Limitele Accesului la Informaţii în Legislaţia Română – necesitatea unor corelări legislative

11/12/2012/in Speciale, Transparenta /by Rasista

Raport privind cazurile persoanelor care s-au adresat APADOR-CH reclamând abuzuri ale forţelor de ordine în contextul protestelor de stradă – 13 ianuarie-14 februarie 2012

02/04/2012/in Abuzuri ale forțelor de ordine, Aresturi /by Rasista

Sorry, this entry is only available in Română. 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.

La câteva zile după izbucnirea protestelor de stradă din ianuarie 2012, APADOR-CH a reacţionat public în două rânduri condamnând atât intervenţiile vădit disproporţionate ale jandarmilor cât şi lipsa de reacţie a parchetului în cazul acestora. În acest context mai multe persoane s-au adresat APADOR-CH reclamând abuzuri din partea jandarmeriei.

Acest raport conţine exclusiv informaţii furnizate asociației de persoanele care s-au adresat APADOR-CH şi care şi-au exprimat acordul ca informaţiile să fie făcute publice fie în integralitatea lor fie păstrând confidenţialitatea asupra numelui persoanei.

Concluziile şi recomandările APADOR-CH se regăsesc pe larg la finalul raportului. Pe scurt, asociaţia a constatat că unele acţiuni ale jandarmilor au fost de o brutalitate vădit disproproţionată faţă de situaţia de fapt, că multe dintre măsurile luate de jandarmi au fost arbitrare şi că majoritatea intervenţiilor nu au avut ca scop direct protejarea ordinii publice ci sunt mai degrabă acţiuni de hărţuire a protestatarilor cu scopul de a descuraja participarea cetăţenilor la evenimente de stradă.

Cazurile sunt prezentate în ordine cronologică.

Dl. Ionuţ Chiţulescu a relatat că în seara de 14 ianuarie 2012, în jurul orei 20:30 ieşise să se întâlnească cu un prieten în zona străzii Ion Câmpineanu. Înainte de a-și întâlni prietenul, s-a întâlnit cu jandarmii în apropiere de intersecţia străzilor bd. Magheru cu Ion Câmpineanu. Acolo a fost imobilizat brutal de un jandarm care i-a prins mâna şi i-a răsucit-o, i-a cerut să îl urmeze şi să îşi pună mâna neimobilizată pe cap. Dl. Chiţulescu a relatat că a fost condus astfel către parcarea din Piaţa Revoluţiei unde se aflau câteva maşini ale jandarmeriei şi că pe drum nu i s-a răspuns la întrebările privind motivul privării de libertate şi a fost lovit cu cotul în coaste. A fost perchezitionat, fotografiat, forţat să îşi închidă telefonul mobil şi băgat într-o dubă unde a stat aproximativ o jumătate de oră cu mâinile pe cap. Ulterior toţi cei din dubă au fost scoşi şi puşi să semneze procese verbale prin care erau amendaţi pentru tulburarea liniştii publice sub ameninţarea că, dacă nu semnează, vor fi duşi la poliţie şi amendaţi cu sume mult mai mari. Ionuţ Chiţulescu a semnat numai după ce jandarmii au acceptat să consemneze în procesul verbal că nu recunoaşte fapta. A fost privat de libertate aproximativ două ore şi jumătate iar în procesul verbal prezentat asociaţiei se consemnează ca motiv al sancţionării contravenţionale încălcarea Legii nr. 61/1991.

Domnul M.Ş. se afla pe 14 ianuarie seara la fântână la Universitate. În jurul orei 21:00 în zonă a apărut un grup de protestatari care aruncau cu pietre şi care erau urmăriţi de jandarmi. Dl. M.Ş. şi alte şase-şapte persoane care încercau să părăsească zona au fost încercuiţi de un cordon de jandarmi şi duşi cu mâinile la spate către o dubă mică a jandarmeriei, legitimaţi şi fotografiaţi; niciunul dintre ei nu s-a opus având în vedere rapiditatea cu care s-au desfăşurat evenimentele. Dl. M.Ş i s-a prezentat un proces verbal de amendă (100 de lei sancţiune contravenţională pentru tulburarea liniştii publice) pe care iniţial a refuzat să îl semneze. A semnat în cele din urmă sub ameninţarea:„mai bine semnează că dacă nu o să semnezi în dubă”. Incidentul a durat aproximativ jumătate de oră. M.Ş. consideră că acţiunea jandarmilor a fost un abuz având în vedere atât violenţa cât şi faptul că el nu se comportase agresiv sau de manieră să tulbure liniştea publică.

Sâmbătă, 14 ianuarie, în jurul orei 22:45 domnul Ţîru Bogdan se afla în zona Piaţa Universităţii. Coborâse dintr-un taxi pe strada J.L.Calderon şi avea ca destinaţie Piaţa Romană unde trebuia să se întâlnească cu câţiva prieteni la o cafenea. A fost curios să vadă ce se întâmplă în Piaţa Universității aşa că a hotărât să parcurgă ultima parte a drumului până la destinaţie pe jos. Aşadar a mers pe strada Batiştei şi a traversat Bulevardul Magheru în dreptul străzii Ion Câmpineanu, filmând cu telefonul în timp ce mergea. Dl. Tîru relatează că după ce a traversat a trecut prin dreptul unui cordon de jandarmi şi că a schimbat cu un jandarmii câteva replici în glumă. După ce unul dintre jandarmi, văzând ca filmează l-a întrebat « De la ce televiziune sunteţi? », un alt jandarm s-a apropiat şi l-a lovit pe dl. Ţîru cu scutul în cap, bruscându-l totodată pentru a-i lua telefonul. Relatarea este confirmată de înregistrarea incidentului filmată cu telefonul mobil şi prezentată de Dl. Ţîru reprezentanţilor APADOR-CH (imaginile sunt întunecate şi se succed cu mare rapiditate însă sunetul confirmă faptul că dl. Ţîru a fost lovit cu scutul).

În seara de 14 ianuarie domnii Andrei şi Augustin Ristache, fiu şi tată, luaseră parte la protestul de la Universitate timp de aproximativ o oră, în mod paşnic. În jurul orei 23:30 au părăsit piaţa, îndreptându-se spre staţia RATB de la Universitate cu intenţia de a pleca acasă, când au fost opriţi de doi jandarmi care au început să-l lovească pe Andrei Ristache. După ce Augustin Ristache a încercat să întervină a fost şi el lovit şi doborât. Cei doi au fost lăsaţi să plece şi s-au îndreptat către Casa Centrală a Armatei unde au întâlnit alt grup de jandarmi, mascaţi, care i-au lovit cu bastoanele până au căzut şi au continuat să-i lovească şi căzuţi, i-au târât până la dubă şi i-au condus la Secţia 17 de Poliţie. În dubă Andrei Ristache l-a rugat pe unul dintre jandarmi să-l ducă mai întâi pe tatăl său la spital pentru că nu mai putea să respire, dar jandarmul a refuzat, spunând că vor merge întâi la secţie să-şi primească amenzile, apoi pot să facă ce vor ei. Andrei Ristache a apelat serviciul de urgenţe 112 care a trimis un echipaj medical la Secţia 17. Salvarea l-a preluat pe Augustin Ristache şi l-a dus la Spitalul Universitar de Urgenţă, unde a rămas până la ora 7:00. Andrei Ristache a trebuit însă să rămână la Secţia 17 Poliţie, nefiind lăsat să-şi însoţească tatăl la spital. În secţie a fost legitimat şi fotografiat. În jurul orei 3:00 dimineaţa a zilei de 15 ianuarie i s-a prezentat un proces verbal prin care era amendat cu 200 de lei pentru tulburarea liniştii publice. A semnat procesul verbal menţionând că nu recunoaşte fapta, grăbit fiind să meargă la spital după tatăl său. A fost lăsat să plece din secţia de poliţie abia la ora 3:30, după patru ore de privare de libertate. Andrei şi Augustin Ristache au s-au prezentat la IML pentru a obţine certificate medico-legale în vederea susţinerii plângerilor penale împotriva jandarmilor care i-au agresat. Tot în acest scop au solicitat Spitalului Universitar de Urgenţă adeverinţe medicale. Adeverinţa eliberată lui Andrei Ristache consemnează „traumatism cranio-cerebral minor nivel 0 şi contuzie toraco-abdominală”. Cea eliberată lui Augustin Ristache consemnează „traumatism cranio-cerebral minor nivel 0, contuzie toraco-abdominală, contuzie bazin şi mâna dreaptă”.

În data de 15 ianuarie, în intervalul orar 19:15 – 19:30 doamna Amelia Rusu se afla în faţa Teatrului Naţional Bucureşti, urcată pe soclul unde sunt amplasate statuile din faţa teatrului pentru a protesta. Alte persoane care protestau în zonă au urcat brusc pe statui retrăgându-se din faţa unui jet de gaze lacrimogene lansat de jandarmi fără vreun avertisment. Dna. Rusu a căzut, a început să se simtă rău din cauza gazelor lacrimogene,a coborât de pe soclu şi a strigat să vină o ambulanţă. Dna. Rusu relatează că şi-a pierdut cunoştinţa şi că şi-a revenit într-o ambulanţă SMURD care a transportat-o la Spitalul Universitar de Urgenţă. A primit tratament oftalmologic. Scrisoarea medicală eliberată la externare recomandă tratament oftalmologic timp de şapte zile. Dna. Rusu se consideră victima unui abuz deoarece intervenţia în forţă a jandarmilor nu a fost precedată de vreun avertisment.

