COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD REVIEWS REPORTS OF MONTENEGRO UNDER THE CONVENTION AND OPTIONAL PROTOCOLS

The Committee on the Rights of the Child today concluded its review of the initial periodic report of Montenegro under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its initial reports on the two Optional Protocols on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict and on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.

In introductory remarks to the Committee, Suad Numanovic, Minister of Labour and Social Welfare of Montenegro, said the 2007 Family Act contained a section especially devoted to children's rights and several pieces of legislation were currently being drafted, including the Juvenile Justice Act and the Act Amending the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms Act. The Government had also developed a number of strategies and action plans on children's rights, including the 2003-2007 Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy, the 2005-2008 Strategy for Permanent Solution of the Status of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons in Montenegro, the National Action Plan for the “Roma Inclusion Decade 2005-2015”, and the 2008-2012 Strategy of the Social and Child Protection System in Montenegro. The Office of the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms as well as the Council for Children’s Rights had also been established.

In preliminary concluding remarks, Committee Expert Dainius Puras, serving as Rapporteur for the report under the Convention, said Montenegro was well positioned to successfully implement the Convention and ensure human rights more generally. As a newly independent country, Montenegro had the momentum to implement its strategies.

Also in preliminary concluding remarks, Committee Expert Hadeel Al Asmar, who served as Rapporteur for the reports of Montenegro under the Optional Protocols, said the dialogue had been very fruitful and had allowed for the discussion of some key issues. However, improvements could be made in terms of data collection, legislation, sustainable budget allocations, and improving the delivery of services.

Concerning the report under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Experts asked whether the government of Montenegro planned to develop a comprehensive Children’s Rights Act; to what extent Montenegrin children were involved in decision making processes at school; whether adolescents had rights regarding delicate problems of privacy and seeking medical services; and whether Montenegro had a children’s rights sensitive approach to budgeting.

Regarding the Optional Protocol on Children in Armed Conflict, the Committee asked what steps had been taken to disseminate the Optional Protocol; whether peace education was part of education curricula; which ministry was responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Protocol; and what measures had been adopted for the protection, recovery and reintegration of children who might have been involved in conflict.

Regarding the report on the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, Committee Experts asked what measures had been taken to prevent stigmatization and marginalization of child victims in court procedures; how Montenegro was ensuring that institutionalized children and children involved in forced begging were not treated as offenders; and whether training on the Protocol had been offered.

The Committee will release its formal, written concluding observations and recommendations on the reports of Montenegro towards the end of its three-week session, which will conclude on Friday, 1 October 2010.

The delegation of Montenegro included representatives from various ministries including the the Ministry of Human and Minority Rights, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Education and Science, the Ministry of Interior Affairs and Public Service, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Culture, the Office of the National Coordinator for the Fight against Trafficking in Human Beings, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Permanent Mission of Montenegro to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

As one of the 193 States parties to the Convention, Montenegro 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 yesterday and this morning to present the reports and answer questions raised by Committee Experts.

When the Committee reconvenes in public, at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 23 September, it will begin consideration of the combined third and fourth periodic reports of Sri Lanka under the Convention (CRC/C/LKA/3-4) and its initial report on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (CRC/C/OPAC/LKA/1) in Chamber A. In Chamber B the Committee will begin consideration of the fourth periodic report of Nicaragua under the Convention (CRC/C/NIC/4) as well as its initial reports on the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (CRC/C/OPAC/NIC/1) and on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (CRC/C/OPSC/NIC/1).

Reports of Montenegro

The initial report of Montenegro under the Convention (CRC/C/MNE/1) says the Government has adopted a National Plan of Action for Children (NPA) 2004–2010. That plan is a framework document for activities, programmes and strategies to create a world fit for children and is in direct relation with adopted international treaties, with the Convention on the Rights of the Child as its main reference. The NPA traced the route for achieving strategic objectives to steer the State, civil society, families, girls and boys to properly respond to the needs of children. The objectives of the plan are to protect all children from inequality, ensure that all girls and boys have the right and access to quality education and a healthy lifestyle; and make sure that the environment of children was protected and they were considered as full citizens. The NPA also established the time frame for achieving each concrete objective, defined the bearers of the activities, and detailed the monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for the NPA.

The initial report under the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (CRC/C/OPSC/MNE/1) highlights that Montenegro has been upgrading its legal system, taking as a basis the Convention and the Optional Protocol. In 2007 Montenegro adopted a new Family Law and several laws were currently being drafted, including the Law on the Protection against Domestic Violence, the Law on Juvenile Judiciary, and the Law Amending the Law on the Ombudsman’s Office. The Government has further established the Office of the National Co-ordinator for the Fight against Trafficking in Human Beings and the Council for the Rights of the Child. This is not to say however, that the sale of children, child prostitution and pornography is a pronounced problem in Montenegro. For example, only 14 cases have been reported to the SOS phone in Podgorica during its nine years of operation. However, none of these cases ended up in court due to the general attitude towards victims of sexual violence and because victims and their families often remained silent. It was also happening that judicial proceedings ended in acquittals as witnesses whose testimonies were the only evidence in a criminal law case refused to testify.

