Here is a cleaned, professionally edited transcript of the side event based on the provided source material. The pre-event technical difficulties and audio checks have been removed for clarity, and transcription errors have been corrected to ensure a smooth, readable flow.

Jorge (Event Moderator): I will begin. I prepared a script that I'll be reading throughout the session. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, colleagues, and friends: good afternoon to those joining us in Europe, and good morning to our participants joining from the Americas. My name is Jorge, and here we are at the side event for the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, organized by Agora in close collaboration with the International Network of People Who Use Drugs (INPUD), the International Coalition for Children of Incarcerated Parents, and the International Center for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy.

Our discussion today addresses a critical, yet frequently overlooked, dimension of international legal compliance: the alignment of domestic drug policies with the international rights of the child. The judicial and penal systems often operate under a paradigm that equates parental drug use with inherent child endangerment. This structural assumption frequently leads to the removal of children from their homes, particularly within marginalized communities.

To anchor our reflections today, we recall Article 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which explicitly mandates that states must ensure children are not separated from their parents against their will, unless competent authorities, subject to judicial review, determine that such separation is strictly necessary for the best interests of the child. To open our session and share perspectives from the front lines of global advocacy, it is my distinct honor to introduce our co-hosting partner for their welcoming remarks. Please welcome the representative from INPUD, Anton Basen.

Anton Basen (Executive Director, INPUD): Hello everyone. My name is Anton Basen, Executive Director of the International Network of People Who Use Drugs. I thank Agora and all the partner organizations for organizing this really important event. This topic is not something we often hear about in light of the rights of people who use drugs, parental rights, or children's rights. I am originally from Ukraine, currently based in Brussels, Belgium, and I represent the only global network of people who use drugs, which unites eight regional networks across the globe, as well as the International Network of Women Who Use Drugs.

I was a founding member of the Ukrainian Network of People Who Use Drugs and contributed to the establishment of the Ukrainian Network of Women Who Use Drugs. One of their strategic issues—and this is not unique to Ukraine, but common for many post-Soviet countries with similar repressive drug policy frameworks—is systemic human rights violations. Among the legal reasons for parental rights deprivation is simply being diagnosed with alcohol or drug dependence.

Here is how the reality looks: Ukraine covers the largest opioid agonist therapy program in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Enrollment is simple: you must be over 18 (or have a specific certificate from parents if younger) and be diagnosed with opioid drug dependence. You are officially diagnosed once you enroll as an outpatient in the state program and sign informed consent. However, once you are diagnosed, this becomes a track record with all authorities. We observe dozens of cases where family members use the fact that a person has a diagnosis in their medical track record to take away a child or an apartment. According to Article 164 of the Family Code of Ukraine, parental rights deprivation isn't based on how well you treat or educate your child; it is based solely on the fact that the diagnosis exists. Almost 30,000 opioid agonist therapy patients in Ukraine are automatically at risk of being deprived of their parental rights if they have kids.

We are trying to advocate to change these things. It is difficult because it requires changing not just the legal act, but the full paradigm of thinking among decision-makers and generations of people who don't truly understand drug use and drug dependence. They still share biased, old-fashioned information far from today's scientific and evidence-based knowledge. A person can use medication, have the same quality of life as anyone else, and be a good parent; the diagnosis itself shouldn't matter. I hope that today's debates will bring solutions or ideas on how we can move forward together and use synergies between different organizations working across different regions to address these cases. Thank you.

Jorge: Thank you for contextualizing the reality of global policies, the context in Ukraine, and the need for systemic reform. It is now my privilege to introduce our keynote speaker, Megan. Megan's work focuses on criminal justice reform, equitable access to restorative mechanisms, and exploring the intersection of justice processes with nonprofit operations and legal advocacy programs. She serves on the boards of both the Canadian and the International Coalitions for Children of Incarcerated Parents and is a doctoral candidate at the United Nations mandated universities. Today, she will be presenting insights from her vital publication titled, Children of Incarcerated Parents: The Impact of Criminalization for Drug Offenses in Latin America.

Megan (Keynote Speaker): Thank you, Jorge, and thank you, Anton, for your opening remarks. Good morning, good evening, and good afternoon to my distinguished delegates, colleagues, and partners. I would like to begin by situating this conversation not only in policy, but in deep consideration for the lived experiences of the children we are discussing today. My intention is to bring attention to children whose lives are profoundly altered when a parent comes into contact with the criminal justice system. For many, this begins with a sudden disruption at the moment of arrest and unfolds into long-term instability, separation, and stigma.

These conversations are particularly relevant right now, recognizing the growing global female prison population and increased public support for punitive drug policies in the Latin American region. A common theme globally is the notable absence of impacted children in policy discussions. Across Latin America and the Caribbean, an estimated 1.7 to 2.3 million children have a parent in prison, with nearly half a million affected specifically by drug-related incarceration. Despite this scale, these children remain largely invisible in policy design and criminal justice decision-making.

Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, several provisions are directly relevant:

• Article 3 establishes that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

• Article 9 provides that children shall not be separated from their parents against their will, except when competent authorities determine it is necessary for the child's best interests.

• Article 12 affirms that children have the right to express their views freely in all matters affecting them.

