The following three chapters outline how current child abduction governance processes can be enhanced. This chapter discusses the importance of a co-ordinated, whole-of-government approach to child abduction cases, emphasising the need for strong institutional arrangements, and clear roles and responsibilities. It outlines the current landscape of child justice in Egypt, and examines the composition of the Goodwill Committee, including options to expand membership and strengthen existing governance processes.
Strategic Review of the Egyptian Goodwill Committee
Advancing child-friendly justice in Egypt
Abstract
Responding to children’s unique and complex needs and specific rights requires strong co-ordination and co-operation mechanisms between the key institutions involved, in what the OECD Framework for People-centred Justice frames as a ‘whole-of-government/whole-of-state’ approach to justice (OECD, 2023[1]). Adopting a whole-of-government approach is characterised by a shared vision and robust co-ordination mechanisms, aligning diverse stakeholders towards common strategic and operational goals, underpinned by a well-defined distribution of roles and responsibilities (OECD, 2020[2]). Extending these principles, the OECD Child-Friendly Justice Framework (OECD, 2023[3]) refines this approach by tailoring justice services to be responsive to the specific legal and social needs of children, emphasising a justice system that is accessible, age-appropriate, and sensitive to the vulnerabilities and rights of young individuals. This child-centric adaptation ensures that the justice system not only meets general expectations of fairness and efficiency, but also addresses the particular requirements of children to enhance their protection and participation in legal processes.
In the context of child abduction, adopting a whole-of-government or whole-of-state approach requires the identification and engagement of relevant institutions, and the development of clear mandates outlining agency responsibilities, together with effective co-ordination mechanisms. The development of strong institutional arrangements facilitate prompt, cohesive responses, diminish bureaucratic barriers and amplify intervention efficiency.
This chapter focuses on understanding the current institutional landscape surrounding the Committee and the identification of opportunities to strengthen existing governance processes.
Egyptian child justice institutions are varied and dispersed, requiring co-ordination across governmental bodies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and international partners to deliver a child-friendly justice system. Key governmental actors include the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Public Prosecution Office (PPO), who provide legal and judicial services; the National Council for Childhood and Motherhood (NCCM), responsible for developing child protection policies and helpline services; the Ministry of Social Solidarity (MoSS), responsible for the provision of social and support services; and court services, essential for the interpretation and application of laws, and the protection of children within the judicial process.
In addition to core institutions, various NGOs and community organisations provide advocacy services to deliver essential services and support reform efforts. This collaborative network of institutions aims to protect children’s rights, ensure access to justice, and support their well-being through a range of prevention and protection measures.
The MoJ provides the Chair of the Committee. Members of the Committee are dispersed across various Ministries. Refer to Figure 3.1 for a visualisation of the landscape of current child justice actors, with the Committee members starred.
The level of publicly available information on the mandate of different child justice institutions varies, which may hinder the Committee's ability to reflect and identify relevant institutions for inclusion. Not all child justice institutions are required to be part of the Committee – inclusion hinges on the alignment of responsibilities with the Committee's mandate and potential to tangibly enhance the operations of the Committee.
The Committee is currently composed of representatives from:
The Ministry of Justice
Dar Eleftaa El Masria
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The Public Prosecution Office (family division)
The Ministry of the Interior
Interpol
The Committee does not use a Terms of Reference (ToR) to define member or collective Committee responsibilities. Through the process of this Strategic Review, current Committee members’ responsibilities were detailed via consultation (please refer to the descriptions below).
3.2.1. Ministry of Justice
The Committee is embedded within the Department of International Co-operation within the MoJ. The MoJ appoints the Assistant Minister for International Co-operation as the Chair of the Committee, , who has the following responsibilities:
to ensure effective communication and collaboration among all member agencies
to provide legal expertise and guidance for child abduction cases
to represent the Committee in high-level discussions with international stakeholders and authorities on child abduction cases.
The technical and administrative secretariat of the Committee also sits in the Department of International Co-operation. The secretariat (including 4-5 technical staff and 4 administrators, including translators, French/English) facilitates co-ordination, case management and communication, convening sessions and co-ordinating meeting papers (setting agendas and preparing briefing documents) as required.
3.2.2. Dar Eleftaa El Masria
Dar Eleftaa El Masria acts as a cultural and religious liaison between families involved in child abduction cases. Their role includes:
offering guidance on cultural and religious aspects to ensure that any mediated agreements respect the traditions and beliefs of all parties involved
facilitating communication and understanding between families, especially those with different cultural backgrounds
promoting co-operation and reconciliation.
