Alternative Dispute Resolutions in the Juvenile Justice System in Bulgaria by BG Helsinki

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN BULGARIA AND THEIR ROLE AROUND THE WORLD

A paper prepared by Boyko Boev, Attorney-at-Law, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee December 2001 – March 2002 Sofia

This report was made possible owing to the financial support of the Open Society Foundation – Sofia

CONTENTS ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN BULGARIA AND THEIR ROLE AROUND THE WORLD..............................................................1 Contents....................................................................................................................................2 ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TEXT...................................................................................3 GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THE TEXT.........................................................................3 Introduction................................................................................................................................4 PRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEM.....................................................................................4 The Need for More Research and Increased Use of ADR...................................................4 SECTION ONE..........................................................................................................................6 International Standards in the Administration of ADR in Juvenile Justice Systems.................6 1. Prevention.........................................................................................................................6 2. The Administration of Justice............................................................................................9 3. Post-Institutional Care....................................................................................................12 4. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and Juvenile Justice..........13 SECTION TWO.......................................................................................................................16 I. Legal Framework of the Use of ADR in the Juvenile Justice System in Bulgaria and Analysis of this Framework.....................................................................................................16 3. Description of the Main Authorities, Procedures, and Measures under the ..................18 Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents Act...............................................18 4. Description of the Authorities, Procedures, and Measures under the Child Protection Act.......................................................................................................................................23 5. Statistics..........................................................................................................................25 6. Comments of the UN Committee for the Rights of the Child about the Bulgarian Juvenile Justice System.....................................................................................................26 7. Analysis of National Legislation and Its Compliance with International Standards for the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Juvenile Justice .....................................27 ІІ. Description and Analysis of the Use of Alternative Approaches in the Municipalities of Lom and Vidin..........................................................................................................................30 Lom.....................................................................................................................................30 Vidin....................................................................................................................................38 SECTION THREE...................................................................................................................45 І. A Comparative Study of Prevention and ADR vis-à-vis Juvenile Offenders.......................45 1. The Policy of Prevention.................................................................................................45 2. ADR in Juvenile Justice..................................................................................................47 2.1. Characteristics of the Social Educative Approach and Examples of the Types of Measures It Involves...........................................................................................................47 2.2. Characteristics of the Restorative Approach (Restorative Justice) and Examples of the Types of Measures It Involves......................................................................................49 ІІ. Recommendations for the improvement of prevention and the use of ADR in juvenile justice at the local level...........................................................................................................55

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TEXT ADR – Alternative Dispute Resolution AOPA – Administrative Offenses and Penalties Act Beijing Rules – United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice CBS – Correctional Boarding School CC – Criminal Code CCCAAMA or Central Commission – Central Commission for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents CDDC – Chief Directorate of Detention Centers CPA – Child Protection Act CPC – Children’s Pedagogical Center CPC – Criminal-Procedural Code CPD – Child Protection Department HIOTSR – High Institute for Officer’s Training and Scientific Research (known as Police Academy) IMA – Interior Ministry Act CAAMAA – Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents Act LCCAAMA or Local Commission – Local Commission for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents MI – Ministry of the Interior MLSP – Ministry of Labor and Social Policy MMD – Minor Misdemeanor Decree MSWAS – Municipal Social Welfare Assistance Service NSWAS – National Social Welfare Assistance Service PBF – Partners-Bulgaria Foundation Riyadh Guidelines – United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency RPH – Regional Police Headquarters SEBC – Social-Educational Boarding School SWAS - Social Welfare Assistance Service Tokyo Rules – United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures UN – United Nations Organization

GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THE TEXT Alternative dispute resolutions – approaches to justice that exclude the seeking of criminal and administrative responsibility from the offender and include all various methods by which dispute can be resolved without resorting to conventional litigation. Examples of these are various disciplinary measures like reprimands, community work, victim-offender conciliation or mediation programs; family group conferences; presenting apologies to the victim; repairing the damages incurred by the victim and etc; Minor – according to Bulgarian law, anyone under the age of 14 is a minor. Minors are not criminally or administratively responsible; Juvenile offender – someone under the age of 18 who has broken the law. This report will also use the term “juvenile delinquent” as a synonym for juvenile offender; Adolescent – according to Bulgarian law, anyone between the ages of 14 and 18 is a adolescent. Adolescents may be held criminally responsible if they understand the meaning and nature of their actions and if they are in control of their own behavior.

INTRODUCTION PRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEM This report is part of the Partners-Bulgaria Foundation’s project “Education in Juvenile Justice”. The primary goal of this project is to assist local commissions for combating anti-social acts of minors and adolescents in the administration of disciplinary measures for juvenile offenders. The project’s authors see disciplinary measures as an alternative to criminal justice, whose increased use over the past few years should be reconsidered. This report examines the international standards for the administration of ADR for juvenile offenders, analyzes Bulgarian legislation in light of its compliance with these standards, and offers an overview of the various ADR that other countries have used successfully to deal with juvenile offenders. The purpose of the report is to provide information about and suggest ideas for the more effective administration of ADR for juveniles. This report is envisaged to be useful to the local commissions for combating anti-social acts of minors and adolescents, particularly those in Lom and Vidin, who are the first partners in the project “Education in Juvenile Justice”. The Need for More Research and Increased Use of ADR Illegal behavior among juveniles continues to be one of the major problems in Bulgarian society today. The solution to this problem is connected with prevention and justice. Although Bulgarian legislation offers some opportunities for exemption from criminal responsibility in cases involving adolescent offenders (offender between the ages of 14 and 18), most juveniles are still tried and many punished with imprisonment. 1 The criminal law approach to the prevention of juvenile delinquency in Bulgaria is in conflict with the international standards for child protection and with democratic countries’ policies of using ADR to the discipline and control of children. As a result, Bulgaria has faced criticism and many recommendations for positive changes in the existing judicial system. In 1997 the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its concluding remarks on the Bulgarian government’s first report on the situation of children in the country, expressed concern about the administration of justice vis-à-vis children. More specifically, the Committee worried about Bulgaria’s compliance with Articles 37, 39, and 40 of the Convention for the Rights of the Child and other standards such as the Beijing Rules, the Riyadh Guidelines, and the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty. The Committee recommends that Bulgaria envisage undertaking a comprehensive reform of the system of 1

According to the National Statistical Institute, the total number of juveniles tried criminally in 2000 was 3,392. This was an increase from 1999, when 2,631 juveniles were tried criminally. In terms of convictions, the proportion of juveniles to adults convicted of crimes also increased. Juveniles made up 9% of all convictions in 1999 and 11.2% of all convictions in 2000. The number of conditional sentences decreased during this period. In 2000 these were only 58.2% of all sentences, while in 1999 they had been 66.9% of all sentences. The number of convicts with prior juvenile records has increased. In 2000 31.3% of all convicts had prior records. The number of disciplinary cases examined by the local commissions has decreased. In 2000 a total of 4,917 cases were examined, compared to 5,485 in 1999. See Report of the Central Commission for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents on the Condition and Tendencies of Crime and Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents. Crimes Against Them. Activities of the Central and Local Commissions for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents . 2000.

juvenile justice in the spirit of the Convention, in particular articles 37, 39 and 40, and of other United Nations standards in this field, such as the Beijing Rules, the Riyadh Guidelines and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty. 2 As a result of the “Young People in Changing Societies” study on the situation of children and youth in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, UNICEF Inocenti Research Centre under the MONEE project for 2000 made some recommendations to Bulgaria. These recommendations included a thorough review of Bulgarian legislation in compliance with the spirit of international standards, an emphasis on the need to train staff to work in the field of juvenile justice, in particular social workers. The recommendations ranged from the introduction of alternatives to segregation or imprisonment as well as to increase the efforts in the field of prevention.3 The objective of this report is to discover the character of ADR in juvenile criminal justice system, to point out the opportunities that the present legislation in Bulgaria provides for the use of ADR and by presenting some positive international practices to contribute to more humane and effective justice. This report’s main goals are to:

Examine the international norms dealing with juvenile justice, especially those relating to those ADR that exclude resorting to conventional litigation. The report also aims to present the recommendations that international organizations have made about the use of these alterative approaches;

Analyze and evaluate the opportunities that the current Bulgarian legislation provides for the diversion from formal criminal procedures and the seeking of criminal responsibility from juvenile offenders;

Examine the use of these opportunities by the LCCAAMA in Lom and Vidin;

Examine the successful practices of foreign countries in their administration of prevention and justice for juvenile offenders;

Make recommendations for the improvement of prevention and the use of ADR in juvenile justice system at the local level.

Distr. GENERAL CRC/C/15/Add.66 January 24, 1997, paragraphs 19 and 34

Inocenti Research Centre, Young people in Changing Societies, Regional Monitoring Report No. 7-2000, MONEE project, UNICEF, стр. 110

SECTION ONE INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF ADR IN JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS The international community has shown increased attention to juvenile justice ever since the first International Congress for Prevention and Repression of Crime, which took place in London in 1872. Today, international cooperation and international laws on preventing and combating crime is manifested primarily in the framework of the United Nations, and specifically under the auspices of the UN Economic and Social Council. No other aspect of the rights of the child is regulated by as many mandatory and recommended international norms as juvenile justice is. 4 Some of the sources of these norms include: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules), The UN Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (The Riyadh Guidelines), the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, and the UN Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules).5 There are also specific European acts that include norms related to juvenile justice. They are established by the Council of Europe and include the European Convention on the Exercise of the Children’s Rights6, Recommendation № R (87) 20 of the Committee of Ministers, which deals with social measures against juvenile delinquency and Recommendation № R (2000) 20 on the role of early psychological intervention in the prevention of criminality. The specific topic at hand limits the scope of this report to the principles of prevention and ADR contained in these international documents. 1. Prevention United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, adopted in Riyadh in 1990 (The Riyadh Guidelines)7 The Riyadh Guidelines recommend the establishment of a model of prevention consisting of a system of principles, participants and policies.

In accordance with Resolution 415 (V) of the UN General Assembly, experts on criminal law and criminology, internationally renowned scholars, and representatives of non-governmental organizations in the field have gathered at congresses every five years since 1955 to adopt general decisions for combating crime. These congresses culminate in proposals for international standards of recommended and mandatory characters. See The United Nations and Crime Prevention: Seeking Security and Justice for All. United Nations: New York, 1996. 5

The first two agreements are mandatory for Bulgaria. The rest are recommendations, but many of their regulations are found in or are in the spirit of the Convention for the Rights of the Child. Therefore, some provisions even in the latter agreements are binding. 6

Bulgaria has not signed the Convention.

Resolution 45/112 of December14, 1990 of the UN General Assembly.

Principles: The principle of legality The first and fundamental principle of prevention is related to legality. Young people should be included in lawful activities, whose goals are to develop non-criminal attitudes among the youth (item 1). The principle of public utility The principle of public utility requires all prevention activities to have a socially useful result (item 1). The principle of humanism Prevention activities should foster in the juvenile a feeling of respect for other members of society (item 1). At the same time, the principle of humanism is intimately connected to ensuring the harmonious development of adolescents with respect for and promotion of the personality of every child (item 2). Children should not be considered as merely objects of socialization, but rather as active participants in society (item 3). The principle of a social basis Prevention should be an activity that involves all of society. Not only politicians, but also private institutions and individual citizens must work towards prevention (item 2). This principle requires that prevention activities happen in the broadest possible circle of organizations and individuals, including juveniles themselves. Juveniles should not be considered as merely the object of socialization and control, but as active participants and partners in the realization of prevention (item 3). The principle of a social basis places social responsibility above that of institutions. Community and city programs and services should play the primary role in prevention. The state should intervene by its institutions only as a last resort in the most serious cases, when this is absolutely necessary for the protection of the child’s interests (items 6 and 5c). The principle of protecting the child’s interests This principle requires that every prevention activity be oriented toward the child and toward ensuring the child’s harmonious development (item 3). Prevention policies and measures must always be conducive to the child’s welfare (item 4). They should guarantee the child’s rights and interests (item 5d). Prevention activities should be conducted with the knowledge that youthful behavior or conduct that does not conform to overall social norms and values is often part of the maturation and growth process and tends to disappear spontaneously (item 5e).8 Protection of the child’s interests also requires prevention policies to establish conditions for successful socialization and integration for all children and youth (item 10, author’s italics). Prevention Policies and Measures That Should Be Applied Comprehensive prevention requires that multi-lateral plans be drawn up at the central and local levels. These plans should analyze the problems, to define the responsibilities of the 8

The second UN Congress on Crime, which took place in London in 1960, culminated in the proposal that the concept of “juvenile delinquency” (which in this report means illegal behavior by children under the age of 18) should connote only violations of criminal law and that unclear concepts, such as “anti-social behavior” and “disobedience” should be excluded, since they are typical to a child’s process of development and maturation. See ibid 4, pg. 23.

institutions, societal elements, and citizens involved in prevention, to coordinate cooperation between the latter, and to supervise and evaluate the process (item 9). These plans should include measures for: 1. dealing with poverty and with social and cultural changes (item 15); 2. ensuring a stable family environment for the child (item 13); 3. ensuring that all children have access to public education (item 20); 4. providing special care and attention for children at risk (item 24) and homeless children (items 33 and 38). Administration of Prevention The family, community, schools, businesses, youth organizations and volunteers should all be included in the administration of prevention policies. The family The Riyadh Guidelines place the family at the foundation of prevention policies. The family has the primary responsibility of socializing children and preventing their illegal behavior. For this reason the family should receive assistance from the whole society and from the state through the provision of various services such as, for example, trainings for parents about their roles and responsibilities vis-à-vis their children. When a stable family environment is absent, close relatives should cooperate to raise the child. If the child has not close relatives or if the relatives are unable to help, the state must help find a foster family or adoptive parents who are capable of creating a stable family environment for the child. School The Riyadh Guidelines stress education, which the state must provide for all children. It is essential that education include both academic and professional training, as well as acquainting the pupils with social values and fostering the pupils’ respect for people and society. This respect may be fostered through cooperative neighborhood and school activities and through the participation of parents and various youth organizations. The schools should acquaint children with their rights and responsibilities. Schools should not allow intolerance or the physical or psychological harassment of the children. The schools should foster in the children a sense of fairness through school programs and rules, as well as through pupils’ participation in the formulation of school policies and in the making of decisions about rules and discipline. Community The Riyadh Guidelines point out that community participates in prevention through provision of services and the establishment of programs directed at serving the special needs and solving the particular problems of young people. These services are accessible through community centers and homes for children who need shelter. These centers should provide programs for psychiatric help and therapy. The state and the municipalities should help stimulate the voluntary activities of these organizations and of individual citizens. The Media The public media should also participate in prevention policies by providing information about the problems of young people, about the activities organized by centers working with children, and about the other services that are available.

