Implementing the right to education of children with intellectual disabilities by BG Helsinki

MDAC & BHC Implementing the right to education of children with intellectual disabilities: One year after the decision of the European Committee of Social Rights in MDAC v. Bulgaria Roundtable summary On Tuesday 3 November 2009, the Mental Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC) and the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (BHC) co-organised a roundtable in Sofia, entitled „Implementing the right to education of children with mental disabilities: One year after the decision of the European Committee of Social Rights in MDAC v Bulgaria’ (see Appendix 1 below for the agenda). The roundtable took place as a second follow up roundtable event to the decision of the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) in the collective complaint MDAC v Bulgaria. This decision found Bulgaria in violation of the European Social Charter by denying the right to education of institutionalised children with mental disabilities and by exercising discrimination on grounds of their disability in this respect. The event gathered over 60 participants (see Appendix 2), including Bulgarian participants, amongst them government officials from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Science, the State Agency for Child Protection, the Commission for the Protection against Discrimination, judges, educational experts, and members of Bulgarian civil society. Keynote speaker, Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe opened the event. Other foreign experts included Ingrid Körner, President of Inclusion Europe, Marise Wattle, Educator and Specialist in early childhood intervention for children with disabilities and Elsabé Louw, co-founder of the Lora Foundation. Iva Boneva, director of the Bulgarian NGO, Centre for Inclusive Education also gave a presentation. Representatives of the Embassies of Sweden, South Africa, and the UK also attended, signifying international interest in guaranteeing the universal right to education in Bulgaria. The starting point of discussions was the Progress report produced by MDAC and BHC which evaluated the Bulgarian government‟s progress against the recommendations submitted by MDAC and BHC following the ECSR decision which became public on 11 October 2008. The overall purpose of convening this meeting was to continue the dialogue between the Bulgarian government, and civil society and experts - initiated by the 2008 roundtable - on how the government must take concrete steps to comply with the decision by implementing an inclusive education system for all children, with particular focus on institutionalised children with mental disabilities. The following is a summation of presentations, interventions and discussions during the event.

First Panel: One year on, what has changed? Stepping back to move forward

The roundtable was opened by Krassimir Kanev, the Chairperson of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee and Oliver Lewis, Executive Director of the Mental Disability Advocacy Center. They referred to the decision made in October 2008 by the European Committee for Social Rights in MDAC v Bulgaria. The Committee found Bulgaria in violation of Article 17 (right to education) and Article E (right to non-discrimination) of the Revised European Social Charter with respect to institutionalised children with disabilities. In response, MDAC & BHC produced an analysis of the decision and submitted eleven clear and measurable recommendations to the Bulgarian government which address critical factors in the establishment of an effective inclusive education system. These included: amending legislation to ensure education is accessible to every child and that discrimination affects no one; devising a timetabled plan to eliminate segregated schooling; training for teachers and non-pedagogical staff; collaboration with civil society; comprehensive system for data collection; dissemination of information to all stakeholders; action plan to close down institutions and move children into integrated community settings; identification of performance indicators for government to demonstrate and measure progress; appropriate allocation of resources in child-centred learning; and establishing a monitoring mechanism to oversee respect of rights in children‟s institutions. As part of a commitment made at the 2008 roundtable, MDAC & BHC produced a Progress Report which measured the progress made by the government in one year against these recommendations. They stressed that the expertise of those attending the roundtable event must be utilised by those in power at the roundtable event. They encouraged the new government to make inclusive education a priority, particularly because a year is a long time in a child‟s life. They concluded by showing a short video entitled „Inclusive Education is about life‟, which powerfully portrayed the labels and barriers which obstruct the right to education of children and adults with intellectual disabilities. Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights was the keynote speaker of the event. He mentioned that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was celebrating its 20th anniversary and highlighted the relevant sections of the Convention on the Rights of the Child: the right to education for everyone, the right to development and the right against discrimination. He expressed concern that in the current economic climate, funds for education, healthcare and social benefits for vulnerable groups have been significantly reduced in some countries. Although he recognised the inevitability that children‟s interests will also suffer when the whole society is forced to tighten its belt, it would be against the spirit of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other human rights instruments to penalise those who are already vulnerable and thereby increase the existing inequalities. Resource limitations cannot be seen as an excuse for ignoring obligations to protect child rights and the maximum possible resources must be utilised for inclusive education. He stated that the term „inclusive education‟ must be developed to ensure that society adjusts to the individual. Other issues raised were that there are a low percentage of children with intellectual disabilities in schools, and that those schools were not properly adapted to their learning needs, teaching materials have not been adjusted and teachers have not been trained. This remains a major area of reform, he said, and the attitudes of politicians in Bulgaria need to change. The Commissioner highlighted the crucial role of the media in fostering a positive attitude to children with disabilities, which is not currently being fulfilled in Europe in any meaningful way. He expressed disappointment in this respect and stated he would like to see the media living up to this challenge. Furthermore, the Commissioner declared that there needs to be a change of attitude in the schools

