COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

Twenty-ninth session

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 771st MEETING

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva,

on Tuesday, 29 January 2002, at 10 a.m.

Chairperson: Mr. DOEK

CONTENTS

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS OF STATES PARTIES (continued)

Initial report of Andorra

The meeting was called to order at 10.05 a.m.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS OF STATES PARTIES (agenda item 4) (continued)

Initial report of Andorra (CRC/C/61/Add.3; CRC/C/Q/AND/1; written replies of the Government of Andorra to the questions in the list of issues (document without a symbol distributed in the meeting room in English only))

At the invitation of the Chairperson, the members of the delegation of Andorra took places at the Committee table.

Mr. BONET CASAS (Andorra) drew attention to the fact that his country had recently signed the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel mines and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and remained fully committed to participation in international forums concerned with human rights and dignity. His Government gave increasing budgetary support to international humanitarian cooperation, in particular to agencies dealing with child-related issues, such as the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict. He welcomed the recent entry into force of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.

Ms. GABARRE IGLESIAS (Andorra) said that since the drafting of the initial report, many changes had been made to the legal and institutional framework of her country regarding implementation of the Convention. Within the Ministry of Health and Welfare, a Department of the Family had been created and the Social Care Unit had been substantially reorganized. In the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, a Youth Unit had been set up to encourage the participation of young people in society, culture and the world of work. In the Ministry of Justice and Interior, a Minors Unit had been created to facilitate application of the Qualified Law on Minors’ Jurisdiction, and four judges had been appointed to the juvenile courts.

Her Government had reviewed its declaration with reference to articles 7 and 8 of the Convention, and would shortly be in a position to withdraw it. The collection of data relating to children had been complicated by the fact that each ministry or body had its own system for data collection, and the Ministry of Health and Welfare would shortly be issuing guidelines for bringing systems into line with the reporting procedures of the Committee. The written replies had been distributed to all agencies involved in activities related to child rights, as well as to the domestic media.

The CHAIRPERSON invited members of the Committee to ask questions concerning general measures of implementation and the definition of the child.

Ms. CHUTIKUL said she welcomed the detailed and informative written replies, as well as the efforts made to publicize the Committee’s consideration of the initial report. The statistical information in the replies was of variable quality, since not all data was disaggregated, but she had noted the Government’s plans to bring data collection into line with the Committee’s reporting procedures.

Andorra was an unusually small country, in which its own nationals constituted a minority group, and over half of the workforce belonged to tourist-related sectors. She welcomed the establishment of a Department of the Family with responsibility for coordinating implementation of the Convention. She asked for further information regarding the post of Raonador del Ciutadà, which she understood was based on the Swedish and French ombudsmen. Could it receive complaints from children concerning alleged violations of rights, and did it help review legislation? She would be interested to learn whether the national social services plan, containing provisions relating to children, had been subject to a progress review. Had the Government considered revising the plan, taking into account the Convention, the World Summit for Children, and the forthcoming United Nations special session on children?

Welcoming the new legislation on the reform of juvenile justice, she said that no details had been provided concerning the proposed new law on immigration. The delegation should explain whether the new law would help to improve the status of the children of workers with temporary work permits or illegal seasonal workers, for instance by ensuring that they had access to health care and education.

Ms. AL-THANI asked what percentage of the overall budget was allocated to social services, and whether there was an upward or a downward trend in that regard.

Mr. AL-SHEDDI asked whether a single body took responsibility for the implementation of the Convention. He would welcome an explanation of the relationship between the National Committee for UNICEF and the recently created Department of the Family, particularly with regard to the preparation of the initial report. It would be useful to learn whether an independent monitoring body had been established. Lastly, he would appreciate an account of specific measures the Government had taken to disseminate the Convention.

Mr. CITARELLA said he understood that the Government did not intend to establish a national commission for childhood with responsibility for dealing with complaints. He asked why it did not consider that to be necessary. He inquired whether the minimum age for marriage of 16 years applied to both boys and girls. It would be useful to learn whether, under the new law on juvenile justice, it remained the case that children under the age of 16 years could not be sentenced to prison. The delegation should elaborate on the use of reform centres for children convicted of criminal offences between the ages of 12 and 16 years, and explain to what extent those centres resembled prisons.

