HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE EXAMINES ROMANIA’S EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
The Human Rights Committee this morning completed the consideration of the fifth periodic report of Romania on its efforts to implement the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Presenting the report, Catrinel Brumar, Government Agent for the European Court of Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, outlined some important achievements at the institutional level, such as the creation of the National Council for Combating Discrimination in 2010, the 20th anniversary of the Ombudsman’s Office, the setting up of the National Agency for Equal Opportunities between Women and Men, and the establishment of the National Agency for Roma in 2004. The entry into force of four codes – the Civil Code, the Civil Procedure Code, the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code – significantly consolidated the justice system, and the Government had also adopted the National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2016-2020, and a series of normative acts to improve the respect of the rights of persons with disabilities. The strategy for the inclusion of Romanian citizens belonging to Roma minority 2015-2020 focused on education, employment, health and housing, social services and infrastructure, culture and combating discrimination, while Romania had made great strides in the prevention and effective investigation of allegations of ill-treatment by law enforcement officers.
In the ensuing discussion, Committee Experts welcomed the ratification by Romania of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2011 and the direct applicability of the Covenant which had supremacy over the national law. They appreciated the strategies to provide adequate health services to prevent maternal mortality and to address unwanted pregnancies, but remained concerned about the high rate of teenage pregnancies which accounted for ten per cent of all births and ten per cent of all abortions. They asked about the measures to integrate age appropriate reproductive health education into the mandatory school curriculum, and inequalities between the Roma and the rest of the population, including evictions of Roma, school segregation of Roma children, and police brutality against Roma. Other concerns included the use of force by the police, detention conditions and alternatives to imprisonment, fight against corruption, and discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity and HIV/AIDS status. The delegation was asked about the institutionalisation, legal guardianship, and employment of persons with disabilities, protection of minority languages, domestic violence, ill-treatment in police custody and secret detention facilities, definition of torture, independence of the judiciary, and trafficking in persons.
In concluding remarks, Ms. Brumar thanked Committee Experts for their detailed questions which aimed to contribute to better implementation of the Covenant in Romania.
Margo Waterval, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee, thanked the delegation and reminded it of the possibility to submit written replies within 48 hours.
The delegation of Romania consisted of representatives from the Ministry of Justice, General Prosecutor’s Office, National Penitentiary Administration, Ombudsman’s Office, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Labour and Social Justice, Ministry of National Education, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Permanent Mission of Romania to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will next meet in public on Friday, 27 October, at 10 a.m. to discuss the General Comment on Article 6.
Report
The fifth periodic report of Romania can be read here: CCPR/C/ROU/QPR/5.
Presentation of the Report
CATRINEL BRUMAR, Government Agent for the European Court of Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, outlined some important achievements at the institutional level, such as the creation of the National Council for Combating Discrimination in 2010, the 20th anniversary of the Ombudsman’s Office, the setting up of the National Agency for Equal Opportunities between Women and Men, and the establishment of the National Agency for Roma in 2004. The national legislation on human rights had been extensively developed and restructured in order to respond to the international obligations assumed by Romania, including as a member of the European Union, and particular attention had been given to the consolidation of the justice system. The entry into force of four codes – the Civil Code, Civil Procedure Code, Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code – had paved the way for a more structured approach and the adoption of two relevant strategies in that field, namely the Strategy for the Development of the Judiciary 2015-2020, and the National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2016-2020.
The Strategy for the Development of the Judiciary 2015-2020 was built on the acknowledged need for an improved modern, transparent and efficient justice system where accessibility and uniformity in practice were attained. The strategy provided for the creation of a strategic council comprised of the highest managers in the judicial system. The National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2016-2020 expanded the previous programmatic document in the field and contained important elements for the consolidation of integrity in the judicial system. It provided for specific measures regarding the independence of the judiciary and approached the promotion of integrity by all public institutions. The Strategy continued to prioritise preventive measures in sectors exposed to corruption, such as judiciary, activity of the members of the Parliament, healthcare, national education, financing of political parties and electoral campaigns, public procurement, business environment and local public administration. International standards on the protection and promotion of human rights were incorporated in the domestic normative framework, including the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention) that Romania had ratified in 2016.