3.2.3. Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) is responsible for the diplomatic aspect of child abduction cases, including:
maintaining communication with the relevant foreign governments involved
providing legal and diplomatic support for the Committee in negotiations and the resolution of cross-border child abduction cases
ensuring that mediated agreements comply with international laws and treaties, as well as Egypt's foreign policy.
3.2.4. Public Prosecution Office – Family Division
The family division of the PPO supports the Committee with broad powers, relevant to Committee functions, including the the authority to:
investigate disputes (including the ability to subpoena records), and to refer cases to the Courts
file a memorandum of opinion in every lawsuit or appeal, and whenever requested by the Courts
request the hearing of witnesses
issue arrest warrants and search orders, and carrying out the questioning of suspects and witnesses
issue interm orders for the custody of minors in cases concercerning custody
provide opinions on family law matters to the Courts.
Further discussion on the role of the Family Division, and possible additional inclusion of the PPO’s Child Protection Bureau for Child Protection and Persons with Disabilities is outlined below.
3.2.5. Ministry of Interior
The Ministry of Interior (MoI) provides security and logistical support for the Committee, ensuring the safety of all involved parties by:
dispatching initiating correspondence to invite participation in the Committee processes
assisting in locating abducted children within Egypt and working with international law enforcement agencies when necessary
implementing security measures to prevent further abductions and protect children at risk.
3.2.6. Interpol
In the context of child custody cases, the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) collaborates with international law enforcement agencies to track and locate abducted children and abductors who may have crossed international borders. Responsibilities include:
sharing intelligence, criminal databases and investigative resources
providing technical assistance and training to local law enforcement agencies involved in these cases.
3.2.7. Expanding the Goodwill Committee
The composition of the Committee has not changed in the past 24 years, despite the Government of Egypt (GoE) undergoing significant reforms. During the OECD's consultation process, it emerged that two significant institutions in the Egyptian child justice landscape, whose responsibilities align with the mandate of the Committee, are not currently included in its composition. Details on the two new institutions proposed for inclusion are outlined below.
Note : ENCRO refers to the Egypt National Child Rights Observatory
Source: Author’s elaboration.
3.2.8. National Council for Childhood and Motherhood
The NCCM was established by a presidential decree in 1988. A new Egyptian Law, No. 182 for 2023 on the governance structure of the NCCM, was promulgated in November 2023, replacing the presidential decree of 1988. The new law empowers the NCCM and states that the NCCM is the main national body concerned with childhood and motherhood, and the highest authority responsible for suggesting related public policies. The new structure includes, but is not limited to, general departments for the Child Helpline, the Egypt National Child Rights Observatory (ENCRO) and the follow-up on public policies.
The new law and structural placement of the NCCM is aligned with recommendations from the OECD's Strategic Review Towards a Child-friendly Justice System in Egypt: Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals and also CRC 2011 Committee recommendation that the “NCCM receives sufficient human, technical and financial resources, that it enjoys autonomy and holds a high position with leveraging power in relation to all ministries and other governmental entities at central, provincial and local levels”.1
The NCCM is not currently a member of the Committee but shares its common mission to protect and promote the rights of children in Egypt, and ensure their upbringing in a secure and nurturing environment. The NCCM range of essential services currently includes:
Child Helpline: The helpline is available 24/7 to provide immediate support and assistance to children in need. This service serves as a lifeline for children facing any kid of violence, danger or negligence, and ensures their access to timely help and guidance. The NCCM, in general, and the Child helpline, in particular, should be provided with resources and support to ensure capability to efficiently respond to child abduction cases, including participation in Committee processes.
Policy Development: The NCCM actively engages in the formulation and implementation of policies and programmes aimed at improving the well-being of children and mothers. This includes advocating for laws and regulations that protect their rights.
Advocacy and Awareness: The NCCM serves as a vocal advocate for children and mothers, working to raise awareness of their rights and needs within society. This includes conducting public awareness campaigns and lobbying for their interests, in particular strengthening children’s rights to express their opinions and enabling them to participate in making decisions about matters that affect them.2
ENCRO: Within the NCCM, ENCRO (when formally established) will be responsible for collecting and reporting information and data related to childhood and motherhood. ENCRO will also be responsible for conducting research and analysis to ensure that reforms related to the protection of children's and mother's rights are evidence-based.
Co-ordination: The NCCM plays a pivotal role in co-ordinating efforts among various government ministries, agencies, and non-governmental organisations to ensure a comprehensive and cohesive approach to child and maternal welfare.
Given the functional alignment of responsibilities to ensure that children enjoy the rights, protection and support they need for their well-being and development, it would be logical to include the NCCM within the Committee as a core member. The NCCM’s distinct viewpoint, centred on the child's welfare, and best interests brings a valuable perspective that complements the objectives of the Committee. Inclusion of the NCCM as a core member may help to systematise Committee deliberations to include and prioritise the considerations of the best interests of the child.
