COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF BULGARIA

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the combined fifteenth to nineteenth periodic report of Bulgaria on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Presenting the report, Andrey Tehov, Director of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Organizations Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria, said Bulgaria was one of the first countries to become a State party to the Convention, in 1969, and since then it had been the firm commitment by the authorities to maintain a constructive and fruitful dialogue with a view to exchanging practices and receiving advice on the better implementation of the provisions of the Convention at the national level. Since 1969, successive Governments had been making every effort to implement it at the national level, as well as to promote it at the international level, bringing into accord domestic legislation and practices with the text of the Convention. Bulgaria was committed to continuing to further the values enshrined in the Convention. All relevant suggestions of the Committee would be taken on board, with a view to enhancing the implementation of the Convention in Bulgaria.

In preliminary concluding observations, Regis de Gouttes, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Bulgaria, said the delegation had provided very complete responses, and it was up to the Committee as a whole to weigh up the comments it had to make in its final remarks. Among the elements which had emerged was that the Committee could lay stress on some points on which the Government of Bulgaria could come back to in its next report. It would be useful for the Government to increase its efforts to spread awareness of the Convention, particularly in the legal sphere, where it was not very well known, and not always taken into account in rulings. In the next report, there should be specific legal statistics on trials and judgements on racial hate crimes as defined in the Convention. It was up to the Committee to decide whether some of these issues deserved to obtain a rapid answer.

Other Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, whether there could be discrimination in education if the ethnic background was not disclosed; a request as to what was the precise nature of the minorities mentioned in the report and whether they qualified as such under the Convention, and what was their representation at the national and local level; whether there was any assessment of the National Plan of Action for the Decade to Integrate Roma; the need for monitoring and evaluating progress, with targets and benchmarks, on the situation of integration within education; whether in the next census some details could be obtained which would allow a concrete judgement on the extent of access by minorities to jobs, education and authorities; and a request for an update to the basic document with information that was more broken down in terms of future goals, as the report showed there was enough information to enrich the document.

The delegation of Bulgaria also included representatives of the Permanent Mission of Bulgaria to the United Nations Office at Geneva, the United Nations Association of Bulgaria, and the Commission for Protection against Discrimination.

During the meeting, the Committee also heard a new member of the Committee, Jens Hartig Danielsen, make a solemn declaration.

The Committee will present its written observations and recommendations on Bulgaria’s report at the end of its session, which concludes on 6 March.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to take up the initial report of the Congo (CERD/C/COG/9).

Report of Bulgaria

The combined fifteenth to nineteenth periodic report of Bulgaria (CERD/C/BGR/19) notes that during the period under review (1997-2007), Bulgaria continued to pursue a consistent policy aimed at eliminating any racial discrimination in all its forms and manifestations and creating understanding among various racial, ethnic, religious and linguistic groups of the population. Bulgaria ratified the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (in 1999), as well as the Revised European Social Charter, and has taken an active part in the work of the Committee of Experts of the Council of Europe in drafting the Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Cybernetic Crimes, which has also criminalized racism and xenophobia in the Internet. In domestic legislation, the Law on Protection Against Discrimination strengthened existing Bulgarian anti-discrimination legislation particularly by providing a specialized mechanism ensuring protection to all physical persons and juridical entities on Bulgarian territory that may become an object of discrimination.

The National Council on Ethnic and Demographic Issues was set up as a public-private body by Decree of the Council of Ministers on 4 December 1997. In December 2004, the Council of Ministers reorganized the National Council into a body for coordination and consultation, namely, the National Council for Cooperation on Ethnic and Demographic Issues. Its main aim is to assist the Council of Ministers in planning and carrying out the state policy on ethnic and demographic questions. Within the National Council is a Commission on Integration, tasked with consulting the National Council on all issues of the formation and carrying out the State policy of equal integration of the Roma in society, as well as a Department on Ethnic and Demographic Issues, which assists in the formation and implementation of the state policy for integration of vulnerable persons belonging to ethnic minorities.