În jurul orei 21:30 a zilei de 15 ianuarie domnul Alexandru Trandafira a ajuns în zona spitalului Colţea venind dinspre Centrul Vechi în momentul în care un grup de protestatari se manifesta violent aruncând cu pietre în jandarmi. Dl. Trandafira a început să filmeze incidentele şi s-a deplasat spre jandarmi pentru a se proteja de pietrele aruncate din toate părţile. În faţa spitalului Colţea a întâlnit o echipă de reporteri de la Antena 3 şi împreună cu aceştia a fost martor la momentul în care unul dintre protestatari a fost imobilizat de jandarmi şi bătut. Dl. Trandafira relatează că un jandarm a încercat să îl împiedice să mai filmeze lovindu-l cu piciorul şi cotul astfel că telefonul i-a căzut din mână şi s-a dezmembrat, părţi din acesta au sărind chiar sub duba jandarmeriei. În timp ce încerca să-şi recupereze componentele telefonului a fost smuls de jandarmi de sub maşină şi băgat cu forţa în dubă. După aproximativ o oră petrecută în dubă dl. Trandafira a fost dus la Secţia 18 de Poliţie (în jurul orei 23:00). În incinta secţiei dl. Trandafira trebuit să scrie o declaraţie referitoare la faptele sale, a fost fotografiat şi amprentat şi a fost amendat de 500 lei în procesul verbal consemnându-se că „a aruncat cu obiecte contondente”. Dl. Trandafira a semnat procesul verbal numai după ce a făcut menţiunea că nu a participat la violenţe. A fost lăsat să plece din secţia de poliţie abia la ora 4:00 deşi formalităţile se încheiaseră mult mai devreme.

În seara de 15 ianuarie domnii M.N. şi P.F. plecau în jurul orei 22:00 din Centrul Vechi spre Piaţa Unirii. Ajunşi în Piaţa Unirii şi constatând că au loc incidente violente în piaţă au decis să plece din zonă şi s-au îndreptat către Strada Mântuleasa. În jurul orei 23.00 în timp ce mergeau prin zona Tribunalului Bucureşti (clădirea ”Junior”), au întâlnit un cordon de jandarmi care i-au somat să se oprească şi i-au urcat cu forţa în dube mici fără să li se comunice vreun motiv. În dubă li s-a spus că merg spre secţia de poliţie. Dubele jandarmilor au staţionat timp de o oră undeva în spatele Pieţei Unirii, din câte şi-a putut da seama dl. M.N., într-o zonă cu case, timp în care toţi cei ridicaţi de jandarmi au fost coborâţi din dube, pentru legitimare. În zonă staţionau în total şase dube şi opt maşini marca Dacia. După legitimare au fost din nou urcaţi în dube şi conduși la Secţia 19 de Poliţie unde au ajuns în jurul orei 00:15. Au urmat o nouă legitimare, fotografierea şi amprentarea. M.N. relatează un episod halucinant şi anume întrebarea unui jandarm adresată celor din secţie: „pentru un milion semnează toată lumea?”. Majoritatea celor prezenţi, printre care şi prietenul său P.F., au semnat. M.N. iniţial a refuzat însă după câteva ore de privare de libertate, în jurul orei 3:00 dimineaţa, a cedat şi a semnat sub ameninţarea că altfel nu va putea părăsi secţia de poliţie. După ce le-au fost înmânate procesele verbale au aflat că luaseră de fapt amenzi de 500 lei (dl. M.N. ) şi respectiv 200 lei (dl. P.F.), ambele pentru încălcarea art. 26 litera e) din Legea 60/1991 privind adunările publice.

În evenimente similare a fost implicat şi dl. Horvath Csongor în noaptea de 15 spre 16 ianuarie. La miezul nopţii dl. Csongor venea cu un prieten dinspre zona Unirii iar când au ajuns la fântâna de la Universitate au observat incendierile. Aici cei doi şi restul persoanelor din piaţă, aproximativ 200 de persoane au fost încercuiţi de jandarmi, legitimaţi şi informaţi că după legitimare vor putea să plece. Cu toate acestea, majoritatea celor prezenţi au fost urcaţi în dube (o mică parte dintre cei legitimaţi au reuşit să plece profitând de învălmăşeala creată, printre aceştia aflându-se şi prietenul dlui Csongor) care i-au transportat la Secţia 9 Poliţie unde au ajuns în jurul orei 1:00. La intrarea în secţie au fost percheziţionaţi, li s-a cerut să-şi închidă telefoanele şi să le ţină la vedere atâta timp cât se află în incinta secţiei. După ce în secţie poliţiştii au început să amprenteze şi să fotografieze persoanele private de libertate, dl. Csongor a anunţat că refuză aceste proceduri şi că nu va semna nici procesul verbal. I s-a replicat că dacă nu colaborează nu va putea pleca din secţie cel puţin până la sosirea comandantului, adică în jurul orei 9 dimineaţa. În cele din urmă, la ora 5:30, după aproximativ 6 ore de privare de libertate, Dl. Csongor a fost lăsat să plece fără să semneze vreun document. Pe 8 februarie doi agenţi de poliţie s-au prezentat la adresa de domiciliu al dlui. Csongor (din judeţul Covasna) și i-au înmânat mamei dlui. Csongor un proces verbal fără vreo dovadă a comunicării. Sancţiunea aplicată prin procesul verbal este amendă în valoare de 200 de lei în temeiul Legii nr. 61/1991 pentru sancţionarea faptelor de încălcare a unor norme de convieţuire socială, a ordinii şi liniştii publice. Dl. Csongor consideră că amendarea sa, privarea sa de libertate timp de aproximativ 6 ore precum şi comportamentul jandarmilor în această periodă ca fiind abuzive afirmând că nimic din comportamentul său în momentul privării de libertate nu justifica astfel de acţiuni.

Luni, 16 ianuarie, la ora 23:00 domnul Mihai Petrescu împreună cu doi prieteni (un bărbat şi o femeie) se aflau în zona magazinului Cocor îndreptându-se dinspre Piaţa Universităţii spre Piaţa Unirii de unde intenţionau să ia metroul spre casă. Au fost au fost surprinşi de un grup de oameni care alergau urmăriţi de jandarmi şi practic obligaţi de mulţime să se deplaseze în aceeaşi direcţie. Jandarmii care urmăreau grupul, toţi purtând cagule, au format un cordon care a încercuit aproximativ 45 de persoane, inclusiv pe Mihai Petrescu şi cei doi prieteni, lipindu-i de un perete. Cei trei s-au legitimat din proprie iniţiativă şi au cerut să fie lăsaţi să plece, însă acest lucru a fost permis doar femeilor din grup. Jandarmii au continuat legitimarile şi au folosit gazele lacrimogene deşi nicio persoană dintre cele din grup nu se manifesta agresiv. După aproximativ jumătate de oră cei rămaşi (cca. 40 de persoane) au fost urcaţi în dubă, cei care au încercat să se opună fiind îmbrânciţi, iar ulterior au fost transportaţi la Secţia 8 de Poliţie. Poliţistii au reluat legitimarea şi au început să amprenteze şi să fotografieze persoanele prezente în secţie şi să completeze procese verbale. Dl. Petrescu a refuzat să fie amprentat şi fotografiat iar când a întrebat de ce a fost adus la secţie un poliţist i-a răspuns ironic: „aţi venit singuri!”. Dl. Petrescu a semnat procesul verbal prin care a fost amendat cu 200 de lei în dreptul menţiunii că nu recunoaşte fapta. Prietenul său, mai puţin vocal, a fost sancţionat doar cu avertisment. Cei doi au putut părăsi Secţia 8 Poliţie în jurul orei 3:00 după aproximativ patru ore de privare de libertate. Dl. Petrescu se consideră victima unor abuzuri din partea jandarmeriei afirmând că nici amenda şi nici privarea sa de libertate nu se justifică.

În acelaşi grup de peste 40 de persoane oprite de jandarmi în seara de 16 ianuarie din zona magazinului Cocor în care s-a aflat dl. Mihai Petrescu a fost şi dl. Augustus Costache, care se afla în zonă fără să aibă vreo legătură cu protestele (mergea să cumpere produse de patiserie). Acesta confirmă spusele domnului Petrescu referitor la reţinerea de lângă perete, inclusiv folosirea nejustificată a gazelor lacrimogene, cât şi perioada reţinerii – aproximativ jumătate de oră. Din acest loc, dl. Costache a fost dus într-o dubă mică, împreună cu alte cinci persoane pe care nu le cunoştea, la Secţia 3 Poliție.. În incinta secţiei, toate cele 42 de persoane prezente au fost înştiinţate că au dreptul să refuze amprentarea. Au fost întocmite procese verbale pentru tulburarea ordinii şi liniştii publice pentru toţi, cu diferenţa că cei care au acceptat să semnze au fost sancţionaţi cu avertisment iar cei care refuzau să semneze au primit amendă. În cele din urmă, după aproape patru ore de privare de libertate, de stat în picioare şi în frig, Augustus Costache a semnat procesul verbal. Se consideră însă victima unui abuz.

