Whenever a Westerner like me visits Turkey, he’s surprised to see poor-looking little children working; some sell roses, other polish shoes, again other sell hand kerchiefs. These children should, one would think, be at school; they should study. They should learn, so that they can have a better future than their parents had.

But all too often these children are forced to work by their parents. Their parents often do no have a lot of money - and that’s an understatement - and choose not to send their children to school. Child labor is, of course, in breach with the (international) law. It seems, however, that the Turkish police is not doing much against this problem. The children walk around, working, right in front of police officers; as a foreigner you can’t help but wonder ‘why isn’t the police officer doing anything?’

Well, some police officers actually do something; a man was arrested in Adana for forcing his 10-year old son to work as a shoe shiner. The prosecutor demanded a prison sentence for the father. The judge, however, acquitted the man. That was a tremendous blow to those concerned with the rights of children. The father and son defended themselves by saying that the school of the neighborhood did not want to take the boy in, because there was no room. That was obviously a lie, but the court seemingly accepted it.

The prosecutor was not quite willing to give up, however, knowing that this could be a major case in the struggle for children’s rights. He brought the case to the Supreme Court of Appeals and… this court overruled the lower court. The SCA argued “that the 10-year-old victim was working as a shoe shiner on the street has been proved by records kept by the police at the date of crime. It has been understood that the victim was intentionally not sent to school and forced to work especially considering the barely credible justification - ‘there was no room in the school’ - uttered both by the accused (the father) and the victim (the son). According to Article 31 of the Convention on Children’s Rights, children have the right to freely enjoy their spare time, play games, and participate in culture and art activities. Given these, it is evident that the accused forced his son to work on the street by violating his right to education. Such an act cannot be a product of feelings of parental love and clemency…Therefore, acquittal of the accused (M.N.Ö.) has no legal base.”

So, instead of letting the father go, the SCA has now ruled that the father of the boy should be send to prison and that the boy should be send to school. That is great news; it could mean that police officers will become more active and that increasingly more children will be send to school.

However, the case is not over yet; ‘The father will be re-tried in the forthcoming days. If the local court insists on its verdict of acquittal, the file will be moved to the General Board of the Civil Panels of the Supreme Court of Appeals.’

In other words, the fight is not over yet; but it most certainly is a step in the right direction. Additionally it has to be pointed out that although the lower court could in theory ignore the wishes of the SCA, it’s unlikely that it will do so, and it’s even more unlikely that the lower court’s decision will be upheld by the GBCP of the SCA if it decides that the SCA judges were wrong.

No, it’s an important decision. Lets now hope that police officers and prosecutors will start arresting and prosecuting thousands of other parents who refuse to send their children to school.