The Commission for Protection against Discrimination was created in April 2005 under the Law for Protection against Discrimination with a main objective “to prevent discrimination, to protect against discrimination and to ensure equal opportunities”. The Commission is a specialized body empowered to give effect to the law, to impose sanctions and to issue mandatory prescriptions for changes wherever acts of discrimination have been committed. The law offers the Commission a wide scope of powers and a very serious public responsibility. It is authorized to receive and investigate complaints on grounds of discrimination, and to act ex officio in identifying cases of discrimination, imposing mandatory pecuniary and material sanctions, and enforcing compulsory administrative measures. It also provides assistance to victims of discrimination. Since 2006, the effectiveness of the work of the Commission has been further enhanced with regular sessions being organized in various towns in the country, and training and awareness-raising seminars conducted. The Commission also sponsored several surveys on issues related to protection against discrimination, including involving Roma. As a result, and bearing in mind the importance of prevention, a special long-term Action Plan against Discrimination, 2006 to 2010, has been elaborated by the Commission, with a main objective to carry out an information campaign aimed at making the general public aware of the new institutional capacities and mechanisms for protection against discrimination and envisaging additional measures on monitoring the implementation of Commission decisions, as well as on prevention of discrimination and stereotype reshaping.

Presentation of Report

ANDREY TEHOV, Director of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Organizations Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria, said it was a great honour for the Bulgarian delegation to present the combined fifteenth to nineteenth periodic report of Bulgaria. Bulgaria was one of the first countries to become a State party to the Convention, in 1969, and since then it had been the firm commitment by the authorities to maintain a constructive and fruitful dialogue with a view to exchanging practices and receiving advice on the better implementation of the provisions of the Convention at the national level. Since 1969, successive Governments had been making every effort to implement it at the national level, as well as to promote it at the international level, bringing into accord domestic legislation and practices with the text of the Convention. Bulgarian law had a specific provision according to which all international treaties which had been ratified were part of domestic legislation, and the Convention was thus directly applicable in Bulgaria as internal domestic law. According to the Constitution, if there was a contradiction between domestic legislation and international texts, then the international instrument had primacy.

The report was a single consolidated document. Bulgaria fully realised and said so openly that there had been a certain delay in the presentation of the report - this was not due to non-compliance with the provisions, but rather with the rapidly changing circumstances since the last report, and in the course of the interactive dialogue all the spectacular progress made since 1997 could be elucidated. Democratic changes since 1989 had brought about fundamental changes in domestic legislation and national practices. The aim of this was to bring further and further into line the domestic legislation with international legal instruments to which Bulgaria was a State party. Even today, the Bulgarian National Assembly was actively engaged in passing new laws in the field of human rights. All this was bringing about fundamental changes in Bulgaria and Bulgarian society as such.

Many of the important comments and suggestions of the Committee made at the previous presentation had been reflected in domestic legislation and State practice, as the report testified. Bulgaria was committed to continuing to further the values enshrined in the Convention. All relevant suggestions of the Committee would be taken on board, with a view to enhancing the implementation of the Convention in Bulgaria.

Response by the Delegation to Written Questions Submitted in Advance

Responding to the list of issues submitted by the Committee in advance, Mr. Tehov said that according to national legislation, the National Statistical Institute collected data on the ethnic composition of the population of Bulgaria during the population census, every 10 years. The latest data was from the 2001 census - the next one should take place in 2011, and then there would be updated data on the ethnic, religious and demographic distribution, among others. All citizens were equal before the law, and neither abridgement of rights nor any privileges whatsoever were admissible on the basis of race, nationality, ethnic identity, sex, religion, education, convictions, political affiliation, personal and social status or property status. Penal sanctions provided for offences against national and racial equality showed that the legislator treated them as offences posting a high degree of social danger. Various periods of deprivation of liberty were provided for all such offences.