The initial report of Montenegro under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (CRC/C/OPAC/MNE/1) notes that, according to the Laws on the Defence and on the Army of Montenegro, military service is a duty of Montenegrin nationals only during a war or emergency state. In such times, citizen’s military obligation starts in the year they turn 18 and ends either when they reach 60 years of age (for men) or 55 years (for women), if deemed incompetent for military service, or when Montenegrin nationality is terminated. The Law further prescribes publishing of public announcements to which citizens wishing to undergo training for military duties in times of war can apply. Such announcements contain preconditions that candidates must meet, including that candidates have attained 18 years, which must be proven through documents enabling correct identification of the person. The army of Montenegro is composed of regular and reserve army and cadets: the regular army is composed of the military and civilians who serve the army; the reserve consists of active and inactive reserve; and cadets teach for professional military service in professional military schools.


Discussion on the Convention on the Rights of the Child

Presentation of Report

SUAD NUMANOVIC, Minister of Labour and Social Welfare of Montenegro, said the first Constitution of independent Montenegro, adopted on 19 October 2007, set out that Montenegro was an independent and sovereign State with a republican system of government. Montenegro was a civic, democratic, and welfare State based on the rule of law. Montenegro had adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child and both Optional Protocols to the Convention.

The reports before the Committee were produced by the interagency working group, based on information submitted by institutions with remits in the area of children's rights. The reports outlined the country’s legal child protection system and described how their needs were met in line with the principles of the Convention.

According to Montenegro’s Constitution, everyone shall respect the rights and freedoms of others, including children. Parents shall care for their children, and support their personal and educational development, and children shall in turn care for their parents when they were in need of assistance. Children born out of wedlock shall be entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as children born in marriage, mother and child shall enjoy special protections, and the State shall ensure conditions encouraging childbirth. According to the Constitution, children shall also enjoy rights and freedoms appropriate to their age and be guaranteed special protection from psychological, physical, economic or other exploitation or abuse.

Mr. Numanovic went on to say that the Convention served as the starting point for the reform of Montenegro’s legal system, particularly for the development of new legislation governing family relations, social and child care, education, health, labour relations, and criminal law. Among these efforts, the new Family Act that was passed on 1 January 2007 was particularly noteworthy as it contained a section especially devoted to children's rights as well as special procedural provisions on the protection and exercise of these rights before the court. Also in effect was the Protection Against Family Violence Act and several Acts were currently being drafted, including the Juvenile Justice Act and the Act Amending the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms Act. The latter would set out special procedural rules to be applied by the Protector of the Rights of the Child.

Mr. Numanovic said action had been taken to raise awareness on the principles underlying the Convention. This included seminars, round tables and workshops, especially for educational and social service staff, which aimed at informing citizens about the Convention and modern knowledge dissemination methodologies on children's rights and duties. Child-friendly books and brochures on children's rights had also been developed.

The Government had developed a number of strategies and action plans on various children's rights issues, Mr. Numanovic said. These inter alia included the 2003-2007 Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy, the 2005-2008 Strategy for Permanent Solution of the Status of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons in Montenegro, the National Action Plan for the “Roma Inclusion Decade 2005-2015”, and the 2008-2012 Strategy of the Social and Child Protection System in Montenegro.

The institutional framework for the protection and exercise of children's rights comprised courts, guardianship authorities, the Council for Children’s Rights, the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms, as well as line ministries. Various child protection and care issues were also brought to the agendas of ministries who worked on children's rights issues.

The guardianship authority was an expert social care service, authorised by law to provide family legal protection, Mr. Numanovic said. Its duties were discharged by social work centres and state bodies set up at the municipal level, and it provided legal protection to families and children, primarily in the area of law.

In 2007, the Government had set up the Council for Children’s Rights to follow-up the implementation of the National Action Plan 2004-2010 and to protect and promote children's rights, among other things. The Council discharged its mandate in conjunction with United Nations agencies and other international organizations who worked on children's rights. The Council was composed of seven ministers, a representative of the statistical office, one from the non-governmental organization sector, and one from public and cultural life.

The Government had further established the Office of the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms in 2003 to ensure a more efficient institutional protection of human rights and freedoms in the country.