The State The Riyadh Guidelines require the state to give priority to programs dealing with the development of youth. The state should set aside resources for the realization of these programs. The programs should be based upon reliable scientific studies and practical experience. Their effectiveness should be evaluated on a regular basis. Participation in the programs must be voluntary. The state should provide training for law enforcement organs and for everyone involved in prevention activities. The state should establish institutions that provide services and care to children whose families are unable to provide them with the proper conditions for development. The state is responsible for creating a legislative basis that guarantees the prevention of juvenile crime. 9 2. The Administration of Justice The United Nations’ Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules)10 The Beijing Rules support the establishment of an autonomous model of juvenile justice that limits criminal intervention and aims at protecting the welfare of the child and his family. 11 The Rules recommend that states pass special laws, regulations, and decrees dealing with juvenile offenders and with all children, and which administer social and other measures. These rules consolidate the understanding that, wherever appropriate, juvenile offenders will be diverted from formal trial and will be subject instead to various social measures (rule 11). Principles The Beijing Rules specify the following principles related to the administration of ADR: 1. The principle of fair and humane treatment. Specifically, the goals of juvenile justice must be consistent with the child’s welfare, with his personality, and with the character of the offense committed. (rule 5.1); 2. The enforcement of a disciplinary measure as an alternative to the seeking of criminal responsibility requires the consent of the juvenile offender or his parents (rule 11.3). The commentary to this rule points out that without this consent some measures (such 9

With an eye to the prevention of juvenile delinquency the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommends that the governments of member states undertake or continue their concrete efforts toward preventing juvenile maladjustment and delinquency. Specifically the Committee recommends that this be done: “а) by implementing a comprehensive policy promoting the social integration of young people; b) by providing special assistance and the introduction of specialized programs, on an experimental basis, in schools or in young people’s or sports organizations for the better integration of young people who are experiencing serious difficulties in this field; c) by taking technical and situational measures to reduce the opportunities offered to young people to commit offenses.” See Recommendation R (87) 20 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. 10

Adopted by the UN General Assembly with Resolution № 40/33 on November 29, 1985.

These rules reflect the Caracas Declaration of the Sixth UN Congress on Crime, which took place in 1980. According to this Declaration, in juvenile cases attention should be paid not to the criminal sanctions for the offender, but rather to ensuring social justice as a means of preventing crime. See ibid 4, pg. 26.

as unpaid community service) would be in conflict with the International Labor Organization’s Abolition of Forced Labour Convention. 3. The decision to enforce a disciplinary measure must be subject to appeals (rule 11.3). The possibility to appeal a disciplinary measure represents a means of protecting the child against the use of force and pressure to consent to the enforcement of the measure in question. 4. Juvenile offenders must participate freely in their own trials and must have the ability to express their opinions (rule 14.2); 5. The institutionalization (the placement of a juvenile offender in a special institution or school) of juveniles must be enforced only as a last resort and should be used for the minimum necessary period (rule 19.1). The commentary to this rule points out that little or no difference has been observed in the relative success of institutionalization and non-institutionalization. At the same time many negative influences on a child’s personality are present in institutions. 6. The officers responsible for carrying out juvenile justice must have special training (rule 22.1); 7. The principle of non-discrimination in juvenile justice and of guaranteeing the rights or each and every juvenile must be observed in all phases of every trial, regardless of whether it is a court, administrative, or social trial. The rights in question include the presumption of innocents, the right to remain silent or to refuse to give an explanation, the right to a lawyer, the right of parents or guardians to participate, the right to call witnesses, the right to appeal to a higher organ, and the right to privacy (rules 7 and 8). 8. During all stages of justice juveniles must be provided with assistance in the form of lodging, education, vocational training, employment, or any other assistance that may prove helpful, practical, and conducive to the goals of the rehabilitation (rule 24.1).12 The Rules require additional development of scientific studies by independent scholars and institutions. These studies should lead to the planning and preparation of policies and should evaluate the various models of juvenile justice. Although these rules are enforced in different ways depending on the economic, social, and cultural conditions of each individual member state, the UN General Assembly asserts that “(the Rules) are nevertheless intended to be attainable as a policy minimum” 13 UN member 12

With an eye to the diversion from seeking criminal responsibility, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommends that state governments: “а) encourage the development of diversion and mediation procedures at the level of the public prosecutor (discontinuation of proceedings), or at the level of the police in countries where the police have prosecuting functions, in order to prevent minors from entering into the criminal justice system and suffering the ensuing consequences; by creating Child Protection Boards or services for the administration of these procedures; b) take the necessary measures to ensure that in such procedures: - The consent of the minor to the measures on which the diversion is based is conditional and that if necessary the cooperation of the family is secured; - Appropriate attention is paid to the rights and interests of the minor as well as to those of the victim.” See Recommendation R (87) 20 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. 13

Resolution of the UN General Assembly 40/33, 96th plenary session, November 29, 1985.

states are encouraged to notify the General Secretary of their fulfillment of the Beijing Rules and to periodically report to the Committee on Crime Prevention and Control about the results that they achieve. The United Nations’ Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules)14 These Rules aim at completing the development of non-custodial measures in countries’ judicial systems. They provide alternatives to the traditional model of justice, in which offenders are isolated from the other people in society. These Rules deal with everyone (including juvenile offenders) who is accused, tried, or convicted of a crime. The Rules may be applied at any stage of the proceedings. Principles The Tokyo Rules affirm the following principles: 1. The selection of a non-custodial measure should be based not only on the gravity and the nature of the offense committed, the personality, background of the offender, the purposes of sentencing but also on the rights of the victims (rule 3.2);15 2. The enforcement of measures before or instead of a formal judicial trial requires the consent of the offender (rule 3.4); 3. The authorities should have discretion at all stages at the proceedings to apply noncustodial measures (rule 3.3); 4. Sentencing should protect the privacy of the offender and his family, as well as the confidentiality of the offender’s police record (rules 3.11 and 3.12). The administration of justice is a complex process, and therefore requires the cooperation of several organs. In its own work, for example, the legislative organ may rely on reports prepared by competent officers in other organs, such as those of the social services. The report should include information about the offender in order to determine the nature of his criminal activity and the actual offenses he has committed. The report should also contain information and recommendations about the sentences that the offender has served and the punishment that should be administered in the new case. The report should be updated regularly. It should be factual, objective and unbiased, with any expression of opinion clearly defined (rule 7). Types of Measures Sentencing organs may put an end to legal proceedings by administering the following measures: a) verbal sanctions, such as admonition, reprimand and warnings; b) conditional discharge; c) status penalties; 14

Adopted by a resolution of the General Assembly 45/110 on December 14, 1990.

The latter is an addition to the Beijing Rules, and it consolidates the conceptions of rehabilitative justice (see SECTION THREE, below).

d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m)

economic sanctions and monetary penalties such as fines and day-fines; confiscation or an expropriation order; restitution for the victim or a compensation order; suspended or deferred sentence; probation and judicial supervision; a community service order; referral to an attendance centre; house arrest; any other mode of non-institutional treatment; some combination of the measures listed above. Supervision

If a non-custodial measure entails supervision, the latter must be carried out by a competent authority under the specific conditions prescribed by law. The goals of supervision are to prevent the offender from committing another illegal act and to assist in his re-integration into society in such a way as to minimize the likelihood of his return to crime. Supervision and rehabilitation should be periodically evaluated and the sentence should be adjusted as necessary. When needed, the offender should be provided with psychological, social, and financial assistance and with opportunities to increase his contacts with society and to facilitate his reintegration (rule 10). Conditions Under Which Non-custodial Measures Should Be Taken The conditions that the law specifies for the use of non-custodial measures should be practically oriented, precise, and as few as possible in number. They should aim to reduce the likelihood of the offender’s returning to a life of crime and they should increase the offender’s chances of becoming re-integrated into society. The needs of the victim should be taken into account. An offender’s violation of the conditions he agreed to when he accepted the noncustodial measures may lead to their modification (rule 12). Enforcement Officers The individuals entrusted with the enforcement of non-custodial measure should be personally suitable and, wherever possible, they should have appropriate professional training and practical experience. These requirements must be clearly specified in the law. In order to attract and hold onto qualified personnel, these officers must be ensured the appropriate working conditions, adequate salaries and benefits in accordance with the character of their work. They should be provided with ample opportunities for professional growth and career development (rule 15.3). Before entering duty, staff should undergo training that includes instruction on the nature of non-custodial measures, the purposes of supervision, and about the various modalities governing the administration of alternative measures. Training should be an ongoing process that continues after the officers begin their new job (rule 16). 3. Post-Institutional Care The United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty 16 16

Passed by the UN General Assembly with Resolution 45/113 of December14, 1990.

In the context of this study, the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty are significant primarily inasmuch as they deal with the rehabilitation of released offenders. All juveniles have something to gain from a system that helps them become reintegrated into society, into family life, into the educational system, or into the workplace after their release from a place of imprisonment. Therefore procedures should be created to make such a system possible. These procedures may include early release and specialized courses. The responsible organs must provide or ensure various services that assist juveniles’ reintegration into society and that prevent prejudice against released juvenile offenders. These services should guarantee that the juveniles have appropriate lodging and access to school, work, clothing, and enough money to support themselves in the period immediately after their release. The goal of these conditions is to facilitate the juveniles’ successful re-integration (rule 80). 4. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and Juvenile Justice The Convention for the Rights of the Child is the most important international agreement about children’s rights because of the fact that it has been signed and ratified by nearly all the countries in the world.17 Although the Convention is, above all, an agreement that aims to ensure a good future for children, it guarantees that certain principles will be followed. Some of these principles are related to juvenile justice. The Convention completes the model founded on the other three international documents that deal with juvenile justice. It requires that all procedures concerning children, including those that take place during the judicial process, focus on children’s rights. Responsibilities of States That Are Party to the Convention The Convention constitutes a broad list of responsibilities concerning children that states take on when they sign. Some of these responsibilities directly affect children. For example, the Convention refers to states’ responsibility to ensure education and effective justice for children. Other responsibilities affect children indirectly, such as states’ responsibility to assist parents, guardians, and other individuals responsible for children to carry out their roles in raising and caring for children. States are responsible for recognizing the rights of children who are suspected, accused, or convicted of violating penal law. These children have the right to be treated in a dignified manner consistent with their feeling of self-worth. Children must be treated in a manner that reflects their age. The treatment should help the children become re-integrated and should contribute to their taking a constructive role in society (Article 40, paragraph 1). When appropriate and desirable, states should take measures to solve problems related to juvenile offenders without resorting to judicial proceedings. This must be done in a way that protects human rights and other legal safeguards completely (Article 40, paragraph 3 (b)). A child who is suspected or accused of violating penal law must be guaranteed the following rights: 17

Ratified by the Republic of Bulgaria in 1991. Only the USA and Somalia had not signed the Convention by 2002. Somalia had not done so because its government was not recognized internationally. The USA has not signed the Convention because the US Congress and Senate can consider only one human rights treaty at any given time, and at the moment they are considering the ratification of the Convention for the Prevention of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

1. To be presumed innocent until proven guilty; 2. To by informed of the charges against him; 3. To be provided with legal or other necessary assistance during the preparation of his defense; 4. To be provided with a speedy and fair trial before a competent, independent, and unprejudiced institution; 5. Not to be forced or pressured into giving testimony or admitting his guilt; 6. To call witnesses or to have witnesses called in his name; 7. To participate equally in the interrogation of witnesses; 8. To be provided with an interpreter free of charge (if he does not understand or speak the language used during the proceedings); 9. To privacy at all stages of the proceedings; 10. To appeal the decision to a higher institution or judicial organ, which must be competent, independent, and unprejudiced; 11. To have his case heard in a speedy manner (Article 40). Oversight of Sentences The Convention establishes a Committee on the Rights of the Child, which examines the progress of states who are party to the Convention in achieving the realization of the obligations undertaken in the convention. 18 The states are required to present to the Committee regular reports about the measures that they have taken to guarantee the rights enumerated in the Convention and about the progress they have made towards achieving full compliance with these rights. In its concluding remarks, the Committee frequently recommends that states seek technical assistance for the improvement of their juvenile justice systems. This assistance can include training for judges, social workers, and law enforcement organs, which helps acquaint these officers with international standards.19 The Committee calls upon states to direct their efforts toward the drafting and ratification of all the laws and administrative and other measures necessary to assist their full compliance with all the articles of the Convention and other international standards for juvenile justice. The Committee points out the importance of determining and eliminating the major legal, social, and financial obstacles to full compliance with the Convention and other international standards. States must be aware of these obstacles in order to seek technical assistance and improve their performance. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has accepted the task of stimulating the work of the various responsible UN organs towards developing juvenile justice and compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international standards.20

Article 43

Commission on Human Rights. Civil and Political Rights, Including the Question of: Independence of the Judiciary, Administration of Justice, Impunity, Human rights in the administration of justice, in particular of children and juveniles in detention, Report of the Secretary-General submitted pursuant to Commission resolution 1998/39 E/CN.4/2000/54 20 Recommendations on “The administration of juvenile justice”, adopted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child in the "Report on the twentysecond session" (Geneva, 20 September-8 October 1999).

After examining the reports of 141 states, the Committee determined that 21 of them (including Bulgaria) need to undertake “comprehensive” reforms of their juvenile justice systems. These reforms must improve every component of the system – the courts, the police, the prisons, the programs for alternative treatment, and the organs that facilitate cooperation between these components. The reforms require the restructuring of the old organs, the establishment of new ones, legislative changes, the improvement of cooperation between organs, and the initiation of training programs. These reforms will require time, resources, and political will. 21

See Bruce Abtamson, Juvenile Justice: The “Unwanted Child” of State Responsibilities. An Analysis of the Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child in regard to Juvenile Justice, from 1993 to 2000. The document is available online at the site of International Network on Juvenile Justice, Defence for Children International, www.defence-for-children.org

SECTION TWO I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF THE USE OF ADR IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN BULGARIA AND ANALYSIS OF THIS FRAMEWORK 1. Criminal Responsibility and Formal Retributive Justice The Criminal Code, the Minor Misdemeanor Decree, and the Administrative Offenses and Penalties Act set out that juveniles in Bulgaria are responsible for committing illegal acts. Only those individuals who are at least 14 years of age, who understand the nature and implications of their acts and who are able to control their own behavior have the capacity to bear criminal responsibility.22 Such individuals are responsible for their illegal acts that constitute a threat to public order when the acts correspond to the corpus delicti of crimes listed in the Criminal Code. These individuals are held criminally responsible following the procedure set out in the Criminal Procedure Code. Adolescents (individual between 14 and 18) are subject to specific regime of criminal responsibility and punishments. They can be sentenced only to deprivation of liberty, public censure, and revocation of the right to exercise a certain vocation or activity.23 Individuals who have turned 16 years of age, who understand the nature and meaning of their acts, and manage their own behavior are administratively responsible, as well. Individuals 18 years of age and older are administratively responsible to the full extent and under normal circumstances their capacity to bear this responsibility is not questioned. Administratively responsible individuals who have committed an administrative offense may be punished with a fine, public censure, or revocation of the right to exercise a certain vocation or activity. 24 Upon committing an act amounting to minor misdemeanor 25 those who have turned 16 years of age bear administrative liability and may be punished with a fine and a special administrative punishment – detention in the units of the Ministry of the Interior for a period of up to 15 days. Administrative punishment is not imposed on these juveniles in cases where the nature of the act and the personality of the defendant suggest that Local Commissions for Combating Antisocial Acts of Minors and Adolescents can successfully impose measures of public impact. 26 22

Article 31, Criminal Code.

Article 62, Criminal Code.

The situation for offenders between the ages of 14 and 16 is special. When these juveniles commit administrative offenses, the law stipulates that their parents, custodians, and guardians are held responsible. However, a necessary pre-emptive condition for this is that these people must have consciously allowed the commission of the illegal act in question. See Tsvetan Sivkov, Penal Administrative Liability of Children under Bulgarian Law (in Bulgarian). The study may be found on the Internet site of the Reform in the Correctional Boarding School in Boytchinovtzi project at: www.boichinovtsi.net 25

According to Article 2 of the Minor Misdemeanor Decree, a minor misdemeanor is defined as any improper conduct, which may take the form of: swearing, verbal harassment or other abusive language used in public before a group of people; insulting behavior or conduct towards other citizens, authorities or the public; or a quarrel, fight or other similar acts that violate public order and peace. Because these acts present a lesser degree of social threat they do not amount to crimes under article 325 of the Criminal Code. 26

Article 4, Minor Misdemeanor Decree.

