Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE ON RIGHTS OF CHILD CONSIDERS REPORT OF BULGARIA
21 May 2008
Share
Committee on the Rights of the Child 21 May 2008
The Committee on the Rights of the Child today reviewed the consolidated second and third periodic report of Bulgaria on how that country is implementing the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Andrey Tehov, Director of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Head of the Bulgarian Delegation, said that the quality of care for children was one of the essential criteria of the maturity of any society; as such society was bound to create all necessary conditions under which all children could develop their abilities and realize themselves as fully fledged members of the community. This philosophy was enshrined in the Bulgarian Child Protection Act and the State’s child policy. One important topical aspect of the reform of child protection was the reduction of the number of children in institutions. He also drew the attention of the Committee to the National Strategy for Children 2008-2018, which covered the broadest range of children from all target groups and all spheres of public life relevant to children welfare.
Nevena Vuckovic-Sahovic, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Bulgaria, in preliminary concluding remarks, said the Committee had listened carefully to the delegation and noted all the information provided. The Committee thanked the delegation for the dialogue and believed the picture was quite clear now and it had enough data to be able to provide a very good set of recommendations. The main aim of this process was to give Bulgaria a set of recommendations which could be used as a reference point, to measure what had been achieved and to see how it would be best to continue the process.
At the beginning of the dialogue, Ms. Vuckovic-Sahovic said Bulgaria had done a very serious job in adopting the Child Protection Act. She asked if there had been any external evaluation of the activities for the protection of the rights of the child. She said that for her the system for child protection in Bulgaria seemed rather complicated and did not function ideally, maybe due to a lack of a clear message and clear roles and because of overlapping responsibilities of the involved institutions. There was little on general principles and description of measures and results in the report. She asked if the system was efficient, and if there were problems related to capacities.
Agnes Akousa Aidoo, the Committee Member acting as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Bulgaria, said that it was very good that the philosophy of Bulgaria was “all rights for all children, everywhere”, as this gave a good basis for today’s discussions. She was impressed by the up-to-date data in the report and the commitment demonstrated by Bulgaria. The legal framework and corresponding action plans seemed to be well in place. However, the Committee needed to get more information on the assessment of the results of these measures, and to get a sense of the progress that had been made and the outstanding challenges.
Other questions by Committee Experts centred on, among other things, the effects of legislative and policy measures, implementation and application of the Convention in national courts, allegations of discrimination against Roma, institutionalisation of children, the role of non-governmental organizations in the implementation of the rights of the child, measures to protect children from sexual exploitation, child labour and trafficking and sanctions against offenders, and what measures were being taken to address the issue of child poverty.
The Committee will release its formal, written concluding observations and recommendations on the report of Bulgaria towards the end of its three-week session, which will conclude on Friday, 6 June.
The delegation of Bulgaria also included other representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the State Agency for Child Protection, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and Science, and the Permanent Mission of Bulgaria to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
When the Committee next reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 22 May, it will take up the initial reports of the United States on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Children on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on children and armed conflict.
Report of Bulgaria
The consolidated second and third periodic report of Bulgaria states that the country has ratified the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict and on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography as well as a number of relevant international conventions in the reporting period. Measures have been adopted for the harmonization of national legislation with the principles and norms of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The discussion relating to the adoption of the Child Protection Act has significantly contributed to raising the profile of a child policy as a priority for the Government after 1999. With support from UNICEF, the newly established State Agency for Child Protection and Child Protection Policy has undertaken a further review of the compliance of national legislation with the principles enshrined in the Convention in 2004/05 and developed a National Integrated Plan for the Implementation of the Convention for the period 2006-09.
The Government has implemented several acts and measures with the aim of supporting the family in raising the child with the view of preventing his/her being abandoned or placed outside the family. A powerful means for avoiding the abandoning of children in institutions is the developed network of community social services. The review of legislation and practices concerning juveniles at court shows some deficiencies as regards access to specialized bodies in all stages of jurisdiction where minors are involved. There is also no specialized professional system to support the reintegration of those released from correctional and social educational boarding schools.
The State has adopted a National Strategy for the Protection of the Rights of Children on the Street for 2003-05. As a follow up standing multidisciplinary teams for fieldwork with begging children and children working on the street have been formed in 128 municipalities. The protection of children from child labour, sexual exploitation, violence and trafficking is also a priority for the Government. The State Agency for Child Protection, together with other Government authorities and international organizations, has launched several projects and measures such as a project counteracting child labour and sexual exploitation of children, including trafficking of children, together with the International Labor Organization, a National Plan against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, and a National Programme for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings.
Presentation of the Report
ANDREY TEHOV, Director of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Head of the Bulgarian Delegation, said that the quality of care for children was one of the essential criteria of the maturity of any society; as such society was bound to create all necessary conditions under which all children could develop their abilities and realize themselves as fully fledged members of the community. This philosophy was enshrined in the Bulgarian Child Protection Act, and the State’s child policy. The Convention played a key role as a regulatory framework facilitating the process of legislative reform. One important topical aspect of the reform was the reduction of the number of children in institutions to ensure the right of the child to grow up in a family environment. Efforts of the Government were aimed at the development of a network of modern social services, the quality of which was checked by a child care monitoring system. The principal challenge to the system of child protection was institutionalized child care, a legacy from the totalitarian past. In 2001, 12,609 children in 165 institutions were a serious problem faced by the State. Though the number had dwindled by 36.4 per cent in 7 years, 8,019 children still remained in 144 institutions in 2007.
In order to accelerate the child care reform, the National Council for Child Protection was performing advisory and coordinating functions in the formulation of the priorities of the State policy and the synchronization of the regulatory framework in the sphere of child protection. In addition, an inter-agency working group to review the regulatory framework of social relations in the sphere of children’s rights had been formed by the Prime Minister. Concluding, Mr. Tehov drew the attention of the Committee to the National Strategy for Children 2008-2018, which covered the broadest range of children from all target groups and all spheres of public life relevant to children welfare and was elaborated entirely in the spirit of the need to regulate the rights of the child as requiring specific action on the part of the responsible institutions and their partners.
Questions by Experts
NEVENA VUCKOVIC-SAHOVIC, the Committee Member Acting as Rapporteur for the Report of Bulgaria, said that the long period of 10 years between the initial report and this report would enable the Committee to really view the changes regarding the rights of the child in Bulgaria, also in the light of the State’s accession to the European Union. So far, a proportion of children had not benefited from the funding which was given to Bulgaria as a new European Union country. Bulgaria had done a very serious job in adopting the Child Protection Act. She asked if there had been any external evaluation of the activities for the protection of the rights of the child. She said that for her the system for child protection in Bulgaria seemed rather complicated and did not function ideally, maybe due to a lack of a clear message, clear roles and overlapping responsibilities of the involved institutions. There was little on general principles and description of measures and results in the report. She asked if the system was efficient, and if there were problems related to capacities. Acknowledging the decentralization of the country as a good process, she called for better educational staff, capacity building and a public debate on the effectiveness and the mandate of the State Agency for Child Protection.
Turning to the question of discrimination against minorities, Ms. Vuckovic-Sahovic said that there was no information in the report on the number of children in Bulgaria, in particular the percentage of minority children. Little progress seemed to have been made with regard to the situation of Roma in Bulgaria. There was an enormous budget for the integration of Roma children into schools and society, however, it remained unused. She asked the delegation to explain how it intended to use this money to improve the situation and what had been done so far. Today’s discussions should be used to address these problems and help Bulgaria deal with them and improve the situation.
AGNES AKOUSA AIDOO, the Committee Member Acting as Co-Rapporteur for the Report of Bulgaria, said that it was very good that the philosophy of Bulgaria was “all rights for all children, everywhere”, as this gave a good basis for today’s discussions. She was impressed by the up-to-date data in the report and the commitment demonstrated by Bulgaria. The legal framework and corresponding action plans seemed to be well in place. However, the Committee needed to get more information on the assessment of the results of these measures, and to get a sense of the progress that had been made and the outstanding challenges. Had the Child Council, which should be an advisory body to the State agency, as well as non-governmental organizations been involved in the preparation of the report? What efforts had been made to disseminate the Convention and use it in the training of child care professionals? Where did the Convention stand in European Union lead initiatives and projects and was the Convention part of the school curriculum?
Concerning activities of civil society, she asked for information about the extent and scope of cooperation between Government authorities and civil society. She stressed that governments themselves could not handle all issues connected to the rights of the children, in particular when it came to getting into societies and communities after the establishment of a legal and policy framework.
Among questions raised by other Experts were questions related to decentralization and independent oversight. What was the Government doing with regards to disparities such as the uneven services between municipalities in the light of the goal of stronger commitment of local communities, and specific funding formula? Could the delegation explain if anything had been done to extend the mandate of the Ombudsman? Did children have a voice in court procedures, such as divorce proceedings, and were they listened to? Was the Convention on the Rights of the Child directly applied by judges and what kind of training for judges existed? Had there been progress with regards to the new Child Helpline? Were the budgets for child protection dispersed or spent or only allocated and had any budget tracking been carried out on which activities the budget had been spent? Could the delegation explain indications that hinted that social assistance and the number of social workers helping families to care for their children was inadequate. Regarding discrimination, was there a human rights approach to raise awareness of the rights of children? Was there a system for child impact assessment and evaluation in line with the best interests of the child and what was being done regarding the rate of accident and incidents leading to high child mortality in light of the right to life? Other questions related to children with disabilities in the aftermath of a totalitarian system; measures against torture; and effects of laws and national strategies concerning the fight against discrimination.
Answers of the Delegation
In response to the questions of the Experts, the delegation said that many things had been done regarding child protection. There was a rich legal framework and several bodies and institutions were involved in the implementation; however, the Government was aware of the different problems in the system. The Government, including the Ombudsman, therefore had an active dialogue with non-governmental organizations and international organizations for outside evaluations to identify the issues and find solutions. Amendments of the legal framework were envisaged by the different government authorities.
Addressing the issue of discrimination within the implementation of the Convention, the delegation said that the Convention was directly applicable in all fields. In addition, there was a special law against discrimination, including with regard to children, ensuring a practical mechanism of implementation, which did not act on ethnic grounds. Everybody could file a case of discrimination, with the Commission supporting such complaints, and every complaint was followed up. The delegation drew attention to the anti-discrimination policy in the educational area, which allowed Roma children to study everywhere, and provided for an anti-discrimination attitude of teachers, auxiliary staff and parents. Social security installments for minorities were paid by the State to ensure access to health care and other services. The delegation pointed out that there were schools with a majority of Roma children, but there had never been a policy of segregation. Integration of Roma children into mainstream schools was part of the Government’s policies.
One Expert said that boarding schools in eastern European countries often meant institutionalization of children, and asked for more information regarding these schools and Roma children being placed into them.
The delegation said that reintegration of children who were placed into such institutions due to their origin was in process, so that today only children with severe disabilities, currently only 5,000 children, were placed in such institutions. The parents of Roma children participated in the education process through a Government education system, such as in the choice of textbooks.
