to play and participate in the social life. Similarly, Art. 32 guarantees the right against economic exploitation and risk, and the right against any work which may prove detrimental to physical, mental, spiritual and family related development. In the same way, Art. 34 ensures the right against sexual exploitation and child pornography and Art.35 guarantees the right against trafficking and kidnapping. Likewise, Art. 37 guarantees the right against torture or any type of cruel or in human or degrading treatment and also ensures the right of personal freedom to every child. In the context of child rights, Art. 10 of the International Convention on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 (ICESCR) and Articles 23 and 24 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (ICCPR) also seem to be significant. Art. 10(1) of ICESCR has provided that since the parents are required to play a significant role in regard to the care and upbringing and education of children, the State should provide as for as possible security to the family institution. Likewise, in order to protect the children against possible economic and social exploitation and against hazardous employment, clause (3) has enjoined upon the State to impose restrictions on paid employment of children who are below the specific age limit set for employment. Similarly, whereas there is provision in Article 23(1) of ICCPR for providing protection to family by the society and the State, Article 24 has provided for granting every child the right to equality against all types of discrimination. Now it needs to be considered whether or not the custom of Kumari infringes the fundamental rights granted to children by the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063 B.S. and the rights granted by the Convention on the Child Rights, 1989. For this we shall have to examine what is the role of Kumaris. Child labour has been prohibited not only by the legal system of Nepal but also by the Convention on the Child Rights. In some countries, one is not considered adult until he or she completes the age of 18, whereas in our country one is treated as an adult after the completion of the age of 16. There is a restriction on employing a minor in any type of work. The act of engaging any child who falls under the category of a minor as prescribed by the law in any work amounts not only to the infringement of the fundamental rights and the human rights of children, but such an act also virtually becomes a kind of exploitation. Therefore, it is unlawful to engage children below the age of 16 years in work with any amount of remuneration whatsoever, including other financial and material benefits, irrespective of whether they have been employed of their own will or consent or with the consent of their guardian or parents. Thus, the act of engaging any child below the age of 16 years causes an infringement to the fundamental rights and human rights of such minor, aside from involving Nepal in the violation of the human rights of its citizens, thereby leading to the derogation of its treaty commitments. It is essential to analyze what we understand by the term “engaging in work” in regard to the issue of whether or not the fundamental rights and human rights of the young girls are infringed during the period when they function as Kumaris, when we consider whether or 125