CONTRIBUTION OF THE PLATFORM OF ORGANIZATIONS FOR

COOPERATION WITH UN HUMAN RIGHTS MECHANISMS FOR THE

OCASSION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE LIST OF ISSUES FOR THE

THIRD REPORTING CYCLE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA

August 2019

Contents

Contents........................................................................................................................................................ - 1 -

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. - 2 -

Principle issues of concern............................................................................................................................- 2 -

Introduction of retrogressive measures contrary to the provisions of Article 2 (1) of the Covenant........- 2 -

Direct implementation of the Covenant....................................................................................................- 3 -

Ratification of the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR..................................................................................- 4 -

Data Collection..........................................................................................................................................- 5 -

Protector of Citizens (Ombudsperson)......................................................................................................- 6 -

Independence of Judiciary.........................................................................................................................- 6 -

Specific issues of concern..............................................................................................................................- 7 -

Discrimination........................................................................................................................................... - 7 -

Right to Social Security..............................................................................................................................- 9 -

Protection of Mothers during a Reasonable Period before and after Childbirth, Protection of Children and the Family................................................................................................................................................ - 10 -

Protection of Same-sex Partners and Families throughout Resettlement Procedures............................- 11 -

Right to Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health......................................................- 11 -

Right to Work for persons with disabilities, particularly persons with intellectual, developmental and psychosocial disabilities...........................................................................................................................- 12 -

Deinstitutionalization of persons with disabilities...................................................................................- 12 -

Combating human trafficking..................................................................................................................- 13 -

Access to economic, social and cultural rights for refugees, asylum seekers and migrants....................- 14 -

1

Capacities of social welfare centre in places where asylum centres are located.....................................- 16 -

Introduction

1. The Platform of Organizations for Cooperation with UN Human Rights Mechanisms has the honour to submit its contribution to UN Human Rights Mechanisms for the occasion of the adoption of the list of issues for the third reporting cycle of the Republic of Serbia. We hope that our submission will be valuable for discussions before the Committee, and for the preparation of the list of issues.

2. Platform of Organizations for Cooperation with UN Human Rights Mechanisms was established in July 2018 with the aim of ensuring a common and standardized approach to thematic, timely, and quality reporting to the UN human rights mechanisms. The Platform operates within eight thematic groups and is coordinated by the Belgrade Center for Human Rights. It was founded by civil society organizations which have substantial experience in reporting to UN human rights mechanisms and monitoring of recommendations. Platform members recognize the need for and importance of continual and evidence-based reporting, monitoring the implementation of the recommendations issued to the Government of Serbia, and interaction with the Governmental bodies for monitoring the implementation of the recommendations of UN human rights mechanism.

Principle issues of concern

Introduction of retrogressive measures contrary to the provisions of Article 2 (1) of the Covenant

3. Since 2012, the Government of Serbia introduced a set of measures aimed at consolidating public finances and reducing budget deficit – austerity measures.1 However, in most of the cases, these measures were neither introduced following public debates nor are they proportionate in their impact. Most importantly, these measures are in their effect contrary to State obligations set forth in Article 2 (1) of the Covenant.

4. In October 2012, the amendments to the Law on Value-Added Tax increased the VAT rate from 18% to 20%. Having in mind that this direct tax increases the taxes paid by poor and low-income individuals, the lack of ex-ante human rights impact assessment prior to the introduction of these measures, and the number of persons living in poverty or at risk of poverty, we believe that the disproportionate effect of this legislation amounts to retrogressive measure in contradiction to provisions of Article 2 (1) of the Covenant, General Comment no. 3 on the nature of State obligations, as well as other interpretative tools of the Committee (Statements and Open Letters of the Committee). In addition, the amendments to the Law on Personal Property Taxes introduced the so-called ‘Poverty Tax’2 – a tax that beneficiaries of social housing must pay alongside their rent, utilities and other housing-related expenses.3

1 For the purpose of this Report, austerity measures are considered a set of actions taken by governments in the area of macroeconomic, fiscal, social, and foreign debt policies aimed at reducing budget deficit and overcoming the consequences of global economic crises.2 An initiative for assessing the constitutionality of this legislation was submitted to the Constitutional Court in May 2015. However, as of the day of writing of this report, the Court failed to decide on this matter. 3 For more information, please see: Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context on her mission to Serbia and Kosovo, 26 February 2016, UN Doc No.

2

5. Moreover, the Law on the Temporary Provisions for the Administration of Pension Payments introduced pension cuts with the aim of reducing public deficit. These novelties affected all pensioners with pensions higher than 208 EUR and had a negative impact on the pensioners’ standard of living. Unfortunately, in its Report, the State failed to inform the Committee about these pension cuts that were made before the Government revoked this piece of legislation at the end of September 2018 and only reported about the increase of pensions in Serbia.4

6. According to the Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government, from the end of 2013, when the ban on new employment took effect until the end of 2016, the number of employees in indefinite employment in public administration and public utilities was reduced by 37,900.5 These reductions were not planned in a way that ensures that the public services important for the enjoyment of economic and social rights do not become understaffed. For example, according to the Annual Report of the Republic Institute for Social Protection, since the adoption of the Law on Social Protection in 2011, the number of beneficiaries of social services increased for 23% (135,492), while the number of professionals hired for an indefinite period is constantly dropping by 6%.6 This Institute assessed the overall quality of services provided by social welfare institutions as concerning.7

7. The impact of economic reform policies on the enjoyment of economic and social rights of most vulnerable population was never assessed, and even the adoption of the National Budget for 2018 and 2019 failed to entail meaningful parliamentary discussion about the State priorities and the use of maximum available resources for the progressive realisation of economic, social and cultural rights. 8

8. Having all the above mentioned in mind, the Committee may wish to ask the State party the following: 1) How does the State party ensure that the key economic policy decisions do not have negatively disproportionate effect on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights of most vulnerable population; 2) How can the State demonstrate that the abovementioned decisions on the introduction of austerity measures were a) based on most careful consideration, b) temporary, covering only the period of crisis, c) necessary and proportionate, d) non-discriminatory. Finally, the Committee may wish to ask the Government 3) How does the State ensure that the abovementioned decisions comprised all possible measures to support social transfers to mitigate inequalities that could grow in times of crisis and identified the minimum core content of rights or a social protection floor.