Even though the Romanian system was well equipped to offer adequate protection in the field of human rights, the main challenges pertained to the national implementation phase. Romania had constantly supported a public policy aimed at preventing and sanctioning any form of discrimination. The dissemination and awareness-raising was an essential part of the success of that policy. The National Agency for Equal Opportunities had organized multiple events and campaigns in order to widely disseminate the engagements made by the State in that domain. Starting in 2015, the HeforShe campaign was promoted in the country and it offered the framework for a series of activities such as training of specialists in a new profession – gender equality expert – and on developing and implementing programmes to engage girls and boys in political, social and economic life. The National Agency for Equal Opportunities had also implemented various programmes aimed at eliminating the practical or psychological barriers in gender equality, such as Justice Has no Gender and Equal Pay Day. The effectiveness of the system put in place was confirmed by the increased confidence shown by individuals in using the tools at their disposal to request protective measures or to report discriminatory treatment. Dissemination measures had contributed to more rapid and effective judicial proceedings.
Aware of the challenges that persons with disabilities were still facing in participation in public life, accessibility, independent living and inclusion in the community, Romania had adopted a series of normative acts to improve the respect of the rights of persons with disabilities. A new national strategy for the period 2016-2020 in the field of disability, entitled “A society without barriers for persons with disabilities” was in place. The strategy underlined the institutional commitment to effectively improving the quality of life for persons with disabilities, namely with the respect to their independent representation, monitoring the implementation of the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the investigation of crimes perpetrated against persons with disabilities in institutions.
The strategy for the inclusion of Romanian citizens belonging to Roma minority 2015-2020 focused on education, employment, health and housing, social services and infrastructure, culture and combating discrimination. In 2016, the Ministry of Education had passed two orders on the prohibition of segregation in schools. Since 2014, the National Public Health Institute had been running a project on strengthening the national network of Roma health mediators, whereas the 2016 legislative amendments had facilitated the registration of Roma newborns. Essential progress had been made in the field of prevention and effective investigation of allegations of ill-treatment by the police; preventive measures included dissemination and training of police officers, as well as a strategy to increase the effectiveness of investigations by the Prosecutor General. The law regulating the use of firearms by police officers had been amended in October 2016. In the same year, the authorities had adopted a timetable for the improvement of material conditions in pre-trial detention and prison units.
Questions by Committee Experts
Experts welcomed Romania’s ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2011, and the fact that the Covenant was directly applicable in the State party where it took precedence over national law. Were there any cases in which courts had applied the Covenant? Did judges, prosecutors and legal counsels have the necessary knowledge to apply the Covenant?
It appeared that the Covenant did not play a sizable role in the State party. What steps had been taken to provide data collection to facilitate monitoring compliance with the Covenant, without compromising the right to private life?
Had the State party involved civil society in the preparation of the present report?
Experts welcomed the various strategies to provide adequate health services to prevent maternal mortality and to address unwanted pregnancies, but remained concerned about teenage pregnancies, which accounted for ten per cent of all births and ten per cent of all abortions. What measures were in place to improve health education? Why was there only an optional course on health education instead of integrating age appropriate reproductive health education into the mandatory school curriculum? Did the State party continue to provide free contraceptives? What measures had been taken with respect to the use of abortion as means of contraception?
Experts also expressed concern about unsafe abortions, despite the fact that abortion was legal during the first trimester of pregnancy and for therapeutic reasons. Why women still resorted to illegal abortions which put their lives at risk? What measures had been taken to ensure access to legal abortion in practice and also to ensure that resort to the conscience clause did not hamper women’s access to legal abortion?
Experts were also concerned about the high maternal and infant mortality rate, and the inadequate access by Roma women to maternal healthcare.
What measures had been taken to disseminate the Committee’s previous recommendations?
Experts asked for data disaggregated by ethnicity in order to reveal inequalities between the Roma and the rest of the population. For example, the life expectancy among the Roma and their access to medical services was lower than that of the rest of the population. Was there a practice of data collection in order to design adequate policies for the Roma?