În data de 19 ianuarie, în jurul orei 22:30 domnul Bogdan Moldoveanu se afla cu câţiva prieteni la fântâna din faţa facultăţii de Arhitectură şi o aştepta pe sora lui, studentă, să iasă din facultate pentru a o însoţi pe drumul spre casă. Începuse o conversaţie cu un paznic de la un magazin din zonă când a auzit somaţia jandarmilor adresată protestatarilor de a părăsi zona. Prietenii dlui. Moldoveanu au reuşit să fugă dar acesta împreună cu paznicul (!) şi alţi aproximativ 30 de oameni au fost înconjuraţi de un cordon de jandarmi, împinşi spre strada Edgar Quinet şi aşezaţi în şir, unul lângă altul (femeilor aflate în grup li s-a permis să plece). Timp de o jumătate de oră cei din grup au fost legitimaţi (de mai multe ori) şi împiedicaţi să plece deşi au solicitat acest lucru. Dl. Moldoveanu a povestit că în acest interval a putut vedea cum în capătul străzii mai mulţi jandarmi băteau o persoană căzută. La ora 23:00 toţi cei înconjuraţi de cordonul jandarmilor (inclusiv paznicul şi un tânăr care aparent suferise un atac de panică) au fost urcaţi în două două dube unde li s-a comunicat că vor fi transportaţi la Secţia 11 Poliţie şi li s-a permis să îşi folosească telefoanele mobile. În secţia de poliţie, după o nouă legitimare, dlui. Moldoveanu i s-a prezentat un proces verbal prin care era sancţionat contravenţional pentru tulburarea liniştii publice. A refuzat să semneze şi a menţionat în formular că nu recunoaşte faptele de care este acuzat. Dl. Moldoveanu a încercat să refuze şi amprentarea şi fotografierea însă i s-a spus că acestea sunt parte a unei proceduri standard şi, neavând cunoştinţe juridice pentru a contrazice aceste argumente, s-a supus procedurilor. Odată cu înmânarea proceselor verbale Dl. Moldoveanu a constatat că fost amendat cu 1000 de lei pe când majoritatea persoanelor aflate în secţie, care semnaseră procesele verbale, fuseseră amendate cu 200 de lei. Privarea de libertate a dlui. Moldoveanu a încetat la 2:00, după mai bine de trei ore.

În acelaşi grup de peste 30 de oameni încercuiţi de jandarmi pe strada Edgar Quinet în seara de 19 ianuarie a fost şi dl. Narcis Iordache (jurnalist, editor www.romaniacurata.ro), împreună cu doi prieteni. El povesteşte că se afla în zonă şi observa cu interes profesional incidentele violente de la Universitate din acea seară, când a fost împins pe strada Edgar Quinet de o busculadă creată de protestatari care fugeau şi jandarmi care încercuiau zona venind din mai multe direcţii. Dl. Narcis Iordache a rămas în spaţiul dintre cele două cordoane de jandarmi care blocau strada în grupul de persoane în care se afla şi Bogdan Moldoveanu ale cărei relatări despre evenimentele petrecute pe strada Edgar Quinet le confirmă. Dl. Iordache a fost de asemenea condus la Secţia 11 Poliţie, însă, spre deosebire de dl. Moldoveanu, cunoscându-și drepturile, a refuzat cu fermitate să fie amprentat şi fotografiat. Impresia personală a dlui. Iordache este că această fermitate a condus la punerea lui în libertate înaintea multora dintre cei conduşi la Secţia 11 Poliţie deoarece poliţiştii ar fi dorit să evite informarea celolalte persoane cu privire la dreptul de a refuza amprentarea şi fotografierea. Cert este că i s-a prezentat un proces verbal prin care i s-ae aplicase sancţiunea amenzii în valoare de 200 de lei pentru tulburarea liniştii publice, i s-a comunicat că poate refuza să semneze şi i s-a permis să plece din incinta secţiei de poliţie. Narcis Iordache a semnat procesul verbal menţionând că nu recunoaşte faptele de care este acuzat. Principala sa nemulţumire este legată de faptul că în perioada privării de libertate, aproximativ 2 ore, poliţiştii nu numai că nu au informat persoanele din incintă cu privire la drepturile pe care le au ci au încercat chiar să le ascundă aceste drepturi şi să le supună unor proceduri abuzive prezentându-le ca fiind obligatorii.

Dl. Ad. V. este regizor şi este implicat într-un proiect cinematografic având ca temă Bucureştiul. Din acest motiv, în primele zile ale protestelor a filmat în centrul capitalei cu intenţia de a-şi îmbogăţi arhiva personală. Pe 19 ianuarie, puţin după ora 22:00 dl.Ad. V. a ieşit împreună cu A.V. şi C.P dintr-o ceainărie de pe strada Edgar Quinet şi s-a îndreptat spre Universitate filmând mulţimea care părăsea în fugă piaţa în urma somaţiilor jandarmilor. În doar câteva minute pe stradă dinspre piaţă a înaintat un grup de jandarmi din rândul cărora s-a desprins un grup de trei care l-au imobilizat pe dl. Ad. V. şi l-au lovit cu bastoanele în mod repetat, atât pe corp cât şi în cap. Dl. Ad. V. a fost împins într-o nişă a peretelui Facultăţii de Litere unde erau căzuţi încă doi tineri şi obligat prin violenţă (lovituri de baston) să şteargă imaginile filmate . După aproximativ 15 minute dl. Ad. V. a fost urcat într-o dubă împreună cu alte 21 de persoane şi în jur de şase jandarmi care s-au manifestat violent (lovituri, ameninţări, urlete) pe parcursul drumului spre Secţia 4 Poliţie, drum care a durat o jumătate de oră. Referitor la cele întâmplate în secţia de poliţie, dl. Ad. Vlad reclamă alte abuzuri: a fost amprentat şi fotografiat fără a fi informat că are dreptul să refuze aceste proceduri, iar poliţistul care a întocmit procesul verbal a completat la menţiuni „nu are obiecţiuni” cu toate că dl. Ad. V. a afirmat că nu este vinovat de tulburarea liniştii publice. Cu toate că sancţiunea aplicată prin acest proces verbal este doar un avertisment, dl. Ad. V. a decis să o conteste în instanţă deoarece i se pare un abuz să fie sancţionat pentru o faptă pe care nu a comis-o. De asemenea, a decis să facă plângere penală împotriva celor care se fac în mod direct vinovaţi de privarea sa de libertate pentru aproximativ trei ore şi de modul violent în care aceasta sa produs.

În data de 14 februarie, în jurul orei 9:15, dl. Andrei Rus se afla cu un grup de prieteni în Centrul Vechi (zona pietonală) şi se deplasau manifestându-se în favoarea libertăţii de exprimare, a dreptului la liberă întrunire şi protest. Li s-au alăturat şase-şapte jandarmi care i-au însoţit o perioadă şi i-au oprit în zona Centrului Ceh, de pe strada Ion Ghica (lângă Biserica Rusă). Dl. Rus şi prietenii săi au întrebat de ce nu se pot deplasa mai departe iar jandarmii le-au răspuns motivele erau numeroase: erau într-un marş organizat, tulburau liniştea publică, blocau strada şi nu se putea circula. Grupul de protestatari a eliberat strada continuându-şi marşul până în dreptul Teatrului de Comedie unde au fost opriţi din nou de jandarmi şi li s-a cerut să se legitimeze. În plus, li s-a comunicat că au zece minute la dispoziţie să se disperseze pentru că erau în situaţia în care încălcau Legea nr. 60/1991 şi Legea nr. 61/1991. O persoană din grup a telefonat unui post de televiziune să semnaleze situaţia iar jandarmii s-au retras imediat. Au revenit însă cu efective sporite, aproximativ 20 de jandarmi, peste aproximativ jumătate de oră, când în grup mai rămăseseră doar câteva persoane, i-au înconjurat reţinându-i în cerc timp de 40 de minute, perioadă în care i-au legitimat (pe unii de mai multe ori, pe alţii deloc). Dl. Rus consideră că aceste acţiuni ale jandarmilor reprezintă abuzuri deoarece încalcă mai multe drepturi ale unor persoane paşnice, printre care: dreptul la exprimare, la protest, la liberă circulaţie şi la libertate.