A/HRC/31/54/Add.2, para 36.4 Third Periodic Report on the implementation of the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights of the Republic of Serbia, April 2019, paras. 199-201. 5 Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government, 2016 Annual Report on Implementation of the Action Plan of the Public Administration Reform Strategy in the Republic of Serbia, 2015-2017, p. 8, available at: http://mduls.gov.rs/doc/Annual_AP2016%20eng%20novo.pdf 6 Republic Institute for Social Protection (‘Republički zavod za socijalnu zaštitu’), Report on the Activities of the Social welfare centres for 2016, Belgrade, July 2017, p. 10.7 Ibid, p. 61.8 As reported by the European Commission, by proposing hundreds of amendments irrelevant to the content of legislation which aim to use up the allocated time for debate in the plenary, the ruling party prevents meaningful parliamentary debate. As a result of the above, the parliamentary opposition in most cases was not able to participate effectively in the legislative debate and to present its draft amendments, including on key legislative pieces like it was the case for 2018 and 2019 Budget. For more information, please see: European Commission, 2019 Progress Report Serbia, online, available at: http://www.mei.gov.rs/upload/documents/eu_dokumenta/godisnji_izvestaji_ek_o_napretku/Serbia_2019_Report.pdf

3

Direct implementation of the Covenant

9. In its Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Serbia, 9 the Committee asked Serbia to collect and include in its next periodic report information on the justiciability of the rights enshrined in the Covenant, including the cases of direct application of the Covenant before domestic courts, and on the available remedies for individuals claiming violation of the economic, social and cultural rights contained in the Covenant. The Committee also recommended that the State party improve its human rights training programs to promote better knowledge, awareness and application of the Covenant, particularly among the judiciary, law enforcement officials and other actors, as well as among rights holders.

10. In its Third periodic report,10 the State explained how it directly implemented the Covenant by stating [that] “there were decisions claiming that protection is also provided based on the provisions of the Covenant”. Also, it stated that judges, police officers, and lawyers were trained continuously, inter alia, on the direct implementation of the Covenant, while labour inspectors, local self-government officials, other public officials, the media and NGOs were trained continuously on human rights and protection against discrimination.

11. The Committee may wish to ask the State to provide more detailed information on the cases in which the Covenant was directly applied (i.e. number of court cases, types of the litigation, etc.). In addition, the Committee may wish to ask the Government to provide more information on both the content and effects of trainings held for different participants (i.e. topics included, results of pre and post test, evaluation of trainings, as well as any detail on the application of gained knowledge in public officials’ work).

Ratification of the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR

12. As of the date of the writing of this submission, the Republic of Serbia has not signed and ratified the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR, as was recommended by the Committee in the previous reporting cycle. 11

Furthermore, the Republic of Serbia had refused to consider signing and ratifying the said document on two separate occasions since then. One for the occasion of the Universal Period Review as part of which Costa Rica issued the recommendation to Serbia to ratify the Optional Protocol12 which was rejected on the premise that it would require making amendments to relevant national legislations 13; and on another when the A 11 Initiative for Economic and Social Rights together with the Child Rights Center submitted an initiative for the signing and ratification of the said Protocol as well as the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure to the competent body – the Office

9 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Serbia, 10 July 2014, UN Doc no. E/C.12/SRB/CO/2. 10 Third Periodic Report on the implementation of the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights of the Republic of Serbia, April 2019, par. 4-811 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Serbia, 10 July 2014, UN Doc no. E/C.12/SRB/CO/2, para 37.12 Universal Period Review, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Serbia, 15 May 2018, UN Doc no. A/HRC/38/17.13 Universal Period Review, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Serbia: Addendum, 6 June 2018, UN Doc no. A/HRC/38/17/ADD.1.

4

for Human and Minority Rights.14 In the latter case, the Government also rejected to sign and ratify the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR, however in this instance without providing a single word of reasoning as to why.15

13. The Committee may wish to reiterate its recommendation from the previous Concluding Observations related to the signing and ratification of the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR, considering the continuing deterioration of the level of enjoyment of economic and social rights in Serbia.

Data Collection

14. In its Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Serbia16, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed concerns about the lack of systematic collection and processing of disaggregated data which would allow for an accurate assessment of the fulfilment of economic, social and cultural rights in the State party.

15. The Committee also recommended to Serbia to set up a system to collect statistical data on the major factors affecting the implementation of the economic, social and cultural rights set forth in the Covenant, disaggregated by year, sex, age, urban/rural population, ethnic origin, disadvantaged and marginalized groups and other relevant criteria, and include such statistical data in its next periodic report, as well as to undertake regular and systematic assessments, against a clear set of indicators, of the level of enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights by various segments of the population, taking into account the conceptual and methodological framework for human rights indicators that was developed by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.17

16. In its Report, Serbia stated that the said system was established, and that the Statistical Office and other competent authorities perform expert tasks in collection, processing, statistical analysis and publishing of statistical data.18

17. Researches and reports performed show that women in Serbia are discriminated against based on their sex and gender, while some groups of women are in more disadvantageous positions, such as Roma women,

14 For further information, please see: http://www.a11initiative.org/en/the-initiative-for-the-ratification-of-optional-protocols-to-the-convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child-and-the-international-covenant-on-economic-social-and-cultural-rights/ 15 For further information, please see: http://www.a11initiative.org/en/45-civil-society-organizations-against-further-deterioration-of-economic-and-social-rights-in-serbia/ 16 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Serbia, 10 July 2014, UN Doc no. E/C.12/SRB/CO/2, par. 7.17 Ibid, par. 7 a-b18 Third Periodic Report on the implementation of the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights of the Republic of Serbia, April 2019, par. 9

5

women with disabilities, older women, rural women, etc.19 They are in great risk of multiple and intersectional discrimination, and are often faced with numerous obstacles in exercising their rights.