themselves, and that there will be a positive impact on society when everybody is given the chance to attend school together. The Commissioner has strongly advocated for both children‟s rights and disability rights in his mandate, and has published several viewpoints on these issues. Aneta Genova from BHC outlined the Progress Report produced by MDAC and BHC. Out of eleven recommendations, four had been partially implemented and seven had not been implemented at all. She provided details of the amount of financial resources which had been spent on adapting the architectural and physical space of schools to make them more accessible which was a positive step. Funds had also been spent by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Science on providing educational materials for children with sensory disabilities. However, in comparison a significantly lesser amount had been allocated to children with intellectual disabilities. Although the government was taking steps to establish supportive environments in schools, the allocation of resources demonstrates the government‟s prejudice against children with intellectual disabilities in the field of education. Regulation no 1/2009, adopted in January 2009, was meant to address the deficiencies in the Bulgarian education system which the ECSR decision addressed. Elements missing in Regulation No 1:  Definition of inclusive education  Ways in which schools should be adapted  No aim of closure of institutions  No understanding of the role of parents in ensuring inclusive education  No distinction of rules for children with intellectual disabilities Regulation no 1/2009 is also deficient due to its lack of enforceability and implementation mechanisms. While it introduces the right to appeal decisions made by Regional Inspectorates of Education concerning assessment of children‟s education needs and resort to placement into special schools, there is no obligation to provide information and support to parents to lodge these appeals. The time limit to lodge an appeal is very short and the rigorous requirements for legal aid make it virtually impossible for parents lacking the means to receive legal support to take action to protect their child‟s rights. Ms Genova highlighted the fact that no concrete changes had been introduced to primary legislation on education, and in fact the principal piece of legislation, the Public Education Act, had not yet been enacted. Moreover, there is no law which guarantees the right to education of children in institutions and there remains a stark lack of coordination or cooperation on the Ministerial level to guarantee inclusive education. Finally, Ms Genova echoed the ECSR‟s decision which stated that financial constraints cannot be used as an excuse to guarantee the right to education. Attitudes must be changed and to do so hard questions must be asked. How much is it worth to give children their right to develop to their fullest potential? Anely Chobanova, Member of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination, Bulgaria‟s equality body, reported on a recent decision in a case which BHC brought on behalf of several mothers of children with intellectual disabilities against the Ministry of Education, Youth and Science. The Commission found discrimination due to the lack of educational opportunities provided to them. In particular, the fact that children with disabilities are not provided any educational opportunities beyond the age of 16 years by law, and removing the possibility for them to repeat a school year in special schools, as

