Strategic Review of the Egyptian Goodwill Committee

2. Understanding child rights and child abduction frameworks

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview on the Government of Egypt’s commitment to child rights and an introduction to the concept of international parental child abduction. It provides a summary of governance frameworks (multilateral and bilateral) that govern international parental child abduction and details operations of the Egyptian Goodwill Committee within this context. Additionally, this chapter outlines the methodology used in compiling this Strategic Review.

2.1. Egypt’s commitment to child-friendly justice

Egypt is committed to the development and well-being of all children. It has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (including two optional protocols) as well as the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC). According to Article 3(1) of the CRC:

“In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”1

In 2008, the Child Law2 was amended to require that the best interests of the child (maṣlaḥat al-tifl al-fuḍlá) prevail “in all decisions and measures relating to children regardless of the party which is at their origin, or which applies them”.3

Box 2.1. Key instruments ratified by Egypt for the protection of children’s rights

Egypt has ratified the following child-specific international and regional instruments:

• the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

• the Optional Protocol to the CRC on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography

• the Optional Protocol to the CRC on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict

• the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC)

• the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 182 (1999) concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour

• Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

Egypt has also ratified other significant international instruments that provide legal protection for children, among other rights holders. These include the following core international human rights instruments:

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

• International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

• Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

• International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families

• Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others

• the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, as well as its 1967 Protocol

• the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

• the International Labour Organisation Forced Labour Convention No. 29 and Abolition of Forced Labour Convention No. 105.

Sources: (OHCHR, n.d.[1]),The Core International Human Rights Instruments and their monitoring bodies, https://www.ohchr.org/en/core-international-human-rights-instruments-and-their-monitoring-bodies, (International Justice Research Centre (IJRC), n.d.[2]), Thematic Research Guides – Children’s Rights, https://ijrcenter.org/thematic-research-guides/childrens-rights/

To maintain trust in democratic processes, legislative frameworks should evolve to reflect commitments made via national reform programmes (including constitutional reform) and international instrument ratification. Egypt’s 2014 Constitution highlights its commitment towards equal and inclusive growth, human rights and women's empowerment, expressly including commitments to uphold rights and protections more equitably. Egypt’s National Human Rights Strategy 2021-2026 requires that all Egyptian laws review and align with its principles (Government of Egypt, 2021[3]).

Box 2.2. The rights of children under the Egyptian Constitution

Article 19

• Every citizen has the right to education. The goals of education are to build the Egyptian character, preserve the national identity, embed the scientific method of thinking, develop talents and promote innovation, establish cultural and spiritual values, and found the concepts of citizenship, tolerance and non-discrimination. The State shall observe the goals of education in the educational curricula and methods, and provide education in accordance with international quality standards.

• Education is compulsory until the end of the secondary stage or its equivalent. The State shall provide free education in the various stages in the State’s educational institutions according to the Law.

Article 80

• A child is considered to be anyone who has not reached 18 years of age. Children have the right to be named and possess identification papers, have access to free compulsory vaccinations, health and family care or an alternative, basic nutrition, safe shelter, religious education, and emotional and cognitive development.

• The State guarantees the rights of children who have disabilities, and ensures their rehabilitation and integration into society.

• The State shall care for children and protect them from all forms of violence, abuse, mistreatment, and commercial and sexual exploitation.

• Every child is entitled to early education in a childhood centre until the age of 6. It is prohibited to employ children before they reach the age of having completed their basic education (15 years) or to employ them in jobs that expose them to risk.

• The State shall establish a judicial system for child victims and witnesses. No child may be held criminally responsible or detained except in accordance with the law and the timeframe specified therein.

• Legal aid shall be provided to children, and they shall be detained in appropriate locations separate from adult detention centres.

• The State shall work to achieve children’s best interests in all decisions and actions affecting them.

Source: Egyptian Constitution, Articles 19 & 80.

Against this backdrop, it is relevant to consider how constitutional commitments and a national strategy can be meaningfully incorporated into existing governance frameworks to enhance practical workings and ensure that child protection, participation and access to justice are maximised.

In 2023 the OECD report Towards a Child-friendly Justice System in Egypt: Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals reviewed Egypt’s efforts to design, deliver and co-ordinate child justice services and enhance the child-friendliness of the justice system (OECD, 2023[4]). The report referenced the necessity for further work to examine the Committee, and to facilitate ongoing institutional capacity building and co-ordination to enhance child justice (OECD, 2023[4]).