2. Exemption from Criminal Responsibility and the Use of ADR Juvenile offenders may be exempted from criminal and administrative responsibility. 2.1 Exemption from Criminal Responsibility The premises for exemption of juveniles from criminal responsibility are specified in the Criminal Code.27 Exemption is possible in cases where: 1. The criminal act does not constitute great social danger; 2. The criminal act was carried away because of obsession or frivolity; 3. There is a fair chance the juvenile offender will be reformed following the application of disciplinary measures only. 28 Preliminary proceedings are not required for exempting juveniles from criminal responsibility. It is also possible that a preliminary verification conducted in the case will establish the presence of these three conditions, so that the juvenile may immediately be exempted from criminal responsibility. The competent authorities to exempt juvenile offenders from criminal liability are the Public prosecutor and the Court. 2.2 Exemption from Administrative Liability The Administrative Offenses and Penalties Act provides the possibility for exemption of juveniles from administrative responsibility for minor offenses. In such cases, illegal acts are reported to the Local Commissions for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents . These Commissions impose disciplinary measures. All administrative authorities, which, by force of law have, or have been entrusted with, powers to impose sanctions on administrative offenders may make decisions to exempt juvenile offenders from administrative responsibility. In cases where juveniles are exempted from responsibility, they may be sentenced to disciplinary measures under the 1958 Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents Act (below referred to as CAAMAA) or special protection measures under the 2000 Child Protection Act (below referred to as CPA).

Articles 61 and 78.

The possibility for exemption from criminal liability is available only to juveniles who are under 18 both at the time of the illegal act and at the moment the decision with regard to criminal responsibility is taken. Once an offender turns 18, he may no longer benefit from exemption from criminal responsibility, even if he was under age at the time when he committed the offense. This particular legal rule is to the detriment of juvenile offenders and is unreasonable. Therefore certain authors have been correct in criticizing it. See Anton Gerginov and Zdravko Trajkov, An Interpretation of the Criminal Code, General Provisions, Volume II, p. 371.

In contrast to administrative or criminal penalties, disciplinary measures under the CAAMAA 29 are not an expression of state repression implemented on the occasion of an offense or crime. The objective illegality of the act is a necessary and sufficient prerequisite for their imposition. 30 Since disciplinary measures do not require the presence of guilt, they may be enforced on children, too. Special protection measures under CPA are enforced with regard to children at risk. At-risk children are defined as those who have no parents or who lack parental protection, as well as those who have been victims of abuse or violence, those whose physical, mental, moral, intellectual, and social development are endangered, those who suffer from mental or physical disabilities, and those whose have diseases that are difficult to treat. Special protection measures for these children are an expression of the state’s concern with the welfare of children. The following chapters of this report examine the authorities, procedures, and measures envisaged in CAAMAA and CPA in greater detail. 3. Description of the Main Authorities, Procedures, and Measures under the Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents Act Objectives The CAAMAA does not expressly specify its objectives. These may be inferred, however, from the general provisions contained in Chapter I of the Act and, above all, from the activities listed in Article 1. The Act’s main objectives can be construed as prevention and break-off of illegal behavior that poses a threat to social relations and restoration of affected relations. The Act also aims to facilitate the normal development and education of perpetrators of such acts. To achieve the above objectives, legislation has envisaged the establishment of certain authorities and the introduction of disciplinary measures. It has also specified the procedures to be followed in the process of imposing these measures. Main Authorities and Their Competence The authorities responsible for carrying out the activities under this Act include: Commissions for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents (the Central, Local, and Schoolbased ones); Inspectors from Child Pedagogical Centers (which exist in each municipal police office); Social Educational Boarding Schools; Correctional Boarding Schools; Homes for the Temporary Placement of Juveniles; and Shelters for Children without Parental Supervision. The Commissions and Inspectors from Child Pedagogical Centers play a central role in the above system of authorities. The Central Commission has specific responsibilities in determining and controlling the implementation of state policy with regard to juvenile offenders. 31 The Commission operates as a separate unit, administratively subordinate to the Council of Ministers. Deputy Ministers of 29

Disciplinary measures constitute actual measures of administrative compulsion, as defined by Ivan Dermendzhiev, Dimitar Kostov, and Doncho Hrussanov in their Administrative Law in the Republic of Bulgaria, General Provisions, Sofia, 1994, p. 296. 30

According to Prof. Dobri Dimitrov administrative penalties are “imposed” and measures of administrative compulsion are “enforced” (See his Administrative Law, General Provisions, Sibi Publishing, 1994, p. 233). However the CAAMAA makes use of the former of the two verbs with regard to disciplinary measures. Therefore, this study will use the verb “impose” when referring to disciplinary measures.

most important ministries and agencies are members of this Commission, as are other eminent public figures. A Deputy Prime Minister chairs the Commission. Local Commissions have been established in each municipality. 32 These are composed of municipal administrative officers responsible for implementing child-focused activities in areas such as education and public health, as well as police officers and local public figures. By law, a prosecutor from the District Prosecutor’s Office must be present at sessions of the Commission. The Mayor approves the list of Commission members. Their positions are not paid. Only Commission Secretaries assigned to municipalities with populations above 10,000 people are remunerated, and the Mayor determines the amount of their salaries. The operational costs of Local Commissions are covered by the municipal budget and from the Commissions’ own revenues. The Local Commissions center their activities around the administration and implementation of a policy for prevention and combating of antisocial conduct by juveniles. Their functions are: • Preventive, since they set up and coordinate general prevention activities at the local level; • Probation-related, since they exercise supervision over juvenile offenders who have been conditionally sentenced; they may propose early release from specialized institutions – such as Correctional and Social Educational Boarding Schools – and refer offenders to the oversight of prosecutors and parole commissions; • Consultative, since they are under the obligation to provide assistance to parents who have difficulties raising their children; • Focus on re-socialization, since they provide assistance in solving the housing and welfare issues of children released from specialized institutions; • Controlling, since they exercise control over Child Pedagogical Centers, Social Educational Boarding Schools, Shelters, Correctional Boarding Schools, Correctional Homes, and Homes for Temporary Placement, as well as over custodians and guardians of persons who have not come of age. Local Commissions annually report their activities to the Mayor, the Municipal Council, and the Central Commission for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents . Inspectors affiliated with Child Pedagogical Centers should have a pedagogical background. 33 The Centers are one man or two men unit with the local police office. The Inspectors are responsible for finding and identifying juvenile offenders, juvenile victims of criminal offenses, or children who have fallen out of parental supervision or are living in an unhealthy environment, wandering or begging. Measures Of all the authorities set out in the Act, only the Local Commissions may impose disciplinary measures on juvenile offenders. The imposition of these measures is intended to “achieve an 31

On powers of the Central Commission, see items listed under a), b), d), and e) of article 8, the Combating Antisocial Acts of Minors and Adolescents Act. 32

At the beginning of 2002, there were 243 Local Commissions for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents . 33

There were approximately 250 Inspectors with Child Pedagogical Centers in Bulgaria as of the end of 2001, according to data from an unpublished Sofia UNDP Report on Children in Conflict with the Law.

educative effect, a positive change in their motivation and a correction of conduct, overcoming the deformities and deficiencies in their moral development.”34 Measures can be divided into several groups, depending on their nature and orientation: 1. Measures of a moral nature: • Reprimand; • Warning; and • Warning on possible placement in a Correctional Boarding School within 6 months of probation. 2. Measures related to various types of supervision: • Placement in the custody of parents, or their legal substitutes, under the obligation of providing special care; • Placement under the disciplinary supervision of co-workers; and • Placement under the disciplinary supervision of a public tutor. 3. Measures related to certain obligations of offenders: • To present apologies to the victim; • To eliminate damages through their own efforts and labor; • To compensate pecuniary damages, provided that the juvenile offender has income of his/her own and that the damages do not exceed the minimum monthly salary set in the country; and • To perform unpaid community service. 4. Measures related to placement in special institutions: • Placement in a Social Educational Boarding School; • Placement in a Correctional Boarding School. Local Commissions for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents may fine parents, where they have not taken proper care of their children, or may require them to attend educational lectures and consultations. Local Commissions may propose the limitation or full revocation of parental rights. Procedure The main powers of Local Commissions for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents are related to the examination of disciplinary files and the imposition of disciplinary measures. Files are examined by a Commission panel, which consists of a Chair and two members. According to the CAAMAA, Local Commissions examine offenses committed by children aged 8 through 18. The Commissions may take disciplinary measures in cases of: • Administrative offenses where perpetrators do not have the capacity of holding, or have been exempted from, administrative responsibility; 35

See the 2000 Report of the Central Commission for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents , ibid. 1, p. 21. 35

Article 12, a) and c) of the Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents Act read in combination with Article 29 of the Administrative Offenses and Penalties Act and Article 4 of the Minor Misdemeanor Decree.

• •

Crimes where perpetrators do not have the capacity of holding, or have been exempted by a Prosecutor or the Court from, criminal responsibility; 36 Acts constituting a major threat to public order. 37

The Act does not provide a definition of an act constituting a threat to public order. Interpretation of this notion, based on comparison with offenses and crimes, allows the conclusion that this is an act that infringes upon not only legal rights, but also ethical, moral and religious rights. Disciplinary measures imposed as a consequence of acts constituting a threat to public order are the articulation of public response to these acts.38 Disciplinary measures may be imposed against offenders who are a minimum of 8 years old. This restriction applies to cases of both administrative offenses and violations of criminal law. A disciplinary case of a juvenile’s misdemeanors may be initiated upon the proposal of pedagogical committees, social workers or public tutors, or at the request of citizens, by a court order, or by a decision of the police of the prosecutor’s office. 39 The juvenile offender, at least one of the parents, and a public defender chosen by the juvenile and his/her parents take part in the process of examination of misdemeanors. In cases where the juvenile and his family cannot find or choose a defender, the Commission will appoint one ex officio.40 The Act has expressly prohibited the participation of practicing lawyers as defenders. Depending on the nature of the offense and the conduct of the juvenile offender, two disciplinary measures may be imposed at once. The Commission’s decisions may be appealed to the Mayor. The Mayor, in turn, may repeal these decisions and forward the file to the Commission for a new decision. When the decision sets out for placement in a Correctional Boarding School, the file is officially referred to the District Judge. He/she may (but is not obligated to) order an appointment requiring the personal presence of the young offender and his/her parents. The court may uphold the Commission’s decision, repeal it and set the file aside, or impose another measure. It may also repeal the decision and dispose of the file. The court rules in camera.

Article 12, a) and b) of the Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents Act read in Combination with Article 61 of the Criminal Code. 37

Article 12, d) of the Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents Act. 38

Dermendjiev, Kostov, and Hrussanov (1994) refer to measures taken in response to acts constituting a threat to public order as “measures of public impact.” See ibid. 29, p. 297 39

The two latter institutions would most often propose bringing up formal cases. See Status and Trends in Crime and Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents. Crimes against Them. Activities of the Central and Local Commissions for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents (1999), p. 21. 40

According to Mrs. Velichka Kajnakchieva, Secretary of the Local Commission for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents in the town of Blagoevgrad, an officer of the municipal department for protection of children is usually appointed as a public defender in this town. Kajnakchieva made this statement at a Conference on Prevention of Antisocial Conduct by Juveniles, February 5, 2002, held under the auspices of the APF.

Other Authorities Providing Assistance to Local Commissions Public Tutors Public tutors are required to provide assistance to parents and their legal substitutes in correcting and re-educating juvenile offenders. 41 The Local Commission assigns a public tutor to a juvenile offender in cases this is necessary to prevent the absence of supervision or to prevent the juvenile’s committing another offense. Public Tutors are also assigned to juvenile offenders who have been exempted from criminal liability and have not been placed in a Correctional Boarding School; to juvenile offenders who have been conditionally sentenced or sentenced to a non-custodial punishment; to juvenile offenders who have served a sentence to deprivation of liberty or have been released early on parole; to juvenile offenders whose stay in a Correctional Boarding School or a Social Educational Boarding School has been terminated; and to juvenile offenders who have been sentenced to a disciplinary measure in the form of supervision by a public tutor. The Local Commission may also assign a public tutor to other young people who face a serious risk to their development and education. The main obligations of a public tutor are to provide assistance to parents or their legal substitutes in the process of education of youth; to provide assistance for the proper management of training, work, and recreation of youth; to exercise supervision over the conduct of youth; and to care for their proper upbringing. Public tutors are entitled to visit the young in their homes or other lodgings, at school or at work. The tutors draw the parents’ attention to their non-fulfillment of their duties. They may demand any information that they deem appropriate regarding the juvenile offender’s education from their parents or their legal substitutes and from schooling institutions. They may raise before the Local Commission the issues of conduct of the young, their parents or legal substitutes thereof, in order to bring about the enforcement of relevant measures. Public tutors are remunerated for their work and report to the Local Commissions. 42 Social Workers A social worker is an employee of the Social Welfare Assistance Service and has the following duties and obligations under the CAAMAA: to trace down, identify and report on young people who are under potential social threat and to take measures for their social protection; to provide assistance in resolving the social welfare issues of children and juveniles who have committed acts constituting a threat to public order and of their families; in cooperation with the Labor Bureaus and the employers, to secure employment and normal living conditions for juveniles released from Correctional Boarding Schools, Social Educational Boarding Schools, Shelters, and Correctional Homes; to work in cooperation with the Local Commissions, the Children’s Pedagogical Centers, and the Public Tutors and to follow the growth and education of those children and juveniles who have been placed in Correctional and Social Educational Boarding Schools.43 41

According to the 1999 Annual Report of the Central Commission for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents, 1,056 public tutors were active during that year in Bulgaria. Their remuneration was determined in an Ordinance issued by the Chair of the Central Commission. In 1995 the CCCAAMA adopted methodological instructions on the activities of public tutors. 42

According to Mrs. Dicheva of the Central Commission, certain Municipalities cannot employ public tutors due to constraints in municipal budgets. Author’s interview, October 17, 2000. 43

After the Child Protection Act came into force and Child Protection Departments were established in municipalities, these functions were taken over by officials of the latter. The relevant provision of the Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents Act has not been abolished.

Public Defenders The CAAMAA establishes the institution of the public defender, whose task is to participate in the examination of disciplinary records to ensure the protection of the interests of young people.44 The Act stipulates that only individuals who have a good reputation in society and who enjoy the confidence of young people and their parents or guardians may become public defenders. If a child or his/her parents do not indicate a public defender, the Local Commission will appoint one. A public defender may appeal the disciplinary measures taken by the Local Commission for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents. School Commissions for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents 45 Commissions for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents exist in schools, as well as at the local and central levels. School commissions are governed by a Deputy Headmaster and their members include psychologists, teachers, and parents. The functions of these Commissions deal primarily with prevention, but the School Commissions are also competent to propose the imposition of disciplinary measures. They have relations with the Local Commissions and make proposals for examination of certain disciplinary records. They may also submit proposals for the appointment of a public tutor. School Commissions work in cooperation with the Inspectors from the Children’s Pedagogical Centers. 4. Description of the Authorities, Procedures, and Measures under the Child Protection Act The Child Protection Act of 2000 established the rights, main principles, and measures for child protection. It also established state and municipal authorities and procedures for interaction between these authorities when conducting child protection activities, and it facilitated the participation of not-for-profit organizations, businesses, and individuals in such activities. This Act represents the state’s first attempt to ensure, in a single Act, the protection of children and to bring Bulgarian legislation into conformity with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Act guarantees a catalogue of children’s rights and sets up a system of authorities at the central and local levels to organize and coordinate the implementation of state policy on child protection, as well as to grant practical efficiency to the adopted measures for protection. The basic rights that this Act guarantees to children are: • The right to protection (in general); • The right to protection from violence; • The right to freedom of expression concerning all matters of personal interest; • The right to information and consultation provided by the Authority on Child Protection in all cases where this proves necessary in order to ensure the best protection of the child’s interests; • The right to religious convictions; • The right to representation by officials of the Child Protection Department in cases specified by law;

The need for a public defender has become apparent on account of the fact that practicing lawyers are not allowed to appear before the Local Commissions in the process of examination of disciplinary files. 45

The sole normative provisions with regard to the activities of the School Commissions are contained in an Instruction of the Deputy Minister of Education of June 29, 1979.

