To the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child Center for Human Rights, Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland; Tel.: (41-22) 917-9301, (41-22) 917-1234, Fax: (41-22) 917-0118.
Accompanying Letter
To the Russian NGOs’ “Alternative Report – 2022”: Comments to the State "Consolidated sixth and seventh periodic report of the Russian Federation on the implementation of the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (2011 - 2019)" CRC/C/RUS/6-7
07 November, 2022
Dear Members of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child !
According to the Article 45(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child we - Rus sian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in the interests of children - submit to the Committee on the Rights of the Child this “Alternative Report – 2022”: Comments to the Russia’s State Periodic Report CRC/C/RUS/6-7, which covers the pe riod 2011-2019. However, in this “Alternative Report – 2022” we included comments to the important events of 2020-2022 and following the structure and logic of the State Periodic Report tried to enlighten the updated situation. The same as it was done in pre vious Alternative Reports in 1998, 2005 and 2013 we conclude the “Alternative Report – 2022” with “Our Proposals”.
One of the important messages of this "Alternative Report - 2022" is a statement of the obvious progress in the recent years in the Russian Federation in overcoming social or phanhood. This progress was inspired by the previous Alternative Reports of 1998, 2005 and 2013 and the Concluding Observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child of the same years which we - members of the Alternative Reports' Coalitions managed to deliver to the highest power of Russia - see below the commentaries to Ar ticles 81, 86-89 of the State Periodic Report - 2019. We hope that the ideas and pro posals summed up here in the “Alternative Report - 2022” (on a State measures aimed at resolving the heavy problems of poor children’s malnutrition or unbearable housing conditions, on School Mediation Services as a tool of child participation to combat the school bullying, on Social Commissions, etc.) can be useful not only in Russia but also in other countries with similar childhood problems.
We confirm the permission to distribute the “Alternative Report – 2022” in any open for public way, including electronic database of NGO reports that have been submitted to 1 the Committee on the Rights of the Child. And, of course, members of the Commit tee may refer to this source during their discussion with the Government of Russia. We tried to do our best to follow the “Main points” of CRC Guide for NGO reporting. “Al ternative Report - 2022” (without Accompanying Letter) does not exceed the limit of 10,000 words. And I personally registered for the Zoom pre-session on 16 November.
Many NGOs - members of the Coalition of the "Alternative Report - 2013" are also co authors of this "Alternative Report - 2022", but the Coalition of today's report is much broader, primarily due to the creation a few years ago of the All-Russian Association of Parents of Disabled Children, with branches in many regions of Russia, with whose members we constantly and fruitfully cooperate.
Contrary to the previous Alternative Reports, I do not attach here the List of NGOs - members of the Coalition of “Alternative Report - 2022”. The reason is well known and desperately sad. Tragic Russia’s “special operation” in Ukraine resulted in Russia’s con flict with many countries, and also with UN (let’s recall the almost unanimous vote at the UN General Assembly on October 12, 2022). I witness that many in Russia are hor rified with these events and actually do not understand anything. The same is true with regard to many representatives of the authorities, who are also deadly afraid of a higher "incomprehensible" bosses. The NGOs - co-authors of the “Alternative Report – 2022” in their daily work to save children, to help children constantly cooperate with the au thorities of various levels, who, having seen this NGO in the List of authors of the sub mitted to UN “Alternative Report – 2022”, will be frightened and will inevitably stop this cooperation. As a result, the children whose rights these NGOs protect will suffer. That is why I do not attach here the List of NGOs - members of our Coalition-2022.
On behalf of NGOs - authors of the “Alternative Report – 2022”:
Boris Altshuler, - Head of the “Right of the Child” NGO (umbrella NGO for Coali tions of the “Alternative Reports – 1998, 2005, 2013, 2022”, NGO - Member of the Child Rights Connect, Geneva), - Chairperson of the Coordinating Council of NGOs on Affairs of Children with Disabilities, - Member of the Moscow Helsinki Group, - Member of the Civic Chamber of Russia (in 2010-2014), Personal Page: http://right-child.ru/boris_altshuler.html Contacts: +7 985 477 93 87 baltshuler@yandex.ru baltshuler1939@gmail.com Moscow, Russia
To the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child
Center for Human Rights, Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland; Tel.: (41-22) 917-9301, (41-22) 917-1234, Fax: (41-22) 917-0118.
October 2022
“Alternative Report – 2022” by the Coalition of Russian NGOs
Comments to the State "Combined sixth and seventh periodic report of the Russian Federation (2011 - 2019)" (CRC/C/RUS/6-7, submitted under Article 44 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child)
Abstract
“Alternative Report - 2022”, finally drafted in September-October 2022, following the CRC rules is built as the comments to the Russia’s State Periodic Report CRC/C/RUS/6-7, which covers the period 2011-2019. However, “Alternative Report – 2022” includes also the information on the important events of 2020-2022; following the structure and logic of the State Periodic Report it enlightens the updated situation. And like the previous Alternative Reports in 1998, 2005 and 2013 the Conclusion of the “Alternative Report – 2022” sums up the most important proposals of NGOs aimed at improving the situation of children and families with children in the Russian Federation. The main topics of this report are listed in the Table of Contents
Literature, abbreviations:
SPR [1] “State Periodic Report” - State "Combined sixth and seventh periodic report of the Russian Federation on the implementation of the provisions of the Conven tion on the Rights of the Child (2011 - 2019)" (CRC/C/RUS/6-7).
CO [2] “Concluding Observations” - Committee on the Rights of the Child: “Concluding observations on the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of the Rus sian Federation” (CRC/C/RUS/CO/4-5) / Adopted by the Committee at its sixty-fifth session (13–31 January 2014).
SR [3] - State Report “On the situation of children and families with children in 3 the Russian Federation in 2020" / Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 2021.
Table of contents
Comments to Chapter I «Background knowledge about the Russian Federation» To Articles 15, 16 of State Periodic Report, SPR [1] (on extreme poverty and heavy housing problems of families with children):
Comments to Chapter II «General measures of implementation»
To Article 19 of SPR [1] (on “The Concept for the Development of Early Assistance”): To Articles 22 - 30 of SPR [1] (on the need for early prevention of crimes against mi nors): To Articles 32 and 90 of SPR [1] (on the need to create under Commissioners for Chil dren’s Rights of the “Services for Public Control over Ensuring the Rights of the Child in Organizations of Permanent Residence for Children” and to create under Commissioner for Human Rights of the Russian Federation of the “State Service for Protecting the Rights of Patients in Psychiatric Hospitals and Internats for Mentally Disabled Children and Adults”):
Comments to Chapter IV «General principles»
A. Non-discrimination. To Article 36 of SPR [1] (on the need to overcome in practice discrimination in the field of education of children with health problems): C. The right to life, survival and development. To article 48 of SPR [1] and to paragraph 49 of the Committee’s Concluding Obser vations, CO [2], concerning Assistance to Families with Disabled Children (on the need to adjust Russia's social system to comprehensive assistance to families with children in difficult life situations).
