Andorra

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019, page 19)

“In its previous conclusion the Committee found that corporal punishment of children was not explicitly prohibited in the home, in schools and in institutions during the reference period and therefore concluded that during the reference period the situation was not in conformity with the Charter (Conclusions 2015).

“However the Committee recalls that following amendments to the Penal Code in 2014 corporal punishment is unlawful in all settings. The report also states that a draft law on the Rights of Children and Young Persons also contains provisions prohibiting corporal punishment.

“The Committee concludes that the situation is now in conformity in this respect.”

Armenia

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“In its previous conclusion the Committee held that the situation during the reference period was not in conformity with the Charter as corporal punishment was not explicitly prohibited in the home (Conclusions 2015).

“The Committee notes that the report provides details of the various legal provisions prohibiting violence and abuse against children. Under the amendments to Article 8 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia of 21 December 2017 Article 53 of the Family Code has been amended to read as follows: "Parental rights cannot run counter to children’s interests which should be of primary concern for parents. When exercising their rights, parents shall not have the right to harm the physical and psychological health of the children and nor their moral development. The upbringing of children must exclude any use of physical or psychological violence as a disciplinary measure, as well as ignorant, cruel, violent, degrading treatment."

“However the Committee notes from the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children (Country report for Armenia 2019) that “Prohibition is still to be achieved in the home, some alternative care settings and day care.......There is no defence for the use of corporal punishment enshrined in legislation but there is no explicit prohibition. In theory, the prohibition of physical or psychological violence, cruelty and humiliation in childrearing in article 53 of the 25 Family Code would prohibit corporal punishment by parents, but the potential for such an interpretation is undermined by the near universal social acceptance and use of corporal punishment in childrearing……..”

“The Committee asks for the Government’s comments on this. In the meantime, the Committee finds that the situation is still not in conformity in this respect. (…)

“The Committee concludes that the situation in Armenia is not in conformity with Article 17§1 of the Charter on the grounds that: • not all forms of corporal punishment of children are prohibited in all settings…”

Austria

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee notes that the situation previously found to be in conformity has not changed (Conclusions 2015). It recalls that that all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings, including in the home.”

Azerbaijan

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee recalls that under the Charter, the prohibition of all forms of corporal punishment of children is a measure that avoids discussions and concerns as to where the borderline would be between what might be acceptable form of corporal punishment and what is not (General Introduction to Conclusions XV-2(2001)). The Committee has clearly stated that all forms of corporal punishment must be prohibited in the home, in schools and in institutions and this prohibition must have an explicit legislative basis. The sanctions available must be adequate, dissuasive and proportionate (Complaint No. 18/2003, World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v. Ireland, Decision on the merits of 7 December 2004).

“The Committee recalls that the Charter was conceived as a whole and in some cases its provisions complement each other, as well as overlap in part (Mental Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC) v. Bulgaria; Complaint No. 41/2007; decision on admissibility of 26 June 2007, §8). This is the case with the protection of children from ill-treatment and abuse. The Committee considers that the fact that the right of children and young persons to social, legal and economic protection is guaranteed under Article 17 of the Charter does not exclude the examination of certain relevant issues relating to the protection of children under Article 7§10. In this connection, the Committee recalls having held the scope of the said two provisions to overlap to a large extent (Conclusions XV-2 (2001), Statement of interpretation on Article 7§10).

“Therefore, since Azerbaijan has not accepted Article 17§1 of the Charter, the Committee will examine the issue relating to corporal punishment under this provision.

“In its previous conclusion (Conclusions 2015) the Committee recalled that under the Charter all forms of corporal punishment must be prohibited in the home, in schools and in institutions and this prohibition must have an explicit legislative basis. It notes from the national report that the Labour Code and the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan do not contain provisions on the application of corporal punishment to children.

“The Committee reiterates its position that the situation is not in conformity with the Charter because all forms of corporal punishment are not prohibited in the home and in institutions

“The Committee concludes that the situation in Azerbaijan is not in conformity with Article 7§10 of the Charter on the grounds that not all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings.”

Belgium

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee recalls that the situation was found not to be in conformity with the Charter both in the previous conclusion (Conclusions 2011) and in its decisions on the merits of the World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v. Belgium (Complaint No. 21/2003, Decision on the merits of 7 September 2004), Association for the Protection of All Children (APPROACH) Ltd v. Belgium, Complaint No. 98/2013, Decision on the merits of 20 January 2015) as well as in its follow-up to decisions on the merits of collective complaints, Findings 2018, on the grounds that corporal punishment is not explicitly prohibited in the home. The situation has not changed. Therefore, the Committee reiterates its previous conclusion of non-conformity on this point.

