Committee on the Rights of the Child review report of Belarus

26 January 2011

The Committee on the Rights of the Child today examined the combined second and third periodic report of Belarus on how that country is implementing the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Committee also reviewed the initial report of Belarus on the implementation of the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography and the initial report on how Belarus is implementing the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict.

Introducing the reports, Victor Yakzhik, Deputy Minister of Education of Belarus, said the purpose of the National Committee for the Rights of the Child was the implementation of the Convention and its monitoring. The priorities for the Government of Belarus included demographic growth, support to low-income families with children, social protection for motherhood and childhood, and health care for the population affected by the Chernobyl disaster of 1986. Adequate attention was being given to adolescent health, children and drug use, and the prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission. Belarus had achieved its Millennium Development Goals in poverty reduction, equality between men and women and was on the way to achieving the goals in the areas of education and infant mortality and child health.

Concerning the two Optional Protocols, Mr. Yakzhik said the legal framework for combating the sale of children and child prostitution had been established in Belarus and the Government was currently working on a draft act on human trafficking. Due to its position Belarus was both a country of origin, a country of transit and a country of destination of human trafficking and was actively sharing its specific experience and lessons learned with other countries. Belarus had a stable political situation, so children were not drawn into armed conflict. According to the national law, recruitment of children into armed forces or the creation of military groups within the country were prohibited. In the case of general mobilisation, children under 18 would be released from the armed forces.

In preliminary concluding remarks, Jean Zermatten, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Belarus, said that the most delicate issue was the issue of coordination and the inter-ministerial group for coordination which would genuinely assume coordination responsibilities. An Ombudsman for children would be an advantage for children and a clear mechanism the children could use for complaints. It was difficult to understand the relationship between the national action plan and different programmes including the Children of Belarus, which needed to be better integrated. Further attention was needed on freedom and independence of non-governmental organizations, violence against children, separation of children from parents and juvenile justice. Belarus was very close to a protectionist system, but the participation of children in that system needed to be further elaborated.

Azza El Ashmawy, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Belarus on the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, in preliminary concluding remarks, thanked the delegation for their replies to the many questions asked by the Committee.

In preliminary concluding remarks, Luigi Citarella, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Belarus on the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, said that Belarus had inherited a tradition of a rather big military apparatus from the Soviet era, and welcomed the progress made in reducing it. Belarus should change the terminology used to avoid misunderstanding the meaning of “military” and should continue with the legislative revision and reviews.

During the discussion on the implementation of the Convention, Experts raised a series of questions, including on the role of Parliament in the promulgation of laws and the legislation; the role, composition and structure of the National Commission for the Rights of the Child, particularly with regard to complaints by children; and the intentions of the Government of Belarus concerning the establishment of an independent monitoring mechanism, including the establishment of an ombudsman for children. The Committee requested further information on the procedure for ensuring the best interest of the child for unaccompanied minors, the right of a child to be heard and the involvement of children in setting up and running child associations which seemed to be run by adults, and the practice of the State’s obligations to hear children in all instances concerning them. The delegation was also asked about discrimination, particularly de facto discrimination which seemed widespread in the society in relation to Roma children and minority groups and their access to health, education and social services.

Committee Experts asked a number of questions on the implementation of the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, including whether any mechanisms were set up to detect child pornography and what programmes were available for victim protection and for rehabilitation and recovery of child victims of those offences; the role of the media in raising awareness of child prostitution and the sale of children and the Government’s activities in raising the awareness about those issues among families, children, and the general public; the compatibility of national legislation with the Optional Protocol and if a confrontation between a child victim and the offender was necessary for the criminal proceedings.

Concerning the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, the Committee expressed its concern about the many military schools in Belarus, the selection procedure for children aged 12 to 13 and what happened to children completing those schools at the age of 17; voluntary recruitment of children less that 18 years of age, the measures to ensure they did not take part in hostilities and their special protection as defined in the Optional Protocol; the definition of direct hostilities in Belarus and the prohibition of recruitment of children under the age of 18 during times of war and in emergency situations; and about an armed exports tracking system to ensure arms were not going into those countries known for recruitment of children in armed forces.

The Committee will release its formal, written concluding observations and recommendations on the report of Belarus towards the end of its three-week session, which will conclude on Friday, 4 February 2011.

The delegation of Belarus included representatives from the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, the Ministry of Interior and the Permanent Mission of Belarus to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

As one of 193 States parties to the Convention, Belarus is obliged to present periodic reports to the Committee on its efforts to comply with the provisions of the treaty. The delegation was on hand today and yesterday to present the reports and to answer questions raised by Committee Experts.

When the Committee reconvenes in public at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 27 January 2011, it will review the second periodic report of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (CRC/C/LAO/2).

Reports of Belarus

The combined third and fourth periodic report of Belarus (CRC/C/BLR/3-4) notes key developments since 2007, and outlines the measures undertaken in Belarus to promote the comprehensive protection of children’s rights through the adoption of a number of normative legal instruments regulating the system for the prevention of neglect of minors, the social protection of orphans, the protection of children at risk by the State, and the rearing of children with special developmental needs. Ongoing economic recovery made it possible to take specific measures for enhancing financial support and avoid a decline in the level of social safeguards for families with children. Some of the family protection measures include ensuring housing for young and large families as a matter of priority, strengthening social support for families with up to three-year-old children, and exemptions from land use fees for families with many children. The Presidential Programme the “Children of Belarus, 2006-2010” includes, among other measures, improving the quality of life for families with children; enhancing children’s health; reducing the adverse effects of the Chernobyl disaster on children’s development; ensuring optimal life-sustaining activities for disabled children; and protecting the rights of orphans and children left without parental care and ensuring their social integration.

