Summary of law reform necessary to achieve full prohibition

Corporal punishment is prohibited in all settings, including the home.

Current legality of corporal punishment

Home

Corporal punishment is prohibited in the home. Article 9(2) of the Law on Protection of the Rights of the Child 1998 states: “A child cannot be treated cruelly, cannot be tormented and physically punished, and his/her dignity and honour cannot be offended.” The Law makes “failure to discharge parental obligations … the malicious usage of parental authority, the physical punishing of a child, as well as cruel behaviour against him/her” offences under the law (article 24(4)).

Schools

Corporal punishment is prohibited in schools under article 9(2) of the Law on Protection of the Rights of the Child (see above).

Penal system

Corporal punishment is unlawful as a sentence for crime. It is not a permitted sentence under the Criminal Code.

Corporal punishment is unlawful as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions under article 9(2) of the Law on Protection of the Rights of the Child (see under “Home”).

Alternative care

Corporal punishment is prohibited in alternative care settings under article 9(2) of the Law on Protection of the Rights of the Child applies (see under “Home”), and article 39(1) states: “A child who is taken under outside-family care cannot be humiliated, cannot be continually reminded of his/her vulnerability or dependence, or his/her dignity and honour offended in any other way.”

Prevalence research

A study involving interviews with 1,223 18-25 year olds found that 16.4% (17.9% of females and 14.9% of males) were sometimes, often or very often pushed, grabbed, shoved, slapped or had something thrown at them and/or were hit so hard that they were marked or injured by an adult living with them during their childhood. (Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (2012), Adverse Childhood Experiences of Young Adults in Latvia: Study Report from the 2011 Survey, Riga: Ministry of Health, Centre for Disease Prevention and Control & Nordic Council of Ministers’ Office in Latvia)

In a 2009 survey of 1,010 respondents, 38.9% believed corporal punishment should never be used; 48.8% believed it “should not be used in general, but there are situations when it is justified”; 8.5% believed it “may be used if the parent considers that it will be effective”. In an identical survey with a similar sample in 2005, 12.1% said that corporal punishment “may be used”. Almost half (47%) of respondents to the 2009 survey believed that over 40% of children in Latvia experience corporal punishment. Results were similar in 2005. (Marketing and public opinion research centre SKDS (2009), Attitude towards corporal punishment of children: survey of Latvia’s population. Part of the Childhood Without Abuse project, which includes studies carried out in Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine in 2005 and 2009)

A 2009 survey of 214 teachers in primary schools in Riga found that 54% belived that corporal punishment is humiliating for the child and 44% believed that it meant that “the parents are not good at rearing children”. 22% of respondents felt that the use of “spanking” as a punishment would justify intervention by a third party. (Nobody’s Children Foundation and Center Against Abuse “Dardedze” (2009), Riga teachers’ attitudes toward child abuse: Research report. Part of  the Childhood Without Abuse project, which includes studies carried out in Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine in 2005 and 2009)

Recommendations by human rights treaty bodies

Committee on the Rights of the Child

“The Committee welcomes the explicit prohibition of corporal punishment in the Law on the Protection of the Rights of the Child, but remains concerned that corporal punishment and other degrading practices continue to be practised within schools and in other institutions. The Committee is also concerned that while regional inspectors are mandated to investigate cases of corporal punishment, the sanctions they impose may not always be adequate, and that it is difficult to suspend or dismiss the offenders.

“The Committee reiterates its previous recommendation to ban from practice corporal punishment and other degrading practices in all settings, and to encourage the State party to strengthen measures to promote alternative forms of discipline in schools and other institutions for children, inter alia, by strengthening sanctions and bringing offenders to justice, including through the suspension of offenders from schools and institutions.”
(28 June 2006, CRC/C/LVA/CO/2, Concluding observations on second report, paras. 30 and 31)

“While noting that the Law on the Protection of the Rights of the Child of 1998 explicitly prohibits corporal punishment, the Committee expresses its concern at the still widespread use of corporal punishment, in particular within the family and in school and other institutions.

“In light of articles 19 and 28(2) of the Convention, the Committee encourages the State party to develop measures to raise awareness on the harmful effects of corporal punishment and to promote alternative forms of discipline in families to be administered in a manner consistent with the child’s dignity and in conformity with the Convention. It also recommends the effective enforcement of the ban on corporal punishment in school and other institutions.”
(21 February 2001, CRC/C/15/Add.142, Concluding observations on initial report, paras. 27 and 28)

European Committee of Social Rights

“The Committee notes that the situation which it has previously found to be in conformity on this point has not changed. It notes from another source1 that while regional inspectors are mandated to investigate cases of corporal punishment, the sanctions they impose may not always be adequate, and that it is difficult to suspend or dismiss the offenders. The Committee asks the next report to provide explanation.…
 “Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee concludes that the situation in Latvia is in conformity with Article 17 of the Charter of 1961.”

(January 2012, Conclusions 2011)

The Committee noted in its previous conclusion on Article 17 that Latvian legislation prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of children. Persons responsible for violence against a child, for prompting or forcing it to participate in sexual activities, for abuse of a child or for involving it in prostitution are guilty of a criminal offence (Section 51 of the Act on the Protection of the Rights of the Child). The Committee further observed that the Law on the Protection of the Rights of the Child provides for an explicit prohibition on corporal punishment of children including punishment within the family.
(2007, Conclusions XVIII-2, vol.1)

“The Committee notes from another source that the prohibition on corporal punishment of children includes punishment within the family.”
(March 2005, Conclusions XVII-2)

Universal Periodic Review

Latvia was examined in the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review in 2011 (session 11). The following recommendation was made and was accepted by the Government (11 July 2011, A/HRC/18/9, Report of the Working Group, para. 92(14)):

“Adopt the necessary legislation to explicitly prohibit violence against children, including corporal punishment (Finland)”

The Government accepted a recommendation to prohibit all corporal punishment, stating that it had already been achieved (11 July 2011, A/HRC/18/9, Report of the Working Group, para. 89): “Finally, corporal punishment is prohibited through the criminalization of domestic violence and Latvia does not see the need for specific additional legislation.”

Examination in the second cycle is scheduled for 2016.