Experts observed that evictions of Roma communities were being carried out without suitable alternative accommodation being provided. Roma were being forcefully removed to areas with hazardous risks to their lives and Roma children were being rendered homeless in severe weather conditions. How did the national law define eviction? What measures had the Government adopted to ensure that evictions were carried out in line with the Covenant provisions? Experts also raised the issue of the inability of Roma to regularise their housing status.
Experts reminded that there had been no convictions in 43 documented cases of police brutality against Roma from 1996 until 2016, and that racism had never been investigated as a motive. What measures had been taken to improve the policing within minority communities, particularly Roma? What were the steps to encourage Roma to apply to work in law enforcement agencies? What measures had been taken to measure the quality of policing in Roma communities? What legal changes was the Government considering to eliminate police brutality against Roma people? What was the number of complaints filed against the police by Roma in the past three years? What was the number of prosecutions and convictions?
As for the right to life, the delegation was asked to provide updated information about the investigations into the alleged killing by members of the security forces of three Roma men suspected of theft on 31 May, 10 June and 28 July 2012 in different parts of Romania. Had the official investigations resulted in prosecutions and sanctions for the perpetrators? How were the standards required by the Covenant applied in the investigation and prosecution of the case? What steps had been taken to ensure that security officers complied with the provisions on the use of force?
Low salaries for public officials created a fertile ground for corruption. How did the State party view the political back and forth surrounding the decree that tried to decriminalise criminal conduct of public officials? What was the effectiveness of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2012–2015? The head of the National Directorate for Anti-Corruption had been subject to harassment and pressure.
Concerning the Ombudsman’s Office, the delegation was asked about the plans to expand it and strengthen its investigative powers, the budgets allocated to the Ombudsman’s Office and the National Council for Combating Discrimination, and the status of accepted recommendations concerning the work of national human rights institutions.
What were the achievements and existing challenges of the National Council for Combating Discrimination, and the current status of the Anti-Discrimination Law? What were the practical effects of legal protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity? Had there been any public awareness campaigns conducted in that domain?
There were reports that women living with HIV/AIDS were not being able to access sexual and reproductive health service. Who was responsible for infecting children with HIV/AIDS in public hospitals? What had further been undertaken to generally protect persons living with HIV/AIDS? Was it ensured that women affected by HIV/AIDS gave birth by caesarean section?
Experts drew attention to the institutionalisation, legal guardianship, and employment of persons with disabilities. What had happened with the protective units for persons with disabilities?
It seemed that courts faced difficulties in prosecuting cases based on gender-based discrimination and that few persons were motivated to bring such cases. How many such cases had been solved? What was the percentage of women in leading positions?
What had been done to bridge the five-year gap caused by the absence of the National Agency for Equal Opportunities?
Bilingualism in education did not function in the part of the country where the Hungarians were a majority, Experts noted and asked about measures to safeguard the linguistic rights of other minorities, such as the Ukrainians and Tatars.
Replies by the Delegation
CATRINEL BRUMAR, Government Agent for the European Court of Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, explained that international treaties were studied in law faculties in Romania, and that judges and prosecutors additionally studied them as part of their training. The strategy on increasing effectiveness of investigations into alleged ill-treatment by law enforcement officers was applied to all cases of ill-treatment and not only to cases of mistreatment based on ethnicity. Persons with disabilities would be offered the benefit of independent personal representation. The Government would also address the issue of guardianship, but it would first focus on establishing the mechanism for their personal representation.
The Ombudsman’s Office applied the Covenant provisions on a daily basis. There was no overlap between the competences between the National Council for Combating Discrimination and the Ombudsman’s Office, since the Ombudsman’s Office could only make recommendations and it could not apply administrative sanctions. It was hoped that the bill on the Ombudsman for Children would enter into parliamentary procedure in November 2017.
Romania had an open list of grounds for discrimination, and it applied the shifting of burden of proof. The sanctions system for discrimination had been improved and judges had started to set moral damages for victims. There was an attempt to unify all anti-discrimination laws in a single framework. Resources were the most important element in ensuring that the National Council for Combating Discrimination was fully independent. The Council was able to access not only the State budget, but also the European Union funds. Judges were obliged to ask for the opinion of the National Council for Combating Discrimination. Human rights institutions in Romania were complimentary; they did not overlap in their functions.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons and persons living with HIV/AIDS were the most marginalised groups in Romania, and discrimination against them was under-reported. There were problems in ensuring access to quality education for children with HIV/AIDS, data protection, and access to healthcare service due to strong prejudices vis-à-vis persons living with HIV/AIDS.