stated in Regulation no 1/2009. Ms Chobanova stated that in spite of amendments made to education legislation this year, there are still discriminatory provisions and much remains to be done to change that legislation and change attitudes of the decisionmakers and law-makers of the country. This should include understanding of, and making reasonable accommodation for, an extended learning period for children with intellectual disabilities to ensure that proper time is provided to them to learn. The Commission has submitted recommendations to the government accordingly. Svetlana Lomeva, Deputy Minister of Education, Youth and Science spoke of the trend towards the closure of special schools in order to put children into mainstream schools. She accepted the need for data to be collected in order to measure any progress made. She asserted that the government was considering amendment of the Regulation No 1/2009. In particular, the process by which children were assessed by teams for complex educational evaluation needs to be reformed. Ms Lomeva highlighted that often the decisions of the teams to refer children to special schools were based on insufficient grounds and it could happen that children without any disabilities were placed into special schools simply because they came from a “socially weak” family or background. This was because frequently parents insisted that their child attend a special school because the child could also receive other forms of social assistance by their attendance. Furthermore, the process by which children are assessed for enrolment into mainstream schools is very „clumsy‟, an Inter-Ministerial commission made up of representatives of different Ministries meets only twice a year which means that depending on when a child can be assessed, they may have to wait up to six months for a decision on whether they can attend a mainstream school they can attend, thereby delaying their opportunity to learn. Ms Lomeva informed the participants that they are considering an amendment to Regulation no 1/2009 to develop a different mechanism for assessment which is not so bureaucratic, and it is the Head of the Regional Inspectorate who is drafting this amendment. Ms Lomeva also referred to resource centres which exist in each region to assist in the integration of children with disabilities into mainstream schools. She raised the issue that due to insufficient funds, resource teachers do not spend enough time working with children. At the moment, a teacher spends 30 hours working with 5 to 8 children which is inadequate in supporting their integration. 400 000 BGN has been spent on copying machines for Braille textbooks. Ms Lomeva identified the following important steps which will be undertaken: 1. Development of a new draft law on pre-school education. This would be a new law and not an amendment. 2. Development of a plan for the education of teachers, non-pedagogical staff and directors. This will take place in 2010. 3. An operational programme which was opened a few weeks ago. This is an information campaign on the integration of children with special educational needs Finally, Ms Lomeva referred to the budget forecast for next year (she stressed that it had not yet been approved), which had allocated less funds to special schools on the basis that there were now less special schools. Even though the overall amount going into inclusive education was reduced, Ms Lomeva explained that a plan had been developed to allow increased amount of resources for every child remaining in a special school.

Valentina Simeonova, Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Policy could not make it to the roundtable event as scheduled, so Nadya Shabani, Chairperson of the State Agency for Child Protection made the next presentation alone. She premised her presentation by saying that she had spoken with Ms Lomeva and they had recognised that they had conflicting statistics and data. Ms Shabani emphasised that a key priority was establishing a common information system with respect to groups at risk and at present there were two projects by the Social Assistance Agency and the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy to build up a unified information system. She argued that amendments to current laws were not necessary, but rather that proper implementation of the legislation was imperative. Ms Shabani stated that deinstitutionalisation is viewed as the top priority and to solve it adequately it will take a few years and they will need to define deadlines. She stated that it is not just about closing down the institutions but about finding solutions for each individual child and regard must be had not to further violate the childâ&#x20AC;&#x;s rights. There must be a clear timeframe, a clear allocation of roles of the players in the process. This does not depend only on central or local governments but multiple stakeholders must be engaged for a successful result. Furthermore, it is necessary to raise the capacity of resource teachers for team evaluations, principals, local government. It is not just the responsibility of the institution but should be on the agenda of civil organisations too. She informed us that the SACP shares the vision to work carefully to change the public attitude because despite good laws and policies, it needs to be realised in practice. To make the different system work together it is necessary to coordinate the work of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Science, the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, the Ministry of Health and the participation of civil society. Dr Krassimir Kanev commented on the data discrepancies between the two government officials, and they responded by saying that there was as yet no unified information system, which they accepted was essential. There followed a discussion. Several parents raised the challenges of evaluations, and the fact that education does not correspond to the reality of the learning needs of their children, particularly with respect to the overall time needed for them to be schooled. A representative of the National network for children echoed these concerns and asked how it was possible that a child could be assessed in two to three minutes, and how can the parentsâ&#x20AC;&#x; role be expanded? A representative of the NGO ARK (Absolute Return for Kids) argued that state policy should pursue the national programme for childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x;s right to family, education, participation- these are indivisible rights. And deinstitutionalisation must be a programme which is transversal. There was a consensus that it was crucial that a unified data collection system must be introduced. Iva Boneva from the Centre for Inclusive Education referred to a 2006 survey they conducted on public attitudes on inclusive education of children with disabilities in which 56% of respondents expressed their negative attitude towards having their own children studying together with children with disabilities and Roma children. Social Professor, Dr Petrov, raised his reservations on how inclusive education will be realised when there is no link between state bureaucracy and the academic circles working in this area which could be instrumental in creating the model of inclusive education which can be implemented by the Ministries. There is no merit to simply closing down special schools if there is no comprehensive policy or plan being applied to the mainstream system. If mainstream schools are not prepared to accept these children there will be no result. Dr Petrov stressed that the academic community could give concrete assistance in this respect.

