainers had shared experiences. However, some felt that the training failed to sufficiently ingrain a culture of listening to the voice of the child at all stages of the judicial process. Some stakeholders felt that the training was insufficient for certain staff with sensitive duties, including police officers dealing with initial reports from child victims of abuse and violence, and police officers and psychologists responsible for conducting interviews with children. In addition, there was a view that the gap of five years between undertaking the initial 40-hour course and the refresher course was too long, particularly given how fast practices and case law involving children’s rights are evolving in Latvia.
It should be noted that certain professionals are required to undertake more in-depth training. For example:
call handlers at the Child and Adolescent Helpline are psychologists with a Master’s degree , supplemented by training on both crisis intervention and the rights of the child;
psychologists hold a master’s degree and have five years’ experience working with children and families before they can provide an expert opinion to a court, the Orphan’s and Custody Court, police or Prosecution Office. (LIKUMI, 1998[11]) 64
personnel of the Orphan’s and Custody Courts must attend a 190-hour course.
Despite such provisions for ensuring the expertise of specialists in the wider child justice system, the judiciary does not contain any judges specialising in children’s cases and there are no formalised child or juvenile courts. In practice, however, cases involving children tend to be assigned to particular judges with experience in the field.
While the mandatory training of different professionals dealing with children in Latvia puts the country on solid footing, there is scope to further enhance this approach by providing more regular training in line with international standards. (Council of Europe, 2010[9]) In addition, there may be a need to develop supplementary training and other capacity-building activities for certain professionals in key roles, in order to accelerate these improvements. This is critical to efforts to develop good practices in the provision of appropriate and responsive child-friendly services and embed a child rights culture across the child justice system.
Protocols, practice, supervision and support
Generally, the view of stakeholders was that the protection of children’s rights was well-regulated through legislation, regulations, protocols, guidance and codes of ethics for specific professions. Most problems in the system appear to come down to uneven professional practice and culture. For example, cases of failures to record and investigate all incidents of violence against children were attributed to attitudes found within the police and a need for further training to comply with systems rather than effective systems not being implemented in the first place.
Several interviewees mentioned that there was insufficient support available to professionals working in the child protection system. Many staff dealing with distressing cases of child sexual abuse experience high levels of stress and burn-out and need regular debriefs, clinical supervision and access to emotional support or counselling. However, despite such support being available in principle, stakeholders reported that there was not a widespread culture of accepting emotional support in many professions.
There are also few opportunities for professionals to develop their practice and inter-institutional understanding and trust through multi-disciplinary knowledge exchanges. Lawyers, prosecutors and judges need to come together to learn from each other and discuss how to potentially improve practices with regard to judicial proceedings.
Professional practices are sometimes reported to be hampered by an insufficient focus in some services on staff supervision, emotional support to deal with workplace stress, and opportunities to share good practices within professions and on a multi-disciplinary basis. A greater focus on developing professional practices in these ways would represent a cost-effective way of improving services without major additional investment.
4.6.2. Treatment of children by the police
Employees within the State Police reported that, in general, police officers’ attitudes towards children and young people were reasonably good and that most children and young people trusted the police to treat them well. Other stakeholders were less confident about this, mentioning that in some instances the police tended to lack flexibility in executing their function.
A general view was expressed that the standard training for police officers on the rights of the child and working with child victims was effective at raising the standard of police officers’ interaction with children. Nevertheless, some felt that greater specialisation in the police should be considered, and that this could potentially include the development of a group of police officers who are experts in investigating sensitive cases involving children and young people. Interviewees reported that the investigation process can be long, confusing and traumatic for child victims. There are few special child-friendly premises at police stations, which means that children may need to travel to see doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists.
In relation to the treatment of children following arrest, the LPCR stipulates that children may be held at a police station until given over to their parents or guardian (LIKUMI, 1998[47]). In addition, the police are obliged to provide immediate legal assistance to a child who is being detained in a police station. Moreover, children have a right to legal assistance during interrogation, investigation and collection of evidence. (EUR-Lex, 2013[79])65 At the same time, it remains unclear the extent to which monitoring of these practices is actually being carried out.
Generally, legislation and regulations provide a strong basis for ensuring appropriate child-friendly procedures. The reality on the ground, however, is more variable, despite widespread commitment from many people working in the child justice system to implement best practices. In addition, there is scope to improve the child-friendliness of police interview techniques and facilities.
4.6.3. Processes for securing evidence
Forensic examinations
Where a child has been a victim of sexual abuse or violence, the police will order a forensic expert to conduct a medical examination. The expert should be of the same sex as the victim unless the victim or their representative agrees to be examined by an expert of the opposite sex. (LIKUMI, 2016[80])66 Regulations spell out the procedure for examinations. (Cabinet Ministers Republc of Latvia, 2018[81]) Where possible, examinations take place in a medical institution such as the University Children’s Hospital in Riga, which has developed its own network, thus making the procedure much more child-friendly than it has been in the past. However, research has found that due to a shortage of expert paediatricians, the medical experts appointed by the court would benefit from having specialised training to work with children who have suffered from sexual violence. 67
Where appropriate, a psychologist is present during the examination to ensure the procedure does not adversely affect the child’s mental well-being. (LIKUMI, 2016[80])68 Stakeholders reported that a lawyer is also usually present, although this is not a requirement mentioned in regulations.
Interviews in criminal procedures
The Criminal Procedure Law sets out the procedure for interviewing children in criminal proceedings in some detail, (LIKUMI, 1999[51])69 and provides special protection for child victims and witnesses. (LIKUMI, 2005[48])70 Whether they are offenders, victims or witnesses, children are usually interviewed by a State police investigator, who needs special training and knowledge in the area of children’s rights. Interviews take place in a room that has been suitably adapted for interviewing children when possible. When interviewing sexual violence victims, interviews should take place as soon as possible and the interviewer should be a person of the same gender as the victim, unless the child consents to an interviewer of a different gender.
Where the investigator considers it is necessary, children may be interviewed in the presence of a teacher or a psychologist. This is necessary when the child is under the age of 14 or a victim of violence or abuse, and these interviews can be undertaken directly by a psychologist. The psychologist will examine the child and should explain the investigation process in a child-friendly manner. If the psychologist assesses that there is a risk of psychological harm to the child as a result of repeat interviewing, the interview can only take place if authorised by a judge or a court order is obtained.
Others who may be present during an interview include the prosecutor, who is entitled to participate in any investigatory activities carried out by the police and will often intervene during interviews to ask questions; and the child’s lawful representative (usually a parent or guardian), provided the child consents to this and the person is not connected to the investigation. Although children have a right to receive legal support throughout the investigation process, it is understood that lawyers rarely have any involvement in the interview process. In administrative proceedings, children must be interviewed in the presence of a lawful representative, a specialist in children’s rights, a psychologist or a teacher, and these persons may ask the child questions during the interview. (LIKUMI, 2004[49]) (LIKUMI, 2018[50])71 It is noted that the Orphan’s and Custody Courts (LIKUMI, 2006[82])72 and the Ombuds Office both have the right to conduct interviews with children without the presence of anyone else.
Interviews with children under the Criminal Procedure Law cannot last for longer than six hours, including interruptions, during a 24-hour period. In practice, they usually take between 30 and 60 minutes in cases involving child victims.
Interviews can be recorded in writing, or, if it is in the best interest of the child, in audio or video format. In cases involving child victims of abuse and violence, it is usually deemed inappropriate by the psychologist for the child to be interviewed during the court process itself; in these cases, the prosecutor will usually use the recordings of interviews conducted during the investigation process and the previous testimony may be read or played in court.
Interviews with stakeholders highlighted a strong commitment to implementing good practices in interviewing children. However, there are some implementation challenges. Many stakeholders highlighted the common practice of repeat interviewing of children, with stories of child victims who had been repeatedly re-traumatised after being interviewed several times. The law does not specify the number of interviews permitted and, whilst investigators and prosecutors generally try to minimise the number of interviews, they may seek approval from a judge to conduct additional interviews. This can occur, for example, when new evidence has cast doubt on previous testimony or, where there are dual proceedings occurring in different courts, due to the fact recordings cannot usually be used in more than one proceeding.