Turning to budgetary questions, the delegation said funds may have not been spent in the most effective way in the past, but the Government was looking into improvement of this situation. Concerning the dissemination of the Convention, it had been included in different events such as the National Day of Bulgaria, the Day of the Child on June 1 and other relevant international days. Material on the rights of the child had been published on the Government website and been sent to the Ombudsman. Non-governmental organizations, which were the main partners for the Government in almost all topics concerning children’s rights, had participated by providing information which had been included in the report, which was prepared by the Government institutions. There were training and refresher courses for judges and prosecutors, but this did not cover all judges. There was no research on the number of court cases where the Convention was invoked. As a basic principle, every child after the age of 10 could be heard in administrative and legal proceedings; in criminal proceedings a social worker always attended any court hearing where a child was heard. The judicial inspectorate established in October 2007 independently monitored the work of judges, including compliance with the rights of the children. Human rights and the rights of the child were implemented in school curricula.
Concerning the strengthening of the system and better coordination, the delegation said that the National Strategy was being implemented, involving all relevant child protection institutions, and including coordination measures. In order to optimize the coordination, an amendment of the legal acts had been proposed to clarify the role and responsibilities of each institution, including sanctions for non-implementation and a better monitoring system. In the Ombudsman’s office, different departments dealt with different issues of child protection, however, there was no specific deputy ombudsman dealing with children’s issues.
Further Questions by the Experts
NEVENA VUCKOVIC-SAHOVIC, the Committee Expert Acting as Rapporteur for the Report of Bulgaria, said that different sources gave different numbers regarding the issue of children in institutions. She asked where children would go after the closing of institutions and stressed the importance of capacity building at the national level.
AGNES AKOUSA AIDOO, the Committee Expert Acting as Co-Rapporteur for the Report of Bulgaria, was concerned about the figure of 15.1 per cent of children under 15 in Bulgaria living in poverty and asked what concrete steps were being taken to address child poverty. Concerning child labour, she said a lot of children were working in different sectors of the State. Was the National Plan for combating child labour working? What were the criminal and administrative sanctions for offenders? What were the measures regarding street children, whose problems were mainly related to violence against children? How was the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography used in measures by the State within and outside schools and how were perpetrators of sexual exploitation punished?
Other Committee Experts raised further questions relating to the lack of a specialized judge for juvenile cases; the problem of arbitrariness; and guarantees of rights for children under the age of 14 facing legal proceedings and if investigations concerning children’s cases were carried out by specialized prosecutors. Other questions dealt with preventative detention; the problem of active and passive smoking among children; the level of investment for the prevention of violence, in particular in schools; and institutions for children with disabilities. What measures were being taken by the national commission to address the problem of trafficking from Bulgaria and as a transit country, including participation in international initiatives? What measures were being implemented with regards to adoption? Questions related to the lack of representatives for minors in court and detention proceedings, the age of consent regarding medical treatment, the use of the extended family for abused children and parent education were also raised.
Response by Delegation
The official number of children in Bulgaria was 1,390,840, the delegation said. Since the establishment of the State agency’s information cards, indicators and methodologies were used to collect relevant analytical data. A database was kept by the Government for adoption, foster care, social services providers and other services necessary for child protection, as well as for the development of policies and plans. A computerized information system had been implemented in eight departments in Sofia and two departments in the Sofia region. The delegation hoped that the system would become operational within the next two years, as at the moment there was still a lack of harmonized terms and projects. Currently, the collection of data was difficult, as in many cases the State agency received the data from other institutions.
Regarding the reduction of the number of children in institutions, the delegation said that up to the adoption of the Child Protection Act, every parent had the right to place his/her child in an institution. This right was now limited to special cases, where no other option existed. The institutions had been reviewed twice in the reporting period, with recommendations of improvement or closure being made. The Government was developing plans on alternative accommodation of institutionalized children, including a restructuring of the system of institutions at the local and regional levels.
The Chairperson of the Committee, Yanghee Lee, stressed the need for a rights based approach to the collection of data.
Turning to the relationship between children and the police, the delegation stated that this was very strictly regulated. Specialized training for police officers and pedagogical offices for children had been established, whereas these pedagogical offices were managed by the Ministry of the Interior, who appointed inspectors with higher pedagogical education. Only trained inspectors dealt with children. At school, students were made familiar with their rights at court, in detention and in the pedagogical offices.
With regard to anti-social behaviour, the Penal Code made a clear distinction between criminal responsibility of minors and juveniles according to age and understanding. No punitive measures could be taken. Only educational measures could be imposed against minors of 8 to 14 years of age. There was also a distinction between offence and anti-social behavior. The introduction of the latter had been based on the better educational influence on minors as an alternative to punitive measures. According to police statistics data, children who had “passed through” the pedagogical offices because of prostitution were listed as “passed through”, so there was no criminalization of victims. The pedagogical offices were outside the police stations. The passing through was a preventive activity outside the regular hours of the police stations. There were no cases or complaints of mistreatment of children in police stations. The pedagogical education of inspectors and other measures prevented any violence against children in police stations.
Concerning complaints against ill-treatment in child institutions, special rules applied for the imprisonment of children. Children had the right to write letters to other government institutions and the United Nations which were not controlled. The delegation had no official statistical data for such complaints, but whenever a complaint was filed a special commission was set up when children’s rights were concerned, which would do a check up on a case-by-case basis on site. If a police officer was found guilty of mistreatment, the officer was punished and dismissed. The delegation could not say that no such cases existed, but stressed that the Government applied a zero-tolerance policy. Regarding violence against children in families, schools or other children institutions, a free Help-Hotline had been established in cooperation with UNICEF, with telephones planned to be installed in every institution.