Knowledge about the Convention is disseminated through an integrated country-wide information system and a far-reaching and multi-tiered education system has been built in order to promote a human rights and children’s rights culture, and related textbooks and teaching guides and aids have been published. The principles of the Convention form the basis for a number of targeted national initiatives aimed at promoting the full physical, mental and moral development of the new generation; enhancing the quality of life of children and their protection from violence and cruelty; and encouraging their participation in decisions affecting their interests, such as the National Action Plan for the improvement of the situation of children and the protection of their rights, 2004-2010, and the “Children of Belarus” Presidential Programme. Procedures have been established for: identifying and registering children at risk and those in need of State protection; formulating and approving plans for the protection of children’s rights and legitimate interests; granting orphan status to children removed from their parents; assessing a family’s preparedness to recover a child and other. A national mechanism for targeted work with families has been set up to provide them with assistance while preventing parents from shirking the responsibility to bring up and support their children.

The initial report of Belarus on the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (CRC/OPSC/BLR/1) describes the implementation of the Optional Protocol since the ascension of Belarus in 2002. Because of its small scale, the sale of children in Belarus is not seen as a separate problem, but as an integral part of human trafficking, which generally takes two forms in Belarus, one involving sexual exploitation and the other labour exploitation. Principal victims are women and girls, while minors make up approximately 10 per cent of the total number of victims. A system has been established to protect the rights of child victims of violence and provide them with timely and skilled assistance; it includes the child protection agencies, social and educational centres, children’s shelters and social, educational and psychological services in educational establishments. Belarus has a National Plan of Action to Improve the Situation of Children and Protect their Rights for 2004–2010; it is aimed at protecting children from violence, trafficking and all forms of exploitation and armed conflict, and includes measures to inform children and specialists working with children about the Optional Protocol and the recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child adopted as part of the general discussion on violence against children within the family and in school. Belarus has established a regulatory framework for the suppression of human trafficking, including the prevention and prosecution of the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

The initial report of Belarus on the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict (CRC/OPAC/BLR/Q1) describes measures of implementation of the Optional Protocol since the ascension of Belarus in 2006. Citizens are recruited into the armed forces of the Republic of Belarus when they attain the age of majority (18 years), and because of stable political satiation and no conflicts, there is no recruitment of children for armed conflict in Belarus. A number of legislative acts have been adopted to address questions associated with the rights of children and their protection. The Constitution, international agreements, the Children’s Rights Act and other laws and regulations make the basis for the status of children in Belarus. Pursuant to the Children’s Rights Act, children may not be recruited to participate in hostilities or armed conflict, war and violence may not be propagated among children, nor may children join armed formations. A national plan of action 2004-2010 to improve the status of children and protect their rights includes measures to protect children from violence, trafficking, all forms of exploitation and involvement in armed conflict.

Presentation of Reports

VICTOR YAKZHIK, Deputy Minister of Education of Belarus, said the reports presented by Belarus had been published on the website of the Ministry of Education in order to make them widely available to the public. The reports covered the progress in the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its two Optional Protocols, on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography and on the involvement of children in armed conflict, for the period 2002 to 2007. Belarus had a sustainable national mechanism for the implementation of government policies for the protection of children. The main mechanism included the National Committee for the Rights of the Child which ensured the monitoring of the respect of the rights of the child and examined complaints. The Committee was led by the Deputy Prime Minister and included representatives from the Government, parliament and non-governmental organizations. One of the policy priorities in Belarus was the increase of the birth rate in order to replenish the population to make up for the population lost to World War II and the Chernobyl tragedy. During the implementation of the National Programme for Demographic Security, the birth rate had been increased, and other legal instruments introduced additional protection for motherhood and childhood. Protecting their health had a particular importance for the Government, and mothers and children were entitled to free health care. In Belarus, the Government carried out mandatory vaccination for a number of childhood illnesses and the immunisation coverage stood at 98 per cent, higher than that recommended by the World Health Organization. Given that Belarus had been seriously affected by the Chernobyl disaster, the protection of children’s health had been a particular focus of Government policies. About 20 per cent of all children lived in the affected areas, and in 2010 alone the Government had spent $ 30 million for the health of children. Other priorities of the Government’s health policy included adolescent health, children and drug use, and prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission.

Another policy priority was education on all levels; there was a universal access to preschool and vocation education and compulsory primary education. More that 79 per cent of the children of preschool age attended preschool education; 60 per cent of children with disabilities were in upper primary school. Belarus also maintained its extracurricular education and every child was able to participate in those activities. Further efforts were put in supporting child self-realisation through child associations. The Government worked together with private associations to protect children’s rights; those associations assisted in the development of social programmes, for example in developing assistance for HIV-positive children or child victims of domestic violence. The country had achieved significant progress in ensuring the right of children to decent family life and the Government had undertaken a series of measures supporting families with children, including benefits paid through various schemes and funds. Families with more than three children were entitled to free school feeding programmes, while those and families with children with disabilities enjoyed tax benefits and subsidised housing. Belarus was now developing practices to protect and assist children in socially dangerous situations, which also included families in crisis and children suffering from domestic violence. In 2011 Belarus would set up a centre for the protection of children from violence in cooperation with the United Nations Children’s Fund and the United Nations Population Fund.

