Raportul de activitate APADOR-CH 2015

01/02/2016/în Anuale /de Rasista

72% dintre români recunosc că nu sunt bine informați în privința drepturilor pe care le au, dar 80% dintre ei consideră că în România le sunt încălcate drepturile civile. Acestea sunt rezultatele primului studiu sociologic făcut în România, care arată o slabă cunoaștere a drepturilor omului și a instituțiilor naționale menite să le apere. Studiul a fost realizat cu ocazia lansării portalului www.drepturicivile.ro, unul dintre proiectele demarate anul acesta de APADOR-CH, pentru creșterea gradul de cunoaștere a drepturilor civile în rândul populației.

Două evenimente tragice au schimbat lucrurile în ultimele luni ale anului 2015, deși situația politică părea stabilă după alegerile din 2014. Moartea unui polițist care conducea pe motocicletă coloana oficială a ministrului de interne, într-un accident cauzat de viteza excesivă și o groapă în asfalt, a fost scânteia unor dezbateri ample despre folosirea abuzivă a coloanelor oficiale. Accidentul a precedat un incendiu izbucnit la un concert rock într-un club bucureștean, în urma căruia au murit în total 63 de persoane și alte zeci au fost grav rănite. Cauzele tragediei au fost legate, într-o primă fază, de lipsa autorizațiilor de funcționare ale clubului, dar și de unele sincope survenite în procedura de ajutorare a victimelor (sistemul de situații de urgență, serviciile medicale ulterioare care nu au putut să preîntâmpine dublarea în câteva săptămâni a numărului inițial de decese). Ambele evenimente au focalizat nemulțumirea populară la adresa ministrul de interne Gabriel Oprea, căruia i s-a cerut demisia, la început în mediul virtual, iar după incendiul din Colectiv, în manifestații de stradă.

Considerate cele mai ample din ultima decadă, protestele care au durat câteva zile la începutul lunii noiembrie au scos în stradă zeci de mii de oameni în București și în alte orașe din țară, au dus la demisia guvernului Ponta și la numirea unui nou cabinet, format din specialiști fără apartenență politică. „Corupția ucide” a fost sloganul aflat pe buzele tuturor în acele zile, un corolar al celor două tragedii, dar și al situației socio-economice a României.

APADOR-CH a susținut mesajele și revendicările străzii, încercând în același timp să ajute cetățenii cu informații utile privind demersurile democratice necesare în situații de criză guvernamentală.

În plan legislativ a continuat odiseea „legilor Big Brother”, stimulată și de atmosfera internațională de la începutul anului, când, pe fondul atentatelor teroriste de la Paris, mai multe țări au încercat să înăsprească legislația ce prevede monitorizarea comunicațiilor. România trecuse deja prin Parlament, în 2014, Legea securității cibernetice, care încălca grav dreptul la viață privată prin legiferarea accesului discreționar al serviciilor de informații în computerele tuturor românilor. În primele luni ale lui 2015 legea a fost declarată neconstituțională, însă tentativele de legiferare în acest domeniu au continuat. APADOR-CH a monitorizat procesul și a făcut demersuri pentru contestarea prevederilor neconstituționale din aceste legi.

În 2015 asociația a continuat proiectele începute și a inițiat altele noi, privind reprezentarea societății civile în organismele colegiale, cum ar fi Consiliul Național de Integritate, Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării, și a demarat un proiect pentru îmbunătățirea eficienței instituției Avocatului Poporului.

Monitorizarea abuzurilor autorităților a fost de asemenea o parte importantă a activității anului 2015. Au continuat să apară cazuri de agresiuni ale polițiștilor, concomitent cu decizii de condamnare la CEDO a României pentru lipsa unor măsuri eficiente de pedepsire a vinovaților în cazurile semnalate în anii trecuți.

În plan intern organizația și-a actualizat strategia pentru următorii trei ani și a marcat împlinirea a 25 de ani de existență printr-o campanie media de conștientizare a faptului că drepturile omului trebuie cunoscute și revendicate permanent.

Raportul de față prezintă pe scurt cele mai importante proiecte și realizări ale APADOR-CH din 2015, precum și actualizări ale programelor multianuale pe care organizația le derulează în domeniile consacrate: supravegherea respectării drepturilor omului, consultanță juridică și advocacy legislativ. Dacă doriți să aprofundați informațiile despre activitatea noastră curentă sau doriți să vă alăturați asociației prin acțiuni de voluntariat sau donații, vizitați site-ul www.apador.org.

Maria-Nicoleta Andreescu

Director executiv APADOR-CH

APADOR-CH

Descarcă raportul pe 2015 în format PDF

Din cuprins:

Proiecte 2015

Cunoaște-ți și revendică-ți drepturile
Societatea civilă, implicată în eficientizarea Consiliului Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării
Avocatului Poporului i se pregătește ceva – poporul îl vrea înapoi
Cu ochii pe abuzurile poliției
Cursuri pentru avocați
Coaliția antidiscriminare
Politică fără bariere

Curtea Europeană pentru Drepturile Omului

Consultanță & Reprezentare
Cazuri câștigate în 2015 la CEDO
Cazuri câștigate în instanțele naționale

Comunicare publică

Advocacy legislativ
Informații utile
Blogging
Ziua Internațională a Drepturilor Omului
Reacții publice
Video advocacy
Apariții în presă

Raportul Mineriada 1990

06/01/2016/în Anuale, Speciale /de Rasista

„Reacțiile alergice la critică ale deținătorilor puterii, înscenările grosolane, învrăjbirea unor categorii socio-profesionale împotriva altora (este emblematică folosirea lozincii „noi muncim, nu gândim”), prezentarea criticismului politic drept tentativă destabilizatoare, revenirea sau rămânerea în funcțiile cheie a nomenclaturii comuniste, lipsa de credibilitate a informațiilor privind desființarea Securității, tergiversarea anchetelor privind vărsările de sânge din timpul revoluției, dispariția fără urmă a „teroriștilor” care făcuseră sute de victime, toate au marcat începutul unei decepții din ce în ce mai adânci, care avea să se instaleze în societatea românească.”

Acesta este un fragment din preambulul raportului despre Mineriada din iunie 1990, întocmit de reprezentanți ai Asociației pentru Apărarea Drepturilor Omului în România – Comitetul Helsinki (APADOR-CH) împreună cu Grupul pentru Dialog Social.

După cum veți putea citi în acest raport – care cuprinde mărturii la cald, fapte, date și fotografii despre manifestațiile din Piața Universității și represiunile la adresa protestatarilor – climatul social al vremii era încă puternic influențat de evenimentele din decembrie 1989 și de impresia că noua putere încearcă să zădărnicească dezvăluirea adevărului despre Revoluție.

La 25 de ani de atunci, din păcate ne aflăm cam în aceeași situație. Dosarul Revoluției se zbate între clasare și continuarea anchetei (românii tot nu știu cine a tras în decembrie 1989 și de ce), iar dosarul Mineriadei abia a fost redeschis, ca urmare a unei decizii CEDO la care a contribuit și un avocat APADOR-CH (detalii aici).

Din cuprinsul raportului:

Citiți și distribuiți acest document istoric:

Ce am făcut în ultimii 25 de ani

11/12/2015/în Anuale, Slider, Speciale /de Rasista

Le mulțumim celor care ne-au fost alături în cei 25 de ani, precum și sponsorilor care ne-au ajutat să sărbătorim evenimentul pe 10 Decembrie:
– Brutăria Concordia

– Choco Fashion

– Carusel

– Crama Atelier

– Cutia cu poze

– Electric Brother

– Jaques Pot

– Rogalski&Damaschin

Fotografii de Mihnea Ciulei

Raportul de activitate APADOR-CH 2014

26/02/2015/în Anuale, Rapoarte /de Rasista

Drepturile omului în România anului 2014

România anului 2014 a fost angajată în două runde de alegeri – europene și prezidențiale. Dacă alegerile pentru Parlamentul European nu au pus pe agenda publică subiecte controversate, partidele concetrându-se mai degrabă pe electoratul fidel, alegerea președintelui a polarizat societatea și a stârnit dezbateri aprinse. Alegerile prezidențiale au fost marcate de imposibilitatea exercitării dreptului la vot pentru mulți cetățeni din diaspora. APADOR-CH a derulat campanii de informare cu privire la drepturile, contravențiile și infracțiunile electorale, în ambele scrutinuri, dar a acordat și consultanță acelora care nu au reușit să voteze și care voiau să facă plângeri penale.

În plan legislativ, România a traversat o perioadă prolifică în legi și ordonanțe ce vizau reglementarea comunicațiilor electronice, prin supravegherea în masă a cetățenilor de către serviciile de informații – supranumitele legi Big Brother – prin încălcarea dreptului la viață privată. Toate tentativele au fost declarate neconstituționale, dar procesul de legiferare în acest domeniu continuă. Alături de alte organizații neguvernamentale, APADOR-CH a dus o continuă campanie de contestare a acestor proiecte.

Asociația a continuat derularea proiectelor multianuale de monitorizare a respectării drepturilor omului în penitenciare și aresturi. Din păcate anul 2014 a fost marcat și de câteva incidente în care cetățenii au fost agresați de forțele de ordine, la începutul anului fiind înregistrat și decesul unui tânăr într-o secție de poliție din București.

În 2014 APADOR-CH și-a extins cooperarea, alăturându-se unor platforme internaționale cu valori şi misiuni similare. Scopul acestui demers a fost de a mări impactul activității proprii, pe plan internațional, și de a consolida capacitatea de a răspunde unor provocări regionale. În prezent APADOR-CH face parte din Fundamental Rights Agency Civil Society Platform, JUSTICIA European Rights Network and Civic Solidarity Platform.

Raportul de față prezintă pe scurt cele mai importante proiecte și realizări ale APADOR-CH din 2014, precum și actualizări ale programelor multianuale pe care organizația le derulează în domeniile consacrate: supravegherea respectării drepturilor omului, consultanță juridică și advocacy legislativ.