18. The Committee may wish to ask the Government if the disaggregated data is publicly available (e.g. number of women with disabilities from ethnic minorities, number of older rural women, etc). Also, the Committee may wish to ask the Government to provide more information on the conducted assessment of the level of enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by multiply disadvantaged and marginalized groups of women, as well as measures taken to address assessed disadvantages. Finally, the Committee may wish to ask the Government if the system of collecting statistical data on the major factors affecting the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights (as well as regular and systematic assessments of the level of enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights by various segments of the population) include disaggregated data by sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and sex characteristics, and if national development and integration strategies include human rights indicators related to sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and sex characteristics.

Protector of Citizens (Ombudsperson)

19. The Law on the Ombudsperson has not been amended. For four consecutive years, the Parliament did not discuss the Ombudsman’s annual report in the plenary 20, and this year was the first time after four years that the Parliament adopted the Ombudsman’s annual report. The number of citizens’ complaints submitted to the Ombudsman decreased by 19% 21 while the percentage of accepted legislative initiatives issued by the Ombudsman in relation to economic, social and cultural rights remained low – only three out of 21 initiatives were adopted, as reported by the State.22

20. With this information, the Committee may wish to ask the State party the following questions: 1) When the amendments to the Law on the Ombudsman that will increase the capacities of the Ombudsperson’s office in protecting economic and social rights are going to be adopted; 2) In which way will the amended Law provide an explicit legal basis for the interaction of the Ombudsman with the international human rights system and civil society organizations; 3) What type of additional mechanisms will be included in the amended Law to further improve the independence of the Ombudsman (i.e. by providing sufficient financial and human resources); 4) How will the amendments ensure the collaboration of the National Assembly and the Government with the Ombudsman in cases when those institutions are legally obliged to consider Ombudsman legal initiatives, annual reports etc. 5) And how will they ensure that the Government implements the Conclusions of the National Assembly based on the Ombudsman's annual reports?

19 See, for example: Regular Annual Reports of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality, available at: http://ravnopravnost.gov.rs/en/reports/; Special Report on the Discrimination of Women in Serbia, Commissioner for Protection of Equality, Belgrade, 2015; Special reports of the Protector of Citizens, available at: https://www.rodnaravnopravnost.rs/; Committee on the Right of Persons with Disabilities, Concluding observation on the initial report of the Republic of Serbia, CRPD/C/SRB/CO/1 from 23 May 2016; CEDAW, Concluding observation on the fourth periodic report of the Republic of Serbia, CEDAW/C/SRB/CO/4 from 8 March 201920 For more information, please see European Commission, Serbia Report 2019, online, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/20190529-serbia-report.pdf21 Ibid.22 Third Periodic Report on the implementation of the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights of the Republic of Serbia, April 2019, par. 15

6

Independence of Judiciary

21. In the previous reporting cycle, the Committee recommended that the State party take the necessary legal, policy and other measures to ensure the effective and independent functioning of the judiciary as a means of safeguarding the enjoyment of human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights.

22. The public debate about the amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia lasted for two years. The debate was was followed by strong disagreement between the Ministry of Justice, professional associations of judges, prosecutors and lawyers, as well as NGOs. The main problem with Constitutional amendments is the tendency of the Government to diminish provision of independence for judges and prosecutors through the system of selection of judges and prosecutors and the representatives to the High Judicial Council and the State Council of Prosecutors.23

23. Having in mind this information, the Committee may wish to ask the State party how it will ensure that the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia provide for the financial independence of judiciary.

Specific issues of concern

Discrimination

Gender discrimination

24. During the last review process the Committee urged Serbia to “take measures to eliminate the social perceptions of traditional gender roles and prejudices, including those concerning employment, while raising awareness of both men and women about harmonizing work and family duties”, as well as to “nforce the Law on Gender Equality, and in particular the State party’s 33 per cent quota for representation of the underrepresented gender in specific positions in public administration and in decision-making processes.”24

25. In its Report, Serbia provided some data on the representation of women in the national and local level governments.25 Gender stereotypes and prejudices are widely present, perpetuated and continuously reinforced in Serbia, very often by the highest public officials, such as ministers, state secretaries and even the president.26 Numerous discriminatory and sexist statements of public officials are not isolated incidents, on the contrary, they clearly show the overall governmental attitude to promoting patriarchal and

23 European Commission for Democracy through Law, Opinion on the draft amendments to the constitutional provisions on judiciary, online, available at: https://www.pars.rs/images/dokumenta/venecijanska-komisija/CDL-AD2018011-e-25.061.pdf 24 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Serbia, 10 July 2014, UN Doc no. E/C.12/SRB/CO/2, par. 1625 Third Periodic Report on the implementation of the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights of the Republic of Serbia, April 2019, par. 72-7326 See, for example: Information for the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Pre-sessional Working group for the 72nd session on reviewing the Republic of Serbia, Joint submission by Association of women FemPlatz and A 11 – Initiative for Economic and Social Rights, 29 June 2018, available at: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CEDAW/Shared%20Documents/SRB/INT_CEDAW_ICO_SRB_31783_E.pdf; Shadow Report to the Committee for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women regarding the fourth reporting cycle of Serbia , the Platform of Organizations for Cooperation with UN Human Rights Mechanisms, January 2019, available at: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CEDAW/Shared%20Documents/SRB/INT_CEDAW_NGO_SRB_33664_O.pdf

7

stereotypical norms, which consequently influence the overall position of women in Serbian society and affects their opportunities on the labour market.