The legal framework for combating the sale of children and child prostitution had been established in Belarus, as had a protection system for victims. Belarus was currently working on a draft act on human trafficking which would bring together all regulations of trafficking in persons and ensure alignment with the relevant European regulations and norms. The national plans to combat trafficking were implemented in cooperation with ministries, mass media, and associations. The population had been informed and educated on the issue, and hotlines had been established throughout the country. Rehabilitation of underage victims of trafficking was under the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. Child prostitution was not too widely spread as a phenomenon in Belarus. Belarus was actively cooperating with international organizations and was carrying out a number of projects with international assistance. Due to its position Belarus was both a country of origin, a country of transit and a country of destination for human trafficking and was sharing its specific experience and lessons learned with other countries.

Belarus had a stable political situation, so children were not drawn into armed conflict. According to the national law, recruitment of children into armed forces or the creation of military groups within the country were prohibited. In the case of general mobilisation, children under 18 would be released from the armed forces. Belarus did not suffer from a conflict of ethnic or religious nature and children did not suffer violations of their rights on the basis of language or religion. Belarus had achieved its Millennium Development Goals in poverty reduction, equality between man and woman and was on the way to achieving the goals in the area of education and infant and child health.

The success of Belarus in the promotion and protection of human rights and in particular children’s rights had been recognised by the Human Rights Council in 2010, however Belarus did not intend to rest on laurels, but was planning to continue applying the most advanced international policies and practices to ensure the continuing and improved protection of human rights and children’s rights. Belarus had invited a number of Special Procedures to visit the country and would continue the dialogue with the Committee on the Rights of the Child.

Questions by Experts

JEAN ZERMATTEN, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Belarus, said the Committee noted the impressive progress Belarus had made since the last report had been presented to the Committee. The Rapporteur noted that the situation of children was still affected by the Chernobyl disaster of 1986, and a significant number of children lived in the affected areas and were exposed to higher risks of cancer. Important progress had been made in reducing poverty in Belarus, and in school attendance in both primary and secondary schools. Regarding institutionalisation of children, the Committee noted the paradigm shift from putting children into orphanages to ensuring their care with foster families. A lot of law making had been implemented and there was a long list of new legal instruments considerably improving previous legislation in a number of areas, such as asylum, domestic violence and protection of children against violence.

The Committee was concerned about a number of obstacles and areas where further progress was needed. Regarding legislation, most texts took the form of Presidential decrees rather than submitting laws to the Parliament, which indicated a process whereby continuity was not ensured; also, it raised questions about the role of the Parliament in the legislative process. What exactly was the compatibility of the legislation with the Convention and how did courts apply it? The National Commission for the Rights of the Child had been set up, present in all provinces, however its mandate was very broad; how did it implement the Convention and how often did it meet? With regard to coordination, the Committee asked who was responsible for horizontal coordination of ministries for the implementation of the Convention and how the flow of the money between the capital and the periphery was organised. Concerning an independent monitoring mechanism, a child could make a complaint to a number of institutions, including the National Commission; however, the country did not have an independent ombudsman office for children. Were there any plans for establishing this institution, the Rapporteur asked. Further clarifications were requested on the issues of the procedure for ensuring the best interest of the child for unaccompanied minors, the right of a child to be heard and the involvement of children in setting up and running child associations which seemed to be run by adults, and the practice of the State’s obligations to hear children in all instances concerning them.

Other Experts then asked a number of questions, pertaining to, among other things, corporal punishment and the measures the State could use to protect children from this form of violence in case it had not been prohibited; further information about the professional make up of the National Committee on the Rights of the Child; the confidentiality for children lodging a complaint; and the position of Belarus on the creation of a fully independent institution for complaint procedures by children. Also, clarification was requested about the difference between a Presidential Decree and the national action plan on children, including the division of roles and responsibilities and information about impact evaluations. The delegation was also asked about discrimination, particularly de facto discrimination which seemed widespread in the society in relation to Roma children and minority groups and their access to health, education and social services.

It was heartening to note the continuing growth in the gross domestic product and massive progress in reducing poverty in Belarus, an Expert said. Looking at the numbers provided in the report, it was clear that more resources were provided to child rights and protection over the reporting period. However, it had not been very clear what the current situation with funding was, taking into account the growth and the inflation. Was it possible to view a more detailed budget for children for the reporting period? What was the impact of the general economic situation and the crises on the allocations for child and family protection in Belarus? An Expert noted that in 2008 an amendment was passed allowing adolescents to access health care without the consent of a parent or a guardian and asked about measures to inform and teach parents about HIV/AIDS. Regarding the right to life and the protection of children from violence and from suicide, what were the measures to reduce death, particularly in traffic accidents?

Committee members further wished to know what measures Belarus was taking to ensure dissemination of the Convention, its principles and provisions, to families, the general public and minority groups. How were professionals trained in the principles and provisions of the Convention, including Ministries, judges, social workers, and the police, to ensure they were working from the perspective of children’s rights? What was the status of the Convention in Belarus, an Expert asked and what were practices in jurisprudence with regard to the Convention? On suicide, clarification was requested on the reasons behind suicide and the measures undertaken to prevent it. Turning to the Chernobyl disaster, a Committee member asked about the long-term impacts and measures undertaken to limit the known consequences. Another Expert asked about the status of stateless children, and further inquired about the plans in Belarus concerning ratification of the instrument on stateless persons.

