In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter 11 CESCR General Comment No. 11 (1999) on Plans of Action for Primary Education (Article 14 of the Covenant) 1. Article 14 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights requires each State party which has not been able to secure compulsory primary education , free of charge, to undertake, within two years, to work out and adopt a detailed plan of action for the progressive implementation, within a reasonable number of years, to be Wxed in the plan, of the principle of compulsory primary education free of charge for all. In spite of the obligations undertaken in accordance with Article 14, a number of States parties have neither drafted nor implemented a plan of action for free and compulsory primary education. 2. The right to education, recognized in Articles 13 and 14 of the Covenant, as well as in a variety of other international treaties, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, is of vital importance. It has been variously classiWed as an economic right, a social right and a cultural right. It is all of these. It is also, in many ways, a civil right and a political right, since it is central to the full and effective realization of those rights as well. In this respect, the right to education epitomizes the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights. 3. In line with its clear and unequivocal obligation under Article 14, every State party is under a duty to present to the Committee a plan of action drawn up along the lines speciWed in paragraph 8 below. This obligation needs to be scrupulously observed in view of the fact that in developing countries, 130 million children of school age are currently estimated to be without access to primary education, of whom about two thirds are girls. The Committee is fully aware that many diverse factors have made it difWcult for States parties to fulWll their obligation to provide a plan of action. For example, the structural adjustment programmes that began in the 1970s, the debt crises that followed in the 1980s and the Wnancial crises of the late 1990s, as well as other factors, have greatly exacerbated the extent to which the right to primary education is being Original notes omitted. denied. These difWculties, however, cannot relieve States parties of their obligation to adopt and submit a plan of action to the Committee, as provided for in Article 14 of the Covenant. 4. Plans of action prepared by States parties to the Covenant in accordance with Article 14 are especially important as the work of the Committee has shown that the lack of educational opportunities for children often reinforces their subjection to various other human rights violations. For instance, these children, who may live in abject poverty and not lead healthy lives, are particularly vulnerable to forced labour and other forms of exploitation. Moreover, there is a direct correlation between, for example, primary school enrollment levels for girls and major reductions in child marriages. 5. Article 14 contains a number of elements which warrant some elaboration in the light of the Committee’s extensive experience in examining State party reports. 6. Compulsory. The element of compulsion serves to highlight the fact that neither parents , nor guardians, nor the State are entitled to treat as optional the decision as to whether the child should have access to primary education. Similarly, the prohibition of gender discrimination in access to education, required also by Articles 2 and 3 of the Covenant, is further underlined by this requirement. It should be emphasized, however, that the education offered must be adequate in quality, relevant to the child and must promote the realization of the child’s other rights. 7. Free of charge. The nature of this requirement is unequivocal. The right is expressly formulated so as to ensure the availability of primary education without charge to the child, parents or guardians. Fees imposed by the Government, the local authorities or the school, and other direct costs, constitute disincentives to the enjoyment of the right and may jeopardize its realization. They are also often highly regressive in effect. Their elimination is a matter which must be addressed by the required plan of action. Indirect costs, such as compulsory levies on parents (sometimes portrayed as being voluntary , when in fact they are not), or the obligation to wear a relatively expensive school uniform, can also fall...

Share