Three years after the United Nations recognised children’s exposure to violence against animals as a children’s-rights concern, Dog Desk Animal Action examines the recommendations made to governments, the legal challenges that have followed, and the unanswered questions about implementation.
In 2023, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child recognised that children should be protected from exposure to violence inflicted on animals. The statement appeared in paragraph 35 of General Comment No. 26, the Committee’s authoritative interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child concerning children’s rights and the environment.
It was an important recognition. Violence against animals does not necessarily affect only the animals involved. Children who witness cruelty, particularly towards animals they know and care about, may also experience fear, distress and psychological harm.
Three years later, an important question remains unanswered. If the UN has recognised children’s exposure to violence against animals as a children’s-rights concern, what have governments actually done to address it? Where are the safeguards, the implementation records and the legal challenges testing whether children are receiving the protection the Committee has identified?
For Dog Desk Animal Action, this is a question of accountability. International recognition should lead to identifiable action, yet tracing that action is proving considerably more difficult than finding the original recommendations.
Azerbaijan: The UN Specifically Addressed Dogs Being Shot in Public
One of the clearest examples comes from Azerbaijan.
In February 2023, the UN Committee published its concluding observations following its examination of Azerbaijan’s implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In paragraph 24(g), the Committee expressed concern about children being exposed to the shooting of homeless animals. Paragraph 25(j) recommended eliminating violent practices, including shooting dogs in public, and raising awareness of their negative effects on children.
This was not just a general observation about kindness towards animals. It was a country-specific recommendation addressing an identifiable practice and its implications for children.
The significance should not be underestimated. The Committee was examining the protection of children, yet considered public violence against homeless animals sufficiently relevant to raise within that examination.
That recommendation provides a clear starting point for assessing government action.
Did Azerbaijan subsequently introduce enforceable restrictions on the public shooting of dogs? Were municipal authorities instructed to change their practices? Were incidents investigated? Were any measures introduced to protect children from witnessing such violence?
Our examination has not yet established satisfactory answers to those questions.
Tunisia: The UN Was Raising Concerns Before General Comment No. 26
Azerbaijan was not the first country to face questions about this issue.
In May 2021, two years before General Comment No. 26 was adopted, the UN Committee questioned Tunisia about the killing of street animals by official institutions.
During the examination, Committee member Velina Todorova referred to reports of such killings involving children and adolescents. She raised concerns about the effect of these practices on children’s moral development and asked what measures the government was taking to address them.
Tunisia’s delegation responded that feral dogs were killed after midnight to avoid children witnessing the operations.
That response is revealing. It suggests that the authorities recognised a reason to prevent children from witnessing the killing of animals. But changing the time of an operation is not necessarily the same as assessing its wider effects or introducing safeguards against exposure to violence.
In its concluding observations, published in September 2021, the Committee recommended in paragraph 16(c) that Tunisia evaluate and eliminate practices, policies and services that may not be in children’s best interests, including those relating to societal violence against animals.
The recommendation was made through the UN’s formal treaty-monitoring process.
What remains unclear is how Tunisia responded. Did the government review the practices identified by the Committee? Were changes introduced? Was children’s exposure to violence against animals incorporated into safeguarding policies or assessments of municipal animal management?
We have not established a complete implementation record answering those questions.
This is precisely the kind of gap that deserves further examination. A formal international recommendation should be capable of being followed through to identifiable government decisions, measures and outcomes.
Morocco: Recognising Unlawful Killings Is Not the Same as Stopping Them
Morocco illustrates a different aspect of the accountability problem.
The country’s treatment of stray dogs has attracted international attention, particularly in connection with preparations for the 2030 FIFA World Cup. Animal welfare organisations have reported shootings, poisonings and other violent methods of controlling free-roaming dogs.
In June 2025, the Administrative Court in Rabat ruled on proceedings brought by animal-protection associations concerning the killing of stray dogs.
According to published reporting on the judgment, the court held Morocco’s Interior Ministry responsible for failing to prevent unlawful killings involving shooting and poisoning. The associations were awarded symbolic compensation of one dirham.
However, the court declined to order an immediate halt to the operations, explaining that the requested remedy required a different legal procedure.
The authenticated judgment has not been independently examined for this article, so these findings are reported on the basis of contemporary coverage rather than direct analysis of the court record.
Nevertheless, the reported outcome demonstrates an important legal difficulty. Even where a court recognises government responsibility for unlawful conduct, the remedy granted may not be sufficient to prevent that conduct from continuing.