On freedom of association and expression, an Expert wished to know more about the definition and classification of youth ages, freedom of thought, and the legislative guarantees for exercise of freedom to worship. Violence against children by State officials was a matter of concern and had to be eradicated immediately. What measures had been taken to curb this phenomenon and what took place in practice, for example in schools, or on the streets by the police?

The Chairperson asked about the situation of children under the age of 10 and their right to be heard in judicial proceedings. Concerning the allocation of resources and the budget, clarifications were requested about the financing of the many wonderful programmes in favour of children and families described in the report.

Response by the Delegation

All laws in Belarus were considered and adopted by the Parliament, the delegation said, so it could not really be said there was a subversion of the system. Presidential decrees were legislative acts which enabled the Government to immediately react to a problem, while it waited for the lengthy process in the Parliament. International treaties had a direct legal force, so all instruments related to the rights of the child were adopted. Following-up on this explanation, a Committee Expert underscored that if the term “Decree” was used, the protection of children was weaker than in case of a law and why not call them laws? The delegation said that decrees were a measure to ensure that reaction to a problem was swift and later on, the nature of decree would be reflected in a law, which required a lengthy procedure. For example, when it was necessary to immediately act on proliferation of offences in human trafficking, a decree was promulgated.

Local Committees on the rights of the child were set up in provinces, involving members of Parliament and non-governmental organizations, providing an opportunity to citizens to file and lodge their complaints. Reports were presented and if a decision was taken to continue working on a particular case, particular interest of a child would be considered. Concerning the independence of the Commission, its current composition and how often it met, the delegation said that the newly composed Commission would start in 2011. The previous Commission was composed of representatives of several ministries – social welfare, education, interior, etc, judiciary, the National Assembly, and representatives of civil society and the United Nations Children’s Fund. The structure of the executive committee and the secretariat would be changed soon, given the change in the executive in Belarus in 2010; regardless the Commission had not ceased to deal with requests from citizens.

On the national plan of action, the delegation said it had been designed to improve the status of children in all walks of life and made it possible to coordinate efforts of all those involved, not only with regard to financial aspects, but also in adoption of new legislative acts and information and communication with the public. Belarus was now planning to adopt this programme up to 2015 in accordance with the socio-economic development plan. This new programme would also include child health, namely reproductive health for children and parents and special programmes for cancer. The question of child health, particularly as a result of the Chernobyl accident, was at the core of the governmental concerns and was incorporated in the national plan of action.

The question of a bureaucratic mechanism of ombudsmen was not going to resolve the issues, the delegation said. The existence of the Commission allowed Belarus to reduce the number of bureaucratic instances and allowed the solutions to problems of children and parents. Following up on this response, a number of Experts said that the Commission was not an independent monitoring body and was not open to children to file the complaints, and enquired about the expansion of this Commission, and the position of the Belarus Government on the establishment of an Ombudsman for children and the division between coordinating and monitoring functions. Responding, the delegation said that Belarus fully understood the concerns of the Committee and that it would undertake specific measures to protect children and their rights. The Commission envisaged the procedures and mechanisms to enable children to file a complaint and it was hoped that an ombudsman-type institution would be established in the future.

Answering the question about sustainability and longevity of the approach to ensure children’s rights, the delegation said that the national plan of action had been drawn in consultation with non-governmental organizations and a number of ministries. Today, national activities to protect the rights of children were seen as confluent between non-governmental organizations and the Government. It was also a question of funding, the delegation said, and noted that the new action plan was an entirely new programme, and not just a repetition of the previous national action plan. Following up on this explanation, the Committee asked for clarification about the relationship between the national plan of action and “Children of Belarus” programme, and their respective funding. The delegation said that there were more than 20 sectoral programmes that had addressed the issues raised today, the “Children of Belarus” programme being only one of them. The programmes were funded from the budget of the Republic of Belarus.

Turning to questions related to children and youth associations, the delegation said that the Government was providing methodological assistance to shoe associations. Every year a child’s forum was organised, which included representatives of non-governmental organizations; the forum ensured closer contact between the Government and children. The Government also tried to include children’s proposals in its plan of action. Education facilities received support from municipal agencies, which were constantly concerned about the implementation of the principles of the Convention.

Asked about recent demonstrations in Belarus, the delegation said that those who were minors were released immediately. Concerning non-governmental organizations, the legislation required that they all be registered, as in all other countries. In the youth forum in Minsk in 2010, over 10,000 non-governmental organization representatives participated and clearly, they were all duly registered. In terms of procedure to grant refugee status and concerning additional protection of minors, the delegation said that a new law entered in force in 2009, which regulated the granting of refugee status. With regard to procedure, unaccompanied foreign minors who asked for further protection from the State of Belarus would have to contact the concerned unit, which would then start the process of finding the means to protect the rights of that child.

Responding to budget-related questions asked by the Committee members, the delegation said that allocation of funds for children and parents was a key interest of the Government, particularly given the improved socio-economic situation of the country. With regard to difficulties due to crises and inflations, the delegation said that in 2008 the legitimate needs of children were met; in the future the Government would be able to overcome the impacts of crises and improve the living situation of its citizens, as was planned by national frameworks up to 2015. The Government planned to increase expenditures in order to implement the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and would consider budget allocations for children and families as a matter of priority.