Another challenge cited is a lack of appropriate interview rooms. Although some police stations have been equipped with child-friendly interview rooms in recent years, many premises are better suited to interrogation of adult suspects than sensitive interviews with potentially traumatised child victims. It has been reported that police interview rooms do not generally provide a safe environment where the best interests of the child come first nor do they enable children to feel comfortable to speak freely. They also tend to lack the provision of technical aids and can have problems with the quality of video recordings, which can even lead to evidence being lost. The Latvian Children’s Foundation, an NGO, has established safe interviewing rooms with modern technical equipment within its Crisis Centres for supporting child victims. (Kronberga, I., and Logina, E., 2019[83]) There was a consensus that these premises tend to be much more appropriate than police station interview rooms and underscore the importance of establishing the Barnahus model in Latvia.
Some police interviewers and psychologists were thought to need further training or experience in children’s rights and in interviewing children and young people in legal proceedings. The short-term nature of the contracts for the provision of psychologists and the general shortage of child psychologists were cited as challenging the sustainability of the system and undermining efforts to improve quality and continuity of juvenile testimony.
Finally, child-friendly terminology could be improved to create a safe environment. For instance, the term ‘interrogation’ was used not only in the Criminal Procedure Law but also by many of those implementing its provisions, even when referring to child victims when the term ‘interview’ would be more appropriate.
Looking more systemically, the absence of a formalised separate child justice system, with specialist child courts, child-friendly premises and judges specialised in juvenile affairs, can make it hard to shoe-horn child-sensitive procedures into a system designed primarily for adults. Procedures for forensic examinations and interviews of children generally make adequate provision to account for children’s specific needs, although, again, the premises in which these procedures take place need to be improved, particularly within police stations where repeatedly interviewing child victims should be avoided.
Protection for witnesses
A child who is a victim or who testifies in criminal proceedings in sexual violence cases has the right to special procedural protection. (LIKUMI, 2005[48]) 73 This allows the person directing proceedings to keep suspects away from the child (LIKUMI, 2005[48]) 74 and ensures that children’s evidence and data are kept confidential. (LIKUMI, 1999[51])75 To ensure the privacy of child victims, the court may also decide to hold judicial proceedings in a closed session. (LIKUMI, 2005[48]) 76
4.6.4. Child-friendly arrangements in judicial proceedings
As mentioned throughout the report, Latvian law establishes a number of general provisions aimed at ensuring child-friendly justice proceedings. For example, provisions in the LPCR require priority consideration to be given in court proceedings to the protection of the rights and the best interests of the child, (LIKUMI, 1998[11])77 and provide that criminal proceedings involving children be heard in a court pursuant to special procedures. (LIKUMI, 1998[11])78 Meanwhile, the Criminal Procedure Law states that proceedings involving a child must take into account the age, maturity and any special needs of the child. (LIKUMI, 2005[48]) 79 It also provides children with additional procedural guarantees and limits children’s responsibility. For example, the safety and privacy of children involved in proceedings are protected in a number of ways, such as the requirement for closed court hearings in cases involving crimes committed by or against a child; (LIKUMI, 2005[48]) 80 separation of suspects from child victims; (LIKUMI, 2005[48]) 81 ensuring confidentiality of children’s evidence and data; (LIKUMI, 2005[48]) 82 and allowing children to request anonymity when testifying. (LIKUMI, 2005[48]) 83
Yet interviewees reported that the judicial system does not contain specialised child-friendly facilities, even in the Orphan’s and Custody Court’s Courts. Judges reported that if they wanted to speak to a child, there are no suitable rooms in the court buildings, and no support staff such as psychologists who could help prepare for the interview. There appears to be also a lack of protocols and resources to support judges and court staff to implement more child-friendly practices. There was a view that the establishment of a specialised child and family court should be considered, although it was reported that, at the time, a lack of resources may make this unfeasible outside Riga.
As noted during interviews, courts make few routine adaptations or modifications to the format of hearings to account for children’s age, level of understanding and well-being. As noted earlier, there are no specialist children’s judges, although cases involving children are normally assigned to judges with relevant experience. Judges expressed a willingness to dispense with formalities such as formal attire and to change the layout of the court, and said they would not ignore such a request, but this does not routinely happen. There are limited tools and resources that would facilitate the provision of more child-friendly explanations to the child about the court’s procedures, what is going on, what has been decided, why a decision was made and what it all means.
Holistic approach supporting the child’s well-being
In terms of the provision of holistic support to children involved in proceedings, this is provided for by law, but, as detailed earlier, is not available for all children in practice. For example, whilst the provision of legal assistance to child victims in sexual violence cases is mandatory in criminal proceedings, (LIKUMI, 2005[48])84 this is not the case in civil and administrative proceedings. (LIKUMI, 2018[50])85 Meanwhile, child victims are highly likely to see a psychologist during proceedings, but this is more likely to be for a procedural interview or an assessment rather than for ongoing psychological counselling and support. Practical, emotional and financial support is also limited in practice. Challenges in routinely providing holistic support to children before, during and after proceedings mean that their legal, psychological and social needs are not fully met.
Children’s rights mean nothing without the knowledge and means to enforce them. In order to enjoy meaningful access to justice, children need to be empowered to exercise their rights, to participate in proceedings that affect their lives and to have a voice in the design and delivery of justice services. (OECD, 2019[76])
The OECD forthcoming Framework on Child-Friendly Justice recommends the following principles for empowerment and participation:
Information and awareness about rights
All children and young people should be taught about rights and the law, including the framework of child rights and the justice system, as part of the standard national school curriculum.
Children and young people, particularly those who are most vulnerable to experiencing legal problems, should have opportunities to learn about their rights and responsibilities, the services that can help them protect and exercise their rights and how to manage legal problems through accessible child- and young person-friendly programmes delivered in their local community.
All children should be able to easily access child-friendly information on children’s rights and responsibilities online through a single website.
Child-friendly printed information on children’s rights should be made available to children in police stations, courts, victim support services, residential institutions, places of detention and other places frequented by vulnerable children.
Participation before, during and after proceedings
Right to be informed
From their first involvement with the justice system or other competent authorities (such as the police, immigration, educational, social or health care services) and throughout that process, children and their parents should be promptly and adequately informed of, inter alia: their rights; the system and procedures involved; the support services, mechanisms and protective measures available to them; the appropriateness and possible consequences of the proceedings; progress and outcome of the proceedings or intervention; and their options for reviewing decisions and obtaining reparations.
Children should be prepared for judicial proceedings by receiving age-appropriate information from a competent, trained professional about court procedures and their rights, including how to effectively use their right to be heard in the proceedings.
Right to be heard
Children’s right to be heard in all judicial and administrative proceedings affecting them, either directly or through a representative or appropriate body, should be provided and protected by the law.
Guidelines on child participation in judicial and administrative proceedings should be provided by the relevant regulations.
Judges should respect the right of children to be heard in all matters that affect them or at least to be heard when they are deemed to have a sufficient understanding of the matters in question. The means used for this purpose should be adapted to the child’s level of understanding and ability to communicate and take into account the circumstances of the case. Children should be consulted on the manner in which they wish to be heard. A child should not be precluded from being heard solely on the basis of age.
The views, needs and concerns of child victims should be presented and considered in proceedings where their personal interests are affected.
Judgments and court rulings affecting children, and options for any further action, should be explained to them in language adapted to the child’s level of understanding.
Participation in service design and delivery
Children and young people should be meaningfully involved in the design, development and delivery of policies and services that affect their access to justice.
Professionals working in the justice system should feel empowered to influence the design and delivery of child-centred legal and justice services.
Source: (Council of Europe, 2010[9]), Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on child-friendly justice, https://rm.coe.int/16804b2cf3; (OHCHR, 2000[84]), Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/optional-protocol-convention-rights-child-sale-children-child; (LIKUMI, 2018[50]), Law on Administrative Liability, section 53, part 6, https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/303007-law-on-administrative-liability.