Addressing the issue of adoption, legislation had been harmonized in 2004, with a new family code including adoption currently being considered in Parliament. Close bilateral collaboration with different organizations existed. Some 2,552 children were ready for adoption in 2007, subject to specific legal requirements. If a child was neglected for more than six months by their parents without any reason, it was given up for adoption without agreement of the parents.
Concerning street children, the Government had given 14 licenses to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to provide shelter and services to street children, but not all of them were operational. In 2006, six shelters were used for 280 children. There was funding provided from the State for the NGO services and the Government continued to work on the issue. There was an amendment to the law of social assistance which limited social assistance for 18 months, but this was done to incite those people to go to social training. However, children never remained without assistance, as any social assistance subtracted was added to the children’s support and the vocational training was paid, thus, counterbalancing the limitation of assistance. Four laws formed the system of social assistance to families in precarious financial and social situations and with children with disabilities, ensuring monthly payments and social services for those families. A 50 per cent increase for the upkeep of every child in an institution had been envisaged for this year, with another 20 per cent increase as of 1 January 2009. There was no regulation or law necessitating the placement of a disabled child in an institution, but the Government aimed to ensure that those children could stay in the best possible environment. As such, it had developed a programme to address the problem of encouragement by hospital staff to parents of disabled children to leave them in institutions. There was also social assistance rendered to families linked to school attendance. Alternative care had been augmented, such as the payment of professional foster families. It would therefore be incorrect to claim that the measure introduced with the temporary limitation was targeted at any group.
The Government provided incentives for employers to employ young mothers and left raising the children to babysitters, paid by the State, as well as foster families as an alternative to institutions. The professional foster family, which concluded a contract, was introduced last year. The role of the foster family was to support the relationship between the child and his/her biological family and the foster family could receive training, however, it was not mandatory. Eighty-two placements in foster families had been registered per year. Any NGO that had been licensed for training foster families could provide the training. Concerning the funds allocated from the State to the provision of health care for children, there were three types of funds. From one fund, more than 29 million Lev had been spent for primary care, more than 7 million Lev for specialized care, and 117 million Lev for hospital care.
The percentage of abortion in the age of 15 to 19 was relatively high and the Government was working under the HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases programme on awareness raising and promotion of protection. For all medical treatment of children up to the age of 14, a decision by the parents was required, and from 14-18, agreement of the parents was required. Concerning mental health, a national programme on mental health was concluded in 2005, and mental health was included in the national policy. However, the number of psychiatrists treating children had to be increased. A national programme on prevention of suicidal behaviour, in particular at school level, had been adopted, reflecting the realization that suicides were mainly happening among children above 10 years of age.
Concerning smoking, a national programme including campaigns against smoking had been implemented for the past eight years. It addressed passive smoking at home, as well as active smoking by children.
Children received health education in secondary school, including on reproductive health.
Turning to child labour, the Labour Code set the age from which a child could work, with special permission given to 16-year olds, and in certain cases to 15-year olds. Data on child labour was not available for all areas, however, there was work being done in this field together with the ILO in Bulgaria. There was a follow-up on children dropping out of school and children in rural areas involved in work according to the agricultural season. Child labour was penalized, with sanctions of imprisonment and fines increasing according to specifics such as the age of the child and the number and repetition of cases.
Regarding minors below the age of 14 who committed socially dangerous acts, the Penal Code allowed educational measures to be imposed. In court procedures, the child had the right to a representative and the right to appeal. Children could not be placed into pedagogical schools and boarding schools for more than three years and the placement could be stopped earlier in case of a written request.
The Experts stressed that the integration of anti-social behaviour made the criminal system non-understandable as there were clear criminal offences and undefined anti-social behavior which could have severe consequences for the children.
The delegation said that anti-social acts were socially dangerous behaviour that contradicted morality and good manners; they were strictly differentiated from offences. Every minor had the right to appeal him/herself or through a legal representative for reinvestigation of their detention and the regime of the detention and custody. However, the delegation again stressed that detention and custody were only applied for children over 14 years of age.
The delegation stated that Bulgaria would soon become a member of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and stressed that every measure in Bulgaria was taken on the basis of a rights approach and that in fact every movement was aimed towards the improvement of the rights of children.
The Penal Code defined both internal and international trafficking. Bulgaria was actively involved in the fight against human trafficking, including through participation in several international meetings on the subject.
Preliminary Concluding Remarks
NEVENA VUCKOVIC-SAHOVIC, the Committee Expert Acting as Rapporteur for the Report of Bulgaria, in preliminary concluding remarks, said the Committee had listened carefully to the delegation and noted all the information provided. The Committee thanked the delegation for the dialogue and believed the picture was quite clear now and it had enough data to be able to provide a very good set of recommendations. The main aim of this process was to give Bulgaria a set of recommendations which could be used as a reference point, to measure what had been achieved and to see how it would be best to continue the process. The Committee would try to focus on the burning issues. It hoped that Bulgaria would find the recommendations useful and constructive and that it would use them in a multi-sectoral way and share them with civil society, professionals working with children, and children themselves. The Committee hoped that at the next meeting with Bulgaria, it would see more children involved.