An Expert said that free access to the Internet was a matter of education for children today, and they needed access in order to learn and do their homework. Free access to the Internet was very important for children’s development and education. The delegation said they were not aware on any site being blocked. With regard to the development of the Internet segment in general, the delegation said the Government was working on it. An estimated 90 per cent of families had a computer and were accessing social network sites. Access to websites for education purposes was free and the majority of schools were connected. The Government was training teachers, children and parents on using the Internet and how to prevent access to dangerous and harmful sites. Internet sites could not be closed by State bodies in Belarus, the delegation said, adding that it could only happen under a court order by a judge.

Further Questions by Experts

JEAN ZERMATTEN, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Belarus, in a second round of questions and comments regarding living conditions and the effectiveness of measures to ensure poverty reduction, said that most families were living just above the poverty threshold; there were also single-parent families and children born out of wedlock. The policies were to a degree contradictory: families with three or more children seemed to be at a disadvantage, while the Government focused on increasing the birth rate. Concerning the juvenile justice system, the Committee noted the decrease in the number of juvenile offenders, however, the system of juvenile justice as studied, prepared and designed with the support of international organizations, had still not been established. Concerning repeat offenders, imprisonment seemed to be a reflective reaction of judges and prosecutors and public defenders were not appropriately trained in juvenile justice issues. What was the status of the reform and could children who become legal adults before the age of 18 receive the death penalty? What was the status of the decree on the withdrawal of parental responsibility?

The delegation was also asked about general tendencies and policies with regard to health. Belarus directed its health system toward public health and the Expert asked how policies addressed social determinants of health and new health challenges and priorities, such as adolescent health, the Chernobyl accident, alcohol consumption and other forms of risk-taking behaviour.

Other Experts than asked a number of questions, including on data and statistics for working children; the quality of education and measures undertaken to guarantee the quality of education in the reform, including defining its goal, and incorporating it in human rights education, non-violence and gender discrimination; there was still no certainty that a full spectrum of child-protection measures were included in the asylum-seeking procedures of minors, including the inclusion of the principle of the best interest of the child; traditional harmful practices; and the establishment of a central authority as prescribed by Article 2 of the Convention.

Experts also wished to know if the separation of a child from the parents could be done by force, and on adoption, what the consequences were of the programme under which many children, after the Chernobyl accident, had been transported abroad and had many legal problems. Were there any preparations for parenting in Belarus, an Expert asked, noting that the abuse of alcohol was involved in many situations of problematic parenting? The closing down of orphanages and institutions was welcomed, but what were the considerations made and measures taken to monitor children in care; what kind of family services were available and how could the punitive approach to the lack of parenting skills be replaced with training and support?

Turning to adolescent health, a Committee member said there seemed to be challenges in this area, with regard to smoking, drinking and sexually transmitted infections; there was a rather high level of abortions among young girls. Were abortions being used as a form of family planning? Did the Government have a system of confidential health information and education for adolescents? Did the Government have an overall strategy for adolescent health? Another Committee member noted the progress made in the area of play and leisure in Belarus, but it was not clear if all children had full access to all cultural activities available. Also, was cultural diversity taken into account while designing cultural and leisure programmes? There were 48 per cent of children who suffered parental neglect, the Chairperson said, which was rather high. Could the delegation elaborate more about programmes to empower parents to take on their parental responsibilities?

Response by the Delegation

Over the past few years, the Government of Belarus had focused on reducing poverty; therefore low-income families and children living within those families were the primary target of governmental interventions and benefits programmes. Other vulnerable families would be benefiting from government interventions in the near future, while families with children would enjoy additional social protection, the delegation said.

Turning to the issue of social protection for children in difficulties and the Presidential Decree number 18 of 2006, the delegation explained that this decree had legalised pre-trial removal of children from the family in difficulties, and had enabled the State to react swiftly to protect children in danger. Following-up on this explanation, a Committee Expert underscored that it was a practice in all countries that the State intervened to protect children in danger, however, the Presidential decree had taken this competence away from courts and had in fact weakened the protection of children. Why were the courts left out of the process, the Expert asked? The delegation said that in the past, the State could intervene directly in the family, which had led to the unilateral removal of parental rights. Before the 2006 decree, the system had been more punitive for parents and children.

Asked to provide details about the system of foster care, the delegation said that since 2006, the number of children in orphanages had been reduced by 60 per cent, and the Government aimed to close by 2015 at least half of the orphanages. An Expert noted there might be a misunderstanding between the delegation and the Committee in using terms such as “orphanage”, “child homes”, “foster homes” and “foster families”. The delegation explained that there were four different types of family set-ups in Belarus: the kin-family, professional family, a children home where five to ten children lived and finally children villages or cities, where about 300 children lived in six villages.

Violence against children occurred in families in difficulties the delegation said, adding that the Government had succeeded in reducing injuries to children by a factor of two. Turning to questions related to racial and minority discrimination, the delegation noted that there was no racial prosecution in Belarus and no distinction was made between minority, religious or linguistic groups in access to services.

The Government was increasing its capacity for health care, including for health prevention and education, the delegation said. Reduction had been noted in the use of alcohol and tobacco as a result of governmental programmes. The population living in regions affected by the Chernobyl accident was examined every year and particular attention was paid to the reproductive health of women in those areas.

