COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD REVIEWS THE REPORT OF BULGARIA
The Committee on the Rights of the Child today concluded its consideration of the combined third to fifth periodic report of Bulgaria on its implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Introducing the report, Verginiya Micheva-Ruseva, Deputy Minister of Justice, said that a key step in the juvenile justice reform was the adoption of a draft law on juvenile justice, which would set a minimum age of criminal liability at 14 years, and provide for specialization in the police, the prosecution service and the courts which dealt with children in conflict with the law. It contained specific measures for diversion from criminal procedure as well as measures for prevention, support, reintegration and resocialization of children in conflict with the law. The development of social services over the previous several years was highly dynamic: all homes for children with mental problems were closed and community support services and foster care were further developed. The new Pre-school and School Education Act would enter into force on 1 August 2016’ inclusive education was also introduced, with the guaranteed right to a resource teacher for each child with disability. Bulgaria would continue addressing outstanding challenges, including the support for children with disabilities and their families, better conditions for equality and adaptation of children and students of Roma origin, and the protection of refugee children.
In the ensuing dialogue, Committee Experts recognized the progress Bulgaria had made in improving its legislative and policy frameworks, and in adopting strategies to address key issues such as domestic violence or literacy. Discrimination of Roma in all walks of life, including against children in schools, continued unabated. Because of the prevailing medical approach, disability was seen as illness, leading to discrimination and exclusion of children with disabilities, and an overarching policy on disability with clear set of targets was not in place. The best interest of the child was not systematically applied by the judiciary, particularly in the issues relating to adoption and alternative care. Child trafficking was a huge issue, especially because Bulgaria was the country of origin, and corporal punishment, even if banned in some settings, continued to be practiced. Experts expressed concern about child poverty, which at 45 per cent was well above the European average and about slow rate of juvenile justice reform, which meant that children were still detained before trial and also put in closed facilities to “correct anti-social behaviour”. While welcoming the progress made in registration and reception of refugee and migrant children, Committee Experts remained seriously concerned about the gaps in the asylum system.
In concluding remarks, Gehad Madi, Member of the Committee and Co-Rapporteur for Bulgaria, thanked the delegation for recognizing the issues that needed to be tackled, including on the two Optional Protocols, on the implementation of the Committee’s previous concluding observations, and on expediting juvenile justice reform.
In her closing remarks, Ms. Micheva-Ruseva said that the dialogue helped the delegation assess the progress and identify areas for improvement, and would be an important contribution in the improvement of the legal and policy framework in Bulgaria in the matter of children’s rights.
The delegation of Bulgaria consisted of the representatives of the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Education and Science, the State Agency for Child Protection and the Permanent Mission of Bulgaria to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The next public meeting of the Committee will be at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 31 May, to consider the initial report of Luxembourg under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (CRC/C/OPSC/LUX/1).
Report
The combined third to fifth periodic report of Bulgaria under the Convention on the Rights of the Child can be read here: CRC/C/BGR/3-5.
Presentation of the Report
VERGINIYA MICHEVA-RUSEVA, Deputy Minister of Justice of Bulgaria, introducing the report, said that the Committee’s recommendations were translated and distributed to all stakeholders in Bulgaria, and they were reflected in the national legislation changes, in the measures taken to guarantee the rights of the child, and in the national policies. All actions, legislation and policies were based on two fundamental principles of the best interest of the child and non-discrimination. In terms of progress achieved since the submission of the report, Bulgaria had adopted a new Preschool and School Education Act, was in the process of drafting a law on children suspected of committing crimes and a law on legal guarantees for child victims of crimes, and had developed social services for children. A key step in the juvenile justice reform in Bulgaria was the adoption of a draft law on juvenile justice, which adopted the approach of restorative justice. The law would set a minimum age of criminal liability at 14 years, and would provide for specialization in the police, the prosecution service and the courts which dealt with children in conflict with the law. The law would also introduce guiding principles and objectives of juvenile justice, including prohibition of discrimination in respect of children in conflict with the law, guaranteeing the best interest of the child in conflict with the law, participation of the child in all stages of the juvenile justice process, treatment with dignity, and others. Furthermore, the draft law contained specific measures and programmes for diversion from criminal procedure, for which the consent of the child was necessary, and also contained measures for prevention, support, reintegration and resocialization of children in conflict with the law. The law was still in the process of adoption, but training of magistrates, prosecutors and police officers had already started, and as of October 2015, specialized judicial panels in five courts dealt with criminal, civil and administrative cases involving children. The plans were in place to train, by the end of this year, mediators who worked on restorative justice procedures and specialists involved in interviewing children.