Tot în data de 14 februarie, de această dată seara, în jurul orei 21:45, dl. Gabriel Viorel Negulescu venea cu un grup de prieteni din Piaţa Universităţii, unde protestaseră, spre Centrul Vechi. Pe strada Ion Ghica, în zona Centrului Ceh, au fost opriţi de patru jandarmi care au încercat să-i disperseze bruscându-i şi somându-i să să meargă pe trotuar pentru că blochează circulaţia. Grupul şi-a continuat deplasarea până pe strada Smârdan unde a fost înconjurat de jandarmi care au legitimat o parte din persoanele din grup. În aceste condiţii cei din grup au decis să se întoarcă în Piaţa Universităţii însă pe drum, pe strada Toma Caragiu, au fost din nou încercuiţi şi legitimaţi de acelaşi grup de jandarmi care nu i-au lăsat să părăsească încercuirea timp de aproximativ jumatate de ora. Dl. Negulescu se consideră victimă a încălcării unor drepturi fundamentale din partea jandarmilor afirmând că aceştia nu au nicio justificare să oprească, să legitimeze şi să împiedice să se deplaseze nişte persoane paşnice.

Concluzii şi recomandări:

1. APADOR-CH a constatat că multe acţiuni ale jandarmilor au fost de o brutalitate vădit disproproţionată faţă de situaţia de fapt, cu excepţia serii de 15 ianuarie 2012, atunci când jandarmii au fost atacaţi cu pietre şi alte obiecte contondente de o parte a demonstranţilor, în perimetrul dintre Piaţa Universităţii şi Piaţa Unirii; chiar și în această situație, recurgerea la forță ar fi trebuit îndreptată exclusiv către imobilizarea, îndepărtarea și sancționarea legală a demonstraților violenți (nu a altor persoane).

2. Asociaţia consideră că multe dintre măsurile luate de jandarmi (imobilizare, transport la dubă, conducere la sediul poliţiei, amprentare, fotografiere şi redactarea unor procese verbale) au vizat persoane care fie se aflau în trecere prin zonă, fie manifestau paşnic. Intervenţiile în forţă împotriva acestor persoane au fost complet nejustificate. De asemenea, în cazul tuturor persoanelor conduse la sediul poliţiei, în mod justificat sau nu, condiţiile de transport (dube supraaglomerate), aşteptarea îndelungată în sediile poliţiei, amprentarea şi fotografierea (cel mai frecvent fără informarea persoanelor asupra dreptului de a refuza aceste măsuri) şi prelungirea abuzivă a perioadei de privare de libertate până când persoanele cedau şi semnau procesul verbal echivalează cu tratament degradant din partea Jandarmeriei.

3. În opinia asociaţiei majoritatea intervenţiilor nu au avut ca scop direct asigurarea sau restabilirea ordinii publice (atribuții prevăzute în sarcina Jandarmeriei de Legea nr.550/2004) ci sunt mai degrabă acţiuni de hărţuire a protestatarilor cu scopul de a descuraja participarea cetăţenilor la manifestații de stradă, inclusiv neviolente, sub pretextul aplicării unei legi de acum 21 de ani (Legea nr. 60/1991 privind organizarea şi desfăşurarea adunărilor publice). Această lege este în mod evident depăşită, interzicând orice manifestare publică spontană şi prin aceasta, goleşte de conţinut libertăţile omului de exprimare si adunare. Astfel de acțiuni de intimidare nu pot fi reținute nici ca expresie a aplicării atribuției Jandarmeriei de a desfăşura ”activităţi de cercetare şi documentare în vederea constituirii bazei de date de interes operativ, necesară executării misiunilor specifice, cu persoanele cunoscute cu antecedente în comiterea de acte de dezordine cu prilejul unor manifestări publice, cu cele cunoscute ca aparţinând unor grupuri cu comportament huliganic, precum şi cu alte informaţii de interes operativ necesare executării misiunilor” (art. 19 alin.(1) lit. s) din Legea Jandarmeriei), atât timp cât au fost îndreptate către persoane care nu aveau nici comportament huliganic și nici nu participau la acte de dezordine.

4. Dată fiind similitudinea procedurilor urmate de jandarmi, rezultă că incidentele descrise în acest raport nu au fost situații accidentale, ci rezultatul modului în care au fost instruiţi jandarmii să acţioneze. APADOR-CH recomandă Jandarmeriei ca, până la adoptarea unei noi legi privind adunările publice, să dea dovadă de reţinere în intervenţiile împotriva participanţilor la proteste spontane în sensul imobilizării numai a persoanelor care chiar se comportă în mod vădit violent.

APADOR-CH

Bucureşti, Martie 2012

Report on the police custody facility attached to Police Station no. 9 in Bucharest – the Florin Urzică case-

14/03/2012/in Abuzuri ale forțelor de ordine, Aresturi /by Rasista

On March 6, 2012, two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the custody facility attached to Police Station no. 9, in the 2^nd district of Bucharest. The main purpose of the visit was to meet, Florin Urzică, whose case was brought to the attention of the Association by a close friend of his, who visited Urzică after his arrest and claimed that policemen beat him until “they broke his neck”.

During their visit, the representatives of APADOR-CH talked to Florin Urzică, to other detainees, to the facility staff, and analyzed the changes in detention conditions after their previous visit to the facility, on November 9, 2011. Also in connection with the Urzică case, the representatives of the Association tried to contact a security agent who had witnessed one of the violent episodes, but found that he was out of town. They also asked verbal information from the registry office of Police Station no. 9 regarding the time and date when Florin Urzică was brought in, but the agent on duty refused to provide the information, saying he was obeying orders from the chief of the station. On March 12, the representatives of the Association went back to Police Station no. 9, where they talked to the chief of the custody facility, to clarify some aspects of the case.

In what concerns detention conditions, they were slightly improved in comparison with the Association’s previous visit. One improvement consisted of moving the phone (which had been out of order on November 9) from the agents’ office to the corridor. Detainees are now supervised during their conversation by the agent who oversees the exercise yard, from a position that ensures, at least theoretically, the confidentiality of phone calls. Another improvement noted on the March 12 visit was the stricter observance of the secret of correspondence. The mobile mail box is now taken to each room, so that detainees are able to post their letters personally, and the mailman goes personally to the underground to pick up the mail.

Until the previous visit, on March 6, detainees had to hand their envelopes to the agents, who introduced them in the box, and then took the box upstairs for the mailman to empty. The intermediary role of agents has been eliminated, which means an extra guarantee of the confidentiality of correspondence.

The rest of the findings made by APADOR-CH, as well as the recommendations of the 2011 report were still valid. Essentially: rooms were small and lacking natural light (a still unsolved problem, also noted in the 2010 Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture – CPT); food, provided by the Rahova Penitentiary, was very poor; the facility did not provide any kind of hygiene and sanitary materials; visits took place in degrading conditions, with no confidentiality. Moreover, like in most custody facilities, handcuffing detainees each time they leave the place is a current practice, instead of being the exception, as the law requires.

The report of the previous visit is available at http://www.apador.org/show_report_nf.php?id=229 .

The Florin Urzică case

On February 29, 2012, Florin Urzică, 42, recently released from prison, was on a street in the National Arena area in Bucharest when, around 10.30-11.00, he was put to the ground and hit by three persons who, as revealed later, were policemen from Police Station no. 9. According to Florin Urzică, they did not ask for an ID nor showed any credentials of their own. Two of them simply held him still on the sidewalk while a third hit him with his tonfa and kicked him, under the eyes of colleagues, but also of passers-by. Eventually, Urzică was handcuffed and “led” to the station in Pantelimon neighborhood. There, he was hit again, by the same policeman (Urzică does not know his name or rank, but as a distinctive sign, he wore a moustache). Urzică claims that at the station he was told why he had been deprived of freedom: the theft of a mobile phone. Urzică claims that he bought the phone from a person whose name he didn’t know, but whom he was able to identify. The purpose of the beating was, according to him, to make him take the blame for several crimes left unsolved.

According to Florin Urzică, he was left on the corridor, in cuffs, for several hours (more precisely 8 hours and 30 minutes, as shown by the retention ordinance signed by the prosecutor for 24 hours, from which the time spent there after being “led to the station” was deducted). During this time, he says, the policemen ate and drank inside the station, in memory of a deceased colleague. APADOR-CH considers that keeping a person, against which excessive force was used with no justification, handcuffed for over 8 hours on a corridor, is tantamount to inhuman and degrading treatment.

The only things that happened during this time was that Urzică signed a document without knowing what it represented and that a public defense attorney arrived, but the suspect never saw her again, neither at the tribunal (when the arrest warrant was issued) nor in court (at the appeal against preventive arrest).

In the evening, at 8.00 p.m., Urzică was taken to the prosecutor’s office, where a retention ordinance was issued. Because he felt increasingly ill, complaining of acute pain in his head, neck and the right side of the body, the prosecutor’s office called an ambulance. He was administered an injection, the ambulance left, but was called again by the same institution shortly after. Urzică was taken to the University Emergency Hospital in Bucharest, where he was seen by different specialist doctors (eye, neurosurgery, orthopedics and emergency doctors). They noted a haematoma on his left eye, trauma with excoriation of the right thigh and crus, a contusion in the renal area, and, what was worse, a strong contusion on the neck, which required a cervical collar. Two of the medical charts filled in the hospital mention the statement of the detainee, that he had been beaten in the morning of February 29 (around 11.00 a.m., as the neurosurgery chart mentions). At 3.00 a.m. on the night of February 29- March 1, Urzică was taken to the DGPMB (Bucharest Police Direction) medical ward, where he was most probably seen by a nurse. Urzică reached the custody facility around 3.15 a.m. and, according to his detainee file, was placed in room no. 1 at 3.30. The trip from the DGPMB medical ward to the Pantelimon station takes about 10 minutes in very low traffic. The conclusion of the Association was that the medical examination lasted only 5 or 6 minutes, which shows superficiality – to say the least – on the part of DGPMB medical staff, in charge with seeing all suspects from Bucharest before they are brought to custody facilities.

