Committee on the Rights of the Child

Fifty-fifth session

Summary record of the 1562th (Chamber A) meeting

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva, on Tuesday, 21 September 2010, at 10 a.m.

Chairperson:Ms. Lee

Contents

Consideration of reports of States parties (continued)

Initial report of Montenegro under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (continued)

Initial report of Montenegro under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (continued)

Initial report of Montenegro under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography

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

Consideration of reports of States parties (continued)

Initial report of Montenegro under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (continued) (CRC/C/MNE/1; CRC/C/MNE/Q/1 and Add.1)

Initial report of Montenegro under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (continued) (CRC/C/OPAC/MNE/1; CRC/C/OPAC/MNE/Q/1 and Add.1)

Initial report of Montenegro under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (CRC/C/OPSC/MNE/1; CRC/C/OPSC/MNE/Q/1 and Add.1)

At the invitation of the Chairperson, the delegation of Montenegro resumed their places at the Committee table.

Mr. Numanovic (Montenegro) said that, before turning to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, the delegation would first respond to outstanding questions concerning the Convention of the Rights of the Child and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict.

Mr. Sahmanovic (Montenegro), referring to issues relating to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, said that the Government had launched a campaign to persuade the Roma population to register births and discourage early marriage. The main challenges were to overcome traditional Roma values and to encourage women to give birth in hospital, where automatic procedures for birth registration were already in place, rather than at home. The campaign was part of an overall strategy to promote integration and national identity and raise living standards among the Roma. The Government had allocated resources to help Roma communities, including by providing free textbooks and transportation to schools, but their living conditions were difficult and they were barely meeting their basic needs.

Mr. Stamatovic (Montenegro), referring to issues relating to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, said that, under the law, military personnel were considered to be civil servants and had to be at least 18 years of age to be employed in that capacity. All armed forces personnel, including peacekeeping forces, received training on the laws of war and the provisions of the Optional Protocol.

Ms. Al-Asmar (Country Rapporteur for the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child) requested clarification of the affirmation that no one could be recruited into the armed forces before completing secondary school. In practice, would that mean that children of 17 could be recruited into the armed forces?

Mr. Stamatovic (Montenegro) said that, although children could leave school at the age of 17, they could not be recruited into the armed forces before reaching the age of 18.

Mr. Karanikic (Montenegro), in response to questions on the prohibition on arms trading, said that the Ministry of Defence was the body with overall responsibility for the area but that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was in charge of granting licences for the transfer of arms. There was a stringent procedure for granting licences, including checks on whether any sanctions or restrictions had been imposed on the destination country, whether it was a party to the Rome Statute and if children were involved in armed conflict. Similarly, European Union regulations were adhered to and reports by United Nations agencies on the destination country were consulted.

The Chairpersoninvited the Country Rapporteur for the two Optional Protocols to make some introductory remarks about Montenegro’s implementation of the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, to be followed by questions to the delegation from individual Committee members.

Ms. Al-Asmar (Country Rapporteur for the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child) said that Montenegro had ratified almost all the international instruments that regulated the protection of children from exploitation and abuse, except for the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. Moreover, Montenegro was committed to implementing those instruments and ensuring harmonization with its domestic legislation.

Criminal legislation had been amended to criminalize most acts that were prohibited and punishable under the Optional Protocol, albeit without using the definitions contained in the Optional Protocol. The Family Violence Protection Act provided that parents were entitled and obliged to care for their children and to protect them from all forms of abuse and neglect, but it had not yet come into force.

Since 2003, Montenegro had established the Office for Combating Human Trafficking, adopted a programme on human trafficking and established a subcommittee to combat trafficking in children. However, the measures that had been particularly designed to protect children against sexual abuse and child pornography had not been implemented due to a lack of services at the institutional level and budget constraints, with insufficient resources allocated to preventive measures.

Noting that all activities undertaken to promote the Convention and its Optional Protocols had received the financial and technical support of international organizations, she asked when Montenegro itself was planning to make a more substantial budget commitment.

Mr. Pūras asked whether relevant guidelines had been established to ensure that children were treated as victims and not offenders in court proceedings. He wished to know whether training was provided to professionals working with vulnerable children, including children in institutions and those involved in forced begging, to ensure that their rights were guaranteed and that they were not treated as offenders. He asked whether prevention programmes were specifically targeted at vulnerable groups, including the Roma and other minority children, street children, children in institutions and children with disabilities, and requested information on programming funding. He asked for further information on the provision of child-specific services for recovery and reintegration, including details of training provided to professionals and whether children were housed separately from adults in the special shelter for the victims of human trafficking. Lastly, he asked for an update on the special child helpline.