Comments to Chapter V «Civil Rights and Freedoms» H. Right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment. To Articles 68, 69 of SPR [1] (on combating domestic violence). Our addition (effective measure to combat the school bullying, child participation): I. Measures to promote the physical and psychological recovery and social reintegra 4 tion of a child victim. To Articles 71 - 73 of SPR [1] (on building an effective system for the prevention and recovery of child and family problems):
Comments to Chapter VI «Family Environment and Alternative Care»
C. Separation from parents. To Article 81 of SPR [1] (progress in this area and the need for legislative consolida tion of this progress by correcting the family-punitive orientation of the Family Code of the Russian Federation): F. Children deprived of a family environment. To Articles 86 - 89 of the SPR [1] (children in residential institutions, Family-Type Groups):
Comments to Chapter VII «Disability, Basic health care and social security»
A. Children with disabilities. To Articles 105 - 110 of the SPR [1] (problems of implementation of the inclusive ed ucation): To article 111 of the State Periodic Report (problems of education and of dreadful fu ture of inmates of internats for mentally disabled children, DDI):
Comments to Chapter IX «Special protection measures»
To items 195 – 215 of SPR [1] and to paragraphs 69, 70 of Committee’s Concluding Observations [2] (“Administration of juvenile justice”, “Physical and psychological re covery, social reintegration”):
Conclusion: Our Proposals 1. Children’s malnutrition. 2. Heavy housing problems of families with children. 3. Early Prevention System. 4. Public Control Systems under Commissioners. 5. Recovery and support to children and families in difficult situations. 6. School Mediation Service: Child participation against school bullying. 7. To overcome the family-punitive nature of the Family Code. 8. “Professional families” (Family Upbringing Groups). 9. The ways to effective inclusive education. 10. No, to dreadful future in PNI for the mentally disabled children! 11. Probation.
Comments to Chapter I «Background knowledge about the Russian Federation»
To Articles 15, 16 of State Periodic Report, SPR [1] (on extreme poverty and heavy housing problems of families with children):
One cannot but agree with the statements of these Articles of the State Periodic Report that the socio-economic situation of families with children is determined by the size of the family income, housing conditions, access to medicine, that “The main fac tors of poverty are still low wages, especially in the public sector, and the low amounts of a number of social benefits and other social payments.”. The poverty level in the Russian Federation has remained approximately at the same level for a number of years: according to State Statistics Department (Rosstat), in 2020 there were 17.8 million citi zens in Russia who were officially considered poor, that is, whose income does not ex ceed the subsistence minimum (PM) - that time 11 thousand rubles per month per per son en the average in the country. But is it possible, at existing prices, to consider fami lies “not poor” whose income per family member is slightly higher than the PM ? Also, according to Rosstat, the share of families whose income was only enough for food and clothing amounted to 48.2% of the total population of Russia, that is, about 70 million people.
A special pain is poor-quality nutrition, chronic malnutrition of children, when 100% of the family income is spent only on food, and at the same time, children still sit on bread, potatoes and pasta. Such life situations should be recognized as emergency, requiring the same emergency support measures as support for victims of fires, floods, and other disasters. An emergency measure practiced in many countries of the world could be the introduction of a system of food cards for the poor, or specifically in Rus sia: the legislative establishment of the “System of Targeted Food Assistance to Needy Russian Citizens (SAPP)”, developed by the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Russia back in 2015. and since then regularly rejected by the Government of the Russian Fed eration. In the “Alternative Report - 2013” we wrote about these plans of the Russian Government for the year 2015. And they really developed this SAPP, which however is not implemented at all during seven years.
Now let's talk about the severe housing problems of poor families with children, including many-children families (with 3 or more children), living in conditions of 6 "cemetery" overcrowding, in emergency housing, etc. According to the latest State Report (SR [3], p. 71): “As of January 1, 2021, 134.1 thousand families with 3 or more children are registered with local authorities as in need of improving of housing condi tions”; we note that only low-income families in completely unacceptable housing con ditions are put on these local waiting lists, and that the waiting time for this promised “improving of housing conditions” can be 10, 20, and in some cases even 30 years in Moscow, as well as all over the country. Thus we are talking here about the gross prob lem of almost half a million children from many-children families of Russia living in extreme housing conditions requiring immediate improvement and not waiting for dec ades.
The problem of housing for graduates of orphanages, which has not been solved for decades, needs special attention. The right to receive these housing free of charge is guaranteed by the Federal Law of December 21, 1996 No. 159-ФЗ “On additional guar antees for social support for orphans and children left without care parents". But there are more than 200,000 such homeless, during many years and contrary to the law, citi zens over 18 years old - former orphans, and this number is increasing every year. This problem is constantly talked about at the highest levels of power in the Russian Federa tion, but they do not resolve it; on October 6, 2022 Head of the Investigative Committee of Russia Alexander Bastrykin, speaking about this problem, said that there are 35,500 unexecuted court decisions on the issuance of housing to orphans.
Why has this and other no less egregious housing problems of poor citizens of Russia not been solved for years?
Over the past 20 years, the construction of social housing has been completely stopped in Russia. Only commercial housing is being built, sold through the mechanism of mortgages. Whether this mortgage is preferential or not preferential, in any case, this method of improving housing conditions leaves millions of citizens of the Russian Fed eration “overboard”, those whose incomes do not even allow them to think about the monthly payment for an apartment purchased on credit.
The paradox is that these housing problems, as well as the problem of organizing social catering for the poor, can be easily solved not only at low cost for the budget, but also with long-term benefits for the country's economy; the key words for these solu tions are “small business” and “State measures for demonopolization of the food and dwelling markets” - see Items 1, 2 of the Conclusion "Our proposals".
Comments to Chapter II «General measures of implementation»
To Article 19 of SPR [1] (on “The Concept for the Development of Early As sistance”):
The most important provisions of the conceptual documents mentioned in this arti cle of the State Periodic Report (including “The Concept for the Development of Early Assistance for the Period until 2020” - Order of the Government of the Russian Federa tion of August 31, 2016 No. 1839-r; and “The Concept for the Development of a System for the Prevention of Neglect and Offenses minors for the period up to 2020" - Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated March 22, 2017 No. 520-r) need legisla tive and other regulatory and legal consolidation, and the widest implementation in prac tice.
On the key issue of the development of the prevention system, see below the com ments to Articles 71-73 of SPR [1].
Here we will talk about the equally important topic of early assistance for children from birth to 3 years old. According to official documents: “early assistance to children and their families is a complex of medical, social, psychological and pedagogical ser vices provided on an interdisciplinary basis to children from birth to 3 years old (regard less of the established disability) with disabilities or with a risk of developing disabilities, and their families, aimed at promoting the physical and mental development of such chil dren, increasing their involvement in natural life situations, creating a living environ ment, positive relationships between children and parents, children and other persons di rectly caring for the child, in the family as a whole, the inclusion of children among peers and their integration into society, as well as to increase the competence of parents and other persons directly caring for the child in order to comprehensively prevent the for mation or aggravation of childhood disability.
Early assistance (Early Intervention) services are a new type of service provided not only to children with developmental problems, but also to families with such chil dren.” (Citation from the above named “Concep”).
After the adoption in 2016 of the “The Concept for the Development of Early As sistance”, early care began to develop in the regions1 of Russia, mainly on the basis of kindergartens, and the enormous demand for early care services immediately became clear. But this process in the regions of Russia, which in itself can only be welcomed, did not have a sufficiently systemic character.
Currently, this "Concept ... for the period until 2020" has expired, but the notion of early assistance is included in the "Concept for the development in the Russian Federa tion of a system of comprehensive rehabilitation and habilitation of persons with disabili ties, including children with disabilities, for the period until 2025", approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 18, 2021 N 3711-r, and also is included in the draft law on the rehabilitation and habilitation of disabled people. Legisla tive adoption of the definition of early assistance, pricing and inclusion of early assistance services in the budget code should contribute to the development of the institution of ear ly assistance systematically and everywhere in the Russian Federation. (See item 3 in Conclusion "Our proposals").
To Articles 22 - 30 of SPR [1] (on the need for early prevention of crimes against minors):
Agreeing with the positive nature of the legislative and other measures mentioned in these articles aimed at protecting the sexual integrity of minors, preventing suicides of minors, etc., including the Order of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation of July 2, 2012 No. 250 on the organization of the targeted “collection of data on children subjected to any physical punishment and / or psychological aggression by parents (guardians), as well as persons subjected to sexual violence before reaching the age of 18” (Article 30 of SPR [1]), we consider it necessary to note that all these positive measures relate to already committed crimes against minors and do not affect the problem of early prevention of these crimes (see below in the comments to Articles 48 and 71-73 of SPR [1] and Item 5 of the Conclusion “Our Proposals”).
To Articles 32 and 90 of SPR [1] (on the need to create under Commissioners for Children’s Rights of the “Services for Public Control over Ensuring the Rights of the Child in Organizations of Permanent Residence for Children” and to create un der Commissioner for Human Rights of the Russian Federation of the “State Ser vice for Protecting the Rights of Patients in Psychiatric Hospitals and Internats for Mentally Disabled Children and Adults”):
Non-governmental organizations and the Investigative Committee of Russia con stantly receive information about sexual and other violence of children, about other grave violations of the rights of the child in institutions for inpatient residence of children, in cluding the use of psychiatry for disciplinary purposes (stamping children with psychiat ric diagnoses and punishment in the form of psychiatric injections and placement in psy chiatric hospitals).
Welcoming the creation in the Russian Federation of the system of Commissioners for Children's Rights (the Federal Law of December 27, 2018 No. 501-FZ named in the State Periodic Report), we consider it necessary to note that the Federal or regional Commissioners for Children's Rights are actually deprived of the ability to control ob servance of the rights of the child in organizations for orphans and other similar organiza tions for stationary residence of children - for the reason that inmates of these organiza tions are objectively deprived of the opportunity to appeal to the commissioners with complaints about violations of their rights, and also due to the lack of sufficient personnel in the apparatus of the commissioners. (Compare the continuing relevance of the para graph 17 of the February 2014 UN Committee’s Concluding Observations, CO [2]: “Committee also recommends that the State party provide the commissioners' offices with the necessary human, technical and financial resources, and their staff with the necessary training on children's rights.").
In connection with the circumstances named above, as well as due to the refusal of the State Duma of the Russian Federation from the further consideration of the draft Fed eral Law No. 3138-6 “On public control over ensuring the rights of orphans and children left without parental care”, we propose to legislatively establish Public Control Services under the Federal and regional Commissioners for Children's Rights.
The named draft law no. 3138-6, developed by public organizations, submitted to the State Duma by the that time President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev at the end of December 2011, and adopted unanimously in the first reading by the State Duma on March 16, 2012, included the following rights of public inspectors: control visits with out warning the administrations of institutions in advance, the right to confidential con versations between public inspectors and inmates of institutions, as well as the participa tion in these control visits of "trusted specialists" - professionals (psychologists, psychia trists, accountants), to whom the administration of the institution is obliged to provide all the necessary documentation. All these rights of public inspectors are absolutely neces 10 sary for effective public control and should be established by law for the proposed "Public Control Services" under the commissioners for children’s rights.
Also, because of the special helplessness of mentally disabled children and adults - patients of psychiatric hospitals, and also of children (in homes for disabled children - DDI) and adults’ (in psycho-neurological internats - PNI) permanently living in these in stitutions, we consider it necessary to implement, at last, after 30 years delay, the demand of Article 38 of the Federal Law No. 3185-1 of 07/02/1992 “On Psychiatric Care and Guarantees of Citizens’ Rights in its Provision”, which requires the creation of a “Service for the Protection of Citizens’ Rights in mental hospitals and inpatient organizations”.
See item 4 in the Conclusion "Our proposals".
Comments to Chapter IV «General principles»
A. Non-discrimination. To Article 36 of SPR [1] (on the need to overcome in practice discrimination in the field of education of children with health problems):
The statement of this Article of State Report about the absence in the Russian Federation of discrimination in the field of education of children with different problems of health is based upon the fact of adoption of the rather positive Federal Law of December 29, 2012 No. 273-FZ "On Education in the Russian Federation", where, for the first time In Russia, the concept of inclusive education was introduced. On the problems of the practical implementation of inclusive education in Russia see below in the commentary to Articles 105-110 of SPR [1].
C. The right to life, survival and development. To article 48 of SPR [1] and to paragraph 49 of the Committee’s Conclud ing Observations, CO [2], concerning Assistance to Families with Disabled Chil dren (on the need to adjust Russia's social system to comprehensive assistance to families with children in difficult life situations). Paragraph 49 of the Committee's Concluding Observations, CO [2], says: "The Committee notes the new law laying the foundations of social services, which allows for social services to be provided to families with children with disabilities free of charge and mostly in the place of their residence (at home)"
Article 48 of SPR [1] talks about promising innovations in the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of assisting families with children in difficult situa tions. The discussion of this issue, as well as an analysis of the reasons for the lack of practical implementation of these innovations for almost ten years, is one of the main topics of this "Alternative report - 2022".
The concept of a family in a difficult life situation is very broad - it includes families with disabled children, and dysfunctional families under the threat of separation of children and parents, and families where the rights of children are violated, including various forms of violence, and families with sick parents, and simply families in a situa tion of extreme poverty or in unacceptable housing conditions. The state system of so cial protection (and, more broadly, “the system of prevention”) should be able to identi fy all these cases in time and provide the necessary assistance - first of all, preventive and recovering assistance that does not destroy the family.
The word “assistance”, for the first time in the history of Russia, appeared in the Family Code of the Russian Federation in July 2013 - with the introduction in Article 65 of the Family Code of part 4 cited in the discussed Article 48 of SPR [1]: “4. In exercis ing parental rights, parents (or persons in loco parentis) are entitled to assistance in providing the family with medical, psychological, educational, legal and social assis tance. The conditions and procedure for the provision of such assistance are laid down in Federal Law No. 442-FZ of 28 December 2013 “On the social services framework for citizens in the Russian Federation” ”.
This Federal Law entered into force on January 1, 2015, and its Article 22 liter ally repeats the formula of the Family Code cited above, establishing that the above mentioned complex assistance (also called "social support") is not a type of social ser vice but wider of it, that it is provided "on the basis of interdepartmental cooperation" (Article 28 of Law No. 442-FZ), including on the basis of appeals from “state bodies, local self-government bodies, public associations…” (Article 14 of Law No. 442-FZ).
Also in November 2015, the basic concept of “difficult life situation” was intro duced into the Federal Law of July 17, 1999 No. 178-FZ “On State Social Assistance”; and in the same 2015, in the named Federal Law No. 178-FZ, such norms as “social contract” and “social adaptation program” were significantly clarified.
At the same time, according to the information of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of Russia, in most regions of the Russian Federation the requirement 12 of Article 28 of Law No. 442-FZ “On the Social Services ...” on the development and adoption of regional regulations for interdepartmental interaction to identify and work with cases of difficult life situations for children and families with children has al ready been fulfilled.
Why all these promising innovations are ineffective so far? Why are the primary signals of family trouble, including sexual or other violence towards children in the family, left without an immediate purely preventive response? Why are parents hand over their children to the care of the state? Why every case of the family placement of disabled orphan is just a miracle so far? Why, as before, are families with disabled chil dren, families in a situation of extreme poverty or unbearable living conditions left alone face to face with their difficulties ? Why do the listed positive legislative innova tions practically “do not work”?
The answer is well known to practitioners. The federal law “forgot” to point out the subjects of execution of the above-mentioned most important functions, it “forgot” to establish the obligation to form the necessary human and financial resources for the coordinating all the listed “assistances”. The law did not define:
- Who, within the framework of their official duties, is called upon to reveal problematic child and family situations? - Who conducts the initial investigation “of a case”? - Who develops the “social adaptation program” (or in other words: “Individual support program” - ISP), that is, a plan for interdepartmental work “with a case”? - What body finally approves the activities of this ISP, which, after their approv al, become mandatory for all “subjects of the prevention system” (bodies and institu tions of the social protection, education, healthcare, etc.) at the expense of the own budgets of these bodies and institutions.
Such "forgetfulness" of the federal legislation is all the more incomprehensible because in a number of regions and municipalities of Russia there is a pilot experience in organizing the effective work of the prevention system. For example, personnel spe cializations “social district worker” and “family curator” have been introduced, whose place of work is not in social centres, but “in the field”, that is, directly at the place of residence of families with children. The social district worker must know all the fami lies located on his site, know all their problems. And if necessary, a more detailed clari fication of the circumstances and determination of primary actions, involve the curator of the family.
The body coordinating and controlling all this work, including approving the ac tivities of the ISP mandatory for all institutions of various departmental subordination included in the ISP, are in many countries the so-called "social commissions". At the same time, it is fundamentally important that the social commission should not be sub ordinate to those bodies whose budgets are infringed by the ISP approved by the social commission.
In this regard, the experience of Finland is instructive, where municipal social commissions are independent local bodies with their own specific functions, they are independent of local administrations and are directly elected by the population at regular municipal elections. With such a structure, no one can force the social commission to save budgets to the detriment of the interests of citizens and families in need of assis tance.
In the Russian Federation, the coordinating body that approves the activities of an individual rehabilitation program that are mandatory (formally, but, alas, not in real life) for all bodies and institutions of various departmental subordination included in the program are, according to Federal Law No. 120-FZ of 1999, municipal commissions for minors and the protection of their rights. But all this has not been working for 23 years, and the relatively recent positive innovations of the Family Code of the Russian Federa tion and federal legislation on social services mentioned above have not brought this situation out of the chronic systemic impasse. – See below the commentary to Articles 71-73 of SPR [1] and item 5, 10 in the Conclusion “Our Proposals”.
Comments to Chapter V «Civil Rights and Freedoms»
H. Right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment. To Articles 68, 69 of SPR [1] (on combating domestic violence).
It should be pointed out that, despite the initial negative reaction of the public, in cluding a number of NGOs, to the mentioned in Articles 68 and 69 legislative acts of 2016, which provide for partial criminal decriminalization of domestic violence, the transfer of such acts to the sphere of administrative offenses in practice turned out to be very fruitful in combating domestic violence, including violence against children. The 14 fact is that the articles of the former Criminal Code, which provided for criminal li ability for beatings and other forms of domestic violence, were practically not applied by law enforcement agencies, complaints of domestic violence were ignored by the po lice due to the difficulty of criminal investigations in such often difficult and internally contradictory situations as family conflicts.
Whereas after the transfer of acts of domestic violence to the sphere of administra tive jurisdiction, the number of such cases has fundamentally increased. Thus, according to the statistics of the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federa tion, in 2021, 56,412 people were brought to administrative responsibility for beatings (12% more than in 2020). At the same time, it is important (this is stated in Article 69 of the State Periodic Report) that, according to the legislative innovations of 2016, the re peated commission of the act of violence entails perpetrator’s criminal liability. So, these laws have become an effective disciplining factor for domestic abusers.
Our addition (effective measure to combat the school bullying, child participa tion):
The problem of school bullying is not mentioned in the State Periodic Report, but the problem is serious in Russia as well as in many other countries. We write about it here also because at these days the State Duma discusses the draft law on preventing violence in Schools. And, as to our knowledge, the MPs “forgot” in these discussions the most ef fective Russia’s experience in combatting bullying in schools called “School Mediation Services (SMS)”. The participation of the upper forms children themselves as a mediators is a central point of this pilot experience of Russian NGOs, initiated about 12 years ago in a number of schools in Moscow and some other regions. In 2013 Ministry of Education of Russia supported this experience with official Letter and Recommendations of its im plementation, which however proved to be rather weak for the last nine years. Wide im plementation of this excellent experience will be possible only in case the system of SMS will be introduced by the obligatory federal law.
Surely the work of SMS is supervised by the responsible adult teachers, but child par ticipation has great educational value instilling responsibility even in the most inveterate hooligans. See more detail in “What is school mediation?” at the website of the Associa tion of Mediators and Intermediaries of the Asia-Pacific-Region. (Seer item 6 of Conclu sion “Our Proposals”)
I. Measures to promote the physical and psychological recovery and social rein tegration of a child victim. To Articles 71 - 73 of SPR [1] (on building an effective system for the prevention and recovery of child and family problems):
As rightly stated in these articles of the State Report, the system for the prevention of neglect and juvenile delinquency, which is also the system for the prevention of crimes against minors and for the rehabilitation of the victims, was legally established in the Russian Federation in 1999, 23 years ago. And throughout this period, until now, this sys tem has not actually worked to prevent those acts, the prevention of which it is designed to carry out (for the same problem of the lack of early prevention, see above the com ments to Articles 22-30, 48 of SPR [1]). The reason is a flaw in the legislative framework, hence there is no effective interdepartmental coordination in working “with a case”. In this regard, paragraph 36 of the Concluding Observations of the UN Committee, CO [2], has not lost its relevance: “36. The Committee recommends that the State party ensure in ter-agency cooperation at the federal, regional and local levels, especially between law enforcement agencies and social service structures.”
The 23 years old Federal law # 120-FZ, named in Article 71 of the State Report, es tablished the municipal commissions on the affairs of minors and the protection of their rights (KDN) as the coordinators of the prevention system at the local level close to the population. However, in practice, as it was said above, KDN are not capable to perform this important function due to the imperfection of the law, and like police they may re spond only to already committed crimes of minors or against minors. This destructive sit uation is well known to practitioners, with many of whom NGOs cooperate. Moreover, in a number of regions, regional laws were adopted, which made it possible to launch a real prevention system. However, until recently, nothing has been done in this regard at the federal level.
But now, hopefully, the ice has broken. Two years ago, the Deputy Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation, as well as the Chairman of the Government Commission on the Affairs of Minors, Tatiana Golikova instructed to radically reconsider the legislation on the prevention system. Specifically, according to the Protocol of the Government Commission on the Affairs of Minors dated December 30, 2020 No. 27, the development of the concept of a new federal law “On the protection of the rights of mi 16 nors and the prevention of their antisocial and illegal behavior” was started (we can only welcome that the title of the bill contains the words “protection of rights"). Respon sible for this work is the Ministry of Education of Russia, which provides technical sup port to the work of the Government Commission on the Affairs of Minors; at the initial stage, representatives of public organizations and the practical workers of commissions on the affairs of minors from many regions of Russia were involved in this work. By now, not only the concept of this bill has been prepared, but the named draft-bill itself has been developed in great secrecy. According to the instructions of the Government, it should be open to the public in the coming days - in November 2022.
We did not see yet this important draft-bill, and would like to believe that it will not turn out to be another “paper tiger”, useless in practice. We hope that the new law will make it impossible for different bodies to ignore the primary signals of sexual or other vi olence in the family, that this first-hand information will not remain without an immedi ate purely preventive family-non-demolishing but recovery reaction. We hope that the families with children in a difficult life situation (including, of course, families with disa bled children) will not be left alone with their difficulties. See also the comments to Arti cle 48 of SPR [1] and item 5 of the Conclusions "Our proposals".
Comments to Chapter VI «Family Environment and Alternative Care»
C. Separation from parents. To Article 81 of SPR [1] (progress in this area and the need for legislative con solidation of this progress by correcting the family-punitive orientation of the Family Code of the Russian Federation):
State statistics data for 2021 confirm the statement of the State Periodic Report [1] on a steady downward trend in the number of the forced separations between children and parents. According to Form 103-RIK-2021, in 2021 court decisions were made to deprive of parental rights both parents or a single parent in respect of 11,403 children, who thereby became social orphans (“social” are orphans whose parents are alive). This figure is about 10 times less than 10-15 years ago, when the "factory for the production of social orphans" was operating at full capacity. The same progress is evidenced by a significant decrease in the number of orphaned children permanently living in residen tial institutions - see the next comment.
This progress is, although not immediate, the direct result of the “Alternative Reports – 1998, 2005, 2013” and Committee’s Concluding Observations of that times, which we – members of the Coalitions of the Alternative Reports managed to deliver to the highest power of Russia. The fact is that in the recent years the requirements to the guardianship and trusteeship bodies have changed: - from the order “to supply” as many orphans as possible for the institutions of the extremely corrupt "Rossirotprom" (“Russian-orphans-industry”) system with multi billion budget allocations, - to the nowadays setting for the maximum reduction in the number of deprivations of parental rights (which, on the other hand, in some cases is associated with leaving the child in a family situation that threatens her/his life and health).
The paradox of this progress is that it takes place in the context of two systemic leg islative shortcomings in the Russian system of protecting children and families: the per sistent family-punitive nature of the Family Code of the Russian Federation and the in sufficient social-recovery work with dysfunctional families. Without correcting these systemic shortcomings, the progress named above is easily reversible, and Russia may again drown in a sea of new social orphans.
For the second of these shortcomings and ways to correct it, see the comments to Articles 48 and 71-73 of SPR [1] and item 5 in Conclusion “Our Proposals”. Here we point out the visible failure of the Family Code of the Russian Federation.
Articles 69 - 77 of the Family Code regulate the procedures for the actions of state bodies in the issues of deprivation or limitation of parental rights, taking a child away from a parent, restoring parental rights, and also (attention!) 37 articles are devoted to the ways of placement of a child deprived of blood parents (Section VI "Forms of up bringing of children left without parental care"). But the Family Code of the Russian Federation does not contain any regulation of social rehabilitation work in an attempt to save the family, including no indication of the mandatory participation of employees of social protection agencies in the life-changing actions and decisions of guardianship bodies, commissions on affairs of minors, prosecutors and courts. Cf. the recommenda tion of paragraph 42 of the Concluding Observations of the UN Committee, CO [2]: "to expand social services to provide support and assistance in order to preserve families." (See comments to Article 48 of SPR [1] and item 7 in the Conclusion "Our proposals").
F. Children deprived of a family environment. To Articles 86 - 89 of the SPR [1] (children in residential institutions, Family Type Groups): The number of orphans permanently living in Russia in different institutions is de creasing every year, and this process can only be welcomed. At the end of 2021, there were 35,291 orphans – inmates of orphanages (“organization for orphans and for chil dren left without parental care”), and 27,803 children “temporarily” transferred by their parents to same orphanages due to difficult life circumstances of the family (data from the Ministry of Education of Russia).
Plus to these 63,094 inmates of orphanages there were in 2020 in baby homes (for children from birth to 4 years old) – 7,015 kids, from them 3,253 not orphans but volun tarily given by their parents to the state. And there were 17,037 inmates of social inter nats for mentally disabled children (DDI), see page 169 of the State Report [3].
Total number of inmates of orphanages and baby homes decreased drastically in Russia as compared with the previous epoch of the “Alternative Report - 2013”. The reasons are the decrease of new orphans discussed in previous comment and the devel opment of adoption and of other forms of the orphans’ substitute family care. Adoption of small healthy children is especially active, that is why baby homes became now a sort of the institutions for disabled children; and many baby homes learned the special methodology aimed at developing such children.
The family placement of children with disabilities is underdeveloped in Russia be cause these substitute families need special complex assistance, and Russian social sys tem unfortunately is not capable yet to provide such an assistance to families in need of it – see comments to Articles 48 of SPD [1] and item 5 in the Conclusion “Our Pro posals”.
And exactly in the same way Russian social system is incapable so far to assist the blood families with disabled children or families in other difficult situations. State sta tistic data cited above do not refer to two huge categories of the institutionalized non orphaned “parental” children given to the State care by their parents:
1) Pupils of the correctional school-internats for children with disabilities and with limited possibilities of heals who permanently live in a number of these educational in stitutions (new title of these institutions see in the next comments to Articles 105-110 of SPR [1]). Modern (after adoption in 2013 of the Federal Law “On Education”) statistics of the Ministry of Education of Russia does not provide separately numbers of pu pils in correctional and in ordinary schools, moreover it does not inform about the num ber of permanently institutionalized pupils of these schools. Working in many regions we know that this number is not small at all, hardly it is below 100 thousand inmates, and practically all of these not healthy children have legitimate parents who could not cope with the child and passed her/him to the care of State.
One can estimate the scale of this institutionalization by looking at the statistics of 10 years ago, which was quite detailed at that time. In 2012 in 1728 correctional school internats there were 211,139 pupils (this includes about 10% of orphans), from them there were 42,721 pupils visiting schools from their homes, thus other 168,418 children were institutionalized, living and studying in the one and the same building they were totally isolated from the ordinary social environment. We can suppose that now this number of the permanent inhabitants of correctional school-internats essentially de creased. It must be also noted that life of inmates of these institutions significantly im proved, became much more socializing after the adoption of the Government’s Decree No. 481 of May 2014 on Family-Type Groups - see below.
2) Article 72 of the State Periodic Report [1] mentions social shelters for minors. State Report [3] informs that “In 2020, the number of minors who received social reha bilitation in stationary conditions amounted to 118 thousand people”. This means that during a year more than 100 thousand children were institutionalized in social shelters for some periods. “In the social shelter one street child is capable in the night time to teach collective sex ten home children”, - told us cleverly more than 20 years ago that time Deputy Minister of Social Protection of Russia (now Deputy Chair of the Upper Chamber of Russian Parliament – Council of Federation) Galina Karelova, who we fruitfully cooperated in times of our first “Alternative Report - 1998” to the CRC. Then the very idea of the priority of child’s family placement as compared to the Soviet in herited collective communal life for the first time came to the mind of Russian authori ties. The alternative to the collective life in social shelters is the practiced in many coun tries temporary individual placement of children from vulnerable families in the “pro fessional families” which tutors are the workers of the umbrella social center.
This progressive form of the work of social shelters is also developed as a pilot ex perience on the initiative of social authorities of a number of Russian regions, - they place children temporary taken from their parents not collectively in the shelter itself but outside of it in the so called Family Upbringing Groups which are located in the usual social environment and which are considered as the structural subdivision of the social shelter. Unfortunately, this pilot experience was not supported by binding federal documents and therefore is not widely implemented so far.
See Item 8 of the Conclusion "Our proposals".
It is known that permanent collective life in institution in the absence of meaningful adults and family environment is extremely harmful to the child. In this regard, we can not fail to mention the most important reform of the living conditions of children in or phanages in Russia. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of May 24, 2014 N 481 (as amended on April 19, 2022) “On the activities of organizations for or phans and children left without parental care, and on the placement of children left without parental care in them” and the new Regulation approved by the Government about such organizations say "Children's accommodation in organizations for orphans is organized according to the principles of family upbringing in the family-type groups with permanent tutors located in the apartment type premises". This reform has really improved the quality of life of many thousands of inmates of orphanages in Russia. Here we express our gratitude to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, since it was this reform, earlier promoted by NGOs and proposed in our previous “Alternative Report - 2013”, that was supported by the Committee and discussed with the Russian Delegation at the Committee’s Session in January 2014 – half a year before Russian Government issued the Decree # 481 on the Family-Type Groups.
This positive experience of organizing inmates’ life according to the family type principles has not been widely implemented in internats for mentally disabled children (DDI) and in social shelters – both being subordinated to social protection bodies. And it is all the more strange in view of the best regional pilot practice of the shelters’ Fami ly Upbringing Groups discussed above.
Comments to Chapter VII «Disability, Basic health care and social security» B. Children with disabilities. To Articles 105 - 110 of the SPR [1] (problems of implementation of the inclusive education): In addition to the category of children with disabilities, the Russian Federation also 21 uses the broader category of “children with Limited Possibilities of Health” (LPH); these two categories partly overlap. One cannot but agree with the statement of Article 105 of the State Periodic Report that the Federal Law of December 29, 2012 No. 273-FZ “On Education in the Russian Federation” is fundamentally anti-discriminatory in the field of education of children with disabilities and children with LPH. This law legalized inclusive education for the first time in Russia, in addition, its adoption gave impetus to the reform of all educational organizations in Russia, aimed at realizing the right to edu cation - preschool, general, special professional - for every child, regardless of her/his state of health. This includes the development of new Federal State Educational Stand ards, the creation of an accessible environment, realizing the targeted programs for im proving the competence of teachers, creation in Russian regions of a number of Resource Centers with a task to implement the inclusive education in regular schools. Some stages of this difficult reform are reflected in the SPR [1].
Today in the Russian Federation, parents of children with disabilities and children with LPH have the right to choose for their child one of the following educational oppor tunities: 1) in "separate general education organizations that provide education according to adapted basic general education programs" (the former name is "correctional school internats") - with a daily child visits to the school, with a five-day staying at school, or with the child's permanent residence there (about these institutions, see more in the com mentary to Articles 86-89 of the SPR [1]); 2) in ordinary schools in small, no more than 8-12 pupils, special (correctional) clas ses of two types: for mentally safe children and for children with intellectual disabilities; 3) inclusive education in ordinary schools in classes with healthy pupils; 4) parents also have the right to transfer a child from an inclusive class to home schooling with visiting school teachers; at the same time, this child is formally considered to receive an inclusive education, although, being constantly at home, she/he is obviously isolated from the social environment.
The right of parents to choose any of the above forms of education for their child is an obvious advantage, since very often inclusive education together with healthy children turns out to be the most difficult psychological trauma for a disabled child, and the quali ty of education received by a child in a highly professional correctional school is often higher than in regular classes, where teachers are not yet ready to teach children with spe 22 cial educational needs.
Inclusive education is undoubtedly developing in Russia, but this process is difficult. "Voluntary-compulsory" transfer of "inclusive" children with disabilities to home school ing is one of the difficult problems of this process. Such a transfer, as it was mentioned, can be carried out only on the will of the parents, but it is not difficult for a teacher of an ordinary class who is unable to cope with the education of a special child, to create such conditions for him when the parents themselves "would like" to take the child out to home schooling. The State Report, [3], p. 172, reveals the number of children who were homeschooled in 2020 but are considered inclusive learners: 110,958 children (“95,717 children with LPH (of which 70,553 also have the status of a child with a disability) and 15,241 disabled children”; 110,958 = 95,717 + 15,241).
The State Report [3] on page 168 informs that in 2020, the following numbers of children with LPH and disabilities of school age received education in the Russian Feder ation: - in inclusive classes: 472,643 children; - in special (correctional) classes for mentally safe children: 160,393 children; - in special (correctional) classes for children with intellectual disabilities: 205,133 children. In total, this amounts to 838,169 - as many children with LPH and disabilities of school age received education in the Russian Federation in 2020.
The State Report [3], as well as the State Periodic Report [1], do not separate the number of pupils enrolled in mainstream schools and in correctional schools (we use the old short title), so the given in SR [3] figure 472,643 children enrolled in inclusive educa tion in 2020, includes both children with LPH and disabilities – pupils of ordinary classes in ordinary schools (real inclusive education), as well as those who studied in correctional schools (see their approximate number in the commentary to Articles 86-89 of the SPR [1]), and even those 110,958 children named above who were homeschooled from inclu sive classes.
One of the negative consequences of the “accelerated” introduction of inclusive edu cation is the unprepared and fairly massive (we do not have statistics, but we know many specific examples in the regions of Russia) transfer of children with mild mental disabili ties and other mild forms of LPH and disabilities from correctional schools to ordinary "inclusive" schools, which are not yet ready to teach such children. As a result, over the years since the adoption of the law “On Education” in 2013, several generations of children of this category have actually been deprived of any education. Such is the con tradictory dialectic of the introduction of strategically progressive inclusive education.
Let us point out a number of difficulties faced by the introduction of inclusive educa tion in the Russian Federation. Ordinary schools, as a rule, are not ready for this, both in terms of lack of competence and physically. Although the ramps and other necessary conditions provided for by the state program "Accessible Environment" are met in most mainstream schools, problems arise in terms of providing rooms for specialists (defectol ogists, speech therapists, psychologists), rooms for individual work with children who have difficulties in adapting to learning in the group, as well as sanitary premises where you can change diapers, wash the child, etc.
It is important at the stage of developing the terms of reference for design and esti mate documentation to provide for the creation of material and technical conditions nec essary for the quality education of pupils with disabilities and LPH. In particular, to pro vide in the project designs a smaller classes size, to provide the above-mentioned premis es and equipment for pupils with certain functional limitations.
See Item 9 in the Conclusion “Our Proposals”. To article 111 of the State Periodic Report (problems of education and of dread ful future of inmates of internats for mentally disabled children, DDI): The stamp “uneducatable” is indeed no longer used in the Russian Federation. The education of inmates of DDIs is organized both in the form of structural educational units within the DDI, and in the form of visits (delivery) of pupils to nearby correctional schools. If necessary, children are provided with individual lessons. Of course, there are questions about the quality of this education, surely there is a lot of space for improve ment. Article 111 of the Periodic Report rightly notes that not all school-age inmates of DDI receive education, Article 111 refers to 217 such inmates in 2017. A year earlier, there were 775 of them, and in 2018 - 170 (out of a total of number about 10,000 of the school-age inmates – see comments to Articles 86-89 of SPR [1]). There is only one rea son for this flaw - the most difficult state of child’s health. The authorities are aware of the problem and are trying to solve it.
For strategic reforms that will provide a family environment for inmates of DDIs and also provide them with a quality developmental education, see items 6, 9, 10 in Conclu sion "Our proposals".
State Report [3], p. 169, says that in 2020 in DDI from the total number of 17,037 inmates there were 4,144 adult inmates, which is contrary to the rules, since upon reach ing the age of 18, inmate of DDI must be transferred to adult psycho-neurological inter nat, PNI. But the PNIs are such terrible institutions that the administration of the DDIs, pitying “their” children, tries to delay their transfer to the PNI as much as possible - hence we have 4,144 adult inmates in DDIs.
For a number of years now, a coalition of Russian NGOs defending the rights of persons with mental disabilities has been seeking the development in Russia of the sys tem of the “Assisted living” for persons with mental disabilities in apartments in an or dinary social environment, which will make the “human dumps” of PNIs unnecessary. And we can state that the high-level authorities are aware of the need for such a reform, which nevertheless proceeds with great difficulty.
Assisted living is the only possibility to escape the PNI for a mentally disabled per son recognized as incompetent, incapable of independent living and in need of a guardi an. Today in Russia according to the law the guardians for such disabled persons are: or (1) administration of PNI for those who live there, or (2) some relatives ready to take him to their home. Thus, today inmate of DDI reaching 18 years old and not having these self-sacrificing relatives is the inevitable future patient of terrible PNI.
The ways out of this dreadful situation see in item 10 in Conclusion "Our Pro posals".
Comments to Chapter IX «Special protection measures»
To items 195 – 215 of SPR [1] and to paragraphs 69, 70 of Committee’s Con cluding Observations [2] (“Administration of juvenile justice”, “Physical and psy chological recovery, social reintegration”):
Yes, it is the positive truth that number of minors in custody in Russia is small and decreases annually. It is also the truth that “the adoption of laws establishing juve nile courts with specialized staff”, cited CO [2], is again delayed. Historically this is ra ther strange since Russian Empire was among the first establishing specialized juvenile courts for minors-delinquents in the beginning of XX century. Communists abandoned this system after taking power in Russia in 1917.
Today the most serious systematic problem is the absence of the effective re covery – reintegration system for children victims or perpetrators of crimes. Hence the repeated crimes of juveniles left at liberty or after the custody. This is the result of inef ficiency of general System of Prevention (see comments to Articles 71-73 and item 5 in Conclusion) and also the result of absence in Russia of the general probation system.
It is paradoxical that in Russia so far, for more than 30 years of the existence of New Russia, a probation system has not been created, although there was a lot of talk about the urgent need to create such a system . But in April 2022, the Russian Ministry of Justice announced that it had developed a bill "On probation in the Russian Federa tion". See item 11 in Conclusion “Our Proposals”.
Conclusion: Our Proposals
.1. Children’s malnutrition. Approve by the law, the program of food cards for poor elaborated in Russia by the Ministry of Industry and Trade back in 2015, realizing in parallel the strong food markets demonopolisation measures resulting in particular in the development of local markets and other formats of small trade, which will lead to a significant reduction in the cost of "survival basket", will support the poor farmers, and will lead to the positive economic "multiplier effect". (Cf. comments to Articles 15, 16 of SPR [1])
2. Heavy housing problems of families with children. a) Approve by the law a new for Russia social service: "the provision of budget ary compensation (subsidies, social payments) to pay the cost of renting residential premises for citizens/families in a difficult housing/life situation".
b) Also approve by the law the All-Russia targeted program of building the social rental (rented) houses; the program should include various (well known to professional builders who we cooperate) State benefits and preferences for developers of such hous es, which in turn will lead to a decrease in the cost of this housing and will give an eco nomically multiplier effect of the budget costs of item 2b, similar to the economically multiplier effect of the food card program of item 1. (Cf. comments to Articles 15, 16 of SPR [1]).
3. Early Prevention System. To establish by the future law on the rehabilitation and habilitation of disabled people the main positions of “The Concept for the Development of Early Assistance”. (Cf. comments to Article 19 of SPR [1]; we put this proposal here and not in the chap ters on disability because SPR [1] mentions this important Concept in its Article 19).
4. Public Control Systems under Commissioners. a) Supplement Federal Law No. 501-FZ of December 27, 2018 “On Commissioner for the Rights of the Child in the Russian Federation” with provisions establishing the obligatory formation of “Public Control Services under the Federal and regional Com missioners for Children's Rights”. (Cf. comments to Articles 32, 90 of SPR [1]). Public Control Services for Ensuring the Rights of the Child in Organizations for the Inpatient Residence of Children”. (Cf. comments to Articles 32, 90 of SPR [1]).
b) To adopt the law on the establishment under the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation of the “Service for the Protection of Citizens’ Rights in mental hospitals and inpatient organizations”; this draft-law was elaborated in 2014 by the Council under the Government of the Russian Federation on issues of guardianship and trusteeship in the social sphere. (Cf. comments to Articles 32, 90 of SPR [1]).
5. Recovery and support to children and families in difficult situations. To establish by the law the missing elements of the system of preventing of chil dren’s and families’ troubles and of the complex assistance to families with children in the difficult life situations, including families with disabled children, etc., etc. (See in detail in the comments to Articles 48, 71-73 of SPR [1]; see also comment to Article 111 and item 10 below).
6. School Mediation Service: Child participation against school bullying. To establish by the law of the mandatory for all schools “School Mediation Ser vices” functioning with child participation. (See “our addition” to comment to Articles 68, 69 of SPR [1]).
7. To overcome the family-punitive nature of the Family Code. Supplement the Family Code of the Russian Federation with provisions es tablishing the obligation of social rehabilitation work with dysfunctional families (blood or substitute) under the threat of separation of children and parents. (See in detail in the comments to Article 81 of SPR [1]).
8. “Professional families” (Family Upbringing Groups). Prohibit by the law the joint (collective) maintenance in social shelters of children removed from the street or temporarily removed from the family due to certain traumat ic situations; establish by the law that the temporary stay of such children is permissible only individually in Family Upbringing Groups, which are subdivisions of an umbrella social-rehabilitation centers. (See in detail in the comments to Articles 86-89 of SPR [1]).
9. The ways to effective inclusive education. To accelerate the creation of the necessary conditions for the education of chil dren with disabilities in ordinary schools - in inclusive classes or in special (correction al) classes of the same school. The Ministry of Education should establish that the trans fer of disabled children from school to home schooling is a disadvantage of the school, while the creation of additional correctional classes should be considered as a positive factor when assessing the work of the school. And of course, additional education (vari ous hobby groups, etc.) at school should only be inclusive - along with healthy children. (See in detail in the comments to Articles 195-110 of SPR [1]).
10. No, to dreadful future in PNI for the mentally disabled children! To establish by the law: a) a complex service of "accompanied (assisted) living" for mentally disabled persons, providing the allocation for this purpose of targeted "assisted living apart ments" located in the usual social environment;
b) of a new form of guardianship "professional guardian" - for mentally disabled persons who do not live in PNI and do not have relatives - guardians. (See comment to Article 111 of SPR [1]).
11. Probation. Plus to measures aimed at creation of the effective System of Prevention (see item 5 above) it is necessary to adopt as soon as possible the Law “On Probation in the Russian Federation” elaborated by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. (See comments to Articles 195-215 of SPR [1]).