Recognizing the Convention, the Constitution of Montenegro prohibited capital punishment and guaranteed human dignity and safety as well as the inviolability of physical and mental integrity. The protection of the right to life was also ensured through the criminal legislation.

The Constitution prohibited direct or indirect discrimination on any grounds and the Prohibition of Discrimination Act, which had been adopted in 2010, prohibited discrimination against any personal attribute, including race, skin colour, or citizenship. Various other pieces of legislation also included provisions prohibiting the use of and protecting people from discrimination.

Montenegro attached special importance to protecting and enhancing the status of vulnerable children. Their protection was governed by the Family Act and the Social and Child Care Act. The first protective measure used to protect a child without parental care was to place it under guardianship to provide it with care, upbringing and education so that it could develop its personality and be prepared for independent life.

Adoption could be established as complete or incomplete, but the child always had the right to know about its adoption. Adoptions by foreign nationals were prohibited, although foreign citizens may exceptionally adopt a Montenegrin child if Montenegrin adoptive parents could not be found. Montenegro had initiated the ratification procedure for the Hague Convention on the protection of children and cooperation in issues of inter-State adoptions.

Special importance was attached to protecting children against abuse and neglect. The newly adopted Protection against Domestic Violence Act would ensure greater care for child victims of violence, defining the forms of protection and the procedures to deal with victims of violence. The Act also set out the procedure by which the protective measures were ordered and introduced an obligation to develop a special strategy of protection against domestic violence.

With regards to disabled children, Montenegro had put in place several strategic documents such as the Strategy of Integration of Persons with Disabilities 2008-2016 and the 2008-2012 Strategy of Development of Social and Child Care. These and other documents promoted decentralisation and encouraged a system of local level services.

In terms of education of minorities, Montenegro was part of the unified education system. Apart from the content integrated into the regular curricula, minority communities could suggest and create 20 per cent of the overall curricula content of new courses that were particularly important for their education.

However, the education of the Roma minority and learning Romani as a mother tongue were still of concern as it remained challenging to integrate this national minority into the formal educational system.

Questions by Experts

DAINIUS PURAS, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Montenegro under the Convention, said Montenegro could learn from the best practices and mistakes of many new European democracies that had faced similar challenges of dramatic societal transition while developing a child protection system.

Mr. Puras said Montenegro had an impressive list of laws, strategies and plans. This was commendable and all these documents had probably been necessary. But the Government must have a strong coordination mechanism and be managerially and financially well-equipped to effectively implement these, the Rapporteur underscored. The Government must also develop a mechanism of self-critical evaluation to reflect on challenges and obstacles. This was where civil society needed to be involved; could the delegation comment on this?

Mr. Puras wondered whether the Government planned to develop a comprehensive Children’s Rights Act, establish a Parliamentary Committee or sub-Committee to consider children's rights issues specifically, and whether measures had been taken to avoid fragmentation of the numerous children’s rights activities.

The Rapporteur then turned to article 12 of the Convention which dealt with the child’s right to be heard and its views taken into account. To what extent were Montenegrin children involved in decision making processes in the management of school activities, for example?

The Special Rapporteur also wished to know whether Montenegrin adolescents had both de jure and de facto rights regarding delicate problems of privacy, confidentiality, and seeking information or services, sometimes even without parental consent.

The Committee saw corporal punishment as a form of violence and disrespect to the dignity and integrity of children, Mr. Puras underscored. What was Montenegro’s situation in that regard; did the Government plan to move to full prohibition of corporal punishment, and what had been done to raise awareness on this issue among all groups of society?

Other Experts then asked a number of questions on budgeting, including whether Montenegro had a children’s right sensitive approach to budgeting, that is, how it would safeguard funds for children’s issues despite the economic downturn, by what measures health achievements and commitments would be secured, and what the budget expectations were for the next national action plan for children.

In terms of independent monitoring, the Ombudsman and other institutions had been set up, but had any complaints been received yet?

A Committee Member noted that the data on children living under extreme poverty was disturbing and reportedly even five times higher for Roma people. Could the delegation explain the indicators used to measure poverty rates? Also, could it comment on the high illiteracy rates among the Roma community?

Who was heading the Council for the Rights of the Child, what was its structure, and where did it meet, another Expert wished to know, and did the Government plan to establish systematic processes and mechanisms to consult children.

Committee Members also asked how the Government intended to deal with pending requests from refugees for Montenegrin citizenship; whether the Government planned on enacting a new law on non-discrimination in the near future; whether the delegation could comment on reports suggesting that the de facto age of marriage was lower than 18 in some communities; and whether the report had been developed in a participative manner.