Mr. Kotrane expressed concern that the precise definitions of the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography contained in the Optional Protocol were not used in Montenegrin criminal law. Forced begging, for example, was a form of forced labour that should be defined and punished in law under the sale of children. Similarly, the definition of offences relating to child pornography in Montenegrin criminal law only referred to children under the age of 14. It would appear that children between the ages of 14 and 18 who were used for pornographic purposes were not protected by domestic legislation. He wished to know whether Montenegrin law granted courts extraterritorial jurisdiction in the case of crimes committed against children outside Montenegro by Montenegrin nationals or non-nationals normally residing in Montenegro, or by foreign nationals while visiting Montenegro.

Ms. Aidoo welcomed the Government’s efforts, in partnership with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the International Organization for Migration, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and tour and hotel operators to combat sex tourism, especially training provided on the Code of Conduct for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation in Travel and Tourism. She asked whether the training covered the Optional Protocol and if the Code of Conduct had been widely disseminated to all stakeholders, including to families and children. She wished to know whether the impact of the training activities had been assessed and if tourist and hotel operators had adopted measures to identify potential or alleged perpetrators of sex tourism crimes. Noting that the State party’s written replies to the list of issues (CRC/C/OPSC/MNE/1/Add.1) mentioned that no cases of sex tourism had been registered between 2007 and 2009, she asked for information on data collection and the monitoring of sex tourism.

Turning to the recovery and reintegration of child victims of offences under the Optional Protocol, she asked whether such children received compensation, in accordance with article 9, paragraph 4, and what procedure was followed to secure compensation. Were children able to participate in developing policies, strategies and programmes for their recovery and reintegration, to ensure that they were relevant and met their specific needs?

Mr. Citarella requested clarification on whether, in accordance with the Optional Protocol, the sale of children was considered to be a crime under Montenegrin legislation. He also requested clarification as to whether children under the age of 18 involved in prostitution were subject to criminal sanctions in the same way as persons exploiting children for the purposes of prostitution. He wished to know what specific steps were being taken by the police, or any other body, to monitor the Internet to prevent child pornography from being distributed via the Internet.

Mr. Gurán asked whether Montenegro, as a popular tourist destination, was working closely with tour operators to develop strategies to combat sex tourism so as to ensure that the country maintained a safe, child-friendly environment.

The Chairperson expressed concern that Montenegro applied the criterion of dual criminal liability, as was implied in paragraph 10 of the State party’s written replies to the list of issues (CRC/C/OPSC/MNE/Q/1/Add.1). She said that the Committee strongly opposed the use of dual criminal liability as a criterion for sanctioning or prosecuting cases involving the offences referred to in the Optional Protocol.

Referring to paragraph 13 of the State party’s written replies to the list of issues, she emphasized that establishing procedures to identify children who might be particularly vulnerable to the offences enumerated in the Optional Protocol should be the State’s primary concern. She asked for further information on the number of programmes to promote inclusion of vulnerable groups in all areas of social life. Lastly, she pointed out that the State party had not followed the guidelines on preparation of the Optional Protocol.

The meeting was suspended at 10.45 a.m. and resumed at 11.05 a.m.

Ms. Lakocevic (Montenengro) said that the Law on Protection against Domestic Violence, which was aimed primarily at prevention and provided for psychosocial assistance to victims, had been adopted by Parliament in June 2010. Regarding the incorporation of the definitions of the offences covered by the Optional Protocol, she noted that the Ministry of Justice had thoroughly analysed the extent to which the Criminal Code was consistent with the Optional Protocol and had amended the Criminal Code accordingly. Article 444 of the Criminal Code on the criminal offence of human trafficking had been amended to include forced labour and exploitation in the definition of human trafficking and established specific penalties for acts of human trafficking perpetrated against children. The Government considered its amended article 444 to be fully consistent with the provisions of the Optional Protocol.

Mr. Citarella welcomed the amendments that had been made to the Criminal Code relating to the offence of human trafficking but pointed out that the offences of human trafficking and the sale of children were not synonymous and that consequently a gap still remained in the Criminal Code that must be filled. He recalled that the Government and its lawmakers had the obligation to ensure that the definitions of offences and the corresponding penalties laid down in Montenegro’s criminal legislation were fully consistent with those enunciated in the Optional Protocol.