• •

The right to legal assistance and action in all proceedings affecting the child’s rights or interests; The guarantee that personal data will remain confidential.

On the one hand, the Child Protection Act has taken children out of the object position by guaranteeing their rights and making them active participants in social relations affecting them. On the other hand, the Act stipulates clearly phrased, specific obligations for the state and society with regard to children at risk. At-risk children include children without parents or those who have continuously been left without protection; children who have been victims of abuse or violence; children who are at risk in terms of their physical, mental, ethical, intellectual, and social growth; and children who suffer from mental or physical disabilities, especially when the medical treatment for their diseases is difficult or impossible. 46 Authorities State Agency for Child Protection (SACP) The Agency for Child Protection is a specialized authority established under the Council of Ministers to manage and coordinate state policy on child protection. It started operation on January 1, 2001. The Agency’s mission is to provide methodological guidance and control to municipal Social Welfare Assistance Services conducting activities on child protection, as well as to provide encouragement to not-for-profit organizations implementing child-focused programs. Cooperation with ministries and other agencies whose activities are child-related is a main principle underlying all activities of the Agency. Institutional cooperation is facilitated through the existence of a National Board on Child Protection, which is a consultative formation of the Agency consisting of representatives of non-governmental organizations and deputy ministers of various ministries that are concerned with the implementation of state policies dealing with children. The Chair of the Agency submits an Annual Report on the Agency’s activities to the Council of Ministers. 47 Child Protection Departments The Child Protection Departments established within municipal Social Welfare Assistance Services are the local authorities that carry out child protection under this Act. These departments are subject to double subordination – institutionally, they belong to the social welfare assistance system and report to the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy, but they receive methodologically guidance and control from the State Agency for Child Protection. 48 The Child Protection Departments are fully competent to enforce measures for protection and they also maintain registers of children at risk. They employ primarily social workers. Content, Nature, and Types of Measures for Special Protection The special protection of children at risk requires preventive and protective measures in both family and non-family environments. In the family environment, these measures are intended to provide educational, psychological, and legal assistance to parents, referral to social rehabilitation and integration centers, and consultations for children and parents. They also offer assistance in improving living conditions, as well as in conflict-resolution and crisis management in child-parent relations. 46

Paragraph 5 of the Additional Provisions.

As of March 2002, the 2001 Report of the Agency had not been adopted yet.

As of March 2002, the State Agency’s Methodological Guidelines had not yet been finalized.

Measures for protection in a non-family environment consist of: • Placement in a family of relatives or close acquaintances; • Placement in a foster family; • Placement in a special institution. The principle of subsidiarity is applied in the process of determining the measures to be taken. Placement in a special institution (according to the Act, this is an institution where children are brought up and educated) is used only as a last resort when all possibilities of leaving the child in a family environment have been exhausted. Only the District Court may place children outside the family. The municipal Social Welfare Assistance Service, a Prosecutor, or a parent may submit a request for the imposition of this measure. The Child Protection Act also provides the possibility of granting police protection. 49 This is used only as a last resort, when it is necessary to forcefully protect the interests of a child. This is true in cases where the child’s life or health is under imminent threat or where the child has been the victim of a crime. It is also true in cases where a child has been lost, is in a state of helplessness or has been left without supervision. Police protection covers a period of up to 24 hours, after which a social worker must take over. Social workers with the Social Welfare Assistance Services may find violations of duties under the Child Protection Act. The Head of the municipal Social Welfare Assistance Service can issue a penal order in this case. The sanction for offenders is a fine of between 50 and 100 leva (approximately 25 and 50 Euro respectively). There is also a fine for non-fulfillment of official duties under the act. This fine ranges between 100 and 200 leva. The law does not stipulate an exact relationship between the Child Protection Act and the CAAMAA.50 5. Statistics Statistics on Criminal Cases Taken to Court Statistical evidence shows an overall decrease in juvenile crime over recent years. However, there has been an increase in the number of juveniles convicted. According to the National Statistical Institute,51 the total number of juvenile convicts in 2000 was 3,392 (compared to 2,631 in 1999). The share of juvenile convicts has also risen compared to the share of adult convicts. Juveniles made up 9% of all convicts in 1999 and 11.2% of all convicts in 2000. The number of conditional sentences has decreased during this period. In 2000 these were only 58.2% of all convictions, whereas in 1999 they had been 66.9 % of all convictions. The number of convicts with records in Child Pedagogical Centers has also risen. In 2000 the share of those under report prior to conviction was of 31.3 % of all convictions. 49

This possibility is regulated in an Ordinance on Police Protection issued by the Minister of the Interior.

So far relations between the Central Commission for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents and the State Agency for Child Protection have been reduced to the participation of the Commission Secretary in the Agency’s National Board and to the participation of the Agency Chair in the Central Commission for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents. This information is from the author’s interview with lawyers from the State Agency on March 7, 2002. 51

Data are taken from the 1999 Annual Report of the Central Commission for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents.

The educational background of juvenile convicts is very poor – 50.6% of the convicts are illiterate or have not completed their basic education and 44.1% have only elementary education. The proportion of juvenile convicts from no-income families or families with inconsistent income has risen. In 1999 70% of juvenile convicts came from such families, and by 2000 this contingent had increased to 99.8% of all juvenile convicts. In terms of ethnicity, 1,766 juvenile convicts indicated that they were Bulgarians, 1,406 identified themselves as Roma, and 210 were Turks. The number of placements in correctional homes has increased. As of January 1, 2001, 52 118 children were placed in such homes. Forty-eight of these cases were children whose sentence had already entered into force. On January 1, 2000, one year earlier, these numbers were 114 and 44, respectively. Statistics on Activities of the Local Commissions Two hundred forty-three Local Commissions were operating in Bulgaria as of the end of 2000. According to the 2000 Annual Report of the Central Commission for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents, 53 Local Commissions have examined 4,917 disciplinary records and have taken 6,800 disciplinary measures. This represents a decrease in the numbers of cases and of measures imposed compared to the previous year (1999), when they were 5,485, 7,923, and 6,044, respectively. Results for 2000 show that the following disciplinary measures are applied most frequently: warning, placement in the custody of parents under the obligation of providing special care, reprimand, and placement under the supervision of a public tutor. The number of placements in Correctional Boarding Schools has fallen. In 2000, 195 children were placed in Correctional Boarding Schools and 689 were placed in Social Educational Boarding Schools (In 1999 the number of those placed in Correctional Boarding Schools was 204). Two-thirds of the children on whom the Local Commissions for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents had imposed some kind of measure had only basic education or were illiterate. Juveniles made up 66% of all people on whom disciplinary measures were imposed, and children under the age of 14 made up 34%. According to the 2000 Report of the Central Commission, the Local Commissions’ efforts were aimed at implementing prevention through consultations with specialists, training seminars, and lectures intended to assist the children’s personality growth, as well as to raise their awareness of AIDS-related issues, religious sects, and sexual education. The same report indicates that Local Commissions have started using technical devices, such as modern audio-visual equipment and computers, more extensively. They have also increased their interaction with cable TV stations. 6. Comments of the UN Committee for the Rights of the Child about the Bulgarian Juvenile Justice System 52

These data are from the General Directorate for General Management of Custodial Institutions and are quoted in Children in Conflict with Law, unpublished, ibid. 33 53

See the 2000 Annual Report of the Central Commission for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents , ibid. 1.

In 1997 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child published its Conclusions and Observations on the occasion of the Bulgarian government’s first report regarding the condition and status of children in the country. The Committee expressed concerns about the administration of juvenile justice and, more specifically, about the Bulgarian system’s compliance with articles 37, 39, and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other applicable standards, such as the Beijing Rules, the Riyadh Guidelines, and the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty. The Committee recommended that Bulgaria should undertake a comprehensive reform of the juvenile justice system in the spirit of the above documents.54 Particular attention should be paid to children’s rights to legal assistance and to the judicial review of decisions that affect them. Training programs should be implemented in order to inform all professionals working in the field of juvenile justice about relevant international standards. The establishment of special courts ought to become a priority.55 In view of these recommendations, the Committee has encouraged Bulgaria to establish close cooperation with non-governmental organizations and to seek technical assistance from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Crime Prevention Center, and the UN Criminal Law Section. The Committee was also of the opinion that appropriate alternatives to institutional care must be developed. These alternatives should be based on the best interests of the juveniles, as well as on the affirmation of their harmonious development and preparation for responsible participation in public life. 56 7. Analysis of National Legislation and Its Compliance with International Standards for the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Juvenile Justice Compliance of ADR in the Administration of Juvenile Justice in Bulgaria with International Standards 1. Bulgarian legislation has provided for special institutions related to the administration of juvenile justice. 2. Opportunities are available for the use of alternative approaches in the administration of juvenile justice. These have been provided for in the Criminal Code, the Administrative Offenses and Penalties Act, the Minor Misdemeanor Decree, and the CAAMAA. 3. Public authorities specialized in enforcing disciplinary measures with regard to juvenile offenders have been established and have been in operation for almost 50 years. Child Protection Departments were set up in 2001 and one of their main goals is to ensure special protections for the welfare of children at risk. 4. These authorities are entitled to make assessments in the process of examination of cases concerning juvenile offenders. 5. Existent disciplinary measures, except for placement in a Social Educational Boarding School, are in line with the types of measures used all over the world.

Ibid. 2

Ibid. para. 20

Ibid. para. 27

6. Placement in a Correctional Boarding School is a disciplinary measure that is only possible as a last resort. Non-Compliance of ADR in the Administration of Juvenile Justice in Bulgaria with International Standards and their Regulation Deficiencies 1. The juvenile justice system is far too slow and inconsistent. This is because it is based on a large number of various legislative acts and also because of the large number of authorities that are needed for its operation. There is a lack of continuity among the various relevant legislative acts. In some cases the relationships between certain acts is unclear or has been left undefined, as is the case with the relationship between the Child Protection Act and the CAAMAA. 2. It is not clear who is responsible for decisions about whether special measures of protection under the Child Protection Act or disciplinary measures under the CAAMAA need to be taken in response to any given offense committed by a juvenile. 3. There is no legal basis for cooperation among the various authorities established by the different acts. In some cases authorities have overlapping responsibilities. This is the case with the public tutors established under the CAAMAA and the officials of the Child Protection Departments. 4. There is no system of measures for prevention. Prevention has been totally excluded from the CAAMAA. 5. The types of offenses for which Local Commissions may open disciplinary cases and impose disciplinary measures have not been expressly specified. At the same time, however, this detail seems to be of particular importance, as not all members of Local Commissions are lawyers. 6. In several places the CAAMAA makes use of outdated terminology, characteristic of a paternalistic approach to juvenile justice. For instance, disciplinary measures may be imposed for anti-social acts; the name of the Act itself refers to the combating anti-social acts. This notion covers not only actual crimes and offenses, but also any acts that infringe upon abstract, moral, religious, and philosophical norms in society. The imposition of disciplinary measures in response to such acts is an approach that has been abandoned in developed countries as a manifestation of intolerance for normal conduct expressing disagreement with and rebellion against society. This behavior is normal and characterizes the normal development of youth. 57 7. The CAAMAA does not provide a legal definition for a “major anti-social act constituting a threat to public order.” It thus gives Local Commissions full discretion and provides no guarantees against their arbitrariness. 8. The law does not place a maximum limit on the length of time for which disciplinary measures may be imposed. The only exceptions are for the measure of placement in a Correctional Boarding School (maximum three years) and the warning for possible placement in a Correctional Boarding School (six months). 57

S. ibid. 8.

9. Placement in a Social Educational Boarding School is a controversial disciplinary measure. This is because it is applied both to juvenile offenders and to children who have been exposed to influences believed to be conducive to their future commission of acts constituting a threat to public order (for instance, children who have been victims of crime).58 Placement in a Social Educational Boarding School amounts to separating the child from his family environment. However, the CAAMAA does not stipulate that the courts may impose this measure only as a last resort and in accordance with the Child Protection Act. 10. In practice, the Social Educational Boarding Schools are not very different from the Correctional Boarding Schools. Consequently, it is not clear why the law envisages two separate measures applied through separate procedures. 11. The law does not require the juvenile offender’s consent before the use of ADR in the administration of justice, nor does it require the child’s participation in specifying the disciplinary measures to be imposed. Contestations of guilt before the Local Commissions does not lead to referral of the case to formal criminal proceedings. To sentence a juvenile to a disciplinary measure involving his unpaid work or labor (such as unpaid community service) without his prior consent is a violation of the ILO Convention on forced labor of 1930.59 12. In certain cases the Local Commissions act like an adjudicating authority when examining the case. Such is the case when no criminal investigation has been conducted prior to the case referral to the LCCAAMA. In such cases the latter has the duty to prove the perpetrator and the offense. This requires legal safeguards for juvenile’s rights to be secured like the right to question witnesses or to have witnesses called on his behalf; the right to have an interpreter provided free of charge if the child does not speak the language used in the proceedings, the right to be heard in judicial proceedings for review of placement in a Correctional Boarding School etc. These rights are not explicitly guaranteed by law. The right to defense counsel during the process of examination of their disciplinary cases is excluded by law. 13. There is no requirement for the periodic review of the disciplinary measures after they have been imposed. This is especially problematic in cases where a child has been placed under supervision. 14. Compensating the victim’s damages and making amends is not always given decisive importance in the determination of disciplinary measures. Compensation is only considered in cases of pecuniary damages. Local Commissions are under no obligation to take action that will compensate the victim or facilitate the making of amends. 15. Personal qualities and motivations are not among the criteria for appointment of Local Commission members. The Act only requires certain professional qualifications.

S. Article 6, item 2, b) of Social Educational Boarding Schools Regulations.

This convention was ratified by Bulgaria on 22 September 1932.

16. Local Commission members are not paid for their work, and the municipalities provide them no encouragement or incentives to do a good job. Local Commission members and officers of the Child Protection Departments make an important contribution to child welfare and should be stimulated and encouraged in their work. 17. The law does not stipulate any specific minimum duties or obligations of municipalities in terms of financing the activities of Local Commissions and Child Protection Departments. ІІ. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES IN THE MUNICIPALITIES OF LOM AND VIDIN Lom General Information According to information from the Local Bureau for Social Services, there are 10 primary and secondary schools in the town of Lom. These schools educate 4,350 students. Two hundred thirty-six students with special education needs attend the Special Assistance School, and 3,059 students attend primary and elementary schools. In primary and elementary schools 1,940 students are ethnically Bulgarian, 1,115 are of Roma origin and 4 belong to other ethnicities. Three orphans, 46 semi-orphans, and 8 children with physical disabilities are trained in the basic schools. One hundred eight children in the town do not go to school, and 161 are chronically truant. One thousand two hundred ninety-one students are enrolled in secondary schools. Of those, 1,085 are ethnically Bulgarian, 203 are Roma, and 3 belong to other ethnicities. The Local Commission’s 2000 Report indicates that 21 cases of offenses committed by 24 juveniles were registered in the municipality in the course of the year. Six of the perpetrators have committed repeat offenses. The number of offenses increased compared to 1999. The most common offenses were theft of various items and housing equipment from private homes and theft of food from shops. Preliminary proceedings were opened against 7 offenders. In 2000 the Local Commission dealt with a total of 30 perpetrators and 16 offenses. One warning, 25 disciplinary measures of placement in the supervision of parents under the obligation to provide special care, one placement under the supervision of co-workers, and two placements in a Social Educational Boarding School were imposed. There was a single instance of warning for possible placement in a Correctional Boarding School. The District Court reported that in 2001 it examined 45 indictments against juveniles. Three of these were dismissed, two cases were set aside and remanded to the Lom District Prosecution Office, three people were served conditional sentences, twelve were fined, and 25 were sentenced to public censure. The information on the activities of authorities dealing with juvenile offenders in Lom was collected from interviews based on formal questionnaires. These were conducted on January 7, 2002, by Ms. Pressyana Manolova of the Partners-Bulgaria Foundation.