The development of social services in Bulgaria over the previous several years had been highly dynamic, with an increase in communal services and the closure of residential services. In 2016, all homes for children with mental problems had been closed, eight homes for medical and social care for children up to the age of three had been closed, and foster care had been further developed. The new Pre-school and School Education Act, set to enter into force in August 2016, would empower schools, teachers, parents and students to decide, within the framework of the approved State educational standards, on issues such as the choice of concrete textbooks, the development of the curriculum, the choice of subjects, schools’ code of ethics, the setting up and functioning of the community councils, and others. Bulgaria had introduced inclusive education and guaranteed the right of every child with special needs to a resource teacher. Additionally, it had adopted a strategy for reducing the share of early school leavers 2013-2020, and a strategy for the educational integration of children belonging to ethnic minorities and its action plan 2015-2020. In closing, Ms. Micheva-Ruseva recognized the remaining challenges in Bulgaria, including the support for children with disabilities and their families, better conditions for equality and adaptation of children and students of Roma origin, and the protection of refugee children, and reiterated Bulgaria’s commitment to continued work in those fields in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Committee’s recommendations.
Questions by Experts
BERNARD GASTAUD, Member of the Committee and Rapporteur for Bulgaria, recognized the progress Bulgaria had achieved, including the adoption of the Family Code, amendments to the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedures Code, and the implementation of several national strategies, including on domestic violence, literacy and school drop outs. However, there had been some setbacks, such as discarding of the draft Child Act because of resentment by parental organizations. What were the plans concerning re-drafting of the Child Act and concerning the adoption of the Optional Protocol on a communications procedure? Coordination in the matter of children’s rights was under the umbrella of the Ministry of Labour; what authority did they have in this regard and what was the place of the Agency for Social Welfare? With regard to an independent monitoring mechanism, Mr. Gastaud asked whether there existed an Ombudsperson tasked with dealing with children, and if it was mandated to receive complaints. There seemed to be a significant level of poverty among families with children, and the delegation was asked how resources were being allocated to deal with this issue and about measures to deal with the widespread phenomenon of corruption. Mr. Gastaud further noted that few measures had been taken to instruct and train, in children’s rights and the provisions of the Convention, the professionals dealing with children, and also asked about plans to ensure that each child was registered at birth.
GEHAD MADI, Member of the Committee and Co-Rapporteur for Bulgaria, said that the Family Code set the age of marriage at 18, and noting that children aged 16 could also be married with the authorisation of a district court, asked for the reasons for this provision and whether Bulgaria would be ready to abolish this provision and ensure that the age of marriage was 18 without exception. What was the situation of Roma marriages? Turning to discrimination, Mr. Madi said discrimination of Roma continued unabated: the demolition of their dwellings without the provision of alternative housing left many homeless, discrimination against Roma in all walks of life was the main reason for the placement of Roma children in institutions, and discrimination of Roma children in the school system resulted in a low enrolment rate in preschool education, school dropping out, and inadequate knowledge of the Bulgarian language. Because of the prevailing medical approach to disability, children with disabilities were regarded as “ill” and continued to suffer discrimination. Asylum seekers were also subject to discrimination. The best interest of the child was not systematically applied by the judiciary, particularly in the issues relating to adoption and alternative care. There was a lack of safeguards in the legislation for the implementation of this principle, as well as a lack of expertise among professionals dealing with children. Mr. Madi welcomed the progress made in legislation and in policy in guaranteeing the right to life and remarked that major risks to the life of a child were unsafe conditions at home and danger on the roads, particularly in marginalized areas. What was the outcome of the investigations into the death of children with intellectual disabilities in institutions?
