A/HRC/21/8 expressed its concern over the fact that children were taken away from families and placed in children’s institutions based on arbitrary and groundless decisions. It referred to information provided by NGOs about insufficient professional training for the staff working in those institutions. The Russian Federation also expressed concern over the compulsory hospitalization of patients in psychiatric institutions. The Russian Federation made a recommendation. 39. Slovakia noted the broad and open national consultation process in the process of preparation of its report. It commended Finland for being among the first group of countries to sign the Optional Protocol to CRC on a communication procedure. Slovakia noted with appreciation the establishment of an independent human rights centre and associated human rights delegation attached to the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, jointly constituting Finland’s National Human Rights Institution. Slovakia made recommendations. 40. Slovenia welcomed the fact that Finland had taken meaningful steps to fulfil its commitments from the first cycle of the review, and that a gender perspective was integrated into the UPR follow-up process. It welcomed Finland’s commitment regarding human rights at the national and international level. In particular, it welcomed the leadership role of Finland in the process leading to adoption of a new Optional Protocol to CRC on a communications procedure, signed by Finland in 2012. Slovenia made recommendations. 41. Spain noted the strong commitment of Finland to the promotion and protection of human rights, which perfectly complemented its foreign policy both bilaterally and internationally, with particular emphasis on the United Nations system. Internally, Finland had rigorous constitutional protection and a number of independent bodies monitoring compliance of its human rights obligations and exercising control over public administration. Spain made recommendations. 42. Sweden welcomed the Finnish National Action Plan for Human Rights adopted in March 2012 and the establishment of a Finnish National Centre for Human Rights. Sweden referred to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on the excessively lengthy trial proceedings and other violations of article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. It also mentioned the criticism that the Finnish Immigration Service faced with regard to the deportation of asylum seekers to countries where their safety was challenged, even with the risk of torture. Sweden made recommendations. 43. Thailand highlighted Finland’s efforts to prevent discrimination and violence against women and children. It commended the establishment of a national human rights institution and Human Rights National Action Plan. Thailand welcomed Finland’s efforts to promote non-discrimination for the Roma population and urged Finland to further promote the rights of all minorities. It appreciated Finland’s victim-centred approach to combating trafficking in persons and its efforts to review procedures relating to asylum seekers. Thailand made recommendations. 44. Ukraine praised Finland for the truly multi-participant approach in preparing its national report, which had enabled all interested national human rights actors, including civil society, to provide their views and assessments of the Finnish human rights situation. It made a recommendation. 45. Finland confirmed that the CRPD and its Optional Protocol would be ratified once two working groups set up to prepare legislation for ratification and to consider the legal obstacles to ratification had completed their work in autumn 2012. A draft bill on the new legislation should be ready for the submission to the Parliament at the earliest in autumn 2013. 8