Response by Delegation

SUAD NUMANOVIC, Minister of Labour and Social Welfare of Montenegro, said the Council for Children’s Rights had a broad range of responsibilities and had been meeting every two months. The Council included several ministers and civil society representatives who were independently selected. The Council did not have a separate budget but it received funding from various ministries and overall received significant funds. The Council had recently started to work on an agreement with the United Nations Children's Fund to have a manager in charge of the National Plan of Action for Children (NPA).

The delegation said the NPA had been drafted with due respect of the Convention, in collaboration with civil society, and with the help of the United Nations Children's Fund. However, the resources to implement activities had been insufficient due to lacking budget planning knowledge. The international community had contributed to the budget but funds remained insufficient and had thus made it difficult to implement the activities. The delegation was nevertheless optimistic that better results could be achieved under the next NPA.

Asked whether the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry responsible for economic planning had been involved in budget planning, the delegation confirmed that a representative of the Ministry of Finance had been working with the Council.

The delegation also confirmed that the need for collaboration with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) had been fully recognised, as highlighted by the 2009 Government Strategy on the collaboration with NGOs. Collaboration with such organizations included consultations when drafting legislation, the holding of round tables, and the preparation of normative conditions for the civil society sector, among other things.

As for the financing of NGOs, the delegation explained that civil society organizations received both domestic and international resources and were notably given 75 per cent of lottery fund gains.

Montenegro had prepared a large number of strategic documents to identify priorities and introduce standards in various children's rights areas. When drafting these documents, much attention had been given to the harmonization of such documents, the delegation assured the Committee, adding that harmonization of joint activities with partners gave the best results.

Montenegro had not started from scratch, but had further developed its legal structure following its independence. Laws in force under the previous federal structure were also valid for independent Montenegro and the Constitution provided for a hierarchy in legislation, thus ensuring that international instruments superseded national legislation.

Asked whether Montenegro planned to make a general review of its legislation, the delegation said Montenegro was committed to reviewing its legislation and aligning it with international instruments.

Asked when the Law on Juvenile Justice would be passed by Parliament, the delegation said the relevant existing framework and its compliance with international documents had been analysed. Drawing up the Law on Juvenile Justice was a huge project, carried out in collaboration with the United Nations Children's Fund, but this was expected to be completed by the end of November.

The delegation went on to say that every child could freely express his or her views and was entitled to receive the information necessary for informing these. Children’s views were also taken into account in procedural hearings concerning them, according to their age and maturity, and a special guardian was appointed ex-officio if a child was not represented in court.

The delegation explained that, in terms of child protection, use of the term “child” always referred to somebody under the age of 18 in Montenegro and thus no difference was made between “juveniles” and “minors”.

As for the illiteracy rate in the Roma community, the delegation stressed that campaigns had been conducted to persuade Roma parents to send their children to school. Budgets of 600,000 Euros had been set aside for Roma, mainly for housing and education, and Montenegro had done a lot to integrate Roma.

In terms of non-discrimination, the Government had developed a comprehensive list of discriminatory legislation, had defined hitherto uncovered forms of discrimination, and in 2010 adopted the Prohibition of Discrimination Act.

While there was no course specifically on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the delegation said that relevant subjects were part of educational curricula. Children also had the right to be heard in school which was ensured through child parliaments and debates as well as offering the opportunity for children to comment on teachers’ work, complain against marks, and enabling them to choose various courses and extra-curricular activities. Corporal punishment at school was illegal in Montenegro and perpetrators would be immediately dismissed, the delegation underscored.

Regarding special schools that consisted of 80 per cent of Roma children, the delegation said that was certainly not ideal and efforts to integrate those children into other schools were underway.

Questions by Experts

DAINIUS PURAS, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Montenegro under the Convention, asked in a second round of questions about Montenegrin achievements and challenges regarding disabled children, particularly concerning their right to live with their communities and families. Could the delegation also comment on early childhood development activities; explain whether bullying had been identified as a problem, and if so, how this was being tackled; and whether teams had been sent to communities to ensure the promotion and protection of children's rights, and if so, how such multi-disciplinary teams were being integrated into the mainstream system.

Another Expert turned to poverty, asking whether Montenegro’s Poverty Reduction Strategy defined child poverty; whether child poverty was a priority within that strategy; whether indicators for child poverty had been established and whether they focused only on income or also included deprivation; and whether child poverty data had been collected and trends analysed since 2003 in order to tailor policies and programmes to disadvantaged populations.

Experts were also concerned about health issues and asked to what extent abortion was used as a form of family planning and whether adolescents could use counselling services without referral from a doctor and without being accompanied by a family member. Also, many children abused tobacco, drugs and alcohol; did the State thus have preventive measures in and out of school, did it provide rehabilitation services, and had any studies been undertaken on this increasing phenomenon?