Low awareness of rights and services is one of the main reasons why young people may not fully resolve their justice problems and seek out the help they need. (Kenrick and Palmer, 2016[85]) Children need to be informed of their rights and where they can seek support and assistance when needed so that they can protect themselves from violations of their rights, manage their legal problems and provide support to their peers. For example, 56 % of LNS for children in Latvia respondents indicated that they neither agree nor disagree with the statement that it is easy to get help when they have a legal problem. This suggests that many respondents do not have a firm understanding of the justice system in Latvia, either because they have not have been in contact with the Justice system or their is a lack of there is a lack of communication and awareness about children’s right and services. Ultimately, more children participation and adequate monitoring would help collect meaningful information to adapt and improve service delivery.
Children’s right to participate is not only a fundamental right, but also one of the guiding principles of the UNCRC which sets out children’s rights to receive information and to be heard. Article 12 provides that children who can form their own views have the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting them, with their views being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity. Further, they have the right to be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting them, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law. (LIKUMI, 1998[11]) (United Nations, 2009[86])8687
Internationally, there is a trend away from a paternalistic approach to the implementation of Article 12, which states that professionals may speak on behalf of children, and towards a more autonomous approach in which children are heard directly or with the support in hearings of a guardian ad litem or other trusted support person.
The 2021 World Congress on Justice with Children called on all relevant stakeholders, including states and the civil society, to:
“16. Work hand-in-hand, as children and adults, to achieve equal, non-discriminatory, and inclusive access to justice for all children around the world, in a manner that partners with children as experts and central players in the pursuit of positive change, including in the normative framing of child justice and access to justice, the building and reform of legal and regulatory frameworks, the operation of systems and implementation of procedures, the capacity-building of relevant actors, and the enforced accountability of duty-bearers, communities, and the wider society;
17. Improve the enabling environment for children as rights-holders to act as agents of change, and amplify the voices of today and of the future, by providing child-friendly, gender-sensitive, and disability-inclusive guidance and information about the law and legal procedures, improving the public understanding of children’s rights for children and adults alike, pursuing child-targeted communication in a manner that is most effective for reaching children, and ensuring inclusive and accessible approaches to participation for children of all backgrounds and situations, including all children in contact with the law;
18. Mandate child participation in the law and enforce this law to ensure that children are seated at the table, rather than merely encouraging child participation and engaging with children passively and solely as subjects of consultations, especially for the groups of children in contact with the law who are often excluded from the discussions due to discrimination, marginalisation, vulnerability, or the precarious situations they are in.”
Source: (Justice with Children, 2021[87])The 2021 World Congress on Justice With Children Global Declaration On Justice With Children www.justicewithchildren.org
4.7.1. Information about and awareness of rights
The LPCR stipulates that schools should ensure that children have the opportunity to acquire basic knowledge of children’s rights and responsibilities (LIKUMI, 1998[11]).88 Details of the curriculum to be taught in schools are set out in regulations (Cabinet of Ministers Republic of Latvia, 2018[88]). By the end of the third grade, students are expected to understand some basic concepts about democracy, including why societies need rules, and how rights and responsibilities can help create a safe environment for oneself and others. By the end of the 6th grade, students should have learned about children’s rights and responsibilities under the LPCR and be able to understand the purpose of laws and how they can contribute to people's well-being. By the end of the 9th grade, students should have learned about Latvia’s Constitution, the roles of government, parliament and the judiciary in a modern democratic society, the hierarchy of regulatory enactments, the fundamental role of human rights in the modern understanding of the rule of law, and how to recognise and prevent human rights abuses (Cabinet of Ministers Republic of Latvia, 2018[88]).89 In addition, the curriculum contains requirements and expectations covering pupils’ learning about: relationships; dealing with unsafe situations; how the principles of equality can help reduce inequality, violence and conflicts; (Cabinet of Ministers Republic of Latvia, 2018[88])90 and the benefits of participation in society and decision-making. (Cabinet of Ministers Republic of Latvia, 2018[88])91
The quality of rights education in schools is of a key importance in equipping children with the information they might need in the event their rights are violated. Yet stakeholders considered that there was generally low awareness of children’s rights amongst children, parents and wider society.
Both the Ombuds Office and the State Inspectorate have mandates that include informing the public about children’s rights (Cabinet of Ministers Republic of Latvia, 2018[88]).92 The Ombuds Office has published a child-friendly version of the LPCR on its website. (Ombudsman's Office of the Republic of Latvia, n.d.[89]) Staff from its Children’s Rights Department have conducted work to educate children about their rights and to raise children’s awareness of the Ombuds Office’s complaints mechanism, reaching more children since the beginning of the pandemic than usual through the delivery of online sessions on specific child rights topics. In addition, work is ongoing to develop a child rights council to inform the Ombuds Office’s work on children’s rights. The State Inspectorate has published some basic information about children’s rights on its website (State Inspectorate for Protection of Children's Rights, 2011[31]) and a number of booklets. (State Inspectorate for Protection of Children's Rights, 2020[90]) There is also some basic information about children’s rights on the website of the Child and Adolescent Helpline, though all state institutions have a duty to inform children provided that they are specialised in children’s issues. (State Inspectorate for Protection of Children's Rights, n.d.[30])
The current provision of information and education on children’s rights in Latvia has been insufficient by NGOs. It was also noted that there is scope to enhance its relevance, attractiveness and interactivity as well as to involve children and young people in the delivery of programmes (Latvian Child Welfare Network, n.d.[58])
As in many other countries, efforts in Latvia are still in their early stages to develop children and young people’s legal capability by providing education and information about rights, responsibilities, justice services and democratic systems. Nevertheless, the inclusion of rights education in the school curriculum provides a promising foundation for teaching children many key concepts. Efforts made by the State Inspectorate and the Ombuds Office to develop informational materials and educational programmes for children on their rights should focus on outreach to ensure vulnerable children are aware of their rights, responsibilities and the services available to them. It is to be hoped that ongoing initiatives continue to develop, through co-design with young people and by harnessing the skills of NGOs, so that they become more relevant, interactive and accessible to marginalised young people. It is important to ensure that the responsibilities and services of the Ombuds Office and the State Inspectorate complement each other’s so that resources can be used efficiently.
4.7.2. Participation before, during and after proceedings
Law
As mentioned earlier the LPCR defines children’s right to participate in legal proceedings. For example, children have the right to freely express their opinion, the right to receive and impart any kind of information, and the right to be heard, amongst other provisions (Cabinet Ministers Republic of Latvia, 2010[91]).93
In civil and administrative proceedings, there is not yet a full guarantee of participation for children are not fully guaranteed to be able to participate in legal dealings pertaining to them. The LPCR stipulates that an opportunity to be heard is provided to the child in any litigation or administrative proceedings related to him or her either directly or via his or her legal representative or the relevant institution (LIKUMI, 1998[11]).94 However, the regulations provide for representation of the child by a lawful representative or an institution, such as the Orphan’s and Custody Court (LIKUMI, 1937[46]) (LIKUMI, 2018[50]), (LIKUMI, 1999[51]) (LIKUMI, 2018[50])95 meaning that children’s rights to be informed and to be heard may be mediated by a representative rather than exercised directly. Further, the court is only required to invite children who have reached the age of 15, and have been deemed to have capacity to act, to participate in proceedings; whilst children under the age of seven and children with disabilities affecting their capacity cannot be heard as witnesses. (LIKUMI, 1999[51]) (LIKUMI, 2018[50])96 The procedures set out in law differ slightly in civil cases concerning custody, access and adoption, where the opinion of the child is usually sought, although this can be clarified by the child’s representative where the child is unable to express their point of view directly. (LIKUMI, 1999[51])97
As noted, in criminal proceedings, child victims have the right to participate in court proceedings and are represented by a representative or an institution, (LIKUMI, 1998[73])98 such as the Orphan’s and Custody Court. The representative of the child acquires all their rights and may participate in proceedings alongside the child. (LIKUMI, 1998[73])99 Child victims are not entitled to exercise these rights independently. Children under 15 may provide witness testimony and express their views to the court, but must otherwise be represented by their representative acting on their behalf. For children over 15, the representative shall represent the interests of the child victims together with them. (LIKUMI, 1999[92])100 Child victims must also be provided with legal assistance in sexual violence cases and in cases where violence has been committed by a person upon whom the minor victim is financially or otherwise dependent. (LIKUMI, 1999[92])101
Practice: the reality in the courtroom
Interviews with stakeholders revealed that children are not systematically asked for their views at any stage of proceedings. For individual children, the experience of professionals not fully listening to them can start with social workers in the Orphan’s and Custody Courts or children’s homes and continue with judges in court hearings. Often, adults may mediate the child’s views and make decisions about protecting them without involving them. Judges reported that they did not have any written materials that they could give to children to inform them about the court’s procedures.