Further on health, and in particular adolescent health, Belarus was ensuring education of young girls on reproductive health and contraception in order to reduce the number of abortions. A social survey among adolescents on child suicide showed that the major reason was psychological problems due to problems at school, in the family and love affairs. Following up on this response, a Committee Expert underlined that prevention was better than intervention and asked about the actions of Belarus to prevent and educate adolescents on healthy living. The delegation explained that a number of programmes designed for adolescents were being carried out, and that the medical services were in close cooperation with educational services. The mental and psychological health of children and adolescents were now being seen as a comprehensive problem which required an integrated approach to be adequately addressed. Asked about HIV/AIDS, the delegation said that even though Belarus did not experience epidemics of HIV/AIDS, the Government was giving it attention through the national body dealing with HIV which was in charge of developing joint plans of action.

Minors who wished to find work outside their study time could do so and were given assistance in finding jobs, the delegation said. This was done in compliance with the rights of the child. The Government kept a database of children, and labour inspectors were informed and required health measures were in place. On education on human and children’s rights and in particular on its quality, the delegation said that human rights, children’s rights and humanitarian law were part of the curricula. An Expert noted that children’s and human rights should be applied early and in schools and classrooms and asked if children’s rights were only a part of teaching or were they applied in schools on a daily basis. Responding, the delegation explained that education was based on the idea of using the knowledge from the classroom in life, which was the focus of government efforts.

Speaking about refugee children and child asylum seekers, the delegation explained that relevant statistics on refugees were regularly collected, but information on the numbers of unaccompanied children was not available. Upon entering the country, an unaccompanied child was entitled to the same protection enjoyed by a Belarus child. In terms of violence against children committed by police, and how a complaint could be lodged, the delegation explained that when a child was held in police custody, his or her interests were represented by a lawyer. The child could only be investigated in the presence of the lawyer and the psychologist, required by law.

Turning to the juvenile justice system, the delegation explained that Belarus had special courts under consideration and added that the establishment of a juvenile justice system must happen gradually. The project had been in the pipeline for several years now, an Expert said, and the impression was that the situation was rather static. Was restorative justice used as an alternative system, another Committee member asked? Responding, the delegation said that the whole concept of juvenile justice had been discussed with key stakeholders, and explained that Belarus could not proceed too fast in introducing this system, because it required structural changes, changes in mentality, and adequate resources and training. For now, the emphasis was on rehabilitation, reintegration and re-education of juvenile offenders, and on alternative punishments; imprisonment was applied only in rare cases and when the offence committed was murder.

In terms of the death penalty, Belarus did not apply this punishment against women and minors. The age of criminal responsibility was generally 16, while the age of 14 was applied for some offences. On international adoption, an Expert commented on the agreement with Italy and asked what the experience of Belarus was. The delegation explained that Belarus regularised the departure of children abroad for vacation and relaxation, and this was a practice with 15 countries with which Belarus had an agreement.

Preliminary Concluding Observations on the Report of Belarus to the Convention on the Rights of the Child

JEAN ZERMATTEN, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Belarus, in preliminary concluding observations, thanked the delegation and said that it was clear that the questions raised today were in the interest of the children of Belarus to ensure they enjoyed their rights and participated as actors in the society. With regard to pending and outstanding questions, the most delicate was the issue of coordination and the inter-ministerial group for coordination which would genuinely assume coordination responsibilities. An Ombudsman for children would be an advantage for children and would be a clear mechanism children could use to lodge a complaint. It was difficult to understand the relationship between the national action plan and different programmes including the Children of Belarus, which needed to be better integrated.

Non-governmental organizations must be able to function at a minimum level of independence in full security. Social and economic rights were well enjoyed in Belarus, including education, social protection and others; attention was needed to address issues of violence and children needing or living in alternative care. Separation of children from parents was an issue that required further work, as was the system of juvenile justice. Belarus was very close to being a protectionist system, but the participation of children in that system needed to be further elaborated.

Questions by Experts on Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography

AZZA EL ASHMAWY, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Belarus on the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, said that it appeared that the Government had succeeded in prosecuting human trafficking offenders. The Committee was concerned about the legislation not being sufficient to address the specific issues of the sale of children and asked if there were any intentions to harmonise the current legislation with the provisions of the Optional Protocol. Belarus criminalized the involvement of children into prostitution, but lacked a clear definition of child prostitution as established in the Optional Protocol. The Committee was concerned that due to relatively low rates charged for Internet connectivity and the absence of a monthly fee, children were increasingly using the Internet to communicate, chat, or play games, which brought a considerable challenge to tackle online grooming and sexual exploitation.

Ms. Ashmawy said the Committee noted with concern that Belarusian law included some provisions against the production and dissemination of child pornographic materials, but the legislation was lacking a comprehensive definition of child pornography. Further, the Committee was concerned about the lack of information on the National Commission to examine complaints of violations of children’s rights. Belarus did not have a specific national action plan against commercial sexual exploitation of children and the Committee asked if there were proposals to draft the plan that addressed different forms of sexual exploitation of children. Did Belarus have any intention to establish an independent children rights institution with a mandate to initiate inquiries, investigate, respond to complaints and provide remedies for victims adopting gender and child focused strategies?

Other Experts than asked a number of questions, including whether any mechanisms were set up to detect child pornography and what programmes were available for victim protection. Belarus was constructing a social protection infrastructure, an Expert said, adding that this Optional Protocol needed additional structures and specialised services for rehabilitation and recovery of child victims of those offences. How did the Government handle organ trafficking and what were the provisions prohibiting the sale of children? What was the legislation regulating pornographic material?

