institution of Kafala
B Y A D A I R D Y E R ,
D E P U T Y S E C R E T A R Y G E N E R A L
Preliminary Document No 4 of May 1995
1 A t the Spécial Commission meeting held in October 1994 to study the impiementation of the Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercoiintry Adoption ('the Intercountry Adoption Convention'), the délégation o f Morocco intro-duced a proposai for a draft additional Protocol to such Convention, extending its coverage to 'the assumption of responsibility for a child in the f o r m of an adoption which does not entail termination of the pre-existing légal parent-child relationship between the cliild and his or her parents o f origin' (see the text of the 'Proposai of the délégation of the Kingdom of Morocco', set out in Preliminary Document No 2 of November 1994 for the attention o f the Spécial Commission o f June 1995 on General Affairs and Policy o f the C o n f é r e n c e , supra, p. 71).
2 A t the October 1994 Spécial Commission meeting it was observed that this proposai went beyond the c o m p é -tence of that Spécial Commission since it was a question of further extension of the Convention's scope rather than impiementation of the Convention as it existed. For this reason, the Secretary General suggested that this proposai be forwarded to this Spécial Commission, as was donc in Preliminary Document No 2 mentioned above.
3 It was further pointed out during the October Spécial Commission meeting that the Islamic institution of Ka-fala, which was envisaged by the Moroccan proposai,
constituted a measure directed to the protection of the person of a child and thus fell within the scope of the work being donc by the Spécial Commission revising the Convention of 5 October 1961 concerning the powers of authorities and the law applicable in respect of the protection of ininors ('Convention on the Proprotection of M i -nors'). That Spécial Commission had met for its first dis-cussions in May/June 1994 and was scheduled to meet again for two weeks in February 1995. The Moroccan délégation was asked to submit additional information to the Spécial Commission meeting in February 1995 so that a view could be developed as to whether the Kafala should be included within the scope of application of the revised Convention.
4 The délégation of Morocco at the Spécial Commis-sion of February 1995 submitted an explanatory paper which was designated Working Document No 8, the English translation o f which was entitled 'Moroccan communication concerning the Kafala to the Spécial Commission on the protection o f minors'.
5 After considération o f the content of the communi-cation f r o m the délégation of Morocco, the Spécial Com-mission of February 1995 took the tentative view that the Kafala could be included within the scope of the revised
Convention and in the partial draft of the revised Con-vention drawn up within the Drafting Committee (Pro-posai o f the Drafting Committee, Work. Doc. No 44), the f o l l o w i n g text was tentatively included setting out spéci-fications concerning the measures of protection to be covered by the Convention:
'Article 4
The [measures of protection] referred to in Article 1 may include, in particular
-a the -attribution, exercise, termin-ation or restriction of parental responsibilities as well as thelr délégation;
h rights ofcustody, including riglits relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the rlght to détermine the child's place of résidence, as well as rights of access including the right to take a child for a limited period of tinte to a place other than the child 's habituai résidence;
c guardianship, curatorship and analogous institutions;
d the désignation and fimctions of any person or insti-tution having care of the child's person or representing or assisting the child;
e the placement of the child in a foster family or in institutional care, or the provision of care by Kafala or an analogous institution. '
This text reflects a very provisional view that the Kafala might appropriately fall within the subject-matter scope of the term 'measures of protection' in the revised Con-vention. (See paragraph 6 of the 'Conclusions of the Second Spécial Commission meeting on the protection of minors and incapacitated adults', to be issued in May 1995.) It contrasts with Article 3 bis of Working Docu-ment No 44 which would provisionally exclude f r o m the scope of the Convention, among other items, '[a décision on] adoption'.
6 The distinction drawn as between the Kafala and a décision on adoption is that such a décision changes the Personal status o f the child by creating a new parent-child relationship (and sometimes at the same time ter-minating a former parent-child relationship), whereas the Kafala does not create (or terminate) such a relationship.