In civil proceedings in particular, and criminal cases involving child victims, children are rarely heard directly. Whilst older teenagers are more likely to be allowed to speak for themselves without an intermediary, it is common for the court to rely entirely on the child’s representative or the Orphan’s and Custody Court to present the child’s opinion on their behalf. Yet these adults appear to have the discretion to put forward whatever views that they deem relevant. Where children have legal representation, the sworn attorneys acting on their behalf are reported to consult with parents rather than speaking with the child directly.
Some judges reported that they had never or only rarely heard a child in the courtroom. Judges said they were reticent to ask children to express their views in hearings as their training highlighted the risks of re-traumatising children in an unknown environment and the potential unhelpful influence of parents on children’s testimony. Judges therefore tend to rely instead on the evidence from the Orphan’s and Custody Court and believe this to be sufficient in most cases.
In 2017, the Latvian Child Welfare Network reported that focus group discussions with children and professionals highlighted challenges in ascertaining and then considering the child's view. There were many cases where neither the child's view, nor that of their representative, was elicited or considered, including in cases related to the custody or care of the child and the adoption process. (Latvian Child Welfare Network, n.d.[58])
The absence of children’s voice in hearings can leave judges themselves unsure whether the court has fully understood the family’s situation and, therefore, made the right decision for the children involved. Judges seemed open to the idea of interviewing children themselves, outside the courtroom and in the presence of a psychologist or a trusted person, if they deemed this necessary or if a child expressed a wish to meet with them. However, they indicated that there were few if any suitable places within court buildings for interviewing children. They also noted the lack of support staff such as psychologists who could help them prepare for the interview.
At the end of proceedings, there may not even be anyone to explain the court’s decision to children using child-friendly language. Judges reported that they are not provided with the tools and resources that would enable them to do this.
4.7.3. Guardians ad litem
A guardian ad litem is a trusted ‘support person’ appointed by an independent court to act as an advocate to ensure that the best interests of the most vulnerable groups including minors, elderly people, or legally incompetent people are represented during court proceedings (Boumil, Feritas and Feritas, 2011[93]). The role of guardian ad litem has been introduced in many countries to ensure the child’s authentic opinion is presented before the courts and other competent authorities. For example, Germany and Sweden introduced clearer definitions for the roles and responsibilities of regional authorities for the protection of unaccompanied children. Bulgaria, Hungary and Italy provided guardians with more independence. Moreover, Bulgaria, Denmark, Malta and Slovenia assigned courts a stronger role by enhancing procedural safeguards. Finally, Greece, Italy, Malta, Poland and Slovenia focussed on providing training to guardians. (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2022[94])
In Latvia, the Orphan’s and Custody Court may appoint a special guardian in administrative proceedings to act in the child’s best interest and represent their rights in cases where there is a concern that the interests of the child's parent might clash with the child's best interests. The role of the special guardian is to help children form their opinion and clarify their opinion to the court. A major drawback of the scheme is that The Orphan’s and Custody Court will usually appoint their own staff members as special guardians, a practice that the Supreme Court said, on several occasions, was problematic. (Latvian Child Welfare Network, 2017[39])102
It is important that any guardians or trustworthy persons be independent of the court, the Orphan’s and Custody Court and social services so that they can act in the best interests of children and help them navigate between institutions.
4.7.4. Participation in service design and delivery
The LPCR provides for children to take part in the development and implementation of programmes for the protection of the rights of the child. (LIKUMI, 1998[11])103 In addition, the Latvian Youth Law, adopted in 2008, defines the rights of children and young people to participate in civic affairs. Opportunities should be provided to young people to participate in the work of state and local government authorities and to participate in discussions of local government regarding decisions affecting youths before those decisions go into effect. (Parliament of the Republic of Latvia, 2008[95]) In addition, participation was one of the three key strands of the Youth Policy Implementation Plan 2016–2020. (Cabinet Ministers Republic of Latvia, 2016[96])
Despite the regulatory and policy basis for children and young people’s participation in policy development, it has not been possible to find evidence of recent efforts to ensure the inclusion of young people’s voices into recent policy-making processes at the national level. For example, it is noted that children and young people were not directly consulted on (or involved in) the drafting of ‘Guidelines for Development of Children, Youth and Family for 2022-2027’. However, it was mentioned that there are examples of good practices in youth participation in decision-making at local government level.
The European Child Guarantee, which was introduced by the European Commission, was piloted for a period of 24 months in Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania and Spain and ended in July 2022. The purpose of the programme was to determine how to implement the European Child Guarantee at the European level. To that end:
Bulgaria collaborated with the National Network for Children (NNC), an umbrella organisation for NGOs for children and a member of Eurochild to select pilot districts and identify local partners composed of children and young people to evaluate existing health services. In the meantime, UNICEF and NNC held its first national consultations with young people in May 2021.
Greece reviewed child and youth participation, which was carried out by a Technical Working Group. UNICEF involved children’s voices in the development of national de-institutionalisation action plan, by integrating the results of consultations with children and young people in the deinstitutionalisation conference.
Croatia organised meetings with the Roma youth organisation and planned additional activities in order to involve children’s and young people’s voices in the service design and implementation at the national and municipal levels.
Italy founded the Child Guarantee Children Advisory Board and improved children’s participation in governmental decision-making in addition to promoting participation via the use of U-Report.
Source: (UNICEF, 2021[97]), The European Child Guarantee,
While it seems that the benefits of young people’s involvement in the design and development of policy and services are acknowledged and even actively promoted, it has not been possible to ascertain whether or not children and young people have been involved at all in the design and development of justice services, or in the development of practices regarding the implementation of the rights of the child and child-friendly justice. In accordance with stakeholder interviews, there is still scope to deepen this practice.
Determining a service model and the types of services that will work best for responding to the specific needs of children requires careful planning in collaboration with other (local) services to ensure their co-ordination and integration. A key principle for ensuring that service models are seamless and integrated is to design those services around the needs of children and young people, not around the needs of institutions. In order to fully understand children’s legal needs, it is crucial to conduct in-depth research, learn from existing international models and work with children and young people while designing the services. Joined-up services or one-stop-shops are important forms of service integration and seamless referral services, best exemplified by problem-solving judicial or non-judicial initiatives such as the Barnahus model (see Chapter 5).
There is no clearly-defined model of institutional co-operation in the provision of services to children in Latvia. The LPCR sets out the obligation of the state and local government to support the family. There are several stakeholders at the national and municipal levels. Each develop services in their specific fields leading to a fragmentation of co-ordination and services for users.
Service provision in Latvia falls heavily on municipalities that have a duty to provide for the education of residents, to ensure access to health care, to ensure social assistance (social care), to take care of guardianship, trusteeship, adoption, to protect the personal and property rights and interests of a child and to implement the protection of children’s rights in the relevant administrative territory.
According to Section 11, Part 2 of the Law on Social Services and Social Assistance (LIKUMI, 2002[14]) ,a local government Social Service Office provides social services or organises the provision of services to identify circumstances that are unfavourable to the development of the child, foster families and guardians. To fulfil this task, the municipality may establish an institution with specialists in various fields that are composed of social workers, psychologists, social pedagogues, pedagogues, social rehabilitators among others. Alternatively, an agreement may be signed to provide support services.
In 2017, Regulation No. 338 of the Cabinet of Ministers entitled “Requirements for Social Service Providers” was issued based on section 17 and part 2 of the Law on Social Services and Social Assistance and section 37, part 7 of the LPCR.
Section 103.1 of the regulation states that when carrying out social rehabilitation of a child, the social rehabilitation institution shall co-operate with the Orphan’s and Custody Court, educational institutions, institutions for the protection of the rights of the children, the Office of the Prosecutor, the police, other social service providers and medical treatment institutions in order to ascertain the illegal acts carried out against the child and to prevent potential subsequent illegal acts.