2.2. International parental child abduction

International parental child abduction occurs when a child is removed or retained outside their country of habitual residence, without consent or in violation of another parent’s custody right. Given the cross-jurisdictional nature of international parental child abduction there is no universal legal definition. Instead, States define constituent elements in their own legislative frameworks. Typically, States that have ratified the primary multilateral framework that governs child abduction, the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Hague Convention), draw from the Convention's definition of wrongful removal or retention.

Under Article 3 the removal or the retention of the child is to be considered wrongful where:

a) it is a breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention and

b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised , either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

The rights of custody mentioned in subparagraph (a) above, may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State.

The explanatory report to the Hague Convention provides an additional guiding statement to support the interpretation of Article 3: “the child is taken out of the family and social environment in which its life has developed” (Pérez-Veram, 1981[5]).

In many non-Hague Islamic States, including Egypt, family law frameworks provide custody rights, including consequences for failure to adhere to custody agreements based on judicial decisions. Article 292 of the Egyptian Penal Code states: “parents or grandparents who fail to deliver their minor child or their grandchild to the person who has the right to request custody based on a judicial decision regarding custody or guardianship shall be punished with imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding five hundred Egyptian pounds”.4 Across OECD Members similar provisions apply. Refer to Box 2.3 below.

Box 2.3. International parental child abduction definitions

Australia: The Family Law Act 1975 addresses child abduction, defining it as the taking away or retention of a child against a parenting order or without the consent of the other parent or guardian. This is particularly detailed in sections 65Y and 65Z regarding the unlawful removal of a child from Australia.

Canada: Section 282 and Section 283 of the Criminal Code of Canada makes it illegal for parents, guardians, or anyone with legal care or charge of a person under 14 years old, to take or hide them in violation of a custody order made by a Canadian court. Section 282 applies when there is a custody or parenting order in place, and section 283 applies if there is no custody or parenting order in place.

France: Articles 227-7 of the Penal Code criminalise the removal or retention of a child from those exercising parental authority or from the child’s habitual residence.

Germany: The Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch – BGB) alongside the Act on Non-Contentious Proceedings (Gesetz über die Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit) provides the principles for custody and defines wrongful removal as acting against the custody rights of the other parent. While specific section numbers in the BGB vary based on the issue at hand, custody rights are generally outlined in Sections 1626 to 1698b.

Ireland: The Child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Act 1991, through sections 15 and 16, provide for declarations of the wrongful removal of children – referring to the definition within Article 3 of the Hague Convention (referred to above).

United Kingdom: Sections 1 and 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 makes it an offense for a person connected with a child under the age of 16 to take or send the child out of the UK without the appropriate consent.

United States of America: The Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) defines it as the removal of a child from their country of habitual residence in violation of another person’s custody rights. The relevant provisions can be found in 22 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9011.

To address the complexity of child abduction, governance frameworks have developed to support just and equitable resolutions of international parental child abduction cases. Globally, two key governance frameworks are available: bilateral and multilateral frameworks.

2.3. Child abduction frameworks: multilateral and bilateral

A multilateral framework involves the participation of multiple States in the development and implementation of legal rules and principles. These frameworks, often international treaties or conventions, address global challenges or broad international concerns. They establish common standards and procedures applicable to States that are party to them, fostering collective efforts and co-operation on a global scale. While multilateral frameworks establish global cooperation mechanisms, they are usually applied on a bilateral basis, between the two States involved in any particular case.

Within multilateral legal frameworks, States co-operate through mutual legal assistance, which involves the exchange of information, evidence and support. This broader platform allows States to access assistance from multiple partners and develop common standards and procedures – promoting consistency and fairness. The Hague Convention is the primary multilateral framework that governs child abduction with 103 contracting states as of 2024 (Lowe and Stephens, 2023[6]).

Box 2.4. The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

Article 1 of the Hague Convention defines the scope to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States.

To seek return under the Convention, a parent or legal guardian must prove:

• Article 3 (a) and 4: the child was “habitually resident” in one Convention country immediately before any breach of custodial rights and was wrongfully removed or retained

• Article 3: the removal or retention of the child was wrongful (in violation of the other party’s custodial rights, and the party seeking return was exercising those rights at the time of the removal or retention or would have been but for the removal or retention)

• Article 4: the child is under the age of 16 years

• Article 35: the Convention was in force between the two States when the wrongful removal or retention occurred.

