The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in its Concluding Observations has on multiple occasions cited the need for official systems of age verification focusing on objective evidence such as birth and school records rather than on relying on medical testing for age assessment.65 Similarly, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees: Guidelines on Protection and Care Preface that set out standards for the improved protection and care of refugee children draw caution to using “scientific procedures such as dental or bone X rays” by emphasizing that these methods can only estimate age and must therefore allow for margins of error. They suggest that when the age is uncertain, the child should be given the benefit of doubt.66 The Separated Children in Europe Programme (SCEP) has also developed detailed recommendation for the practice of age assessment based on the UNHCR guidelines and the jurisprudence of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. In these recommendations the SCEP recommends that age assessment procedures including the dental and bone X rays must be carried as “a measure of last resort, not as standard or routine practice, where there are grounds for serious doubt and where other approaches, such as interviews and attempts to gather documentary evidence, have failed to establish the individual’s age.” The Recommendations also note that “that age assessment is not an exact science and a considerable margin of uncertainty will always remain inherent in any procedure.” 67 Comparative jurisdictions such as India have similarly denounced placing too much reliance upon medical jurisprudence whilst determining the age of an individual. In the case of Ram Deo Chauhan v. State of Assam68 the Supreme Court of India stated that “too much of reliance cannot be placed upon text books, on medical jurisprudence and toxicology while determining the age of an accused. In this vast country with varied latitude, heights, environment, vegetation and nutrition, the height and weight cannot be expected to be uniform.” Similarly in Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of J & K 69 the Supreme Court of India similarly opined the age ascertained by medical examination is not a conclusive proof of age and merely the opinion of the doctor. The Court additionally stated that “the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on each side”. As a result of the abovementioned limitations, there is emerging jurisprudence by Courts in Pakistan that medical evidence in support of age must be approached with caution. In Muhammad Shebaz v. The State (2010 YLR 1812), the Lahore High Court stated that unrebutted documentary evidence could not be rebutted by the opinion made by medical board because in the ossification test the medical board always gives a tentative opinion. However, despite diverging jurisprudence, courts in Pakistan continue to accept age assessments as an outcome of ossification tests as conclusive evidence of age determination proceedings – often in the face of credible documentary record. As mentioned above, JPP has discovered that since the enactment of the JJSO, courts have accepted medical evidence in 37 out of a total of 59 cases in which it was raised- often over unrebutted documentary record. For example, in Ahmed Sher v. The State 70, the Court ruled that a “bare perusal of the section[section 7] would show that the provisions of having a medical report is mandatory in nature”. In the case, the trial court had declared the accused as a juvenile on the basis of his School Leaving Certificate. In a revision of the order of the trial court the High Court remitted the order back stating that “it was obligatory for the trial Court to have a medical report to determine the age of the accused” despite the unrebutted School Leaving Certificate. Similarly, in Muhammad Afzal v. The State (2003 YLR 1983) the Lahore High Court set aside the Sessions of the High Court declaring the accused as a juvenile on the basis of a School record and opinion of the police. The Court opined that it was mandatory for the Court to set up a medical board to determine the age of the accused under the JJSO. Concluding Observations: Nepal 2005 and Concluding Observations: Bangladesh 2006 in Cipriani, 2009:135) UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Refugee Children: Guidelines on Protection and Care, 1994, https://www.unicef.org/violencestudy/pdf/refugee_children_guidelines_on_protection_and_care.pdf 67 Save the Children, UNHCR & UNICEF (2009) Separated Children in Europe Programme: Statement of Good Practice, 4th Revised Edition, Save the Children, Denmark, https://www.unicef.org/protection/Age_Assessment_Practices_2010.pdf 68 AIR 2001 SC 2331 69 2006 PCRLJ 1450 70 AIR 1982 SC 1297 65 66 DEATH ROW’S CHILDREN 30