In terms of education, the Committee wished to know whether the curriculum was sensitive to minority communities, whether the delegation could comment on the alleged decrease in educational expenditures, how the Matura exam functioned, whether all asylum seekers and refugees had access to education, and whether the Law on Asylum took into consideration children’s best interests.

Also, what was the preferred alternative to family-based care for children in terms of policy and when did Montenegro intend to ratify the Hague Convention on inter-country adoption?

Responding to these and other questions, the delegation said the basis for the Montenegrin social care system was the Law on Social and Child Care. Another important document was the Strategy of the Social Development of Child Care which included de-institutionalization as a key principle. Montenegro now only had one home for children without parental care, one for children and adults facing developmental challenges, one for the elderly, and one for children with behavioural disorders. Luckily, Montenegro had not inherited too many such institutions from the time before its independence. The delegation agreed with the Committee that alternatives to institutionalization should be sought whenever possible. It pointed out that Montenegrin legislation indeed gave priority to family placements and that currently about 300 children benefited from congenial placements. Abuses of institutionalized children were being prevented mostly by employing only well qualified staff and ensuring good staff to children ratios.

Related to this, the delegation underscored that national adoptions were given preference over international adoptions. In fact, the latter were only possible if a Montenegrin host family could not be found and such cases were always treated by a special committee. Montenegro had no reservations to signing the Hague Convention and the Working Group on this had already been set.

Also regarding social care of children, the delegation said that Montenegro had ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and had prepared a number of documents on the topic of persons with disabilities and the protection of disabled children. The Government had also been collaborating with organizations representing or working with disabled persons, the delegation said, and added that Montenegrin society was committed to including children with disabilities in the education system.

The Committee asked whether official data on children with disabilities was available, broken down by sex, region, and disability, whether the delegation could comment on reports according to which 25 children had been sent to Serbian institutions, and whether Montenegro had an early childhood strategy, and if so, whether it emphasised the need to bring disabled and non-disabled children together.

Responding, the delegation said it did not have an integral database on disabled children, but the Government planned to develop such a database. At present, such information was only available at the ministries working on this topic.

As for the 25 children sent to Serbian institutions, this was the heritage from the time of the former Yugoslavia. These were children that could not be provided appropriate care in Montenegro, but such cases would shortly be reviewed. The delegation also confirmed that the Council for Children’s Rights wished to develop an early childhood strategy.

Asked about where the resources to strengthen family-based care came from, the delegation said in addition to Government funds, local authorities had their specific budgets, too, and the United Nations Children's Fund had been providing support.

The delegation went on to say that peer bullying was indeed a key challenge regarding disabled children and that educational curricula thus included conflict resolution elements.

In terms of culturally adapted education, 20 per cent of Montenegrin curricula was left open to the school’s discretion so that each school could reflect its surrounding cultural diversity and the specifics of its environment. There were also 13 elementary schools and 3 secondary schools that offered bilingual education, including Albanian, and all non-Montenegrin children could enrol in school regardless of their background.

Asked about children of asylum seekers and refugees, the delegation said in principle birth registry extracts and medical certificates were needed to enrol in school, but this could be provided even after enrolment. That was the case for all children, regardless of the status of their parents.

Asked about figures on child labourers, the delegation said children over 15 could indeed start working if their parents consented and if they had medical certificates that did not indicate otherwise.

Turning to school overcrowding and the number of shifts, the delegation said there were no more than three shifts in school but there were so-called inter-shifts to meet the needs of both children and parents. Some schools were indeed overcrowded, the delegation said, but added that as a result of unequal population growth there were also schools that had only one student per class, which was also problematic.

Programmes had been implemented to tackle health risks resulting from substance abuse, by informing both students and teaching staff about the risks. Also, a school subject called “healthy lifestyle” had been prepared by an inter-sectoral working group. That course, which included content on addiction diseases, had been selected by many school children.

The Matura exam was developed based on the model of developed countries in the region. In the near future, completing an external Matura after secondary school was one of the requirements for enrolment at university.

Montenegro had established norms and institutions working on child abuse and neglect issues and special field teams had been working on the prevention front, the delegation said. An Expert said it was important to intervene early in such cases; had the State considered introducing a reporting obligation on cases of violence, for example for doctors and teachers? The delegation confirmed that it was everybody’s duty to report violence and stressed that it was currently envisaged to consider reporting failures as minor offences.

With regards to poverty, the delegation said in 2003 4.9 per cent of the population was living in the poverty zone or under the poverty line, with some regions and communities being more affected. There was no survey on child poverty particularly, but available data suggested that, with up to 7 per cent of under-15 children being affected by poverty, children tended to be poorer than the average. Montenegro’s efforts in terms of poverty reduction had focused on the provision of health care, social care and employment.