Maria-Nicoleta Andreescu

Director executiv APADOR-CH

Descarca raportul in format PDF

Din cuprins

Proiecte 2014

Alegeri Europarlamentare 2014 – Deschide ochii înainte să se închidă urnele

Prezidențiale 2014 – Votează legal, nu-i lăsa pe alții să aleagă pentru tine

Societatea civilă, implicată în eficientizarea Consiliului Național de Integritate

Copii privați de libertate în Europa Centrală și de Est

Studiu FTI privind arestul preventiv și alternativele sale

Cursuri de pregătire pentru avocați privind drepturile inculpaților

Coaliția antidiscriminare

Politică fără bariere

Curtea Europeană pentru Drepturile Omului

Consultanță & Reprezentare

Cazuri câștigate în 2014

Condamnări ale României la CEDO

Cazuri câștigate în instanțele naționale

Activități multianuale

Monitorizarea respectării drepturilor omului în spațiile de detenție

Abuzuri ale forțelor de ordine: Cazurile Dumitrache, Mako și Secția 10

Comunicare publică

Informații utile

Reacții la încălcări ale drepturilor omului și Advocacy legislativ

Apariții în media

Raportul de activitate al APADOR-CH pe 2013

02/04/2014/în Anuale /de Rasista

Citiți Raportul de activitate APADOR-CH pe anul 2013

Descarca PDF

Din cuprins:

Proiecte 2013

Monitorizarea Consiliului Național de Integritate

Publicarea bugetelor penitenciarelor

Mecanismul Național pentru Prevenirea Torturii

Monitorizarea condițiilor de detenție pentru minori și tineri

Introducerea ecusoanelor de identificare pentru gardieni

Curtea Europeană pentru Drepturile Omului

Consultanță & Reprezentare

Cazuri câștigate în 2013

Condamnări ale României la CEDO

Activități multianuale

Monitorizarea respectării drepturilor omului în spațiile de detenție

Abuzuri ale forțelor de ordine: Cazurile Pungești, Onțică și Cucăilă

Comunicare publică

Informații utile

Reacții la încălcări ale drepturilor omului și Advocacy legislativ

Apariții în media

APADOR-CH Raport Anual 2012

24/02/2012/în Anuale /de Rasista

Anul 2012 a fost caracterizat de o crescută instabilitate, care a afectat direct capacitatea APADOR-CH de a urmări atingerea obiectivelor strategice pe care și le-a propus pentru această perioadă. Pe de o parte, schimbările succesive ale Guvernului (patru într-un singur an) au dus la modificări de politici, priorități și echipe guvernamentale, ceea ce a redus semnificativ impactul activităților de advocacy ale APADOR-CH. Nici la nivelul Parlamentului, o importantă țintă de advocacy, situația nu a fost mai bună: în primăvara anului 2012, greva opoziției, cuplată cu majoritatea parlamentară fragilă, au dus la o situație de criză, care a redus semnificativ și eficiența relației cu societatea civilă. La un nivel mai general, compromisul politic, în sensul atingerii unei poziții comune prin negocieri ale grupurilor parlamentare și ale altor actori interesați, a dispărut cu desăvârșire ca instrument în adoptarea legislației, mai ales în ceea ce privește inițiativele de interes public.

Pe de altă parte, evenimentele și inițiativele ale factorilor de decizie (dintre cele mai importante menționăm: protestele de stradă din ianuarie-februarie și reacția autorităților față de acestea, încercarea de modificare a sistemului de vot în an electoral, suspendarea Președintelui României și seria de schimbări legislative și instituționale care au precedat și urmat această mișcare politică) au făcut ca mare parte din resursele APADOR-CH să se îndrepte către monitorizarea acestora și către o abordare mai degeabă reactivă, în detrimentul urmăririi active a atingerii obiectivelor strategice stabilite.

Pentru perioada 2012-2015, APADOR-CH are stabilite cinci obiective strategice – (1) Creşterea gradului de implementare a hotărârilor de drepturilor omului în ordinea de drept internă; (2) Dezvoltarea unor mecanisme eficiente de respectare a drepturilor persoanelor private de libertate; (3) Dezvoltarea unor practici şi mecanisme instituționale pentru creşterea transparenței şi bunei guvernări; (4) Luarea de poziții împotriva amenințărilor la adresa drepturilor omului; (5) Întărirea capacității APADOR-CH de a-şi îndeplini misiunea –. În anul 2012, pentru considerentele expuse mai sus, asociația și-a concentrat eforturile mai ales pentru atingerea obiectivelor (2), (3) și (4), activitățile specifice primului dintre obiective urmând a se desfășura în anii viitori.

Totuși, instabilitatea anului 2012 a avut și efecte pozitive asupra asociației mai ales din perspectiva creșterii interesului pentru problematica drepturilor omului și a statului de drept în rândul publicului larg, ceea ce a atras și creșterea vizibilității APADOR-CH. Acest lucru a fost ajutat semnificativ și de regândirea modalităților de comunicare ale asociației, care s-a îndreptat mai mult către mediul online: APADOR-CH și-a creat propriul blog și a utilizat tot mai intens pagina de Facebook a asociației, ambele devenind principalele mijloace de transmitere a mesajelor proprii. Un alt aspect pozitiv l-a constituit o mai bună coordonare a eforturilor cu alte organizații neguvernametale, crescând numărul ocaziilor în care grupuri mai largi de organizații au susținut demersuri comune, inclusiv dintre cele inițiate de către APADOR-CH. Ambele aspecte au contribuit la întărirea capacității asociației de a-și îndeplini misiunea.

Dezvoltarea unor mecanisme eficiente de respectare a drepturilor persoanelor private de libertate

Pentru atingerea acestui obiectiv, APADOR-CH și-a propus: advocacy pentru implementarea Protocolului Opțional la Convenția ONU împotriva Torturii (OPCAT), ceea ce presupune, pe de o parte, înființarea unui Mecanism Național de Prevenție, iar pe de altă parte armonizarea legislației referitoare la privarea de libertate în toate formele ei, inclusiv prin ”conducere administrativă”; transparentizarea și eficientizarea bugetelor penitenciarelor; monitorizarea condițiilor de detenție.

OPCAT a fost ratificat în anul 2009, când România a solicitat o extensie de 3 ani a datei limită până la care să implementeze un Mecanism Național de Prevenție a torturii, o instituție menită să monitorizeze respectarea drepturilor omului în toate locurile privative de libertate. Deși termenul se împlinea în vara anului 2012, până la începutul anului 2012 nu s-au realizat progrese importante în punerea în practică a mecanismului, datorită unui blocaj instituțional. De aceea, în februarie-martie 2012, APADOR-CH a avut întâlniri directe de advocacy cu reprezentanții autorităților centrale care trebuiau implicate în realizarea mecanismului în virtutea locurilor privative de libertate pe care le administrează sau a atribuțiilor lor generale (Ministerul Justiției, Administrația Națională a Penitenciarelor, Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Ministerul Sănătații, Ministerul Muncii și Protecției Sociale, Ministerul Afacerilor Externe). În plus, având în vedere faptul că decizia autorităților a fost de a crea mecanismul în interiorul instituției Avocatului Poporului, a existat o întâlnire și cu Avocatul Poporului.

Rezultatul întâlnirilor a fost participarea tuturor acestor instituții, la care s-a adaugat și Ministerul Finanțelor Publice, la un workshop organizat de APADOR-CH pe 29 martie 2012, imediat după ce Ministerul Justiției și Avocatul Poporului au făcut public proiectul de lege prin care se instituia mecansimul. În cadrul workshopului au fost discutate prevederile proiectului, astfel încât să se asigure o funcționare a mecanismului eficientă, independentă și centrată pe respectarea drepturilor omului. În plus, APADOR-CH a transmis comentariile sale pe marginea proiectului Ministerului Justiției, în cadrul procesului de consultare publică, comentarii ce s-au axat în principal pe îmbunătățirea procedurii de numire a membrilor Mecanismului, astfel încât să se asigure independența instituțională a acestora. Din păcate, schimbarea Guvernului de la sfârșitul lunii aprilie 2012, precum și evenimentele ulterioare au scos cu totul de pe agenda publică problematica OPCAT, astfel încât proiectul nu a fost trimis în procedură parlamentară, iar în final România a solicitat o nouă prelungire a termenului de înființare a Mecasnimului. Această situație a fost prezentată de APADOR-CH, la finalul anului 2012, și la o întâlnire între reprezentanții ONG-urilor și cei ai delegațiilor statelor membre ONU, ca parte a evaluării României din perspectiva drepturilor omului în cadrul Universal Periodic Review (UPR).

Implementarea OPCAT nu se rezumă la realizarea unui Mecanism Național de Prevenție funcțional, ci presupune și armonizarea legislativă în sensul recunoașterii tuturor formelor de privare de libertate definite astfel de OPCAT și a introducerii de garanții cu privire la respectarea drepturilor omului. Un exemplu elocvent este măsura administrativă a conducerii la sediul secției de poliție (sau unității de jandarmerie), care nu se bucură de nicio garanție din prespectiva respectării drepturilor omului, deși constituie o formă de privare de libertate care poate dura până la 24 de ore. APADOR-CH a formulat amendamente pentru modificarea și completarea Legii nr.218/2002 privind organizarea și funcționarea Poliției Române, Legii nr.550 din 2004 privind organizarea și funcționarea Jandarmeriei Române și Legii nr.155/2010, Legea poliției locale, în sensul limitării utilizării acestei măsuri și introducerii de garanții. Acestea au fost discutate și reformulate în cadrul mai multor întâlniri cu reprezentanții Ministerului Administrației și Internelor și a diferitelor structuri de ordine publică, precum și a Ministerului Justiției. Deși a existat un accept de principiu în sensul adoptării lor, Ministerul Administrației și Internelor nu a făcut niciun demers public pentru promovarea lor în Parlament, astfel încât APADOR-CH a avut întâlniri direct cu reprezentanți ai Parlamentului pentru preluarea lor sub forma unei propuneri legislative. Aceasta a fost înregistrată la Camera Deputaților sub nr. 239/12.06.2012 și la 8 octombrie 2012 a fost adoptată tacit, fiind trimisă spre Senat, camera decizională în această situație. Până la finalul legislaturii 2008-2012, Senatul nu a luat în discuție propunerea legislativă.

