Result: Human Rights Council Report about Jugendamt
Both governments and embassies have approached Germany for many years
because of international family and child conflicts. Especially foreign
parents have had dramatic conflicts with German Jugendamt and courts.
Foreigners report to be shocked meeting German administration and courts
e. g. not having even heard when decisions were made and of many other
forms of unfair treatment. 5 German states are the last states in the
civilized world to deny freedom of information i. e. the "Right to Know"
or access to public information. While Germans
have been subject to these denials for ages (eg. lack the right to good
of separation of powers),
foreigners are used to these civil rights and do not accept human right
When administrative courts were founded, there was no supervision of
judges, because it would have been a disadvantage for citizens who
complain against the administration lead by the government. However the
dictator Hitler added
supervision of courts. Before the Prussian
administrative courts (Preußischen Oberverwaltungsgericht) have been
without supervision since 1875, as well as e. g. administrative courts in
Saxony. But § 7 sentence 1 of the first regulation
("Durchführungsverordnung) of 29. April 1941 of the decree of the fuehrer
("Führer-Erlass") on the establishment of the administrative court of the
Reich (Imperial Law Gazette RGBl
I S. 201: Erste DV = RGBl I S. 224) gave the minister of justice of
the Reich supervision rights.
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique process which involves a
periodic review of the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States.
The UPR is a significant innovation of the Human Rights Council which is
based on equal treatment for all countries. It provides an opportunity for
all States to declare what actions they have taken to improve the human
rights situations in their countries and to overcome challenges to the
enjoyment of human rights. The UPR also includes a sharing of best human
rights practices around the globe.
25. April 2013 the human rights situation of Germany was reviewed. 96
states gave their comments and made approx. 200 recommendations. Each
delegation had 74 seconds to give their contribution.
B. Interactive dialogue and responses by the State under review
"31. Poland requested to know about its recommendation made at the
first review regarding judicial control over the administrative
decisions of the Jugendamt and about measures taken to meet the
international obligations arising from article 17 of ICCPR. Poland made
59. Turkey noted insecurity caused by growing xenophobia and the
killing of 10 persons by the National Socialist Underground. It noted
the separation of Turkish children from their families by the Jugendamt
and criticism of that body’s actions. Turkey made recommendations.
115. Italy requested Germany to elaborate on the specific measures it
intended to take for migrant children to overcome possible obstacles
encountered in accessing higher education. It referred to concerns about
the work of the Jugendamt."
II. Conclusions and/or recommendations
123. Responses to the following recommendations will be provided by Germany
in due time, but no later than the 24th session of the Human Rights Council
in September 2013:
"123.49: Secure proper follow-up to the accepted recommendation from
the first UPR cycle and introduce tools that will improve the effective
judicial control over the administrative decisions of the Office of
Youth called Jugendamt (Poland); [approx. 5]
123.145. Introduce independent and effective legal and professional
supervision of the Youth Office (Jugendamt) and ensure that the
Jugendamt decisions be in conformity with binding international norms,
including the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (Turkey);
[approx. 3, approx. 4]
123.169. Federal and State Governments, in consultation with civil
society, broaden and intensify existing human rights training in schools
as well as the routine training of police, security, prison and health
personnel, and set up a monitoring and evaluation mechanism to assess
progress (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland);" 
123.22: Ratify the United Nations Convention against Corruption
(Austria); (Article 5, 7, 10, 12 and 13 are about ATI in various
fields.) [UNCAC mentioned in Baltic Sea NGO Forum Submission]
123.28: Withdraw all reservations to human rights instruments to which
Germany is a party, first of all, to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (Russian Federation); 
123.42: Align its national legislation with international human rights
standards (Iraq); [indirect 1, 3, approx. 5]
123.46: Expand the mandate of the German Institute for Human Rights to
receiving complaints of human rights violations (India);" 
Conclusion: Suggestions 2,3,4 and 7 of the Baltic Sea NGO Forum
were recommended by states. Publishing international conventions 
could support education in international law (see recommendation
123.169). Freedom of Information law  and independent judges  is
indirectly support by recommendation 123.42 (Align its national
legislation with international human rights standards). Therefore only
decriminalisation of defamation  is missing, ATI , independent
judges  and publish CCPR, ESCR on Internet  are indirectly
124.22: "Accepted. Before ratifying the United Nations Convention
against Corruption, an adaptation of the legislation regarding the
criminal offence of bribery of members of parliament is needed. A
corresponding draft legislative bill should be submitted by members of
the German Bundestag."
124.28: (Withdraw reservations e. g. ICCCP): "Accepted. Legal
regulations and their implementation already comply with international
standards and norms. "
124.42: (Align its national legislation with international human
rights standards): "Accepted."
124.46: "Not accepted."
124.49: (control over Office of Youth): "Accepted. Already now it
is possible to subject decisions made by the Youth Welfare Office to
124.145: (supervision of Office of Youth)"Accepted. It is
already possible to have decisions taken by the Youth Welfare Office
examined by a court to verify their compliance with applicable German
law and also with the European Court of Human Rights’ rulings with
regard to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights."
124.169: "Accepted. Human rights education is embedded in state
school curriculums. It is constantly reviewed, as is human rights
basic and further training in the Federal Police. Additional
monitoring is not necessary."
Conclusion: Germany accepts, but will do nothing, basically because of
the pretension that "standards are high enough".
It is a scandal that Germany has not ratified the UNCAC and the government
must propose its own proposal and not longer wait for other proposals.
Access to information is a human right according to Art. 19 ICCPR Germany
has reservations here.
Does the German delegation recognize, that Germany can not continue to
violate the human right of access to information in 5 federal states with
half of the population? (see 124.28 og 124.42)