When he was brought in, Urzică told the chief of the facility that he had been beaten by the policemen and, according to the chief of custody, the fact was mentioned in the file. The representatives of the Association cannot say whether the file also retained the wording “by policemen”, or simply mentions aggression prior to arrival into custody.

On March 1, Florin Urzică was taken once again to the DGPMB medical ward, where he was seen by a doctor, who prescribed painkillers and an antibiotic. On the same evening, the detainee asked to be seen by a doctor again, because his nose bled. An agent took him right away to the Pantelimon Hospital, which is right next to the police station. Urzică claims that while he was waiting in the on-call room, the policeman who had beaten him the day before (the mustachioed one) burst in, took him out on the corridor, where the agent was waiting, and went in to discuss (?) with the doctor on duty. It is not clear whether the policeman took any paperwork filled by the doctor or what was said inside that office. The incredible action of the policeman took place in view of the agent. A coincidence or not, the latter was out of town for a longer period of time, for a training course, so the representatives of the Association were unable to talk to him.

On March 5, when the representatives of APADOR-CH first talked to the detainee, he was still wearing the cervical collar (he was going to be re-examined 15 days after receiving the brace), had a blue and swollen left eye and several traces of blows on the right leg. Moreover, he complained of strong headaches and pain in the neck, which did not respond even to strong painkillers)

Florin Urzică asked the chiefs of the facility to take him to a forensic doctor, but it was not possible because he could not pay the legal fee for the exam.

The detainee said he wrote complaints about the ill treatment he was submitted to while he was retained, on February 29, as well as about the intimidation and threats from the aggressor. One of the complaints was submitted to the chief of the retention and preventive arrest service of the DGPMB and the second to the chief of Police Station no. 9.

It must be also said that upon leaving the station, the representatives of the Association stopped at the registry office for information on the time when Urzică was brought in, according to the special registry book. The request was deny on grounds it was a work secret. The requested information did not fall under the provisions of Law no. 182/2002 on the protection of classified information. According to that law, work secrets are “information whose release is of nature to cause prejudice to a public-law or private-law legal person”. There is no reason to consider that disclosing the time when a detainee was brought in could harm any legal person. The only grounds for not releasing such information from the facility registry book could be the ones stipulated under article 12, par. 1 letter d and e of Law no. 544/2001, but these are not applicable to the current case. More exactly, the protection of personal data (letter d) cannot be invoked because it was the detainee himself who made a public complaint and agreed to talk to the Association and who was told from the very beginning that this report would be a public document. Letter e is not applicable either, because the mere disclosure of the time when Urzică arrived at the station cannot endanger the results of any criminal or disciplinary investigation. The only explanation for withholding the information might be the secretiveness still marring the Romanian Police.

From the subsequent discussion with the chief of the police station, the representatives of APADOR-CH understood the following:

a) Florin Urzică was caught red-handed during a break-in. it was not clear whether the suspect had already committed the break-in or was on the point of breaking in. The fact is that Urzică’s restraining, the tonfa blows and the kicking, as well as handcuffing took place outside, on the sidewalk;

b) Florin Urzică filed a complaint against the policemen (in fact one policeman, as the two others only “assisted”), who hit him on February 29. The complaint was sent to the chief of the Independent Retention and Preventive Arrest Center of the DGPMB, who had to forward it to the prosecutor’s office. Only when prosecutors take a decision would the police start, if necessary, its own investigation. In other words, during the investigation of the prosecutors, expected to follow, the policemen involved in the case would have no problem continuing to “work” with the public;

c) The criminal investigation of the alleged crimes committed by Florin Urzică (theft/break-in) is conducted by another policeman than the tree involved in his retention on February 29.

d) There are at least two controversial aspects of the way recordings are made in the registry book containing the name, date and time of arrivals for people “led” to the police station. First, the registry book is classified as a work secret, as detailed above. Second, the registry contains, according to the commander of police Station no. 9, only information on persons led to the station as witnesses or plaintiffs/subjects of complaints for minor demeanors, such as brawls among neighbors or loud music. If the persons “led” to the station are suspects of crimes (including flagrant offenders), they are not recorded in the registry. Instead, a report is prepared by the same policemen who detained the person, and added to the file. In the Association’s view, there should be a double recording: both a report with the aforementioned information plus the grounds and circumstances that led to the decision to detain the suspect, and a recording of the arrival, irrespective of the reasons. APADOR-CH reminds that the 2010 CPT report recommended creating a unique registry book for all persons who, for one reason or another, end up at the police station, against their will.

The Constantin Dinu case

Constantin Dinu of room no. 1 – a room mate of Florin Urzică’s – said that he had also been beaten upon his arrest on February 10, 2012, in Răcari, Dâmboviţa county, by policemen of the car theft department. He said he was in a car that was stopped by the police, that he was taken out of the car, pushed to the ground and repeatedly kicked. He was then taken to the DGPMB medical ward for the medical examination prior to being taken into custody. His face was swollen and he told the person who examined him (probably a nurse) that he had been beaten by the police. A surgical consult was recommended but Constantin Dinu refused, because he was very tired (it was already 4 a.m. on February 11) and he thought he would make a swift comeback. Later, feeling worse, he called the agents of the facility, who took him back to the medical ward and to specialist exams (trauma and neurology). His medical file mentions “Physical aggression outside the custody facility”.

Conclusions:

1. APADOR-CH asks the prosecutor’s office to investigate with celerity and impartially the credible ill treatment accusations against the policemen at Police Station no. 9, as well as those from Răcari. APADOR-CH reminds that the right not to be subjected to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment is an absolute right. Police may use force only in limited situations, observing the proportionality of the intervention and aiming at restraining the suspect, rather than submitting it to illegal physical punishment. In the case of theft/break-in suspects who do not resist arrest and do not endanger the policemen’s life and limb (see Law no. 218/2002, updated in 2009, Article 34, letter d) the use of force in completely unjustified. APADOR-CH points out that, when faced with credible accusations of treatments in breach with Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, the state authorities are under the obligation to run speedy and detailed investigations, able to find out the perpetrators and hold them responsible;

2. The two cases presented above (as others, for which APADOR-CH conducted extra-judiciary investigations) demonstrate that the time when persons are “led” to the police station – including the first moments of deprivation of freedom – when they are restrained, be it on the street or in a car – is a highly vulnerable time for suspects. APADOR-CH asks for a strict regulation of the way police operate before the retention ordinance is issued, in order to prevent any abuse from law enforcement agents;

3. The Association asks for all the persons led to police stations to be recorded in the special registry books, no matter on what grounds they were brought in, and for the registries to be taken out of the work secret category;

4. APADOR-CH insists that policemen or police agents against whom abuse complaints have been filed and are under investigation by prosecutor’s offices should be removed from public duty until the investigations are finalized;

5. The Association asks the DGPMB to launch an inquiry into the participation of several policemen to a memorial meal inside Police Station no. 9 on February 29, 2012. The Association also requires explanations regarding the excessive time (8 hours and a half) Florin Urzică was kept on the corridor, in handcuffs.

6. APADOR-CH asks explanations about the intervention of the policeman at the Pantelimon Hospital, in the on-call room, while the doctor on duty was examining Florin Urzică.

Manuela Ştefănescu Maria-Nicoleta Andreescu

APADOR-CH Raport Anual 2012

24/02/2012/in Anuale /by Rasista

Sorry, this entry is only available in Română. 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.

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

Cereri de informatii si raspunsurile autoritatilor privind implicarea Romaniei in programul CIA de detentie si transferuri secrete

30/01/2012/in Speciale, Transparenta /by Rasista

Citește raportul Citește raportul

Citește raportul[/su_button] Citește raportul Citește raportul

http://www.apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/raport_cia.pdf

http://www.apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/raport_cia.pdfCitește Raportul

Report on the case of George Dan Bălan, deceased on October 19, 2011, in the police custody facility attached to Police Station no. 7

05/01/2012/in Abuzuri ale forțelor de ordine, Aresturi /by Rasista

On October 14, 2011, on a Friday, George-Dan Bălan, 38, living in Bucharest in sector 2, recently returned from work abroad, was in a small restaurant in Colentina neighborhood, at 5 minutes walk from the Police Station no. 7, with his partner Victoria. About 7.30 p.m., Victoria left for the hospital, where one of the couple’s two children was in care. Dan Bălan remained at the restaurant and phoned a cousin of his – Cristina – whom he invited to come over. Before the cousin arrived, a brawl took place between Bălan and members of the restaurant staff, who accused him of stealing a client’s handbag. Someone from the restaurant called 112.

