Another issue examined by the People's Advocate for Children's Rights was the compulsory vaccination of children, a subject reflected in the previous periods of the exercise of his mandate. During the monitored period, the following problematic aspects were deduced from the analyzed compartment:  Insufficient information on the benefits of vaccination;  The dubious quality of vaccines and the lack of safety of medical services provided in case of complications following vaccination, according to the opinion of the parents who notify the Child Ombudsman;  Poor communication between medical staff and parents / legal representatives of the child; The issue was repeatedly analyzed by several authorities and, on October 30, 2018, the Constitutional Court ruled on the constitutionality of the provisions of Law no. 10 of February 3, 2009 on State Surveillance of Public Health and the National Immunization Programme for 20162020, approved by Government Decision no. 1113 of October 6, 2016157, establishing that the respective provisions are constitutional. In the opinion of the Children's Ombudsman, the issue addressed has not been resolved, and the dilemma lies in the mandatory vaccination and the lack of accountability mechanism for parents / legal representatives. In his Opinion before the Constitutional Court, the People's Advocate for Children's Rights mentioned that any State has an obligation to adopt effective policies on the health security of its citizens, and citizens are obliged to respect it, including in the field of vaccination. At the same time, the state must guarantee citizens safety regarding the quality of the vaccine and taking responsibility for the risk situations that may arise after vaccination. Thus, on the one hand, the State in the light of the provisions of Art. 52, para. (6) of Law 10/2009 "the admission of children to communities and educational and recreational institutions is conditioned by the fact of their systematic prophylactic vaccination158”, provides for the compulsory vaccination of children and at the same time does not constitute a coercive mechanism for parents who refuse this procedure. In this regard, the Children's Ombudsman mentions that in 157 http://www.constcourt.md/ccdocview.php?tip=hotariri&docid=674&l=ro http://www.legis.md/cautare/getResults?doc_id=106570&lang=ro 158 88