În privința transparentizării și eficientizării bugetelor penitenciarelor, APADOR-CH a intenționat să realizeze, în parteneriat cu Administrația Națională a Penitenciarelor, o documentare a proceselor și activităților necesare pentru respectarea drepturilor legale ale persoanelor private de libertate, care să constituie ulterior baza construirii bugetului instituției. În acest mod, pornind de la rezultat (respectarea fiecărui drept în parte) și trecând printr-o analiză a nevoilor concrete pentru a-l atinge, bugetul penitenciarelor ar fi apt să susțină o structură instutițională care să respecte drepturile persoanelor private de libertate și nu una care să genereze multiple condamnări ale României la CEDO pentru încălcarea acestora. Atât în februararie 2012 (după investirea Cabinetului Ungureanu), cât și în iunie 2012 (după investirea Cabinetului Ponta I), APADOR-CH a avut întâlniri atât la nivelul Ministerului Justiției, cât și la nivelul Administrației Naționale a Penitenciarelor, pentru a găsi sprijinul necesar implementării noului mod de creare a bugetului. Deși autoritățile au îmbrățișat ideea și s-a stabilit și realizarea unei documentări pilot pornind de la dreptul la corespondență, instabilitatea politică și instituțională au afectat și finalizarea acestui proiect în timp util pentru bugetul anului 2013.

În legătură cu nerespectare drepturilor private de libertate în penitenciarele din România, APADOR-CH a continuat și în anul 2012 programul de susținere a unor litigii strategice în fața CEDO pe tematica condițiilor de detenție. Un succes notabil al asociației a fost pronunțarea de către CEDO a hotărârii Iacov Stanciu v. România (hotărârea din 24 iulie 2012), caz în care asociația a fost terț intervenient, prezentând Curții europene o imagine de ansamblu a condițiilor de detenție din România, pe baza vizitelor efectuate între 2002 și 2011. Hotărârea a constatat existența unei probleme structurale în România în această chestiune, situație susținută și de APADOR-CH. Alte cauze privitoare la condițiile de detenție din penitenciare susținute de APADOR-CH și în care CEDO s-a pronunțat în cursul anului 2012 sunt Răducanu v. România (12 iunie 2012) și Cucu v. România (14 noiembrie 2012).

În 2012, APADOR-CH a continuat și monitorizarea aresturilor Poliției și a peniteciarelor. Au fost vizitate 3 penitenciare (Craiova, Galați și Ploiești), precum și centrele de reținere și arestare preventivă din subordinea inspectoratelor județene de poliție Dolj și Galați, a celui din cadrul Secției Regionale a Poliție Transporturi Feroviare București. Rapoartele realizate în urma vizitelor APADOR-CH au fost transmise autorităților relevante și publicate pe pagina de internet a asociației (www.apador.org), însoțite de răspunsul primit, acolo unde este cazul.

Dezvoltarea unor practici şi mecanisme instituționale pentru creşterea transparenței şi bunei guvernări

Pentru atingerea acestui obiectiv, în 2012 APADOR-CH și-a propus să contribuie la creșterea stabilității și predictibilitatății cadrului legislativ și transparenței instituționale. Atingerea ambelor rezultate a fost serios afectată de instabilitatea politică, APADOR-CH neavând un partener cu care să dialogheze coerent pe aceste subiecte. Cu toate acestea, APADOR-CH a promovat necesitatea atingerii ambelor deziderate în contextul evenimentelor anului 2012, atât ca mesaj al ONG-urilor în timpul protestelor de stradă din ianuarie-februarie 2012, cât și a schimbărilor legislative și instituționale din iulie 2012.

În privința legilor transparenței (Legea nr.544/2001 privind liberul acces la informațiile de interes public și Legea nr.52/2003 privind transparența decizională în administrație), APADOR-CH a reluat, în parteneriat cu Centrul de Resurse pentru Participare Publică propunerile de amendamente formulate în trecut și le-a actualizat, în dialog cu alte organizații neguvernamentale. Ele au fost transmise Secretariatului General al Guvernului și prezentate, în aprilie 2012, și în cadrul singurei ședințe a Colegiului pentru consultarea asociațiilor și fundațiilor al primului-ministru. Ulterior, evoluția evenimentelor a determinat o poziție sceptică a majorității ONG-urilor cu privire la inițierea unor amendamente ale legilor, care puteau să deschidă posibilitatea unor modificări în sensul restrângerii transparenței, iar nu a creșterii sale. De aceea, APADOR-CH a militat pentru creșterea transparenței instituționale și a stabilității legislative la un nivel mai general, fără a continua campania de advocacy în sensul modificării legilor. Amble problematici au fost incluse în capitolul ”Drepturile omului și democrație participativă” din Carta Albă a sectorului neguvernamental (capitol redactat de APADOR-CH), document promovat la nivel parlamentar în toamna anului 2012.

Luarea de poziții împotriva amenințărilor la adresa drepturilor omului

Pentru acest obiectiv, APADOR-CH și-a propus șă aducă în dezbatere publică chestiunile relevate de drepturile omului (prin campanii publice pe teme de interes, comentarii la adresa proiectelor de legi/legilor adoptate/pozițiilor factorilor de decizie etc) și să documenteze încălcări ale drepturilor omului (prin monitorizare de presă, investigații proprii, cereri de informații de interes public, rapoarte și litigii strategice).

În privința încălcărilor drepturilor omului, anului 2012 a debutat prin reacția disproporționată și brutală a jandarmilor față de protestatarii din ianaurie 2012. În cursul evenimentelor, APADOR-CH a protestat față de aceasta și a cerut public Parchetului să investigheze excesele jandarmilor din Piața Universității. Ulterior, APADOR-CH a fost singura organizație care a documentat abuzurile, discutând cu zeci de victime și realizând un raport ce a fost dat publicității pe 2 aprilie 2012, în cadrul unei dezbateri organizate de APADOR-CH și Active Watch. În cadrul acesteia s-au discutat atât evenimentele din ianuarie-februarie 2012, cât și cele din urmă cu patru ani, în timpul summitului NATO la București, când zeci de persoane au fost bătute și private de libertate pentru câteva ore ca ”măsură preventivă a asigurării ordinii publice”, de fapt pentru a reduce la tăcere eventualii protestatari.

Alte cazuri investigate de APADOR-CH au privit decesul unui arestat în Secția 7 Poliție și acuzațiile de rele tratamente asupra altui arestat în Secția 9 Poliție. Rapoartele realizate au fost transmise autorităților relevante și publicate pe pagina de internet a asociației (www.apador.org), însoțite de răspunsul primit, acolo unde este cazul. Tot cu privire la un caz de rele tratamente aplicate de lucrători ai Poliției, s-a pronunțat și CEDO – caz susținut de APADOR-CH – pe 10 ianuarie 2012 (Roșioru v. România).

Una din campaniile desfășurate de APADOR-CH în 2012 a vizat limitarea excesivă a dreptului la liberă întrunire, tendință constatată încă din 2011 de asociație prin monitorizarea protestelor din spațiul public. De aceea, APADOR-CH în parteneriat cu Active Watch, au avut inițiativa de a redacta amedamente la depășita Legea a adunărilor publice, mai ales că în cursul anului 2011 Ministerul Administrației și Internelor a avansat un proiect de lege care, în loc să modernizeze cadrul legislativ, restricționa și mai mult exercitarea dreptului la protest. Amendamentele discutate inclusiv cu reprezentanți ai unor organizații neguvernamentale au fost prezentate și Ministerului Administrației și Internelor.

În plus, APADOR-CH a acordat asistență juridică, prin avocații săi, în cazuri concrete de restricționare a acestui drept, realizată ori direct, ori prin presiuni indirecte. Printre acestea menționăm: amendarea participanților la o adunare anunțată (și care nu a fost interzisă) în fața Ambasadei Rusiei, ca protest pentru interzicerea paradei gay la Sankt Petersburg; amendarea și conducerea la secție a mai multor protestatari din fața Televiziunii Române, care manifestau împotriva proiectului de la Roșia Montană, comportamentul abuziv asupra familiei unui protestatar din Piața Universității din ianuarie-februarie 2012.

O altă campanie a APADOR-CH a avut ca obiect informarea publicului cu privire la referdumul de demitere a Președintelui României și urmărilor pe care acesta le va avea din perspectivă constituțională atât în varianta demiterii cât și în cea a menținerii în funcție a Președintelui, precum și la modalitățile de a afla dacă au existat fraude. Ambele direcții de informare au rezultat din solicitările directe adresate asociației de către cetățeni și au fost promovate intens în mediul online.

De asemenea, în cursul anului 2012, APADOR-CH a reacționat, de multe ori împreună cu alte organizații neguvernamentale, și cu privire la:

– încercarea de a adopta votul majoritar într-un singur tur (legea a fost declarată neconstituțională);

– propunerea de lege privind reţinerea datelor generate sau prelucrate de furnizorii de reţele publice de comunicaţii electronice şi de furnizorii de servicii de comunicaţii electronice destinate publicului;

– proiectul de lege inițiat de către Guvern în aprilie 2012 privind acordarea de despăgubiri cetățenilor ale căror proprietăți au fost confiscate abuziv (proiectul nu a fost continuat în cursul anului 2012);

– propunerea legislativă privind înființarea cabinetelor de consiliere pentru criza de sarcină, în fapt o încercare de a deschide drumul pentru interzicerea avortului (propunerea nu a fost adoptată în cursul anului 2012);

– mutarea forțată a unei comunități de romi din Baia-Mare într-un spațiu industrial impropriu locuirii (CUPROM);

– restrângerea dreptului la liberă asociere, prin interzicerea utilizării anumitor cuvinte în denumirea asociațiilor și fundațiilor, respectiv prin dizolvarea de drept a organizațiilor existente care nu își modifică denumirea în conformitate cu noile interdicții (legea a fost trimisă de Președintele României pentru reexaminare);

– abuzurile de reglementare și instituționale din perioada mai-iulie 2012;

– declarațiile șovine ale premierului și Președintelui PNL la adresa populației maghiare și a ratei sale de participare la referedumul de demitere a Președintelui României;

– încercările de a reactualiza listele electorale după desfășurarea referendumului de demitere a Președintelui României;

– eliminarea participării publicului la ședințele Consiliului General al Municipiului București;

– conținutul manualelor de religie folosite în școli și lipsa dezbaterii publice pe acest subiect;

– propunerea de amendare a OUG 34/2006 privind atribuirea contractelor de achiziţie publică, a contractelor de concesiune de lucrări publice şi a contractelor de concesiune de servicii iniţiată de ANRMAP, care afecta grav transparenţa alocării contractelor de achiziţii publice, în principal a celor de publicitate;

– opacitatea procesului de adoptare a Legii bugetului de stat pentru anul 2012.