Local Police Authorities60 Inspectors with Child Pedagogical Centers (CPC) are the only authorities competent to deal with illegal acts committed by juveniles and with police protection. The Child Pedagogical Center in Lom employs two inspectors – Ms. Sylvia Atanassova and Mr. Valentin Borissov. The latter has a background in education and has extensive experience with the Regional Police Directorate in Lom. After working for several years as an inspector with the Ministry of the Interior, he became a CPC Inspector a year ago. Sylvia Atanassova graduated from the HIOTSR in Sofia. She has been an inspector with the CPC for a year and two months. Four part-time assistants are available to help the CPC inspectors deal with their tasks – two assistants are attached to each inspector. The assistants have backgrounds in education and are teachers. Three public tutors and the Secretary of the Local Commission for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents also assist the inspectors in their activities. The CPC is located in the same building with the Regional Police Directorate, even though according to CPC Regulations the municipality is under the obligation to provide the authorities of the Ministry of the Interior with adequate housing outside of police premises and to secure funding for equipment, transportation and overall maintenance. The CPC has no separate funding for its activities. The HIOTSR in Sofia offers one- and six-month training courses for CPC inspectors. So far, inspectors from Lom have not taken part in any of these. They have not taken part in other trainings, such as those on duties and obligations under the Child Protection and the CAAMAAs, either. The CPC reports to the Head of the Regional Police Directorate in Lom and they are controlled following the procedures set out in the Ministry of the Interior Act. Control is also exercised by the Head of the Child Criminality Section at the Regional Directorate for Internal Affairs in the city of Montana, which covers police directorates in four towns. The Head of Section in Montana has made no inspections during the past year. CPC Regulations provide for control over the activities of inspectors. The Central and Local Commissions for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents should exercise this control, but in practice they do not do so. There are no relations with the Central Commission. The CPC has some level of relations with the Secretary of the Local Commission – a report of activities is sent to him at the end of each year. Data in the report are appended to the report of the Local Commission. There has been no case of granting police protection so far. According to Sylvia Atanassova, organized police protection is out of question as the financial aspects of its implementation have not been clarified. There are no facilities in which children might be accommodated during the period of this protection. Premises in the police station intended for juveniles cannot meet the requirements of the Child Protection Act. It is unclear who would cover the expenses for the child’s medical examination and subsistence. The police department has no budget for these.

The discussion based on questionnaires for Child Pedagogical Centers was held on January 7, 2002, with Ms. Sylvia Atanassova, Inspector with a Child Pedagogical Center.

So far CPC inspectors have cooperated with the Child Protection Department on two occasions, described below. The first case. The two children in a family were placed in the custody of their father following divorce proceedings. However, the father was indigent and had an alcohol problem. Both father and children lived in miserable conditions, with poor sanitation. The mayor of the village where they lived informed the municipal Social Welfare Assistance Service of the case. The Head of this Service ordered, as a provisional administrative measure, the placement of children in a specialized institution – the Charity Home for Care and Education of Children in Lom. The police provided assistance in the case. Judicial proceedings were opened. There was a decision of the court. The second case. This case was similar to the first, and dealt with three children whose father is unknown. They lived in a village. Their mother went to Lom to find a job and never went back to her children. The children were aged 14, 10, and 2.5 years. The oldest child started taking care of the other two. CPC inspectors informed the municipal Social Welfare Assistance Service of the case. The Child Protection Department is still collecting information about the case. This process is carried out in cooperation with CPC inspectors. According to Ms. Atanassova, the CAAMAA is ineffective as it is outdated and provides for a very slow procedure. Nonetheless, inspectors use it as a basis for their work when they need to deal with juvenile offenders. Local Commission for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents 61 At the time of interviews the composition of the Local Commission for the current 2002 had not yet been finalized. The composition of the Commission in 2001, as determined by an order of the Mayor of the Municipality of Lom, Mr. Russi Russinov, was the following: Chair: Mr. Lalo Kamenov, an ethnic Roma with a higher education in pedagogy; Secretary: Ms. Maya Tsekova, who has a higher education in social education; Members: 1. Mr. Miroslav Vatev; 2. Ms. Sylvia Atanassova, CPC inspector. Graduate of the Higher Institute for Officers’ Training and Scientific Research; 3. Mr. Valentin Borissov, CPC inspector. Higher education in pedagogy; 4. Ms. Elka Balacheva, Director of the Charity Home for Care and Education of Children Deprived of Parental Supervision. Higher education in pedagogy; 5. Ms. Katia Ivanova, Partners-Bulgaria Foundation. Higher education in social education and school psychology; 6. Mr. Anjelo Ivanov, expert in Education and Culture with the Municipality of Lom. Higher education in pedagogy; 7. Mr. Liubo Spassov, teacher at the Technical High School in Industrial Technology. Higher education in pedagogy; 8. Mr. Vassil Kirov, Roma Foundation, Lom. Secondary education; 9. Ms. Dimitrina Ivanova, Headmistress of the Special Assistance School. Higher education in pedagogy; 61

This information is from the author’s discussion with Mr. Anjelo Ivanov and Ms. Elissaveta Zdravkova on January 7, 2002.

10. Mr. Angel Yotsov, Social Worker. Secondary education; 11. Mr. Vassil Petrov, teacher at the 3 rd Primary School “Father Paisii.” Higher education in pedagogy; 12. Ms. Kamelia Obretenova, Journalist, the Lom Press Gazette. Higher education in pedagogy; The main goal in selecting Commission members is to foster extensive public involvement in its activities. The main consideration in determining the Commission’s composition at the beginning of each year is to include people who have not been involved in the past. At the same time, some continuity is necessary, as there has been no organized training for Commission members over the last five years. Consultations on the application of the CAAMAA are made with CPC inspectors. Session frequency depends on the number of records and cases to be examined. Usually there must be two or three cases in order to hold a session. The period between sessions is usually between 1 to 4 months. The following people take part in the process of examination of cases: • Members of the Local Commission for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents. Usually, the Secretary ensures that all Commission members are invited to attend each session. At least three Commission members must be present for a session to be held; • The juvenile offenders whose acts are to be examined. If they fail to show up the police must bring them – by force if necessary – to the next session; • A parent; • A public defender (if the juvenile or his/her parents fail to choose a public defender, the Local Commission will do so. In practice, usually a person from among the Commission would take over the functions of a public defender in such a case); • Public tutors; • A representative of the school institution where the child studies. This may be a class master, another teacher or educational advisor. The participation of such a person is required only when it is necessary to establish the facts and to obtain information on the personality of the offender; • A psychologist; • Representatives of Roma institutions (e.g., the Roma Foundation in Lom) if the case involves an offender of the Roma ethnicity. Usually the opening of disciplinary files occurs in the following manner: The CPC receives information that an offense has been committed and begins collecting evidence. It opens a file, which it sends to the prosecutor’s office with a recommendation on the authority competent to examine the case (either the Local Commission or the Court). Usually the prosecutor’s office refers the file to the Local Commission. During the hearing the Commission explains its tasks to the juvenile offenders and their parents and clarifies their rights. The files and complaints must be read aloud. Evidence gathered by CPC inspectors is presented at the hearing. Witness submissions are read out. So far no witnesses have ever been summoned to appear before the Commission. The juvenile offender’s confessions are read aloud, after which the juveniles are asked to reconfirm that they actually made these confessions to CPC inspectors. In most cases, children confess

what they have done. To date, no material evidence has been presented during proceedings before the Local Commission. So far no measures have been taken with respect to parents. The prosecutor’s office has not been approached with allegations of parental conduct amounting to criminal activity. No submissions have been made to the District Court for the limitation or revocation of parental rights, either. Fines are usually not imposed on account of the poor financial condition of the population. Information in the case is not made public. People who are not directly involved in the case may not take part in hearings. Among members of the Local Commission there is a journalist who informs the community whenever the Commission has held an important hearing. She publicizes information about the number and types of offenses examined. Data is always summarized. No details are disclosed. The Commission’s joint efforts with other authorities include: Work with the Police. CPC inspectors are permanent members of the Commission. Their joint efforts are aimed at finding juvenile truants, young people who commit acts constituting a threat to public order, and young people who are at risk because of their poor social condition. Work with the Prosecutor’s Office. Commission representatives have asserted that their cooperation with the Prosecution Office is ineffective. They suggest that even the word “cooperation” is a bit far-fetched to describe the actual state of affairs. Work with the municipals Social Welfare Assistance Service (SWAS) and the Child Protection Department (CPD): So far the Commission and SWAS have not had the occasion to cooperate. The SWAS works directly with CPC inspectors. According to interviewees, there are avenues for future cooperation with SWAS. The SWAS’ efforts may be targeted at finding juveniles living in poor social conditions and at improving their living conditions. There have been proposals for work in the area of drug prevention. Ms. Elissaveta Zdravkova has advanced an idea for the creation of a Social Prevention Center, which will also host a Drug Prevention Practice. A consulting office for parents, present and future, has also been suggested as part of the activities of this Center. The aim is to increase parents’ awareness of educational and legal issues. According to initial ideas, non-governmental organizations should be made part of this Center. A study conducted by Ms. Zdravkova found that the main factor causing juvenile crime is the unfavorable family environment in which some children are brought up. According to statistics, the father of 1 in 11 juvenile convicts has spent time in prison. Work with Roma families is also planned, as the study showed that juveniles of Roma origin account for 70% of all thefts in Lom. Work with the Central Commission for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents: So far, representatives of the Central Commission have not visited the Local Commission in Lom. They planned to make a visit in 1999, but never did so. The Central Commission regularly sends guidelines to the Local Commission for the conduct of its activities. Most often these are clarifications on the enforcement of the CAAMAA. The Local Commission sends annual statistics and reports to the Central Commission. People of the Local Commission believe that they do not receive adequate feedback on their reports and that the Central Commission does not exercise serious control over their activities. Work with Parents: The Commission has held meetings with parents who have difficulties in raising their children. When the measure of placement under the supervision of a public tutor is served, the tutor would work both with the child and his/her parents. The observations of the Local Commission members indicate that the role of the family is generally underestimated.

Last year there were four public tutors. One of them was a Roma and his salary was provided by the Roma Foundation in Lom. Three of the public tutors have university degrees in education. The Roma public tutor is a social worker. The office of the public tutor is filled following a competition. The Labor Bureau makes available a list of all the unemployed teachers in the municipality who are registered with them. These people are eligible to take part in the competition if they wish. Initially, public tutors were paid 40 leva per month. Now they are paid 60 leva. (This is below the minimum legal salary for the country.) So far public tutors have not been specifically trained. They receive guidance for their work from the Secretary of the Local Commission and from CPC inspectors. The activities of public tutors are mainly directed at juveniles who are placed under their supervision. Public tutors have meetings with CPC inspectors, with parents and children. They make school visits to exercise supervision over their conduct. They do not have fixed working hours. Their schedule varies according to the requirements of the cases to which they are assigned. In some weeks they might visit a child no fewer than three times. In other weeks they might not visit the child at all. To date, members of the Local Commission have not taken part in preliminary proceedings concerning crimes committed by juveniles. They have not taken part in trial proceedings, either. So far the Local Commission has not proposed the substitution of placement in a Correctional Boarding School with another disciplinary measure. There has been only one proposal for the early release of a child, and this was not from a Correctional Boarding School, but from a Social Educational one. So far the Local Commission has not recommended hiring children who have committed offenses. No work is done with juvenile delinquents following their release from Correctional and Social Educational Boarding Schools. Commission representatives see the reasons for anti-social conduct as lying mainly in the social and economic problems that affect many people in the region. According to the observations of the Local Commission, children whose parents are unemployed or whose income is low commit more than 70% of the reported offenses. Another important reason for juvenile crime is the lack of parental control over children. Yet another problem is the low level of attendance at school. Commission representatives debate over the imposition of a curfew for children as an avenue for the prevention of and reaction to juvenile delinquency. Surveys suggest that citizens would also approve of such a measure. Another proposal has been to sanction the owners of pubs and bars that serve alcohol to minors and allow minors to smoke on their premises. The idea of imposing fines to parents has been suggested, but this would be very difficult in a town where the general level of income is low. According to the interviewed members of the Local commission, the CAAMAA needs certain amendments: • Certain ineffective measures that are rarely applied need to be amended – e.g. the imposition of an obligation to present apologies to victims, warning, placement under the supervision of co-workers, placement under the supervision of parents or their legal substitutes under the obligation of providing special care, and the requirement

•

that a juvenile offender compensate for the damages caused by his actions through his own efforts and labor. New disciplinary measures need to be introduced.

According to Ms. Elissaveta Zdravkova, the CAAMAA needs the following in order to improve its effectiveness: 1. Financial support – at present funding is insufficient and is only used to pay for the work of public tutors and transportation of children placed in institutions; 2. A larger number of public tutors to secure control over the execution of measures imposed. So far public tutors have been chosen from among unemployed teachers who are registered with the Labor Bureaus. This is a bad practice; 3. More materials (information booklets and visual aids, videos on drug prevention and on prevention of early marriages, visual aids for work with parents, information booklets about the duties and obligations of the Local Commissions, etc.); 4. Training related to the exchange of experience with other Local Commissions and the study of foreign experience. A detailed presentation of the legal framework would also be helpful; 5. The establishment of a Social Prevention Center in town. Members of the Local Commission support this idea. The Municipal Social Welfare Assistance Services (SWAS) 62 A total of 171 people are employed in Lom’s municipal SWAS and in the Social-Care Homes. A Child Protection Department (CPD) has been formed within SWAS, and now formally employs 2 people. The SWAS offices are located in two separate buildings. One hosts the CPD and the Bureau for Social Services. These agencies use two offices and a conference room, which is also used for group social work. CPD officers must study the CPA on their own. They have been offered no formal training on child protection so far. The methodological service takes instructions from the State Agency for Child Protection. These include instructions on workflow management within the CPD and the SWAS and Instructions on the application, selection, and approval of foster families and the placement of children with these. The SACP regularly sends reports to the CPD. 63 The Service has literature donated by the organization CARE-Bulgaria, and some officers took part in a project of the organization. This project was implemented over a period of almost two years. It concerned the establishment of a Bureau of Social Services within the SWAS. It was this bureau that later became the CPD. The information on services offered by the CPD is circulated with the assistance of SWAS, the court, the prosecution office, and the municipality. These are the institutions that are directly involved with CPD. They refer citizens for consultations and assistance. The CPD has ideas about informational materials to clarify the services that it offers, but there is no funding at this stage to develop them. In 2001 the CPD took the following measures under the CPA: 62

The information on activities of the Social Welfare Assistance Service and the Child Protection Department was obtained in the author’s interviews on January 7, 2002, with Ms. Donka Doneva, Ms. Kamelia Arsenova, and Ms. Katya Paraskevova. 63

Two reports had been issued as of the beginning of March 2002.

• • • •

Cooperation, assistance, and services offered in family environment – 34 cases; Placement in a family of relatives or close acquaintances – 0; Placement in a foster family – 1; Placement in special institutions – 7.