An important part of the role of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination in the prevention and combating of discrimination were the proceedings instituted on complaints and signals concerning alleged discrimination through speech in the exercise of communication rights - the right to freedom of speech, dissemination of information and to express an opinion, the delegation said. When establishing violations of the Protection against Discrimination Act, the Commission imposed the foreseen forcible administrative measures and administrative punishments. Forcible measures were imposed more often, as their legal nature had a greater and longer-lasting educational and preventive effect than the pecuniary sanction. The National Action Plan for Protection against Discrimination – 2007 was a short-term plan with the main objective of turning equal treatment and equal opportunities for all societal groups into a daily practice, Mr. Tehov said. A range of activities had contributed to strengthen the capacity for protection against discrimination through encouraging the exchange of information on the measures implemented by various institutions, state authorities, local authorities, and their effectiveness. The Action Plan To Combat Discrimination 2006-2010 adopted in 2006 was a strategic document of the Commission, mapping the main guidelines, steps and activities regarding prevention and combating discrimination, the delegation said. The Action Plan was developed in eight priority pillars, describing short-term and long-term activities.

The policy of Bulgaria targeted the creation of legal guarantees as well as of tangible opportunities for all citizens, without discrimination on ethnic basis, to elect and to be elected to the bodies of central and local Government. Bulgarian citizens who were members of ethnic groups were actively involved in political life, according to their own convictions and interests, and in accordance with the Constitution and the law of the land. The legal framework of Bulgaria did not permit the collection of data on citizens' ethnic origin without their consent. With regards to the situation of Roma children and their education, the main goal in the work of the Ministry of Education and Science was the transformation of the process of integration into a natural process within the educational system. Unfortunately, certain municipal authorities created some lingering problems in the implementation of the Bulgarian State-initiated policy for educational integration of Roma children attending separated schools and their subsequent integration in receiving schools outside Roma neighbourhoods. Currently this happened very rarely and was attributed to a lack of full understanding and/or underestimation of the problems with the education of Roma children studying separately. The Ministry allocated amounts from its own budget and drew additional amounts from European Union funds which, with the cooperation of the municipalities concerned, would be sufficient to solve the problem, Mr. Tehov said.

With the change in regulations governing the educational system in 2002-03 and with the adoption of the National Plan for Integration of Children with Special Educational Needs and/or Chronic Diseases into the Educational System, the process of phased introduction and implementation of integrated education was accelerated. The activities to create a supporting environment for the integrated and inclusive training of children and students with special educational needs were of a permanent nature, and in the years to come would further the optimisation process of the system of special schools in Bulgaria. The Center for Educational Integration of Children and Students from Ethnic Minorities had been established in 2005 to support the implementation of Government policy on the educational needs of children and students from ethnic minorities. This policy set equal access to quality education as a main goal for the system. The Religious Denominations Act did not pose any obstacles whatsoever to the registration of other religious organisations which identified themselves as Orthodox.

Over the last two decades of transition to a liberal society, as a result of economic difficulties, the deterioration of living standards and the increase of disparities in regional development, migration to large cities had intensified, including migration of members of vulnerable social groups. The principal approach adopted by the Sofia Municipality to addressing the problems of incoming Roma was to persuade and assist them to return to the settlements from whence they came, and where there were better opportunities to meet their housing needs. A new Regional Development Act had been adopted in 2008, and one of its purposes was achieving sustainable integrated regional and local development, Mr. Tehov said. Sustainable development, within the meaning given by the Act, was "conservation, development and implementation of targeted modifications in the living and working conditions in the regions by interrelated activities in the economic and social sphere, in conformity with the requirements for conservation of the environment, and protection against all forms of discrimination."

The limitation on the provision of social assistance did not apply to persons in the most disadvantaged positions, and in the greatest need. The institutional independence of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination was fully guaranteed by law and in practice. According to the information of the Ombudsman, the small number of complaints about discrimination were not due to any fears of citizens raising this issue and openly seeking protection from institutions. This showed the actual situation in Bulgaria, where there existed a traditional spirit of good co-existence between and tolerance among the different ethnic and religious groups of Bulgaria. One of the objectives of the National Council for Cooperation on Ethnic and Demographic Issues was to promote full and effective equality among Bulgarian citizens in all spheres of economic, social, political and cultural life, and to sensitise the public and foster public intolerance for occurrences of discrimination. In respect to immigrants, including refugees, who remained in the territory of Bulgaria, extra intensive actions were planned to be taken for their integration into the country's political life, and for non-admission of discrimination against them.