Ms. SARDENBERG asked why Andorra had failed to ratify many of the international human rights instruments, in particular the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. She would welcome further details on the preparation of the report, especially as the Department of the Family, which had been established as recently as May 2001, could not have been involved. She asked for further information about the new system proposed by the Government for the systematic collection of data. The delegation should confirm that all aspects of the Convention would be taken into account. Although she welcomed the wealth of information in the report and the written replies, too much emphasis was given to the provision of services and not enough

to the protection and promotion of rights. Further details of the parliamentary system would be useful, given that Parliament had been established as recently as 1993. She asked how Parliament and local authorities were involved in implementing the Convention.

Ms. KARP asked to know the parental attitude to children’s rights. Had any change been detected since the ratification of the Convention? She asked whether the Government had looked into the question of the real meaning of a child-rights approach with regard to services, the dissemination of information and the training of professionals, who should be made aware that the Committee was more concerned with rights than material needs. Given the magnitude of the principality’s successes, the authorities could be expected to be more analytical in their approach to such rights. Also, how did the Government interpret the right to development?

She asked how the report had been drafted, who had been involved and to what extent NGOs had participated in its preparation and in policy formulation and implementation in general. With the report’s emphasis on partnership with international non‑governmental organizations (NGOs), she would be interested to learn the extent of local NGO participation. The scope of Andorra’s ratification of international instruments was fairly narrow: for instance, although the Principality possessed solid legislation and projects on child labour, it had not joined the International Labour Organization, whose very important Convention No. 182 addressed that subject.

Ms. TIGERSTEDT-TÄHTELÄ commended the delegation on the excellent quality of the initial report and written replies, which could serve as a textbook. She asked for information about the contracts which the Government concluded with organizations of civil society. Was there a time frame for delivery? And was the product evaluated annually or at the end of the contract?

She expressed appreciation for the country’s international cooperation and its intention to increase all ministries’ contributions to foreign aid during the current legislature. What was the current percentage of such aid and by how much would it increase? She inquired about the revenue base in Andorra, a duty-free country with a very high per capita gross domestic product (GDP), which attracted millions of tourists: was it provided by taxation or by State-owned hotels? Since Andorra had signed the European Social Charter, had a deadline been set for its ratification?

Ms. OUEDRAOGO said that while the country had a good record of social assistance to children, she was unclear about its attitude to their actual rights. Was there a system that took account of children’s concerns and did they participate in decisions affecting them? What was the general attitude among the population to children’s rights and the principles of the Convention, whereby children were subjects of law? How had parents reacted to the Convention, given the traditional attitude that they were best placed to decide their children’s fate?

The written reply concerning the training of professionals to deal with children had concentrated on sports monitors and the like. To what extent were professionals dealing with children trained so that they could implement the Convention in the course of their work? Why did Andorran NGOs concentrate more on children’s needs than on their rights?

The CHAIRPERSON asked the delegation to clarify the suggestion on page 29 of the written replies that the role of the Secretariat of State for the Family was both to establish coordination between the various ministries and to set up a coordination body.

The meeting was suspended at 11.05 a.m. and resumed at 11.20 a.m.

Ms. GABARRE IGLESIAS (Andorra) explained that, following the March 2001 elections, the Ministry of Health and Welfare had been divided into three Secretariats of State, for health, welfare and the family respectively. The Secretariat of State for the Family had assumed competence for all matters relating to women and children. One initiative had been the creation of an institution to monitor and coordinate all child-related activities, with the participation of civil society, NGOs and all persons concerned with child issues. The first step had been meetings between the ministry and representatives of all parish councils in order to determine shared problems and decide how they could be tackled in a coordinated manner.

Mr. BONET CASAS (Andorra), referring to Ms. Sardenberg’s question concerning the Andorran Parliament, said that the Principality’s historical references reverted to the eighth and ninth centuries and that it had become an independent entity in 1278. The first Parliament had been established in 1419, with its limited powers developing as time went by. In 1993, with the separation of powers provided by a new Constitution, Andorra had become a sovereign State, the subject of international law. Since that time it had achieved significant progress.

To Ms. Tigerstedt-Tähtelä’s questions, he replied that taxes came from customs levies and taxes on specific products. There were plans to introduce a new tax on services in 2002. The revised European Social Charter had been signed and he hoped it would soon be ratified, pending inter-ministerial meetings to decide how it would affect each ministry’s work.