Another Expert said that birth registration was not a major issue in Bulgaria, but noted that there were still some children who were not registered at birth, especially those in rural areas, children from socioeconomically disadvantaged families, and children born outside of hospitals.
Bullying in schools in some cases amounted to torture, said another Expert and noted that the law did not contain a binding definition of violence, which led to discussion among the police, social workers and others whether an act constituted violence or not. Child trafficking was a huge issue, especially because Bulgaria was a country of origin. What plans were in place to counter that problem?
Replies by the Delegation
The delegation said that the Draft Child Act had been quite revolutionary and a very good law, which had been scrapped; it was important to say that many of the articles it contained had already been included in several other laws. Bulgaria would continue to work on the draft, but the priority was on passing the draft juvenile justice law and continuing with the reform of the juvenile justice system. Corruption was a significant problem in Bulgaria; the new law on fighting corruption had been prepared, but it had been refused by the Parliament. The law had been amended now, submitted to the Parliament, and it was expected that it would be adopted soon. With regard to early marriages, courts could give a permission for marriage of children aged 16 to 18; which was an old provision in the law, and Bulgaria intended to review it based on experience of other countries, but wanted to avoid situations of banning such marriages and still have children aged 16 to 18 living in unregistered partnerships. Judges usually gave consent for such marriages when a girl was pregnant, in order to safeguard the interest of the child to a family.
Human rights, including children’s rights, were not part of the law school curriculum, which was absurd, which was why Bulgaria had intensified training of judges and prosecutors in children’s rights, and had trained 60 of them in 2015. The head of the delegation stressed that hearing children in all proceedings concerning them was mandatory. Children under the age of ten were not heard in court; instead, it was the responsibility of the social worker to inquire about their opinions and inform the court. Concerning death of children with mental disabilities in institutions, the delegation said that the Office of the Prosecutor had conducted more than 200 investigations and that no crimes had been found to have been committed by institutions’ employees or the management.
As far as birth registration was concerned, there were no problems in that regard. At the same time, there were issues with birth registration of children born outside of Bulgaria, in Greece in particular. Cases usually involved unwed a pregnant women, giving birth in Greece, with a Greek national signing the birth certificate as a father, without any proof. Bulgaria was working with Greece on the resolution of the issue.
In their follow up questions, the Committee Experts asked about alternative measures in place to support families which experienced domestic violence and violence against children, such as positive parenting, and about the procedures applying to cases of minor girls living in relationships with adults.
Responding, the head of the delegation explained that judges in domestic violence cases could order the removal of the perpetrator from home and prescribe mandatory training courses for offenders. In addition, judges could also order the support courses of victims of domestic violence.
The ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on a communications procedure was in the pipelines; Bulgaria was pursuing inter-Ministerial consultations on further harmonization of the legislation with the Optional Protocol and would establish a working group on the ratification. It was important to mention that in recent years, Bulgaria had signed the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, and had ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Also, Bulgaria had singed the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and had appointed the Ombudsman as a national preventive mechanism. At the moment, it was decided not to ratify the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, because all European countries needed to take a joint position on that instrument.
There were 16 crisis centres for victims of domestic violence, run by non-governmental organizations and the Government. Additionally, there were centres for community support in all areas of the country; they supported children, adults and families.
The National Strategy for Children had been extended to 2020, and following its evaluation, would shift the approach from reaction to prevention, and increase the support to families. That was seen as the best way to address the key problem in the country, which was poverty. The major change was in the social sphere and in the support for community-based services and the families.
