Panel Report: Roadmap for Action 2025–2030 – Deprivation of Liberty
On 3 June 2025, Defence for Children (DCI) in partnership with Global Campus of Human Rights and the UN Task Force on Children Deprived of Liberty, hosted a high-level panel discussion on “Strengthening Collective Action Towards Ending Child Deprivation of Liberty: Roadmap for Action 2025–2030”. This workshop was convened in the 5th World Congress on Justice With Children, took place in Madrid from June 2nd to 4th by Global Initiative on Justice With Children.
The panel comprised of : Dr. Najat Maalla M’jid, UN SRSG on Violence Against Children and Chairperson of the UN Task Force for Children Deprived of Liberty; Ms. Atieno Odhiambo, Director of the Legal Empowerment Fund (LEF) at The Fund for Global Human Rights; Prof. Manfred Nowak, Lead Author and Independent Expert of the UN Global Study on Children Deprived of Liberty; Mr. Benoît Van Keirsbilck, Member of UNCRC; Prof. Ann Skelton, Former Chairperson of the UNCRC, Prof at Leiden and Pretoria University. The discussion was moderated by Alex Kamarotos, Executive Director of DCI, and co-moderated by Yann Calliou, Head of the Access to Justice Programme at Terre des Hommes Foundation.
Building upon the 2019 Global Study on Children Deprived of Liberty, this event brought together experts and advocates to evaluate progress, identify setbacks, and emphasize the importance of implementation and data for real impact. As deprivation of liberty remains a form of structural violence against children, the panel underscored the need for a systemic, coordinated, and community-empowered approach moving forward.
Dr. Najat Maalla M’jid reflected on the six years since the release of the Global Study. Her core message was clear: the study should not merely be a document for academic reference; it must serve as a living tool for action and implementation. She emphasized that the deprivation of liberty, beyond formal detention, includes institutionalization and administrative confinement, such as children placed in institutions due to poverty, disability, or migration status. The task force initially involved a few agencies—UNICEF, UNODC, UNHCR—but gradually expanded to include a broader range of UN actors. This growth was essential because child protection, M’jid argued, cannot be siloed; it must be integrated across all UN agencies and national systems. Justice, she noted, must be recognized as a core pillar of child protection.
A significant challenge identified in the discussion was the fragmented implementation of child rights standards across different systems. Despite progressive discourse on alternatives to detention, such as restorative justice and community-based rehabilitation, many countries still criminalize children for minor offenses or on the basis of “risky behaviour.” M’jid warned of the rise in punitive institutional practices disguised as “educational centres,” particularly in Europe. She also flagged the growing trend of security-based justifications for detaining children, especially in contexts involving terrorism or gang-related accusations.
Manfred Nowak, lead author of the study, reiterated that the original estimate of 7.2 million children deprived of liberty was based on partial data, only one-third of states responded to official questionnaires. Many governments either failed to collect relevant data or withheld it due to concerns over political backlash. M’jid added that even where data exists, it is often narrowly focused on formal detention and fails to account for institutionalization or informal rehabilitation centres. She emphasised the need for snapshot data, collected annually by a UN statistical body, to hold states accountable and measure progress effectively.
On the role of community-based legal empowerment in preventing child detention and facilitating access to justice, Ms. Atieno Odhiambo offered a compelling redefinition of legal empowerment—not merely as access to lawyers or courts, but as a transformative approach that combines law with community organizing. Legal empowerment, she argued, equips individuals and communities to know, use, and shape the law for themselves. Grassroots actors, including paralegals and community advocates (also known as “barefoot lawyers”), play an essential role in both upstream prevention and downstream reintegration. They are uniquely positioned to identify rights violations, document cases of arbitrary detention, and mediate conflicts. These actors often serve areas where formal legal services are absent, particularly in conflict zones, rural regions, or migration contexts. Ms. Atieno also reflected on the challenges which remain on the field. Community groups frequently report that international organizations collect their data but fail to report back or involve them in implementation, creating a distrust between grassroots knowledge and policy
Following these presentations, Professor Manfred Nowak offered a sobering yet action-oriented reflection. He lamented the lack of systematic follow-up to the study’s 170 recommendations and noted that only a third of states had responded to the original data collection effort. Nowak stressed that reliable and consistent data is essential not just for accountability but to benchmark progress. Using examples from Bulgaria and Italy, he contrasted countries that have made strides in deinstitutionalization with those where child detention is worsening, often due to political shifts and punitive migration policies. He highlighted Article 37(b) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states that detention should be used only as a measure of last resort. He underscored that despite this, many states continue to use detention as a routine response to children in conflict with the law, migrant children, and those with behavioural challenges. He ended with a call to the UN system to step up its role, not just in collecting data but in holding states accountable and supporting implementation on the ground.