Regulation No. 1613 of the Cabinet of Ministers entitled “Procedures for Providing the Necessary Assistance to a Child who has Suffered from Illegal Activities” (2010) prescribes the procedures by which the assistance shall be provided to a child who is a victim of illegal activities in order that the child may regain physical and mental health and reintegrate into society. Section 14 of the regulation obliges the Ministry of Welfare to sign a delegation contract with the NGO “Foundation for Children of Latvia” regarding the provision of social rehabilitation services. If necessary, the Foundation for Children of Latvia shall choose other providers of social services registered in the “Register of Social Service Providers” and shall establish contracts with them.
Provision of social rehabilitation services shall be coordinated by the social service office of the local government, on the basis of a submission of the parent or guardian of the child, the head of the institution, the foster family, or the Orphan’s and Custody Court regarding the necessity to grant social rehabilitation services to the child, specifying the type of violence the child has suffered and where it has taken place. An opinion of a psychologist or a social worker and an extract from the inpatient or outpatient medical treatment card regarding the treatment and medical rehabilitation received can also function as a basis of provision of social services as specified in section 11 of the regulation.
The Foundation for Children of Latvia is obliged to maintain a database regarding the provision of social rehabilitation services at the place of residence, institution and social rehabilitation institution to children who have suffered from violence and to provide information to the Ministry of Welfare regarding the amount of social rehabilitation services provided and about the state funding used.
Source: (LIKUMI, 2002[14]), The Law on Social Services and Social Assistance, https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/68488.
However, there is no requirement for a municipality to have a person or institution that coordinates the activities of all respective institutions - the Orphan’s and Custody Court, education institutions, social service, municipal police, and healthcare providers. As there is no mandatory children’s rights protection person in place, most often social services are the entity that manages the child’s case. However, since the social services in Latvia primarily work with the whole family, often the interests of the child can be neglected or even a conflict of interest could arise for the social worker as the interests of the child may not be in the interest of the whole family (e.g., child victim of sexual abuse within the family). Stakeholders reported that the absence of a single coordinating body can pose the same kind of significant challenges to the municipal level as it is encountered at the state level, which results in limited clarity about the roles and responsibilities. It was reported that sometimes roles overlapped, and in other instances, there were gaps in services. Each municipality approaches service gaps differently. While there are co-operation groups to solve specific cases in inter-institutional meetings, there are municipalities that meet in co-operation groups a couple of times a year and solve general issues related to children’s rights. However, inter-institutional meetings are being organised more and more frequently. They are usually organised by social services or the Orphan’s and Custody Court. The professionals that are involved in the child’s life are invited to those meetings. The responsiveness of the participants varies in different municipalities. Sometimes it is difficult to involve representatives of the criminal police, but in general the situation is improving.
Currently, the State Inspectorate is working on piloting the child’s support specialist institution which would be provided with the coordinating function in cases of child abuse or in cases that involve children with behavioural difficulties. At the initial pilot stage, the institution is planning to provide services to children from foster families. The State Inspectorate plans to extend services to all children later on if the services prove their effectiveness during the pilot case.
In addition, several interviewees cited weak inter-institutional co-operation as one of the main reasons for the fragmentation of services and one of the main barriers to improving the effectiveness of child protection services. Common themes included:
Uneven professional practices, with some professionals failing to report or act upon reports of cases where children’s rights had been violated;
A culture of blame, leading to professionals not being involved out of fear of being blamed;
The bottlenecks and challenges appear to be persistent across and between services, at all stages of the process. There is uneven co-operation between law enforcement and social institutions, which can often lead to investigations and social rehabilitation processes proceeding without mutual interaction. In these cases, there is limited responsibility by one case manager who would take care of the child’s interests in the process. Similarly, co-operation between social services and psychologists on the one hand and the police and prosecutors on the other appeared to be uneven, particularly in smaller municipalities where social services are less likely to engage fully with the criminal prosecution process, leading to delays in the provision of evidence. Limited involvement of social services in criminal proceedings was reported being due to lack of their identification as a participant in the law.
Health services were identified as unsatisfactory, with small number of doctors reporting cases of abuse and violence. For example, 22% of LNS for Children respondents indicated that they face difficulties accessing a doctor or a psychologist/psychotherapist.104 In addition, interview results revealed that barriers included doctors’ reluctance to get involved in time-consuming bureaucracy and proceedings; their fear of retribution from angry parents of victims; their lack of trust in other professionals; and lack of consequences for doctors who failed to report cases. The situation differs in health institutions, however. For example, the State Children’s Hospital has strong guidelines and procedures in place on how to react to suspicions of violence, whom to report and when. In contrast, when doctors wanted to be kept informed about the progress of cases in which they had been involved, they reported that they rarely received any information.
In addition, it remains unclear how the relationships between the police and prosecutors are structured. There are some accounts of excellent co-operation, whilst others suggested co-operation had reduced due to a reform process of the prosecution service. After taking office in 2020, the new Prosecutor General merged district level prosecutors’ offices. The judicial process was reported to be often ineffective and confusing, particularly in civil proceedings, due to the limited co-ordination between professionals working with each family and due to contradictory rulings in separate proceedings on family issues. In addition, children can be re-traumatised by retelling their story to different professionals in different places and at different times. Another reported bottleneck is linked to the lack of co-operation between institutions that affect the quality of the investigations conducted by the Ombuds Office.
Despite the strong foundations provided by legislation and joint planning structures, some challenges persist at the level of professional practice. Some institutions appear to lack an understanding of the role of one another and trust in one another. Stronger inter-institutional co-operation between social services and the police is needed, as this is a key relationship within the overall child protection system. Under-reporting of cases of abuse and violence by doctors and medical institutions, and failure of institutions to co-operate with the Ombuds Office’s investigations were reported. Some of these issues require strong leadership within the child protection system and clarity in each institution’s role to avoid overlaps than can result in children, or other users, feeling overwhelmed.
To address this issue, as noted, Latvia is looking to implement the Barnahus integrated service model to improve the child protection system. A special focus on this initiative is developed in Chapter 5. While this reform is commendable, overall bottlenecks still need to be addressed such as longer commitment to state funding, and to an integrated approach to medical and legal services.
References
[93] Boumil, M., C. Feritas and D. Feritas (2011), “Legal and Ethical Issue Confronting Guardian ad Litem Practice”, Journal of Law and Family Studies, Vol. 13, p. 43.
[81] Cabinet Ministers Republc of Latvia (2018), Procedure for conducting forensic medical examination, https://likumi.lv/ta/id/303647-tiesmediciniskas-ekspertizes-veiksanas-kartiba.
[15] Cabinet Ministers Republic of Latvia (2022), Regulation Regarding the Procedures by Which the Victims of the Trafficking in Human Beings Receive Social Rehabilitation Service, http://cab-reg-no-344-regulations-regarding-procedures-which-victims-trafficking-human-beings-receive-social-rehabilitation-service-and-criteria-.
[96] Cabinet Ministers Republic of Latvia (2016), Youth Policy Implementation Plan 2016 – 2020, https://likumi.lv/ta/id/281546-par-jaunatnes-politikas-istenosanas-planu-2016-2020-gadam.
[24] Cabinet Ministers Republic of Latvia (2014), Procedures by which the Police shall Ascertain whether a Child has Special Needs, Invite a Competent Specialist and Ensure the Conditions for Satisfying Special Needs of a Child, https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/266339.
[91] Cabinet Ministers Republic of Latvia (2010), Procedures for Providing the Necessary Assistance to a Child Who Has Suffered from Illegal Activities, https://www.mk.gov.lv/en.
[88] Cabinet of Ministers Republic of Latvia (2018), Regulations on national primary education standards and sample primary education programs, https://m.likumi.lv/doc.php?id=303768.
[53] Cabinet of Ministers Republic of Latvia (2009), Regulations Regarding the Eligibility of Persons for State Ensured Legal Aid, https://likumi.lv/ta/en/id/202841-regulations-regarding-the-eligibility-of-persons-for-state-ensured-legal-aid-taking-into-account-their-state-of-property-and-income-level.
[4] Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia (2021), Bērni Latvijā 2021 / Children in Latvia 2021, https://static.lsm.lv/documents/1bu.pdf.
[8] Chapman, P. et al. (2021), Grasping the Justice Gap: Opportunities and Challenges for People-Centered Justice Data, https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/publications/working-papers/grasping-justice-gap.