Early marriages were not being registered, explained the delegation and stressed that those were unregistered partnerships. In Bulgaria, there was a tendency of decline in the number of registered marriages and increase in unregistered partnerships. The marriage of underage children had not been considered a priority issue by legislators in Bulgaria so far, which needed to change.
Several Ministries had come together and had pooled various funds to support families – usually of unmarried people living together and raising children, such as health mediators, or education mediators, who were usually active in Roma communities and produced good results. All data the Government used was gathered by the National Statistics Institute. As far as the State Agency for Child Protection was concerned, it was explained that the policy decisions were under the Office of the Prime Minister, while the administration of its budget was under the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, for purely practical reasons. The Chairperson of the State Agency was in charge of coordinating the ten ministerial bodies involved in child protection issues. With the 2012 law reforms, the Office of the Ombudsperson had been given the mandate to receive complaints for children, and it was considered that that mechanism was responding to the needs of the children at the moment and that there was no need to establish a separate Children’s Ombudsperson.
The Ministry of Education and Science worked with non-governmental organizations on the provision of education in communities, including Roma communities, and Roma children’s right to education was guaranteed in the Pre-school and School Education Act. Non-Bulgarian children had the right to study their native language in schools and kindergartens, and the languages concerned included Turkish, Hebrew and Armenian. A system of inclusive education had been established and the right to education for children with disabilities was guaranteed in the Pre-school and School Education Act. A National Programme for Support to Children with Special Needs was also in place. Half of the children with disabilities attended mainstream school.
Committee Expert noted that the child poverty rate in Bulgaria stood at 45 per cent, while the average in the European Union was 27 per cent. What steps did Bulgaria envisage to adopt a comprehensive strategy to address poverty among children?
Questions by Experts
BERNARD GASTAUD, Member of the Committee and Rapporteur for Bulgaria, said that corporal punishment was prohibited in almost all settings, but because of lack of sanctions for perpetrators in the law, corporal punishment was widely practiced. What measures were in place to raise awareness and eradicate that practice? There were few specialized centres competent for early diagnosis of disabilities and for early treatment of children with disabilities. An overarching policy on disability which would contain set targets and timeframes was lacking, and instead there was a multitude of different strategies and programmes; why was that the case? Inclusive education did not seem to be inclusive as much as integrated and children with disabilities were not properly included in mainstream education. What measures had been undertaken to reduce drug, alcohol and tobacco use by children and adolescents?
The delegation was asked to inform about the implementation, impact and resources allocated for the 2020 anti-poverty strategy, development strategy, and strategy for inclusion in education for children with disabilities, minority children and Roma children. In the education sector, challenges included school dropouts, quality of teachers’ training, inadequate curriculum, and inadequate attention to leisure and play activities.
GEHAD MADI, Member of the Committee and Co-Rapporteur for Bulgaria, welcomed the steps undertaken so far and said that the juvenile justice reform process was moving slowly. The Committee was concerned about children being placed in correctional facilities, about pre-trial detention of children in conflict with the law, and the fact that the concept of “anti-social behaviour” was still in the language. There was a need to intensify training in children’s rights and juvenile justice to all those involved in dealing with children in conflict with the law. Vulnerable children, especially Roma, were engaged in dangerous work in agriculture, industry and at home; what was being done in that regard and what role did the Labour Inspector play? There was a high number of children, and among them predominantly Roma, still living on the streets, and many were still placed in institutions. What progress was being made in the final adoption of amendments to the Criminal Code and other laws concerning combatting sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children? Mr. Madi welcomed the steps taken to combat trafficking in children and expressed concern that victims of trafficking were still being kept in various kinds of institutions which were ill equipped to deal with the needs of such children, and where their rights were frequently violated. Furthermore, such institutions were seldom inspected by the authorities.