In reply to Ms. Ouedraogo, he said that children had legal responsibilities as well as legal rights. Under the principality’s llei qualificada concerning minors, judges were required to hear children’s views before taking decisions with regard to disposal of their persons, on the basis of their level of maturity and comprehension. Andorran civil law endowed children with numerous rights, including that of inheritance. Under criminal law, the Constitution guaranteed freedom of religion and expression and banned xenophobia and racism. However, some youth movements preached and practised those evils, which the authorities would not tolerate. The only law governing them was contained in the domestic legislation.

A clear distinction needed to be made between police arrest and trial in courts. Legal and psychological assistance was available to child offenders. In the case of a minor offence, the police usually took a statement in the presence of the parents and their lawyers, after which the child was given a warning, the objective being prevention rather than punishment. Children needed positive legislation covering all their rights under criminal law. The institution of ombudsman had been created to protect all the freedoms of all the citizens, especially with regard to any injustice on the part of the public administration.

Ms. OUEDRAOGO said her earlier question had been meant to focus on the consideration given to children’s views in the debate on large-scale topics such as violence, and on their input in national decision-making.

Ms. da SILVA CERQUEIRA (Andorra) said that the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport had recently conducted a survey to determine areas of concern for children. A youth forum had been held in 2001 and another was planned for 2002, giving children the opportunity to air their views about matters affecting them.

Ms. SARDENBERG asked whether Parliament was directly involved in child-related issues and the implementation of the Convention. It would be interesting to learn whether Andorra intended to ratify any other United Nations human rights instruments.

Mr. FORNER ROVIRA (Andorra) said the admission of Andorra to the United Nations in 1993 had been a major step forward for a small State. For the first time in history Andorra had enjoyed diplomatic representation. The Convention had been one of the first international treaties to be signed by the Government. He stressed that the Andorran National Committee for the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) had encouraged the State party to sign it, but had not forced the Government in any way. The Convention had been signed because of mounting international pressure; it was also seen as one of the most universal treaties. The Government also intended to sign the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and several other international treaties. He pointed out, however, that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had been created as recently as 1993 and that human resources were still limited. It had therefore been necessary to establish priorities. It had become clear that the Ministry could not act alone; it counted on the support of other ministries in order to sign international agreements. For that reason, measures had been taken to improve inter-ministerial cooperation.

Immigration was a very sensitive issue in Andorra. It was a small State, keen to retain its identity. However, as its economy was centred around tourism and the services sector, it counted on foreign labour and therefore had a large foreign community, attracted by a higher‑than‑average minimum wage and a tax-free salary. The current legal framework governing immigration established quotas for immigrants; however, the Government recognized the need to adapt to the changing economy and to meet its international commitments, and a new draft law amending the current Immigration Law was being prepared, which would be less restrictive. Seasonal workers were issued with work permits for a maximum stay of six months and were not permitted to bring their families to Andorra. However, workers sometimes stayed in the country for longer than six months and invited their families to join them, which constituted a breach of law in Andorra. The Government had to maintain control of the situation in order to provide adequate services for the families of foreign workers. Efforts were therefore being made to address the problem.

In reply to a question by Ms. Chutikul, he said that Andorra had not participated in the 1990 World Summit for Children; it was, however, sending a delegation to the United Nations General Assembly special session on children to be held in May 2002. A great deal of effort had been put into the preparation of the written replies to illustrate that in spite of the fact that Andorra had no national plan for children, the State party attached great importance to the status of children. It was hoped that the document had laid the groundwork for the implementation of the conclusions of the special session.

Ms. TIGERSTEDT-TÄHTELÄ asked whether Andorra had any bilateral agreements with France and Spain relating to the rights of migrant workers and their families.

Mr. FORNER ROVIRA (Andorra) said that Andorra had signed agreements with Portugal, Spain and France providing for more favourable conditions for their nationals in questions of immigration. In June 2001, a trilateral agreement had been signed with France and Spain relating to the entry, circulation, sojourn and establishment of their nationals in Andorra, also giving rights to Andorran nationals living in France or Spain. Such an agreement had been necessary since a new immigration law had been introduced in Spain making it difficult for non‑European Union nationals to live there. An agreement on social security between Andorra and France had also been signed.