In 2001 citizens and officials filed only 2 complaints concerning the poor living conditions of atrisk children or of children who were the victims of violence. Inspections were conducted on the basis of these complaints. Meetings with children, families, teachers, doctors, and colleagues from SWAS were held (to verify whether family was on welfare); the children’s living conditions were inspected. As a result, a social report was prepared in each case to recommend a course of action. One of the two cases concerned a boy who lived alone with his mother and grandmother. The mother suffered from apoplexy, loss of speech, and paralysis. The grandmother was also hospitalized on account of her poor health status. In practice there was no one to take care of the child. This was the only case of an ethnically Bulgarian child who slept in bars and pubs under the pretext of watching TV to be reported since 1997. The child in question was only 9 years old at the time of the report. The child has since been placed in a Home for Children and Juveniles. Last year the SWAS received information indicating that the mother was in need of urgent medical care. The SWAS provided assistance in the procedure of admission to hospital and took charge of the boy’s education. Following her treatment in hospital, the mother was placed in a Home for Elderly People with Physical Disabilities in the village of O. Every day a social worker meets with the child and contributes to the maintenance of a constant relation between him and his mother. No penal administrative measures under the CPA have been so far imposed in the case. So far the CPD has never worked with the Local Commission. The SWAS has never informed the Commission of cases concerning juvenile offenders. Nonetheless, it has data about truancy (161 children) and about children who don’t attend school (108 children). According to SWAS officials, this information might be useful to the Local Commission. SWAS officials believe that the activities of the Local Commission might be facilitated if social workers were invited to draft a social report and make enquiries (which they do in their daily activities anyway) in the framework of some disciplinary files. Reports could be used in the process of examining cases and determining disciplinary measures. According to CPR officials, public tutors with the Local Commission do not prepare complete and well-reasoned reports. SWAS has so far had good cooperation with several non-governmental organizations: 1. CARE-Bulgaria – This organization worked on a project for setting up a Bureau for Social Services in Lom. That project lasted for almost two years and included several stages, including a training course for social work with children and adults with disabilities, the construction of the office itself, and the implementation of social controls; 2. The Partners-Bulgaria Foundation – This organization carried out modular training within a project on Ethnic Integration and Conflict Resolution in Lom; 3. The Women’s Democratic Union – The Union cooperated with the SWAS within a project on prevention activities for disadvantaged women; 4. The Roma Foundation in Lom – This foundation provided for the remuneration of three social workers with the Bureau for Social Services, but it did so only during the implementation of the CARE project.

The CPD has provided consultations to 13 families whose children did not attend school. It held 23 individual consultations with the children and parents of these families. In the system of consultation officials first meet the child, then the parent, and finally they have a joint meeting together. The CPD seeks the assistance of parents, teachers, and children in preparing a social report. So far the CPD has presented opinions on social conditions and the need of care in two judicial proceedings concerning children. The cases concerned the attribution of custodial functions and the withdrawal of parental rights. Officials from the SWAS took part in the following cases in their capacity as experts: 1 case concerning a foster family, 1 adoption case, 8 cases of placement in special institutions, 1 case of deprivation of parental rights, and 1 divorce case. The CPD maintains the following registers: • A general register under the CPA covering all the cases that the SWAS deals with; • A register of children placed in foster families; • A register of applicants approved as foster families; • A register of children placed in special institutions; • A register of children in need of special protection. Information in registers is confidential and may only be disclosed to the Court and, in exceptional cases, to institutions and persons in need of relevant advice (e.g., in adoption proceedings, etc.). For instance, the information about adoptions is sent only to the respective Home and to the Court. The salaries of the three social workers directly engaged in child protection vary between 175 and 215 leva per month. By comparison, the average expert from the SWAS receives some 250 leva monthly. The Head of SWAS exercises control over CPD. So far there have been no direct inspections or visits from SACP representatives. Vidin General Information The Local Commission’s 2000 Report of Activities indicates that the Commission examined a total of 53 disciplinary files and imposed 66 disciplinary measures to 44 perpetrators of offenses. This is a 45% decrease in the number of cases compared to 1999. Most cases concerned the theft of personal belongings and public property. These made up 38 of the cases. Other cases involved other thefts, trespassing, hooliganism, and car thefts. All cases were examined upon proposals of the police or the Regional Prosecution Office. The Commission imposed 44 warnings, 18 placements in the custody of parents under the obligation of providing special care, and 4 warnings for possible placement in a Correctional Boarding School. In 2000 CPC inspectors examined cases involving 118 children, out of whom 22 were girls. The most frequent ground for examination was the use of drugs (49 cases) and leaving their homes (20 cases). Sixty-eight offenders were ethnically Bulgarian, and 50 were Roma.

In 2001 the Prosecution Office disposed of 25 prosecution files involving juvenile offenders by refusing to institute proceedings. These cases were then referred to the Local Commission to form disciplinary cases. Apart from these, 41 investigations were initiated against 55 juveniles. Over the last year the number of indictments introduced in court has decreased. There were 18 indictments for the whole year, whereas in 2000 24 indictments were introduced in court. In 2001 there were juveniles in detention. The Regional Court adjudicated 18 criminal cases against 25 juvenile offenders. 64 The information on the activities of the authorities working with juvenile offenders in Vidin was collected from interviews based on formal questionnaires. These were conducted on January 10 and 11, 2002 by Ms. Pressyana Manolova of the Partners-Bulgaria Foundation. The Local Commission for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents 65 The Mayor of the Vidin Municipality, Dr. Ivan Tsekov, determined the composition of the Local Commission for 2002. The composition is as follows: Chair: Mr. Ivan Tsvetanov Perchinski. He is a Deputy Mayor in charge of Humanitarian Action and Education and has a degree in Pedagogy. Members: 1. Ms. Penka Assenova Tsvetanova, Secretary of the Commission. Secondary education 2. Mr. Vassil Tsvetanov Neshev, Head of the Municipal Administration’s Education Department. Higher education in pedagogy 3. Mr. Nikolay Tsolov, Free Youth Center 4. Ms. Mariella Ivanova Valkanova. Higher education in psychology 5. Dr. Tsetsa Rangelova, Pediatrician. Higher education in medicine 6. Mr. Vassil Tsvetanov Benkov, Head of Legal Services and Human Resources Department. Higher legal education 7. Ms. Margarita Atanassova Markova, Head of Child Protection Department. Higher education in economics 8. Dr. Kalina Slavova, Child Psychiatrist. Higher education in medicine 9. Mr. Vladimir Ivanov, Senior Expert in Secondary Education Management 10. Mr. Zimen Kirilov Georgiev, Chief Expert in Public Health and Social Action. Higher education in social action 11. Dr. Nelia Mitkova Slavcheva, Manager of Public Health Action Section. Higher education in medicine 12. Ms. Nadka Lilkova Fezliyska, Expert in Culture. Secondary education 13. Mr. Nikolay Netov, Psychologist with the Labor Bureau. Higher education in psychology 14. Mr. Borislav Vankov, Bulgarian Youth Organization of the Red Cross. Higher legal education The high representation of people from state institutions and the non-governmental organizations is the main goal in the process of selection of Local Commission members. 64

The information was provided to Ms. Pressyana Manolova of the Partners-Bulgaria Foundation by the Regional Prosecutor, Mr. Miroslav Kostov. 65

Mr. Pertchinski and Mr. Georgiev have answered to questions. The information was collected during two separate interviews.

Another criterion is experience in dealing with children. Usually attempts are made to decrease the turnover of members, since there is no training available for new members. Members usually gain knowledge in the process of accumulating practical experiences. CPC inspectors in Vidin are not members of the Commission. The idea is that once they have proposed opening a case, they should not take part in determining measures. According to established practices, CPC inspectors initiate the examination of offenses. They refer the files to the Prosecution Office and recommend whether the Local Commission or by the Court should examine them. Session frequency depends on the number of files to be examined. The purpose is to examine as many files as possible at any single Commission session. When there are many cases for examination, the Local Commission convenes once every 15 days. However, if there are not enough files, it might meet once a month. A minimum of three members of the Local Commission must take part in examining the offenses. All members are nonetheless notified when a Commission session has been scheduled. Other specialists are also invited to attend. For example, a doctor might be invited if the juvenile offender is a drug-addict. Teachers, psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers might participate, depending on the specificities of the offense. The juvenile offenders are always present at the examinations of their cases. The Local Commission may not examine the case in their absence. If a child fails to show up for the examination of his case, the session is postponed and the CPC inspectors then forcefully bring the child to the next session. A class master is summoned to appear on some occasions, such as in cases where the offense in question was committed on school grounds. There has so far always been a public defender. If the parents, their legal substitutes or the juveniles do not indicate a public defender the Commission must do so ex officio. A public defender is assigned from among those members of the Commission who are present at the hearing. According to Commission representatives, there are differences between the conduct of public defenders indicated by the child and those appointed by the Commission. The former tend to be more inclined to act as attorneys, whereas the latter “take into account the purposes of correcting the child and would therefore not stand on positions widely opposing the ones of the Commission.” The opinion of the public defender is taken into account when determining the disciplinary measure to be imposed. The rights of the children and their parents are clarified in the course of the hearing. At the beginning, the child and his/her parent(s) are acquainted with the case. The floor is then given to the child. Next, the file is read aloud. The Local Commission has established good cooperation with the media, however no journalists are present at hearings. The information disclosed mainly consists of statistical data. The Commission has, on several occasions, approached the police and the Prosecution Office about cases of parents whose conduct was tantamount to crime. The cases concerned vagrant children and beggars whose parents encouraged them to pursue these activities. In one large public discussion that arose, the Municipality, the Prosecution Office, the Regional Directorate for Internal Affairs, and parents took part. The Commission proposed the substitution of placement in a Correctional Boarding School with another disciplinary measure on one occasion last year. The case concerned a child who had fled from a Correctional Boarding School. The proposal was based on the idea that the measure had been ineffective, since the child frequently ran away from this Boarding School. The Court upheld the position of the Local Commission.

The Commission maintains relations with the following authorities working with children: The Police: Police interaction is carried out through formal contacts with CPC inspectors. In practice, the police are the ones who work on a case from its very beginning. They refer the case to the Prosecution Office, who then determines whether to approach the Commission. The Prosecution Office: The Commission must report all its pending cases to the Prosecution Office. The Secretary of the Local Commission works most closely with the Prosecution Office. Junior Prosecutor Krassen Kayzerov has been designated to exercise control over the Local Commission on behalf of the Regional Prosecution Office. SWAS: So far cooperation with SWAS has been limited to inviting a SWAS representative to attend hearings. In 2002 the CPD Head was included as a member of the Local Commission. School Commissions: At the beginning of every year, Local and School Commissions together determine the main areas of their activities. Unfortunately, many of the problematic children do not attend school. There is no funding for the Local Commission in the municipal budget. Therefore no public tutors were appointed last year. On several occasions the Local Commission approached the Labor Bureau asking for assistance in finding jobs for juveniles. The Commission Secretary maintains relations with the Labor Bureau. Together, the two institutions look for open positions for temporary and unskilled work. The Commission provided assistance to the family of one child released from CBS/SEBS in resolving an issue related to living conditions. The ultimate solution was the juvenile’s temporary placement in a municipal lodging. The Commission does not have the resources to follow up on the conduct of children released from CBS and SEBS. This is the responsibility of the CPC, whose inspectors make home visits, invited children to meet with them, etc. According to Commission representatives interviewed, the main factors contributing to juveniles’ commission of acts constituting threats to public order are the low level of parental control, as well as the inadequate education of a large portion of the parents. This was of special relevance to families of low social standing. Often juvenile offenders had only one parent.66 Prevention initiatives last year included meetings with the owners of restaurants and bars frequented mainly by the young. The purpose of these was to convince the owners not to serve alcohol to children or to allow them to smoke, and not to admit minors after 10:00pm. All shops offering alcohol and cigarettes must display two mandatory stickers. One states that people under the age of 18 may not purchase alcohol and cigarettes, and the other states that minors are not allowed in the establishment after 10:00pm. A 6-member commission was

According to the Local Commission’s 2000 Report of Activities, 64 of the offenders whose offenses were examined lived in poor conditions – 18 were in a family environment of conflict, 14 children lived in poverty, and 32 children were exposed to the influence of a criminogenous environment. Seventeen offenders complained that they were the victims of violence from their parents, relatives or other people.

formed to oversee compliance with the above requirements. When the commission finds an establishment in violation of the requirements, the owner is fined. A round table on child concerns was held in Vidin in June 2001. Representatives of all institutions took part – the municipality, the regional administration, the police, the court, school boards, trade unions, teachers, the education inspectorate, non-governmental organizations, and others. Last year the municipality repaired all sports fields for children. The purpose was to create amenities for children to do sports in their free time. According to Mr. Zimen Georgiev, the improvement of work with juvenile offenders will require: 1. The adoption of a new CAAMAA or at least amendments to the present. Amendments are necessary especially as regards disciplinary measures imposed on juvenile offenders and on their parents. Many of these, such as reprimand or the imposition of an obligation to present apologies, are ineffective. Community service has never been used, either, as there are no possibilities to do so. The Commission has once required a juvenile offender to compensate a victim for damages through his own efforts and labor. This concerned a case in the village of Koshava, where children had caused damages to the Community Center (broken some seats, etc.). In fact, the parents were those who repaired the damages; 2. The provision of funding for the Local Commission. The Commission does not even have a room in which to host its sessions. Each time the sessions are held in a different room of the municipality. The Commission has no access to phone; 3. At least two meetings a year with the Central Commission to co-ordinate their work; 4. The provision of training to Commission members. The SWAS A total of 150 people are employed in Vidin’s municipal SWAS. A CPD was formed within the SWAS and, according to official data, employs 4 people – 1 Head of Department, 1 Psychologist, and 2 social workers. One of the members has a university degree in economics, another has a degree in psychology, and two have degrees in social action. The CPD was opened on June 1, 2001. It has no budget of its own. The municipality granted it only 500 leva for office repairs. There is no other budget. Officials have sought the assistance of other institutions to get used furniture for their offices. No on-the-job training has so far been provided in the SWAS. The Head of Department took part in a project, and was therefore able to visit Great Britain and gather information about the British experience in running similar services. There has been no official instruction on the CPA. Officials become familiar with their duties and obligations in the course of their work. No methodological guidance is provided to the CPD as regards child protection. No methodological instructions have been provided, even though officials have requested training. Officials have no literature – neither on issues of child protection, nor on social welfare assistance.