In terms of health, the delegation said that adolescents could access health services without referral from a doctor, but juveniles could only terminate pregnancies with the consent of parents and at secondary or tertiary health care centres.

Responding to concerns about pending citizenship requests, the delegation said all applicants were given the opportunity to prove that they met the conditions set by the Citizenship Act.

Asked whether Montenegro had agreements for the special treatment of citizens of former Yugoslavia, the delegation said arrangements had been made with Bosnia and Herzegovina and negotiations were underway with Serbia and Croatia.

Discussion on the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict

Questions by Experts

HADEEL AL ASMAR, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, said the efforts of Montenegro in the field of human rights and children's rights in particular were visible from the country’s new legislations, action plans and strategies. The commitment to international Conventions, which were immediately harmonized with national law, was also laudable.

From 2006 to 2008 Montenegro had not participated in armed forces or international peacekeeping missions. There had been neither armed conflicts on the territory of Montenegro nor international peacekeeping missions or other military formations within its territory. Members of the Montenegrin army had therefore not directly participated in any war and no juvenile had been serving in the army according to official statistics.

Ms. Al Asmar however noted that national legislation did not explicitly prohibit the involvement of under-eighteens in the armed forces and that it did not set a minimum age for volunteers to be involved in the army in case of emergency.

Given the professional character of Montenegro’s army and that the right to be employed stood at 15 years, it resulted that persons under 18 could enter into military service and could be mobilized during situations of war or emergency.

The Rapporteur noted that there were no military schools on Montenegrin territory. Were persons performing the duties of non-commissioned officers and officers educated in military schools abroad?

Ms. Al Asmar also pointed out that Montenegrin criminal law did not contain any provisions on the prohibition or penalties of recruiting and involving children in armed conflicts by armed forces.

Other Experts then asked, among other things, what steps had been taken to disseminate information about the Optional Protocol; whether peace education was part of education curricula; which ministry or organ was responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Optional Protocol; and what measures had been adopted for the protection, recovery and reintegration of children who might have been involved in conflict.

Response by Delegation

Responding to those questions and others, the delegation said Montenegro had decided to leave all war experiences to history and, according to its legislation, it was thus only in situations of emergency or war that citizens had to defend their State. As of 2006, general conscription was replaced by a professional army, but citizens still had the right to participate in military service to be prepared.

The delegation said several military students were studying abroad, but all of these were over the age of 18.

In terms of reintegration, the delegation said Montenegro did not have any Montenegrin children who had been involved in conflicts outside the country or vice versa.

The Government body in charge of implementing and monitoring the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict was the Ministry of Defence.

Weapons trade issues were not under the competence of the Ministry of Defence, but the competent body consulted that ministry. The delegation went on to say that it was part of national custom to have a handgun. Therefore, lots of arms had been brought into the country, but targeted campaigns had helped to collect, record and destroy many bombs, handguns and munitions. Such campaigns would also be conducted in the future and great help was received from the national coordinator working on this issue.

A Committee Member asked whether every year those attaining the age of 18 in that year would be registered for military service in cases of emergency, which the delegation denied. However, if the country were to experience armed conflict in the future and someone refused to join the ranks of the army in spite of his obligation, that person would be liable, unless they were under 18 years of age.

Also, while the Government was further developing its army, it did not intend to engage more than 1 per cent of its population in the armed forces. Plans were further being elaborated by authorities, but all in all defence was no longer envisaged as total defence but rather as one conducted by the State and local Government authorities.

Asked whether Montenegro had any protocols criminalizing arms trade with countries where children were involved in armed conflict, the delegation responded that there was a list of countries to which Montenegro would not export weapons.

In terms of peace education, several related subjects were taught at school, including “I citizen” which aimed at creating civic tolerance and helping children from conflict countries. Authorities were working very hard to foster peace and tolerance through education programmes. Civic education was compulsory at the primary school level, but not in secondary school.

Asked whether Montenegrin soldiers sent abroad on peacekeeping missions were trained on the Optional Protocol, the delegation said the training was tailored to the territory where soldiers would serve. Some training sessions were controlled and monitored by NATO services and Montenegro had bilateral agreements on training.

Many peacekeeping forces went out with training in international humanitarian law, but not specifically on children’s issues as contained in the Optional Protocol, the Expert asserted. Did Montenegrin training modules include the specific requirements of the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict? They did not provide such specific training, the delegation acknowledged, but emphasised that experienced military trainers referred to such issues.

Returning to issues relating to the Convention, the delegation said Montenegrin authorities had been reaching out to the Roma population, particularly regarding birth registrations and early marriages. It was impossible to go against traditional Roma values, but authorities had been seeking dialogue to persuade Roma people of important issues, helped by the National Council of Roma and the non-governmental organization Roma Circle.