There is another distinction that must be maintained.
The available reporting does not establish that the Rabat judgment relied upon General Comment No. 26 or that the court determined a violation of children’s rights. The proceedings concerned the legality of animal killings and government oversight.
During the seventh International Companion Animal Management Coalition conference in June 2026, barrister Zannis Mavrogordato discussed the strategic use of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in advocacy concerning Morocco’s stray-dog killings.
His presentation examined how children’s exposure to violence against animals could provide an additional legal argument when challenging violent population-control practices.
But describing a legal strategy is not the same as establishing that a court has accepted it.
We have not verified a Moroccan judgment directly applying paragraph 35 of General Comment No. 26 to the public killing of stray dogs.
The distinction is important because legal arguments can be persuasive and potentially valuable without yet having been tested successfully in court.
Morocco therefore presents two separate questions. What remedies are available when animal killings are found unlawful? And can the children’s-rights implications of those killings provide an additional basis for legal protection?
Türkiye: What Consideration Is Given to Children Who Witness Violence?
Türkiye raises questions of particular relevance because children’s safety has featured prominently in debates surrounding the country’s stray-dog legislation.
The legislative changes introduced in 2024 expanded municipal obligations concerning the collection and sheltering of free-roaming dogs and authorised euthanasia in specified circumstances.
Governments have legitimate responsibilities to protect people from dog attacks, prevent disease and address public health risks. Children are entitled to that protection.
But children’s interests extend beyond their immediate physical safety.
Where animal-control operations involve violence, mistreatment or distressing scenes, the possibility that children may witness those events deserves consideration.
A child who witnesses a familiar community dog being beaten or killed does not necessarily understand the legislation or administrative decisions behind what has happened. The child experiences the event itself.
It is essential, however, to distinguish violence from lawful and humane animal management. General Comment No. 26 does not automatically prohibit the collection of stray dogs or every lawful euthanasia procedure. The circumstances, methods and evidence of exposure would be relevant to any assessment.
The question is whether children’s interests are being considered when these policies are developed and implemented.
Have authorities assessed the potential exposure of children to violence during animal-control operations? Are there procedures to prevent such exposure? Are incidents recorded? Are children’s experiences considered when complaints are investigated?
We have not verified a comprehensive national assessment addressing these specific questions, nor a Turkish court judgment directly applying paragraph 35 to stray-dog collection or killing.
That does not establish that no assessment or litigation exists. It identifies a question that remains unresolved within the evidence examined.
If children’s safety is used to justify animal-management policy, it is reasonable to examine whether children’s wider rights and wellbeing are also being considered.
Protection should not be understood solely in terms of preventing physical injury.
Why Are There So Few Identifiable Legal Challenges?
The apparent scarcity of published judgments applying paragraph 35 to public violence against animals is one of the most important questions arising from this investigation.
But it requires careful interpretation.
We have not completed an exhaustive review of court records across every country that has ratified the Convention. It would therefore be inaccurate to claim that no such cases exist or that the legal argument has never been tested.
What can be established is that readily identifiable examples remain difficult to locate within the records examined.
Part of the explanation may lie in the legal status of General Comment No. 26.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child is a binding international treaty for states that have ratified it. General Comment No. 26 explains how the Committee interprets obligations under that Convention, including the protection of children from exposure to violence.
However, the General Comment is not itself a separate treaty or a court judgment. It does not automatically create an independently enforceable domestic legal claim or prohibit every form of animal killing.
Whether its interpretation can support a successful legal challenge depends on the legal system concerned, the applicable domestic law, the circumstances of the case and the remedy sought.
A claimant may need to demonstrate that a relevant legal obligation is enforceable, that they have standing to bring proceedings, that the evidence supports the alleged violation and that the court has authority to provide an effective remedy.
These requirements can create substantial barriers.
Children may depend on adults to represent their interests, may have difficulty accessing legal assistance and may lack practical opportunities to challenge decisions taken by public authorities.
General Comment No. 26 itself addresses children’s access to justice and calls for effective remedies and accessible procedures.
There is also a practical distinction between animal welfare litigation and children’s-rights litigation.
Organisations challenging the unlawful killing of animals may have established legal routes through animal-protection, environmental or administrative law. Introducing children’s rights into those proceedings may require additional evidence, different claimants or specialist legal expertise.
That could help explain why cases concerning violent animal-control practices do not always examine their effects on children.
But it remains a possible explanation rather than a verified account of why particular legal challenges have or have not been pursued.