26. In relation to participation of women in political and public life, women from multiply marginalized groups are almost completely excluded from public office, and from participation in an active dialogue and creation of policies that concern their life. The Strategy for Improving the Position of Women and Promoting Gender Equality (2009-2015) had an objective to “create pre-conditions for participation of women from multiply discriminated groups in public and political life”,27 but the evaluation of the National action plan implementation showed limited results “in the area of enhancing participation of discriminated and disadvantaged women in public and political life”, and revealed that a number of documents were not drafted, while many activities have not been implemented.28 National Strategy for Gender Equality (2016-2020) and the accompanying Action plan recognizes that Roma women, women with disabilities and women from other vulnerable groups are absent from public and political life and it specifically outlines the improvement of the position of women from multiply discriminated and vulnerable groups as one of its objectives.29 However, there is a lack of evidence and assessments of measures and activities taken to this end.

27. The Committee may wish to ask the Government what measures have been taken to eliminate the social perceptions of traditional gender roles and prejudices, as well if high public officials were adequately held accountable for their discriminatory and sexist statements. In addition, the Committee may wish to ask the Government if any campaign or other raising awareness activities were undertaken on harmonizing work and family duties, in order to ease the burden placed on women in that regard. Also, the Committee may wish to ask the Government to provide data on the participation of women from multiply marginalized groups in public and political life (e.g. the number of women with disabilities, Roma women, rural women, elderly women in the Government, in the National, Provincial and local parliaments, etc.), as well as on measures taken by the Government to increase their participation.

Discrimination of LGBTI persons

28. In its Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Serbia 30, the Committee expressed concerns that members of, inter alia, marginalized groups continue to face discrimination with regard to access to economic, social and cultural rights. The Committee was also concerned that the anti-discrimination legislation is not systematically applied, as evidenced by the low numbers of concluded cases related to discrimination.

27 National Strategy for improving the position of women and improving gender equality (2009-2015), points 50-57, the Government of Serbia; also, Action plan for the implementation of the National Strategy for improving the position of women and gender equality (2010-2015), activity 1.4.1; 28 Evaluation of the National Action Plan for the Implementation of the National Strategy for Improving the Position of Women and Promoting Gender Equality in the Republic of Serbia, Final report29 National Strategy for Gender Equality (2016 to 2020) with accompanied Action plan for 2016-2018, sections 1.2 Participation in political and public life, and Special objective 2.6; 30 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Serbia, 10 July 2014, UN Doc no. E/C.12/SRB/CO/2, par. 11.

8

29. In its Report31, the Republic of Serbia stated that, inter alia, the position of LGBTI persons in Serbia improved compared to times prior to passing the Strategy for Prevention and Protection against Discrimination; the Law on Foundations of Education System prescribes sexual orientation and gender identity as special grounds of discrimination and that the Law on National Registries prescribes that the data on gender change based on decision of municipal/city authority passed according to the prescribed certificate of competent healthcare institution should be recorded in the registry book.

30. In light of the abovementioned information, the Committee is urged to ask the State party what concrete measures have been taken to promote equality and combat discrimination against LGBTI persons, including measures to systematically apply the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination and the Strategy for Prevention and Protection against Discrimination 2013–2018, and what concrete measures have been taken in relation to the adoption of laws on same-sex partnership and legal gender recognition, as defined by the Strategy for Prevention and Protection against Discrimination 2013–2018. In addition, the Committee may wish to ask the State how many persons have had their data and gender changed in accordance to the amended Law on National Registries, what measures have been taken to include sex characteristics as protective ground in anti-discrimination legal framework, as well as gender identity as personal ground for protection from discrimination in Labour Law?

Right to Social Security

31. In October 2014, the Government of the Republic of Serbia adopted the Decree on Social Inclusion Measures for Recipients of Financial Welfare Assistance32, which entered into force on 24 October 2014. The adoption of the Decree was rationalised as a measure that would contribute to the employment of persons that are beneficiaries of financial social assistance. The Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Affairs explained its adoption by stating that “financial assistance will not be aid but, rather, earnings“. 33 The Decree, inter alia, prescribed that the recipients of financial assistance who are fit for work may be assigned to community service, i.e. work in local communities, by social welfare centres. Those who refuse this type of engagement may lose the financial assistance they are entitled to by the Law on Social Assistance, or it may be reduced. In addition to the fact that this bylaw is not in accordance with the Law on Social Assistance, this piece of legislation contradicts State obligations under Article 9 of the Covenant. In October and November 2014, at least three initiatives were filed for the assessment of the constitutionality and legality of the Decree. Likewise, the Ombudsman submitted a proposal for the assessment of the constitutionality of this bylaw. Although the initial response to these initiatives by the Constitutional Court was that the „case [was] on the agenda in the forthcoming period“, to this day the Court has not ruled on whether the contested stipulations of the Decree are in line with national and international human rights standards relevant for Serbia. In addition to that, in November 2014, 57 civil society organisations filed a request with the Government of the Republic of Serbia to urgently stop the implementation of the contested Decree. The Government has not responded to this request either. During 2018, the A 11 – Initiative for Economic and Social Rights conducted a research that demonstrated that rather than facilitating their employment, the Decree imposed new responsibilities on the recipients of financial

31 Third Periodic Report on the implementation of the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights of the Republic of Serbia, April 2019, par. 36.32 Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 112/2014. 33 Beta news agency, published on 19 October 2014 (Serbian only).

9

assistance, resulting in violation of their right to dignity, stigmatisation and limitation of their economic and social rights.

32. From the day the Decree entered into force until the end of June 2018, at least 9,436 of the most severely poverty-stricken citizens of Serbia who are users of financial assistance were forced to do unpaid work under the threat of losing their financial social assistance. The type of work that the recipients of financial assistance are forced to perform so as not to lose this entitlement includes building and street cleaning, canal digging, clearing up neglected cemeteries, road maintenance and construction work. This work does not improve their skills in any way or increase their employability in the future. This is confirmed by the fact that, according to the data acquired, only 138 recipients of financial assistance who participated in social inclusion measures ultimately found jobs. As many as 92 social welfare centres do not have data on the number of users who found jobs through the application of this Decree, a fact that clearly indicates that the large majority of social welfare centres do not monitor the impact of its application.