The deputy director of the Social Assistance Agency joined the discussion and responded to some concerns raised. In response to the issues raised by the mothers of children with intellectual disabilities, he said their concerns were valid, that there are several deficiencies in the SACP and the Social Assistance Agency. There is no early intervention and this should be placed into the legal framework to ensure that the family receives the necessary support and access to expert advice. Inclusion can only operate when there are an array of services, social services must support families and children from birth, giving support to families will prevent the placement of children into institutions. SECOND PANEL: Taking the agenda forward The afternoon session was devoted to two discussions, first one centred around the challenges which mothers of children with intellectual disabilities face in ensuring that their children receive an education, and the actions which they have taken to do so. Following that, Bulgarian and international experts on inclusive education presented on the steps which could be taken by the Bulgarian government in their policy making to make inclusive education a reality. Tania Bineva, mother of 22-year old Doychin Binev, and one of the mothers who took the case against the Ministry of Education before the Commission for the Protection against Discrimination. Her view is also that we need a precise definition of „integration‟. Doychin was given education only up to the age of 16. He has had trouble finding a job, and has stayed at home for the last two years. She related the attitudes of what she referred to as an „immature society‟, that neighbours would hide their children when Doychin was out and that neighbourhood children harassed him, for example by taking a video of him and posting it on the internet. He only has the opportunity to attend a day centre twice a week due to its limited capacity. She claimed that Sofia was badly equipped compared to smaller municipalities where such services may exist, and stated that they should not have to move as a family simply to take advantage of these services. Doychin also spoke briefly on how hard it is for him to find employment and particularly in an area which interests him. Ms Bineva concluded that parents can make all the efforts imaginable for their child to be educated, but it is the responsibility of the state to guarantee this right. Elsabé Louw from the Lora Foundation shared with us her experiences of adopting Bulgarian orphan Lora Louw. When Ms Louw first met Lora in a Bulgarian children‟s institution, she was seven years old and despite her age, she was the size of a baby, bedridden, severely malnourished and had been diagnosed with brain damage, amongst other illnesses. The institution staff told Ms Louw that she would soon die. Upon Ms Louw‟s intervention, doctors found that she was instead suffering from severe malnutrition and she was treated in a hospital, and eventually adopted by Ms Louw. Lora had never been outside in her life and was severely disadvantaged by being neglected particularly in her early years which are pivotal for every child‟s development. Since then, she has benefited from rehabilitation with therapists in South Africa, including Ms Wattel the following speaker, and a special home schooling programme followed from Bulgaria. Due to the fact that none of the Bulgarian schools would accept Lora, Ms Louw was forced to resort to home schooling which she accepts is not an ideal situation but given the circumstances and lack of opportunities provided in the Bulgarian education system, it is the best chance Lora could have. Today Lora is a young woman who continues to thrive and learn; she speaks several languages, and leads an active life participating in different sports and activities within the community.