The Committee welcomed the cooperation of the Government of Bulgaria with the United Nations Refugee Agency and the progress made in registration and reception of refugee and asylum seeking children, but the concern remained about gaps in the asylum system, notably the increase in the number of guards on the border with Turkey and the construction of 33 kilometres of fence, which were done in order to prevent entry into the country. Due to the lack of capacity in the reception centres, some unaccompanied asylum seeking and refugee children were placed with unknown adults. All asylum seekers and refugees including children were entitled to receiving psychological assistance, and yet, there were no procedures in place to identify children who suffered trauma, abuse or had been involved in armed conflict. There was a lack of working mechanism for the appointment of guardians or representatives for unaccompanied asylum seeking and refugee children. Under the Law on Child Protection, children were entitled to free legal assistance and yet there were no legal or administrative mechanisms in place to ensure that this right was enjoyed by unaccompanied asylum seeking and refugee children. The Committee noted with regret the rise of hate speech in the media and by high-level state officials.
An Expert noted that Bulgaria failed to amend the laws to incorporate all elements of article 3 of the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography; currently, those acts were prohibited for children under the age of 14, but the question was how the children aged 14 to 18 were protected and which legal action was available in that regard. What mechanism was in place for early identification of children involved in armed conflict abroad, upon their entering the country; that was especially important considering that majority of unaccompanied children entering Bulgaria came from conflict-ridden countries including Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Concerning family environment and alternative care, a Committee Expert noted the institutional structure of the child protection mechanism based on two State agencies - for child protection and for social welfare, and asked about their cooperation and collaboration, particularly at the municipality level. How did Bulgaria deal with the significant lack of professional social workers in the services and was there a specific prohibition of removal of a child from family solely because of economic reasons? The delegation was also asked to explain why Bulgaria had chosen family type placement centres as a model of institutional care, and about the situation of children of parents abroad, estimated to be 250,000.
Another Committee was concerned about the process of adoption and noted that the legislation had only adopted some of the issues the Committee had raised in its previous concluding observations. What was the position concerning open adoption, how was the child’s right to identity guaranteed, and why were more children adopted internationally than nationally?
With regards to health, Committee Experts raised concerns about a number of children born prematurely, inadequate provision of prenatal services throughout the country, children separated from their mothers at birth, and vaccination rates. They asked the delegation about the system of reproductive and sexual health and education, access to abortion, situation with HIV/AIDS and measures taken to treat tuberculosis. Circumcision of baby boys was widely practiced in Muslim communities, and largely outside of hospitals and in non-sterile environment, which might have adverse impact on boys’ health.
The delegation was also asked about children of incarcerated parents.
Statistic was sought on children with disabilities per type of disability, budget allocated to inclusive education versus the budget for special education, who and how decided whether a child with disability was destined to inclusive education or special education, and about the process of deinstitutionalization of children with intellectual disabilities.
How were the parents protected from abusive marketing by baby food formula companies, what percentage of hospitals in Bulgaria had the United Nations Children Fund Baby Friendly certification and what support was available to support mothers to breastfeed?
Replies by the Delegation
The delegation informed that in 2014, 54 persons had been convicted for sexual intercourse with children under the age of 14; 123 persons had been convicted for living in a relationship with a child under 16 years of age. Sexual intercourse with a child under 14 years of age carried a sentence of imprisonment of two to six years, and for living with a child under the age of 16, the sentence was up to two years in prison, or community service. Usually the punishment was not what stopped the perpetrators; what was needed more was better education for girls.
The juvenile justice reform process, on hold since 2011, had been restarted in 2014 in the framework of which Bulgaria sought to adjust its legal framework which had seen children imprisonment for misdemeanours, systematic detention of children and correction of “anti-social behaviour” in closed institutions. The new text, developed in cooperation with the United Nations Children Fund, was a very modern one, but was not an end in itself; what had to be in place was professionals trained in dealing with children. That was why Bulgaria had started an accelerated training programme for judges and prosecutors in juvenile justice, children’s rights, provision of the Convention, and in dealing with children in conflict with the law. Child-safe spaces or the so-called “Blue Rooms” were being established throughout the country. The challenge was also to train mediators in criminal cases and in the new concept of restorative justice. Real juvenile justice reform could not be implemented in one year. The objective of the Ministry of the Justice was to train judges, prosecutors and mediators, and to have child-friendly spaces while the law was being adopted. Unfortunately, there had been cases of sexual abuse in closed institutions, and that was one of the reasons why some of them had been closed. The objective of the juvenile justice reform was also to close such institutions, of which there were six at the moment.