33. The recipients cannot choose the type of work they perform without remuneration and under threat of losing their entitlement. In Rekovac, they dig graves for the deceased who were beneficiaries of the local social welfare centre.34 Although this Decree was highly contested by human rights organisations, the Draft Law on the Amendments to the Law on Social Assistance (2018) prescribes compulsory unpaid labour as a measure for social inclusion of beneficiaries of financial social assistance.

34. Having all this in mind, the Committee may wish to ask the State party the following: 1) What are the effects of the implementation of the Decree on Social Inclusion of Beneficiaries of Financial Social Assistance; 2) What is the number of individuals actually employed through this measure; 3) How does the Decree comply with the State obligations under Article 9 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Labour Organisation Convention no. 29; 4) Why is the Constitutional Court deciding on this issue for almost five years; 5) What is the average length of procedures for the assessment of the constitutionality of bylaws in Serbia; 6) What is the average length of the procedures for the assessment of the constitutionality of laws in Serbia; 7) What is the average length of the procedures for the assessment of the constitutionality of laws and bylaws relevant for economic, social and cultural rights in Serbia; 8) What are the capacities (trainings, number of professional staff trained at implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) of the Constitutional Court and other courts in Serbia.

Protection of Mothers during a Reasonable Period before and after Childbirth, Protection of Children and the Family

35. New Law on Financial Support for Families with Children35 placed many mothers and pregnant women in a difficult financial position, due to the change in the length of an average woman’s paid maternity leave. The former Law prescribed maternity leave benefit on the basis of the annual income before maternity - taking an average from the 12 months prior to maternity leave - while the current law takes the 18 months prior to

34 For more detailed information, please see: A 11 – Initiative for Economic and Social Rights, in focus: four years of forced labour in Serbia results of the implementation of the decree on social inclusion measures for recipients of financial welfare assistance, online, available at: http://www.a11initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Uredba_ENG.pdf 35 Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia nos. 113/2017 and 50/2018.

10

maternity leave into consideration. This change severely impacts women who started working more recently or received a promotion or raise in the months year prior to taking a maternity leave.

36. In addition, the Law has also placed women who are entrepreneurs in a worse position because they are not entitled to benefits provided to women who are employed – entrepreneurs do not receive paid contributions during maternity leave and they are not entitled to a longer leave of absence for the birth of a third child, while other employed women are.

37. Also, the right to remuneration or compensation, during the period of absence from work for the special care of a child may not be exercised for a child who has been entitled to the allowance for the assistance and care of another person. The Law on Financial Support for Families with Children is particularly discriminating to Roma families, as it sets a condition for parental and child allowance only for children and parents who regularly attend school and for the children that are fully and timely vaccinated.36 In this regard, several initiatives for constitutional review of the Law have been submitted to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Serbia by NGOs and the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, but the Court failed to decide on this matter until now. The Ministry of Labor, Employment, Veteran and Social Affairs has announced amendments of the Law, but only in the domain of the average compensation calculation and left no space for amendments on articles targeting Roma, or parents with children in need of special care.

38. Having in mind the abovementioned information, the Committee may wish to ask the State party how many women have been affected by the reduction of the benefits prescribed by the Law on Financial Support for Families with Children; 2) How will the announced amendment to the Law on Financial Support for Families with Children ensure that parents of children in need of special care are provided assistance to, so that they can both receive remuneration during absence from work for the special care of child and allowance for the assistance and care of another person; 3) If the maternity leave for women who are forced to take leave before childbirth has been calculated in final calculation of the maternity leave benefit after childbirth, what measures will the State party undertake to ensure that women entrepreneurs are not discriminated against in cases related to this matter.

Protection of Same-sex Partners and Families throughout Resettlement Procedures

39. In the previous reporting cycle, the Committee urged37 the State party to take urgent measures to consult affected communities throughout all stages of evictions, to ensure due process guarantees and compensation and to provide in particular for adequate alternative accommodation in locations suitable for social housing construction, taking into account the Committee’s general comments No. 4 (1991) and 7 (1997) on the right to adequate housing and on forced evictions.

40. In light of the abovementioned information, the Committee may wish to ask the State party if same-sex partners/families are recognized as such throughout all stages of evictions and guaranteed the same rights as other partners and families, including access to adequate alternative accommodation in locations suitable for social housing construction.

36 For more information on this matter, please see the Report prepared by the group of NGOs and trade unions for the list of issues. 37 Ibid, par. 30.

11

Right to Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health

Right to Health for Prison Population

41. In many penal correctional institutions in Serbia there is an insufficient number of medical staff (doctors, psychiatrists, medical assistants). In these institutions, it often happens during the evenings, nights, weekends and holidays that non-medical staff distribute medicines to persons deprived of liberty. Insufficient number of medical staff directly affects the enjoyment of the right to health care, the relationship between patients and doctors and the achievement of treatment goals in a closed institution. This problem is also present in a number of psychiatric and social care institutions. The state authorities have made insufficient efforts to address this problem, and this has been included in the latest reports of the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture of Serbia,38 as well as the reports of CPT39 and Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.40

42. Having this in mind, the Committee may wish to ask the State party what measures has the State taken to increase the number of medical staff in the above mentioned institutions and to improve the access to the right to health, in line with the General Comment 14 of the Committee.

Right to Health for Asylum Seekers and Refugees

43. In practice, once accommodated at private addresses refugees and asylum seekers are faced with problems and are often deprived of health care unless it is an emergency.41 The main reason is the Ministry of Health fails to provide information that would inform the medical institutions under its jurisdiction of legal requirements related to the provision of health services to refugees and asylum seekers. Furthermore, health insurance cards are almost impossible to obtain in practice for this category of the population.42

44. Having in mind the abovementioned information, the Committee may wish to ask the State party about the procedure for access to health insurance by asylum seekers and refugees and what measures are implemented in order to ensure that refugees and asylum seekers can have access to the right to health.