Experts also wished to know what the role of the media was in raising awareness on child prostitution and the sale of children and what activities were undertaken in schools. Belarus was very active in cooperating with other countries in dealing with human trafficking but information was lacking about the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. How did the Government raise awareness about those issues among families, children, and the general public?

The delegation was also asked about the compatibility of national legislation with the Optional Protocol and about extraterritorial jurisdiction for offenders. In the case of extraterritorial jurisdiction, was there a need for double criminalisation? Was a confrontation between a child victim and the offender necessary for the criminal proceedings, if so, could it be done via videoconferencing methods? Did Belarus provide for the use of the Optional Protocol for extradition? The Committee requested further information about the budget allocated for the implementation of this Optional Protocol.

Response by the Delegation

Human trafficking had not been a widely addressed problem in the press in Belarus, the delegation said. Trafficking in children was an important part of this issue which was being resolved comprehensively. International experts had noted that Belarus was able to develop legislation which responded to its obligation under the different protocols. The Government was completing the third Government programme against human trafficking which included child prostitution and child pornography. Specialised programmes to protect child victims of human trafficking were in place and since 2005, human trafficking had been decreased five-fold. Following-up on this explanation, a Committee Expert underscored that the subject of the discussion today was not the Palermo protocol on human trafficking, but the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

Responding to the series of questions related to the legislation in Belarus and its compatibility with the Optional Protocol, the delegation said that although the Criminal Code did not have specific articles criminalising the sale of children, human trafficking and the sale of children were listed as offences in the legislation. The legislation defined “child” and “pornography” and Belarus did not believe there was a need to specifically define in the legislation “child pornography”. Child pornography had been criminalised for several years now; it was considered a serious offence which carried with it severe penalties including confiscation of property. Regarding the use of the Internet for sexual exploitation of children, the delegation said that the Government received very little information about this phenomenon, and added that sexual exploitation of children was criminalised.

An Expert noted that the Optional Protocol required States parties to specifically introduce in their legislation provisions strictly related to children. The legislation in Belarus spoke about “persons” and not “children”; the fact that a child was a victim was an aggravating circumstance only and the whole system did not protect children specifically. Responding, the delegation said there was no need to blindly copy the text of the protocol and went on to explain that the Criminal Code never spoke of the “child”, but used instead words “young person” which meant a person less than 14 years of age and “minor”, covering persons less than 18 years of age. Noting the obligation under the Optional Protocol to introduce the sale of children as an offence in its criminal legislation, the delegation said there was still a way to go in aligning the national legislation, and that the Government intended to review relevant articles of the Code in consideration of the comments of this Committee.

The Republic of Belarus had a national plan of action to fight human trafficking for the period 2011 to 2013, which included, among other aspects, the fight against sexual exploitation of children. The legislation protecting children victims of trafficking was in place and assistance was provided free of charge. Children were informed of their rights through the educational system and the police involved in investigating cases of abuse or exploitation also had a duty to inform children of their rights and about the possibilities of assistance and rehabilitation. Concerning children in situations of trafficking and exploitation who were still not recognised as victims, the delegation said there was one telephone hotline available, handled by the State and in part by voluntary organizations. Institutions involved in the protection of children from trafficking and social exploitation included specialised units within the Ministry of Internal Affairs, crime detection units, the prosecutor’s office and social welfare units. Until recently, several Ministries and departments had been involved in the implementation of the Optional Protocol, creating problems and confusion; the Government was now in the process of clarifying structures dealing with different aspects of this issue.

Young persons were entitled to give testimony, and could be interrogated only in the presence of their lawyer and a psychologist. Children’s interview rooms were being established in police stations, adapted to children and their specific needs. Responding to the question by an Expert about confrontational interrogation of children who were victims of trafficking and exploitation, the delegation said that according to the law, testimonies could be received from children in full security and safety. There was no physical contact with a perpetrator, the delegation underlined.

Crimes committed by organized criminal groups received the highest punishment, the delegation said, and the fact that crimes were committed by groups served as a qualifier and increased liability. Extradition was allowed if Belarus had a bilateral treaty with the country concerned, otherwise it was a matter of negotiations. On extraterritorial jurisdiction, the delegation responded that human trafficking was one of the crimes of the highest interest to the State of Belarus, and the principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction applied. On sex tourism, the delegation said that criminal liability only involved foreign citizens and not nationals, but this did not mean it would not be introduced. The sale of organs was prohibited in Belarus and carried a maximum prison sentence of 15 years.

Questions by Experts on the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict

LUIGI CITARELLA, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Belarus on the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, said that the legislation of Belarus seemed to be rather advanced, and protected children less than 18 years of age from armed conflict, hostilities and inscription. The matter of concern was military schools, and it appeared there were many of them. The schools in Minsk were open to children from 12 to 13 years, but the real issue was about the selection procedures, including consent of parents and how the children and their parents were informed about the curriculum and school programme. Discipline of children in those schools was under the Ministry of Defence. What happened to children who completed military school at the age of 17? There were summer camps, so-called military camps providing instruction and education to children and the Committee wandered if all this attention to military affairs was deflecting attention from civil affairs.

