A/HRC/21/25 practices have a long tradition in communities. The current work in some States is focused on evaluating, codifying and regulating restorative practices to ensure full compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In South Sudan and East Timor, for example, legislation has been drafted to incorporate traditional restorative practices and give effect to the Convention.5 13. In Norway, where the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 15 years, a legislative amendment on the Juvenile System was enacted in December 2011.6 It applies to children between 15 and 18 years who have committed serious or repeated offences. In the new system, the sanction will be imposed locally, where the convicted young person lives. Imprisonment sentences will be replaced by social control and close follow-up, including full involvement of the offender, the offender‟s “private network”, the various elements of the justice system and other public bodies, all of which will contribute to an individualized follow-up process. Victims may also be involved at their own request. The objective is to give the convicted child an enhanced understanding of the consequences of his/her act for everyone affected, while guaranteeing him/her the necessary aid and support. The key factor is to strengthen the young person‟s resources to deal with his or her own criminal act. The legislative changes also introduced extensive community service orders for offenders between 15 and 18 years as an alternative to unsuspended prison sentences. B. The urgent need to reduce the number of children in detention 14. The international normative framework, including the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency,7 promotes a comprehensive approach to prevention to avoid the criminalization and penalization of children. However many States still lack crime prevention strategies or plans. There is an increasing body of knowledge about effective crime prevention strategies,8 and the demonstrated cost-saving benefits of prevention,9 but in contrast with this principle, many countries invest in building detention facilities for children, rather than prioritizing investment in prevention measures. 15. In a number of countries, there is concern that too many children are brought into the criminal justice system through “status offences”, leading to the placement of children in detention rather than providing them with the needed care and protection. As noted by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children there is a worrying trend to criminalize children living and/or working in the streets. Children living and/or working in the streets are perceived as a social threat, stigmatized by the media and blamed for an alleged increase in juvenile delinquency. Truancy, vagrancy or begging by children are still often punished by the criminal justice system rather than prevented and addressed through child protection measures. Deprivation of liberty tends to become a preferred solution, rather than a measure of last resort, and is often accompanied by extortion, ill treatment and sexual abuse. 5 6 7 8 9 Cyndi Banks, Protecting the Rights of the Child: Regulating restorative Justice and Indigenous Practices in Southern Sudan and East Timor, International Journal of Children‟s Rights, vol. 19 (2), (2011). White Paper Prop. 135 L (2010-2011). General Assembly resolution 45/112. European Crime Prevention Network, A Review of Good Practices in Preventing Juvenile Crime in the European Union (2006); I. Palmary and C. Moat, Preventing Criminality Among Young People (Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, 2001). Welsh et al. Costs and Benefits of Preventing Crime, (Westview Press, Boulder, 2000); Jones et al, The Economic Return on PCCD’s Investment in Research-based Programs: A Cost-benefit analysis of delinquency prevention in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania State University 2008). 5