Right to Work for persons with disabilities, particularly persons with intellectual, developmental and psychosocial disabilities

45. The Platform is concerned with the rise in sheltered employment of persons with disabilities, as confirmed in the third periodic report of Republic of Serbia to the Committee. Such working arrangements discourage social inclusion and are fundamentally discriminatory. The discrimination is especially prominent in the

38 Annual Report of the NPM 2017, pp. 53, 57, 60, 63; Annual Report of the NPM 2018, pp. 28-29, 32-33, 35, online, available at: www.npm.rs (Serbian only). 39 European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Report to the Government of Serbia on the visit to Serbia carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 26 May to 5 June 2015, paras 72-73, 95, 100, 140, 164-165, 201.40 UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Report on visit to Serbia and Kosovo, para 38, UN Doc no. A/HRC/40/59/Add.141 Information gathered throughout the activities of lawyers, integration officers and field workers of the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights.42 Information gathered throughout the activities of lawyers, integration officers and field workers of the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights.

12

employment of people with intellectual, developmental and psychosocial disabilities in the so called “working centres”, where workers do not receive salary but monetary aid, which amounts to 20% of the minimum official wage, as prescribed by article 21 and article 43 of the Law on Professional Rehabilitation and Employment of Persons with Disabilities.43 The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities previously expressed concern on the aforementioned type of employment and lack of measures to support the employment in the open labour market44. Frequently, the deprivation of legal capacity, which is still commonly used45, prevents people with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities from getting employment.

46. The Committee may wish to raise the following issues in the upcoming constructive dialogue with the State party, if appropriate: 1) Please provide information on measures taken to support the transition of persons with disabilities, including people with intellectual and psychosocial disabilties, who are currently in sheltered workshops, into formal, open labour market employment in period 2017-2018. Furthermore, provide information on number of persons with disabilities, including those with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities, who were employed at open labor market in period 2017- 2018; 2) Please provide information on the number of persons with disabilities, including those with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities, who are employed at state-run institutions and enterprises; 3) What measures have been taken to change the laws related to legal capacity deprivation and introduce support measures for citizens with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities?

Deinstitutionalization of persons with disabilities

47. Serbia has not adopted a strategy and action plan for deinstitutionalization of persons with disabilities, contrary to the recommendations of multiple international and regional human rights bodies46. Moreover, the Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Affairs supports the construction and refurbishing of residential social care institutions for persons with disabilities.47 According to the Republic Institute for Social Protection, the number of adults placed in state-run, residential, social care institutions had increased 5.6% between 2015 – 2017.48 Such lack of progress was also noticed by the European Commission.49

However, the number of children with disabilities, residents of social care homes, is steadily and slowly dropping, from 564 to 551 in two years (between 2015 and 2017)50.

48. Having in mind the abovementioned information, the Committee may wish to ask the State party to provide information about measures taken to adopt the strategy and action plan for

43 Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia nos. 36/2009 and 32/2013.44 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Serbia CRPD/C/SRB/CO/ 1, paragraph 5645 In 2012, there were 12.732 persons deprived from legal capacity, and 13.075 in 2017, according to the Republic Institute for Social Protection Report (2018).46 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, European Commission, etc. 47 Minister for social affairs, Zoran Đorđević, announced the construction of another residential social care institution in 2020. The announcment available online at: https://www.minrzs.gov.rs/sr/aktuelnosti/vesti/sledece-godine-izgradnja-novog-doma-za-lica-mentalno-ometena-u-razvoju-u-tutinu; In 2014, a new residential institution for people with autism was opened in Šabac. Available online at: http://csrsabac.org.rs/sr/o-nama-cir/organizaciona-struktura/ustanova-za-decu-i-mlade-sabac-cir 48 Information from the Republic Institute for Social Protection, Reports on 2016 and 2017, available in Serbian only. 49 European Commission, Serbia 2018 Report, 2018 Communication on EU Enlargement Policy, SWD (2018)152, p. 2450 Republic Institute for Social Protection, supra note 33.

13

deinstitutionalization, and to refrain from further investments and development of residential, social-care institutions for adults and children with disabilities.

Combating human trafficking

49. In 2018. there have been 76 confirmed victims of trafficking in human beings in Serbia (out of 190 reported cases)51. The Centre for the Protection of Human Trafficking Victims is the main public institution for formal identification of victims, coordination and planning of support services. Unfortunately, this Centre is failing to fully use the capacities of experienced NGOs active in combating trafficking in human beings. For instance, the Centre rarely refers victims to experienced and qualified NGOs providing services to victims of trafficking (17 referrals in 2018), claiming there is no need for additional support or that the NGOs do not provide services that are needed.

50. On the other side, the scope, adequacy and quality of services provided by the Centre is difficult to assess. This is due to the documentation practice, as well as complete absence of any form of evaluation of Centres’ practice and services. In its Annual Report for 2018, the Centre lists lack of staff, overburden with cases and inability to perform field visits in the first quarter of the year as issues, due to a lack of funds (delayed budget transfers from the central level)52.

51. Analysis of the Serbian judiciary practice shows a worrying trend of establishing plea agreements between perpetrators and the court to pre-qualify the act of trafficking in human beings into mediating prostitution. Relevant international reports also point to this problem: Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Concluding Observations on the fourth periodic report of Serbia highlight the problem of reducing the number of convictions for trafficking in human beings, partly due to plea agreements.

52. Social inclusion of the victims is also not adequately supported. In spite of the facts listed in paragraphs 75 and 95 of the Serbia Country Report on the National Action Plan for Employment for 2018 (specifying victims of human trafficking as one of the categories targeted by active labour market programmes and measures) supported by the Memorandum of Understanding between Centre for victims of trafficking and National Employment Service - not one of the victims of human trafficking found a job through the National Employment Service in 2018.