The government had invested significant resources to work with the Roma and had been providing textbooks, transportation to schools, and helped the Roma community with registration issues. However, the living circumstances of the Roma were very difficult and prevented them from doing anything other than ensuring their basic living conditions.

Returning to issues pertaining to the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, the delegation explained that according to the law, persons serving the army were to be treated as civil servants and had to be above the age of 18 to be employed in such a capacity.

The Committee noted that yesterday the delegation had said nobody could be recruited before completing secondary school, which could already be at the age of 17. Secondary school pupils graduating at 17 first needed to turn 18 to be eligible for service, the delegation clarified.

The Protocol was taught as part of the curriculum on law in armed conflict on which armed forces had been trained.

The delegation said that before arms were delivered to another country it would be analyzed whether any sanctions or restrictions were imposed on that country, whether it was party to the Roma Statute, and whether children were involved in armed conflict in that country. Similarly, regulations of the European Union and reports by United Nations agencies on that country were being consulted.

Discussion on the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography

Questions by Experts

HADEEL AL ASMAR, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report under the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, said Montenegro had ratified almost all international instruments that regulated the protection of children from exploitation and abuse, but not the Hague Convention. Moreover, Montenegro implied there was an obligation for its implementation and the harmonization of national legislation according to this.

Criminal legislation had been amended and incriminated most actions that were prohibited and punishable according to the Protocol, but it failed to use the Protocol’s definitions specifically, the Rapporteur went on to say.

Ms. Al Asmar went on to say that the Law on Family Violence Protection had been drafted, prescribing that parents should be obliged to care for their children and provide a higher degree of protection from all forms of abuse and neglect. However, until now that law was still under legislative procedure.

Montenegro had appointed a national coordinator against human trafficking, it had adopted the programme on human trafficking, and it had established a subgroup to fight trafficking against children in 2004, the Rapporteur noted. These measures were particularly designed to protect children against sexual abuse. However, issues relating to child pornography had been absent, both due to a lack of institutional services and budget constraints with insufficient resources allocated to preventive measures.

All activities undertaken thus far had been supported by the international community Ms. Al Asmar noted, asking when Montenegro was planning to make a real budget commitment itself.

Other experts then asked what measures had been taken to prevent stigmatization and marginalization of child victims in court procedures; whether relevant guidelines had been incorporated into Montenegrin procedures; how Montenegro was ensuring that institutionalized children and children involved in forced begging were not treated as offenders; whether and how prevention efforts regarding the offences under the Protocol focused on vulnerable children including institutionalized children, disabled children and street children; and what the situation was regarding the child helpline.

An Expert pointed out that Montenegrin law did not include the Protocol’s definition of child pornography. What happened to children between 14 and 18 who were used for pornographic purposes, the Expert asked, saying that such children did not seem to be protected by national legislation.

A Committee Member appreciated that Montenegro had undertaken sensitization activities to combat sex tourism and that it had been cooperating with numerous partners in that regard. But had training on the Optional Protocol been offered, had training activities been assessed, were stakeholders aware of codes of conduct, and what procedures were in place identifying perpetrators?

The authorities had made many efforts for the recovery of child victims, but had they also provided compensation to victims of the offences as required under the Protocol, an Expert wondered, also asking whether children had been able to contribute to reintegration strategies to make sure these accounted for their needs.

Response by the Delegation

Responding to those questions and others, the delegation said the Law on Family Violence Protection had been adopted and was now a full-fledged part of Montenegro’s national legislation. The criminal code had also been amended recently to remedy gaps regarding the definitions of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee pointed out that national law should exactly take up the definition from the Protocol and that trafficking and the sale of children were not identical, and that some lacuna in that regard persisted in national law.

The delegation went on to say that persons who obtained, possessed, produced, sold, or exhibited pornographic content were punishable under Montenegrin legislation. If the crime was committed with force, perpetrators would be punished with prison terms of up to 10 years.

In terms of trading children for adoption, the Criminal Code said that abducting children under 14 for such purposes would be punishable by one to five years in prison.

Responding to questions on extraterritorial jurisdiction, the delegation said criminal legislation was valid for crimes committed by Montenegrin citizens abroad, also in cases where a person had become a Montenegrin citizen after committing the crime. The Government may also approve extradition requests for Montenegrin citizens who had committed crimes abroad, the delegation added.

As for the treatment of child victims in criminal procedures, the criminal procedure law provided for special attention when hearing child victims. It notably said that if hearing the child could have psychologically detrimental effects, the hearing shall be conducted by a psychologist in a separate room, with only the judge and a note-taker present. Montenegro’s strategy for judicial reform introduced further special measures for hearing child victims.