The rise of hate speech by officials was an issue not only in Bulgaria but in Europe at large. It usually did not involve Government officials, but those in political parties who used the difficult situation of refugee and migrants in Europe for political ends. The political situation in Bulgaria was quite delicate at the moment.
The law in Bulgaria recognized only full adoption or partial adoption which was rare and usually involved relatives; “open adoption” did not exist. For social services, the objective was to stabilize the family and reunite it with a child. There was one prison for women, in which a special clinic had been built where inmates could give birth and raise their children. It was important to keep children in Bulgaria and not have them adopted internationally, the delegation stressed. Bulgarians generally preferred to adopt young white children and there was a need to raise awareness on the benefits of adopting older children, Roma children and children with disabilities. All adoptions were monitored for two years following the adoption, with reports submitted every six months.
In 2015, there had been fewer than 55 children aged 10 to 18 in the prison facilities. The legislation banned child labour and the Government had put in place an action plan to address the practice. In 2015, a total 2,605 allowances for hiring children aged 16 to 18 had been issued, and 98 requests had been refused. The process was very well monitored. There had been 89 violations in 2015, and 73 acts had been issued.
Street children were not being put in institutions any more, as a host of services, including day care centres to work with children in streets, had been developed in order to provide children with better health and education services. There were local coordinating mechanisms which would establish commissions composed of the police, social services, child protection, courts, who went out in communities to identify children in need and ensure they received support they needed.
Campaigns targeting trafficking of children had been implemented over the past several years, and the most successful were those that involved celebrities. Children victims of trafficking, including foreign children, received necessary support though crisis centres available in most areas of the country. The children could stay in those centres for up to six months, which could be extended for another six months; during that period, efforts were made to identify and locate their families.
Family support was one of central issues in Bulgaria, and there was a new system in place that the country was implementing. Families could receive support through four different laws: on child protection, on social protection, on integration of persons with disabilities including children, and on support for families with children. Families received support through various community support centres funded by the Government and through social insurance. There were 147 child protection units under the State Agency for Child Protection which was under the authority of the Prime Minister.
The principle “money follows the child” was not fully implemented in Bulgaria; it was well implemented in the education and health sectors, and there was still work to do before the same was the case elsewhere. There was a good understanding of the benefits of that system among the professionals. In the past, a lot of children had been taken away from their families because of economic reasons; that practice had shifted. There were still a number of children from poor families in the residential care system, not in institutions, and the cooperation with parents was on a better level.
The delegation informed of a legal amendment allowing pregnant women to access prenatal and birthing services in hospitals free of charge. A number of campaigns had been conducted in Roma communities, encouraging prenatal visits, vaccination of children, and education the people about dangers of early marriages. Those campaigns were usually permanent activities, implemented by non-governmental organizations or by provincial health authorities, in conjunction with health mediators.
Responding to questions related to inclusive education, a delegate said that 15,000 children with disabilities were educated in mainstream schools and kindergartens, and other 2,000 were in special schools. The process of deciding which school to attend started with the expression of parental will, followed by an assessment by a team of professionals, which prepared a report for regional authorities which was the ultimate decision-maker. Following the decision, an individual education plan would be drawn for each child, overseen by a resource person – usually a teacher who followed the child individually. The plan contained short and long term educational goals; as a rule, children with disabilities were sent to mainstream schools and special school enrolment was on exceptional basis.
In follow-up comments, Committee Experts stressed that it was important to focus on what was not working and said that the Committee and Bulgaria knew that the situation of children with disabilities in education was far from perfect. The Law on inclusive education was good, but it was important to identify challenges in order to improve the situation.