In the discussion which followed, the authorities argued that Bulgaria was not „ready‟ for fully inclusive education. Ingrid Körner, President of Inclusion Europe, argued that children with disabilities did not have different needs to other children, just extra needs; they simply require additional support. Dr Krassimir Kanev pointed out that an incremental approach could be very slow and therefore detrimental to the children concerned. He reminded us of what it meant when we stated that society was not yet ready for inclusive education- we are talking about human beings and their basic rights and that children could hardly wait for society to be ready to respect their human rights. Discussion continued into the responsibility of professionals, of doctors- obstetricians in influencing the future of children with disabilities. Often it is the practice in Bulgaria that when an obstetrician finds out that a baby will be born with disabilities, their advice to the mother is to abandon the child to the institution. There are no sanctions for medical professionals about this type of advice which unnecessarily leads to the institutionalisation of children with disabilities. It was noted with regret that despite the invitation, the Ministry of Health was not present at the roundtable. The NGO ARK highlighted the need to change attitudes, including those of doctors with respect to disabilities, but also with respect to decision-makers. For example, Prosecutors found no criminal offences had taken place in the Mogilino Institution despite clear evidence of neglect and ill-treatment, and the attitude of the former Minister of Labour and Social Policy was much the same. How is it possible to foster momentum on the grassroots level given the attitude of the leaders themselves? Ms Genova of MDAC & BHC informed the participants that BHC had called upon all Prosecutor‟s Offices across Bulgaria to open investigations all children‟s institutions following the Mogilino affair, however no crimes were found to have been committed. A representative of the Youth Organisation of Deaf People told the participants about their efforts in giving education to institutionalised deaf children and they are seeking assistance for these activities. Marise Wattle, Educator and Specialist in early childhood intervention for children with disabilities then spoke of her practice in a school in South Africa. She explained that, in the field of child development, intervention means “coming between” any negative, disabling effects that a developmental delay or disability might have on the developmental process in general. This is an attempt at least to minimise, if not to prevent the impact of the disability/delay on the child‟s development. She emphasised the importance of the first 2 years of a child‟s life and that with Lora, they had to teach her everything right from the beginning. Ingrid Körner, President of Inclusion Europe, then made her presentation entitled „Overcoming Challenges to Inclusive Education‟, in which she advocated that every child should be included in mainstream schools, regardless of disability. We must recognise that diversity is the solution, not the problem, because diversity enriches schools and society as a whole. We must have full inclusion or it is not inclusion at all. She referred to the conference held in Salamanca in October 2009 organised by Inclusion International, Inclusion Europe and INICO University in Salamanca, on the 15th anniversary of the Salamanca Declaration, which called for the international community to endorse inclusive schools by implementing practical and strategic changes. She also mentioned the Global Report on Inclusive Education 2009, which reported that:  Out of 77 million children out of school, at least 25 million of them have a disability.  95% of children with disabilities do not complete primary school education  Most children with disabilities do not attend school with their non-disabled peers and most do not receive support they need. She outlined the principles of inclusive education:

    

Adapt schools to children – not the other way round Accommodate the most severely disabled child Quality schools are inclusive schools -resources have to be allocated at schools, not children Government and other Ministries should support and argue for the idea of inclusion Inclusion is not only for schools but for all aspects of life.