Poziția APADOR-CH cu privire la aceste chestiuni este detaliată atât pe site-ul cât și pe blogul asociației.

De asemenea, în toamna anului 2012, APADOR-CH a fost un participant activ în procesul de desemnare a unui candidat pentru poziția de reprezentant al societății civile în Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii, coordonat de Fundația pentru Dezvoltarea Societății Civile. În cadrul acestuia s-a creionat un mecanism participativ de stabilire a așteptărilor și contribuțiilor atât ale potențialului candidat cât și ale organizațiilor neguvernamentale, precum și de desemnare efectivă a candidatului. Mecanismul poate fi aplicat cu privire la oricare altă poziție asemănătoare, cum ar fi cea de reprezentant al societății civile în Consiliul Național de Integritate.

În contextul alegerilor parlamentare de la sfârșitul anului 2012, APADOR-CH a realizat un chestionar prin care candidații își făceau cunoscută poziția față de principalele probleme de drepturile omului din România, identificate de asociație. Deși a fost transmis unui număr mare de candidați ai principalilor competitori politici, rata de răspuns a fost foarte mică. Toate răspunsurile primite au fost publicate pe pagina de internet a asociației.

În privința litigiilor strategice susținute de APADOR-CH, trebuie menționate:

– hotărârea CEDO din 25 septembrie 2012, în cauza Arhiepiscopia Romano-Catolică Alba Iulia v. România, prin care România a fost sancționată pentru neretrocedarea bunurilor aparținând Bisericii Romano-Catolice, respectiv Biblioteca ”Batthyaneum” (conținând și Codex Aureus), Muzeul și Institutul Astronomic al Episcopiei Romano-Catolice;

– cererea de intervenție adresată de APADOR-CH CEDO în cauza Al Nashiri v. România, cauză privind acuzațiile la adresa României de implicare în programul secret al CIA de transfer și detenție a unor persoane suspectate de terorism.

În plus, în cursul anului 2012, în cadrul programului APADOR-CH de consultații juridice gratuite în vederea formulării unei plângeri la CEDO, peste 120 de persoane au primit consiliere din partea unui avocat.

***

În anul 2012, activitatea APADOR-CH a fost susținută financiar de:

Open Society Intitute’s Human Rights and Governance Programme
United Nation Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture
Trust For Civil Society in Central and Eastern Europe
Balkan Trust for Democracy
Fundația pentru Dezvoltarea Societății Civile prin Fondul de Acțiune Rapidă din cadrul Programului de finanțare Fondul pentru Inovare Civică

APADOR-CH Annual report 2011

24/02/2011/în Anuale /de Rasista

Din păcate acest articol este disponibil doar în English. For the sake of viewer convenience, the content is shown below in the alternative language. You may click the link to switch the active language.

The Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Romania – The Romanian Helsinki Committee

Annual Report

1 January 2011 – 31 December 2011

During the reporting period, APADOR-CH’s activity was aimed at contributing to the organization’s overall objective, which is for the organization to successfully carry out its mission to raise the level of awareness on, and respect of human rights and the rule of law. In this respect, APADOR-CH followed to meet a number of seven specific objectives:

Strengthening the constituency for human rights with political actors, in media and with the general public
Improving the practices regarding the legal protection of vulnerable groups against discrimination
Developing efficient mechanisms to ensure the rights of persons deprived of liberty
Increasing transparency of administration
Improving reasoning and transparency of judicial decisions;
Eliminating unjustified state interference with the NGOs’ associational life

Reacting to human rights threats

The activities and accomplishments of APADOR-CH are presented by reference to the APADOR-CH’s Activity and Monitoring Plan 2009-2011, taking into consideration those activities scheduled for the reporting period.

Objective #1: Strengthening the constituency for human rights with political actors, in media and with the general public

In the beginning of 2011, APADOR-CH created a Facebook account in order to facilitate the transfer of information on human rights issues to interested parties. By the end of the reporting period, APADOR-CH also created a blog and started to work with a PR specialist, in order to better promote its messages regarding human rights issues with political actors, media and the general public. APADOR-CH used and will continue to use these new means of communication to promote human rights issues, as they are more appropriate, effective and measurable than the classic approach APADOR-CH had (press releases and press conferences).

APADOR-CH continued to issue newsletters regarding cases decided by the ECHR in which it was involved, explaining the way the judgements affect the legal order. There were seven such newsletters during the reporting period, regarding the following cases:

Mugurel Soare v. Romania (ECHR judgement of 22 February 2011). The Court found that the right to life of the applicant, who survived a shot in the head by the Police, was violated due to both the actions of the Police and the lack of effective investigations into the incident. The Court also found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of degrading treatment) in respect of two witnesses to the incident, who were interrogated by the Police during an entire night, with no access to food or drinking water.
Cornelia Popa v. Romania (ECHR judgement of 29 March 2011). The Court found that the applicant’s right to freedom of expression was violated due to her criminal conviction for calumny in 2002. The applicant is a journalist and the press article that led to her conviction criticized a judge. The Court found that the domestic courts convicting held that judges are outside public criticism, which is against the right to freedom of expression as provided for in Article 10 of the Convention.
Mosley v. United Kingdom (ECHR judgement of 10 may 2011). The applicant in the case asked the European Court to introduce a new positive obligation for the press to prior notification of publication of articles regarding the private life individuals. APADOR-CH, together with other international NGOs, was a third party intervenient in the case, in favour of the right to free expression. The Court held that the British law contains sufficient safeguards to protect the private life of individuals and that there is not necessary to introduce a new positive obligation for the media.
Predica v. Romania (ECHR judgement of 7 June 2011). The Court held that Romania failed to prove a reasonable explanation for the death of the applicant’s son while in detention. It therefore held that the substantive limb of Article 2 of the European Convention (right to life) was violated. It further held that the investigation into the death of the applicant’s son was inefficient, which resulted into the violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
Csiki v. Romania (ECHR judgement of 5 July 2011). The Court held that the investigations into the death of the applicant’s son did not comply with the right to a fair trial.
Vili Rupa (no.2) v. Romania (ECHR judgement of 19 July 2011). The Court held that, although the applicant raised credible claims that he was subjected to torture and ill-treatment while in Police custody, there was no effective
Fane Ciobanu v. Romania (ECHR judgement of 11 October 2011). The Court held that article 3 of the European Convention was violated because of the conditions of detention, in particular the overcrowding.

Given the relevance for the domestic context, on 21 March 2011, APADOR-CH issued a newsletter concerning the case Lautsi v. Italy. In this case, the ECHR held that the exposure of religious Christian symbols in schools is not contrary to the Convention. In the newsletter, APADOR-CH stressed that the conclusion of the ECHR was based on the specific circumstances in Italy and does not mean, in itself, that any sort of exposure of religious symbols in schools is in accordance with the European Convention.

On 26 June 2011 (the international day for supporting the victims of torture), APADOR-CH also informed the general public on Romania’s obligations in respect of protecting individuals against torture, including the implementation of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture. APADOR-CH also informed the public on the forthcoming pilot judgement Sasu and Stanciu v. Romania, concerning prison conditions in Romanian prisons.

The newsletters were distributed to the media and posted on APADOR-CH’s web-page.

The human rights situation in Romania in 2011 was summarized in three newsletters issued and distributed every four month-period. The third one focused on conducting individuals to the police sections as, by the end of that year, APADOR-CH was campaining for raising public awareness on the matter.

Another activity aimed at strengthening the constituency for human rights with political actors, in media and with the general public was the constant update of a resource web-page (www.apador.org) mainly aimed of other NGOs.

Objective #2: Improving the practices regarding the legal protection of vulnerable groups against discrimination

During the reporting period, APADOR-CH continued to support Roma victims of forced evictions in Tulcea in a civil case against the local authorities by informing a local lawyer that took over the case at the beginning of 2011 after the Court suspension of the case in January. This case was initiated in cooperation with ERRC and complemented a discrimination case led by APADOR-CH on behalf of the victims which was lost in 2009. After several hearings, in October 2010 the courts dismissed the civil case. APADOR-CH’s lawyers declared an appeal and the information on the case shall be sent to the European Court of Human Rights to be added to the complaint already submitted at the end of 2009.

In the beginning of March 2011, together with other Romanian NGOs, APADOR-CH got involved in protesting against a draft law creating discrimination between various actors providing social services. The draft provided for extensive and exclusive state financial support of the Curch. The President sent the law back to the Parliament for reexamination on 11 April 2011. By the end of the reporting period no other steps were taken by the Parliament in this respect.

APADOR-CH continued to be part of the informal coalition of NGOs fighting discrimination. The coalition held a meeting in the beginning of July 2011, in which the head of the National Anti-Discrimination Council presented the institution’s report and also the issue of the anti-Roma wall in Baia-Mare.

In April 2011, APADOR-CH as partner of Romanian Harm Reduction Network, started to implement a project aimed at assesing the consequesnces of pre-trail arrest on drug users. As part of this project, between April and September 2011, APADOR-CH drafted two reports: one on the domestic relevant legislation and one on European Court of Human Rights case-law. Intre septembrie si decembrie APADOR-CH a efectuat o analiza statisca privind numarul persoanelor consumatoare de droguri aflate in detentie si a realizat impreuna cu partenerul interviuri cu profesionisti din domeniul dreptului penal.