“The Committee notes from its Follow-up to decisions on the merits of collective complaints, (Findings 2018), that discussions are under way to bring Civil Code into conformity with the Charter and asks to be kept informed of all developments in this field.”

…

“The Committee concludes that the situation in Belgium is not in conformity with Article 17§1 of the Charter on the grounds that: • not all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings; • the maximum length of pre-trial detention is excessive; • children may be detained with adults.”

Bosnia and Herzegovina

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee previously found the situation not to be in conformity with the Charter on the grounds that not all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Brčko District (Conclusions 2015). Corporal punishment of children is not prohibited in the home.

“The Committee previously asked whether corporal punishment is prohibited in childcare institutions in all entities (Conclusions 2015). No information is provided on this. The Committee repeats its request fot this information.

“The Committee notes from other sources [Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punshiment of Children] that corporal punishment in alternative care settings/child care institutions is prohibited in the Republic of Srpska but not in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the District of Brcko.

“The Committee concludes that the situation is not in conformity with the Charter.

…

“The Committee concludes that the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not in conformity with Article 17§1 of the Charter on the ground that not all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Brčko District.”

Czech Republic

(March 2020, Follow-up to the Complaint No. 96/2013 - Association for the Protection of all Children (APPROACH) Ltd v. Czech Republic)

“The Committee concluded that Article 17 of the 1961 Charter had been violated on the ground that not all forms of corporal punishment that is likely to affect the physical integrity, dignity, development or psychological well-being of children, were prohibited.

“The Committee notes the developments of Czech legislation aiming at strengthening the protection of children against all forms of violence.

“The Committee considers that the legislative amendments in 2017 and 2018 are a step forward, but they do not constitute a total, clear and explicit prohibition of all forms of corporal punishment of children that are likely to harm their physical integrity, dignity, development or mental well-being. National legislation does not 17 explicitly prohibit corporal punishment of children in the family home and of children in institutions. In its report the government does not dispute this situation.

“The Committee recalls that it has already assessed the provisions of national law referred to in paragraph 26 and following in the context of the present complaint (see §§49 to 51 of the decision) and noted that they prohibit severe violence against children, and that national courts convict perpetrators of corporal punishment provided that they reach a certain threshold of seriousness.

“The report cites no clear and precise case law that comprehensively prohibits the practice of corporal punishment. The Committee recalls that it has observed in particular that existing legislation could also be interpreted as distinguishing all forms of corporal punishment from the notion of “educational measures", thus allowing corporal punishment for educational purposes, which is contrary to the Charter.

“The Committee further notes that according to the latest report (April 2019) of the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children http://www.endcorpor alpunishment.org/wp-content/uploads/country-reports/CzechRepublic.pdf corporal punishment is still not prohibited in the family home, in alternative care settings, daycare centres and penal institutions. Moreover, in its Concluding observations published on 6 December 2019, the UN Human Rights Committee’ invited the Czech Republic to take practical steps, including through legislative measures where appropriate, to explicitly prohibit corporal punishment in all settings, including the home.

“Legislation on violence and abuse are not interpreted as prohibiting all corporal punishment. However, it should be possible for courts to apply various legislation to clearly and explicitly prohibit all forms of corporal punishment. The Committee invites the authorities to keep it informed of any legislative and jurisprudential developments that would redress the violation found.

“Meanwhile, the Committee therefore considers that the situation has not been brought into conformity with the 1961 Charter.”

Denmark

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee notes that the situation which it has previously considered to be in conformity with the Charter, has not changed. Corporal punishment is prohibited in all settings, including in the home.

“According to the report in 2017, ‘The Children’s Rights package’ allocated DKK 24 million over a four-year period to enhance the protection of children’s rights and prevent illtreatment and abuse of children. Initiatives under the package include the strengthening of early detection of and rapid reaction to cases of ill-treatment with a specific focus on young children aged 0-6 years old. Children’s knowledge of their own rights with a particular focus on the right to be protected from abuse will also be strengthened.”

Estonia

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee recalls that it previously found that the situation was not in conformity with the Charter in this respect. It recalls that all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings, including in the home.

“According to the report, the Child Protection Act which entered into force in 2016, explicitly prohibits the physical punishment of a child, as well as punishment of a child in any other manner which may endanger his/her mental, emotional or physical health.

“The situation remains in conformity with the Charter on this point.”

Finland

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee notes that the situation which it has previously considered to be in conformity with the Charter has not changed (Conclusions 2011).

