Keywords
deprivation of liberty
human rights
How to Cite
Abstract
The adolescent population deprived of liberty constitutes up to this day a sector systematically violated by who should be the main guarantor of their rights, the Paraguayan State. They are mostly deprived of their liberty without having gone through a fair trial and according to their stage of life. This is due to the lack of a Juvenile Criminal Justice System in Paraguay, which is still in debt with this population historically postponed by not establishing a specific regime for its treatment, in addition to the lack of public policies that offer alternatives to deprivation of liberty. Thus, before entering educational centers where they will be kept in custody, adolescents are already victims of the violation of their rights by not respecting the priority of the application of the measures established in the Book V of Law No. 1,680 of the Code of Childhood and Adolescence which stipulates deprivation of liberty as the ultimate measure to be applied only when socio-educational and corrective measures have failed. This means that juvenile detention centers are increasingly overcrowded and even have detainees who have not been found guilty of any crimes. In this sense, the realization of this investigation revealed that 26 years after the International Convention on the Human Rights of the Child, there is still no significant progress regarding adolescents deprived of their liberty, since the ratification is only visible in the document whereas in practice the constant is the indolence of the State before this problem. The purpose of this study was to verify the implementation of the “United Nations Rules for Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty” inside one of the largest detention centers for male adolescents in the country, the Integral Educational Center of Itaugua (IEC). Also, this approach aims to publicly show the conditions of detention in which the adolescents are to generate a response. This research dedicated to survey concise data of a great discrepancy between what is established in the UN Rules and the institutional practice of the IEC. Finally, these data are not only a wakeup call for society in general but also they invite us to assume our adult responsibility as defenders of the Rights of Children and Adolescents.
References
Burak, S. D. (1999). Protección, riesgo y vulnerabilidad. Adolescente Latinoamericano. Recuperado de http://ral-adolec.bvs.br/scielo.php?script=sci
Defensa de Niñas y Niños Internacional. (2011). Violaciones de Derechos Humanos en los Sistemas de Justicia Penal Juvenil. Cochabamba: DNI.
Domínguez, J. C. (1996). ¿Es necesario encerrar? El derecho a vivir en comunidad. La Plata: Editorial Cuadernos de CALEUCHE.
Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia. (2007). Convención Internacional sobre los Derechos del Niño y de la Niña. Asunción: UNICEF.
Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia (1985). Reglas de las Naciones Unidas Para la Protección de menores privados de Libertad. Recuperado de: http://www.ordenjuridico.gob.mx/TratInt/Derechos%20Humanos/OTROS%2018.pdf
Dionne, J. & Zambrano, A. (2009). Intervención con adolescentes infractores de la Ley. Revista El Observador, 35-52. Recuperado de: www.sename.cl/wsename/otros/observador5/el_observador_5.pdf
Mecanismo Nacional de Prevención de la Tortura. (2015). Informe Anual de Gestión 2014. Asunción: MNP.
Ley 1680/01, Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia, Paraguay.
Puebla, M. D. (2004). La cuestión de los Adolescentes Infractores. Necesidad de una adecuación substancial a la Convención Internacional de los Derechos del Niño. In Niño, Sistema de Justicia para Adolescentes en Conflicto con la Ley Penal. Montevideo: OEA.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2016 Kera Yvoty: reflexiones sobre la cuestión social