ensure compensation of the victims . In its decision , the Commission states :
There is no right for individuals , and particularly the Government of a country to apply physical violence to individuals for offences . Such a right would be tantamount to sanctioning State - sponsored torture under the Charter and contrary to the very nature of this human rights treaty .
« 1 »
The Committee on the Rights of the Child is pleased to note that constitutional and other high - level courts in many countries have issued decisions condemning corporal punishment of children in some or all settings , and in most cases quoting the Convention on the Rights of the Chil
« 2 » .
When the Committee on the Rights of the Child has raised
هامش
( 1 ). African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights , Curtis Francis Doebbler v . Sudan , Comm . No . / ( ) ; see para . .( 2 ) .For example , in the Fiji Court of Appeal declared corporal punishment in schools and the penal system unconst itutional . The judgement declared : Children have rights no wit inferior to the rights of adults . Fiji has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child . Our Constitution also guarantees fundamental rights to every person . Government is required to adhere to principles respecting the rights of all individuals , communities and groups . By their status as children , children need special protection . Our educational institutions should be sanctuaries of peace and creative enrichment , not places for fear , ill - treatment and tampering with the human dignity of students ( Fiji Court of Appeal , Naushad Ali v . State , ) . In , Italys highest Court , the Supreme Court of Cassation in Rome , issued a decision that effectively prohibited all parental use of corporal punishment . The judgement states : . . . The use of violence for educational purposes can no longer be considered lawful . There are two reasons for this : the first is the overriding importance which the [ Italian ] legal system attributes to protecting the dignity of the individual . This includes minors who now hold rights and are no longer simply objects to be protected by their parents or , worse still , objects at the disposal of their parents . The second reason is that , as an educational aim , the harmonious development of a childs personality , which ensures that he / she embraces the values of peace , tolerance and coexistence , cannot be achieved by using violent means which contradict these goals ( Cambria , Cass , sez . VI , Marzo [ Supreme Court of Cassation , th Penal Section , March ] , Foro It II , ( Italy ) ) . Also see South African Constitutional Court ( ) Christian Education South Africa v . Minister of Education , CCT / ; ( ) SA ( CC ) ; ( ) BCLR ( CC ) , August .