Furthermore, Ms Körner confronted us with a question: do we believe in inclusive education or don‟t we? It is not possible to be in between and to sometimes believe in it or sometimes not. If we don‟t believe in it, we need to ask ourselves what are the values and goals overtaking inclusive education? Are these values and goals more important and more worthy than a child‟s right to education? Iva Boneva, Director of the Centre for Inclusive Education, spoke about the need for implementation of inclusive education. She focused on the need for early intervention and stated that the team which works with the child must be properly trained and must identify the skills as well as the deficiencies of the child. Ms Boneva highlighted the opinion that inclusive education can only work in countries with money, but contrary to that it works when there are the right attitudes. It is necessary to start changing the attitude of the local community to gain support and this necessarily includes the attitudes of teachers, speech therapists, tutors, paediatricians, general practitioners (family doctors), parents. Early intervention can be implemented by simple steps, by supplying leaflets in GP‟s offices. The simple act of providing information can lead to early detection, early education programmes, and importantly to networks and supports to ensure that parents and families do not feel isolated in these challenges. Teachers can be trained to work on individual education plans and to take into account not just the child‟s cognitive needs and social needs but also incorporate what are the desires and preferences of the child and their parents. She quoted one child, who had asked, „If we don‟t all learn together, how shall we then live together?‟ The discussion which followed questioned the role of parents and civil society in policymaking of inclusive education. One mother stated that she had been fighting for the rights of her child to education for several years and in the meantime her child grew up. Representative of the NGO ARK questioned whether the governmental working group which has been formed to draft a new Education Act truly is inclusive of civil society organisations. None of the parents and NGOs present at the roundtable event, which included the most notable Bulgarian NGOs working on education issues, had been invited to take part nor had they ever been consulted. This is a serious concern given that the Education Act must respond to the deficiencies of current policy and practice and it is the parents themselves and the NGOs working in the field who are most familiar with that. Last year a moratorium had been proposed by ARK on new entries into institutions for children from 0 to 3 years. The government response was that this was not realistic because there were no alternatives. When a three year transitory period was proposed, this was also not approved. An education professor from Sofia University stated that too much emphasis lay on whether a child was integrated into a special school or mainstream school or not, and that instead of this focus, inclusive education must be seen as an overall process. The quality of education itself needs to be addressed, not to focus on one group of children but to raise the standard of education of all children. This means ensuring that the needs of all individual learners are met, whether they have a disability or not. Ivan Stancioff stressed that media can help in changing attitudes, but the media needs to be helped in this. Collective lobbying is effective in this respect, gathering parents, teachers, children with or without disabilities- unity brings strength.

The day ended with a discussion on recommendations which could be made to the government regarding inclusive education. The importance of NGOs working together towards the common goal was raised. The tone was one of optimism. A representative from the SACP stated that this second meeting was constructive and we need to build upon that by making the conclusions available to be able to touch those decisionmakers, Parliamentarians, etc who do not have understanding on these issues. The time is ripe for clear messages to be released to the public domain and for awareness to be raised on a large scale. The two moderators, Dr Krassimir Kanev and Oliver Lewis, thanked the organisers and participants for their input.

Appendix 1

Mental Disability Advocacy Center & Bulgarian Helsinki Committee ROUNDTABLE Implementing the right to education of children with mental disabilities: One year after the decision of the European Committee for Social Rights in MDAC v. Bulgaria

Tuesday 3 November 2009, Sofia Conference Hall Desislava, Grand Hotel Bulgaria, 4 Tzar Osvoboditel Str, 1000 Sofia 9.30 - 10.00

Registration

10.00 - 10.40 Welcome and opening remarks Dr Krassimir Kanev, Chairperson of Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (BHC) Oliver Lewis, Executive Director of Mental Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC)

Key note speaker: Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of Europe

The importance of inclusive education for children with mental disabilities FIRST PANEL: One year on, what has changed? Stepping back to move forward Moderator: Krassimir Kanev, Chairperson of BHC 10.40 - 11.20 Evaluating progress over the last year. Discrimination and inclusive education. Aneta Genova, Attorney, BHC, co-project with MDAC Anely Chobanova, Commission for the Protection against Discrimination 11.20 - 11.40 Coffee break 11.40 - 12.30 Evaluating progress over the last year. Steps to be taken. Valentina Simeonova, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs

Nadya Shabani, Chairperson, State Agency for Child Protection

This event is supported by grants from the Trust for Civil Society in Central and Eastern Europe, the Open Society Institute - Budapest and MDAC-UK. Mental Disability Advocacy Center, Rákóczi út 27/b, 1088 Budapest, Hungary; tel: +36 1 413 27 30, fax: +36 1 413 27 39; email: mdac@mdac.info, web: www.mdac.info Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, Varbitsa 7, 1504 Sofia, Bulgaria; tel/fax: + 359 2 943 48 76, +359 2 943 06 70; email: bhc@bghelsinki.org, web: www.bghelsinki.org