So far the CPD has relied only on the CPA in the course of its work. No interaction with the Local Commission has been established. The Commission does not notify the CPD of cases concerning juvenile offenders. However, increased interaction is expected in the near future. The Head of the CPD recently became a member of the Local Commission, which was a first step in the direction of better cooperation. According to CPD representatives, another opportunity for cooperation may be found in the social reports on the status and personality of offenders that CPD officials should submit to the Commission. Information on child protection services is circulated using the following avenues: • Appearances in the media where representatives present the available services, explained the CPS, etc. • CPD representatives take part in the class master period and present the available services in schools and kindergartens; • Provision of information about these services to people who directly contact the CPD. By the beginning of 2002, three complaints concerning child protection issues had been received. Two concerned school violence – among students, and between a teacher and a student. The third complaint concerned domestic violence. An inspection was carried out in the first two cases, discussions with the headmaster and classmates of the children having been held. So far CPD has taken the following measures: • Placement in the family of relatives or close acquaintances – 1 occurrence; • Placement in a foster family – 2 occurrences; • Placement in a special institution – 2 occurrences; • Police protection – 1 occurrence. Police protection was provided to a child without parental supervision whose mother was abroad. The child had no relatives or close acquaintances. The police notified CPD of his case and the child was referred for placement in a special institution. The child had a father, but he was neglectful. They had not seen each other for 13 or 14 years. Work in this case is ongoing – the CPD is working with the CPC to bring the child back to his father. There were two occurrences of provisional placement of children following the administrative proceedings set out in the Act. In both cases, close acquaintances of the child made a request for such placement. In one of the cases, the child was ultimately placed with close acquaintances and relatives. The other child was placed in a special institution. The CPD also provides consultations to parents and children. One of the cases concerned a child of divorced parents. The child lived with his mother and did not want to see the father on account of his poor health. The purpose of the consultations was to convince the child to see his father. CPD officials first clarified with the mother that even following the divorce the child needed to see his father. At the same time, the department psychologist held consultations with the child to help him get over his negative attitude toward his father and his father’s poor health. Each Thursday a CPD representative makes a visit to the Children’s Ward of the Regional Committee of Medical Experts. This is the organ responsible for determining to what degree a particular child is handicapped. The purpose of these weekly visits is for the representative to 43

consult children about their rights and to help them understand the specific steps that they might take on this basis in various situations. In addition, one Day-Care Center for children with disabilities has established cooperation with the CPD. The SWAS, on the other hand, mainly provides consultation to parents who seek its assistance. So far no administrative measures under the CPA have been imposed in Vidin. The Court relies on the CPA for information when making its decisions. On some occasions, SWAS representatives have taken part in judicial proceedings concerning children. They typically submit a social report and the results of an enquiry. Based on the information that they have gathered from discussions with parents, the child, and teachers, they also provide opinions about the interests of the parents and the child. One particular judge in the District Court works mainly on civil cases involving children. In October of each year this judge is replaced. When necessary, the judge and CPD representatives meet to clarify the law. Any available CPD official may take part in judicial proceedings. However, these officials receive no special training regarding judicial and administrative proceedings. Therefore, in court they rely on the judge’s advice about what procedures to follow. Local organs in Vidin still maintain no registers about the upbringing of children. According to the Head of the CPD, a uniform automated system needs to be established throughout the entire country to facilitate the establishment of such registers. At present, however, no such system exists. One might be established by 2003. The Head of the CPD and the Chief of the SWAS exercise control over the Child Protection Department. So far the State Agency for Child Protection has not made ant inspections in Vidin. Relations with the SACP have not been very intense. At a maximum, the CPD usually asks questions and makes recommendations to the SACP. There is no direct relation between the CPD and the SACP, and consequently the effectiveness of their cooperation is low. The Ministry of Labor and Social Policy and the Municipal Services for Social Welfare Assistance currently stand in the middle of the relationships between the CPD and the SACP.

SECTION THREE І. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PREVENTION AND ADR VIS-À-VIS JUVENILE OFFENDERS 1. The Policy of Prevention Preventing juvenile delinquency is a matter of state policy. National crime prevention policies and strategies have evolved over the 1980s and in recent years have started receiving more attention and resources. Most states typically maintain a separate authority responsible for setting up and carrying out the national policy, as well as for coordinating the involvement of existent structures in various programs. This authority studies and analyzes trends in crime, engages resources, implements programs for crime prevention, and offers training. Funding varies from one state to another, however most often municipal budgets fund programs for crime prevention and for the use of ADR in juvenile justice. Crime prevention policies usually follow two main courses: 1. Social welfare assistance to children and their families; 2. Implementation of employment, public health, education, and other programs. Social Worker Home Visitations to Children at Risk Elmira, New York, United States

It has been found that children who have been the victims of abuse or neglect are 40% more likely to commit illegal acts than other children. That is why in 1978 the population of Elmira supported the initiation of a program for home visitations by social workers in families with children at risk. The affected families have been primarily poor ones with single or very young parents. Social workers provided assistance to parents in allocating the family budget, feeding the children, and taking care of their education. As a result of this program, the number of child abuse and neglect cases in the city decreased by 80%. 67 Teacher and Parent Counseling West Rutland, British Columbia, Canada

The program for crime prevention in West Rutland public schools is focused on providing advice and assistance to school authorities and parents to guarantee the security of their children. Local police officers act as consultants. The Program offers various educational activities on weekends and after school hours. These are funded by the municipality, the school, and the Provincial Government in British Columbia. 68 A Decrease in School Drop-Outs USA

In San Antonio, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Saginaw, and Oklahoma City programs offer afterclass activities to children at risk. For each hour children that stay after school to participate in the activities, they receive a 1-dollar honorarium. Activities include: computer training, assistance with homework assignments, social skills and successful job applications. Success

This information is from the website of the Kempe Prevention Research Center for Family and Child Health www.kempecenter.com. 68

This information is from the website of the Community Crime Prevention Programs Sponsored by the Provincial Crime Prevention Fund, Municipalities and the Community of Union of British Columbia Municipalities: http://civicnet.gov.bg.ca/library/crimeprev.html . This website offers information on various programs.

is evidenced by these cities’ 1/3 decrease in juvenile delinquency and by the fact that 42% of the participants now continue their studies after graduation. 69 Joint Police Patrols Landsville, British Columbia, Canada

Landsville has established a Local Association for Public Safety, which provides joint police patrols with children in housing and commercial areas of the town before and after school, in the evening and on weekends. Cooperation of Law Enforcement Authorities with Schools The Netherlands

Many Dutch police stations employ officers whose primary duty is to deal with children from local schools. They regularly visit the schools in order to get to know the children and the teachers. They also make school presentations, examine illegal acts committed on school grounds, and provide consultations to school authorities in taking safety measures for the children.70 Police officers in Tilburg have become trainers in a program offered in school to 7 th and 8th graders. The program is called Act Normally and involves weekly sessions that follow a special textbook. The course covers many topics, including: vandalism, the illegal use of fireworks, neighborhood pollution, gambling, traffic safety, and discrimination. 71 Victim Presentations to the Public Bradford, USA

With the goal of combating drunken driving, the town of Bradford holds meetings between victims of drunken driving and local students. Victims do not make accusations, but simply tell the students about their experience and suffering. This gives young people an opportunity to reflect on the threats associated with illegal conduct. Two to 4 victims take part in any given meeting, and the meetings last for about an hour. Research has shown that drivers who have not attended meetings are 5 times more likely to drive their cars after drinking than are those who have attended discussions with victims. The meetings also have a beneficial effect for the victims themselves. Eighty-two percent of victim participants say that these discussions have a healing effect and say that they feel satisfied with their role in helping reduce traffic accidents. On account of its positive results, this program is now offered in other US cities. 72 Assistance Programs for People Deprived of Liberty The Alternative to Violence Project, Canada

This project is offered throughout Canada. It consists of seminars, aimed at building a sense of community among juveniles deprived of liberty and improving their social and communication skills. It is based on the idea that these skills will assist the juveniles’ re-integration into society following their release from prison and therefore help reduce recidivism. 73 69

This information (on the QOP Program) is from the website of the Opportunities Industrialization Centers of America www.oiaca.com 70

Ieta Polman, The Role of the Police Regarding Juvenile Criminal Justice in Practice, Presentation for the Lithuanian delegation, Ministry of Justice, February 25, 1999, unpublished. 71

This information is from the author’s interview with Mr. Ad Martens and Mrs. Mrs. Mariolein Vingerhuds of the Tilburg Police Department, The Netherlands, on January 22, 2002. They said that similar educational programs were already being offered in Belgium and Poland with the assistance of the Dutch Police Office. 72

This information is from the website at www.restorativejustice.org.

The project website is www.web.net/-cfsc/avp.htm.

Detroit, USA

The Detroit program is church-centered. The Church takes care of juveniles released from prison. It aims at engaging businesses, social services, and any other local resources available to assist former prisoners and their families. This program has been extremely successful, as only 9% of the participants tend to commit repeat offenses. 74 2. ADR in Juvenile Justice In the formal approach to the administration of criminal justice, people who are accused of committing crimes are brought before a court and held criminally responsible. This is not the only approach available. Two other approaches are successfully used with regard to juvenile offenders: 1. The social educative approach. In this approach, juvenile offenders are not punished. Instead, social (civil law) measures, such as placement in special institutions or the appointment of a social worker to assist parents in educating the child, as well as disciplinary measures, such as attending social skills training courses or performing community service, are imposed. Charges against juvenile offenders are dropped after they have successfully completed the two types of measures. 2. The restorative justice approach. In this approach, juvenile offenders are exempted from criminal responsibility, and placed under the obligation to repair the damages that their actions caused to the victims. 2.1. Characteristics of the Social Educative Approach and Examples of the Types of Measures It Involves The social educative approach to dealing with juvenile offenders appeared in the 1960s and 1970s. According to the founders of this approach, children commit offenses on account of their lack of proper care and protection. That is why social measures within civil law are preferable to the use of criminal justice against juveniles. The social educative approach is widely used in Latin America, where juvenile offenders are considered victims of “abnormal” situations in which their moral and physical existence has been threatened. This approach has many positive aspects. For example, countries using social educative justice for juveniles typically have a high age of criminal responsibility – 18 years, and they do not use repressive measures against juveniles. At the same time, however, there are many critiques as regards the basic concept and efficiency of the approach. One ground for criticism is the paternalist attitude that is sometimes associated with the approach and that does not recognize that children, too, have rights. Another problem is the frequent use of placement in social institutions where children are practically deprived of liberty. In Peru, for example, this approach has already been abandoned. Other states make partial use of this approach only in respect of some juvenile offenders. Limitation/Withdrawal of Parental Rights over Children The Netherlands

In the Netherlands, when social workers and experts (doctors, psychologists, and psychiatrists) find that a child has committed an illegal act as a result of a lack of parental supervision or control, no disciplinary measures are taken. Instead, the child is granted protection under the 74

See the document prepared by Mr. Christopher Bright for Prison Fellowship International, online at www.restorativejustice.org

Child Protection Act. Protection consists of social (civil law) measures, such as limitation or withdrawal of parental rights, provisional or permanent guardianship, or provisional placement in an institution. In many cases, re-education and rehabilitation require the imposition of both a disciplinary and a social (civil law) measure. 75 Family Therapy in Cases of Serious Behavioral Deviation Utah University, USA

The University of Utah has developed a program for dysfunctional families. The program lasts for three months. Its purpose is to reduce the separation of children from their families, as well to reduce the level of institutionalization. The program aims at explaining the nature of personal problems that parents face, at finding a solution and change in motivation, and at building communicative and parental skills. Participants are referred to the program by court injunction.76 Victim-Offender Panels Milton Canes, Buckinghamshire, Great Britain

In the early 1990s, police reports indicated a high level of shoplifting in Milton Canes. Therefore a program for prevention and education of young offenders was launched. The program was organized jointly by the police and shop-owners. After juvenile shoplifters were caught, the shop-owners met with them to tell them about their losses. The program is considered a success on account of its low recidivism (about 9%) and it has decreased the amount of time that police must spend on such cases.77 Training and Community Service South Africa

In South Africa the National Institute for Crime and Re-integration of Offenders (NICRO) has drafted a program of disciplinary measures for juvenile offenders. The program has been running since 1992. Regional Prosecutors are in charge of implementing it. Offenders are eligible for this program if they: 1. Are between 12 and 18 years of age; 2. Have a permanent residence; 3. Have a parent or guardian in charge of them; 4. Have not committed armed robbery, murder or rape; 5. Have confessed to their offense. Participation is voluntary. If a desire for participation is demonstrated, the juvenile and his parents sign a statement of consent. Upon the approval of a prosecutor, the child is sent to social skills training. The program takes 6 weeks. Parents take part, along with their children, in the first and last sessions. Topics covered in sessions include decision-making skills, the notion of due conduct, will and self-control building, and acquaintance with legislation. NICRO follows the progress of the program and reports to prosecutors. If a juvenile receives a positive assessment after completion of the program, the NICRO withdraws charges against him. 75

This is the opinion of Mrs. Potter, who is a prosecutor specialized in work with children at the Den Bosch Prosecution Office. Interview with the author on January 21, 2001. 76

100 Crime Prevention Programs to Inspire Action Across the World. International Centre for Prevention of Crime, 1999, Canada, p. 75. 77

This information is from the website of the International Center for Crime prevention: www.crime-preventionintl.org/english/best/programmes/responsibility/201.htm.

Prosecutors may also decide to place children in community service programs. Such service is not remunerated and is carried out in non-governmental organizations during the juvenile’s free time. The duration of community service varies from 40 hours for shoplifting cases to 120 hours for serious fraud. Usually children perform community service for between 30 and 50 hours. Service may be performed in hospitals, homes for people with disabilities, libraries, municipalities, and kindergartens. Ninety percent of the participants complete such programs with success.78 Court Forewarning France

After a juvenile offender is identified, the court summons him to appear along with his parents. The session is formal. In order to be eligible for forewarning, the juvenile must confess his act and tell how he has committed it. The Court then issues a forewarning acquainting those present with the penal provisions applicable to the case and their effect. The results of this type of court forewarning have proven positive in two cities and therefore the same approach will be replicated elsewhere in France.79 2.2. Characteristics of the Restorative Approach (Restorative Justice) and Examples of the Types of Measures It Involves Most present-day justice systems believe in the ability of restorative justice to deal with crime. This type of justice focuses on the responsibility of the parties involved to find a constructive solution to the conflicts that arise as a result of crime. The purpose is to repair the damage inflicted on victims and make a contribution to social peace and security. According to this approach, crime should not be viewed merely as an infringement upon an abstract legal and moral set of values. Instead, the approach recognizes the damages inflicted on the victim, the threat to peace and security in society, and the challenge to public order. Adherents to the restorative justice approach believe that the formal approach of criminal justice to crime is risky, as it only increases the level of suffering in society. Besides, it does not contribute to satisfying the victims and very rarely helps build public safety. As a result, society, the victim, and the perpetrator are further estranged or harmed. The solution to these problems requires the perpetrator’s acknowledgement of the act, the victim’s compensation, and an act of kindness. This solution helps the members of society feel safer and increases their respect for one another. Restorative justice is viewed as a process. It requires amelioration of the impact of the crime itself (mending broken social relations by protecting and compensating the victim and rehabilitating the offender), as well as the study and elimination of the factors that led to crime (such as the lack of social skills or of moral and ethical values). The immediate victim of crime is the person who has suffered the impact of the illegal act. Other victims, however, may include members of his family, his friends, witnesses, and the public as a whole. Compensating these victims is a top priority. The next priority is the rehabilitation of the offender, who must be encouraged to change his conduct and improve his 78

Juvenile Justice in selected countries in Africa, South Asia and the Caribbean, Paper prepared for Penal Reform International’s New Models for Accessible Justice and Penal Reform in Developing Countries project, June 2000. 79

“Juvenile Justice,” Innocenti Digest 3, UNICEF International Child Development Centre, Florence, Italy. The text may be found on the website of the Center: www.unicef-icdc.org/publications/index.html.

position in society. Only when offenders have declined to take part in the process of restoration should formal criminal proceedings be initiated and punishment imposed. 80 Various programs have been established to repair damages caused by the illegal acts of juvenile offenders. These may be divided into several groups: 1. Victim-offender conciliation or mediation programs; 2. Family group conferences; 3. Presenting apologies to the victim; 4. Repairing the damages incurred by the victim. 2.2.1. Victim-Offender Conciliation/Mediation Programs These programs are implemented through the services of a mediator who brings together victims of the crime and the offender. The parties spend time together focusing on and discussing the crime and its impact, as well as coming up with steps for repairing the damages.81 USA In 43 of the United States there are 313 similar programs carried out by Local ConflictResolution Centers. 80

At the International Conference on Restorative Justice, held in 1997, the International Network for Research on Restorative Justice for Juveniles (which comprises prominent scholars and practitioners) adopted the Leuven Declaration on the Advisability of Promoting the Restorative Approach to Juvenile Crime. See The Leuven Declaration on the Advisability of Promoting the Restorative Approach to Juvenile Crime, made on the occasion of the first International Conference on Restorative Justice for Juveniles -- Potentialities, Risks and Problems for Research, Leuven, Belgium May 12-14, 1997. This Declaration is available online at: www.sonoma.edu/cja/info/leuven.html. The Declaration specifies the role of public authorities in the reaction to crimes committed by juveniles. Public authorities should: 1. Contribute to the conditions for restorative responses to crime; 2. Safeguard the correctness of procedures and the respect for individual legal rights; 3. Impose judicial coercion, in situations where voluntary restorative actions do not succeed and a response to the crime is considered to be necessary; 4. Organize judicial procedures in situations where the crime and the public reactions to it are of such a nature that a purely informal voluntary regulation appears insufficient. The declaration has also specified the steps to be taken by authorities to facilitate restorative responses to juvenile crime. These steps include: 1. Remodeling the juvenile justice system in order to enhance the opportunities for restorative responses in and outside the system; 2. Providing the necessary agencies in communities which are equipped to carry out these actions: 3. Promoting the development of adequate methodologies for sound implementation of restorative processes; 4. Creating opportunities for education and training of the staff who will be responsible for implementing restorative processes; 5. Promoting scientific research and reflection on restorative juvenile issues. 81

In its Recommendation on Mediation in Criminal Matters, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers indicated that “special legislative acts and legal guarantees with regard to participation of juveniles in legal proceedings need also to apply for their participation in mediation in criminal matters”. See Recommendation R (99) 19, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on September 15, 1999, at session 679 of Deputy Ministers.