Even in circumstances where the above elements are satisfied, the Convention provides exceptions, where authorities have discretion not to order the return of the child. Exceptions include:

• Article 12: if the child is now settled in the new environment (only applies when the application is at least one year after the wrongful removal or retention)

• Article 13 (1)(a): if the person or institution caring for the child was not exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented or subsequently acquiesced to the removal or retention

• Article 13 (1)(b): grave risk that the return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation

• Article 13(2): child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of the child’s views

• Article 20: [return can refused] if not permitted by the fundamental principles of the requested State, relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The above exception provisions form a structure to standardise assessments on the child's wishes, well-being and need for protection, implicitly embedding best interest considerations.

Source: Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, The Hague on 25 October 1980.

By contrast, a bilateral framework is an agreement or treaty between two States that establishes rules and principles governing their interactions. Bilateral agreements address specific issues of mutual concern and are tailored to the specific needs and interests of the two States involved, including mutual legal assistance for co-operation with proceedings.

Given Egypt has not ratified the Hague Convention, governance frameworks are derived from bilateral agreements and principles of private international law. These principles and agreements exist in parallel with relevant provisions of Egyptian legislation. Egypt maintains at least five bilateral agreements and consular cooperation memoranda on child abduction with:

• France (1982)

• Sweden (1996)

• Canada (1997)

• Australia (2000)

• United States of America (2003).

Egypt’s reliance on bilateral agreements can present challenges in terms of identifying and interpreting the appropriate authority. Divergent interpretations and jurisdictional conflicts inevitably arise; judges and legal professionals must carefully analyse and interpret multiple law systems, often with conflicting professional opinions.

The process of navigating conflicts of laws can be not only labour-intensive, but also inherently inefficient, resulting in delays and inconsistencies. Similar cases can yield disparate outcomes due to variations in interpretation and enforcement. The potential for disparities not only hampers the predictability and fairness of the process, but also threatens to undermine the overall effectiveness, including consideration of the best interests of the child. In the absence of clarity and certainty, parents can take extreme, desperate measures to reclaim their children, endangering their safety in the process.

2.4. Goodwill Committee: origins, mandate and extent of power

On 8 February 2000, in lieu of multilateral ratification, the Egyptian Ministry of Justice (MoJ) created the Committee via ministerial decree5 as a form of communication bridge, to support the amicable resolution of all child abduction custody disputes arising from “mixed marriage”, i.e. marriage between Egyptian and non-Egyptian nationals.6 Due to subtle differences in translation, this institution has been referred to by various names including: International Co-operation Committee, Good Office Committee and Good Intentions Committee, though the Committee is most commonly known as the Goodwill Committee. The Committee promotes international co-operation according to the provisions of Egyptian legislation, international conventions ratified by Egypt and relevant bilateral agreements.

The Committee's mandate, as defined by ministerial decree, is to examine disputes on custody issues of children born from mixed marriage and support the parties to reach amicable solutions. This involves the provision of cross agency support to locate the child (if required), open lines of communication and the facilitation of consent-based agreements.

While the decree refers to children born from “mixed marriages”, in practice this is not strictly applied; the Committee will support any parent (regardless of marital status) who can prove legal maternity or paternity, as confirmed on the child’s birth certificate. It is not necessary to establish proof of marriage to obtain assistance from the Committee. Equally, the Committee does not have jurisdictional issues with children born abroad (e.g. concern with authority over non-Egyptian children), given that children born outside Egypt to an Egyptian parent are eligible to seek dual nationality or Egyptian citizenship by descent at birth.7

The establishment of the Committee and growing global confidence in the developing governance mechanisms may have supported Egypt to conclude consular cooperation memoranda on child abduction with Australia (2002) and the United States of America (2003) given the ability of the Committee to undertake consultative mechanisms required by these consular cooperation memoranda (HCCH, 2017[7]).

Applying to the Committee is not mandatory, i.e. parties are not required to engage in Committee processes prior to filing in court, and Committee outcomes are not enforceable. Frequently invitations (sent by the Ministry of Interior – MoI)) to participate in Committee processes are declined. Committee processes are not compulsory and there is no consequence for declining to participate. Declining to participate does not prevent parties from commencing or continuing court proceedings.

2.5. Methodology

This Strategic Review adopts a child-centred approach, recognising that child abduction is a humanitarian issue that requires the integration of considerations for the best interests of the child into governance processes to ensure child needs are appropriately prioritised. It uses the OECD Child-friendly Justice Framework and the related People-centred Justice Framework and Good Practice Principles, as well as the OECD criteria for people-centred design, and delivery of legal and justice services.