Oral Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts

REGIS DE GOUTTES, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for the report of Bulgaria, said the written and comprehensive replies to the questions posed by the Experts were much appreciated. However, he had not yet had time to go over them in depth, as he would have preferred. After the comprehensive and wide-ranging oral presentation, he had a problem with regards to time management and knowing what questions to ask. There had been a number of significant events in the recent history of Bulgaria, with, for example, new legislative elections in 2005. The new Government had really helped Bulgaria to prepare for its accession to the European Union, which took place in 2007. There had been progress in three main areas: judicial reform and the necessary modifications thereto to ensure accountability and objectivity of the legal system; combating organised crime; and combating corruption at all levels. Latest reports set forth some comments with regards to insufficient or incomplete results with regards to the fight against organised crime.

As regarded the international commitments of Bulgaria, the Committee welcomed a number of points, including the adoption of the declaration on article 14. Bulgaria had ratified many United Nations Conventions on human rights, and was party to the European human rights Convention, and others. There were a number of ethnic communities, including Turks, Jews, Russians, and Valaks in the country. The nineteenth report set out a list of the main laws containing provisions which expressly outlawed racial discrimination. There were a large number of bodies which were charged with the matter of racial discrimination, including the Commission against Discrimination. There were also institutional measures which had been taken to ensure the independence of the Commission.

What was the definition of a national minority, Mr. de Gouttes asked, in particular with regards to the Roma, as there were developments in place for this minority, and the report contained information on action plans in this regard. What was the first view on the Commission on Human Rights within the National Police Department, he asked, also inquiring whether the Government intended to include within its criminal legislation texts indicating that racial motives were to be considered as an aggravating circumstance. In spite of all efforts to improve the situation with regards to the Roma education, there remained significant problems, in particular that they were often educated in special schools for the mentally and physically handicapped, and Mr. de Gouttes asked what was being done to integrate them further in the mainstream educational system, whilst preserving their cultural integrity and specificity. He also asked how minority groups were represented in the National Assembly and the Police Force, and what policy was being followed to prevent discrimination in recruitment.

Other Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, whether there could be discrimination in education if the ethnic background was not disclosed; the situation with regards to European Court of Human Rights rulings on whether the country was in breach of article eleven; a request as to what was the precise nature of the minority groups mentioned in the report and whether they qualified as such under the Convention, and what was their representation at the national and local level; whether there was any assessment of the National Plan of Action for the Decade to Integrate Roma; a request for further information on the Bulgarian concept of "integration" in the context of education, as this was a slippery word and could shade over into more and less positive aspects of social policy; the need for monitoring and evaluation of progress, with targets and benchmarks, on the situation of integration within education; the need for affirmative action to improve the situation with regards to the Roma within a particular time-scale, which should be assessed; whether in the next Census some details could be obtained which would allow a concrete judgement on the extent of access by members of minority groups to jobs, education and authorities; whether it was mandatory for those in minorities to learn Bulgarian; and a request for an update to the basic document with information that was more broken down in terms of future goals, as the report showed there was enough information to enrich the document.

Response by Delegation to Oral Questions

Addressing concerns expressed by Experts, the delegation said that with regards to corruption scandals and the three areas of monitoring with the European Union, the last report of the European Commission noted that in the three areas, judicial reform, the fight against organised crime, and the fight against corruption, there had been positive progress in the case of judicial reform, positive developments in capacity-building, and what was now needed was to reflect this progress in more results and implementation, and to do away with the backlog in the Courts. There was also a new amendment to the Penal Code which sought to deal with this problem, introducing a speedier procedure for cases where the accused was prepared to accept punishment. The Convention was part of domestic law, and some judgements had mentioned it in case law. Work had been done to raise judges' awareness of Bulgarian anti-discrimination law, as well as of the provisions of the Convention. Despite that, the Bulgarian Commission for the Prevention of Racial Discrimination had referred to the Convention in a number of cases. Not all judges were equally informed of the Convention, but there were many who were, Mr. Tehov added.