ANDREY TEHOV, Director of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Head of the Bulgarian Delegation, in concluding remarks, thanked the Committee for its hard work, and hoped that the responses given by the delegation had clarified some outstanding questions. The delegation had tried to address all the concerns, and regretted the lack of time to better explain and understand the complaints that had been raised. He assured the Committee of the openness of the delegation to all recommendations from the Committee. The recommendations would be eagerly expected and transmitted to all relevant institutions.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
The Committee on the Rights of the Child today reviewed the consolidated second and third periodic report of Bulgaria on how that country is implementing the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Andrey Tehov, Director of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Head of the Bulgarian Delegation, said that the quality of care for children was one of the essential criteria of the maturity of any society; as such society was bound to create all necessary conditions under which all children could develop their abilities and realize themselves as fully fledged members of the community. This philosophy was enshrined in the Bulgarian Child Protection Act and the State’s child policy. One important topical aspect of the reform of child protection was the reduction of the number of children in institutions. He also drew the attention of the Committee to the National Strategy for Children 2008-2018, which covered the broadest range of children from all target groups and all spheres of public life relevant to children welfare.
Nevena Vuckovic-Sahovic, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Bulgaria, in preliminary concluding remarks, said the Committee had listened carefully to the delegation and noted all the information provided. The Committee thanked the delegation for the dialogue and believed the picture was quite clear now and it had enough data to be able to provide a very good set of recommendations. The main aim of this process was to give Bulgaria a set of recommendations which could be used as a reference point, to measure what had been achieved and to see how it would be best to continue the process.
At the beginning of the dialogue, Ms. Vuckovic-Sahovic said Bulgaria had done a very serious job in adopting the Child Protection Act. She asked if there had been any external evaluation of the activities for the protection of the rights of the child. She said that for her the system for child protection in Bulgaria seemed rather complicated and did not function ideally, maybe due to a lack of a clear message and clear roles and because of overlapping responsibilities of the involved institutions. There was little on general principles and description of measures and results in the report. She asked if the system was efficient, and if there were problems related to capacities.
Agnes Akousa Aidoo, the Committee Member acting as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Bulgaria, said that it was very good that the philosophy of Bulgaria was “all rights for all children, everywhere”, as this gave a good basis for today’s discussions. She was impressed by the up-to-date data in the report and the commitment demonstrated by Bulgaria. The legal framework and corresponding action plans seemed to be well in place. However, the Committee needed to get more information on the assessment of the results of these measures, and to get a sense of the progress that had been made and the outstanding challenges.
Other questions by Committee Experts centred on, among other things, the effects of legislative and policy measures, implementation and application of the Convention in national courts, allegations of discrimination against Roma, institutionalisation of children, the role of non-governmental organizations in the implementation of the rights of the child, measures to protect children from sexual exploitation, child labour and trafficking and sanctions against offenders, and what measures were being taken to address the issue of child poverty.
The Committee will release its formal, written concluding observations and recommendations on the report of Bulgaria towards the end of its three-week session, which will conclude on Friday, 6 June.
The delegation of Bulgaria also included other representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the State Agency for Child Protection, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and Science, and the Permanent Mission of Bulgaria to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
When the Committee next reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 22 May, it will take up the initial reports of the United States on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Children on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on children and armed conflict.
Report of Bulgaria
The consolidated second and third periodic report of Bulgaria states that the country has ratified the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict and on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography as well as a number of relevant international conventions in the reporting period. Measures have been adopted for the harmonization of national legislation with the principles and norms of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The discussion relating to the adoption of the Child Protection Act has significantly contributed to raising the profile of a child policy as a priority for the Government after 1999. With support from UNICEF, the newly established State Agency for Child Protection and Child Protection Policy has undertaken a further review of the compliance of national legislation with the principles enshrined in the Convention in 2004/05 and developed a National Integrated Plan for the Implementation of the Convention for the period 2006-09.
The Government has implemented several acts and measures with the aim of supporting the family in raising the child with the view of preventing his/her being abandoned or placed outside the family. A powerful means for avoiding the abandoning of children in institutions is the developed network of community social services. The review of legislation and practices concerning juveniles at court shows some deficiencies as regards access to specialized bodies in all stages of jurisdiction where minors are involved. There is also no specialized professional system to support the reintegration of those released from correctional and social educational boarding schools.
The State has adopted a National Strategy for the Protection of the Rights of Children on the Street for 2003-05. As a follow up standing multidisciplinary teams for fieldwork with begging children and children working on the street have been formed in 128 municipalities. The protection of children from child labour, sexual exploitation, violence and trafficking is also a priority for the Government. The State Agency for Child Protection, together with other Government authorities and international organizations, has launched several projects and measures such as a project counteracting child labour and sexual exploitation of children, including trafficking of children, together with the International Labor Organization, a National Plan against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, and a National Programme for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings.
Presentation of the Report
ANDREY TEHOV, Director of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Head of the Bulgarian Delegation, said that the quality of care for children was one of the essential criteria of the maturity of any society; as such society was bound to create all necessary conditions under which all children could develop their abilities and realize themselves as fully fledged members of the community. This philosophy was enshrined in the Bulgarian Child Protection Act, and the State’s child policy. The Convention played a key role as a regulatory framework facilitating the process of legislative reform. One important topical aspect of the reform was the reduction of the number of children in institutions to ensure the right of the child to grow up in a family environment. Efforts of the Government were aimed at the development of a network of modern social services, the quality of which was checked by a child care monitoring system. The principal challenge to the system of child protection was institutionalized child care, a legacy from the totalitarian past. In 2001, 12,609 children in 165 institutions were a serious problem faced by the State. Though the number had dwindled by 36.4 per cent in 7 years, 8,019 children still remained in 144 institutions in 2007.