12.30 - 13.00 Discussion. 13.00 - 14.00 Lunch break SECOND PANEL: Taking the agenda forward Moderator: Oliver Lewis, Executive Director of MDAC 14.00 - 14.40 Learning from experience: Standing up for children’s right to education Tanya Bineva, mother of Doychin Binev, former special school pupil, applicants in a case before the Commission for the Protection against Discrimination Elsabé Louw, co-founder of the Lora Foundation and mother of Lora Louw- former resident of Bulgarian institution for children with mental disabilities 14.40 - 15.10 Discussion 15.10 - 15.30 Coffee break 15.30 - 16.20 Overcoming challenges to inclusive education: policy making and implementation Marise Wattel, Educator and Specialist in early childhood intervention for children with disabilities Ingrid Körner, President, Inclusion Europe Iva Boneva, Executive Director, Centre for Inclusive Education, Bulgaria 16.20 - 16.50 Discussion 16.50 - 17.00 Closing remarks

Appendix 2

List of Participants, 3 November 2009 1. Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of Europe 2. Julien Attuil–Kayser, Europe;

Advisor to the Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of

3. Vera Georgieva, Interpreter to the Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of Europe; 4. Ingrid Körner, President of Inclusion Europe; 5. Marise Wattle, Educator and Specialist in early childhood intervention for children with disabilities; 6. Elsabé Louw, co-founder of the Lora Foundation and mother of Lora Louw; 7. Venelina Bogdanova, Head of Technical Support Unit on Deinstitutionalisation, UNICEF Bulgaria; 8. Ralitsa Sechkova, Expert, Regional Deinstitutionalisation, UNICEF Bulgaria;

Planning,

Technical

Support

Unit

9. Svetlana Lomeva, Deputy Minister of Education, Youth and Science; 10. Nadya Shabani, Chairperson of the State Agency for Child Protection; 11. Teodora Ivanova, Head of Supervision of Children's Rights Directorate, the State Agency for Child Protection; 12. Fany Mihailova, State Expert, Standard and Analysis Directorate, Department of Standards, Licensing, Supervision, the State Agency for Child Protection; 13. Iliana Malinova, Deputy Executive Director, Social Assistance Agency; 14. Ofelia Kaneva, Chief Expert, Social Assistance Agency; 15. Latinka Kovacheva, Chief Expert on Inclusive Education at the Regional Inspectorate for Education – Sofia, Ministry of Education; 16. Ognyan Yanakiev, Chairperson of the Education, Science, Children, Youth and Sports Committee, National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria; 17. Yanita Dimitrova, Chief Expert Associate, Education, Science, Children, Youth and Sports Committee, National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria; 18. Mimi Furnadzhieva, Judge at the Supreme Court of Cassation; 19. Anely Chobanova, Member of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination; 20. Eva Zhecheva, Chief Expert, Department of Administration Services, Labour and Social Activities, the Ombudsman of Bulgaria; 21. Iva Boneva, Director of the Centre for Inclusive Education; 22. Lindsay Saltsgiver, Project Manager, CEDAR Foundation; 23. Ivanka Shalapatova, Director of “For Our Children” Foundation; 24. Ivan Stancioff, Founder and Chairperson of Karin Dom Foundation, Varna; 25. Maria Stoycheva, Executive Director of Child and Space Association;