“According to the report, the Child Welfare Act imposes a duty on an extensive group of authorities and professionals to report directly to the police any suspicions of violence causing a threat to a child’s life or health. Domestic violence and child abuse are detected at periodical medical examinations carried out by paediatric clinics and school health care services.

“From 2010 to 2015, a national Action Plan on Preventing and Reducing the Use of Disciplinary Violence was implemented. The goals of this action plan included several aims, among which reinforcing the human dignity of children, eliminating violence as a method of punishing children, and speeding up a change in attitudes towards physical punishment.

“A National Action Plan for Safety Promotion among Children and Youth for 2018−2025 includes measures for preventing and reducing, inter alia, corporal punishment – both physical and psychological violence inflicted on children as a method of disciplining them (adopted outside the reference period). The Committee requests that the next report provide information on the implementation of this plan.”

France

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“In its previous conclusion (Conclusions 2011) the Committee held that the situation was not in conformity with the Charter as all forms of corporal punishment of children were not prohibited. It recalls that it found in the follow up to APPROACH v. France, Complaint no.92/20113, decision on the merits of 4 December 2014, Findings 2018 that the situation had not been brought into conformity with the Charter.

“The Committee notes that the Law on the prohibition of ordinary educational violence (violences éducatives ordinaires) was adopted unanimously by the Senate in July 2019. It amends article 371-1 of the Civil Code and provides that: “Parental authority is exercised without any physical or psychological violence”. However, as this development took place outside the reference period the Committee will review it next time it examines Article 17.1 of the Charter.

“The Committee notes that there was no change to the situation during the reference period which it had previously found not to be in conformity with the Charter. Therefore, it reiterates its previous findings of non-conformity on this ground.

…

“The Committee concludes that the situation in France is not in conformity with Article 17§1 of the Charter on the grounds that:

• not all forms of corporal punishment of children were prohibited in all settings during the reference period; • the maximum length of pre-trial detention is excessive; • bone testing is used to determine the age of unaccompanied children; • migrant children unaccompanied minors may be detained in inappropriate settings”

Georgia

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“In its previous conclusion the Committee found that the situation was not in conformity with the Charter as not all forms of corporal punishment in institutions, schools and in the home were prohibited (Conclusions 2017). The Committee notes that the report refers to the new child referral mechanism (adopted in 2016) and states that the mechanism prohibits all forms of violence, including corporal punishment in all settings, including the home. The Committee notes that the referral mechanism foresees the development of an integrated database of cases of child violence by January 2019. The database will gather information on the child victims, the perpetrators, the forms of violence, etc. Moreover, all governmental institutions and their structural units, public law entities subordinate to government agencies, nursery schools, general education institutions, sports and arts schools, medical service providers of all kinds including general practitioners, as well as local authorities, all have a duty to refer possible cases of child violence to both the Social Service Agency and the police. However, the Committee considers that this does not amount to a statutory ban on corporal punishment in all settings. The Committee also notes from other sources (Global Initiative to end Corporal Punishment of Children – Briefing to the European Committee of Social Rights 2019, UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations on the fourth periodic report of Georgia (CRC/C/GEO/CO/4, March 2017) that there is no explicit prohibition of corporal punishment of children in Georgia. However, a draft Code on the Rights of the Child is currently under discussion, which provides for a full prohibition of all corporal punishment. The Committee asks to be kept informed of all developments in this respect, but meanwhile, concludes the situation still is not in conformity with the Charter.

…

“The Committee concludes that the situation in Georgia is not in conformity with Article 17§1 of the Charter on the ground that not all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings.”

Germany

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

"The Committee notes that there have been no changes to the situation which it has previously found to be in conformity with the Charter (Conclusions 2015). The Committee recalls that all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings."

Greece

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee notes that there has been no change to the situation previously found to be in conformity with the Charter (Conclusions 2011). The Committee recalls that all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings.”

Hungary

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee notes that the situation which it has previously considered to be in conformity with the Charter has not changed (Conclusions 2015). All forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings, including in the home.”

Iceland

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee recalls that it previously found the situation to be in conformity with the Charter. The Committee notes that there has been no change to the situation, all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings (Conclusions, XX-4 (2015). The Committee notes the information in the report on measures taken to eliminate all forms of violence against children.”

Ireland

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“In its previous conclusion the Committee concluded that the situation in Ireland was not in conformity with Article 17§1 of the Charter on the grounds that corporal punishment of children was not explicitly prohibited in the home (Conclusions 2011). The Committee notes that the Children First Act which entered into force in 2015, abolished the common law defence of reasonable chastisement. Therefore the Committee notes that the situation is now in conformity with the Charter (see Follow up to Decisions on the merits of collective complaints, Findings 2018 in respect of Ireland).”