The Commission was a State-specialised body whose independence was guaranteed by the Protection Against Discrimination Act, the delegation said, and had been formed in June 2005. The remuneration of the members of the Commission contributed to their independence. The interpretation of article 7 of the Protection Against Discrimination Act should be interpreted in parallel with article 1 of the Convention, as it was enacted in context with the right to work and education. The Ombudsman, Mr. Tehov said, had received seven complaints between May 2005 and December 2008. These were mainly concerned with property and housing problems, allegations of discrimination in education, allegations of discrimination in the provision of Social Services, and labour rights and employment, and had been fully investigated by the Ombudsman, who had, where appropriate, made suggestions to the appropriate authorities.

On the issue of the definition of national minority, Mr. Tehov said the Convention did not use in any of its provisions the term of national minority, but used the term ethnic origin. There was no internationally recognised legal definition of the terms national minority or ethnic minority. It was not used in the Constitution, nor existing legislation. Bulgaria was a party to the Framework Convention on protection of national minorities, and applied this to all those who met the requirements of the framework Convention. Bulgaria had provided information on the demographic structure and ethnic self-identification of the population, and not a break-down along minority lines. This was in line with the Committee's own General Recommendation number 4. Every individual had fully and without any constraint the right to declare his self-identification and request to be treated as belonging to a certain ethnic group.

Full investigations had been carried out into an allegation of police brutality, and it had been determined that the person concerned had committed suicide by throwing himself from a window, Mr. Tehov said. However, the European Court had determined that there had been certain violations, although there had been no violation with regards to the ethnic background of the person involved, and the case therefore fell outside the remit of the Committee. The specialised Human Rights Commission in the National Police Service had been organised into a permanent body, with the principle purpose of improving the practices of respect of human rights and popularisation of the ethical standards enshrined in the Code of Conduct of civil servants as formulated by the Ministry of the Interior. It worked with local Commissions, non-governmental organisations, and others with the goal of preventing cases of racial discrimination, among other things. There was training to prevent police brutality at a local level and with the participation of a number of groups, including the more vulnerable parts of the population.

On measures taken by the Ministry of the Interior on processing allegations of police misconduct and allegations that judges were in favour of the police, there were procedural guarantees to ensure impartiality. An investigation was carried out in each case of wrongful detention, use of arms, physical force, and auxiliary means, and if guilt was proved, measures were taken against the culprits and their superiors, Mr. Tehov said. Case records were mandatorily sent to the Prosecutor's Office for investigation in criminal liability. Arrangements had been made for a comprehensive and impartial in-depth investigation into cases, and their follow-up. Specific measures were taken at all times to prevent such cases, and tighten discipline, and the public was informed of every established case. Thematical reviews were prepared by the directorates of the Ministry of the Interior regarding cases of complaint made against Ministry personnel. Investigations were carried out into allegations of police brutality and the results of these were published. Sanctions were dismissal, censure, written warning, reprimand, and lack of promotion.

Mr. Tehov said on allegations of the broadcasting of programs containing xenophobic discourse, there was a guideline for the Broadcasters, and their compliance was assessed. Inciting intolerance among citizens was not allowed, nor was the incitement to hatred on grounds of race, sex, religion or nationality, and these broadcasts were prohibited wherever they occurred. Broadcasts should foster mutual understanding and tolerance between all people, and this was being closely monitored by the Council on Electronic Media. This Council had sanctioned some broadcasters in various cases for, among other things, incitement to intolerance towards the Roma as an ethnic group, the same towards the Turks, and towards the Muslim religion. The law on political parties applied to all Bulgarian citizens, regardless of their ethnic origin. It could not be claimed that there was discrimination in this regard. With regard to the OMO “Ilinden” case, it had been clearly established that there was no obligation from the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights for the Bulgarian State to automatically re-register the said organisation as a political party.

