Summary of law reform necessary to achieve full prohibition

Prohibition is still to be achieved in the home, penal institutions, alternative care settings and possibly schools.

There appears to be no confirmation in law of a right of parents and other carers to administer “reasonable chastisement” or similar in disciplining children, but legal provisions against violence and abuse are not interpreted as prohibiting all corporal punishment. The widespread acceptance of a certain degree of violence in childrearing necessitates clarity in law that no amount or kind of corporal punishment can be considered reasonable or lawful. Explicit prohibition should be enacted of all corporal punishment of children, including within the family.

There should be clarity in law that the prohibition of corporal punishment applies unequivocally to all education settings, including public and private. Explicit prohibition of corporal punishment should be enacted in relation to all institutions accommodating children in conflict with the law and to all alternative care settings, including public and private day care, residential care, foster care, etc.

Current legality of corporal punishment

Home

Corporal punishment is lawful in the home. Provisions against violence and abuse in the Criminal Code (1989), the Act on the Family (1990), the Act on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Children (2006) and the Act on Development and Protection of Women (2004) are not interpreted as prohibiting all corporal punishment in childrearing.

Schools

Corporal punishment is considered unlawful under article 27 of the Act on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Children, which confirms the state’s policy to create “child-friendly” schools in which students are protected from corporal punishment. We have yet to confirm that this law is interpreted as prohibiting all corporal punishment in all educational institutions. Under the Education Act (2000), schools must adopt rules for their own management and refer students to a disciplinary board in cases of disciplinary offences (article 15). Corporal punishment and other disciplinary measures that offend pupils’ dignity are reportedly prohibited in primary schools (10 August 2010, CRC/C/LAO/2, Second state party report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child (April 2009), para. 107) (information unconfirmed).

Penal system

Corporal punishment is unlawful as a sentence for crime. Article 25 of the Criminal Code states that “punishment does not aim at generating physical suffering or at outraging human dignity”, and there is no provision for judicial corporal punishment in the Penal Code or the Act on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Children.

Corporal punishment is considered unlawful as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions, but there is no explicit prohibition. Article 160 of the Criminal Code punishes “physical violence and torture, use of measures or other acts inconsistent with the law against suspects or prisoners during arrest, trial or service of sentence”. Article 51 of the Act on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Children lists the rights of child offenders, article 62 prohibits “all forms of violence” towards a child in detention, and article 75 lists the rights of children in vocational training centres, but there is no reference to corporal punishment.

Alternative care

There is no prohibition of corporal punishment in other institutions and forms of childcare.

Prevalence research

According to statistics from UNICEF, 71% of children aged 2-14 experienced physical punishment and/or psychological aggression in the home in 2005-2006: 35% experienced physical punishment and psychological aggression, 27% experienced psychological aggression only and 9% experienced physical punishment only; boys were more likely than girls to be physically punished (48% compared with 41%). Of girls and women aged 15-49, 81% think that a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife under certain circumstances. (UNICEF, 2009, Progress for Children: A report card on child protection, NY: UNICEF)

In a study reported in 2003, 30% of detained children reported experiencing physical or mental punishment, including beating, crawling, sitting in the sun and withholding meals (Sandvik-Nylund, 2003, Regional Assessment: Violence against children in East Asia and the Pacific region, Bangkok: UNICEF. Cited in Nogami, N., 2005, Discipline and punishment of children: a rights-based review of laws. attitudes and practices in East Asia and the Pacific - Save the Children Sweden Southeast Asia and the Pacific, regional submission to the UN Secretary General's Global Study on Violence against Children, Stockholm, Save the Children Sweden)

Recommendations by human rights treaty bodies

Committee on the Rights of the Child

“While the Committee notes that corporal punishment is prohibited in primary schools, it is concerned at reports that some teachers use physical punishment as a means of discipline.  The Committee is also concerned that corporal punishment is lawful in the home and is not prohibited in alternative care settings. 

“The Committee recommends that the State party:

a) explicitly prohibit by law all forms of corporal punishment of children in all settings, including in the family, schools, and alternative childcare and implement those laws effectively;

b) actively promote the use of alternative forms of discipline in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity with a view to raising public awareness of children’s right to protection from all corporal punishment and to decreasing public acceptance of its use in childrearing.

c) take into account the Committee’s general comment No.8 on the right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment (CRC/C/GC/8, 2006).”
([4 February 2011], CRC/C/LAO/CO/2 Advance Unedited Version, Concluding observations on second report, paras. 38 and 39)

“The Committee is concerned at the lack of awareness and information on ill-treatment and abuse of children, including sexual abuse, both within and outside the family, and at the lack of appropriate measures and mechanisms to prevent and combat such abuse. The lack of special structures for children victims of abuses and their limited access to justice are also matters of concern, as is the lack of rehabilitation measures for such children. The persistence of corporal punishment within the family and its acceptance by the society is also a matter of concern.

“In the light of article 19 of the Convention, the Committee further recommends that the State party take all appropriate measures, including revision of legislation, to prevent and combat ill-treatment within the family and sexual abuse of children. It suggests, inter alia, that the authorities initiate a comprehensive study on abuse, ill-treatment and domestic violence to improve the understanding of the nature and the scope of the problem, and set up social programmes to prevent all types of child abuses as well as to rehabilitate the child victims. Law enforcement should be strengthened with respect to such crimes; adequate procedures and mechanisms to deal with complaints of child abuse should be developed, such as multidisciplinary teams to handle cases, special rules of evidence, and special investigators or community focal points.”
(10 October 1997, CRC/C/15/Add.78, Concluding observations on initial report, paras. 20 and 44)

Universal Periodic Review

Lao PDR was examined under the Universal Periodic Review process in 2010. No recommendations were made concerning corporal punishment of children.