Mr. Kotrane said that the question was not whether the State party’s legislation prohibited and punished forced labour, but rather whether it specifically defined the use of a child for forced labour as a punishable offence equivalent to the sale of the child. The purpose of equating the two was to ensure that the penalties for the use of children for forced labour were as severe as those for the sale of children. Under criminal law, the legal definitions of offences and their penalties were governed by the principle of legality and their scope could not be enlarged by a judge; hence the importance of ensuring that the definitions set out in domestic law corresponded exactly to those contained in the Optional Protocol. The same applied to the act of improperly inducing consent, as an intermediary, for the adoption of a child, which was defined in the Optional Protocol as the sale of children.

The Chairperson said that the Committee’s role was to guide States parties towards better compliance with and implementation of the Convention and the Optional Protocol. She noted that many States parties to the Convention and the Optional Protocol were also parties to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its Protocols. After having brought their domestic legislation into line with the definition of trafficking contained in the latter, more than a few States parties had mistakenly assumed that such harmonization was sufficient to comply with the requirement to prohibit the offences defined in the Optional Protocol.

Ms. Lakocevic (Montenegro) said that the Government had attempted to define and punish the use of children for forced labour by indicating in article 444 of the Criminal Code that the commission of such an offence against a child was punishable by the penalty prescribed for the offence, irrespective of whether force, threats or any other of the stated methods had been used in the commission of the offence. That meant that, even if no violence was involved, the transportation or transfer of a child to another territory for the purposes of pornography was punishable by the penalties prescribed for that offence.

Article 211 of the Law on Amendments and Supplements to the Criminal Code prohibited the act of selling, showing or publicly exhibiting or otherwise making available texts, pictures, audio-visual or other pornographic materials or showing pornographic material to a child. It furthermore prohibited using a child to produce pictures, audio-visual or other pornographic material or using a child in pornographic shows. In addition, it prohibited obtaining, producing or attending shows, or electronically displaying or otherwise making available pictures, audio-visual or other pornographic materials or possessing such materials. Mere possession of pornographic material was thus a criminal offence. If such an offence was committed against a child under the age of 14, the perpetrator was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of from 1 to 8 years. In accordance with reservations expressed by Montenegro at the time of its ratification of the Convention, possession of pornography was punishable under criminal legislation, except where the person portrayed in such material was between the ages of 16 and 18 and had given his or her consent for the material to be produced, and where the person possessing the material used it for his or her own purposes and did not distribute it.

With regard to trafficking in children for the purposes of adoption, the Criminal Code stipulated that anyone who abducted a child under the age of 14 for the purposes of adoption, in violation of the applicable regulations, or anyone who adopted or arranged for the adoption of such a person, or who purchased or sold, transported, accommodated or hid such a person for the purposes of adoption was subject to a term of imprisonment of from 1 to 5 years. Participation in such activities in an organized manner was punished more severely.

With regard to the criterion of double criminality, she indicated that the offenders enumerated in article 136 of the Criminal Code who committed an offence outside the territory of Montenegro were subject to Montenegrin jurisdiction only if the offence in question was punishable under the law of the country where it had been committed, except in cases approved by the Supreme State Prosecutor.

The Code of Criminal Procedure provided for the special treatment of child victims in court proceedings, which included appointing specially trained professionals, such as psychologists or educators, to conduct hearings or hearing the child in a room separate from other parties in the presence of only a judge and a court reporter. As part of the judicial reform strategy, child victims were entitled to compensation in both criminal and civil proceedings. A child who had suffered mental pain, suffering or trauma could claim both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. If such a claim was not satisfied in the course of criminal proceedings, civil proceedings could be initiated for that purpose.

The Chairperson requested clarification as to whether the State party had merely expressed reservations or whether it had made a formal reservation to the Convention concerning the possession of pornographic materials in which the person portrayed was a child between the ages of 16 and 18. She could find no record of such a reservation.

Ms. Al-Asmar (Country Rapporteur for the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child) said she had received reports of the prevalence of inadequate conditions and equipment for the conduct of children’s hearings by the judicial authorities in Montenegro. In her view, children always needed special attention in court proceedings, not just in special cases.

