The legal and institutional framework for access to justice for juvenile offenders in Uganda

The nature of a country’s legal and institutional framework on juvenile justice is critical in guaranteeing access to justice for juvenile offenders. Every civilised country needs to adopt an adequate legal and institutional framework to safeguard and guarantee that child offenders have their rights protected and can access justice. Juvenile offenders need special care, treatment and protection when placed under the justice system because they are vulnerable. The adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1989 ushered in a new epoch regarding children’s rights which was followed by the adoption of a children rights specific instrument for Africa, the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC) in 1990. Both of these instruments birthed several standards regarding the rights of children in the justice system. They ensured that children were no longer objects of intervention, turning them into legal persons capable of holding human rights and led to the development of a rights-based model to juvenile justice. Uganda ratified the CRC and the ACRWC in 1990 and 1994, respectively. In essence, Uganda became obligated to enact legislation domesticating the ACRWC and the CRC provisions with the objective of facilitating access to justice of juvenile offenders. This study examines Uganda’s legal and institutional juvenile justice framework to assess the extent to which it complies with international juvenile justice standards as set forth by the CRC and the ACRWC. The aim was to see how it protects the rights of juvenile offenders, guarantees their access to justice, and highlight the existent gaps that impede their access to justice. The study established that well as there is somewhat a sturdy legal framework, there exists a considerable disparity between the law and its implementation, which is the most significant impediment to children’s access to justice. The study also concluded that there are some existing gaps in the legal and institutional framework which can be remedied through taking several reforms, both legal and non-legal. The study thus offers several recommendations necessary to curb the gaps in the country’s legal and institutional framework.Mini Dissertation (LLM (Human rights and Democratisation in Africa))--University of Pretoria, 2021.Centre for Human RightsLLM (Human rights and Democratisation in Africa)Unrestricte

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries