A/HRC/16/9 58. On the revival process of 1984 to 1989, Bulgaria responded that lump-sum compensation for pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary damages had been paid out in the past to the victims and their heirs and they also received a monthly supplement to their pension in accordance with the Act on the Political and Civil Rehabilitation of Repressed Persons. A judicial investigation was underway for the instigators to be punished. 59. Armenia stated that Bulgaria’s strong human rights machinery, complemented by its commitments such as the withdrawal of all reservations to the international human rights instruments and its membership in regional human rights bodies, seemed to be providing avenues for the protection and promotion of human rights. Armenia wished to know how decisions of the European Court of Human Rights were addressed and welcomed Bulgaria’s policy of treating all national minorities in a manner consistent with its international obligations. Armenia made recommendations. 60. Spain commended Bulgaria for the establishment of an institutional and legislative framework for human rights protection and for the issuance of a standing invitation to special procedures. Spain recognized the improvements made in combating discrimination as well as achievements accomplished in the area of women’s rights. Spain made recommendations. 61. Austria noted that the process of preparing the national report had included consultations with non-governmental organizations. Austria, while welcoming the adoption of the “Vision for De-institutionalization”, was concerned that institutionalized care remained widely used and that the average stay of children in institutions continued to be extremely long and the quality of the care provided low. Austria was also concerned that the work of child protection departments remained seriously underfunded. Austria proposed related recommendations. 62. The Czech Republic expressed appreciation for steps taken by Bulgaria to combat stereotypes related to national and ethnic minorities, notably the rulings of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination in cases involving discriminatory statements by the media. Concerning the report of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee on the use of force by police officers against detainees, it expressed the hope that Bulgaria would fully investigate the allegations and bring to justice those responsible. The Czech Republic made recommendations. 63. Palestine noted the measures taken to promote and protect human rights, including protection from all forms of discrimination. Palestine referred to Bulgaria’s pledges to achieve gender equality in the economic and social fields, in professional and family roles and in decision-making, as well as in terms of development and security. It also referred to efforts to combat gender-based violence, trafficking and stereotyping in society, and to promote children’s rights in education and institutions. Palestine made a recommendation. 64. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia commended Bulgaria for its ratification of numerous international human rights instruments and their inclusion in its national legal system. However, it raised questions regarding the registration of OMO Ilinden PIRIN. The most recent unsuccessful attempt to register it had been in June 2009, despite the recommendations made by the Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, and all the legal arguments in favour of OMO Ilinden PIRIN. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia made recommendations. 65. Chile noted that protection against all forms of discrimination was a priority of Bulgaria and welcomed the establishment of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination, together with the Ombudsman and the National Council for Cooperation on Ethnic and Demographic Issues. Chile noted that Bulgaria recognized that the Roma continued to be in a situation of vulnerability and that the country was concerned about the need to implement consistent and specific policies for them. Chile made recommendations. 11