Objective #3: Developing efficient mechanisms to ensure the rights of persons deprived of liberty

During 2010 APADOR-CH participated in the working group set up by the Ministry of Justice in order to identify the best solutions for implementing the OPCAT in Romania. The major success of the APADOR-CH representatives was to convince the international experts of the project that the Romanian Ombudsman is not the proper institution to take over the responsibilities of the national protective mechanism. Therefore their final report issued by the Ministry of Justice in the fall of 2010 does not clearly point out to this solution, although that was the initial intention. Nevertheless, in 2011, the APADOR-CH was informed by the Ministry of Justice that in the end, due to budgetary constraints, the Ombudsman shall take over the attributions of the national preventive mechanism in Romania.

In the first two months of 2011, APADOR-CH drafted and submitted 46 requests to all units of the penitentiary system in Romania, seeking detailed information on the prison budgets formation and expenditures. The requests were part of a project implemented in cooperation with the Hungarian and Netherlands Helsinki Committees. During March 2011 all answers were analyzed and summaries by APADOR-CH. In June 2011, APADOR-CH organized two visits for international experts: one for assessing the status and problems in the adoption the OPCAT, the other one aimed at assessing the current practices of the National Administration of Penitentiaries in building its budgetary allocations. Reports on both visits were received in August 2011. Based on their conclusions, APADOR-CH will continue to advocate for both the establishment of the National Preventive Mechanism as provided for by the OPCAT and for the transparent allocation of budgets in the penitentiary system aimed of insuring the rights of detainees.

In the fall of 2010, APADOR-CH drafted a project proposal on the inclusion of the OPCAT definition of deprivation of liberty in the internal legal order. A full proposal was prepared in December 2010 and the project proposal was accepted by the CEE Trust. The project started to be implemented 1 April 2011. During April APADOR-CH drafted and sent a set of requests for information to Police Inspectorates and the General Inspectorate of Police (in total 43 requests) in order to gather relevant information to support further advocacy efforts. As only six answers were received in due time, in June 2011 APADOR-CH started court procedures against the other 37 targeted institutions (more details under objective #4). APADOR-CH also started a working group with representatives of Police and the Judiciary for drafting the needed amendments to the current legislation in order to introduce guarantees for the respect of human rights as regards the administrative depravation of liberty, not considered a form of depravation of liberty by the authorities. In addition, it carried out legislative analysis on the current legislation on the matter. The final draft of the amendments was ready in September and APADOR-CH entered the campaign to promote the proposals in October. By the end of the reporting period, the association had four meetings with decision-makers (members of the Parliament and a State Secretary in the Ministry of Justice).

Objective #4: Increasing transparency of administration

In June 2011, APADOR-CH started court proceeding against 37 police inspectorates, plus the General Police Inspectorate for not providing statistical information on the number of persons administratively deprived of liberty and the procedures undertaken by the police in such cases. As a result 9 more public institutions provided the requested information, by the end of the reporting period. The other cases were mostly decided during September 2011. In most of the APADOR-CH lost the case, and lodged appeals.

At the same time, during August 2011, APADOR-CH set a partnership with the Institute for Public Policy in the field of access to information. APADOR-CH will help IPP for suing the authorities which do not comply with their transparency obligations. During the reporting period 18 such cases were opened by APADOR-CH.

In June 2011, APADOR-CH set a partnership with the Center for Public Participation (CeRe) in order to start a campaign for amending the two transparency laws (the Law on access to information and the Law on the transparency of the decision-making process in the administration). The need for the campaign resulted from the enquiry carried out by Cere with the general public and will be based on the previously formulated amendments drafted by APADOR-CH. The campaign shall start in the beginning of 2012.

In September 2011, APADOR-CH assisted a coalition of NGOs (the Coalition for Structural Funds) to challenge the decision of the Labor Ministry to change the rules for implementing the structural projects without complying with the Law on the transparency of the decision-making process in the administration.

Objective #5: Improving reasoning and transparency of judicial decisions

No specific activities were undertaken in the reporting period. In August 2011, APADOR-CH underwent a strategic planning process, which started by assessing the results of the 2009-2011 strategy. During the assessment, it resulted that this objective, although generous, was not realistic. It depended a lot on the publication of the Romanian case-law on the web in a comprehensive manner, an objective of the Mechanism of Cooperation and Verification (MCV) agreed by the Romanian Government with the European Commission. Nevertheless, as the objective in the MCV was not reached in a satisfactory manner, it put APADOR-CH in the position to not be able to meet its own objective, with one exception.

This exception regarded the practices in respect of the courts when accepting new members in an association, identified by APADOR-CH in a 2010 project, which included a research component. Because such practices differ, based on different interpretations of law and reasoning, APADOR-CH convinced the General Prosecutor to call the High Court of Cassation and Justice to clarify the matter. By the end of the reporting period the General Prosecutor had not yet taken the procedural steps in this regard.

In other matters, as APADOR-CH had no serious and comprehensive means to identify the problems with the reasoning of judgements, it was impossible to take similar steps.

Objective #6: Eliminating unjustified state interference with the NGOs’ associational life

In 2010, APADOR-CH implemented a project on identifying and removing legal and practical obstacles in exercising the freedom of associations by NGOs in November 2009. One result of the project was to initiate amendments to 6 different laws. They were lodged before the Parliament in December 2010. The amendments to be discussed by the Parliament regarded: easing the requirements for NGOs under the Law on Money Laundering and the Law on Personal Data, eliminating the written form of the contract with volunteers, eliminating the Executive’s interference with the names that can be used by NGOs, clarifying the possibility to receive small amounts of money as donations under the new Civil Code, including/increasing fiscal deductions for those donating money/concluding sponsorship contracts with NGOs.

During the reporting period, APADOR-CH continued to support the initiators of the draft laws in the Parliament. Unfortunately, the Government – opposition fights in the Parliament resulted in the practice to reject proposals coming from members of the Opposition. Therefore only two of the laws proposed for amending still have chances to be adopted by the Parliament. The proposal to modify the provisions limiting the names to be used by NGOs was rejected by the Senate in May 2011 and went before the Chamber of Deputies, which has the final vote on the draft law. During the reporting period, this draft law was before the specialized committees of the Chamber of Deputies which decided to the support the draft but only with a number of amendments which actually turned the draft into its opposite. More precisely, if the version of the commission would be adopted, restrictions on NGOs regarding names they can use would become harsher than the provisions in force. By the end of 2011, the draft was debated in the plenary session of the Chamber oof Deputies and returned to the specialized Committee for additional explanations. APADOR-CH shall closely watch developments to make sure that the final version meet the association’s initial purpose. The proposal to amend the Law on the fiscal records in order to ease the procedure to start an association or to receive new members in an association had a similar treatment. In June 2011 received a positive report from the Chamber of Deputies commissions and went for the final vote of the plenum. No final outcome was reached during the reporting period. At the same time, the meetings APADOR-CH had on this topic with the Fiscal Administration resulted in a clarification published on the web-site of the institution, which makes clear that the new members of an existing association do not need to obtain a fiscal record report before becoming members.

The most notable achievement of APADOR-CH’s campaign to eliminate unjustified state interference with the associational life was the adoption of an amendment to the new Civil Code which allows NGOs (among others) to receive donations up to 25,000 lei without the need to conclude contracts before the notary public. The new provision is in force starting 1 October 2011.

According to its decision to expand its activities (in line with its strategic objectives) in the neighboring countries, in June 2010 APADOR-CH started to implement a project in partnership with CREDO Moldova. The project is aimed at improving the exercise of the freedom of assembly in Moldova, by reforming the relevant structures of the Chisinau City-Hall, as well as the Police procedures regarding public assemblies in Moldova. As part of the project in January 2011, APADOR-CH drafted an expert report on the freedom of assembly in Romania v. Moldova.

At the same time, during the reporting period APADOR-CH took an active role in supporting the right to freedom of assembly in Romania. In 2011 there were numerous situation in which organized NGOs or groups of individuals received fines for breaching the law on public gathering, some in scandalous cases (for example, one individual expressing his opinions in a public square was fined for “organizing” an illegal protest). APADOR-CH offered juridical advices to those who, after having been abusively fined expressed desire to complain in court. Five such cases were taken over by APADOR-CH for legal representation in court.. This culminated in a new draft law proposed by the Ministry of Administration and Interior to amend the existing law on public gathering in a manner incompatible with a democratic society. In September 2011, APADOR-CH sent its comments on the draft law and made public its criticism. It also participated in a public debate organized by the Ministry for the same draft. In the end, the draft law was withdrawn and the Ministry promised to come up with a different proposal to include APADOR-CH’s comments. By the end of the reporting period no new draft was made public.

Objective #7: Reacting to human rights threats

During the reporting period, the main difficulty in reacting to human rights threats continued to be the political instability, which amounted in some cases to “political wars” between the Government and the opposition. In this context, APADOR-CH had to carefully decide whether to react or not to some statements of the politicians, in order to avoid accusations of political bias.

During the reporting period, APADOR-CH continued the challenge the authorities’ lack of investigations into the accusations of Romania being a part of the CIA rendition program. One aim of APADOR-Ch was to obtain the declassification of the annexes to the Senatorial Commission of Enquiry into the allegations. In this respect, in 2010 APADOR-CH had to identify the authority which classified them. This process proved difficult and resulted in addressing a new set of FOI requests on the matter to: the Ministry of Defence, the Baneasa Airport, the Mihail Kogalniceanu Airport, the National Company of Airports – Bucharest (the state company managing the two airports based in/around Bucharest: Henry Coanda – Otopeni and Baneasa). The detailed descriptions of the procedures that followed were described in the pervious narrative reports.