[27] Child Helpline International (n.d.), Child Helpline International, https://childhelplineinternational.org/.
[12] Child Rights International Network (2016), Access to Justice for Children: Latvia, https://home.crin.org/childrens-rights-landing-page.
[43] Child Rights International Network (CRIN) (n.d.), Examples of legal assistance that has helped Children, https://archive.crin.org/en/home/law/legal-assistance/examples-legal-assistance-has-helped-children.html (accessed on 9 March 2023).
[10] Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia (2020), Article 110 of the Satversme, https://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/en/press-release/a-provision-that-envisages-the-right-to-a-childs-father-to-a-leave-in-relation-to-the-birth-of-a-child-is-incompatible-with-the-first-sentence-of-article-110-of-the-satversme-insofar-it-does/#:~:text=The%20fi.
[18] Council of Europe (2019), Country-specific monitoring of the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, https://www.coe.int/en/web/minorities/country-specific-monitoring (accessed on 9 March 2023).
[20] Council of Europe (2018), Evaluation of the Latvia justice system, https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/cooperation-programmes/evaluation-of-the-latvian-justice-system.
[9] Council of Europe (2010), Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on child-friendly justice, https://rm.coe.int/16804b2cf3.
[26] Council of Europe (2010), Passport to your rights, https://rm.coe.int/passport-for-your-rights-eng/1680a35876.
[34] Council of Europe and European Commission (2009), Questionnaire “Information” Latvia, https://pjp-eu.coe.int/documents/42128013/47261575/Latvia.pdf/61bfdabb-31aa-47bd-a5b7-bd4c2596f6ca.
[61] Dardedze (n.d.), Dads can! Educational Support programme for fathers, https://centrsdardedze.lv/en/pakalpojumi/dads-can-educational-support-programme-for-fathers/.
[59] Dardedze (n.d.), Dzimba Safety Program, https://centrsdardedze.lv/berniem/.
[60] Dardedze (n.d.), Guardian Angel - an educational support program for parents, https://centrsdardedze.lv/pakalpojumi/sargengelis-izglitojosa-atbalsta-programma-vecakiem/.
[62] Dardeze (n.d.), Preventive program A safe and friendly kindergarten for the child, https://centrsdardedze.lv/pakalpojumi/preventiva-programma-bernam-dross-un-draudzigs-bernudarzs/.
[64] DROSS Internets.lv (n.d.), DROSS Internets.lv, https://drossinternets.lv/.
[7] ECPAT International (2017), Global monitoring: status of action against sexual exploitation of children: Republic of Latvia.
[67] ENGLSM.lv (n.d.), Free mental health checkpoint for youth to open in Rīga, https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/health/free-mental-health-checkpoint-for-youth-to-open-in-riga.a423260/.
[79] EUR-Lex (2013), Directive 2013/45/EU, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir_impl/2013/45/oj.
[19] European Commission (2023), Legal translators / interpreters - Latvia, https://e-justice.europa.eu/116/EN/legal_translatorsinterpreters?LATVIA&member=1.
[16] European Commission (2018), National Identity, Civil Society and Integration Policy Implementation Plan 2019-2020, https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/library-document/national-identity-civil-society-and-integration-policy-implementation-plan-2019_en.
[6] European Commission (2018), Specific Support to Latvia: The Latvian Research Funding System, https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/statistics/policy-support-facility/specific-support-latvia.
[94] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2022), Guardianship Systems for Unaccompanied Children in the European Union, https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2022-guardianship-systems-developments_en.pdf.
[54] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2017), Child Friendly-justice: Perspectives and experiences of children involved in judicial proceedings as victims, witnesses or praties in nine EU Member States, https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2017-child-friendly-justice-children-s-perspective_en.pdf.
[28] European Youth Information and Counselling Agency (ERYICA) (n.d.), Welcome to ERYICA, https://www.eryica.org/ (accessed on 9 March 2023).
[52] Fair Trials Initiative (2015), Criminal Proceedings And Defence Rights In Latvia, https://www.fairtrials.org/app/uploads/2022/01/Latvia-Notes-of-Advice-on-Criminal-Proceedings-and-Defence-Rights-in-Latvia.pdf.
[37] Family Law Brtish Colombia Canada (n.d.), Child and Youth Legal Centre, https://family.legalaid.bc.ca/visit/child-and-youth-legal-centre.
[87] Justice with Children (2021), The 2021 World Congress on Justice With Children: Global Declaration On Justice With Children, http://www.justicewithchildren.org.
[38] Kenrick, J. (2009), Young people’s access to advice – the evidence.
[85] Kenrick, J. and E. Palmer (2016), Access to Justice for Young People: Beyond the Policies and Politics of Austerity. In: Access to Justice Beyond the Policies and Politics of Austerity, https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/access-to-justice-9781849467346/.
[66] Konstantinovs, N. and J. Lapa (2021), “The impact of COVID-19 on young people’s mental health in latvia”, European Psychiatry, Vol. 64/S1, pp. S296-S296, https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2021.794.
[83] Kronberga, I., and Logina, E. (2019), Development of Victim’s Rights in Europe: Latvia, https://www.at.gov.lv/files/uploads/files/7_Resursi/Petijumi/LTMC-Noziegumos%20cietusie%2C2019.pdf.
[68] Kronberga, I. and J. Zermatten (2012), child-friendly Justice in Latvia: Focusing on Crime Prevention, Providus, http://pdc.ceu.hu/archive/00006545/01/PROVIDUS_Child-friendly-justice-in-Latvia_2012.pdf.
[39] Latvian Child Welfare Network (2017), Well-being and welfare of children in Baltic countries: Study report and recommendations, http://www.bernulabklajiba.lv/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Children-Well-Being-in-Baltic-Countries_Report_2017_final.pdf.
[58] Latvian Child Welfare Network (n.d.), About us, https://www.bernulabklajiba.lv/about-us/ (accessed on 2 March 2023).
[21] Leimane-Veldmeijere, I., et al. (2015), Access to Justice for Children with Mental Disabilities in Latvia, RC Zelda, Latvia, http://www.zelda.org.lv/en.
[70] LIKUMI (2019), Plan for the protection of minors from criminal offences against morality and sexual inviolability for 2019-2020, https://likumi.lv/ta/id/307955-par-planu-nepilngadigo-aizsardzibai-no-noziedzigiem-nodarijumiem-pret-tikumibu-un-dzimumneaizskaramibu-2019-2020-gadam.
[78] LIKUMI (2018), About the Mother and Child Health Improvement Plan 2018-2020. for the year, https://likumi.lv/ta/id/299503-par-mates-un-berna-veselibas-uzlabosanas-planu-2018-2020-gadam.
[50] LIKUMI (2018), Law on Administrative Liability, https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/303007-law-on-administrative-liability.
[80] LIKUMI (2016), Law on forensic experts, https://likumi.lv/ta/id/280576-tiesu-ekspertu-likums.
[41] LIKUMI (2006), Law of the Ombudsman, https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=133535.
[74] LIKUMI (2006), Law on State Compensation to Victims, http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=136683.
[82] LIKUMI (2006), The Law on the Orphan’s and Custody Courts in Latvia, https://likumi.lv/ta/id/139369-barintiesu-likums.
[48] LIKUMI (2005), Criminal Procedure Law, https://likumi.lv/ta/en/id/107820-criminal-procedure-law.
[49] LIKUMI (2004), Administrative Procedure Law, https://likumi.lv/ta/id/55567-administrativa-procesa-likums.
[14] LIKUMI (2002), Law on Social Services and Social Assistance, https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/68488.
[13] LIKUMI (2002), The Law on Social Services and Social Assistance.
[51] LIKUMI (1999), Civil Procedure Law, https://likumi.lv/ta/id/50500-civilprocesa-likums.
[92] LIKUMI (1999), Criminal Law of Latvia, https://likumi.lv/ta/id/88966-kriminallikums.
[73] LIKUMI (1998), Criminal Law of Latvia, https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/88966.
[11] LIKUMI (1998), Law on Protection of the Children’s Rights and Civil Law, https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/49096-law-on-the-protection-of-the-childrens-rights.