George-Dan Bălan was retained by two public order officers from Station no. 7 on the evening of October 14, under the accusation of attempted theft. The next day, he was brought before a prosecutor, and then before a judge, who issued a 29 day arrest warrant. The appeal against preventive arrest was judged on Wednesday, October 19, in the morning. A few hours later, Bălan died in police custody. The death certificate noted: septic shock on a background of purulent pleural effusion. When the present report was published, the results of the necropsy had not yet been communicated to the family of the deceased.

As part of its investigation, APADOR-CH talked to four persons who met Dan Bălan after the restaurant incident, before his death. Moreover, the representatives of the Association went to Police Station no. 7, which had been in the meanwhile closed for renovation, as well as to the headquarters of the Preventive Arrest and Retention Service subordinated to the Bucharest General Police Direction (George Georgescu Street), where they talked to one of the doctors and tried to obtain information on the whereabouts of the both Section 7 police staff and detainees arrested at the same time as Dan Bălan. Also, the representatives of APADOR-CH visited Police Section no. 9, where two policemen and a detainee had been transferred from Section 7. The policemen could not be contacted, because they were on vacation.

The representatives of APADOR-CH also tried to discuss with the person who made the theft complaint, but the person did not want to provide any information.

The four persons who met Dan Bălan during the six days between the restaurant incident and his death told APADOR-CH the following:

1. Cristina, George-Dan Bălan’s cousin
Cristina arrived in front of the restaurant around 8.30 p.m. and saw Bălan trying to come out the front door, which was blocked by a man in white uniform, surely an employee. In a few seconds, Bălan started running inside the restaurant and Cristina, knowing the place, realized he was trying to get to the back exit, then through the garage yard on an alley next door. Therefore the woman ran to the end of the alley and saw two policemen who had put Bălan on the ground, handcuffed him and were kicking him. Then they picked him up, took him back to the restaurant, where they squeezed him under a table in front of the entrance, his hands and feet cuffed, and placed their feet on top of him. This is how the first part of the “investigation” took place. The police took statements from the staff, witnesses and the plaintiff. Cristina left the restaurant after calling Victoria to tell her what had happened.

Cristina never saw Dan Bălan again. She was summoned to the Prosecutor’s Office as an eyewitness and, for more than two hours, she was interrogated about details she could not remember (what were the aggressive policemen wearing, for instance).

2. Victoria, George-Dan Bălan’s partner
After being alerted by Cristina, Victoria reached Police Station no. 7 around 9.00 p.m., and after waiting for almost one hour, she was told by a policeman that an investigation was ongoing and advised to go home and come back the next day. Victoria left the police Station, and, after hours of discussions with relatives and friends, found a lawyer who accepted to represent Bălan. Victoria arrived back at the Police Station around midnight, accompanied by solicitor Ciprian Şoldea. One hour later, the solicitor came out of the meeting room and told her that Bălan was feeling sick and that he had told him he had been beaten by both restaurant staff and policemen. The next morning, Victoria saw Bălan for a couple of minutes when he was brought to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Sector 2 Court of First Instance. She then noticed that he had difficulty walking and the blood stains on his collar (also confirmed by the lawyer). She didn’t have a chance to talk to him, just like the previous night. On Monday, October 17, Victoria received a phone call from her partner who asked her to bring some Ben Gay ointment and another medicine, Ketonal. On Wednesday, October 19, after his appeal against arrest was denied, the lawyer told her on the phone that she could visit him at the custody facility. The woman bought the necessary things, including food, and arrived at the Police Station around 1 p.m. Se asked to visit her partner, but was told to wait. While the visit was being repeatedly put off, she found out from a policeman that Bălan had been taken to the hospital “with a 17 cm tube in his leg”. Around 4.00 p.m. another policeman told her that “the husband did not wish to have visits”, and that she should make a list of what she brought and go home. Victoria found it hard to believe that Bălan did not want to talk to her and insisted to see him, at least through the door, and hear directly from him that he renounced his right to visitation. She was not allowed to and therefore she made the required list. Her insistences and the list took at least 30 minutes. Therefore Victoria left the Police Station around 4.30 p.m. A few hours later, she learned from friends that they announced on TV George-Dan Bălan’s death in police custody. Although the news was already public, the first answer she received from the officer on duty at Police Station no. 7 was “we don’t know anything, call later”. Victoria went back to the police facility, where a person in plain clothes who recommended himself as “the chief of the police station” confirmed the death and told her he was going to inform her about it on the next day, when he was in possession of the death certificate.

On the day of the funeral, Victoria received a phone call from the police, to come and pick the deceased’s personal effects – which proved to be just the money in his wallet. The rest, she was told, was taken for “examination”. The body of the deceased had arrived from the Forensic Institute already dressed, so she could not see whether it showed traces of beating. On the way to the cemetery, the funerary convoy passed by Police Station no. 7, which was heavily guarded.

Victoria said that, until the October 14 incident, George-Dan Bălan had never had any health problems. He had never been in a civilian hospital. The only exception was his stay at the Jilava Penitentiary Hospital, on suspicion of TB. Ever since, he never required treatment or hospitalization. Under such circumstances, the purulent pleural effusion mentioned by the death certificate seems hard to explain by a previous condition.

3. Solicitor Şoldea
On Friday to Saturday, when the lawyer came into the investigation room (around midnight), George-Dan Bălan was already writing his holograph statement. Obviously, this was the statement preceding his bringing into custody, and therefore the presence of a lawyer was mandatory, from the very beginning, but it did not happen. The lawyer noticed the bad state of his client, his incoherent speech, his strangely ruffled clothes and a few drops of blood on his collar. The next day, the lawyer met Dan Bălan on his way to the Prosecutor, where he could not stand on his feet and needed to lie down on a bench. He could not lie down either, and required help from the lawyer and a policeman to sit back up again. The Sector 2 Court of First Instance decided he was to be held under preventive arrest and Bălan was taken back to the custody facility.

The lawyer saw him again on Wednesday, October 19, 2011, when Bălan was brought before the Court to appeal against the arrest warrant. Şoldea said that Bălan was in such a bad state that the tree-judge panel allowed him to sit during the whole session. The lawyer said ever since the first night when he assisted Bălan, it was clear that his physical and mental state was serious and that the deterioration of his health was more than obvious on the day of the appeal. He also said he had received unofficial information that the necropsy examination at the Forensic Institute was recorded on video in its entirety.

4. D.B., Bălan’s room mate at the custody facility
On the night of October 14 to15, 2011, after the retention ordinance was issued, Bălan was taken, around 3.00-3.30 a.m., to room 3 of the custody facility at Police Station no. 7. Among other detainees there was D.B., on preventive arrest, whom APADOR-CH found a few days after the events at the Police Station no. 9 facility. D.B. claimed that Bălan could hardly breathe, that he complained of pain all over his body and that, most of the time, he was incoherent – and this state lasted during his whole stay in the facility. D.B. said that on the next day, on Saturday, October 15, 2011, Bălan was taken to Court ((between 9.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.) and that he had a lot of difficulty walking. D.B. also said that Dan Bălan was taken to the “hospital” (as far as APADOR-CH knows, that means the DGPMB medical ward) on Monday morning.
About October 19, 2011(the day of the death), D.B. only knew that when he came back from court, Bălan was taken out of the facility again and, at the request of one of the facility chefs, was taken to Floreasca Hospital. He returned around 2.30-3.00 p.m. with a hand and a leg in plaster! Then he went to the bathroom, and started to vomit. Around 5.00 p.m., the agents took him outside, in the facility yard, where he died.

The medical pathway of George-Dan Bălan
Putting together information from witnesses and from the doctor at the Preventive Arrest and Retention Service, APADOR-CH re-traced the following path:

On the night of October 14 to 15, 2011, before being brought to the facility, Bălan went, around 2.00 a.m., through the medical examination at the medical ward of the DGPMB, on George Georgescu Street. It must be said that during the night, the ward is overseen by a nurse, not by a doctor, and most of the time the exam is only a formality. It is clear that Bălan’s state of health continued to deteriorate on Saturday and Sunday, October 15 and 16. The duty of the chief of custody – as well as of the chief of Police Station no. 7 – was to take Bălan back to the medical ward of the Preventive Arrest and Retention Service, where one of the three doctors was sure to be on duty. And if none of the doctors was available (if that was the case, APADOR-CH asks to know why), the policemen had the duty to call an ambulance. By doing nothing, they showed negligence towards the physical and mental state of a person under their custody.

Only on Monday, October 17, 2011, was Bălan taken to the medical ward in George Georgescu Street, where triage and medical assistance is provided for arrestees in Bucharest. This time, he was seen by a doctor, who also failed to notice any special problems except a few bruises, who did not consider he needed a specialist exam and who prescribed him ointments and anti-inflammatory medication. On the same day, the detainee called his partner and asked her to bring the prescribed items on her first visit. During his discussion with the representatives of APADOR-CH at the Preventive Arrest and Retention Service, after the death of the detainee, the doctor confirmed he had seen the man.