53. There is a lack of a systematic approach to economic empowerment and reintegration programs for victims of trafficking (beside the ones implemented ad hoc through CSO projects). Finally, there is a lack of a systematic approach to root causes of trafficking such as poverty, social exclusion and violence.

54. Having this in mind, the Committee may wish to ask the Government the following: 1) What are the future steps that the State will undertake to build capacities of the representatives from different sectors (law enforcement, judiciary, social welfare system) to continuously build sensitivity, awareness, stronger and more adequate responses to the issue of trafficking in human beings; 2) What is the current state of play related to the establishment of a comprehensive, cross-sectoral national data base related to the issues of combating trafficking in human beings (containing data on victims, perpetrators, investigations and sanctions and trends); 3) What is the situation with the national overview of services for the victims of human trafficking, with data on content, providers and clear guidelines on how to assess the services and the evaluation of the existing services with special attention to the feedback from the victims themselves.

51 Centre for the Protection of Human Trafficking Victims, Annual Report for 2018 (Serbian only). 52 Ibid, p. 11.

14

Access to economic, social and cultural rights for refugees, asylum seekers and migrants

55. Once a month, all foreigners accommodated in reception centres, regardless of their legal status, receive cash cards53 through projects and donations, although there were periods during 2018 when they did not receive cash allowance.54 The provision of cash allowance for personal needs is prescribed only for persons who have applied for asylum55, while other migrants residing in Serbia cannot fulfil the conditions for the provision of these funds. Having that in mind, without project support, this population will no longer be able to receive these funds. In order to ensure additional money, and due to their inability to get involved in the labour market, primarily owing to their unregulated legal status, a certain number of migrants sometimes work illegally56, and when their cash cards are cancelled, the number of migrants employed illegally can be expected to increase.

56. When it comes to education, persons who were granted asylum in the Republic of Serbia are equal with Serbian citizens.57 The problems arise when it comes to recognition of national education diplomas as the process is lengthy and still not developed for diplomas requiring professional licensure such as diplomas in law.58 There are no programs to verify the level of education for those who do not have their diplomas.

57. Furthermore, all children are enrolled in school59, regardless of their legal status. Even children without a certificate of registration of the intention to seek asylum can be enrolled in school, which can be especially problematic in the case of issuing schooling certificates, since non-registered persons have not been identified. They are least enrolled in secondary schools, and some are enrolled in adult education schools because they have grown out of school age.60 However, due to numerous factors, and especially language barriers, the work implemented with these children in schools is limited, and the number of classes they attend is smaller compared to domicile children.

58. In relation to the abovementioned information, the Committee may wish to ask the State party the following: 1) What has the State done to regulate the status of migrants with illegal stay? 2) What has the State done for migrant children’s passing through the education system (from primary to secondary and higher education)? 3) Have the specialised curricula for migrant children been developed and what do they consist of? 4) To what extent has the teaching staff been trained to work with migrant children? 5) Is there a plan to achieve the sustainability of translation/interpretation services and school assistants for helping migrant children during classes, which are currently being provided by donors?

59. There is still little coordination between the Commissariat for Refugees and Migration and the Ministry of Interior causing continued difficulties in the ability to respond to fluctuations in the number of asylum applications and the actual length of the asylum procedure. Reception and asylum centres are opened in

53 Individuals receive 3,000 dinars; families with one or two children 6,000 dinars; families with three, four and five children 10,000 dinars; and families with six or more children 12,000 dinars.54 NPM report on the visit to Adaševci Reception Centre https://npm.rs/attachments/article/793/Izvestaj%20Adasevci%202018,%20final.pdf, NPM report on the visit to Bosilegrad Reception Centre https://npm.rs/attachments/article/793/Izvestaj%20Bosilegrad%202018,%20final.pdf55 Article 50 of the Law on Asylum and Temporary Protection prescribes that material reception conditions include housing accommodation, food, clothing, and cash allowance for personal needs. 56 Group 484 collected the information from employees at Krnjača Asylum Centre and ‘Jovana Jovanović Zmaj’ Home for Children and Youth. 57 Article 64 of the Law on Asylum and Temporary protection. 58 Information gathered throughout the activities of lawyers, integration officers and field workers of the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights.59 They are enrolled in primary and secondary schools and attend preschool – preparatory programme. 60 Information gathered by Group 484 during the visit to Krnjača Acommodation Centre.

15

various remote parts of the country and persons expressing their intention to seek asylum are directed to these centres in accordance with available space. The Ministry of Interior however visits only the five centres designated as asylum centres, while it does not conduct any legal actions in centres which are designated as reception or transit centres.61 This leaves persons who were directed to be accommodated in reception and transit centres unable to apply for asylum in due time and in a subordinate position to persons who happened to be accommodated in asylum centres without any basis in law.

60. Although there have been improvements in terms of developing a functional local integration mechanism for refugees, significant issues persist. The right to work of refugees and asylum seekers in the Republic of Serbia is regulated by the Law on Employment of Foreigners.62 People seeking asylum can apply for a personal work permit nine months after an asylum application is submitted.

61. Persons who cannot return to their countries of origin but who could not be granted asylum and who have shown willingness to integrate into Serbian society are eligible to be granted temporary residence on humanitarian grounds under the new Law on Foreigners. Their vulnerability is still not recognized in other laws. Most importantly, Article 13 of the Law on Employment of Foreigners defines categories of persons who have the right to an independent personal work permit. Persons who were granted temporary residence for humanitarian reasons are not listed (vulnerable categories include for example persons granted asylum or victims of trafficking). This puts persons who were granted temporary residence for humanitarian stay in a peculiar position as they must apply for work permits in the same way as regular foreigners with a temporary residence. “Labour market test” is one of the necessary steps for obtaining a work permit and most persons in this category would be unable to pass it as they usually have no recognized qualification.

