Summary of law reform necessary to achieve full prohibition

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

The legal defences for the use of corporal punishment in the Penal Code and the Personal Status Act should be repealed and replaced with explicit prohibition of all corporal punishment, however light and whoever the perpetrator.

Explicit prohibition should be enacted in legislation applicable to all education settings, public and private, religious and secular, in addition to repeal of legal defences permitting the use of corporal punishment. Explicit prohibition should also be enacted in relation to disciplinary measures in all institutions accommodating children in conflict with the law and in all care settings, including public and private day care, residential institutions, foster care, etc.

Current legality of corporal punishment

Home

Corporal punishment is lawful in the home. The Penal Code (1949), which is based on the Lebanese Penal Code, permits parents and teachers to discipline children “as sanctioned by general custom”. Paternal guardianship is governed by the Personal Status Act (1953) and includes the exercise of disciplinary authority (article 170). As at August 2011, a comprehensive Children’s Rights Bill was under discussion.

Schools

Corporal punishment is lawful in schools under the Penal Code (see above). The Ministry of Education has issued decisions and orders stating that children should not be subjected to physical punishment, and encouraging teachers to use dialogue and other methods of discipline, but there is no explicit prohibition of corporal punishment in law.

Penal system

Corporal punishment is unlawful as a sentence for crime. There is no provision for it in the Juveniles Act (1974) or the Penal Code. The Constitution prohibits “physical or mental torture or degrading treatment” (article 28).

There is no explicit prohibition of corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions.

Alternative care

There is no explicit prohibition of corporal punishment in alternative care settings.

Prevalence research

A UNICEF report published in 2010 states that 89% of children aged 2-14 experienced violent discipline (physical punishment and/or psychological aggression) in 2005-2006. Nearly eight in ten experienced physical punishment, and 92% of mothers and caregivers thought that physical punishment was necessary in childrearing. Non-violent discipline was also widely used: experienced by 90% of children. Nearly one quarter of children experienced severe physical punishment (being hit or slapped on the face, head or ears or being hit over and over with an implement) and 84% experienced psychological aggression (being shouted at, yelled at, screamed at or insulted). Boys were slightly more likely than girls to experience violent discipline: 90% compared to 88%. Children aged 5-9 were more likely to experience violent discipline than those of other ages: 91% of children aged 5-9 compared to 85% of children aged 2-4 and 88% of children aged 10-14. Children living in larger households were more likely to experience violent discipline: 90% of children in households of 6 or more people compared to 75% of children in households of 2-3 people. The statistics also suggest that children with more siblings are more likely to experience violent discipline in most countries involved in the study (p. 72). Children living in households with adults with a higher average level of education were less likely to experience violent discipline than those living with less educated adults. No significant differences in children’s experience of violent discipline were found according to engagement in child labour. (UNICEF (2010), Child Disciplinary Practices at Home: Evidence from a Range of Low- and Middle-Income Countries, NY: UNICEF)

Recommendations by human rights treaty bodies

Committee on the Rights of the Child

“While welcoming the circulars issued by the Ministry of Education to prohibit the use of physical and verbal violence in schools, the Committee remains concerned that corporal punishment by teachers and parents is explicitly authorized by the Penal Code and article 170 of the Personal Status Act and widely used in the family, schools and alternative care settings. The Committee is also concerned that there is no explicit prohibition of corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure in alternative care settings and in penal institutions.

“In light of its General Comment No. 8 (2006) on the right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment, the Committee, recalls its previous recommendation (CRC/C/15/Add.212 paragraph 37) and urges the State party to:

1. repeal article 170 of the Personal Status Act and the provisions of the Penal Code which authorize corporal punishment;
2. prohibit unequivocally by law and without any further delay corporal punishment in the family, schools and alternative care settings and penal institutions;
3. ensure that laws prohibiting corporal punishment are effectively implemented and that legal proceedings are systematically initiated against those responsible of ill-treating children;
4. introduce sustained public education, awareness-raising and social mobilization programmes, involving children, families, communities and religious leaders, on both the physical and psychological harmful effects of corporal punishment with a view to changing the general attitude towards this practice and promote positive, non-violent and participatory forms of child-rearing and discipline as an alternative to corporal punishment; and
5. ensure the involvement and participation of the whole society, including children, in the design and implementation of preventive strategies against violence and other forms of abuse.

“The Committee commends the State party for the significant progress achieved over the years in the areas of school enrolment, literacy and gender parity in primary education…. The Committee is however concerned about: …

d) corporal punishment and psychological violence which are still considered as a tool for childhood discipline and teachers and administrators who are not sufficiently trained on the use of alternatives forms of discipline.

“In light of its General Comment No. 1 (CRC/GC/2001/1) on the aims of education, the Committee recommends that the State party: …

e) take all the necessary measures to eliminate corporal punishment in schools and ensure, through appropriate public education and professional training, positive, participatory and non-violent forms of discipline….”
(6 October 2011, CRC/C/SYR/CO/3-4 Advance Unedited Version, Concluding observations on third/fourth report, paras. 53, 54, 70 and 71)

“The Committee regrets that little progress has been made in the State party in studying and raising awareness of ill-treatment of children within the family, as well as domestic violence and its impact on children. Moreover, it is concerned that corporal punishment in schools is not prohibited by law.

“The Committee recommends that the State party:

1. conduct a comprehensive study to assess the nature and extent of ill-treatment and abuse of children, as well as domestic violence, and that it uses the results of the study to design policies and programmes to address this issue;
2. take the necessary measures to prevent child abuse and neglect (e.g. educational public campaigns about the negative consequences of ill-treatment of children, parenting classes) and promote positive, non-violent forms of discipline as an alternative to corporal punishment;
3. take legislative measures to prohibit all forms of violence, including corporal punishment and sexual abuse of children in the family, schools and other institutions; ...”

(10 July 2003, CRC/C/15/Add.212, Concluding observations on second report, paras. 36 and 37)

“The Committee is concerned at the lack of appropriate measures to combat and prevent ill-treatment and abuse within the family and to provide physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration to children victims of such ill-treatment and abuse, and at the lack of information provided on this matter. The Committee also notes with concern that disciplinary measures in schools often consist of corporal punishment although it is prohibited by law.

“The Committee recommends that special attention be paid by the authorities to the problem of ill-treatment and abuse of children within the family and of corporal punishment in schools. In this regard, the Committee stresses the need for information and education campaigns to prevent and combat the use of any form of physical or mental punishment within the family or in schools, as well as for the establishment of a complaint mechanism intended to benefit children victims of such ill-treatment or abuse.”
(24 January 1997, CRC/C/15/Add.70, Concluding observations on initial report, paras. 17 and 28)

Universal Periodic Review

The Syrian Arab Republic was examined in the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review process in 2011. As at 11 October 2011, the report of the working group is not available. Examination in the second cycle is scheduled for 2016.