Responding, a delegate said that the implementation of the inclusive education policy and philosophy requested significant resources and called for many specialists to work with children, such as speech therapists, individual helpers and assistant teachers. At the moment, many schools were organized in a traditional way, which did not allow for a good integration of different students. It was important to focus on early intervention and dialogue between parents and social services, and that would be a focus of the national action plan from 2017.
With regard to the model of institutionalization in the country and foster care, it was said that as of April 2016, more than 6,000 children were in kinship families, and they were all supervised by social workers and child protection officers. A part of children whose parents worked abroad were registered with kinship families, and, as such, were under the supervision of social and child protection services; other were left with families although they were not registered with the authorities.
Bulgaria was a state party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol and it strictly complied with all its legal obligations in this regard, said the delegation. Since 2013, Bulgaria had been faced with an unprecedented pressure created by mixed migration flows, for which it had not been fully prepared, but thanks to the Government’s efforts in 2014 and 2015, Bulgaria had been able to cope and to fully restore its system of protection. A delegate confirmed that, indeed, there was a 30-kilometer facility of barbed wire intended to protect the border from illegal entry. Its purpose was not to dissuade those seeking protection. There were entry points in the wire where asylum seekers could present themselves and seek protection.
Border police officials had an obligation to contact social and child protection services whenever an unaccompanied child arrived to border or entry point. That would be followed by an age-adapted interview which would take place at the border point, and during which the unaccompanied child would be informed of the consequences of submitting the request for international protection. If international protection was refused, the unaccompanied child would be awarded immediate protection under the Child Protection Law. If a child declared the will to avail himself or herself of international protection, the border police would immediately alert the State Agency for Refugees, and would transfer the child to a reception facility, with all available documentation required for further determination of the child’s status. The children were usually accommodated in registration and reception centres run by the State Agency for Refugees; exceptionally, the children could be accommodated in specially adapted premises in the police stations for 48 hours.
A delegate said that 540 unaccompanied children had applied for asylum in 2016, while 940 children had applied in 2015. They were entitled to free-of-charge legal assistance, and had the same rights as Bulgarian children without parental care. The rendering of protection measures and assistance to those children did not depend on the status of the proceedings to acquire a status of refugee, and they could not be returned to their country of origin unless the reasons for which the refugee status had been granted ceased to exist. Children who had illegally entered the territory were treated in the same manner as those who had entered legally; the only challenge was in locating them; once located, the same procedure applied. There were interpreters at the border with Turkey, while social workers were also trained enough and instructed to be able to perform duties assigned to them as guardians. They represented children in proceedings and they were the ones who ensured that all the rights guaranteed under the Convention and the national legislation were enjoyed by children.
A delegate confirmed that the two Optional Protocols to the Convention, on sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, and on involvement of children in armed conflict, had been transferred into the law, with the relevant amendments to the Criminal Code entering into force in September 2015.
Concluding Remarks
GEHAD MADI, Member of the Committee and Co-Rapporteur for Bulgaria, expressed appreciation to the delegation of Bulgaria, in particular for their openness and clarity in responding to the questions and for recognizing that there we issues that needed to be tackled, including work more on the two Optional Protocols, on the implementation of the Committee’s previous concluding observations, and on expediting the juvenile justice reform. The delegation had referred to several issues as problems of Europe, such as the situation of refugees or the hate speech; the Committee would address those in dialogues with concerned State Parties, but there was a need to work on those issues, and to pioneer the solutions. Maybe Bulgaria could be such a pioneer.
VERGINIYA MICHEVA-RUSEVA, Deputy Minister of Justice, thanked the Committee for the open dialogue which helped assess the progress and identify areas for improvement. Bulgaria was confident that today’s dialogue would be an important contribution in the improvement of the legal and policy framework in Bulgaria in the matter of children’s rights.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CRC16/028E