The only authority to answer the request was Mihail Kogalniceanu Airport, but the answer did not match the one previously obtained one (from the Senate). Therefore a new request was sent to the Senate, but the answer received did not shed any light on the matter. On short, both the Senate and the Airport claimed the other institution hold the annexes and was the original source of their classification. Nobody seems to know where the documents on which the Senatorial enquiry report was based actually are. In respect of the rest of the requests, APADOR-CH initiated court proceedings in July 2010. The first hearings were set for 23 April 2011. In the case against the Ministry of Defense, the court found in favor of APADOR-CH, ordering the disclosure of the information. The other cases were adjourned for May 2011.

During the reporting period APADOR-CH also had several discussions and meetings on future steps to be taken with representatives of Open Society Justice Initiative, Reprieve and Amnesty International. During April 2011, APADOR-CH assisted Ms. Julia Hall, from Amnesty International to prepare an exploratory visit to Bucharest aimed at designing a campaign on the proper investigations on the allegations regarding the involvement of Romania in the CIA secret program. The visit shall took place on 23-24 May 2011 and included meetings with journalists and other non-governmental actors in which both AI and APADOR-CH participated. As a result both organizations were interviewed by the national TV station and Radio France International.

On another hand, APADOR-CH continued the enforcement proceedings against the Civil Aeronautical Authority who was forced by a court order to disclose information on the flights allegedly included in the rendition circuits in Romania, following a case initiated by APADOR-CH. As the first instance court found against APADOR-CH in December 2009, during the reporting period APADOR-CH filed the appeal. APADOR-CH’s appeal was dismissed on 23 September 2010. During the reporting period, APADOR-CH finalized a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights on the violation of his rights to freedom of receiving and imparting information as a result of this court case. It was submitted at the end of March 2011.

On 5 September 2011, APADOR-CH also made public the fact that the classified annexes to the report of the Senate Commission investigation the allegations that Romania was involved in the secret CIA programme disappeared. It once more called for a new investigation to be carried out, both at the level of Parliament and by the judiciary. APADOR-CH is the only Romanian NGO which follows the topic and repeatedly brings it to the public agenda.

In respect of the electronic medical card, a draft Government Decision on starting public procurement proceedings was published on 3 September 2010. Without respected the dead-line for public debate, on 8 September 2010 the Government adopted the decision. On 9 September 2010 APADOR-CH publicly protested against this violation of the Law on transparency. On 9 November 2010, APADOR-CH asked the Ministry of Health to organize a public debate over the draft Government Ordinance to modify the Law on Health, which included provisions on the electronic medical card. The debate was organized on 18 November 2010 and APADOR-CH both participated and sent its comments on the draft. It also protested against the plan to adopt provisions which limit the rights of the individual via a Government Ordinance. Although there were promises from the officials of the Ministry that a right to opt between the electronic and the classic card shall be included, on 28 December 2010, the Emergency Ordinance was adopted without it.

At the beginning of 2011, the electronic system used by the Health System collapsed. On 14 January 2011, APADOR-CH reminded the general public of the lack of guarantees for the protection of private life the system poses and the lack of cooperation from the Ministry. On 21 January 2011, APADOR-CH asked for a public debate on the methodological norms on the electronic health card and made public its comments. In 2011 the Government did not take any new step with regard to the electronic card.

Another important share of APADOR-CH’s activity aimed at commenting on the draft law on implementing the new Criminal Procedure Code. The draft law was made public at the beginning of June 2011 and extensively amended both the adopted Criminal Procedure Code and various other laws in more than 60 pages. Therefore, for the entire month APADOR-CH’s team concentrated its work on commenting and proposing amendments to the draft law. The draft law was not adopted by the end of the reporting period.

Other reactions to human rights threats included the following:

On 26 January 2011, APADOR-CH joined other NGOs in an open letter against the retention of informational traffic data by providers, as provided by the EC Directive 2006/24/EC.

On 17 February 2011, APADOR-CH protested against the initiative of the City Hall of Sector 2 Bucharest to post lists of “potential” drug users (in fact people hanging around legally opened stores selling ethnobotanics) on its own web-site, against data protection laws. The same day, APADOR-CH protested against an MP initiative to intervene on the content of news programs.

On 7 March 2011, APADOR-CH protested against an initiative of the MP Mihai Boldea to modify the Law on access to information, in a matter that would impede the access to any information that regards criminal investigations and trials. APADOR-CH was especially concerned of the effect of the initiative on the ability of the press to report on such matters. On 21 June 2011, the draft law was rejected by the Senate.. On 28 September 2011, APADOR-CH once more called the Chambers of Deputies not to vote on the draft law. In October, the plenary session of the Chamber of Deputies examined the draft and returned it to the specialized Committee. APADOR-CH wrote letters to members of the specialized Committee asking them again to reject the draft. The Committee issued a new report rejecting the draft. By the end of the reporting period, the draft law was included on the agenda of the Chamber of Deputies with the recommendation to reject it.

On 18 April 2011, APADOR-CH protested against the extensive practice of the Executive to pass legislation bypassing the Parliament, including by engaging its responsibility on draft laws. The protest was covered by the media and an extensive interview on the matter was aired by Radio France International.

On 3 May 2011, APADOR-CH protested against the excessive use of lethal arms by the Police to which the general inspector of the Romanian Police publicly instructed the policemen to resort to.

On 27 June 2011, APADOR-CH protested against the initiative of the Government to change the Constitution and to administratively reorganize Romania prior to an electoral year. The Government dropped these initiatives.

On 7 July 2011, APADOR-CH protested against the lack of transparency in adopting the draft law on modifying the Criminal Code with the aim of introducing the confiscation of crime proceeds.

On 17 July 2011, APADOR-CH protested, together with four other NGOs, against the draft Governmental Decision to block the internet provider in cases where internet content is illegal, calling such a measure censorship of the internet. As long as there are other more efficient measures to keep the illegal content out of the Internet, blocking ISP is a disproportionate measure and it creates the framework for further censorship of the internet. The Government Decision was nevertheless adopted on 31 August 2011.

At the end of July 2011, APADOR-CH participated in a public debate, organized by the Ministry of Telecommunications, on the new draft law on the retention of personal data. Further, on 3 August 2011 it submitted and made public its comments on the draft law. By the end of the reporting period the draft law was not adopted by the Parliament.

On 23 August 2011, APADOR-CH and IPP protested against the initiative of the Ministry of Justice to found an “NGO”, which in itself is an attack of the role of NGOs in a democratic society. Such a GONGO will create even more confusion with the general public on the role of NGOs and will create unfair competition in respect of raising funds by NGOs. By the end of the reporting period the Ministry of Justice did not continue with the initiative.

On 26 August 2011, APADOR-CH called on the Government to stop its initiative to change the electoral system with a pure majority one. Such a system will seriously affect the representation of the citizens in accordance with the casted votes and, in addition, will only satisfy the needs of political parties and not those of the citizens. By the end of the reporting period, no draft law to amend the electoral systems was promoted.

In octombrie 2011, APADOR-CH protested against the intention of the 4^th sector mayor’s office to fingerprint the homeless. The association drew attention on the fact that according to the EHRC jurisprudence setting up by any authority of a data-base containing fingerprints of individuals who were never sentenced in a criminal court is an infringement of the right to privacy enshrined in art.8 of the European Convention. In respect of people addressing APADOR-CH with problems related to human rights, in 2011 around 100 individuals received legal advice on submitting complaints to the European Court of Human Rights in direct meetings. The activity of providing advice via letters also continued.

APADOR-CH also continued to represent victims of human rights violations in previously initiated cases, such as the one of Mr. Marinescu who was subjected to ill-treatment by the Police. In September 2010 the first instance court decided to resend the case to the prosecutor office for starting a criminal investigation. The policemen’s appeal was denied on 18 November 2010. During 2011, APADOR-CH monitored the case before the prosecutor, who, on 16 September 2011 issued a new decision not to start criminal investigations. APADOR-CH appealed the decision before courts in October 2011 lost the apeal. The association filed a complain against this decision in court during December.

As regards the cases before the European Court of Human Rights, there were new developments in the following cases:

– GARCEA v. Romania – APADOR-CH also continued to represent victims of human rights violations in previously initiated cases. In the case of Mr. Garcea subjected to repeated abuses, as well as lack of medical treatment while in detention, which led to his death, APADOR-CH continued the domestic procedures against the prosecutor’s decision not to start criminal investigations against the medical staff of the prison. The first instance court rejected APADOR-CH’s complaint on 11 November 2010. An appeal was consequently lodged. In December 2010 APADOR-CH lodged a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. It is a test case as Mr. Garcea has no relatives and APADOR-CH lodged the complaint on his behalf. Normally such a case is considered inadmissible by the European Court of Human Rights, but if the right of a human rights NGO to be an applicant is denied, it means violations of the right to life where there are no relatives of the victim remain unsanctioned. In December the case was communicated to the Government.

– AUSTRIANU v. Romania – The case concerns interferences with the applicant’s rights to freedom of religion, fair trial and protection of property. In September 2011 the applicant’s representatives enquired the ECHR on the prospects of the delivery of a judgment, having in view that almost 3 years have already elapsed since the presentation of the applicant’s response to the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the case.

– CSIKI v. Romania – The case concerns the death of the applicant’s son while serving his military duty. The applicant’s son died following an attack of meningitis, and was not provided with adequate and speedy medical treatment. On 5 July 2011, the ECHR found a violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on account that the criminal investigations against the medical staff in charge exceeded the reasonable time, and that the applicant did not have any effective remedies in order to speed up the criminal investigations. However, the Court did not find a violation of Article 2 on account that the applicant should have brought a civil case against the medical staff. In September 2011, the applicant’s representative drafted a request for a referral before the Grand Chamber of the European Court, in order to have a reexamination of her complaints under Article 2. The actual request was submitted before the Court on 5 October 2011.

– CUCU v. Romania – The case concerns poor detention conditions and allegations of ill-treatment by prison staff. In August 2011, the applicant’s representatives contacted him in order to enquire of possible changes in his situation. In September 2011 the applicant’s representatives enquired the ECHR on the prospects of the delivery of a judgment.