In order to accelerate the child care reform, the National Council for Child Protection was performing advisory and coordinating functions in the formulation of the priorities of the State policy and the synchronization of the regulatory framework in the sphere of child protection. In addition, an inter-agency working group to review the regulatory framework of social relations in the sphere of children’s rights had been formed by the Prime Minister. Concluding, Mr. Tehov drew the attention of the Committee to the National Strategy for Children 2008-2018, which covered the broadest range of children from all target groups and all spheres of public life relevant to children welfare and was elaborated entirely in the spirit of the need to regulate the rights of the child as requiring specific action on the part of the responsible institutions and their partners.
Questions by Experts
NEVENA VUCKOVIC-SAHOVIC, the Committee Member Acting as Rapporteur for the Report of Bulgaria, said that the long period of 10 years between the initial report and this report would enable the Committee to really view the changes regarding the rights of the child in Bulgaria, also in the light of the State’s accession to the European Union. So far, a proportion of children had not benefited from the funding which was given to Bulgaria as a new European Union country. Bulgaria had done a very serious job in adopting the Child Protection Act. She asked if there had been any external evaluation of the activities for the protection of the rights of the child. She said that for her the system for child protection in Bulgaria seemed rather complicated and did not function ideally, maybe due to a lack of a clear message, clear roles and overlapping responsibilities of the involved institutions. There was little on general principles and description of measures and results in the report. She asked if the system was efficient, and if there were problems related to capacities. Acknowledging the decentralization of the country as a good process, she called for better educational staff, capacity building and a public debate on the effectiveness and the mandate of the State Agency for Child Protection.
Turning to the question of discrimination against minorities, Ms. Vuckovic-Sahovic said that there was no information in the report on the number of children in Bulgaria, in particular the percentage of minority children. Little progress seemed to have been made with regard to the situation of Roma in Bulgaria. There was an enormous budget for the integration of Roma children into schools and society, however, it remained unused. She asked the delegation to explain how it intended to use this money to improve the situation and what had been done so far. Today’s discussions should be used to address these problems and help Bulgaria deal with them and improve the situation.
AGNES AKOUSA AIDOO, the Committee Member Acting as Co-Rapporteur for the Report of Bulgaria, said that it was very good that the philosophy of Bulgaria was “all rights for all children, everywhere”, as this gave a good basis for today’s discussions. She was impressed by the up-to-date data in the report and the commitment demonstrated by Bulgaria. The legal framework and corresponding action plans seemed to be well in place. However, the Committee needed to get more information on the assessment of the results of these measures, and to get a sense of the progress that had been made and the outstanding challenges. Had the Child Council, which should be an advisory body to the State agency, as well as non-governmental organizations been involved in the preparation of the report? What efforts had been made to disseminate the Convention and use it in the training of child care professionals? Where did the Convention stand in European Union lead initiatives and projects and was the Convention part of the school curriculum?
Concerning activities of civil society, she asked for information about the extent and scope of cooperation between Government authorities and civil society. She stressed that governments themselves could not handle all issues connected to the rights of the children, in particular when it came to getting into societies and communities after the establishment of a legal and policy framework.
Among questions raised by other Experts were questions related to decentralization and independent oversight. What was the Government doing with regards to disparities such as the uneven services between municipalities in the light of the goal of stronger commitment of local communities, and specific funding formula? Could the delegation explain if anything had been done to extend the mandate of the Ombudsman? Did children have a voice in court procedures, such as divorce proceedings, and were they listened to? Was the Convention on the Rights of the Child directly applied by judges and what kind of training for judges existed? Had there been progress with regards to the new Child Helpline? Were the budgets for child protection dispersed or spent or only allocated and had any budget tracking been carried out on which activities the budget had been spent? Could the delegation explain indications that hinted that social assistance and the number of social workers helping families to care for their children was inadequate. Regarding discrimination, was there a human rights approach to raise awareness of the rights of children? Was there a system for child impact assessment and evaluation in line with the best interests of the child and what was being done regarding the rate of accident and incidents leading to high child mortality in light of the right to life? Other questions related to children with disabilities in the aftermath of a totalitarian system; measures against torture; and effects of laws and national strategies concerning the fight against discrimination.
Answers of the Delegation
In response to the questions of the Experts, the delegation said that many things had been done regarding child protection. There was a rich legal framework and several bodies and institutions were involved in the implementation; however, the Government was aware of the different problems in the system. The Government, including the Ombudsman, therefore had an active dialogue with non-governmental organizations and international organizations for outside evaluations to identify the issues and find solutions. Amendments of the legal framework were envisaged by the different government authorities.
Addressing the issue of discrimination within the implementation of the Convention, the delegation said that the Convention was directly applicable in all fields. In addition, there was a special law against discrimination, including with regard to children, ensuring a practical mechanism of implementation, which did not act on ethnic grounds. Everybody could file a case of discrimination, with the Commission supporting such complaints, and every complaint was followed up. The delegation drew attention to the anti-discrimination policy in the educational area, which allowed Roma children to study everywhere, and provided for an anti-discrimination attitude of teachers, auxiliary staff and parents. Social security installments for minorities were paid by the State to ensure access to health care and other services. The delegation pointed out that there were schools with a majority of Roma children, but there had never been a policy of segregation. Integration of Roma children into mainstream schools was part of the Government’s policies.
One Expert said that boarding schools in eastern European countries often meant institutionalization of children, and asked for more information regarding these schools and Roma children being placed into them.
The delegation said that reintegration of children who were placed into such institutions due to their origin was in process, so that today only children with severe disabilities, currently only 5,000 children, were placed in such institutions. The parents of Roma children participated in the education process through a Government education system, such as in the choice of textbooks.