The Hungarian community in Romania had access to education at all levels. No complaints had been received in that respect. The Government needed to improve data collection on the use of Hungarian language at the municipal level, as well as on Roma’s access to basic services. Hate speech in sports, media and public statements was sanctioned.
The Government was concerned about abuses and ill-treatment by law enforcement officers, especially against the Roma. Very few cases had been prosecuted by courts due to the criminal provisions of the Romanian law which did not include hate crimes, but rather considered it to be aggravated circumstances. Disaggregated data on discrimination cases was not collected.
The legislation on the use of firearms had been amended in 2016 and it stipulated that firearms could only be used to ensure the cease of attack or another state of danger; firearms must be carried out in a way that avoided death. All use of firearms was reported in a hierarchical manner and law enforcement officers were trained in the use of weapons.
Law enforcement officers underwent training on the prevention of human rights abuses, torture and ill-treatment, and gender-based violence. They also received training on specific issues when dealing with the Roma and other minority communities.
Turning to gender equality, the delegation explained that labour inspections monitored the implementation of gender equality in the labour market. In 2010, the National Agency for Equal Opportunities between Women and Men had been abolished due to economic problems, and the Ministry of Labour had set up an equivalent agency under its aegis. The Agency had been re-established in 2015. In the five-year interval, many other programmes and initiatives on gender equality had been carried out.
As for the representation of women in high-ranking positions, there was an increase of 12 per cent at the municipal level, but women represented only ten per cent of the managerial boards in the private sector. However, in terms of gender pay gap, Romania had the lowest rate in the European Union – women earned only nine per cent less than men.
The National Anti-Corruption Strategy had two pillars: preventing and fighting corruption. Independent external audits reports were scheduled for 2018 and 2020. More than 3,000 training and information session on corruption were organised each year. There was an increase in the number of received corruption denouncements.
The delegation explained that the HIV/AIDS phenomenon had begun in Romania during the 1990s and most of the affected persons had been infected since childhood. The national strategy focused on prevention of HIV/AIDS, and improving medical care. Pregnant women were tested for HIV/AIDS and caesarean section was scheduled for HIV positive mothers. There were cases of discrimination against women based on their HIV/AIDS status. All HIV/AIDS programmes were being implemented by the Ministry of Health. Mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS stood at below two per cent.
As for the reduction of maternal mortality, Romania had achieved its Millennium Development Goal in this regard, but infant mortality rate still remained high for the European Union. In order to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, the Government aimed to increase access to contraceptives, and to increase awareness about family planning programmes and health education. When discussing the inclusion of sexual and reproductive health education into school curriculum, the Government had faced unexpected obstacles coming from the parents’ associations and the religious sector. Accordingly, that education was optional. The role of the midwife would be expanded to play an important part not only in the medical system, but also in communities.
The Roma population had lower life expectancy than the rest of the population and for that reason the Government had established the Roma health community system and Roma health mediators.
There were medical doctors who refused to perform abortion. Accordingly, hospitals were obliged to refer patients to another medical doctor to perform it.
Second Round of Questions by Experts
In the next round of questions, Committee Experts asked why there was a five-years gap between the two national action plans on domestic violence, and noted that this phenomenon was largely under-reported. Did the police had the authority to investigate ex officio situations of domestic violence, and was that authority compatible with Covenant provisions? Had the State party taken measures following concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on the scope of domestic violence legislation and marital rape? Was there information on the speed of response in the context of protective orders?
With respect to ill-treatment in police custody, was it still true that there was no definition on what constituted torture? Had there been any changes implemented after the concluding observations of the Committee Against Torture on the conditions in detention facilities?
Was Romania able to identify potential victims of trafficking in persons in the absence of ethnically disaggregated data? Were there cases of involvement of police officers in trafficking of persons? What steps had been taken to implement the concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on outsourcing of assistance to victims to non-governmental organisations?