Ms. da SILVA CERQUEIRA (Andorra) said that the initial report (CRC/C/61/Add.3) was the first report of its kind to be prepared by Andorra. It had given the State party the opportunity to identify key areas for improvement. The report had been based on information collected from various ministries, municipalities and NGOs involved in child welfare. The State party would endeavour to ensure greater participation of all relevant parties in the preparation of the second periodic report, and would ensure that all parties had the opportunity to discuss the report before it was submitted to the Committee. The State party had taken note of the fact that the Committee required more detailed statistics in order to determine the situation of the child in Andorra; a set of guidelines on data collection was currently being prepared for ministries and it was expected that the necessary information would soon be available.

In reply to a question by Ms. Chutikul, she said that a national social services plan had been approved by the Government and was currently being implemented. An evaluation of the plan was to be conducted in 2002. Such an evaluation was particularly important as the Ministry of Health and Welfare had recently been restructured, to provide for the establishment of various units to address different social issues. The evaluation would also take into account the establishment in May 2001 of the Secretariat of State for the Family, specifically responsible for all areas affecting the family.

Ms. AL-THANI said she would welcome information about the percentage of the budget devoted to services provided for children, including health, education and social services.

Ms. da SILVA CERQUEIRA (Andorra) said that the State party had not provided an exact figure for the budget devoted to health care because the Andorran health system was financed by various sources. It was also difficult to say exactly how much of the budget was devoted to health care for adults and how much was devoted to children. The necessary information should be available in the near future. Details about the budget devoted to education and social welfare for children had been provided in the written replies.

Mr. FORNER ROVIO (Andorra), replying to a question by Ms. Tigerstedt-Tähtelä, said that in January 2002, the euro had replaced the peseta as the national currency of Andorra. All future statistics would be provided in euros.

A representative of the Council of Europe had recently visited Andorra and had indicated the absence of juvenile detention facilities as one of its shortcomings. Although there had been no real call for such facilities in Andorra because of the low rate of juvenile delinquency, the State party had taken note of the issue and had already bought some land on which to build a special detention centre for juveniles.

Ms. da SILVA CERQUEIRA (Andorra) said that no study had yet been conducted to determine the level of awareness of the Convention, although the Government intended to carry out such a study in the near future. In her opinion, children were generally well informed about the Convention, thanks to the ongoing efforts made by the Ministry of Education to raise awareness of it and the efforts made by UNICEF to disseminate information to children about their rights.

Mr. FORNER ROVIO (Andorra), in reply to a question by Ms. Sardenberg, said that according to the Constitution, all decisions on the signing or ratification of international instruments had to go through Parliament; Parliament and the Government worked in close cooperation, which meant that action could be taken fairly swiftly. He said that Parliament did not play a role in the practical implementation of the Convention.

Mr. BONET CASAS (Andorra) said that Parliament was divided into Commissions with specific mandates. When Andorra ratified an international treaty, a new Commission could be created to determine what legislative action was needed in order to meet the commitments of the State party.

Ms. SARDENBERG said that the State party had to show a clear political commitment to implement the Convention. Parliament could be used as a channel for disseminating the Convention and could contribute towards changing attitudes towards the rights of the child.

Ms. KARP said she welcomed the State party’s intentions to evaluate the level of understanding of the Convention. She asked whether the Government had introduced any policies to ensure that a rights-based approach was taken in the sector of social services.

Ms. TIGERSTEDT-TÄHTELÄ asked whether Parliament would be informed of the Committee’s concluding observations, and whether it was kept abreast of developments in the implementation of the Convention.

Ms. GABARRE IGLESIAS (Andorra) said that since its establishment in May 2001, the Secretariat of State for the Family had held meetings with parliamentary groups and with the Parliamentary Commission dealing specifically with health and welfare. That Commission would be informed of the Committee’s concluding observations and would ensure that the information was transmitted to Parliament.

Mr. FORNER ROVIO (Andorra) said that Parliament had shown its support for the Global Movement for Children organized by UNICEF. The President had encouraged everyone to participate in the movement; a television campaign was under way and articles had been published in the press to rally support.