Establishing the answer would require systematic examination of court filings, judgments and the legal strategies used by organisations working in this field.
Who Checks Whether Governments Have Acted?
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child monitors states’ implementation of the Convention through periodic reporting, examinations and concluding observations.
It can question governments, identify concerns and recommend changes.
But the Committee is not a domestic court, and its concluding observations do not automatically compel a government to introduce particular legislation or prohibit a municipal practice.
Responsibility for implementing the Convention rests with states, subject to their international obligations and domestic legal arrangements.
An international communications procedure also exists under an Optional Protocol to the Convention, allowing certain complaints to be considered where the relevant state has accepted that procedure and the applicable requirements are met.
Yet the availability of an international complaints mechanism does not guarantee that a child has an accessible or effective domestic remedy.
This is where the accountability problem becomes especially apparent.
A government can be questioned about children witnessing violence against animals. The Committee can recommend changes. The government may acknowledge the concern.
But how does the public establish what happened afterwards?
Where are the implementation reports identifying specific measures? Where are the records showing whether violent practices have changed? Where is the evidence that children have been consulted, protected or provided with remedies?
These questions should be capable of receiving factual answers.
A lack of readily available information does not prove that a government has ignored its obligations. It does, however, make independent scrutiny more difficult.
And without scrutiny, it becomes harder to distinguish meaningful implementation from an international commitment that has produced little identifiable change.
Children’s Rights and Animal Welfare Are Not Competing Interests
One of the most troubling aspects of debates about stray animals is the frequency with which children’s safety and animal welfare are presented as opposing concerns.
Protecting children from dog attacks is a legitimate and necessary responsibility. So is preventing rabies, managing free-roaming animal populations and responding to genuine public health risks.
But none of those responsibilities requires the psychological effects of violence against animals to be disregarded.
Humane, evidence-based animal management and the protection of children can be pursued together.
The Convention does not require governments to ignore risks associated with animals. It requires them to consider children’s rights when taking decisions that affect them.
That includes examining whether the methods used to address one problem may create another.
Where public authorities authorise or carry out violent animal-control operations, the potential effects on children deserve serious consideration.
Recognition Must Be Followed by Evidence
The UN Committee’s recognition of children’s exposure to violence against animals was an important development in international children’s-rights interpretation.
But it did not emerge in isolation.
Tunisia was questioned in 2021. Azerbaijan received an explicit country-specific recommendation in 2023. Morocco has seen litigation concerning unlawful stray-dog killings, while legal advocates have explored the potential use of children’s rights in challenging violent practices.
Türkiye raises further questions about how children’s wider interests are considered within animal-control policies.
These examples do not establish that every government concerned has violated the Convention. Nor do they establish that no effective safeguards or legal challenges exist.
They demonstrate something more specific: international recognition, government implementation and enforceable legal protection are separate stages, and the connections between them are not always transparent.
For Dog Desk Animal Action, that is where further investigation must concentrate.
We need to establish what governments were told, what they subsequently did, whether their actions were independently assessed and what remedies are available when children are exposed to violence against animals.
The objective is not to assume non-compliance. It is to establish whether compliance can be demonstrated.
Children who witness violence do not experience it as a legal technicality. They experience what happens in front of them.
And when that violence is connected to government policy or the actions of public authorities, the responsibility to examine its consequences cannot simply be set aside.
The UN has recognised the harm. Governments have received recommendations. What remains to be established is whether those interventions have resulted in meaningful, enforceable protection for children.
Three years after General Comment No. 26, that question deserves an answer.
Sources and references
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. General Comment No. 26 (2023), paragraph 35, concerning children’s exposure to violence inflicted on animals, and provisions addressing access to justice.
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4019010
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Concluding observations on Azerbaijan, CRC/C/AZE/CO/5-6, 22 February 2023, paragraphs 24(g) and 25(j).
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Concluding observations on Tunisia, CRC/C/TUN/CO/4-6, 2 September 2021, paragraph 16(c).
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3938324
United Nations Office at Geneva. Summary of the Committee’s dialogue with Tunisia, May 2021.
Hespress English. Rabat Court: Interior Ministry liable for stray dog killings, but rejects request to halt operations, 19 July 2025.
Zannis Mavrogordato. Strategic Invocation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) as an Advocacy Tool, ICAM 7th International Conference, 8 June 2026.
https://www.icam-coalition.org/conference-2026/
Research note: This article examines selected UN treaty-body records, available legal reporting and advocacy material. It does not constitute an exhaustive worldwide review of litigation or government implementation.