Ms. Lakocevic (Montenegro) said that, although not all courts had such facilities, in Podgorica, where two thirds of the population lived, such equipment and facilities did exist. In addition, Podgorica had the capability to use videoconferencing in order to hear witnesses and parties in other parts of the country. The northern city of Bijelo Polje was the seat of a high court that tried serious offences, including those perpetrated against children, and it too was equipped with special facilities. The Government was required by law to provide child specialists to accompany all children in court proceedings, irrespective of whether the child was a party in civil proceedings or a victim of a criminal offence.

Ms. Perisic (Montenegro) said that the Government enjoyed good cooperation and support from international organizations and NGOs, but its activities to promote the Convention did not depend entirely on financial support from them.

The Office for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings was responsible for the implementation of international standards, conventions and agreements relating to human trafficking. It cooperated with national and international bodies in order to create efficient mechanisms for fighting human trafficking and collected statistics on victims of human trafficking in Montenegro. It also organized bimonthly meetings of the working group for the implementation of the national strategy to combat trafficking and oversaw implementation of action plans to combat human trafficking. Each institution was required to set aside funds for activities assigned to it in the action plans.

The Office for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings had its own budget, one third of which was spent on its own activities. Other items of its budget were earmarked to finance the operation of shelters for victims of human trafficking and the sale of children, whose management had been outsourced to an NGO with staff specially trained to work with such victims and to give effect to the provisions of the Optional Protocol.

Ms. Al-Asmar (Country Rapporteur for the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child) said that, according to paragraph 362 of its initial report under the Convention, the State party did not have any separate shelters for child victims of human trafficking. Instead, children were placed in children’s homes or in a shelter for adults. Owing to the degree of trauma to which trafficked children had been exposed, it did not seem healthy to mix them with either children who lacked parental care or adult victims of trafficking.

Ms. Perisic (Montenegro) said that the Government did not have separate shelters for children and adults for the simple reason that Montenegro had very few cases of human trafficking, and the shelter for adults was often empty for months on end. Children were placed in the shelter because its staff were professionally trained to work with trafficking victims. If one or more adults were occupying the shelter, a child trafficking victim was appointed a guardian and placed in the centre for social work. There were no recorded cases of a Montenegrin child who had been a victim of human trafficking in another State.

An agreement had been signed by a number of relevant bodies — the Office of the National Coordinator for the Fight against Trafficking in Human Beings, the Supreme State Prosecutor, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Welfare, the Ministry of Education, the Police Directorate and three NGOs — on cooperation against trafficking in persons and protection of victims. Under the agreement, each signatory appointed a focal point who was in charge of monitoring implementation activities, on which he or she reported at a bimonthly meeting organized by the Office of the National Coordinator. The focal points were required to inform their colleagues of the standards and principles applied in their work with victims of human trafficking.

The Chairperson said that, according to paragraph 9 of the State party’s written replies (CRC/C/OPSC/MNE/Q/1/Add.1), no case of sale of children, child prostitution, child pornography or child sex tourism had been registered in Montenegro during the period 2007–2009. However, the United States State Department Trafficking in Persons Report 2010 said that forced begging and prostitution of girls had taken place in the country. If that was the case, such children were victims under the Optional Protocol and the Government should provide shelter for them.

Ms. Perisic (Montenegro) said that she could assure the Committee that such persons were treated as victims, even in cases where criminal proceedings were under way to determine whether they were victims or not, since a victim was defined as a person who had been declared so by the verdict of a court. Children begging in the street were placed in institutions, where they were kept apart from other children, under the care of specially trained workers.

Mr. Numanovic (Montenegro) said that he wished to emphasize that those found guilty of a criminal offence were kept physically separate from other inmates of an institution. Separate facilities for victims were currently being set up.

The Chairperson said that it appeared that children caught begging were subject to criminal sanctions, even though, under the Optional Protocol, they were victims.

Mr. Citarella said that the same applied to prostitutes under 18: despite being victims, they were treated as offenders.

Mr. Pūras said that it was his understanding that child beggars were not convicted of any offences, which meant, presumably, that they were free to leave the institution whenever they wished. It was hard to believe that being in an institution helped to integrate them into society and he hoped that their rights were not violated; otherwise that would be a case of de facto discrimination. As victims under the Optional Protocol, they should be offered services other than placement in an institution.

Ms. Mijuskovic (Montenegro)said that those serving terms of internment of between 6 months and 2 years were kept separate from children who, as beggars, were victims. Montenegro also had border admission posts, where children who entered as tourists from neighbouring countries could be kept for up to seven days while institutions in their country of origin were contacted. If the children were nationals of Montenegro, their parents were contacted. In both cases, they were dealt with by trained professionals and treated as victims. They were not treated as criminals.