Ms. da SILVA CERQUEIRA (Andorra) said that despite the fact that Catalan was the official language of Andorra, the majority of the population spoke Spanish and French. Andorra had a plural education system, consisting of establishments that followed the Andorran system and those that followed the Spanish and French systems; teaching about the Convention was

provided in all systems, in a language that all children in the school were able to understand. She was certain that all children living in Andorra, whether nationals or not, had access to the Convention.

Ms. GABARRE IGLESIAS (Andorra), in reply to a question by Ms. Karp, said that since the establishment of the Secretariat of State for the Family, several projects had been introduced focusing specifically on the rights of the child.

One successful project had involved provision of child care in the home, in coordination with a number of bodies active in that area, the prime goal being to ensure the best interests of the child.

Mr. FORNER ROVIRA (Andorra) sought clarification on the reference to contracts.

The CHAIRPERSON said that in many countries, Governments contracted private organizations to help provide services in health care, education and welfare or subsidized their projects. At issue were the standards for, and monitoring of, such activities.

Ms. TIGERSTEDT-TÄHTELÄ, referring to page 23 of the written replies, which spoke of the contractual nature of public contributions as well as follow-up, evaluation and control, asked for further information on such contracts.

Mr. FORNER ROVIRA (Andorra) said that there were no contractual arrangements with the various NGOs working in the country, but that one existed with the Red Cross, involving a special ambulance service. The Ministry of Health and Welfare had sought to standardize criteria among NGOs. Two years previously, the Government had begun soliciting NGO proposals for projects which, if approved, would be subsidized in part or in full. Andorra’s support of NGOs was part of the humanitarian assistance it carried out in conjunction with UNICEF, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Committee against Torture, the Youth Fund and other United Nations bodies. His Government had increased budgeting for such activities by about 5 per cent, earmarking some US$ 1.5 million in 2001 to that end. In another initiative involving NGOs, the Government had held a seminar at which it had urged them to focus on certain programmes.

Andorrans had a highly developed sense of solidarity, and the Government was always surprised at how generously they contributed to fund-raising campaigns for health and welfare.

Ms. GABARRE IGLESIAS (Andorra), referring to a new development, said that the Ministry of Health and Welfare had direct contacts with NGOs to find out what projects they would be presenting; that helped the Ministry with budget planning and enabled it to decide how best to contribute to and follow up such activities.

Mr. FORNER ROVIRA (Andorra) said that in 2001, his Government had for the first time offered scholarships to Andorran students for humanitarian training. The Government was also prepared to consider signing a special agreement with the United Nations on junior professional officers and associated experts.

The CHAIRPERSON invited the members of the Committee to ask questions concerning general principles, civil rights and freedoms, family environment and alternative care and basic health and welfare.

Ms. CHUTIKUL asked about the children of illegal migrant workers, a sensitive issue in many countries. Did such children have access to basic social services even if their parents were illegal immigrants? How did Andorra deal with the registration of children born to undocumented migrant workers?

She sought further information on what was being done to ensure that the views of children were heard and that children were respected as full persons with their own rights.

Were there any programmes to teach parents about the sharing of childrearing duties by fathers and mothers, alternatives to corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure and the need to combat violence against children and drug and alcohol abuse by minors?

According to page 43 of the written replies, given that kindergartens covered only 40 per cent of demand, the Government had introduced childcare in private homes as an alternative. How were such arrangements decided and monitored, and would they cover the 60 per cent of children for whom there was no room in kindergartens?

Ms. KARP asked whether the child was a party to family mediation, or whether only the parents took part.

The report did not seem to make any reference to violence by children against children at school, such as bullying, which was a subject of concern in many countries. Was that not a problem in Andorra? In that connection, had there been any studies of anxiety and depression among children? As she understood it, psychological counselling was not covered by insurance, but had to be paid for by parents. What impact did that have on children who were victims of abuse? Was reporting of such abuse obligatory? Were children encouraged to complain of abuse, in particular sexual abuse in the family? The report and written replies did not seem to contain any such reference to that problem. She asked who children could turn to in such cases. Were there special units in the police with training to hear their complaints? How did the courts react to allegations? She would like to know whether children were given special assistance when a perpetrator was brought to trial, and whether children who were victims of sexual abuse received counselling for rehabilitation.

With regard to education, she asked whether Andorra had any programmes for dyslexic children or guidelines for identifying and assisting such children in school.