In 2016 there was an increase of identified child victims of trafficking, especially from rural areas and Roma communities. How could that increase be explained? Who had the ultimate authority for the operation of shelters for victims?
Turning to the right to associate in trade unions, Experts observed dilution of union rights and inquired about what happened to trade unions in company takeovers.
Experts inquired about the practical implementation of detention to limit the abuse of asylum procedure and for asylum seekers who presented risk of absconding. There were cases of child asylum seekers being registered as adults and placed in detention, they noted and asked how the recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child to ensure that no children were deprived of their liberty were being taken up in Romania.
Experts asked the delegation to provide an updated information on the efforts to improve prison infrastructure and prison conditions in line with the Mandela Rules, and about programmes designed to increase prisoner’s out-of-cell time. What financial and personnel resources had been allocated to improve medical care in Romanian prisons?
There were serious human rights concerns about psychiatric hospitals and care institutions for persons with disabilities, such as the legality of initial placement, forced medical treatment, substandard living conditions, and effective access to justice by victims, Experts noted and asked how Romania was going to address those?
Experts asked about the safeguards were in place for the committal and treatment of persons with disabilities in psychiatric institutions, the implementation of the European Court of Human Rights opinion in the case of Campeanu v. Romania, procedures for legal representation of patients and judicial review of the committal, and the new mechanism that had replaced the Center for Legal Resources’ monitoring visits to institutions for persons with disabilities? What de-institutionalisation strategy was in place and how it supported social inclusion of persons with disabilities and managed the real risk of their re-institutionalisation? When would Romania ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?
Which human and financial resources would be allocated to the investigation of the CIA secret detention facilities on the Romanian territory where terrorism suspects had been subjected to interrogation techniques, such as sleep deprivation and waterboarding?
As for religious freedom, what was the definition of “religious defamation” and “public offence to religious symbols”? How would the State party draw the line between “religious defamation” and “religious opinion” and what measures had been or would be taken to ensure that freedom of expression was protected?
The legal framework on the situation of domestic migrant workers was not clear. Was there any policy or practice regarding the application of the legal framework to address the challenges of migrant workers? Why had Romania not ratified the International Labour Organization Convention No. 189 on decent work for domestic workers?
Experts observed that school segregation of Roma children remained a problem in Romania, and asked about the implementation of the 2007 ministerial order prohibiting school segregation and the cooperation of the authorities in this regards.
The appeal for review was an extraordinary legal remedy exercised only in exceptional situations and only for issues concerning the lack of legality. Did the right to appeal apply to the defendant as well? Was it true that defence lawyers had trouble to effectively participating in first judicial hearings on pre-trial detention due to limited preparation time and that some county prosecutors required prior permission for visits by a lawyer?
As for the judicial independence, what were the difficulties experienced during the October 2016 elections to the Supreme Council of Magistracy? Was it true that some candidates had been openly supported by political parties? What were the measures to prevent politicisation of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and of the High Court of Cassation?
With respect to birth registration, what steps had been taken to ensure that children in rural communities and Roma in public care were properly registered and had identity documents? Experts drew attention to the situation of street children and asked why Roma children were twice as likely to be placed in child care institutions? How would the State party explain the high rate of disabled children in public care and what steps were being taken to combat ill-treatment of children with disabilities in institutions?
As for the right to privacy, there were reports of an excessive rate of warrants issued by the Romanian Information Service. What measures were in place to ensure that parliamentary oversight over the Information Service was independent and effective in order to effectively protect the rights to privacy?
Experts inquired about the outcome of the investigation in the 2017 case of a Romanian who had been denied service in a shop in Odorheiu Secuiesc, Harghita County because he had not spoken Hungarian. What measures would the State party take to ensure the non-discrimination of religious minority burials in public cemeteries? How would law 489, which guaranteed the freedom of religion, be applied to prevent the instances of discrimination against religious minorities, particularly against Jewish Romanians?
Was it possible for persons of the same sex to enter into civil partnership? What were the criteria for the change of personal status as a result of sex change?