Ms. Perisic (Montenegro) said that judges, prosecutors and police received training in how to deal with trafficked children. All other relevant officials were also trained in how to report cases of trafficking and how to treat victims. With regard to the SOS line, as the telephone helpline was known, it was open all day, operated by trained NGO staff funded by the Government and free to all, whether from landlines or from mobile phones. Telephones were available in schools and in Roma communities.

Mr. Kotrane requested the delegation to clarify once again whether children placed in an institution were treated as victims and could leave when they wished. He asked who, if they declined to go of their own free will, decided that they should be placed in the institution and whether they stayed for a specific length of time. He wondered whether social workers could make the decision or whether it was up to a judge to do so.

Ms.Mijuskovic (Montenegro) said that there were two kinds of placement. Under the first arrangement, children were sent to the Ljubovic Centre for children and young people for six months to two years as an educational measure, in cooperation with the courts and social care centres, which could decide whether a child’s stay should be shortened or prolonged, according to circumstances. The second option was an “intervention placement”, under which foreign children could leave the Centre as soon as arrangements had been made between Montenegro and their States of origin and they could be handed over to their own authorities. In the case of Montenegrin children, the situation was assessed and, in cooperation with the Centre or the families, a decision was made on whether they could be returned to their families. Sometimes children were placed with another family or, in exceptional circumstances, kept at the institution for special education programmes until the family circumstances changed. All decisions were tailored to the individual circumstances.

Ms. Aidoo saidthat, according to some reports, there was internal trafficking of children from one part of the country to another for the purpose of begging. Under the terms of the Optional Protocol, that amounted to the sale of children. She asked what sanctions applied to the adults who forced them into begging or other forced labour. Lastly, she asked whether the SOS line was free for the child who was calling.

Ms. Lakocevic (Montenegro) said that a parent — or any other adult — who forced a child into labour, prostitution or any other form of sexual exploitation would be prosecuted for trafficking or deprived of their parental rights, or both.

The Chairperson said that, under the Optional Protocol, perpetrators should be penalized. The report said that there were no cases of such exploitation. Montenegro had an excellent law, but it seemed that perpetrators went unpunished. She asked what was done to seek out vulnerable children so that violations of their rights could be prevented.

Ms. Lakocevic (Montenegro) said that there were numerous projects, supported by mayors and other officials, involving multisectoral teams engaged in awareness-raising and publicity campaigns. She assured the Committee that every effort was made to help those who felt that they were victims. There were few cases of such offences before the courts precisely because the country’s preventive work was effective.

Mr. Sahmanovic (Montenegro) said that Roma children had been identified as potential victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation. The Government’s strategy was therefore to educate the Roma population about children’s rights, the dangers of trafficking and the need to reduce begging, although he noted that most beggars were internally displaced persons, many from Kosovo; very few of the Roma resident in Montenegro engaged in begging. A seminar and two workshops had been held, the first attended by 60 Roma men, the second by 53 Roma women and the third by 63 Roma children, at which they had been instructed in children’s rights and had shared their problems. The sum of €43,000 had been allocated to a campaign to reduce begging and, in coordination with the Ministry of the Interior and Public Administration, the National Council of Roma and a Roma NGO, a helpline had been set up so that violations of children’s rights could be reported. Efforts were also made to reach children who worked at recycling rubbish. The Government was confident that it could resolve the issue.

Ms. Perisic (Montenegro) said that it had been decided that each of the parties to the agreement coordinated by the Office of the National Coordinator for the Fight against Trafficking in Human Beings should undertake its own research. Data had therefore been collected on the status of Roma in Montenegro, with particular reference to begging. The Office of the National Coordinator would then seek to devise a solution for the protection of Roma children. As for the victims of sex tourism, a code of ethics for the tourist industry had been signed in 2006.

Training was provided to tourism operators, in accordance with a code of ethics, on how to identify potential victims of human trafficking and how to make a report to the police. The Government kept a confidential database of offenders and victims and a meeting was held each month with NGO representatives in order to harmonize statistics. Victims and potential victims were provided with accommodation and counselling and reintegrated into mainstream education or provided with access to vocational training.

Responding to a question from Ms. Aidoo, she confirmed that information concerning child victims was published on the relevant ministry websites in statistical form but that information concerning individuals remained confidential.