She also inquired whether an infrastructure existed to test for HIV/AIDS and to care for children found to be infected.

Apparently, no legislation prohibited corporal punishment at home, and she asked whether there was any programme to explain to parents the harmful effect of such punishment. If so, was it part of the primary health-care services offered to mothers and children?

Mr. AL-SHEDDI asked whether Andorra intended to prohibit corporal punishment in families and in school.

Concerning refugees and stateless persons, he inquired whether Andorra was considering ratification of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

Were children sentenced to long prison terms detained together with adults? Were they sometimes required to complete the maximum sentence of 15 years?

Ms. SARDENBERG said that she appreciated the reference to the need for coordination between ministries; the Convention was so broad that many ministries must be involved in its implementation, together with Parliament and civil society.

She would like to know more about the impact on children of the new information and communication technologies, including the Internet.

On the situation of women, she asked whether school textbooks conveyed modern attitudes on gender equality. What was the employment situation of girls? Had any studies been produced on discrimination against girls? Andorra was a traditional society; were girls discriminated against in the family and in school? Did they take part in the decision-making process in the family or in school in certain situations?

It seemed that children as young as 14 could marry with the permission of a judge. Did Andorra intend to review its marital legislation to bring it into line with the Convention?

She asked whether legislation made provision for the registration of children born to migrant workers employed on a short-term contract of several months.

She would also like to know whether teachers, social workers, judges and civil servants received training in the provisions of the Convention.

Lastly, what central authority was responsible for adoption? Could the delegation provide any statistics on adoptions in Andorra?

Ms. OUEDRAOGO asked whether the policy of granting assistance to families in financial difficulty extended to immigrant families. She also inquired about a planned project to help children between 3 and 16 years of age who had learning difficulties and asked to what extent parents were involved in those efforts.

Why had the programme on HIV/AIDS launched in 1997 been discontinued? What was the situation of young people with regard to the AIDS pandemic?

Referring to the written replies, she asked whether the analysis to be carried out of the problem of single-parent families would be in the form of a survey or a general study. To what extent would children be involved in that initiative?

In respect of family violence, in particular against women, she gathered that there had been ongoing discussions about establishing centres for battered women. There did not seem to be any legislation to protect such women; the Committee was concerned about the situation of children in those families. Was anything done to look after them?

Regarding the initiative for child-minding in private homes, she asked whether that might not hinder a child’s socialization and whether the delegation could provide further information on that matter. The insufficient number of kindergartens in Andorra posed a problem for working women. Why did Andorra not try to build more kindergartens instead?

Ms. TIGERSTEDT-TÄHTELÄ called on the delegation to take into account the right to non-discrimination of all children within Andorra’s jurisdiction and the obligation to take all appropriate measures to ensure that every child was protected against discrimination, irrespective of whether the parents were in the country legally or not. Could the delegation provide comprehensive information on the situation of the children of migrant workers?

Ms. AL-THANI said that she would like to know more about the impact of AIDS on children in Andorra and the degree to which they were infected. Andorra’s programme for tuberculosis was unusual in that part of the world. Tuberculosis re-emerged only in countries in which there were many cases of HIV/AIDS. What was the reason for the special programme?

With regard to the disabled, she welcomed the policy of integration and noted that one school had a number of programmes for different types of disability. How successful had the programmes been? What percentage of children with disabilities were integrated in schools?

The CHAIRPERSON asked whether the Social Care for Children unit, the Children at Risk team and the Technical Commission for Child and Youth Care were related. Did they deal with individual cases independently? Were cases referred from one body to the other? He would also like to know whether the Social Care for Children unit or the judge was responsible for placing children in foster care.

According to paragraph 168 of the report, parents who obstructed a court decision on custody of children could be sentenced to up to eight months’ imprisonment. Had that provision ever been used to prosecute and imprison a mother who refused to allow a child to visit the father? Similarly, paragraph 169 of the report referred to the problem of maintenance in connection with fathers who abandoned their families and left Andorra. He urged Andorra to consider acceding to the 1973 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, which dealt specifically with that kind of problem.

Ms. KARP noted that abortions were not permitted in Andorra; as a result, young girls sought illegal alternatives. Did Andorra have any policy to prevent early pregnancy and deter young girls from having unsafe abortions? Did it have any sex education programmes?

The meeting rose at 1 p.m.