Benoît Van Keirsbilck discussed how the Committee has adopted the Global Study’s findings and actively incorporates its recommendations into state reviews. He emphasized the importance of engaging customary and community actors in addressing child detention, particularly in the context of armed conflict. He also acknowledged that while some gains have been made, many states still fail to treat child detention as a rights-based issue. He emphasised the centrality of advocacy and coalition-building in pushing for systemic change. He shared how coalitions like the Initiative for the Global Study succeeded not only in getting the 2019 study launched but also in sustaining momentum around its recommendations. He acknowledged the critical role of NGOs and civil society in bridging the gap between international norms and grassroots realities and argued that any roadmap must place these actors at the centre of implementation. Van Keirsbilck argued that Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a Communications Procedure (OPIC) remains underutilized, despite its transformative potential. He explained that OPIC allows children and their representatives to submit complaints directly to the Committee when their rights are violated and no effective remedy is available at the national level.
Professor Ann Skelton, brought a critical legal lens to the panel discussion, focusing on the practical steps needed to embed the principles of the Global Study into binding frameworks. She began by highlighting the dual role of legal mechanisms: they are tools for both accountability and transformation. For Skelton, the challenge is not only in identifying where rights violations occur, but in ensuring that legal remedies are accessible, responsive, and effectively implemented. She pointed to the General Comment No. 24, which focuses on children’s rights in the juvenile justice system, as a legal instrument with untapped potential. The General Comment explicitly encourages the use of diversion and restorative justice and discourages detention as a measure of last resort. Yet, she noted with concern that many states have not fully aligned their national legislation or policies with these standards. Skelton emphasized that one of the goals for the 2025–2030 roadmap must be to translate these standards into enforceable national law, with regular monitoring of compliance.
Skelton also discussed the complexity of alternative care systems, warning that closing large-scale institutions without building family- and community-based alternatives leads to “musical chairs” solutions—where children are simply shifted to smaller but equally inadequate facilities. In her view, deprivation of liberty often hides in these “grey zones” of administrative and institutional arrangements. She called for clear definitions, legal safeguards, and child participation in decisions that affect their liberty.
Finally, she closed her remarks with a call to action: legal change alone is insufficient without training, budget allocation, and a change in institutional culture. Judges, police, and social workers must internalize the principles of child protection, not merely comply on paper. For Skelton, the roadmap to 2030 must be grounded in the rule of law, child rights education, and political will.
The panel collectively emphasized that the upcoming “Roadmap for Action 2025–2030”
must be more than a document, it must become a practical, living tool. The roadmap should help coordinate multi-level stakeholders, from governments to grassroots communities, ensuring alignment between policy and practice. The panellists were united in their call to embed child justice into broader development goals, including the Sustainable Development Goals, and to ensure that children’s voices are heard and prioritized in all processes.
The panel called for deeper collaboration, capacity-building, and recognition of local actors in national and global strategies. The roadmap’s implementation must therefore include clear benchmarks, annual data collection, and accountability frameworks. He also called for the next global congress in 2030 to serve as a ten-year impact review of the Global Study, measuring both progress and setbacks.
Looking ahead, the panel emphasized the need to move from principle to practice. Key takeaways included:
- Grassroots inclusion is non-negotiable. Community actors must be seen as partners, not merely data providers.
- Data collection must be systematic and state-supported, not ad hoc. UN bodies must coordinate a global call for annual reporting.
- Legal reforms and alternatives to detention must be implemented holistically; justice, education, and social services must work in tandem.
- Pushback from states and institutions must be anticipated and countered through diplomacy, public pressure, and incentives for transparency.
The 2025–2030 roadmap should not only guide national reforms but serve as a tool of advocacy, monitoring, and strategic action: a collective instrument through which civil society, the UN, and governments can ensure no child is unjustly deprived of liberty.