Italy

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee recalls that in the complaint World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v. Italy, Complaint No. 19/2003, decision on the merits of 7 December 2004, it held that "it is apparent from Judgment No. 4909 of the Court of Cassation of 16 May 1996 (...), that the Court explicitly and conclusively removed any ambiguity concerning the lawfulness of the use of any degree of violence against children by any person, and even in circumstances traditionally regarded as justifying such conduct" ( § 46).

“However, in its previous Conclusion on Article 17.1 (Conclusions 2011), the Committee noted from another source [Global Initiative to End Corproal Punishment of Children] that the law still confirms the right to correction (“jus corrigenda”). The 1996 Court of Cassation ruling states that the law cannot be used to defend the use of corporal punishment but this has not been confirmed in legislation. According to the same source, the near universal social acceptance of corporal punishment in childrearing in Italy necessitates clarity in law that no level of corporal punishment is acceptable.

“The Committee asked whether there were any plans to amend the legislation following the 1996 ruling, and explicitly ban corporal punishment in all settings, such as in the home, in schools and in institutions (Conclusions 2011).

“The Committee notes that according to the report corporal punishment of children is unlawful. Further it states the use of violence as a means of correction and discipline, which is in any case not permitted, is an offence if the acts entail a risk of injury. The jurisprudence of the courts has recalled that education using anti-educational means is not permitted because it would be a contradiction in itself that could affect the physical and / or mental health of the minor.

“However, the Committee notes that the Global Initiative to End Corporal Punishment of Children: Country report Italy 2019 maintains that prohibition is still to be achieved in the home. Further the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in its Concluding Observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic report of Italy [CRC/C/ITA/C)/5-6, February 2019], inter alia, recommends that Italy explicitly prohibits corporal punishment, however light by law in all settings.

“Therefore, the Committee asks how the jurisprudence of the courts is respected in practice. Meanwhile the Committee once again reserves its position on this point.

“(…) Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee defers its conclusion.”

Latvia

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee recalls that it previously found the situation to be in conformity in this respect (Conclusions 2015). It recalls that corporal punishment is prohibited in all settings, including the home.”

Lithuania

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“In its previous conclusion (Conclusions 2015) the Committee found that the situation was not in conformity with the Charter on the ground that corporal punishment was not explicitly prohibited in the home, in schools and in institutions.

“The report states that in 2017, the Seimas voted in favour of amendments to the Law on the Fundamentals of Protection of the Rights of the Child 1996, recognising children’s right to be protected from all forms of violence, including corporal punishment.

“Article 2 of the amended law defines corporal punishment as “any punishment in which physical force is used to cause physical pain, even on a small scale, or otherwise to physically torture a child”. Article 49.1 of the amended law now states: “Parents and other legal representatives of the child may appropriately, according to their judgment, discipline the child, for avoiding to carry out his duties and for disciplinary infractions, with the exception of corporal punishment and any other form of violence”. Article 4 of the amended law recognises children’s right “to be protected from of all forms of violence, including corporal punishment, by their parents, other legal representatives, persons living with them or other persons”.

“The Committee considers that the situation is now in conformity in this respect.”

Luxembourg

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee previously found the situation to be in conformity in this respect; all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings. There has been no change to this situation.”

Malta

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“In its previous conclusion the Committee found that the situation was not in conformity with the Charter as not all forms of corporal punishment were prohibited in all settings during the reference period. But the Committee considered that with the legislative amendments introduced outside the previous reference period the situation had been brought into conformity with the Charter (Conclusions 2015). Article 339 of the Criminal Code explicitly prohibits all forms of corporal punishment in all settings.

“The Committee concludes that the situation is in conformity with the Charter.”

Montenegro

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee previously considered that the situation was not in conformity with the Charter as corporal punishment of children was not explicitly prohibited in the home and in institutions (Conclusions 2015).

“The Committee notes that as a result of amendments to the Family Law adopted in 2016 all forms of corporal punishment have now been prohibited in all settings. The Committee considers that the situation is now in conformity with the Charter in this respect.”

North Macedonia

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“In its previous conclusion the Committee asked the next report to indicate the precise legal provisions and the case law which explicitly prohibit all forms of corporal punishment of children (including the mildest forms) in the home and in institutions. In the meantime, the Committee reserved its position on this issue (Conclusions 2015).

“The report provides information on the Law on Prevention and Protection from Domestic Violence and other legal measures. The Committee notes this information as well as information from the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children that all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings. The Committee therefore concludes that the situation is in conformity with the Charter.”

