The minimum age for criminal responsibility

All information on this page is taken from At What Age?...are school-children employed, married and taken to court? This major study was written by Angela Melchiorre uniquely on the basis of States Parties’ Reports submitted to the Committee on the Rights of the Child from January 1997 to January 2004. Because of this specific choice of sources and the backlog in the reporting procedure, information concerning some countries may not reflect the most recent developments. The study, nonetheless, derives from authoritative information, as explained in the methodology.

We encourage all to visit the publication in its entirety (just click on the book title). This will also enable you to compare different countries, a major part of the understanding of why this information is important. For the general comparative table, see here.

Article 40.3 of the CRC requires States to promote "the establishment of a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe penal law" and the Guidelines for Periodic Reports indicate that the reports should in particular indicate the measures adopted to ensure a child-oriented justice system, by inter alia establishing such an age. Therefore, the CRC does not indicate a desirable minimum age for criminal responsibility. International standards, such as the Beijing Rules, do however recommend that this age be based on emotional, mental and intellectual maturity and not be too low.

Assessing the developing capacity or maturity of the child is somewhat subjective, and there are no agreed indicators (some countries use puberty as an indicator of maturity, others rely on psychological assessments). Moreover, the issue is complicated by a lack of clarity in Article 40 of the CRC itself. It is not immediately clear how to interpret "a minimum age" since many countries have more than one minimum age for criminal responsibility. In fact, the range of ages generally follows this pattern:
     a) an absolute minimum below which the child is conclusively presumed to lack capacity to commit a crime (doli incapax);
     b) a minimum age for deprivation of liberty;
     c) an age of criminal or penal majority above which there is a rebuttable presumption of capacity and therefore the possibility of being tried as an adult (below this age there is a burden of proof on the prosecution to show that the accused child had developed sufficient capacity).

The data presented in At what age? reflect to a certain extent the confusion over this topic. Some countries provide information on what appears to be the absolute minimum age of criminal responsibility and nevertheless continue to provide details on the administration of justice which seem to contradict or undermine the effective establishment of such an age (i.e. where children below this age may be arrested or temporarily detained or otherwise brought before a juvenile court). Many countries report that children can be held criminally responsible for "serious" crimes at a younger age than for minor offences. Often the lists of these serious crimes are somewhat elastic and range from murder to "malicious hooliganism" or minor traffic offences, thus adding to the mystification and flexibility of the issue. Furthermore, children in a large number of countries are considered mature enough to take responsibility for their actions at or near the age when they are required to begin their compulsory education. The graphic below shows that at least 125 countries hold children criminally responsible for at least some deviant behaviour during the age of compulsory education (often taken as 6-15). The fact that a child can be held responsible at such an early age often entails various measures of custody, reform, correction or protection which may or may not include adequate educational provision, therefore the establishment of a very low minimum age for criminal responsibility could have a detrimental impact on the child and his or her educational process and development.

This publication focuses on the minimum age of criminal responsibility, and does not deal with the complexities of other ages. The rule of interpretation is to record only the age where there is no possibility for evidence to show that the child fulfils the criteria for criminal responsibility, that is to say that he or she is fully exempt from being criminally liable.

Methodology
This publication summarises results of a great deal of research, based on an analysis of States Parties' reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child. It was first published in 2002 and included State reports presented from January 1997 to August 2002. The current text is a revision/update of the previous findings with the addition of State reports from August 2002 to January 2004. Whilst it would be possible to supplement, or contrast this source with non-governmental or academic material, this has not been done here. States Parties' reports constitute self-assessment by governments and presenting them here, in an easily comparable format, allows inter-national comparison and permits a range of actors to hold governments accountable for the standards which they report under the CRC.

The first part of the publication displays a summary table listing all reporting States. Four different entries are given: minimum school-leaving age, minimum age of employment, minimum age for marriage and minimum age for criminal responsibility. The year of report and the page number are also noted for ease of consultation. The second part contains excerpts from the relevant States Parties' reports presented in alphabetical order, with direct reference to document and paragraph numbers. The source can be the initial report to the Committee, the periodic report or both where the latter is silent on minimum ages or presents unclear or incomplete information. The sections of these reports herein have been reproduced faithfully, and where information has been omitted as it was judged irrelevant this is clearly indicated in the following manner: […]. For a fully authoritative record, readers are encouraged to make use of the original text following document symbols and paragraph references given for each report.

Comparing different ages in different countries or even within the same country is a difficult task, and inferring a precise number from a general description is a dangerous exercise. Collecting, collating, analysing and interpreting State reports requires a great deal of care, thought and patience. Individual country reports are often more than a hundred pages long, and written by different parts of the government. Moreover, a variety of legal sources may exist. They may thus present different minimum ages for the same issue and even when a precise age is mentioned the language can lead one to question its enforceability. In order to maintain coherence, an analytical framework has been developed and followed uniformly to arrive at the interpretations presented in the summary table.
Where no information is provided, this is indicated by a cross (X); where the information is available but not sufficiently clear, or is self-contradictory, a question mark (?) is used. Where the information indicates a change in legislation or a division of competence in federal States or a particular situation or exception that begs closer scrutiny, a star (*) is placed beside the number. Otherwise, the information provided in the reports is translated into a precise number or a "No minimum", according to the case. In most situations the age defined by a precise number is the lowest legally permissible for completing compulsory education, entering employment, contracting marriage and being attributed criminal responsibility. In many other cases the figure has been inferred following close consideration of the four main areas according to the principles outlined below.