A/HRC/11/8 page 21 66. Although most States acknowledge the diverse background and needs of persons in detention, they offer little indication of how this diversity is reflected in programmes and curriculum offered, other than, for instance, referring to the provision of special language classes for non-nationals (in Ireland, Lithuania, Switzerland and the United Kingdom). 67. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that some States, in which the number of foreign citizens detained is low, note that there has been no need to elaborate separate programmes for them. Concerning foreign nationals awaiting deportation, some States asserted that it served no purpose to include such people in training courses. Such views contradict the very notion of an equal right to education. Other States indicated that non-nationals awaiting deportation would not be offered education programmes because of the short period spent in detention. 68. The age of penal responsibility and placement in detention facilities clearly has a significant impact on educational opportunity and achievement. Fourteen to 15 years is the most common age referred to by States as the age at which detention is permitted. In addition, most States suggested that facilities for juveniles be distinct from those for adults, even in remand. Furthermore, the common assertion was that such juveniles must follow compulsory education at the primary level and, where offered, at the secondary level, and that the curriculum offered and diplomas awarded are equivalent to the ones in public schools. For some juveniles, schooling takes place in places of detention in a number of States, including Albania, Chile, Cyprus, Guatemala, Guyana, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mauritius, the Republic of Moldova, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago and the United Kingdom. For others in, for example, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Guyana, Japan, Singapore, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago and Tunisia, schooling may also be offered out of detention and in mainstream schools. 69. On a final and related note, it is clear that a number of States are at the early stage of developing a coherent policy for education in detention, others are midway through, and others yet are building on past efforts. All such efforts, however, should be underpinned by rigorous research and the sharing of best practices. The Special Rapporteur believes that the replies received to date do not generally leave the impression that this is currently the case despite, with regard to best practice in particular, receipt of information concerning a number of very interesting and innovative programmes from States, individuals and organizations alike. B. Replies by intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and civil society 70. Without the active involvement of dedicated individuals, academic institutions, non-governmental organizations and intergovernmental organizations, education in detention would be far poorer than is currently the case, or even non-existent in some institutions. For this reason, the questionnaire was also distributed to a number of potentially interested parties accompanied by a request for its further dissemination. The Special Rapporteur is immensely grateful for the often very detailed replies received, including those from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Ecuador and Swaziland), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) (Malaysia), the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Defence for Children International, Human Rights Watch, Bureau international catholique de l’enfance, the Quaker United Nations Office, World Vision International, Justice Action, Dignity in Schools (and partners), the NSW Teachers Federation, the Intellectual