On October 19, 2011, during the appeal, Bălan’s state was so obviously deteriorated that the judges allowed him to sit during the proceedings (see above the statement of solicitor Şoldea). The escort supposedly took him from Court directly to the University Hospital, where the doctors supposedly noted a thoracic and abdominal contusion, without any treatment and/or recommendations. The sure thing is that the detainee was brought back to the facility and shortly after was taken back to hospital, this time to the Floreasca Emergency Hospital, but solely to the orthopedics section. That is to say, Bălan was not submitted to any other exams (such as pulmonary X-ray, examination of the vital organs in the abdomen) which could have identified in due time the acute condition that eventually led to his death. APADOR-CH suspects that the essential medial exams for Dan Bălan’s life were not taken for fear they might reveal signs of the brutality of policemen while he was being led to the station and maybe also afterwards. He only had one leg and one arm placed in plaster, according to D.B. Brought back to the facility, he died around 5.00 p.m.

On November 9, 2011, two representatives of APADOR-CH went to Police Station no. 7, to visit the facility. They were told the facility had been closed for renovation (?) five days earlier and that most detainees had been transferred to Police Station no. 9. The staff had also been moved to different custody facilities across Bucharest.

APADOR-CH asks the Preventive Arrest and Retention Service subordinated to the DGPMB and Police Station no. 7 the following questions:
a) Have the two agents who restrained and beat George-Dan Bălan been identified? Are they being investigated by the Prosecutor’s Office? Have any disciplinary measures been taken, and if so, what are they? How could one legally define the time spent by Bălan, handcuffed, under the table in the restaurant, while policemen took statements from the staff and the victim of the theft (in fact, theft attempt) and other witnesses?

b)    Why had Bălan started to write his holograph statement in the absence of a lawyer?
c)    Who signed the retention ordinance for Bălan? What is the time mentioned on the document?
d)    Why didn’t the chiefs of the facility and of the Police station send the detainee to the doctor on October 15 or 16, or, as a last resort, why didn’t they call 112?

e) On October 19, after the appeal, was Bălan taken to the hospital directly from Court? Which hospital? What were the recommendations/conclusions of the doctor who saw him?

f) Who decided that Bălan needed to be taken at the Floreasca Emergency Hospital, to the orthopedics section? Were there any signs he might have had fractured members? Was it the recommendations of a doctor? When he returned to the facility, did he have a leg in plaster? An arm? Both?

The answers to the questions above would help clarifying a few misty details. But in essence, APADOR-CH considers that George-Dan Bălan was the victim of torture, followed by death, due to lack of life-saving medical care provided promptly and competently. The highest responsibility lies with the policemen, who answer for the physical and mental health of persons under their custody. The fact that Bălan was taken to the doctor only on Monday, October 17 (during the night of 14 to15, Friday to Saturday, he had been seen only by a nurse) and that he was taken to two hospitals a few hours before his death shows that policemen violated George-Dan Bălan right to life.

Public order policemen who retained him in the first place, should have led him to the police station, not restrain him in the restaurant, and so much the less under a table. They therefore violated the provisions of Law no. 218/2002 on leading suspects to the police station (provisions already highly disputable, in APADOR-CH’s opinion, but that is another topic). From that point of view, the period between Bălan’s handcuffing and his being brought in at the station has all the indications of an illegal deprivation of freedom. The same policemen are responsible for inhuman treatment against Bălan (hitting him after he was handcuffed and could no longer represent a danger, squeezing him under a table with hands and probably feet cuffed).

Also to be mentioned is the violation of the right to legal defense (the absence of a lawyer when the suspect started writing his holograph statement) and, implicitly, of the right to a fair trial.

Manuela Stefănescu Maria-Nicoleta Andreescu

APADOR-CH Annual report 2011

24/02/2011/in Anuale /by Rasista

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.drepturicivile.ro) 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.

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.

Raport asupra cazului Sorin Pârvu

07/06/2010/in Abuzuri ale forțelor de ordine, Aresturi /by Rasista

Sorry, this entry is only available in Română. 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.

În cursul lunii aprilie 2010, Ionelia Pârvu mama si Ana Bianca Pârvu, sotia lui Sorin Pârvu s-au prezentat la sediul asociatiei APADOR-CH pentru a se plânge de modul în care organele de cercetare penale desfasoara ancheta referitoare la decesul lui Sorin Pârvu, deces survenit în urma incidentului din data de 26 septembrie 2009.

1. Relatarea incidentului din 26 septembrie 2009 din Braila

La data de 26 septembrie 2009, Sorin Pârvu conducea în Municipiul Braila autoturismul marca Ford Mondeo, de culoare albastru închis, înmatriculat în Bulgaria, cu numarul TX 8692 KX. Masina era proprietatea unui apropiat, Ionut Alexandru Stoian, care nu avea carnet de conducere si l-a rugat pe Sorin Pârvu, sofer profesionist, sa îl însoteasca în calitate de sofer.

Cu putin înainte de ora14, cei doi se aflau în masina, la intersectia strazilor Dorobanti si Scolilor si au oprit regulamentar la culoarea rosie a semaforului. La câteva secunde dupa oprire, lânga autoturismul acestora a aparut pe banda întâi de mers un autoturism de culoare verde marca Volkswagen Passat, înmatriculat cu nr. B 28 LVG, fara nici un însemn de politie, care ”le-a blocat fata”. Din autoturismul Passat au coborât patru barbati îmbracati în civil si înarmati cu arme de foc. Familia lui Sorin Parvu a aflat ulterior ca acestia erau politisti angajati ai Inspectoratului General de Politie Bucuresti.

Din relatarile martorilor prezenti la locul incidentului reiese ca cei patru barbatii înarmati au început sa traga focuri de arma în autoturismul în care se aflau cei doi fara niciun avertisment. În acel moment Sorin Pârvu a încercat sa se retraga efectuând manevre de mers înapoi în urma carora a intrat în impact cu un alt autoturism marca Nissan Pathfinder, de culoare alba, cu numar de înmatriculare B 94 UDK care tocmai oprise în spatele sau. Din autoturismul Nissan a coborât un barbat îmbracat în civil care a deschis usa din spate stânga a autoturismului Ford si fara niciun avertisment l-a împuscat în cap (parietal stânga) pe Sorin Pârvu. Momentul împuscaturii a fost vazut foarte clar de pasagerul din dreapta, Ionut Alexandru Stoian aflat pe scaunul din dreapta soferului care, ferindu-se de cioburile geamului din dreapta fata care fusese spart de politistii, îsi întorsese capul catre bancheta din spate a automobilului. . Din fotografiile facute imediat dupa incident de un martor ocular se poate observa ca autoturismul marca Ford avea parbrizul perforat de un glont iar geamul din fata lateral dreapta spart.

La doua minute de la incident la fata locului a sosit comandantul politiei din Braila si a intrat în dialog cu politistii din Bucuresti. Conform martorilor incidentului, la întrebarea politistului din Braila « ce ati facut ?» unul dintre politisti i-a raspuns «am gresit tinta ». Deductia logica ar fi ca seful politiei Braila era la curent cu prezenta politistilor bucuresteni în municipiu si, foarte probabil cu misiunea lor. În mod sigur, el era în apropierea locului faptei, poate chiar insotindu-i pe cei cinci politisti din Bucuresti. În aceste conditii, APADOR-CH doreste sa afle daca au existat verificari anterioare interventiei cu privire la identitatea victimei si la eventualul sau cazier, cine le-a efectuat si cui a transmis informatiile respective.

În plus, asociatia cere IGPR si IPJ Braila explicatii cu privire la folosirea armei de foc împotriva lui Sorin Pârvu. A pus el viata cuiva în pericol real? A reprezentat el un pericol iminent pentru integritatea fizica a cuiva? Din informatiile asociatiei, nu rezulta ca recurgerea la arma de foc a fost justificata. Nici daca Pârvu ar fi fost acel infractor periculos cautat de politistii bucuresteni, tot un s-ar justifica folosirea armei.

O ambulanta a sosit în aproximatix 15 minute de la incident. Personalul ambulantei a încercat sa-l resusciteze pe Sorin Pârvu timp de 30 de minute si ulterior a transportat victima la Spitalul Judetean de Urgenta Braila la sectia de reanimare.

Ionut Alexandru Stoian fost imobilizat cu catuse, urcat în autoturismul Volkswagen Passat si condus la politia din Braila, unde a fost retinut pâna seara.

2. Evenimentele ulterioare incidentului

Familia victimei nu a fost informata de organele de politie despre cele întâmplate, sotia lui Sorin Pârvu primind vestea de la o cunostinta aflata la fata locului.

Sotia, Ana Bianca Pârvu, asistent medical generalist la Spitalul Judetean de Urgenta Braila a ajuns la spital în jurul orei 14.15 minute si a observat ca intrarea spitalului era pazita de jandarmi cu cagule si arme. A patruns cu greu în spital si a fost lasata sa astepte în fata salii de reanimare. O colega asistenta medicala a anuntat-o ca sotul ei a fost împuscat în cap de politie si ca are tensiunea zero. O alta persoana, aflata la receptia spitalului i-a înmânat sotiei o pungulita care continea: permisul de conducere, cartea de identitate, telefonul mobil, o suma de bani si un obiect personal, toate apartinând victimei.