Additionally, during consultation it was acknowledged that the Committee and the NCCM may have overlap with their clients or service users as it is not unreasonable to consider that an abducted child or the parent of an abducted child may call the NCCM child helpline for assistance.
3.2.9. Child Protection Bureau for Child Protection and Persons with Disabilities within the Public Prosecution Office
While the Family Division of the PPO is currently on the Committee, it is relevant to consider whether the Child Protection Bureau for Child Protection and Persons with Disabilities (CPB-CPPD) should also be included.
Established in 2020 with the explicit purpose of ensuring that prosecutions incorporate and prioritise the welfare and well-being of children, the CPB-CPPD possesses a specialised focus on cases involving children at risk of harm. The competencies of the Bureau were expanded by Decree No. 517 for 2024 to include not only children but also persons with disabilities at risk.3 According to Article 96 of the Child Law, children who are deprived from their rights in terms of custody or seeing either parent are considered to be at risk. Abducted children, deprived of seeing one of their parents, would be considered at risk according to Article 96 and consequently implement the jurisdiction of the CPB-CPPD.
A “child at risk” is a child that is “exposed to a situation threatening the sound upbringing” that should be made available to them. Article 96 of the Child Law provides an exhaustive list of those that come under this definition, some of which are general while others are specific. For instance, this category includes children whose “safety, morals, health, or life are at risk” and the circumstances and persons who place them “at risk” or expose them “to neglect, abuse, violence, exploitation, or vagrancy” whether in the family, or at school, or in care institutions or by others.
The Article includes specific risks, such any child who is “found begging”, “collecting cigarette butts, or any other kind of trash or waste”, or “has no permanent residence, or generally sleeps in the streets”. Under Article 96, deprivation from seeing a parent is also, importantly, considered a specific risk.
Source: Article 96, Child Law 12/1996, The Arab Republic of Egypt.
The integration of the CPB-CPPD, alongside the Family Division, would strengthen the representation of the Prosecution within the Committee. The CPB-CPPD could provide an advisory role and enhance Committee effectiveness, particularly the ability to apply the considerations of the best interests of the child and intervene in high-risk cases referred by the NCCM.
The inclusion of the CPB-CPPD is also consistent with the Child-Friendly Justice Framework, requiring the integration of a child-friendly lens into the decision-making process (OECD, 2023[3]) to ensure that Committee decision-making responses are tailored to the specific needs and vulnerabilities of abducted children.
The "OECD Child-Friendly Justice Framework" outlines the implementation of a child-friendly justice system that requires the establishment of the necessary institutional frameworks to provide clear roles and responsibilities, and the co-ordination or collaboration arrangements across all elements of the justice system and with other sectors (OECD, 2023[3]).
Committee member roles and responsibilities, while broadly understood between members, are not defined or reduced to written form. Pillar 2 of the "OECD Framework and Good Practice Principles for People-Centred Justice" emphasises the necessity of clearly identifying and defining the roles and responsibilities of relevant actors. This is a foundational step to ensure that the various stakeholders are working together towards common goals.
The absence of defined roles and responsibilities may lead to overlaps and gaps in service provision, which can hinder effectiveness. It can also cause confusion among Committee members and stakeholders, potentially resulting in inefficiencies or even perceived conflicts in responsibility that may undermine the Committee’s collective objectives. For instance, embassy stakeholders expressed uncertainty as to whether the initial entry point for accessing the Committee’s services was via MoFA or the MoJ (see Chapter 5). Equally, stakeholders expressed uncertainty about the overall role of the Committee vis-à-vis the judicial process, particularly over when to elect to use each distinct pathway.
Developing ToR could serve as a compass guiding the Committee’s operations, ensuring that individual and collective responsibilities are clear; that each actor is not only aware of their own duties but also understands how their work intersects with, and supports, the efforts of others. While the individual pathway of each case will take its own route, a ToR for the Committee may help individuals to make appropriate decisions concerning the relevant legal pathway to pursue, including decisions on when to access Committee services.
Jordan: Child Protection Sub-Working Group Terms of Reference
The Child Protection Sub-Working Group (CP SWG) is a co-ordinating body created to strengthen and harmonise emergency child protection interventions for children in Jordan, with a particular focus on unaccompanied and separated children. Publicly available ToR were developed to support the CP SWG, including detail on:
the co-ordination of emergency response activities, across various levels of government and civil society
divisions of responsibility
information sharing and co-ordination.