Poland

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee recalls that corporal punishment is prohibited in all settings. There has been no change to this situation.”

Portugal

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee notes that it previously found the situation in conformity with the Charter (Conclusions 2011), it recalls all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings.

“The report further adds that Law 19/2013 on domestic violence also prohibits corporal punishment.”

Republic of Moldova

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee previously found the situation in conformity in this respect (Conclusions 2015). It recalls that all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings.

“The report refers to a new definition of violence within the family introduced into the Penal Code in 2016, which will further strengthen the protection of children.”

Romania

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee recalls that all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings (Conclusions 2015). There has been no change to this situation.”

Russian Federation

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee previously considered that the situation was not in conformity with the Charter as not all forms of corporal punishment were explicitly prohibited in the home and in institutions (Conclusions 2015).

“The Committee notes that there has been no change to this situation, therefore it reiterates its previous conclusion of non conformity.”

Serbia

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee previously considered that the situation was not in conformity with the Charter as corporal punishment is not prohibited in the home and in institutions (Conclusions 2015).

“The Committee notes that there has been no change to the situation.

“The Committee notes, however, that the report states that proposed amendments to the Family Law would prohibit all forms of corporal punishment in the family context. The Committee asks to be kept informed of all developments in this respect, as well as in relation to the prohibition of corporal punishment of children in institutions. Meanwhile it reiterates its previous conclusion of non-conformity.

…

“The Committee concludes that the situation in Serbia is not in conformity with Article 17§1 of the Charter on the ground that not all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings.”

Slovakia

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee previously concluded that the situation was non-conformity with the Charter on the ground that not all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in the home (Conclusions 2015).

“According to the report following an amendment of the Criminal Code all forms of physical violence, including corporal punishment, against children are prohibited and corporal punishment is classified as a criminal act of violence against a dependent person.

“However the Committee notes from the Global Initiative to End Corporal Punishment that prohibition is still to be achieved in the home. There is no specific defence available to parents and others who use corporal punishment but the Family Law provides for the right to use “adequate upbringing measures”: corporal punishment is tolerated in society and legal provisions against violence and abuse are not interpreted as prohibiting all corporal punishment in childrearing. The Committee asks for the Government’s comments on this.

“In the meantime the Committee concludes that the situation is still not in conformity with the Charter.

…

“The Committee concludes that the situation in the Slovak Republic is not in conformity with Article 17§1 of the Charter on the ground that: • not all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings; • the maximum length of pre-trial detention is excessive; • it has not been established that children in public care are adequately cared for.”

Spain

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee notes that corporal punishment continues to be prohibited in all settings, including in the home.”

Turkey

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee previously concluded that the situation was non-conformity on the ground that not all forms of corporal punishment of children are prohibited in the home, in schools and in institutions (Conclusions 2015).

“There has been no change to this situation therefore the Committee reiterates it previous conclusion.

…

“The Committee concludes that the situation in Turkey is not in conformity with Article 17§1 of the Charter on the ground that: • not all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings; • the maximum length of pre-trial detention is excessive; • the age of criminal responsibility is too low.”

UK

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“In its previous conclusion (Conclusions XX-4, 2015) the Committee found that the situation was not in conformity with the Charter as not all forms of corporal punishment were explicitly prohibited in the home.

“According to the report there has been no change to the situation. The Committee considers that the situation which it has previously found not to be in conformity with the Charter has not changed. Therefore, it reiterates its previous finding of non-conformity on the ground that not all forms of corporal punishment of children are prohibited in the home.

“However the Committee notes that the report states that the Welsh Government has announced plans to remove the ‘reasonable chastisement’ defence. Legislation is intended between Sept 2018 and July 2019. If passed, this legislation will prohibit the physical punishment of children by parents and those acting in loco parentis within Wales.

“In Scotland, the Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Act 2019 was adopted by the Scottish Parliament in October 2019 (outside the reference period). This removes the common law defence of “reasonable chastisement”.

“The Committee asks to be kept informed of all developments in the situation.

…

“The Committee concludes that the situation in the United Kingdom is not in conformity with Article 17 of the 1961 Charter on the ground that: • not all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings; • the ages of criminal responsibility across the different entities of the UK are too low; • pain inducing restraint techniques are used in Young Offender Institutions.”

Ukraine

(March 2020, Conclusions 2019)

“The Committee recalls that it previously found the situation to be in conformity in this respect, all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited in all settings (Conclusions 2015).

“There has been no change to this situation.”