The essential aim of treatment of every child during the trial and also if found
guilty of infringing the penal law shall be his or her reformation, re-integration
into his or her family and social rehabilitation.
105. The Court also observes that pursuant to Article 40(1) of the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC):39
States Parties recognize the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or
recognized as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner
consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth, which
reinforces the child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms
of others and which takes into account the child's age and the desirability of
promoting the child's reintegration and the child's assuming a constructive
role in society.
106. Specifically on the severity of sentences in light of the age of the offender,
this Court finds it relevant to take cognisance of the ECHR’s decision in
Singh v. the United Kingdom where the Court held that while an
indeterminate term of detention for a convicted young person which may be
long as that person’s life can only be justified on the need to protect the
public, a failure to have regard to the changes that take place as a child
matures means that the said child would have forfeited their liberty for the
rest of their lives.40
107. This Court is of the considered view that while both the CRC and ACRWC
do not explicitly make provision regarding the age for the imposition of the
sentence of life imprisonment on child offenders, by providing for reintegration, reformation and assuming a constructive role in society, it
becomes clear that imposing a sentence of life imprisonment runs contrary
to the goals of these instruments. It follows that if a child offender is
incarcerated for life, they cannot be re-integrated nor be able to assume a
constructive role in society. Such interpretation is only in line with a
39
40
Ratified by the Respondent State on 10 June 1991.
Singh v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 23389/94), Judgment (21 February 1996), para 61.
27