– CORNELIA POPA v. Romania – The case concerns the criminal conviction of the applicant, a journalist, who wrote and published an article that criticized the professional competences of a magistrate. On 29 March 2011, the European Court delivered a judgment in the case, and found a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention.

– GREEK–CATHOLIC PARISH COMANA DE JOS v. Romania – The case concerns failure of restitution of property that had been confiscated during the communist regime. In August 2011, the applicant’s representative submitted to the European Court supplementary factual information in this case.

– GREEK–CATHOLIC PARISH PRUNIS v. Romania – The case concerns failure of restitution of property that had been confiscated during the communist regime (see the case of the Greek-Catholic Parish Comana de Jos above). In August 2011, the applicant’s representative submitted to the European Court supplementary factual information in this case.

– HARCO v. Romania – The case concerns ill-treatment by law enforcement officials, and lack of investigation following this incident. The applicant’s representative submitted in August 2011 the response to the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the case.

– IACOV STANCIU v. Romania and SASU v. Romania – these two cases concern conditions of detention in Romanian penitentiaries, and were selected by the Court in view of possibly initiating a pilot-procedure in this matter. APADOR-CH requested to be allowed to intervene as a third party in these two cases. Written observations were submitted in June 2011; APADOR-CH argued that detention conditions in Romania do constitute ill-treatment (especially with regard to overcrowding, lack of hygiene, poor quality of food and lack of access to proper medical treatment), and urged the Court to launch the pilot procedure.

– VILI RUPA (no 2) v. Romania – The case concerns ill treatment by police officers, and lack of an effective investigation. On 19 July 2011, the European Court delivered a judgment in the case, and found a violation of Article 3, under its procedural limb (on account that the applicant was not offered an effective investigation of his claims that he was submitted to ill-treatment), and of Article 13 of the European Convention.

– FANE CIOBANU v. Romania – The case refers to conditions of detention in three penitentiaties. On October 11, the Court held that the right to not be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment was violated in this case.

Raportul de activitate al APADOR-CH – 2010

06/03/2010/în Anuale /de Rasista

APADOR-CH 20 de ani pentru drepturile omului 1990 – 2010

30/01/2010/în Anuale, Speciale /de Rasista

Deschideti PDF

Raportul de activitate al APADOR-CH – 2009

06/03/2009/în Anuale /de Rasista

In the first half of 2009, APADOR-CH’s activity was aimed at contributing to the organization’s overall objective, which is for the organization to successfully carry out its mission to raise the level of awareness on, and respect of human rights and the rule of law. In this respect, APADOR-CH followed to meet a number of seven specific objectives:

Strengthening the constituency for human rights with political actors, in media and with the general public
Improving the practices regarding the legal protection of vulnerable groups against discrimination
Developing efficient mechanisms to ensure the rights of persons deprived of liberty
Increasing transparency of administration
Improving reasoning and transparency of judicial decisions;
Eliminating unjustified state interference with the NGOs’ associational life

Reacting to human rights threats

Objective #1: Strengthening the constituency for human rights with political actors, in media and with the general public

Results	Activities	Time-frame	Indicators
More political actors support human rights	Meetings with leading politicians and MPs, especially members of the human rights and legal committees of the two Chambers of Parliament	2009	At least 50% of the MPs in the human rights and legal committees of the two Chambers of Parliament meet with APADOR-CH representatives
More political actors support human rights	Round-tables with political actors on important human rights issues (topics to be decided according to existing initiatives at the material time)	2009 -2011	– At least 2 round-tables per year are organized; – – At least 10 politicians participate in each meeting
More journalists include a human rights perspective in their work	Meetings with journalists in charge with justice and human rights issues for the main media outlets	2009	Representatives of at least 2 TV stations, 2 newspapers and 2 radio stations, all with national coverage, participate
	Issuing Human Rights Newsletter for the media and the general public	2009-2011	At least 10 newsletters are issued each year
More citizens show interest and support to human rights	Updating APADOR-CH web-site with relevant information on human rights and create newsletter to be dispatched to those registered in a database of contacts	2009-2011	– At least 1,000 visitors of APADOR-CH web-site per month; – At least 50 individuals redirect 2%of their income tax to APADOR-CH each year – At least 12 RSS feeds for the website per year;
	Involving volunteers in APADOR-CH’s activity	2009-2011	At least 3 volunteers get involved in APADOR-CH’s activity, for a period of at least 3 months each, per year
	Publishing an annual Human Rights Report for Romania	2009-2011	– At least 50 national/intl organizations receive the report -At least 500 visitors read the report on-line

In the first half of 2009, APADOR-CH activity was mostly aimed at ensuring that human rights and the rule of law are respect in relation with the adoption of four new legislative codes: the Criminal Code, the Civil Code, the Criminal Procedure Code and the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the meetings with political actors and media were centered on this topic.

On 9 January 2009, APADOR-CH was the first NGO in Romania to publicly protest against the initiative of the Government to pass the four draft codes without a parliamentary debate. APADOR-CH also pointed out the flaws in the procedure of adopting the drafts, which did not included a real public consultation, as well as problematic material provisions affecting human rights and called for the withdrawal of the drafts and the organization of a real public consultation. Detailed comments on problematic provisions related to human rights in the draft Criminal Code and draft Criminal Procedure Code were prepared in the course of January 2009. After the authorities decided that a parliamentary debate would take place, on 13 February 2009, APADOR-CH sent its comments to the Ministry of Justice, to the chairs the two Chambers of the Parliament, to the members of the legal commissions in the Parliament and to the prime-minister and drawn the public attention to the issue once more. In addition, on 27 February 2009, APADOR-CH issued a public protest regarding the proposed provision that illegally obtained evidence, including through torture, can be used in the criminal proceeding provided certain conditions are met. On 9 March 2009 APADOR-CH publicly contradicted the incorrect clarifications provided by the Ministry of Justice on this topic.

In the course of March 2009, APADOR-CH participated to several informal meetings with representatives of other NGOs which resulted in the birth of the coalition “Stop the Codes!” which included 22 NGOs and was officially launched on 30 March 2009. As a member of the coalition, in April and May 2009, APADOR-CH participated to weekly press conferences, radio and TV broadcastings, as well as in several meetings with the President of Romania, the Prime-minister of Romania, the President of the Senate, MPs members of the special commissions debating the Civil Code and the Criminal Code. In addition, APADOR-CH provided assistance to media NGOs in correcting provisions of the Civil Code posing serious threats to freedom of expression. Such assistance included participating in several debates with the members of the drafting commission as well as MPs working on the draft Civil Code and resulted in correcting some of the most problematic provisions. Therefore the indicators for the first three planned activities for 2009 were met.

As regards issuing Human Rights Newsletter for the media and the general public no specific activities for creating a formal newsletter were undertaken in the first half of 2009, as most of the time and energy of the APADOR-CH staff was devoted to the draft codes. Nevertheless, between January and June 2009, APADOR-CH issued newsletters regarding cases decided by the ECHR in which APADOR-CH was involved, explaining the way the judgements affect the legal order. Six such newsletters were issued, regarding the following cases: Tatar (27 January), L.Z. (3 February), Tarau (24 February), Greek-Chatolic Parish Sf Vasile Polona (7 April), Olteanu (14 April) and Damian-Burueana & Damian (25 May). They were distributed to the media and posted on APADOR-CH’s web-page.

In the first half of 2009, APADOR-CH updated the content of its site and improved accessibility, which resulted in an increased traffic compared with 2008. According to www.trafic.ro, the number of visitors increased as follows:

Month	Nov 2008	Dec 2008	Jan 2009	Feb 2009	Mar 2009	April 2009	May 2009	June 2009
No of unique visitors	494	408	591	1,660	1,795	1,668	1,721	1,489
No of visits	842	621	1,857	5,596	5,200	4,139	4,369	3,925

The other indicators for success of this activity were not designed to be met during the reporting period.

In the first half of 2009, three volunteers were involved, on a regular basis, for more than three months, in APADOR-CH activity: Adelina Bobosatu (student in social assistance), Catalina Filote (student in law) and Bogdan Carpan (lawyer). They were involved in answering letters from individuals addressing APADOR-CH, organizing events and administrative matters.

In the second half of 2009, APADOR-CH continued to monitor the debates on the new Criminal Code and the new Criminal Procedure Code in the Parliament and participated in several meeting of the special commission debating it. APADOR-CH was in constant dialogue with both the members of the parliamentary commission and the staff, and was weekly updated on the decisions of the commission. As a result, almost all amendments proposed by APADOR-CH to the Criminal Procedure Code were adopted.

As regards issuing Human Rights Newsletter for the media and the general public no formal newsletter was issued in the second half of 2009. Nevertheless, between July and December 2009, APADOR-CH continued to issue newsletters regarding cases decided by the ECHR in which APADOR-CH was involved, explaining the way the judgements affect the legal order. One such newsletters was issued in November 2009, regarding two cases on freedom of expression (Ieremeiov v. Romania). It was distributed to the media and posted on APADOR-CH’s web-page.

In the second half of 2009, two volunteers were involved, on a regular basis, for more than three months, in APADOR-CH activity: Alexandra Savencu (student in European Studies), and Bogdan Carpan (lawyer). They were involved in answering letters from individuals addressing APADOR-CH, organizing events and administrative matters. Adelina Bobosatu, who previously worked as a volunteer for APADOR-CH for about one year, joined the staff in September 2009.

