A School Where Conflict Has Disappeared, and Children Choose Peace

A 16-year-old student who grew up at this school said, “There are far fewer fights now. We either resolve conflicts among ourselves or talk to the Peace Minister.” The Peace Minister is not a government official, but a student-led role within the school. Student representatives serving as Peace Ministers listen to their peers when conflicts arise and help them resolve their differences through dialogue.

▎ Students who used to refuse to attend classes

Lesotho is located in southern Africa, where 54.7% of the population lives in poverty and the youth unemployment rate stands at 34%. Even after graduating from school, it can be difficult to find stable employment, and 40% of young people are neither in education nor receiving vocational training. These social challenges do not stop at the school gates. Economic hardship, unstable family situations, and the absence of parents can affect students’ daily lives, sometimes manifesting as conflicts among friends or violent behavior.

In 2019, Puleng Nkaletse became the principal of Ribaneng High School in Lesotho. At the time, students were repeatedly refusing to attend classes and damaging school property, while enrollment had fallen to fewer than 100 students. Trust between teachers and students had broken down, and there were even internal conflicts within the school. Under these circumstances, restoring stability to the school was far from easy. 

Principal Puleng sought help from various organizations, and in the process, she was introduced to HWPL through Development for Peace Education (DPE). DPE is a civil society organization in Lesotho that, together with HWPL, is working to expand peace education to schools across the country. Currently, teacher training programs and workshops are being conducted in Lesotho.

▎ Students who became Peace Ministers

HWPL’s peace education is not simply taught as a single subject. Instead, it first helps students develop peaceful attitudes and values within the school and then encourages them to put those principles into practice in their daily lives and communities. Through this approach, students learn about diversity, cooperation, coexistence, harmony, altruism, sacrifice, love, respect for nature, and respect for elders. This is because peace is more important to learn through action than simply through knowledge. Ultimately, this became the approach that could truly transform these children.

After Principal Puleng introduced peace education at the school, one of the biggest changes was in the school’s organizational structure. Students began taking an active role in running the school themselves. Student representatives took on various roles, including Peace Minister, Education Minister, Food Security Minister, and Finance Minister. When problems arose at school, they discussed them together and worked toward solutions. Instead of expressing their dissatisfaction through actions such as refusing to attend classes, a system was created in which students could seek solutions through their own representatives.

In 2020, the school faced a situation in which a lack of funding for sports activities made it difficult for students to participate in sports competitions. In the past, such dissatisfaction might have led students to refuse to attend classes. However, in this situation, the student representatives discussed ways to raise funds and put their ideas into action. Rather than waiting for someone else to solve the problem for them, the students found a solution themselves. This example shows that peace education is not simply about teaching students not to fight. Rather, it encourages them to find solutions to problems through dialogue and participation instead of violence.

For teachers who had never been exposed to peace education before, this unfamiliar approach sometimes felt like an additional burden on top of their everyday responsibilities. However, the changes continued beyond the school itself. One student witnessed a friend mediating a dispute over money between younger siblings. Instead of asking their parents to solve the problem, the friend calmly sat the younger children down and listened to each of their sides. This was precisely the kind of change that peace education was intended to bring about. 

▎ Peace in Every Corner of Lesotho, Each in Its Own Way

The effects of peace education were not limited to the school. The same changes were taking place in communities across Lesotho. 

In 2021, Principal Noangelina Debeshe was introduced to peace education through DPE. What began with the principal and one teacher eventually expanded to include the entire teaching staff, and ultimately the whole school began practicing peace education together. Every Monday became Peace Education Day, and students chose the values they would practice throughout the week. As a result, conflicts within the school gradually began to decrease. 

The lessons covered themes such as diversity, cooperation, coexistence, harmony, altruism, and sacrifice which children encounter throughout their lives. Every Monday was designated as Peace Education Day, and the students chose the values they would practice during the week themselves. When conflicts arose, the children learned to talk things through with one another. They began saying “thank you” first and reaching out to others first.

As conflicts within the school decreased, students were able to focus more on their studies. As a result, in 2024, Morifi Community High School ranked 8th nationwide, placing it among Lesotho’s Top 10 schools. This suggests that creating an environment where students can respect and cooperate with one another can also have a positive impact on the learning atmosphere.

▎ The child who apologized first

A primary school principal has been leading the school for nine years. Although it is true that the school lacks educational resources, the principal has made great efforts to teach students the importance of respecting and appreciating one another. As a result, when conflicts arise, the children have learned to resolve them through conversation rather than fighting. They are growing up learning to express gratitude first and to treat one another with respect. 

The children put what they learned about gratitude into action. They even made thank-you cards for their parents to express how much they appreciated them. It makes us wonder whether peace does not begin at grand international conferences, but rather with these small acts of kindness in our everyday lives.

▎ A Commitment Shared by 100 Teachers

Last March, a completion ceremony was held in Maseru, the capital of Lesotho, for approximately 100 teachers who had completed peace teacher training.

The ceremony was jointly hosted by HWPL and DPE, with Lesotho’s official responsible for curriculum assessment attending in person, adding further official significance to the event. During the ceremony, the teachers recited a pledge together called “Peace My Lesotho.” The pledge conveys the message that peace in Lesotho begins with me.

▎ What Matters Is Culture

The case of Lesotho shows that peace education did not remain simply a program. Rather than teaching students about peace through lectures and tests, it encouraged them to put peace into practice in their everyday school lives—respecting their friends, talking through conflicts, listening to others, expressing gratitude, and finding solutions when problems arose. Over time, the changes brought about by peace education in schools became more than just lessons. They became part of the school culture.