Replies by the Delegation
CATRINEL BRUMAR, Government Agent for the European Court of Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that the Romanian Institute for Human Rights had been created in the 1990s when the interest in human rights had begun, and its main activity remained research. The extraordinary appeal in cassation was only used in a procedure with three degrees of jurisdiction and when the ordinary procedure of appeal had been exhausted.
Ms. Brumar explained that Romanian legislation clearly stipulated that patients were committed to psychiatric institutions when their state of health in a particular moment raised concern for the of the patient and of others. Patients could appeal their committal to the institution to domestic courts. Placement in care institutions was defined as a protection measure for persons with disabilities, when living in the community was not feasible due to aptitude and autonomy, but this measure was not definitive and was reviewed at least once a year. Neither case was an irreversible administrative measure.
The delegation explained that there was a five-year gap in national strategies for combatting domestic violence, namely between 2010 and 2015. The Government was currently working on a draft for combatting domestic violence for the period of 2018-2021. In December 2015, a hotline for reporting cases of domestic violence had been established, and several awareness raising campaigns on gender-based violence had been implemented.
Task forces of the highest level had been set up to collect information about trafficking in persons, including through international cooperation. The police focused on the phenomenon of trafficking in children, which explained why such a high number of children had been identified as victims.
As for the measures to eliminate torture and ill-treatment, the police received training on human rights, anti-discrimination, and the Roma language, while torture and ill-treatment was strictly forbidden by the law. Prison supervision judges had to be informed of the exercise of all acts that exceeded the legal framework. To address the problem of prison overcrowding, there were plans to build 10,895 new prison places by 2023, while the pardoning of certain inmates was currently being deliberated by the Parliament. Prisons officers had been trained in negotiation skills and special forces were only used as the measure of last resort.
CATRINEL BRUMAR, Government Agent for the European Court of Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, explained that each warrant for surveillance was approved by a judge. In addition, there was a parliamentary control of the Romanian Information Service. As for the politicisation of the judiciary, Ms. Brumar noted that two civil society representatives were elected to the Supreme Council of Magistracy by the Parliament.
The delegation explained that the Ombudsman’s Office had used the Covenant provisions to protect trade union rights. The Criminal Code defined torture as an offence. As for secret detention centres and special investigative techniques, the investigation had not produced any evidence of the existence of such detention centres in Romania.
The 2017 incident from Odorheiu Secuiesc, Harghita County had been found to be fake news and the blogger had been criminally charged. Nevertheless, the authorities had recommended to companies in the region to hire persons who spoke a decent level of the official language of the State. As for the ban on religious defamation, Romania had adopted standards from the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Critical views of religion expressed in media were not censored.
Multiple discrimination was recognized under law. Romanian law did not recognize civil partnership for same-sex persons, nor the same-sex marriage concluded abroad.
The Ministry of Education prioritised the fight against segregation in school, although 27 per cent Roma children received education in de facto segregated schools, and also received lower quality of education. The relevant action plan had been designed to combat segregation in school, train teachers in identifying segregation, and to collect relevant data.
The right to education in mother tongue was guaranteed to the Hungarian, German, Ukrainian and Turkish minorities. The number of hours dedicated to the study of the Romanian languages was equal to the number of hours dedicated to the study of minority languages. The Ministry of Education had trained teachers to properly apply the new curriculum and teaching methods.
Follow-up Questions and Answers
Experts asked the State party about how it planned to use alternatives to imprisonment, according to the United Nations standards, in order to contribute to alleviation of prison overcrowding. They also inquired about forced labour, due to the concern about the rising number of reports about labour exploitation, and asked about the length of pre-trial detention.
CATRINEL BRUMAR, Government Agent for the European Court of Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, explained that the Criminal Code reforms had taken into account alternatives to imprisonment. For example, home arrest had been used and it was deduced from the imprisonment sanction.
Concluding remarks
CATRINEL BRUMAR, Government Agent for the European Court of Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, thanked the Committee Experts for their detailed questions which aimed to contribute to better implementation of the Covenant. She expressed hope that the delegation would be as persuasive in its written replies.
MARGO WATERVAL, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee, thanked the delegation and reminded it of the possibility to submit written replies within 48 hours.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CT/17/39E