There are 26 such centers operating in the 20 counties of the state of Oregon. 82 Juvenile delinquency cases account for up to 25% of the annual workload of the centers. These are mainly cases of crimes against property and minor offenses against persons. Victims and offenders take part in the programs on a voluntary basis. They are asked to make an account of the occurrence, describing how they felt and what the consequences were. Offenders are expected to offer a way of restoring the broken social relations. Measures include apology, compensation (in 60% of all cases), and community service (in 60% of all cases). After a decision is reached, the mediator puts it in writing and may also inform the court. According to surveys, 80% of victims and offenders have been satisfied with these programs. Great Britain Leeds The Mediation and Compensation Office in Leeds is managed by the Probation Service. Either the police or the attorney of an accused who has pleaded guilty in writing may approach the Office, which may then examine the case regardless of the stage of criminal proceedings. Until 1985 the Office examined only cases whose outcome might involve a sentence to deprivation of liberty, however that limitation no longer exists. Agreement between the parties is reflected in writing.83 France In 1990 the French Ministry of Justice set up the first Maison de Justice (Justice Home) in Paris. Now there are about 40 homes throughout the country. The purpose is to facilitate contacts between both the accused and the victims with lawyers and specialized agencies, thus providing better access to justice. At the same time, these homes also contribute to conflict resolution through mediation in small crimes. Mediators are professional magistrates. 84 2.2.2. Family Group Conferences Family group conferences are similar to victim-offender conciliation and mediation programs. The difference is that not only victims and offenders take part in conferences. Their families and other representatives of the community may also participate. New Zealand The first family group conferences appeared New Zealand recently as a response to the disproportionate representation of minorities among convicts. The Maori people are seriously opposed to the separation of Maori children from their families and clans. Representatives argue that when a family is accused of being unable to take care of child, the family members should be allowed to present their views in the process of examination of the case before the child is simply separated from the family. At the new family group conferences, the offenders, 82

See Mark S. Umbreit, Robert B Coates, and Betty Vos, Juvenile Victim Offender Mediation in Six Oregon Counties, Final Report. The Report is available on the website of the Restorative Justice and Mediation Center of the Social Sciences Department of the University in Minnesota, USA http://ssw.che.umn.edu/rjp/Resources/Documents/. 83

Martin Wright, Victims, Mediation and Criminal Justice, [1995] Crim. L. R. 187, p. 190 quoted by Laurence M. Newell in his study on A Role for ADR in the Criminal Justice System. The study is available on the Internet at: www.aic.gov.au/rjustice/newell/. 84

Information about the program is available on the website of the International Center for Crime Prevention: www.crime-prevention-intl.org/english/best/programmes/responsibility/201.htm

the victims, and both their families together examine the crime and negotiate a way to repair damages. A trained social worker or mediator follows the progress of the conference and certifies the agreement reached. A study conducted in 1990 found that 52% of juveniles who had participated in the program did not re-offend during the next 6 months. 85 Australia The Wagga Wagga Model of New South Wales The program for family group conferences in Wagga Wagga is similar to that of New Zealand. The only difference is that the Wagga Wagga program is carried out by police officers. Conferences open with the offender’s description of the crime. Next, the victim makes a statement of the material damages he incurred and of his mental and physical suffering. Relatives and friends of the two parties are invited to discuss the crime and its effects and to come up with a means of repairing the damages. The victim indicates the type of punishment or the amount of compensation the offender will need to pay. The police officer listens to the offender’s opinion about the offer made. He is not entitled to determine the punishment or amount of compensation and only supervises and facilitates the process of agreement between the two parties. If agreement is not reached, the case is referred to the prosecutor who will open criminal proceedings. Confessions during the conference do not constitute proper evidence for the purposes of criminal proceedings. An average of 95% of victims take part in conferences, and their level of satisfaction has been very high. Following the introduction of this program there has been a 75% decrease in the number of crimes reported to police. The Wagga Wagga model of this program is now applied throughout Australia. 86 2.2.3. Apologies to the Victim Japan In Japan the tradition of apology is viewed as an integral part of the administration of justice. An apology is a confession, an expression of regret, a responsible act of recognizing the effects of crime, and a promise to reform in the future. It is notable that apologies are due not only from the young offender, but also from his teachers and parents. It is considered that the latter have responsibilities not only for the children, but also to the public. Therefore, part of the guilt for an illegal act committed by a juvenile under their case is theirs, too. There are two types of apologies: shimatsusho and jidan. The first is informal, while the second represents a contract. In the case of shimatsusho, a juvenile offender writes a letter to the victim describing the act, expressing regret, making a promise to reform, and extending a request for pardon. The letter might offer a sum of money or some service as a proof of sincerity. In the case of jidan, civil negotiations are held between the victim and the offender with the participation of attorneys. The purpose is to restore broken relations and decrease the punishment. It is a special feature of this approach that criminal proceedings are not terminated. Apologies are presented both to the victim and the authorities. 87 85

Gabrielle M. Maxwell and Alison Morris, The New Zealand Model of Family Group Conferences. The article is available online at: www.aic.gov.au/publications/family/index.html. 86

This model has been described in the study of Laurence M. Newell, ibid. 81.

Yoko Hosoi and Haruo Nishimura. The Role of Apology in the Japanese Criminal Justice System. Paper Presented at the Restoration for Victims of Crime Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology in the conjunction with Victims Referral and Assistance Service and held in Melbourne, September 1999. The

2.2.4. Compensation Damages Incurred by the Victim The Netherlands In cases of damages to property or a small theft, the police might refer a juvenile offender to a Halt Bureau (literally, a “bureau for alternatives”). 88 The procedure administered by the Halt Bureaus has been in place since 1981 and became part of the Criminal Code in 1995. The Prosecution Office has provided additional instruction to officials in these Bureaus. Every year Halt Bureaus examine more than 20,000 cases, and the number increases annually.89 According to data from the Ministry of Justice, the majority of cases (40.2% in 1999) concerned illegal appropriations. These were followed by cases of illegal use of fireworks (20.7% in 1999) and vandalism (7.7%). To be eligible for a Halt Bureau procedure the offender must satisfy several requirements. He must have confessed. He should not have taken part in such procedures more than once before. The types of crime for which an offender might be referred to the Halt Bureau are also limited. Measures may be served in cases of: 1. Vandalism causing damages of up to 681,82 Euros 90 2. Arson where damages do not exceed 681,82 Euros 3. Theft or appropriation of stolen items worth up to 113,64 Euros 4. Misleading placement of signage worth up to 113,64 Euros 5. Destruction of property, including through the use of graffiti resulting in damages of up to 681,82 Euros 6. Illegal penetration of existent military defenses 7. Illegal use of fireworks.91 The juvenile offenders themselves must request that their cases be referred to the Prosecution Office or state that they wish to participate in the Halt Scheme. If the child has not turned 16, his parents’ consent is also required. Once consent is obtained, the Halt official gives the juvenile offender a homework assignment in which he must explain in writing why he committed the offense and suggest the type and amount of punishment to be imposed. On the basis of this homework assignment the official gathers additional information about the character and conduct of the child.92 Officials offer the juvenile offender enrollment in some of the programs that the Halt Bureau runs. Again, the consent of the child is necessary. Possible measures include work, reparation of damages, or a combination of the above. For each separate job the Halt Bureau official Australian Institute of Criminology offers the article on its website: www.aic.gov.au/conferences/rvc/hosoi.html. 88

See the website of the Dutch Government at: www.minjust.nl/a_beleid/thema/jeugd/jcp/stats/halt/table/tab_001.htm. 89

Ibid. 14.

Research has shown that in more than 60% of the cases of vandalism the intervention of Halt Bureaus has been an effective remedy. See Information about Halt Bureaus and Halt Nederland, Published by Halt Nederland, 2000. 91

Ibid. 26.

Mr. De Jong of the Tilburg Halt Bureau in Tilburg provided this information in an interview with the author on January 21, 2002.

drafts a contract with the offender, including all necessary stipulations. Even though such contracts are not legally binding, they are part of the measures that help the child understand the actions taken against him. If a child is below 16, parents must consent to the disciplinary measure that the child chooses. The Halt Bureau oversees community service measures. Separate tasks cannot exceed 20 hours, even though in practice they rarely last more than 10 hours. 93 Activities must be carried out in the juvenile offender’s leisure time (days off, holidays). Part of the measure is apology, which the child must present to the victim. A Halt Bureau official accompanies the perpetrator to a meeting with the victim and supervises the process of apology. If possible, the juvenile offender is required to furnish personal efforts to repair the damages that resulted from his actions. For instance, in cases of shoplifting, the offender should clean the shop premises or do some other job that benefits the owner. The Halt Bureau official controls the juvenile’s working conditions. Halt Bureaus and the public services that hire juvenile offenders upon agreement with the Bureaus provide accident and health insurance to the juveniles. Following the successful completion of community service, the police draft a report putting an end to proceedings. The victim, reserves the right to seek judicial protection, but may do so only through private complaint proceedings. Upon unsuccessful completion of the program, the case is referred to the Prosecution Office. Both a Prosecutor and a Judge may impose disciplinary measures. Charges are dropped upon the successful completion of these.

Ibid.

ІІ. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PREVENTION AND THE USE OF ADR IN JUVENILE JUSTICE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL To make municipal activities on crime prevention and the use of ADR in juvenile justice more successful, the following minimum developments are necessary: I. A policy regarding child development should be adopted at the municipal level. This policy should cover issues of crime prevention and response to illegal child conduct. All services, authorities, and organizations dealing with children should be involved in implementing this policy. II. Child Protection Departments and Local Commissions for Combating Anti-social Acts of Minors and Adolescents must take the central role in implementing this policy. Their efforts should be joined in: 1. Leading a permanent campaign to raise public awareness of the activities and services offered by Child Protection Departments and the Local Commissions; 2. Discussing the overall condition and status of children in a given populated area; 3. Identifying risks for their normal development; 4. Drafting a program according to short-, medium-, and long-term priorities for improvement of the condition and status of children and crime prevention in view of the risks identified; 5. Exchanging views and consultations after specific cases; 6. Ensuring the participation of CPD social workers in discussing disciplinary cases pending before the Local Commissions and the submission of social reports prepared by them; III. The Municipality needs to ensure funding of CPD and Local Commission activities based on their important role in implementing crime prevention and response, as well as in ensuring the normal development of children; IV. Efforts towards the prevention of juvenile delinquency, at a minimum, should: 1. Acquaint children with: a. Legislation and due conduct; b. The activities of Law Enforcement Authorities – the police, the prosecution, the court; c. CPC local inspectors, CPD officials and Local Commission representatives, as well as with activities of the above institutions; d. Procedures they might use in seeking the protection of their rights. 2. Encourage school attendance; 3. Assist parents in raising their children; 4. Provide special extra-curricular activities and adequate means of involving children in society, such as social supervision and care of children at risk and of children released from institutions; 5. Ensure police control of places frequented by children – discotheques, stadiums, parks, etc. V. The use of social educative and restorative approaches in juvenile justice should become a priority where children have given their informed consent to take part in programs and serve measures excluding formal criminal liability;

VI. The social educative approach should improve social skills and self-esteem of both parents and children by: 1. Conducting therapeutic and training programs for coping with personal problems, such as anger and hate, and for conflict resolution; 2. Explaining the effects of illegal activities and providing recourse to judicial forewarnings before criminal punishments are imposed; 3. Decreasing the negative influence of parents through the limitation and withdrawal of parental rights in cases where this is necessary. VII. The restorative justice approach should be enforced as a desirable and efficient opportunity to mend broken social relations and to restore the good reputation of a child after an offense has been committed. Granting a child the chance to repair the damage himself should be viewed as an opportunity for the child to manifest his positive qualities and to prove his wish to reform. VIII. Restorative justice should be carried out through: 1. Encouraging the participation of victims in the process of examining juvenile offenses; 2. Repairing the damages incurred by the victim(s); 3. The child’s submission of apologies to the victim(s); 4. The performance of community service in social-care homes, hospitals, parks, non-governmental organizations, etc.; 5. Encouraging the participation of the public in the administration of juvenile justice through: а. Public hearings conducted by respected members of the community who have experience in examining similar cases (e.g. a retired judge); b. Holding discussions about the causes behind to such offenses. IX. In the process of examining the offense, the juvenile offender’s active participation should be ensured through his description of the case, his presentation of his view of the occurrence, his confession, and his explanation of the factors that motivated him to offend. X. The use of alternative approaches in administration of juvenile justice should be made conditional on a prior identification of the perpetrator and on his confession. The Local Commission should not have to prove the juvenile’s guilt; it should only be concerned with the right choice of disciplinary measures. XI. The child’s rights and dignity must be respected throughout the process of examination of the offense. XII. The important role of people and institutions in conducting administration of juvenile justice should be recognized. In this regard, the following minimum factors are necessary: 1. Adequate selection of those engaged in the administration of juvenile justice. Standards for competence and ethical codes, along with procedures for selection, training and evaluation of such officials, need to be developed. Unemployment should not be a criterion for selection of employees (as, for instance, in the case of

public tutors working with the Local Commission in Lom). Instead, in the interests of both the children and society, motivated people with experience and skills in dealing with children must be found; 2. The assistance of all institutions and citizens. They should help members of the Local Commissions and Child Protection Departments in the course of their official duties; 3. The motivation and encouragement of Local Commission members and CPD officials. People working in the area of administration of juvenile justice should be employed on a full-time basis and should be compensated for their work. Currently, many people working in the system of juvenile justice are not paid. Consequently, municipalities should provide additional non-pecuniary encouragement, such as the free use of municipal parking lots, free passes for municipal public transportation, exemption from paying local taxes, etc. 4. Training for Local Commission members and CPD officials before they start work and during the course of their jobs. Funds for purchase of specialized literature need to be included in the budgets of the local Commission and of the Child Protection Department. Those who have received training on the application of the CAAMAA and the Child Protection Act will need to cooperate in training their new colleagues, the children in schools, and the public at large. 5. Supervision and control of a competent independent authority over CPD and the Local Commissions.