On Roma pupils in specialised schools and other educational matters, Mr. Tehov said that specialised schools would remain for everyone who needed them, but the criteria had been thoroughly tightened, so that no pupils that were healthy and had a normal intellectual capacity would be directed to these schools- this was prohibited by law. There was a special Commission and procedure that covered this. Even parents who wanted to put their children in these schools would be dissuaded unless their children did fit the stringent criteria. There had been some cases of Roma children being directed to these schools, mainly for social reasons. These cases had been dealt with, and the issue was more or less resolved- there were only individual cases remaining which were due to past practices.

Measures to increase employment among the Roma were implemented as part of the Plan of Action to increase the integration of the Roma, within the context of the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, aiming to entice people of Roma origin to sign up to these programs, Mr. Tehov said. Their unemployment was often due to a lack of education, and efforts needed to be made to increase the integration of vulnerable groups such as the Roma and members of the Turkish community, who were in some regions less fortunate and suffered from negative social conditions. The measures taken in this regard included additional special measures which were being considered within the New Program of Integration of Roma into Society. Education was a very very important factor. One of the Roma leaders had said that a necessary precondition for full integration was a full knowledge of Bulgarian, and education in Bulgarian should be obligatory, as it facilitated integration. The Constitution of Bulgaria differentiated between social integration and forced assimilation, he recalled.

On the access of the Roma population to public health, Mr. Tehov said that special measures were being taken within the context of the Program of Integration. The Government had stated its position in this regard, and it was up to the European Committee on Social Rights to take a decision in regard of currently pending cases in this context. The Commission for Protection Against Discrimination had organised regional seminars especially for police officers, the delegation said, and this had covered some of the recommendations of the Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Bulgarian legislation fitted exactly into European practice, Mr. Tehov said. It had been scrupulously examined by its EU partners and the European Commission. The Constitutional Court had clearly determined that only political parties organised along ethnic, national or religious lines or which incited violence or hatred were prohibited. In Bulgaria, the delegation said, elections were carried out on a representative basis. The Bulgarian Prevention of Discrimination Act contained directives on equal treatment in employment and occupation as regarded age, gender, sexual orientation, religion and disability.

On the Census, Mr. Tehov said that national censuses were carried out in accordance with the law that stated that ethnic affiliation was included on a voluntary basis- the Census Bureau could not therefore announce ethnic affiliation, although it did have the aggregated information. The results of the next census expected in 2011 will be provided to the Committee when they were available. Gender-based discrimination in combination with ethnic origin appeared in a few cases of multiple discrimination, the delegation said. Mr. Tehov said that special attention would be paid to hate crimes and information would be included on this in the next report.

Preliminary Concluding Observations

In preliminary concluding observations, Regis de Gouttes, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Bulgaria, said the delegation had provided very complete responses, and it was up to the Committee as a whole to weigh up the comments it had to make in its final remarks. Among the elements which had emerged was that the Committee could lay stress on some points on which the Government of Bulgaria could come back to in its next report. A number of questions had been formulated on some of the concepts used in the report, in particular that of national minorities and the concept of national unity. On the application of article 2 of the Convention, a number of points were discussed, in particular the representation of minority groups such as the Roma and Macedonians in Parliament, public services and administration, and there should be an up to date statistical report in the next report on the ethnic composition of the country.

On the application of article 5, a number of Experts expressed interest in the follow-up to the Plan of Action and to the Decade for Roma Integration, and this should be further explored in a next report. On the Roma, the Committee should have referred to its general recommendation number 27. Mention had been made of the measures that should have been taken by the authorities on abuse and police brutality. The fight against xenophobic stereotypes including in the media and in some political parties should also be elaborated in the next report. It would be useful for the Government to increase its efforts to spread awareness of the Convention, particularly in the legal sphere, where it was not very well known, and not always taken into account in rulings. In the next report, there should be specific legal statistics on trials and judgements on racial hate crimes as defined in the Convention. It was up to the Committee to decide whether some of these issues deserved to obtain a rapid answer.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CERD09004E