Objective 2: Improving the practices regarding the legal protection of vulnerable groups against discrimination

Results	Activities	Time-frame	Indicators
NGOs’ are better prepared to meet the advocacy and legal needs of vulnerable groups susceptible of discrimination	Training and assistance on human rights and rights based advocacy for social services NGOs working with the vulnerable groups susceptible of discrimination	2009	At least 15 NGOs receive training/assistance on human rights issues
	Updating a resources web-page dedicated to NGOs working with vulnerable groups	2009-2011	At least 300 unique visitors of the web-page per month
	Expanding a network of trained lawyers and experts available for NGOs working with vulnerable groups	2009-2011	– At least 100 lawyers and experts, covering at least 75% of counties, are included in the public APADOR-CH database – At least 35 lawyers are trained on human rights each year
Challenges of vulnerable groups susceptible of discrimination are documented	Monitoring access of drug users in detention (prisons, prison hospitals and police lockups) to HIV prevention and drug treatment services	2009	-a policy-paper, including proposals to improve the system, is drafted and is included in the strategy of public authorities
	Monitoring access of religious minorities to public services, including public cemeteries	2009	All local councils are informed on their obligation to ensure access to public services though a policy paper to be distributed
Improving Roma access to housing	Strategic litigation	2009-2010	At least one case is brought before the ECHR

As regards the project aimed at increasing transparency of authorities when taking decisions involving individuals with disabilities, in the second half of 2009, APADOR-CH offered training assistance to the 20 NGOs trained at the beginning of the year. Together with these NGOs, APADOR-CH addressed 100 requests for information to asses the degree in which the authorities have respected their legal obligations in respect of individuals with disabilities. The responses were the base of an assessment report, which also included recommendations and practical tools for the authorities (such as a check list on their obligations towards the disabled). The report was launched in a public conference which took place in 13 October 2009 and then distributed to the relevant authorities.

In the second half of 2009, APADOR-CH continued to implement the project started on 1 May 2009 and aimed at strengthening the capacity of social service NGOs working with disadvantaged groups to defend the rights of their beneficiaries, including in the field of anti-discrimination. The guide on discrimination for individuals was published in 7800 copies and distribute via 20 NGOs working with vulnerable groups. In August and September a manual for lawyers on human rights and discrimination was published. The manual was further used in training sessions for lawyers who could support NGOs in defending their beneficiaries’ rights. Between October and December 2009, 5 such sessions were held in Iasi, Craiova, Cluj and Bucuresti with the participation of a total of 107 lawyers. NGOs also participated in the sessions in order to present to their lawyers the problems of their beneficiaries.

As regards the monitoring of access of drug users in detention (prisons, prison hospitals and police lockups) to HIV prevention and drug treatment services, during the reporting period APADOR-CH visited the Targsor prison for women (on 10 September 2009) and continued monitoring the legislative process regarding National Antidrug Agency prerogatives.

During the reporting period, APADOR-CH also secured funding for another project aimed at transferring APADOR-CH’s experience on advocacy to ARAS, the lead Romanian NGO in providing assistance to individuals infected with HIV/AIDS. The project started on 14 November 2009 and shall contribute to ARAS implementing an advocacy campaign for the taking over of funding HIV/AIDS services by local authorities.

Objective 3: Developing efficient mechanisms to ensure the rights of persons deprived of liberty

Results	Activities	Time-frame	Indicators
Romania ratifies and implements the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (OPCAT)	Providing technical support (access permits, know-how etc) to existing pilot mechanism monitoring places of detention, set up by APADOR-CH and Centre for Legal Resources	2009-2011	-At least 5 volunteers continue to carry out monitoring visits in places of detention, each releasing at least 2 reports per year
	Meetings with relevant decision-makers (Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Presidency) for informing them on the activity of the pilot mechanism and raise awareness on the need to ratify and implement the OPCAT	2009-2011	At least 3 decision-makers are met each year until the Protocol is implemented
	Public statements on the need to ratify and implement the OPCAT	2009-2011	At least 2 statements are released each year until the Protocol is implemented
	Exchange of information on best practices and advocacy methods with NGOs and authorities in other countries	2009-2011	The experience of at least 5 other countries in implementing the OPCAT is documented
Increasing the transparency of prison budgets and financial management	Addressing requests for information on the prison budgets (allocations v. expenditures)	2009-2011	All prisons and the National Administration of Penitentiaries answer the requests for information
	Promoting best practices to prison administration	2009-2011	All prison administrations are informaed on the best practices
Improving efficiency of judges supervising places of detention	Training judges on human rights	2009-2011	At least 10 judges per year are trained
	Promoting best practices among judges	2009-2011	All judges supervising detention places are informed on the best practices
	Advocating the Ministry of Justice to modify the Law on prisons toward increased capacity of judges to apply sanctions to prison administration	2009-2011	MJ promotes the amendments to the Government
	Informing persons deprived of liberty on the role of the judges	2009-2011	The number of admissible complaints increases with 5% each year

In the second semester of 2009 APADOR-CH secured funding for a project aimed at implementing the OPCAT by the national authorities.

Objective 4: Increasing transparency of administration

Results	Activities	Time-frame	Indicators
Citizens gain direct access to information on decision taken by the local administration	Advocacy campaign to promoting best practices in publishing county official gazettes	2009-2011	At least 20 councils publish comprehensive county official gazettes by the end of 2011
The prefect becomes active in enforcing the Law on decisional transparency in the administration	Lobbying the prefects on their role in enforcing Law on decisional transparency in the administration	2009	40 perfects are informed on their role
	Promoting best practices to prefects	2009	At least 15 prefects start to challenge decisions taken without observing transparency requirements
The Law on decisional transparency is amended by introducing sanctions	Lobbying decision makers to promote APADOR-CH’s amendments to the Law on decisional transparency	2009-2011	The legal commissions of the Parliament support APADOR-CH’s amendments

During the reporting period, APADOR-CH continued to implement a project aimed at lobbying the prefects to become more active in enforcing the Law on decisional transparency in the administration. The 14 NGOs previously trained replicated the lobbying effort in their respective counties (6 counties). In September 2009, the experience of all NGOs involved was summed up in a report on the role of the prefect in enforcing the Law on decisional transparency in the administration. The report was released in October 2009, and later distributed to all relevant institutions.

In the second semester of 2009 APADOR-CH secured funding for a project aimed at involving the youth organizations and the young people in using the transparency laws. The project started in December 2009.

Objective 5: Improving reasoning and transparency of judicial decisions

Results	Activities	Time-frame	Indicators
The judgements are subjected to public scrutiny	Lobbying with the Ministry of Justice and the Superior Council of Magistrates on fulfilling their obligations to launch the electronic system of publishing all court decisions	2009	The system is officially launched
	Monitoring the courts on fulfilling their obligations to publish decision	2009-2011	All courts not publishing their decisions are identified
	Round-tables with representatives of courts	2010-2011	At least one court per each Court of Appeal participates
	Promoting best practices	2009-2011	At least 10% of the courts publish their decisions in the first year the system is implemented The number of courts publishing their decisions increases with 10% of the courts each year

No specific activities were implemented during the reporting period.

Objective 6: Eliminating unjustified state interference with the NGOs’ associational life

Results	Activities	Time-frame	Indicators
The Law on associations and foundations is amended by eliminating abusive provisions on organizations’ allowed names	Monitoring the implementation of new problematic provisions on organizations’ names	2009-2010	A data-base with all identified cases is available on-line
	Meetings with decision-makers	2009-2010	At least one MP successfully supports the amendment to the law in the Parliament
	Strategic litigation	2009-2010	At least one case is brought before the ECHR
	Promoting amendments to the Law		The amendments are debated in the Parliament
The requirement to obtain and file fiscal records by founding members/new members of an association is eliminated	Monitoring practices of courts	2009	At least 75% of courts provide information on their practices
	Strategic litigation	2009-2010	At least one case is brought before domestic courts At least one case is brought before the ECHR
	Round-table with judges and decision-makers	2009-2010	At least one MP successfully supports the amendment to the law in the Parliament
The procedure for donations is simplified in respect of NGOs	Monitoring practices of NGOs in receiving donations in Romania and in other 5 countries	2009-2010	At least 75 NGOs answer APADOR-CH’s questionnaire
	Meetings with decision makers (Chamber of Notaries Public, Ministry of Justice, MPs) for identifying and promoting solutions in the form of a draft law	2009-2010	The Ministry of Justice successfully promotes the amendment of the law
Challenges in setting up and running an NGO in Romania are documented	Publishing a practical guide on setting up and running an NGO in Romania	2009-2010	At least 500 active NGOs receive/buy/ the guide or access it on-line

APADOR-CH started to implement a project on identifying and removing legal and practical obstacles in exercising the freedom of associations via NGOs in November 2009. The main activities of the project shall be implemented in 2010.

As the initial financial support for the above activities was not received from CEE Trust, during the reporting period APADOR-CH concentrated on committing such support for a different donor. A proposal for a project aimed at the above results was drafted and submitted for the approval of EEA Grants Programme in Romania. An answer is expected for the fall of 2009.

Objective 7: Reacting to human rights threats

Results	Activities	Time-frame	Indicators
Draft laws/initiatives with negative impact on human rights are criticised	Monitoring the web-sites of central administrative bodies, with a special emphasis on the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Interior and Administrative Reform, the Parliament, plus the media	2009 – 2011	At least 75% of the draft laws/initiatives with negative impact on human rights are identified in due time
	Drafting and submitting comments on draft laws with negative impact on human rights	2009 – 2011	Comments on all identified draft laws are submitted to the relevant decision-makers
	Generating and participating in public debates over draft laws/initiatives with negative impact on human rights	2009 – 2011	Public debates are organized in respect to all important draft laws/initiatives with negative impact on human rights (where possible according to the law)
	Issuing press releases	2009 – 2011	At least 6 press releases are issued each year
Human rights violations are documented	Monitoring the media	2009 – 2011	At least 2 media outlets are monitored on daily basis
	Meetings with victims of human rights violations	2009 – 2011	Meetings with at least 50% of the identified victims
	Addressing freedom of information requests to the authorities	2009 – 2011	All relevant authorities receive FOI requests in identified cases
	Issuing reports on human rights violations	2009 – 2011	The relevant authorities receive reports in all documented cases
Public authorities violating human rights are held liable for their actions	Litigation in selected strategic cases	2009 – 2011	At least 2 cases per year are initiated

In the second part of the year most reactions of APADOR-CH related to the new Codes (see under Objective #1 above).APADOR-CH continued to provide support to previous victims of police abuse, especially to Mr. Marinescu, who was ill-treated by the police in 2007 and started legal proceedings with the help of APADOR-CH’s lawyers. His case was still pending by the end of the reporting period.