Taken together, these establish a clear and legally binding obligation. Decisions affecting children—including the arrest, pre-trial detention, and sentencing of their parents—must actively consider their rights, relationships, and perspectives. Unfortunately, in practice, this consideration remains extremely limited. Recognizing children as independent rights holders reframes the issue from "collateral damage" to legal accountability.

A central issue is the persistent view that parental involvement with drugs constitutes an inherent risk to children. Stigma surrounding substance use shapes institutional responses, reinforcing decisions that prioritize family separation rather than support. The impacts on children include economic instability, disruption to education and housing, stigma, and emotional distress. From a legal perspective, these impacts engage the right to family life, education, protection, and development.

Family separation is frequently treated as automatic rather than exceptional, standing in direct tension with Article 9. Focusing on the gendered nature of current incarceration patterns is critical. Women are regularly imprisoned for low-level drug offenses and are often primary caregivers or single mothers. Across much of Latin America, criminal justice responses have been shaped by mano dura (iron fist) approaches that prioritize enforcement and incarceration. However, there is limited evidence that incarcerating low-level actors disrupts organized crime, while the rights costs for children and families are significant.

Effective policy must distinguish between indiscriminate enforcement and targeted enforcement embedded within a broader framework that respects the rule of law and children's rights. Early, support-based interventions grounded in social and health systems can better promote a child's well-being, keeping families together wherever possible. The leadership on this issue needs to be driven directly by those affected and local grassroots organizations (like Reinserta and platforms like NNAPES), who demonstrate that alternatives are already being successfully implemented. Our collective challenge is not a lack of solutions, but rather the political will to scale and sustain approaches that protect children's rights while promoting justice, health, and social stability.

Fireside Chat & Q&A

Jorge: Thank you for an evidence-based presentation. Your publication highlights that between 35% and 70% of women in prison in Latin America are incarcerated for drug offenses, and the vast majority are single mothers and primary caregivers. Given that these women often operate at the lowest tier of organized crime due to systemic vulnerabilities, how can international frameworks be better leveraged to shift national sentencing trends toward alternative measures that safeguard family cohesion?

Megan: Thank you. It's important to distinguish between the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is legally binding and gives advocates teeth in holding states accountable, and other frameworks. Another fantastic framework is the Bangkok Rules, which promotes non-custodial measures for women but is not legally binding. Globally, women who begin a pathway toward criminal behavior are often already experiencing significant trauma or a need for social support. A criminal justice response amplifies those barriers for both them and their children.

Jorge: What are the primary institutional barriers preventing criminal courts from actively centering the best interests of the child during adult criminal proceedings?

Megan: I can share our experience in Canada. One primary issue is making sure mothers feel safe to disclose that they even have children, because there is so much stigma and fear around separation. Judges often want to consider the best interests of the child, but the challenge lies in the trust gap. To mitigate this, we piloted a "Child Impact Statement"—a simple document where parents can fill out information about their child's routine and how their incarceration will disrupt it. In one successful case, a judge used this information to issue a non-custodial sentence.

Jorge: Is the Child Impact Statement mandatory, and are you evaluating its effectiveness for institutionalization?

Megan: Because it is in the pilot phase, it is currently optional. The fact that a defendant shared the information and received a non-custodial sentence is an indicator of real success that could be scaled up in the future. However, implementing these tools throughout the system takes time and buy-in from actors within the justice system.

Jorge: In what ways can civil society and youth advocates reframe the drug policy debate to demonstrate that protecting children from judicial separation is an essential component of public safety?

Megan: There is a lot of power in awareness and empowering people directly impacted with knowledge of their rights. We must also ensure we are not fostering division. It is important to create spaces where hard conversations can happen, where people from all sides are heard and respected, and to reframe the conversation around human rights-based considerations.

Jorge: We would now like to open the floor to our participants. I see Carmen's hand.

Carmen (Audience Member, Bolivia): Hello everybody. My name is Carmen Gabrielas from Bolivia. I can share a little bit about what happens in Bolivia, which is a major center for coca production. Many people involved in the business just to make extra cash are not drug consumers themselves, but when caught, they end up in jail. The judicial system is ineffective and takes years to have a hearing. Because their wives cannot sustain themselves outside, they end up living in jail with them and taking the kids. The kids leave the jail in the morning to go to school and return at noon. It's sad, but the jail provides necessary measures so the kids can be safe, and everyone inside takes care of them. It is a very interesting case study on the producer side of the chain.

Megan: Thank you, Carmen. Regarding children living in prison with their parents, I've worked internationally looking at mother-child units in South Korea, which were trauma-informed spaces where children were cared for. The global debate looks at the tension: a child should not be living in a prison, but separating them causes deep attachment issues. There is a Global Prison Nursery Network that looks at this in depth. We also have a mother-child unit in Canada, but the challenge is that the effectiveness is rarely evaluated. There are just so many periphery considerations we don't think of when we have a simple conversation around drug policy and incarceration.

Jorge: Thank you, Carmen, for highlighting this unexplored dimension regarding the chain of production. As we approach the conclusion of our hour, I would like to express our deepest gratitude to our keynote presenter, Megan, and to our co-hosts for their leadership. Today's dialogue reminds us that reforming drug policy is an essential human rights obligation that directly determines the well-being and safety of the next generation. Centering the best interests of the child requires a courageous departure from punitive paradigms toward evidence-based, compassionate, and restorative frameworks. Thank you to the secretariat, the delegates, and all civil society representatives for your collaboration.