26. Tatyana Bineva, Doychin Binev's mother; 27. Doychin Binev, former special school pupil; 28. Rayna Yossifova, Chairperson of the Association of Parents for Children and Juveniles with Physical and Mental Disabilities “We exist”; 29. Angela Ilieva, Director of a Daycare Centre for young people with disabilities, “We Exist” Association of parents for children and juveniles with physical and mental disabilities; 30. Adriana Doychinova, MD, Pediatrician, working on the case of Mogilino; 31. Reneta Yancheva, Psychologist, Daycare Centre for Children and Juveniles in Sevlievo, International Social Services Organisation; 32. Rumyan Russinov, Director, Public Policy Advocacy Centre; 33. Prof. Dr. Vladimir Radulov, Lecturer, Department of Special Education, University of Sofia, and specialist in the education of children with visual disabilities; 34. Docent Dr. Ivailo Petrov, Psychologist, Expert in Special Education, Sofia University; 35. Docent Dr. Maria Baeva, Lecturer on Pre-school Education, Faculty of Primary and Pre-school Education, University of Sofia; 36. Paul Beijer, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Sweden to Bulgaria; 37. Elena Atanassova, MATRA and Justice and Home Affairs Advisor, Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Bulgaria; 38. Steve Williams, Ambassador of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland to Bulgaria; 39. Steward Peters, Team Leader Strategic Policy Team, Embassy of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland in Bulgaria; 40. Radostina Mihalkova, Political Specialist in the Political and Economic Affairs Office, Embassy of the United States of America in Bulgaria; 41. Sheila Margaret Camerer, Ambassador of the Republic of South Africa in Bulgaria; 42. Oliver Lewis, Executive Director of Mental Disability Advocacy Center; 43. Victoria Lee, Legal Officer for Southeast Europe, Mental Disability Advocacy Center; 44. Ann Schutte, Legal intern, Mental Disability Advocacy Center; 45. Noemi Kiry Ambrus, Senior Operations Advisor, Mental Disability Advocacy Center; 46. Dr Krassimir Kanev, Chairperson of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee; 47. Aneta Genova, Attorney-at-law, participant in the BHC & MDAC joint program of strategic litigation and advocacy for people with mental disability; 48. Slavka Kukova, Coordinator of Program for Protection of the Rights of Children in Institutions, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee; 49. Antoaneta Nenkova, Coordinator of Project for Needs Assessment of Individuals with Mental Disability in Bulgaria, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee; 50. Daniela Furtunova, Attorney-at-law, Legal organisational Manager, Legal Defence Programme, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee; 51. Maria Nikolova, Legal Assistant, Legal Defence Programme, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee 52. Аsen Petrov – Director of Direction “Educational Environment and Integration”, Ministry of Education, Youth and Science;

53. Nadya Kantarska – Director of the Press center, Ministry of Education, Youth and Science; 54. Milena Marinova - Chief Expert, Direction “Child Protection”, Social Agency;

Assistance

55. Cvetelina Kyoseva - State Agency for Child Protection; 56. Zora Gencheva - Member of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination; 57. Margarita Asparuhova - Centre for Inclusive Education; 58. Vladislava Tsvetanova Tsolova – National Alliance “Smile with Me”; 59. Evelina Ivanova – Non-profit Association “Humanitas”; 60. Atanas Tavkov – Association “Different but Equal”; 61. Ventsislav Stefanov Stoyanov - Association “Different but Equal; 62. Daniela Pandurska – Association “Walk Europe”; 63. Krasimira Obretenova – Association of families with children with special needs; 64. Anton Sapundzhiev - translator; Youth Organisation of the Deaf People in Bulgaria; 65. Anjela Todorova – organisator; Youth Organisation of the Deaf People in Bulgaria; 66. Minko Slavov – Chairperson of the Board, Association for European Development for the Deaf Young People in Bulgaria; 67. Snejana Misheva – student at University of Sofia; 68. Georgi Voinov – lawyer; Attorney-at-law, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee; 69. Gabriela Galabova- Trainee; Attorney-at-law, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee; 70. Blagovesta Angelova- Trainee; Attorney-at-law, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee; 71. Vessela Sergeva – journalist for Agence France Press; 72. Zara Kaleva – journalist for Az Buki Newspaper; 73. Nikolay Slavov – journalist for Az Buki Newspaper 74. Mariana Girginova – journalist for Deutsche Welle; 75. Veselina Dakovska – journalist for Bulgarian National Radio 76. Emilia Ilieva – journalist for BBTv; 77. Vessela Veselinova –journalist for BGNES.