62. Work permits are expensive (around 120 EUR in total)63 and usually these categories of foreigners do not have the required amount of money for this expense. A significant number of refugees and asylum seekers cannot prove their level of education as they have not obtained their diploma certificates. The aforementioned leads to registration with the lowest level of education and consequently results in minimal chances for adequate employment.64

63. According to the Law on Asylum and Temporary Protection a person who has gained refugee status, on his/her request, can be issued with a Serbian travel document.65 In practice this right is not accessible. The law prescribed that the Minister of Interior will adopt necessary bylaws within 60 days from the day the Law on Asylum and Temporary Protection has entered into effect. However, on the day of writing this report, these regulations have not yet been adopted. The adoption of the bylaw had been prescribed by the prior Asylum Law as well, but the fulfilment of this obligation had remained pending during the 10 years it was in force.66

61 Information gathered throughout the activities of lawyers, integration officers and field workers of the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights.62 Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, nos. 128/2014, 113/2017, 50/2018 and 31/2019.63 Information retrieved from: http://www.nsz.gov.rs/live/trazite-posao/dok-trazite-posao/nezaposleni/zapo_ljavanje_stranaca_u_republici_srbiji___dozvole_za_rad.cid17194 64 Information gathered throughout the activities of lawyers, integration officers and field workers of the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights.65 Article 91, the Law on Asylum and Temporary Protection.66 For more information, please see Right to Asylum in the Republic of Serbia, Periodic Report for January-March 2019, p. 17, online, available at: http://azil.rs/en/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/January-March-2019-periodic-report.pdf

16

64. In line with the abovementioned information, the Committee may wish to ask the State party the following questions: 1) How does the State plan to regulate the employment of the vulnerable persons who were granted temporary residence on humanitarian grounds? 2) How does the State plan to provide asylum seekers who are accommodated in reception and transit centres the same access to economic and social rights as to those asylum seekers who were accommodated in asylum centres given that the choice on placement is made solely on available space and not the intent on seeking asylum? 3) What steps has the State taken to facilitate the access to labour market of persons who were granted asylum? 4) Are there any plans to extend the period in which the financial support to refugees is provided?

Capacities of social welfare centre in places where asylum centres are located

65. In the previous reporting period, the State was recommended to increase the capacities of social welfare services in places where asylum centres are located, in order to better respond to the needs of asylum seekers and recognised refugees. During the reporting period, the asylum centre in Sjenica was unofficially designated as a centre for the accommodation of children. Sjenica is a small town in a remote area which has extremely limited social welfare services available leaving children without necessary protection.

66. For the purpose of working with migrants, social welfare centres and social welfare institutions have enhanced staffing capacities through various projects, but for a limited time period67, without a comprehensive systemic approach and established uniform standards of working with the migrant population. The number of protegees per guardian varies68 and no uniform standard has been established at the level of the entire country, but their treatment depends on current circumstances and the support of civil society and donors. Two privately-owned facilities for unaccompanied minors have been opened through project, accommodating 27 children in total. State institutions for social protection intended for unaccompanied minors have temporarily enhanced their staffing capacities. 69

67. In addition to the insufficient number of professional staff, there is a problem of access to interpreters (engaged through civil society organisations) and an insufficient number of official vehicles for the transport of professionals to the locations where migrants and asylum seekers are located, as well as the transport of unaccompanied minors and other vulnerable categories of migrants to whom support and assistance are provided by competent social services. Moreover, although they have been under heavy workload for a long time, professionals are rarely supervised through any kind of workshops, so their ‘burnout’ might be imminent.

67 More about projects: Project MADAD II - https://www.minrzs.gov.rs/sr/projects/migration/madad-fund , IOM project - https://serbia.iom.int/node/431 , IDEAS - http://ideje.rs/projekti/ , JRS project – Integration house for vulnerable refugees http://jrsserbia.rs/en/projekti/integration-house-for-vulnerable-groups-of-refugees/, Borderfree - https://www.facebook.com/udrezenjebezgranica/68 According to the data collected by Group 484, on the territory of the city of Belgrade (about 400 to 500 unaccompanied minors accommodated), on average, there is one ‘professional’ guardian per 30 to 40 children, but it happened to be as many as 50 per a ‘professional’ guardian, and only two case managers are responsible for all of them. In the Sjenica social welfare centre, one case manager and one guardian are hired through a project, the guardian being appointed for all unaccompanied minors accommodated there, sometimes about 100 of them. In some social welfare centres (Loznica, Vranje), the appointed guardians are exclusively professionals from said institutions, and as a help, through project, one contact person for the exchange of information between social welfare centres and the asylum centre/reception centre is hired. However, there are social welfare centres located in the area of asylum centres/reception centres for migrants where no additional associates are employed to work with asylum seekers or migrants, such as in Tutin and Dimitrovgrad social welfare centres. In the area of these social welfare centres, very often older migrants are appointed as guardians for unaccompanied minors (identified and registered as relatives), although they are not eligible to be guardians and may be potentially dangerous for the protegees. 69 Additional logistical staff and educators are engaged through the MADAD II project, which will end towards the end of 2019.

17

68. Having in mind the abovementioned information, the Committee may wish to ask the Government the following questions: 1) How does the State plan to ensure the sustainability of the currently enhanced staffing capacities of social services, and how do they plan the recruitment of additional professional staff? 2) What is the role of social welfare centres and other social welfare institutions in selecting personnel for project work and what are the necessary professional and work qualifications? 3) What are the professional guardians, case managers, educators, social welfare centres contact persons engaged in projects by profession? 4) What training do they go through before and during project work? 5) How many children are under the supervisions of one guardian and what is the established standard at the national level? 6) In what time intervals is the supervision work with professionals on the field carried out? 7) To what extent are social welfare institutions logistically equipped for fieldwork with migrants (official vehicles, drivers, interpreters, etc.)? 8) In what way is the relationship between the State and private service providers regulated and how does the State control their work?

18