Other Experts then asked a number of questions, pertaining to, among other things, voluntary recruitment of children under 18 and the measures to ensure they did not take part in hostilities and that they were under special protection as defined in the Optional Protocol. Were there any volunteers in detention or under trial and what did the justice system for volunteers look like? What measures were taken to ensure that life skills promoting peaceful living and respect for others were incorporated in school curricula, another Expert asked?

Committee members further wished to know what the definition of direct hostilities in Belarus was and also if the prohibition of recruitment of those under 18 was in force during times of war and in emergency situations. On the juvenile justice system and involvement in the armed forces, an Expert asked why Belarus needed armed forces for prevention. Turning to the Minsk military school, an Expert was concerned that the curriculum allocated many hours for the preparation for military services, including training in weapons. Did children enrolled in those schools have access to a complaints mechanism? Did Belarus have a system of tracking armed exports to ensure arms were not going into countries known for recruitment of children in their armed forces?

Response by the Delegation

Responding to those questions and others, the delegation said that since World War II, Belarus had never participated in hostilities or armed conflict. Since obtaining independence, Belarus had revised the system of military education based on the principles of independence and peaceful resolution of conflicts, which among other things included reducing the number of military schools, compared to the Soviet times, and the revision of the curricula, which now included general education as well. Male children aged 12 to 13 years applying to military schools were selected based on competitive exams and the result of medical exams. A child could withdraw from military school at any time, the delegation said.

In 2010 very few students who graduated from military schools went on to join the army, the majority joined higher education institutions, both military and civilian. Education in military schools was a general education and it should be kept in mind that military education was a tradition in the society. Students in military schools, like other school children, had access to a complaints mechanism.

On volunteers, the delegation said that the legislation of Belarus did not request minors to serve in armed forces. After students graduated from secondary school at the age of 17, they could enter the military academy. In case of armed conflict, those students would not be obliged to serve in the active forces. The Government was of the view that volunteers should only be those who already underwent obligatory military training and upon completing it decided to stay on in the army on a contractual basis. Turning to civilian preparation, the delegation said that the curricula had been revisited to include humanitarian aspects and subject matters which could be chosen as a field of study.

Following-up on this explanation, a Committee Expert underscored that children could be admitted from the age of 12 or 13 to the Minsk military school, and asked what kind of information was given to parents and children about what happened upon entering the school? What happened to children, particularly girls, upon leaving those schools? Responding, the delegation said that that school was a general education facility and a part of the general education system, of which the Ministry of Education was in charge. Girls could, after having studies in general education school, apply to military school, but only one of them.

On information provided to students and parents, tradition played a major role in making the decision to attend the school, the delegation said. Military schools were part of the general education system, to which entry happened on the basis of a competitive exam; therefore, the information was provided as a matter of public disclosure procedures, for example on a school’s website, through Open Door days, et cetera.

In terms of summer military camps, the delegation said that those were training or health camps that took place during the summer, usually in former military bases. There were about 5,000 of those camps, each containing about 400 students resting and relaxing there over summer and being trained by specialists in physical education, living skills, or self-defence for example. An Expert asked why those camps were called “military” and if the personnel attending or teaching the children in those camps were from the military. The delegation said there was a problem with the terminology, that those camps were not strictly “military” military, and that other words to describe those could be sports or health camps, for example. They did take place on former military bases, the delegation said, but the personnel were not exclusively soldiers, anyone could apply to work there, doctors, teachers or other professionals.

Concerning boys with behavioural problems who could be sent to those summer camps, the delegation said that it was the decision of the parents to send their boys there, since they knew they could benefit from the structure and education. Responding to the question on arms exports, the delegation said that this subject was not strictly the subject of this meeting, but Belarus did check that the weapons exported did not end up in the hands of children taking part in armed conflict or hostilities.

On definition of direct hostilities, the delegation said that the legislation defined armed conflict and since it was prohibited for children to participate in armed conflict, it was presumed that participation in direct hostilities was prohibited as well. Students in military schools under the age 18 would be discharged from the armed forces if a general mobilisation was called for purposes of armed conflict or in emergency situations, said the delegation.

An Expert said earlier Belarus had mentioned it did not recognise criminal responsibility of legal persons, namely corporations. Still, activities of corporations and businesses could have a direct impact on children’s rights, for example in the area of sexual exploitation. Did Belarus make any legal provision for covering the activities of legal persons and their impact on children, for example some sort of code of conduct? Responding, the delegation said that this issue was under consideration in the Government right now and the Ministry of Justice was developing procedures and legislation on criminal responsibility of legal persons.

Preliminary Concluding Observations

AZZA EL ASHMAWY, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Belarus on the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, in preliminary concluding observations, thanked the delegation for their replies on the many questions asked.

LUIGI CITARELLA, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Belarus on the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, in preliminary concluding observations, said that the replies provided by the delegation were useful for both Belarus and this Committee. Belarus had inherited a tradition of a rather big military apparatus, which was now being reduced; terminology used should be changed to avoid misunderstanding of “military”. Also, the Committee recommended a further revision of the legislation.

VICTOR YAKZHIK, Deputy Minister of Education of Belarus, said that the reports of Belarus had already been examined before the Committee in 2002 and in 2007; discussions now, like previously, were very useful and Belarus appreciated the Committee’s recognition of the progress achieved. Comments and indications provided by the Committee would be useful in further developing the protection of children in Belarus, including future work on combating child prostitution and on protecting children from armed conflict.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record