Some delegates even thought that the preliminary steps to an adoption, for example placement of the child with a family with a view to adoption, should still remain within the scope of the revised Convention, because thèse were measures of a protective nature which might not necessarily lead to a change in the personal status of the child. For example, i f , after a probationary period of placement, it was decided not to proceed with the adop-tion, the placement would simply stand as an indepen-dent measure of protection for the period of time during which it lasted.
7 As the Moroccan delegation's documents show, the essence o f the Kafala is that it is the légal entrustment of a child to a person or a family which does not entail création of any parent-child relationship with that family and, likewise, does not terminate the pre-existing parent-child relationships. Thus there is never a change in the Personal status of the child as a resuit of Kafala.
8 The fact that Kafala might appropriately fall within the scope of the revised Convention on the Protection o f Minors does not inevitably mean that the proposai for a Protocol to the Intercountry Adoption Convention is un-necessary. The Convention on Protection of Minors w i l l deal witîi questions o f jurisdiction, applicable law, co-operation and récognition and enforcement o f orders, ail
Kafala Kafala 87
connaissance et exécution des décisions, toutes questions concernant essentiellement la procédure, alors que la Convention sur l'adoption internationale assure des ga-ranties matérielles et procédurales à l'enfant qui est ou doit être déplacé d'un pays à un autre, dans le contexte d'un changement de statut supposant au m i n i m u m la création d'un nouveau lien de filiation (voir l'arti-cle 2, paragraphe 2, de la Convention sur l'adoption internationale). La protection matérielle, de m ê m e que certaines protections procédurales de la Convention sur l'adoption internationale, poun-aient fort bien s'appliquer à des cas internationaux de Kafala. Le Bureau Perma-nent n'entend aucunement préjuger la question.
9 11 semble toutefois que les dispositions relatives à la reconnaissance de l'adoption, contenues dans le Chapi-tre V de la Convention sur l'adoption internationale (no-tamment l'article 26), ne conviennent pas et soient inap-plicables s'agissant de la Kafala. Les dispositions sur la reconnaissance et l'exécution de la Convention revisée sur la protection des mineurs, que la Commission spé-ciale doit encore rédiger, paraissent mieux adaptées aux besoins d'un cas international de Kafala. Cette question n'ayant pas été e x a m i n é e à fond, que ce soit à la réunion de la Commission spéciale d'octobre 1994 ou à celle de la Commission spéciale de février 1995, le Bureau Per-manent espère que, à la réunion de j u i n 1995, les débats et d'éventuelles explications complémentaires de la délé-gation marocaine éclaireront davantage les questions techniques de nature à faciliter une décision, ou du moins à indiquer la direction des études q u ' i l pourrait être nécessaire d'effectuer encore.
Kafala
essentially procédural questions, while the Intercountry Adoption Convention provides substantive and procé-dural safeguards f o r a child who is (to be) moved inter-nationally, in the context of a change of status involving at a m i n i m u m the création of a new parent-child relation-ship (see Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Intercountry Adoption Convention). The substantive protection, as well as certain procédural protections of the Intercountry Adoption Convention, might well be appropriate for in-ternational cases of Kafala. The Permanent Bureau would not wish in any way to pre-judge this question.
9 However, it does seem that the provisions f o r récog-nition o f adoptions, set out in Chapter V of the Inter-country Adoption Convention (particularly Ar-ticle 26), would be inappropriate and could not be applied to the Kafala. The récognition and enforcement provi-sions of the revised Convention on Protection o f Minors, which remain to be drafted by the Spécial Commission, would seem to be better adapted to the needs of an inter-national case of Kafala. Since this question was not f u l l y discussed, either at the October 1994 Spécial sion meeting or at the February 1995 Spécial Commis-sion meeting, the Permanent Bureau hopes that the dis-cussions at the June 1995 Spécial Commission meeting, including any additional explanations given by the M o -roccan délégation, w i l l further illuminate the technical questions involved so that a décision may be made, or at least the direction of any necessary further studies w i l l have been indicated.
Kafala 89