Turning to budgetary questions, the delegation said funds may have not been spent in the most effective way in the past, but the Government was looking into improvement of this situation. Concerning the dissemination of the Convention, it had been included in different events such as the National Day of Bulgaria, the Day of the Child on June 1 and other relevant international days. Material on the rights of the child had been published on the Government website and been sent to the Ombudsman. Non-governmental organizations, which were the main partners for the Government in almost all topics concerning children’s rights, had participated by providing information which had been included in the report, which was prepared by the Government institutions. There were training and refresher courses for judges and prosecutors, but this did not cover all judges. There was no research on the number of court cases where the Convention was invoked. As a basic principle, every child after the age of 10 could be heard in administrative and legal proceedings; in criminal proceedings a social worker always attended any court hearing where a child was heard. The judicial inspectorate established in October 2007 independently monitored the work of judges, including compliance with the rights of the children. Human rights and the rights of the child were implemented in school curricula.
Concerning the strengthening of the system and better coordination, the delegation said that the National Strategy was being implemented, involving all relevant child protection institutions, and including coordination measures. In order to optimize the coordination, an amendment of the legal acts had been proposed to clarify the role and responsibilities of each institution, including sanctions for non-implementation and a better monitoring system. In the Ombudsman’s office, different departments dealt with different issues of child protection, however, there was no specific deputy ombudsman dealing with children’s issues.
Further Questions by the Experts
NEVENA VUCKOVIC-SAHOVIC, the Committee Expert Acting as Rapporteur for the Report of Bulgaria, said that different sources gave different numbers regarding the issue of children in institutions. She asked where children would go after the closing of institutions and stressed the importance of capacity building at the national level.
AGNES AKOUSA AIDOO, the Committee Expert Acting as Co-Rapporteur for the Report of Bulgaria, was concerned about the figure of 15.1 per cent of children under 15 in Bulgaria living in poverty and asked what concrete steps were being taken to address child poverty. Concerning child labour, she said a lot of children were working in different sectors of the State. Was the National Plan for combating child labour working? What were the criminal and administrative sanctions for offenders? What were the measures regarding street children, whose problems were mainly related to violence against children? How was the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography used in measures by the State within and outside schools and how were perpetrators of sexual exploitation punished?
Other Committee Experts raised further questions relating to the lack of a specialized judge for juvenile cases; the problem of arbitrariness; and guarantees of rights for children under the age of 14 facing legal proceedings and if investigations concerning children’s cases were carried out by specialized prosecutors. Other questions dealt with preventative detention; the problem of active and passive smoking among children; the level of investment for the prevention of violence, in particular in schools; and institutions for children with disabilities. What measures were being taken by the national commission to address the problem of trafficking from Bulgaria and as a transit country, including participation in international initiatives? What measures were being implemented with regards to adoption? Questions related to the lack of representatives for minors in court and detention proceedings, the age of consent regarding medical treatment, the use of the extended family for abused children and parent education were also raised.
Response by Delegation
The official number of children in Bulgaria was 1,390,840, the delegation said. Since the establishment of the State agency’s information cards, indicators and methodologies were used to collect relevant analytical data. A database was kept by the Government for adoption, foster care, social services providers and other services necessary for child protection, as well as for the development of policies and plans. A computerized information system had been implemented in eight departments in Sofia and two departments in the Sofia region. The delegation hoped that the system would become operational within the next two years, as at the moment there was still a lack of harmonized terms and projects. Currently, the collection of data was difficult, as in many cases the State agency received the data from other institutions.
Regarding the reduction of the number of children in institutions, the delegation said that up to the adoption of the Child Protection Act, every parent had the right to place his/her child in an institution. This right was now limited to special cases, where no other option existed. The institutions had been reviewed twice in the reporting period, with recommendations of improvement or closure being made. The Government was developing plans on alternative accommodation of institutionalized children, including a restructuring of the system of institutions at the local and regional levels.
The Chairperson of the Committee, Yanghee Lee, stressed the need for a rights based approach to the collection of data.
Turning to the relationship between children and the police, the delegation stated that this was very strictly regulated. Specialized training for police officers and pedagogical offices for children had been established, whereas these pedagogical offices were managed by the Ministry of the Interior, who appointed inspectors with higher pedagogical education. Only trained inspectors dealt with children. At school, students were made familiar with their rights at court, in detention and in the pedagogical offices.
With regard to anti-social behaviour, the Penal Code made a clear distinction between criminal responsibility of minors and juveniles according to age and understanding. No punitive measures could be taken. Only educational measures could be imposed against minors of 8 to 14 years of age. There was also a distinction between offence and anti-social behavior. The introduction of the latter had been based on the better educational influence on minors as an alternative to punitive measures. According to police statistics data, children who had “passed through” the pedagogical offices because of prostitution were listed as “passed through”, so there was no criminalization of victims. The pedagogical offices were outside the police stations. The passing through was a preventive activity outside the regular hours of the police stations. There were no cases or complaints of mistreatment of children in police stations. The pedagogical education of inspectors and other measures prevented any violence against children in police stations.
Concerning complaints against ill-treatment in child institutions, special rules applied for the imprisonment of children. Children had the right to write letters to other government institutions and the United Nations which were not controlled. The delegation had no official statistical data for such complaints, but whenever a complaint was filed a special commission was set up when children’s rights were concerned, which would do a check up on a case-by-case basis on site. If a police officer was found guilty of mistreatment, the officer was punished and dismissed. The delegation could not say that no such cases existed, but stressed that the Government applied a zero-tolerance policy. Regarding violence against children in families, schools or other children institutions, a free Help-Hotline had been established in cooperation with UNICEF, with telephones planned to be installed in every institution.
