A/HRC/39/49 responsibility for the rights and well-being of children associated with armed forces or groups. Ministers and representatives of countries that participated in the Paris conference endorsed the principles through a declaration, the Paris Commitments to protect children from unlawful recruitment or use by armed forces or armed groups. 48. The Working Group welcomes and supports these initiatives at the international level. At the national level, the Working Group urges States to take legislative measures to criminalize the recruitment and use of children in hostilities and bring perpetrators to justice. The Working Group emphasizes that States bear the primary responsibility in protecting the rights of the child and must prevent the recruitment of children into government armed forces. The Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict pointed out in her report (document A/HRC/37/47) that the engagement of the United Nations with government armed forces also catalysed interaction with non-State armed groups to respond to and prevent violations. She further stated that over 50 per cent of armed groups included in the annex to the annual report of the Secretary-General on children and armed conflict for the recruitment and use of children (document A/72/361–S/2017/821) are active in countries where government forces are also listed, illustrating that the actions of armed groups are influenced by the conduct of government forces (see A/HRC/37/47, para. 28). 49. At the time of submission of the present report, 167 Member States of the United Nations are parties to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, which demonstrates their commitment to prohibiting and criminalizing the recruitment and use of children in armed conflicts. Many States do indeed criminalize such practices in their domestic legislation. 50. In addition to criminalizing the recruitment and use of children in hostilities, some States have also demonstrated support for measures that could contribute to the prevention and protection of children from recruitment into conflicts by non-State armed groups. In the United States of America, the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 prohibits certain forms of United States military assistance to the governments of countries that either recruit or use child soldiers in their armed forces or support armed groups, including paramilitaries, militias or civil defence forces, that recruit and use child soldiers. 51. As of February 2018, 73 States have endorsed the Safe Schools Declaration, which was developed through consultations led by the Governments of Argentina and Norway. States that join this initiative express their commitment to protecting students and educational facilities and ensuring the continuation of education, which could further contribute to the protection of children and youth from exploitation. Preventing the use of educational facilities for military purposes can also reduce the risk of recruitment and use of children by armed groups. 52. The Working Group has noted with concern that many States treat children formerly associated with non-State armed groups as security threats rather than victims. Some States are taking punitive measures against these children. For example, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic and Yemen, children are deprived of their liberty for their alleged association with armed groups (see A/72/361). This type of response may counteract efforts to separate children from armed groups. It may reduce the possibility of neutrality and is likely to deter children from leaving armed groups. 23 Some States have implemented administrative measures to discourage people from returning from conflict zones, and have gone so far as to refuse to let children back into their countries after suspected involvement with an armed group.24 Some children also face punishment upon their return to their countries of origin. Many States have explored the removal of citizenship as a way of ensuring that foreign terrorist fighters will find it difficult to return to their home State. Those efforts have applied mainly to people with dual citizenship, in order to avoid their becoming stateless (see A/71/318, 23 24 O’Neil and Van Broeckhoven, “The road to a better future”. Drumbl and Rona, “Navigating challenges in child protection”. 13