[47] LIKUMI (1998), The Law on the Protection of Children’s Rights, https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/49096.
[46] LIKUMI (1937), Civil Law of Latvia, https://likumi.lv/ta/en/id/225418-the-civil-law.
[72] LIKUMI (1922), The Constitution of the Republic of Latvia, https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/57980.
[71] Linde-Ozola, Z. (2019), Overview of programs for the prevention of child sexual abuse in Latvia, University of Latvia. Centrs Dardedze.
[63] MARTA Centre (n.d.), Since 2010, MARTA has been actively working with young people aged 12 to 18, creating and conducting classes in schools and youth centers throughout Latvia, https://marta.lv/lv/marta-darbiba/jaunatnes-programmas/kops-2010-gada-marta-aktivi-strada-ar-jauniesiem-vecuma-no-12-lidz-18-gadiem-veidojot-un-vadot-nodarbibas-skolas-un-jauniesu-centros-visa-latvija-30/.
[22] Mental Disability Advocacy (2015), Barriers children with mental disabilities face in accessing justice in Latvia, http://www.mdac.org/accessing-justice-children.
[57] Ministry of Interior Latvia (2021), A common institutional architecture is needed in the field of juvenile delinquency and the protection of children’s rights, https://lvportals.lv/dienaskartiba/326824-girgens-nepilngadigo-noziedzibas-un-bernu-tiesibu-aizsardzibas-joma-javeido-vienota-institucionala-arhitektura-2021.
[45] Ministry of Justice Republic of Latvia (2021), Amendments to the law necessary to reform the orphans’ and custody courts have entered into force, https://www.tm.gov.lv/en/article/amendments-law-necessary-reform-orphans-and-custody-courts-have-entered-force?utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F.
[5] Ministry of Welfare of Lativa (2020), 2020 public review of the State Inspectorate for the Protection of Children’s Rights, https://www.bti.gov.lv/lv/jaunums/valsts-bernu-tiesibu-aizsardzibas-inspekcijas-2020-gada-publiskais-parskats.
[56] Ministry of Welfare of Latvia (n.d.), Latvian policy planning documents, https://www.lm.gov.lv/lv/latvijas-politikas-planosanas-dokumenti.
[1] OECD (2021), OECD Criteria for people-centred design and delivery of legal and justice services, https://www.oecd.org/governance/global-roundtables-access-to-justice/oecd-criteria-for-people-centred-design-and-delivery-of-legal-and-justice-services.pdf.
[55] OECD (2021), OECD Framework and Good Practice Principles for People-Centred Justice, OECD, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdc3bde7-en.
[76] OECD (2019), 2019 Global OECD Roundtable on Equal Access to Justice 27 – 28 March 2019, Lisbon, Portugal, https://www.oecd.org/gov/summary-record-2019-global-oecd-roundtable-on-equal-access-to-justice.pdf.
[3] OECD forthcoming (2023), OECD Framework for Child-friendly Justice (forthcoming).
[2] OECD/Open Society Foundations (2019), Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice, OECD, https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9a36c-en.
[23] OHCHR (2017), CRPD/C/LVA/CO/1: Concluding observations in relation to the initial report of Latvia, https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/concluding-observations/crpdclvaco1-concluding-observations-relation-initial-report.
[75] OHCHR (2016), CRC/C/LVA/CO/3-5: Concluding observations on the third to fifth periodic reports of Latvia, https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/concluding-observations/crcclvaco3-5-concluding-observations-third-fifth-periodic-reports.
[84] OHCHR (2000), Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/optional-protocol-convention-rights-child-sale-children-child.
[44] Ombudsman Of the Republic Of Latvia (2020), Annual Report, https://www.tiesibsargs.lv/uploads/content/tiesibsargs_2020_gada_zinojums_final_1613044295.pdf.
[40] Ombudsman Office of the Republic of Latvia (n.d.), I would like to submit a complaint / suggestion, https://www.tiesibsargs.lv/.
[89] Ombudsman’s Office of the Republic of Latvia (n.d.), Child-friendly version of the Law on the Protection of Children’s Rights, https://www.tiesibsargs.lv/wp-content/uploads/migrate_2022/content/bernutiesibas_makets_1567774640.pdf.
[65] Papardes zieds (n.d.), Papardes zieds, https://papardeszieds.lv/.
[95] Parliament of the Republic of Latvia (2008), Youth Law of the Republic of Latvia, https://www.saeima.lv/en/about-saeima/the-parliament-of-latvia.
[77] Police of Latvia (2020), Public health guidelines for 2014-2020, http://polsis.mk.gov.lv/documents/4965.
[69] SAFEGE Baltija (2018), Ex-post evaluation report of the Family Policy Guidelines 2011-2017 of Latvia, https://www.lm.gov.lv/lv/media/4513/download.
[90] State Inspectorate for Protection of Children’s Rights (2020), Booklets on Children’s Rights, https://www.bti.gov.lv/lv/bukleti (accessed on 14 March 2023).
[31] State Inspectorate for Protection of Children’s Rights (2011), Rights and obligations of the child, https://www.bti.gov.lv/lv/lasit-vairak.
[30] State Inspectorate for Protection of Children’s Rights (n.d.), Child and Adolescent Helpline, https://uzticibastalrunis.lv/noderiga-informacija/#1610094853118-e68d47f4-6ee4.
[33] State Inspectorate for Protection of Children’s Rights Republic of Latvia (n.d.), Children Helpline, https://www.bti.gov.lv/en/children-helpline.
[42] State Inspectorate for the Protection of Children’s Rights (2022), Almost 500 reports of violations of children’s rights were received last year, https://www.bti.gov.lv/lv/jaunums/pern-sanemti-gandriz-500-zinojumi-par-bernu-tiesibu-parkapumiem.
[32] State Police Republic of Latvia (n.d.), Mana drosiba, https://www.manadrosiba.lv/.
[97] UNICEF (2021), The European Child Guarantee, https://www.unicef.org/eca/media/16471/file/Programmatic%20Update%202%20on%20Phase%20III%20of%20Child%20Guarantee.pdf.
[29] UNICEF (2018), Guidelines on Child-friendly Legal Aid, https://www.unicef.org/eca/media/5171/file.
[17] United Nations (2016), Report of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on its 66th, 67th, 68th, 69th, 70th & 71st Sessions, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=A%2F71%2F41&Lang=en.
[86] United Nations (2009), General comment no. 12 (2009), The right of the child to be heard, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/671444?ln=en.
[25] White, R. et al. (2021), “Court accommodations for persons with severe communication disabilities: A legal scoping review.”, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 27/3, pp. 399-420, https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000289.
[35] Youth Access (n.d.), Youth Access’ ‘YIACS’ model in the UK, https://www.youthaccess.org.uk/our-work/yiacs-model.
[36] Youth Legal UK (n.d.), Youth Legal, https://www.youthlegal.org.uk/about.
Notes
← 1. The ECPAT International have called for a study on the sexual exploitation of children in Latvia in order to understand its scope and causes, to inform policy and programme development and monitoring of the problem, and to prevent and combat it.
← 2. Satversme, Article 110.
← 3. The Law on the Protection of Children Rights (1998), Section 74
← 4. The Law on the Protection of Children’s Rights, under section 10, Part 2 of the notes that a child with physical or mental disabilities also has the right to everything that is necessary for the satisfaction of his or her special needs.
← 5. The Law on the Protection of Child Rights; Article 59(5).
← 6. 2022 OECD Legal Needs Survey of Children in Latvia.
← 7. 2022 OECD Legal Needs Survey of Children in Latvia.
← 8. 2022 OECD Legal Needs Survey of Children in Latvia.
← 9. For example, Children Helpline International is an international impact organisation that has more than 160 members in 140 countries. The helpline exchanges information, knowledge, data, viewpoints with helpline members.
← 10. Interview with expert on Child and Adolescent Helpline at the State Inspectorate for Protection of Children Rights, 1 July, 2021.
← 11. Interview with Safer Internet Centre.
← 12. Legal needs surveys tend to show that young people are much less likely to access advice services by telephone than other age groups and tend to prefer face-to-face advice for many legal problems. (Kenrick, 2009[38]), Young people’s access to advice – the evidence, details analysis of legal needs data on preferred modes of access in England and Wales.
← 13. Interview with State Police Latvia.
← 14. The Law on Protection of the Children’s Rights, section 70, Part 2. This regulation was added in March 2017.
← 15. The Ombudsman Office will not accept complaints from adults made in the Russian language, however they will do so in the case of complaints from children.
← 16. Law on the Ombuds Office, Article 13(4).
← 17. The functions of Orphan andCustodyCourts are specified in the Law on Orphans’ and Custody Courts and regulated by Cabinet Regulation “Regulations for the Operation of an Orphan and Custody Court”.
← 18. Civil Law, section 177.
← 19. Children’s Rights Protection Law, article. 24(3).
← 20. Law on Civil Procedure, article. 72(2) and (3).
← 21. If the court has announced a minor who is at least 16 years old to be an adult before reaching 18 or if a minor who is at least 16 has entered into marriage.
← 22. Law on Civil Procedure, article. 72(4).
← 23. The Law on Administrative Procedure closely mirrors the provisions of the Law on Civil Procedure.
← 24. Law on Administrative Procedure, article. 21(4).
← 25. Law on Criminal Procedure, article. 104(9).
← 26. Law on Criminal Procedure, section 56, Part 1.
← 27. Law on Administrative Procedure Art. 368.
← 28. ECPAT International (2017) Global monitoring: status of action against sexual exploitation of children: Republic of Latvia.
← 29. Child Rights International Network (2014) op. cit.
← 30. Criminal Procedure Law, sections 89 and 104(2).
← 31. Criminal Procedure Law, sections 89 and 104(2).
← 32. The Ombuds Office say that they will sometimes seek a lawyer to represent a child in criminal cases where they need legal representation, although it seems this may only happen rarely.
← 33. Criminal Procedure Law, section 90, Part 2.
← 34. Criminal Procedure Law, section 89, Part 1.
← 35. Criminal Procedure Law, article 104(5).
← 36. Law on Administrative Liability, section 53, part 6.
← 37. Criminal Procedure Law , section 108, Part 5.
← 38. Civil Procedure Law, section 72(2), and Law on Administrative Liability, section 55, part 1.
← 39. EU Directive 2013/45/EU, Paragraph 25.3 on minimum standards.
← 40. Criminal Procedure Law, section 83, Part 1.
← 41. Interviews with sworn attorneys.
← 42. Civil Procedure Law, section 72(2); and Law on Administrative Liability, section 55, part 1.
← 43. Cabinet of Ministers Republic of Latvia, Regulation 1484, section 3, part 2, State Ensured Legal Aid Law.
← 44. UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 16/21: Latvia, 2021, A/HRC/WG.6/38/LVA/1.
← 45. “Resource Centre for people with mental disability Zelda” provides free legal advice to citizens on matters related to the protection of the interests and rights of people with mental disabilities and would provide aid also to children or their representatives. MARTA Center has provided legal advice in human trafficking cases of children.
← 46. In 2018, 35.5% of students in Latvia reported being bullied ‘at least a few times a month’, the highest rate in Europe, according to data from PISA 2018 results. What school life means for students’ lives. Volume III, as reported in: (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2021[4]).
← 47. Data from the Information Centre of the Ministry of the Interior show that there were 196 children not attending an educational institution without justification in 2019, up from 144 in 2014. As reported in (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2021[4]).
← 48. Interview with people from the Child and Adolescent Helpline.
← 49. Law on the Protection of Children’s Rights, section 58, part 1.
← 50. Interview with State Police of Latvia.
← 51. Law on Protection of Children’s Rights, article 20 (2).
← 52. Criminal Procedure Law, section 14, (4). In addition, Law on Protection of Children’s Rights, section 20 of the provides that criminal proceedings involving children are heard in a court pursuant to special procedures.
← 53. Criminal Procedure Law, article 14 (4): Criminal proceedings regarding a criminal offence which is related to violence committed by a person upon whom the minor victim is financially or otherwise dependent, or regarding a criminal offence against morals or sexual inviolability, wherein the victim is a minor, shall have preference, in comparison with similar criminal proceedings wherein victims are persons of legal age, in ensuring of a reasonable term. Criminal proceedings against a minor shall have preference, in comparison with similar criminal proceedings against a person of legal age, in the ensuring of a reasonable term.
← 54. The Constitution of the Republic of Latvia (Latvian Satversme), article 92.
← 55. Code of Criminal Procedure, section 22.
← 56. Law on State Compensation to Crime Victims, article 1.
← 57. Law on State Compensation to Crime Victims, section 3, part 4.
← 58. European's Women's Lobby (2013), "National Analysis on Latvia”. Cited in: ECPAT International (2017) Global monitoring: status of action against sexual exploitation of children: Republic of Latvia.
← 59. Law on the Protection of Children’s Rights, section 51, part 2.
← 60. Law on the Protection of Children’s Rights, section 52.
← 61. Law on the Protection of Children’s Rights, article 5.
← 62. Law on the Protection of Children’s Rights, section 64.
← 63. See Public Health Policy Guidelines 2014-2020; and Health Improvement Plan for Mother and Child for years 2018-2020 which include plans to educate 325 medical practitioners.
← 64. Law on the Protection of Children’s Rights, article 5. However, we heard that, in practice, psychologists from Orphan and Custody Courts often do not have sufficient expertise in working with children and young people.
← 65. As obliged under EU Directive 2013/45/EU, Paragraph 25.3 on minimum standards.
← 66. Law on Forensic Experts, section 17, part 9.
← 67. Information gathered from fact finding interviews with medical institutions.
← 68. Law on Forensic Experts, section 14, part 9.
← 69. Criminal Procedure Law, section 151-153.
← 70. Criminal Procedure Law, section 96.
← 71. Administrative Procedure Law, section 163, part 5 and Law on Administrative Liability, section 49, part 5.
← 72. Law on Orphan’s and Custody Courts, section 16, part 6.
← 73. Criminal Procedure Law, section 299 :Special procedural protection of a minor is ensured in accordance with the Special Protection of Persons Law.
← 74. Criminal Procedure Law, section 253.
← 75. Criminal Law; section 27.
← 76. Criminal Procedure Code, section 450.
← 77. The Law on the Protection of Children’s Rights, section 64.
← 78. The Law on the Protection of Children’s Rights, section 20.
← 79. Criminal Procedure Law, section 12, part 3.
← 80. Criminal Procedure Law, section 450, part 2.
← 81. Criminal Procedure Law, section 253.
← 82. Criminal Procedure Law, section 27.
← 83. Criminal Procedure Law, section 303(3).
← 84. Criminal Procedure Law, section 108, part 5.
← 85. Law on Administrative Liability, section 53, part 6.
← 86. The Law on the Protection of Children’s Rights, article 12.
← 87. States Parties are obliged to review or amend their national legislation in order to introduce mechanisms providing children with "access to appropriate information, adequate support, if necessary, feedback on the weight given to their views, and procedures for complaints, remedies or redress" as noted in UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2009), "General comment No. 12 (2009): The right of the child to be heard", 20 July 2009, CRC/C/GC/12, 11.
← 88. The Law on the Protection of Children’s Rights, section 19, part 1.
← 89. Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 747, annex 3, 3.1 and 3.2.
← 90. Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 747, annex 3, 2.3.
← 91. Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 747, annex 3, 2.5.
← 92. Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 747, section 65.
← 93. Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 747, section 13(1).
← 94. Law on the Rights of Children’s Protection and Civil Law, section 20, part Two.
← 95. Civil Procedure Law, Section 72(2); and Law on Administrative Liability, section 55, part 1.
← 96. Civil Procedure Law, article 106 of the; Administrative Procedure Law ,article 163.
← 97. Civil Procedure Law ,section 244(9).
← 98. Criminal Procedure Law, sections 89 and 104(2).
← 99. Criminal Procedure Law, section 90, part 2.
← 100. Criminal Procedure Law, article 104(9).
← 101. Criminal Procedure Law, section 108, part 5.
← 102. See Judgement of the Supreme Court of 12 August 2011 in case No. SKA-555/2011, Paragraph 7, as cited by Latvian Child Welfare Network (2017)
← 103. Law on the Protection of Children’s Rights, section 17.
← 104. 2022 OECD Legal Needs Survey of Children in Latvia.