Addressing the issue of adoption, legislation had been harmonized in 2004, with a new family code including adoption currently being considered in Parliament. Close bilateral collaboration with different organizations existed. Some 2,552 children were ready for adoption in 2007, subject to specific legal requirements. If a child was neglected for more than six months by their parents without any reason, it was given up for adoption without agreement of the parents.
Concerning street children, the Government had given 14 licenses to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to provide shelter and services to street children, but not all of them were operational. In 2006, six shelters were used for 280 children. There was funding provided from the State for the NGO services and the Government continued to work on the issue. There was an amendment to the law of social assistance which limited social assistance for 18 months, but this was done to incite those people to go to social training. However, children never remained without assistance, as any social assistance subtracted was added to the children’s support and the vocational training was paid, thus, counterbalancing the limitation of assistance. Four laws formed the system of social assistance to families in precarious financial and social situations and with children with disabilities, ensuring monthly payments and social services for those families. A 50 per cent increase for the upkeep of every child in an institution had been envisaged for this year, with another 20 per cent increase as of 1 January 2009. There was no regulation or law necessitating the placement of a disabled child in an institution, but the Government aimed to ensure that those children could stay in the best possible environment. As such, it had developed a programme to address the problem of encouragement by hospital staff to parents of disabled children to leave them in institutions. There was also social assistance rendered to families linked to school attendance. Alternative care had been augmented, such as the payment of professional foster families. It would therefore be incorrect to claim that the measure introduced with the temporary limitation was targeted at any group.
The Government provided incentives for employers to employ young mothers and left raising the children to babysitters, paid by the State, as well as foster families as an alternative to institutions. The professional foster family, which concluded a contract, was introduced last year. The role of the foster family was to support the relationship between the child and his/her biological family and the foster family could receive training, however, it was not mandatory. Eighty-two placements in foster families had been registered per year. Any NGO that had been licensed for training foster families could provide the training. Concerning the funds allocated from the State to the provision of health care for children, there were three types of funds. From one fund, more than 29 million Lev had been spent for primary care, more than 7 million Lev for specialized care, and 117 million Lev for hospital care.
The percentage of abortion in the age of 15 to 19 was relatively high and the Government was working under the HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases programme on awareness raising and promotion of protection. For all medical treatment of children up to the age of 14, a decision by the parents was required, and from 14-18, agreement of the parents was required. Concerning mental health, a national programme on mental health was concluded in 2005, and mental health was included in the national policy. However, the number of psychiatrists treating children had to be increased. A national programme on prevention of suicidal behaviour, in particular at school level, had been adopted, reflecting the realization that suicides were mainly happening among children above 10 years of age.
Concerning smoking, a national programme including campaigns against smoking had been implemented for the past eight years. It addressed passive smoking at home, as well as active smoking by children.
Children received health education in secondary school, including on reproductive health.
Turning to child labour, the Labour Code set the age from which a child could work, with special permission given to 16-year olds, and in certain cases to 15-year olds. Data on child labour was not available for all areas, however, there was work being done in this field together with the ILO in Bulgaria. There was a follow-up on children dropping out of school and children in rural areas involved in work according to the agricultural season. Child labour was penalized, with sanctions of imprisonment and fines increasing according to specifics such as the age of the child and the number and repetition of cases.
Regarding minors below the age of 14 who committed socially dangerous acts, the Penal Code allowed educational measures to be imposed. In court procedures, the child had the right to a representative and the right to appeal. Children could not be placed into pedagogical schools and boarding schools for more than three years and the placement could be stopped earlier in case of a written request.
The Experts stressed that the integration of anti-social behaviour made the criminal system non-understandable as there were clear criminal offences and undefined anti-social behavior which could have severe consequences for the children.
The delegation said that anti-social acts were socially dangerous behaviour that contradicted morality and good manners; they were strictly differentiated from offences. Every minor had the right to appeal him/herself or through a legal representative for reinvestigation of their detention and the regime of the detention and custody. However, the delegation again stressed that detention and custody were only applied for children over 14 years of age.
The delegation stated that Bulgaria would soon become a member of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and stressed that every measure in Bulgaria was taken on the basis of a rights approach and that in fact every movement was aimed towards the improvement of the rights of children.
The Penal Code defined both internal and international trafficking. Bulgaria was actively involved in the fight against human trafficking, including through participation in several international meetings on the subject.
Preliminary Concluding Remarks
NEVENA VUCKOVIC-SAHOVIC, the Committee Expert Acting as Rapporteur for the Report of Bulgaria, in preliminary concluding remarks, said the Committee had listened carefully to the delegation and noted all the information provided. The Committee thanked the delegation for the dialogue and believed the picture was quite clear now and it had enough data to be able to provide a very good set of recommendations. The main aim of this process was to give Bulgaria a set of recommendations which could be used as a reference point, to measure what had been achieved and to see how it would be best to continue the process. The Committee would try to focus on the burning issues. It hoped that Bulgaria would find the recommendations useful and constructive and that it would use them in a multi-sectoral way and share them with civil society, professionals working with children, and children themselves. The Committee hoped that at the next meeting with Bulgaria, it would see more children involved.
ANDREY TEHOV, Director of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Head of the Bulgarian Delegation, in concluding remarks, thanked the Committee for its hard work, and hoped that the responses given by the delegation had clarified some outstanding questions. The delegation had tried to address all the concerns, and regretted the lack of time to better explain and understand the complaints that had been raised. He assured the Committee of the openness of the delegation to all recommendations from the Committee. The recommendations would be eagerly expected and transmitted to all relevant institutions.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: