National Preventive Mechanism monitoring, no residential institution for children with disabilities had been closed; adults with disabilities have also been unaffected by deinstitutionalization. As it is noted in the aforementioned strategic document of the Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs,“In terms of deinstitutionalization of children under state care, the children with disabilities are the most problematic category. The existing practice makes it clear that children of this category mainly find themselves in child care institutions from their birth, and the probability of their return to their biological families, adoption, or transfer to foster care is quite small. Due to this, at this stage, institutions for children with disabilities remain the only option for exercising care on children of this category, for which it is necessary to maintain the existing service and further perfect its form and quality.” The passage given above, as well as the fact that children with disabilities are yet to be deinstitutionalized, indicates to discrimination towards these persons, since, in accordance with t2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, discrimination on the basis of disability means “any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. It includes all forms of discrimination, including denial of reasonable accommodation.” Public Defender of Georgia addresses the Minister of Labor, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia with a recommendation to: ensure the exercise of the rights of persons with disabilities while planning and implementing the process of deinstitutionalization. ILL-TREATMENT International Standards on Ill-treatment towards Persons with Disabilities Crimes committed against persons with disabilities go unnoticed by the society, particularly when these crimes are directed against people held in places restriction of liberty or those living in institutions98. In the opinion of Janet E. Lord, a legal scholar of Harvard University, violations envisaged by the UN Convention against Torture are especially grave towards persons with disabilities held in institutions, since it is the living conditions in these institutions that were considered as a violation of human rights by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Price v. United Kingdom99. The Court found that to detain a severely disabled person in conditions where there was dangerously cold, patient risked developing sores because her bed was too hard or unreachable, and was unable to go to the toilet, etc. constituted inhuman and degrading treatment. Particular vulnerability of persons with disabilities to torture and ill-treatment was identified by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Committee against Torture, and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture at an expert meeting convened on December 11, 2007, on the basis of which a special document100 was adopted on the protection of persons with disabilities from torture and ill-treatment. The aforementioned document discusses why it is particularly difficult to inquire into facts of torture and ill treatment 101 in relation to persons with disabilities. As one of the members of the experts’ panel stated, the binding states are seldom held responsible for carrying out torture and ill-treatment towards persons with disabilities, because it is considered that representatives of the state always acted with “a good intent”. The staff of institutions for disabled persons always has the argument that they wanted to treat the patient with the established practice (which constitutes ill-treatment). And the aforementioned indicates that the use of the so-called “intent criterion” in assessing the facts of torture and ill-treatment against persons with disabilities is ineffective. The same expert indicated that, in connec98 Janet E. Lord, Shared Understanding or Consensus-Masked Disagreement? The anti-torture Framework in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 2010, No. 27 99 Price v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights, No. 33394/96, 10.07.2007 100 The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Expert Seminar on Freedom from Torture and Ill-treatment and Persons with Disabilities, Report, Geneva, 11 December 2007 101 Eric Rosenthal, Executive Director of the international organization protecting disability rights – Disability Rights International www.ombudsman.ge NPM Report