On that point, an Expert said the Committee had information that the aforementioned separate hearing rooms were non-existent until now. The Expert went on to say that such treatment should not be reserved for some children; all children were frightened in court. The delegation responded that such rooms were available at the superior court for northern Montenegro and at another court.

Child victims were also entitled to compensation. That would be ordered during the criminal procedure or, if that had not been the case, during the civil proceedings.

Turning to the alleged financial constraints of the national coordinator against human trafficking, the delegation did not agree that the coordinator depended on the international community’s financial support. The office had its own budget, although it enjoyed the support of various international organizations.

The Committee said it had information that Montenegro cared for child victims of trafficking and children without parental care in the same shelters and that children and adults were kept in the shelters. The delegation confirmed that various types of children were being kept in the same shelters, due to a low number of cases and limited budgets. However, children were not placed in the same shelter as adults, but rather appointed a custodian and placed in a centre for social work if needed.

An Expert said it appeared that children involved in prostitution were considered as offenders although they were actually victims, which was denied by the delegation which added that professionals were trained to treat children as victims and not as criminals.

Nevertheless it was hard to believe that institutionalized children were not marginalized and discriminated against, a Committee Member said. Could children leave such centres at any time?

Responding, the delegation said children above the age of 14 could leave the institution with the consent of a social care centre. For younger children, this decision was also based on family circumstances. In some cases, children were placed with congenial families or, in extreme situations, in a centre for children without parental care.

The judicial training centres trained judges and prosecutors on the Optional Protocol. Police and civil servants working with or for children had been trained on children's issues more generally.

Also on the dissemination of children’s rights issues, the delegation said recent legal amendments incorporated directives on audiovisual media services in order to protect children’s mental health. Content that could reveal the identity of children, contained pornographic material or encouraged criminal behaviour was illegal. The law on public broadcasters further obliged national and local radio broadcasters to account for the interests of vulnerable groups. Also, Government funds were allocated to education programmes on child health.

Regarding the SOS helpline, the office for fighting human trafficking had been financially supporting that helpline, but not those operated by non-governmental organizations at the local level. The SOS telephone was available 24/7 and free of cost.

An Expert asked why there had reportedly not been any convictions for forced begging and the sale of children and what Montenegro was doing to actively seek out vulnerable children to prevent such crimes.

The delegation responded that mayors had been asked to establish multi-sectoral teams that controlled places where vulnerable children could be found. Authorities had also been working hard on the prevention side, as highlighted by its many publications on the issue. The fact that there had not been any convictions may indicate that these initiatives had been successful.

The Roma population had also been sensitized on human trafficking and forced begging. Several seminars had been held on the rights of the child and 43,000 Euros had been invested in a campaign to reduce begging. The Government had to come up with solutions to fight this phenomenon, and planned to do so by, among other, setting up a helpline to report child abuses. Efforts to educate children involved in the recycling of dumped materials were also underway to try and educate these children and cooperate with their parents.

In terms of sexual tourism, Montenegro had implemented a code of conduct and an action plan, it had trained tourism professionals and informed travellers, and it had established a tripartite commission to collect and harmonize data on this phenomenon. This information was being published on a website.

In response to the Committee’s concern that data on victims should not be publicly available, the delegation said only general data was available, but not such that it could threaten a victim.

There were also several programmes for the reintegration of human trafficking victims, including educational, logistical and psychological aspects.

Asked whether the State would implement multi-disciplinary and intersectorial teams for child protection, the delegation said work had been undertaken with the United Nations Children's Fund. The teams were composed of police as well as representatives from the educational system and non-governmental organizations, and they for example cared for and worked with victims of family violence.


Preliminary Concluding Observations

HADEEL AL ASMAR, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the reports under the Optional Protocols, said the dialogue had been very fruitful and had allowed the Committee to discuss some key issues, but improvements could be made in terms of data collection, legislation, sustainable budget allocations, and improving the delivery of services.

DAINIUS PURAS, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Montenegro under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, said Montenegro was well positioned to successfully implement the Convention and ensure human rights more generally. As a newly independent country, Montenegro had the momentum to implement its strategies, but improvements could be made in terms of data collection, health services, juvenile justice, children with disabilities, and the social protection system. To make progress in these fields the concerted efforts of various stakeholders would be needed.


SUAD NUMANOVIC, Minister of Labour and Social Welfare of Montenegro, in preliminary concluding observations, invited the Committee to come to Montenegro to see for itself what had been discussed today. As a young state, Montenegro was in the process of transforming itself. While a lot had been done to protect children, the remarks of the Committee would still be helpful. Montenegro aspired to become a regional human rights role model and believed that it was able to build an environment that allowed children to live a safe and secure life. This was impossible however, without the assistance of the international community. For example, Montenegro could not handle alone issues related to internally displaced persons.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CRC10/038E