An analysis of governance processes, across both bilateral and multilateral processes, has been provided to ensure recommendations apply across both processes. The intent is to ensure that recommendations cover the spectrum of cases (and nationalities); that governance enhancements can be implemented equitably for all.

This Strategic Review is based on the OECD Public Governance Directorate’s comprehensive research, including reviews of publicly available legislation, policy documents, national and international sources, and academic reports. To complement the knowledge gathered, the OECD engaged actively with Egyptian partners to clarify responses and facilitate the sharing of additional information, as required (for example, member responsibilities and internal committee processes, including case management) . In addition, the OECD conducted fact-finding workshops, policy dialogues, and consultation sessions with the Committee and foreign embassies based in Cairo.

2.5.1. Embassy consultation

Structured interviews were undertaken with Cairo embassy staff of OECD Members. Representatives from the embassies of Canada, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America were consulted. Care was taken to select a cross section of embassy representatives, with and without citizens engaged in child abduction cases (to gauge awareness levels across both groups), and States with and without bilateral agreements (to gauge any procedural differences, dependent on the existence of a bilateral agreement).

Interviews were conducted using open, semi-structured questions tailored to each stakeholder group, allowing a comprehensive range of responses.

2.5.2. Goodwill Committee workshop

Several interviews were conducted with the Committee chair and members. A roundtable workshop was conducted with all Committee members8 in February 2024 where Committee members were provided with the preliminary findings and recommendations of this Strategic Review for their comprehension and comment. A draft copy of the Strategic Review was circulated for additional fact checking and written comments.

2.5.3. Policy dialogue

In May 2024, a policy dialogue took place involving national institutions, the Committee, the Bureau for Child Protection and Persons with Disabilities, and the National Council for Childhood and Motherhood (NCCM), as well as representatives from OECD embassies in Egypt. The purpose of the policy dialogue was to discuss the Strategic Review findings, validate and verify facts, and facilitate open communication.

2.5.4. Peer review

The key preliminary findings of the strategic review were widely distributed, in draft format, to allow for a comprehensive peer review process. This step enabled peer reviewers and experts to provide feedback, including on the nuanced nature of child best interest considerations and the practical operation of child travel bans, and suggest refinements to ensure accuracy and optimise the effectiveness of the recommendations.

References

[3] Government of Egypt (2021), National Human Rights Strategy 2021-2026, Supreme Standing Committee for Human Rights, https://sschr.gov.eg/media/gapb5bq4/national-human-rights-strategy.pdf.

[7] HCCH (2017), Non-Hague Convention Child Abductions - Bilateral Agreements, http://www.hcch.net/en/publications-and-studies/details4/?pid=5215.

[2] International Justice Research Centre (IJRC) (n.d.), “Children’s Rights”, Thematic Reserach Guides, https://ijrcenter.org/thematic-research-guides/childrens-rights/.

[6] Lowe, N. and V. Stephens (2023), Global report – Statistical study of applications made in 2021 under the 1980 Child Abduction Convention, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/bf685eaa-91f2-412a-bb19-e39f80df262a.pdf.

[4] OECD (2023), Towards a Child-friendly Justice System in Egypt: Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9f5b0524-en.

[1] OHCHR (n.d.), The Core International Human Rights Instruments and their monitoring bodies, https://www.ohchr.org/en/core-international-human-rights-instruments-and-their-monitoring-bodies.

[5] Pérez-Veram, E. (1981), Explanatory Report on the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, http://www.hcch.net/en/publications-and-studies/details4/?pid=2779.

Notes

← 1.  Article 93, Constitution of The Arab Republic of Egypt 2014

← 2.  No. 12 of 1996, updated by law No. 126/2008, The Arab Republic of Egypt.

← 3.  Article 3, Child Law No. 12 of 1996, updated by law No. 126/2008, The Arab Republic of Egypt.

← 4.  Article 292, Penal Code (Law No.58 of 1937).

← 5.  Ministerial Decree No. 613 for the Year 2000, Establishing a Committee for International Co-operation in Disputes Relating to Custody for Children of Mixed Marriages.

← 6.  Ministerial Decree No. 613 for the Year 2000, Establishing a Committee for International Co-operation in Disputes Relating to Custody for Children of Mixed Marriages.

← 7.  Amending Some Provisions of Law No.26 of 1975 Concerning Egyptian Nationality (2004) https://migrationpolicy.unescwa.org/sites/default/files/policies/2004_Egypt_Law_No_154.pdf

← 8.  Save Interpol and the Ministry of Interior who were unable to attend.