Scotland: Highlands Child Protection Committee Terms of Reference
Child Protection Committees function in Scotland as local, interagency coalitions responsible for developing, communicating and implementing child protection strategies. They oversee policy and practices across both public and private domains, fostering collaboration to safeguard children’s well-being. Their responsibilities include the creation, distribution, enactment and evaluation of child protection initiatives. Publicly available ToR were developed to support the Highlands Child Protection Committee, including detail on:
accountability
core functions
continuous improvement
public information and awareness
roles and responsibilities (including member responsibilities and inductions).
While the Committee has extensive authority under its authorising ministerial decree, it has operated for 24 years without modification or update. The 2000 decree preceded two significant reforms, namely:
2008: The Child Law 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.4
2014: The Egyptian Constitution was passed via referendum, expressly including commitments to equality between men and women (Article 11), equality in public rights and duties (Article 53) and importantly, child rights including that the State shall work to achieve children’s best interests in all measures taken with regards to them (Article 80).
Given its age, the decree falls short in several critical areas: it does not account for the inclusion of institutions that have emerged since its inception (i.e. the CPB-CPPD and the NCCM), it lacks explicit emphasis on prioritising the best interests of the child (as required under the 2008 amendments to the Child Law and 2014 Constitution), it does not promote diversity, and it does not incorporate modern participation mechanisms, such as digital or virtual platforms.
Revising the decree to embrace diversity would be beneficial, as foreign parents involved in abduction cases come from diverse cultural and religious backgrounds. It is necessary for the Committee to foster an environment of inclusive participation, ensuring that the varied perspectives and needs of all participants are acknowledged and accommodated.
The need to develop modern participation mechanisms and pathways for enforceability could also be included in a revised decree. The rationale for these inclusions is outlined in Chapter 4.
3.5.1. Include new institutions as core Goodwill Committee members
Include an additional two institutions as core Committee members, namely:
the National Council for Childhood and Motherhood (NCCM), given the functional alignment of their mandate with that of the Committee and their interrelated work, and to help systematise the considerations of the best interests of the child.
the Child Protection Bureau for Child Protection and Persons with Disabilities, in addition to the family division of the Public Prosecution Office (PPO), to ensure appropriate support for risk-of-harm cases and to help systematise the considerations of the best interests of the child.
3.5.2. Develop Terms of Reference for the Goodwill Committee
Develop Terms of Reference (ToR) to articulate individual and collective Committee responsibilities, processes and powers. The ToR should be publicly available and include detail on:
The entry pathway for accessing Committee services. While both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) must both be included in the initial request for assistance, the entry pathway should be technologically fused for users. Individual parents seeking assistance should not be required to separately submit requests to both ministries.
Committee co-ordination processes or stages.
Individual Committee member responsibilities.
Collective Committee responsibilities and extent of power (including intersection with judicial processes).
3.5.3. Revise the Ministerial Decree
Undertake a comprehensive review of the decree, and subsequently reissue it to ensure that it:
remains fit for purpose and expressly prioritises the considerations of the best interests of the child (incorporating the 2008 amendments on a child's best interests to the Child Law)
includes institutions that have been established as core members since the decree’s adoption 24 years ago, specifically the NCCM and the Child Protection Bureau for Child Protection and Persons with Disabilities of the Public Prosecution
encourages diversity of member participants (such as including women and, when necessary, members with diverse religious backgrounds—for example., representatives of the Coptic Church)
provides a pathway for enforceability (e.g. registration of Committee decisions for the judicial seal)
broadens participation mechanisms (e.g. digital attendance and child participation, if appropriate, with regard to circumstances of the case and governing legislation).
References
[5] Highland Child Protection Committee (2018), Terms of Reference, https://hcpc.scot/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Highland-Child-Protection-Committee-Terms-of-Reference.docx (accessed on 21 February 2024).
[3] OECD (2023), “OECD Child-Friendly Justice Framework: Building a people-centred justice system”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 41, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6a60970e-en.
[1] 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.
[2] OECD (2020), Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance: Baseline Features of Governments that Work Well, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c03e01b3-en.
[4] UNHCR (2013), Terms of Reference: Child Protection Sub-Working Group Jordan, https://data.unhcr.org/ar/documents/download/40707 (accessed on 20 February 2024).
← 1. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Fifty-seventh session, 30 May-17 June 2011, "Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 44 of the Convention."
← 2. National Council for Childhood and Motherhood, Strategic framework for Childhood and Motherhood (2018-2030)
← 3. Prosecutor-General Decree No. 517 for the Year 2024, Regarding defining the competencies of the Office for the Protection of Children and Persons with Disabilities
← 4. In 2008, Article 3 of the 1996 Child Law (Egypt) 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 to them".