Preliminary Conclusion on the Responsibility of Child Soldiers

367 On the other hand, the normativity on juvenile justice asked clearly the condition of implementation of the criminal responsibility of minors at national level but due to the inconsistency of international law regarding the age of criminal responsibility and criminal liability , and confusion between national laws , the problem remains. From what has been seen previously, we see three different visions. A question emerges. What is the best form of justice to address the issue of child soldiers? Justice that could be called hard, proponents of criminal accountability of child soldiers? Or shared justice, distributed, proposed by the proponents of a broadening of the spectrum of responsibility recruiters, States , and superiors , which would have the effect of making the child soldiers responsible only to the second degree ? Or a quasi-judicial system turned on explaining, understanding, acceptance, forgiveness, and healing? We went a little analysis in terms of the concepts of interest of justice, the interests of the child, awareness of the act committed. But these are complex concepts, which weighed in the balance, make it more difficult consensus on the preferred approach. We put things in a certain way, but nothing is absolute. In fact, we understand that what is perceived as the best interests of the child, for example, can not be seen as being in the interest of justice. What is seen as not being in the interest of justice, may seem best for the child. The question of free will and consciousness of gesture in turn is highly subjective. Indeed, if the psychological texts have made progress, to what extent can we determine such a former child soldier , when he was 16 , was aware of what he was doing when he put end the life of 6 persons? All this to say the complexity of a multitude of issues that come into play when we want to address the question of the criminal responsibility of child soldiers. These thorny questions, we do not pretend to be answered here . At the very least , we believe that this is how the question is asked most of the time which should be done of child soldiers which exacerbates the difficulty of finding an agreed-upon appropriate response. The question should perhaps be: what does international justice to be able to answer questions of responsibility of child soldiers? This would pave the way for introspection international criminal courts first and foremost are the International Criminal Court, which would lead to questioning and reflection on sensitive points, untreated, which are far from unanimous. So the three points mentioned above, is added which is a cross: clarifications on issues of age and definition, facilitate a response to the question of the determination and treatment of the responsibility of child soldiers. This analysis also allowed us to put the emphasis on the issues of guilt and accountability for determining criminal responsibility of child soldiers. And the vulnerability of children under 15 years can lead to criminal incapacity requiring the adoption of measurement purely socio -educational nature, while that of 15 to 1 18 may be considered following a criminal policy based simultaneously on stress , rehabilitation and social rehabilitation from a special diet.

4. References

Paris Principles, Guiding Principles on Children Associated with Armed Forces or Armed Groups, February 2007, http:www.child- soldiers.orgfrPrincipes_de_Paris_FC3A9vrier_2007.pdf , chapter 2, article 1. UNICEF, «cape town principles and best practice on the prevention of recruitment of children 368 into the armed forces and demobilization and social reintegration of child soldiers in Africa » 1997, on line: http:www.unicef.orgemergindex_childsoldiers.html