Ms. Mijuskovic (Montenegro), responding to a question from the Chairperson,said that the State party funded a child telephone helpline that was free of charge, but that it did not necessarily fund helplines provided by non-governmental or private associations.

Ms. Vucurovic (Montenegro) said that the media played a role in promoting the rights of the child. A law on electronic media had recently been adopted, the aim of which was to protect children from harmful media content. The new law protected the identity of persons under the age of 18 who were implicated in a violent event, whether as a victim, perpetrator or witness; it prohibited programmes with pornographic content or that promoted violence, drug addiction or other forms of criminal behaviour. Public and other national and local radio and television broadcasters were obliged to produce programmes with educational, informational, scientific and cultural content that ensured that children’s rights were protected and that took into account the needs of children and those of minority and vulnerable groups. The Ministry of Culture was responsible for monitoring media content and for ensuring that broadcasters covered topics of public interest, including health information and promotion of the Decade of Roma Inclusion.

Ms. Perisic (Montenegro), listing the preventive measures taken by the State party, and noting the importance of the media in shaping public opinion, said that training was provided on reporting on the victims of violence, including on data protection. Vulnerable groups had been identified and promotional literature had been distributed. Training, including peer education, had been provided to Roma children and children without parental care. Workshops and round tables had been organized to inform young people of the dangers of human trafficking. Aspects of combating human trafficking had been included in the curricula for primary schools and in training for teaching staff.

Ms. Lakocevic (Montenegro), responding to a query from the Chairperson, said that Montenegro had not entered a reservation to the Convention at the time of ratification, although it had made a declaration, in relation to the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, on the minimum age of voluntary enlistment in the armed forces.

Mr. Pūras (Country Rapporteur for the Convention on the Rights of the Child), turning to the question of transforming the country’s child protection system and in particular the need to protect children from violence, acknowledged that in a small country like Montenegro there were logical reasons why specialized services would not be provided in areas where there were few child protection cases. Nevertheless, under those circumstances, a generalized child protection system became all the more important: he wished to know whether the State party intended to maintain and to develop social welfare centres and whether existing intersectoral, multidisciplinary teams would be developed and integrated.

Ms. Mijuskovic (Montenegro) said that the Montenegrin authorities worked on child protection and domestic violence issues in multidisciplinary teams that included social workers; education specialists; the police; representatives of non-governmental organizations; the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). It was proposed to introduce intersectoral cooperation on a regional basis as that would be beneficial for local communities.

The Chairperson said that the nine hours of discussion on the situation of children in Montenegro had been well spent. It should not be forgotten that the State party was a country with fewer than 700,000 citizens and the Committee understood that children’s services were not needed in areas of the country in which there were no children. It was nevertheless the Committee’s obligation to ensure that the rights of every single child were protected.

Ms. Al-Asmar (Country Rapporteur for the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child) said that the State party had provided full information on many of the questions raised, although the Committee would still have some remarks on data legislation; on the budget allocation for sustainability; and on improvements to be made in some services.

Mr. Pūras (Country Rapporteur for the Convention on the Rights of the Child) said that the fruitful and constructive dialogue that had taken place would help the Committee to draw up concluding observations that were as relevant as possible. The Committee would make constructive recommendations on general measures, such as the improvement of data collection; and also on health; juvenile justice; education; social welfare; children with disabilities; and transforming the social protection system. As a newly independent country, Montenegro was well positioned to work in partnership with civil society to successfully implement the Convention and its Protocols and to promote human rights.

Mr. Numanovic (Montenegro) said that, following the exchange of information with the Committee, the State party would be inspired to complete the measures it was undertaking to improve the lives of children in Montenegro. His country aspired to be a role model on human rights issues in its geographic region, drawing on the good guidance provided by the United Nations family and with the support of the non-governmental sector to which he paid tribute. Montenegro would not be able to assist the children of internally displaced persons without help from their country of origin and from the international community. As a small State, Montenegro could not open a large number of services for children, but a multidisciplinary team would work on promoting children’s rights.

The Chairperson said that the dialogue with the delegation demonstrated the interest of the Committee in the situation of children in Montenegro. The State party could rely on the Committee to assist it in its endeavours to make the rights of all children in Montenegro a reality. The Committee hoped that the results of its concluding observations would be made known to all children and to all stakeholders in Montenegro.

The meeting rose at 1 p.m.