Perhaps peace in a society is ultimately built through the accumulation of these small acts. Peace is not some distant or grand goal. It can begin with the words we choose to say and the actions we choose to take each day. If children begin to practice the peace they have learned at school in their lives beyond the school gates, perhaps we can move one step closer to creating a society where peace is not simply something taught in peace education, but a way of everyday life.

Reference : https://vo.la/x3KYczp 

German International Law Professor: “Consider Alternatives to Detention

for 95-Year-Old Man Hee Lee, Given His Advanced Age”

“Pretrial detention of a 95-year-old defendant should be subject to exceptionally strict justification, and less restrictive alternatives, such as bail, house arrest, or electronic monitoring, should be considered first.”

There has been growing controversy surrounding the detention of a 95-year-old elderly defendant, which has become a hotly debated issue in recent days. The presumption of innocence should, of course, be upheld until a verdict is reached. However, heated debate continues over whether it is truly necessary to deprive an individual of their liberty before the trial has even concluded. 

In this regard, I would like to discuss an interview with Professor Ciarán Burke, a German scholar of international law. He participated in a written interview conducted by HWPL (Heavenly Culture, World Peace, Restoration of Light), an international peace organization. The interview addressed the general principles of international human rights law. This is particularly relevant because, in cases that are still pending trial, statements by public officials declaring a defendant guilty can undermine the principle of the presumption of innocence. Professor Burke also noted that the European Court of Human Rights has previously found such conduct to constitute a violation of human rights.

◆ No one is guilty until the trial is over.

Professor Burke emphasized that the principle of the presumption of innocence does not apply solely to the court’s judicial proceedings, but is a fundamental principle that must be observed by all public officials exercising state power.

He emphasized that the principle of the presumption of innocence applies not only to the court’s judicial proceedings but is also a fundamental principle that must be observed by all public officials exercising state power. He said, “Not every statement made by a public official automatically constitutes a violation of international human rights law. However, the speaker’s position, the manner in which the statement is expressed, and the stage of the proceedings must all be taken into consideration. Statements that fail to clearly distinguish between allegations and established facts and that characterize a defendant as a criminal before a verdict is reached may violate the principle of the presumption of innocence.”

He went on to explain that in a landmark case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), “the Court found that public statements by a senior government official categorically declaring a suspect to be guilty violated the principle of the presumption of innocence. This case demonstrates that the more authority a person holds within the state, the more careful they must be in choosing their words.”

He also said, “When government statements, political commentary, and media reports converge, there is a risk that a social verdict of guilt may be formed before the court reaches its final judgment. Public officials should consistently use terms such as ‘allegation’ and make it clear that the final determination rests with the court. Generalized statements that associate an entire religious community with criminality may also raise separate human rights concerns in terms of freedom of religion, the right to equality, and the principle of non-discrimination.”

Professor Burke emphasized that, in order to ensure a fair trial, the defendant’s right to a defense must be guaranteed. This principle means that the defendant must be able to present their case under conditions that do not place them at a substantial disadvantage compared with the opposing party.

The defendant must be able to clearly understand the charges against them and the facts of the case, and must have meaningful access to the evidence held by the prosecution as well as materials that may support their defense. They must also be able to receive adequate assistance from legal counsel.

He said, “In the case of elderly defendants who are being detained, the state must take active measures to ensure that their access to legal counsel and participation in the trial are not effectively restricted. They must be provided with a meaningful opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s evidence, examine witnesses, and present evidence of their own.”

◆ Is detention absolutely necessary?

Regarding the decision to detain and investigate the 95-year-old defendant, we must ask the question: Is detention really necessary?

Professor Burke prefaced his remarks by stating, “Detention does not automatically become unlawful simply because a person is elderly, and it is not possible to determine the legality of detention in a specific case without reviewing the case records, medical information, and other relevant materials.”

He also said, “For an elderly defendant whose identity is clearly established and who has cooperated with the investigation, continuing to detain them requires highly compelling and specific grounds. The state must demonstrate that the risk cannot be adequately addressed through less restrictive measures than detention.”

He emphasized, “Pretrial detention should be an exceptional measure, and it is a fundamental principle of international human rights law that less restrictive alternatives, such as bail, house arrest, electronic monitoring, and no-contact orders, should be considered first. Courts should not simply repeat abstract grounds for detention; they must continually assess the defendant’s health, age, and ability to exercise their right to a defense.”

He went on to say, “It cannot be categorically stated that pretrial detention of a 95-year-old defendant is, in itself, a violation of international human rights law. However, if the authorities cannot demonstrate with concrete evidence that a serious risk still exists and that it cannot be adequately addressed through alternative measures, continued detention may be difficult to reconcile with the right to liberty, the principle of the presumption of innocence, and international standards that require pretrial detention to remain an exceptional measure.”

Everyone facing trial should be guaranteed a fair procedure and should not be presumed guilty before a final verdict is reached. The fundamental principles applied under the law should be the same for everyone. When considering the issue of pretrial detention involving a 95-year-old elderly defendant, much of the debate has centered on whether people should support or oppose a particular individual or a particular religion. I hope this debate will serve as an opportunity for our society to reflect on the standards of the rule of law and human rights that we uphold. 

The rule of law should not be swayed by a person’s social status or influence. It should apply equally to everyone. Whatever the outcome of the trial may be, I hope that the process leading to that outcome will, at the very least, be fair.

Reference : https://vo.la/ZCxuSGk