National Preventive Mechanism The Office of Public Defender of Georgia immediately started studying the case on its initiative120 and addressed the State Care Agency121 and the Social Service Agency with a request to provide the beneficiary with legal assistance.122 The reply letter sent by the State Care Agency on August 16, 2012,123 says that the Legal Entity of Public Law (LEPL), State Care Agency, provides beneficiaries with assistance in the exercise of their rights when necessary and within its competence, though, in connection with the case of L.B., “…it is not within the Agency’s competence to provide legal assistance for beneficiaries; the Agency has informed beneficiaries about organizations that provide free legal consultation about similar issues.” In the definition of types of legal assistance, Paragraph 5 of Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities indicates that “Subject to the provisions of this article, States Parties shall take all appropriate and effective measures to ensure the equal right of persons with disabilities to own or inherit property, to control their own financial affairs and to have equal access to bank loans, mortgages and other forms of financial credit…” It is logical to conclude that disclaiming responsibility for protecting the aforementioned right by the State Care Agency constitutes a violation of the right to legal protection of persons with disabilities living in institutions. Furthermore, informing them about organizations that provide free legal consultation is not an effective measure, because the aforementioned persons’ ability both to move around in the society (because the environment is not adapted) and to communicate on the telephone is often limited. The Case of N.Ts. In June 2012, in the framework of the monitoring of institutions for persons with disabilities, the monitoring group visited one of the institutions where the group learned that a beneficiary of the institution, N.Ts., required legal assistance. Specifically, she wants to divorce her husband, but is unable to do so without corresponding legal consultation and assistance. The Office of Public Defender of Georgia immediately started studying the case on its initiative124 and addressed the State Care Agency125 and the Social Service Agency126 with a request to provide the beneficiary with legal assistance. The reply letter sent by the State Care Agency on August 16, 2012127, says that N.Ts. wants to divorce her husband and receive her share of the three-room apartment under her husband’s owner ship. The beneficiary also hired a lawyer for the aforementioned case, though she no longer has a lawyer due to financial problems. In the letter, the State Care Agency again indicated that it was not within its competence to provide the beneficiary with legal assistance on the issues raised. And the reply letter128 of LEPL Social Service Agency says that, in accordance with Part 2 of Article 1275 of the Civil Code of Georgia, guardianship/custodial care shall be imposed to protect the personal and property rights and interests of those adults who, due to their health condition, cannot exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations independently. Referral to the aforementioned article by the Social Service Agency makes it clear that it is only possible to provide the beneficiary with legal assistance in the case of assigning a guardian, with the condition of recognizing her as legally incapable. The Case of S.K. and A.B. As part of the same monitoring, the monitoring group visited the Martkopi institution, where the group received information that beneficiaries of the institution, S.K. and A.B., have an underage child who lives in another state residential institution. The Social Service Agency was planning to restrict the beneficiaries’ parenthood rights and involve the child in the program of foster care. The parents objected to the aforementioned. According to the head of the 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 Case No. 1364-12, July 31,2012 Letter No. 3131/08-1/1364-12, August 3, 2012 Letter No. 3127/08-1/1364-12, August 3, 2012 Letter No.08/854, August 16, 2012 Case No. 1365-12, July 31, 2012 Letter No. 3130/08-1/1365-12, August 3, 2012 Letter No. 3128/08-1/1365-12, August 3, 2012 Letter No. 08/854, August 16, 2012 Letter No. 04/49728, August 16, 2012 www.ombudsman.ge NPM Report