Sotia si-a anuntat familia si a continuat sa astepte disperata în holul spitalului. Familia victimei (fratele, tatal si mama) la momentul sosirii la spital a fost bruscata de mascati si li s-a interzis sa îl vada pe Sorin Pârvu. Niciun cadru medical nu i-a anuntat oficial care este starea de sanatate a victimei. Victima a fost mutata prin fata sotiei, la sectia de terapie intensiva. Ulterior sotiei i s-a solicitat acordul pentru ca victima sa fie transferata la spitalul Galati. Familia a insistat fie transferat la Bucuresti insa cadrele medicale au refuzat motivând spitalele din Bucuresti nu îl primesc si în plus victima nu ar rezista la efortul transportului la Bucuresti. La ora 16 Sorin Pârvu a fost transferat la Spitalul de Urgenta Sf. Andrei din Galati. Ambulanta care l-a transportat a fost însotita de o a masina a politiei în care se aflau 5 jandarmi înarmati cu cagule pe fata.

La spitalul din Galati victima a fost pazita tot timpul de mascati care au restrictionat accesul familiei. Medicul de garda a comunicat jandarmilor ca starea victimei este foarte grava si recomanda transportul pacientului la Bucuresti si apoi a întrebat un jandarm daca însoteste victima pe timpul transportului. Sotia a observat ca jandarmul nu a stiut ce sa raspunda si s-a retras sa vorbeasca la telefon probabil cu un superior.

Victima a fost transferata în sala de operatie pentru a i se opri hemoragia deoarece pierdea foarte mult sânge prin plaga împuscata de la nivelul obrazului. Pacientul a fost apoi transferat la sectia de terapie intensiva. La ora 3 noaptea la insistentele sotiei medicul de garda a rugat jandarmii sa îi permita sotiei sa intre în salonul pacientului. Ana Bianca Pârvu si-a vazut sotul timp de 1 minut însa i s-a interzis sa îl atinga, ea dorind sa îi verifice pulsul.

În cursul diminetii de 27 septembrie Ana Bianca Pârvu a continuat sa astepte în spital fara a primi vreo veste despre starea sotului sau. Pe parcursul noptii si al diminetii echipe de politisti « mascati » au pazit caile de acces catre camera în care se afla Sorin Pârvu.

Purtatorul de cuvânt al spitalului a dat declaratii posturilor de televiziune ca victima Sorin Parvu a decedat la ora 12.25 însa nu a anuntat rudele acestuia desi întreaga familie se afla pe holurile spitalului. Sotia victimei a fost sunata de o verisoara la ora 13 care i-a transmis condoleante si asa a aflat de decesul sotului ei.

În jurul orei 13.30, gardianul spitalului a informat familia ca pacientul Sorin Pârvu a decedat. În acel moment a izbucnit un incident între familia decedatului si 8 jandarmi mascati care asigurau paza decedatului. Jandarmii l-au împins pe frate decedatului, George Pârvu, care se deplaseaza cu ajutorului unui baston fiind grav bolnav. Pentru a-si proteja fiul, Ionelia Pârvu a încercat sa bareze îmbrâncelile mascatilor. A fost trântita la podea, lovita în zona rinichilor si amenintata ca i se vor pune catusele, apoi a fost împinsa spre scari spunându-i-se ca nu are ce cauta acolo. Membrii familiei au fost avertizati de un jandarm : « iesiti afara ca va împusc !».

Certificatul medical constator al decesului nr. 420, eliberat la data de 28 septembrie 2009 de Spitalul Clinic de Urgenta Sf. Apostol Andrei Galati – Serviciul de Medicina Legala, consemneaza cauzele decesului: contuzie si hemoragie meningo-cerebrala; fractura baza craniana etaj posterior drept; plaga împuscata transfixianta cervico-maseta; rana dreapta cu arma cu glont;

3. Ancheta organelor de urmarire penala

Imediat dupa incident au fost facute publice informatii de catre comandantul politiei din Braila care a afirmat pe posturile locale si nationale de televiziune ca a fost împuscat complicele unui criminal urmarit pe nume Alexandru Sorin Pârvu, în vârsta de 26 de ani, persoana cu cazier judiciar extrem de periculoasa. Dupa doua zile, când politia Braila, a aflat ca victima se numea Sorin Pârvu, în vârsta de 30 de ani fara cazier judicial, purtatorul de cuvânt a revenit asupra declaratiilor facute si a afirmat ca victima ar fi lovit cu mâna arma politistului iar pistolul s-ar fi descarcat accidental.

In urma evenimentelor din data de 26 septembrie 2009 s-a constituit dosarul penal nr.1007/P/2009 aflat în stare de cercetare la Parchetul de pe Curtea de Apel Galati. În luna februarie, dupa aproape cinci luni de la incident familia a fost chemata sa aduca hainele în care era îmbracata victima la data de 26 septembrie 2009 si sa îsi dea acordul pentru reconstituire.

Familia victimei a solicitat în repetate rânduri sa fie informata despre stadiul anchetei. În luna aprilie sotia victimei a fost informata de procurorul de caz ca expertizele dispuse în cauza nu sunt finalizate.

Prin adresa nr.3963 din 6 mai 2010 Parchetul de pe lânga Înalta Curte de Casatie si Justitie i-a comunicat dnei Ana Bianca Pârvu ca plângerea ei privind stadiul anchetei a fost trimisa procurorului general al Parchetului de pe lânga Curtea de Apel Galati, unitate care îi va comunica raspunsul.

La data de 12 mai 2010 Parchetul de pe lânga Curtea de Apel Galati i-a comunicat dnei Ana Bianca Pârvu ca dosarul nr. 1007/P/2009 a fost înaintat, la data de 12.04.2010, la Parchetul de pe lânga Înalta Curte de Casatie si Justitie-Sectia de urmarire penala si criminalistica, pentru a se dispune cu privire la preluarea cauzei în vederea efectuarii urmaririi penale. Aceasta este ultima informatie primita de familia Parvu pâna la data redactarii acestui raport.

APADOR-CH aminteste ca revine statului obligatia de a desfasura o ancheta serioasa si aprofundata cu privire la circumstantele mortii unei persoane, potrivit jurisprudentei Curtii Europene a Drepturilor Omului organele de cercetare trebuie sa ofere o explicatie plauzibila privitoare la producerea decesului, în urma unei anchete ce trebuie sa fie finalizata într-un termen rezonabil.

În concluzie, APADOR-CH cere Parchetului de pe lânga Înalta Curte de Casatie si Justitie sa accelereze cercetarile cu privire la circumstantele si autorii implicati în incidentul din data de 26 septembrie 2009 a carui victima a fost Sorin Pârvu, dat fiind ca, dupa toate aparentele, agresorii, inclusiv persoana care l-a împuscat mortal pe Sorin Pârvu, sunt identificati, în plus exista martori oculari si fotografii facute imediat dupa incident, precum si numeroase acte si marturii medicale.

Cazul Gabriel Carabulea, torturat și omorât de polițiștii de la Secția 9

25/03/2010/in Abuzuri ale forțelor de ordine, /by Rasista

Sorry, this entry is only available in Română. 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.

Gabriel Carabulea (Bucuresti, 1996)

La 13 aprilie 1996, Gabriel Carabulea, urmarit de politistii de la sectia 9 pentru talharie, a ajuns la sectia 14 in urma unei coliziuni minore a masinii pe care o conducea cu un alt autoturism. A fost transferat in aceeasi zi la sectia 9 politie. La data de 16 aprilie 1996 a fost dus, in stare foarte grava (tensiunea 4) mai intai la Spitalul Penitenciar Bucuresti, unde nu a fost primit, si apoi la Spitalul Fundeni. A decedat pe data de 3 mai 1996. Sotia si cativa prieteni care au reusit sa discute cu Gabriel Carabulea doar atunci cand se deschidea usa salonului in care era internat sub paza, au afirmat ca tanarul le-a spus ca fost rulat intr-un covor si batut salbatic in sectia 9 Politie. Exista cateva fotografii facute de familie inainte de inmormantare care arata existenta unor echimoze pe picioare si la cap si a unui urias hematom in zona organelor genitale. Dupa o prima solutie de „neincepere a urmaririi penale” impotriva politistilor de la sectia 9, pe motiv ca Gabriel Carabulea ar fi decedat ca urmare a traumatismelor suferite in accidentul de masina avut pe data de 13 aprilie (!), a urmat infirmarea acestei decizii si dispunerea completarii investigatiilor.

La 21 ianuarie 1997, reprezentantii APADOR-CH au transmis Sectiei Parchetelor Militare din Bucuresti unele precizari privind cazul Carabulea:

„a) familia este nemultumita de rezultatele autopsiei, sustinand ca Gabriel Carabulea nu a fost niciodata bolnav si nici nu s-a plans vreodata de dureri. Hematomul din zona organelor genitale nu putea fi cauzat de o coliziune – destul de usoara – intre doua masini. Familia propune efectuarea unei noi autopsii;

b) familia sustine ca Ilie Mihai, complicele lui Gabriel Carabulea in acte de talharie, nu a fost audiat de procurorul militar insarcinat cu investigarea cazului, cu toate ca a fost de fata la interogarea lui G.C. in sectia de politie. Ilie Mihai se afla in prezent in arest preventiv la Penitenciarul Bucuresti. Familia propune audierea acestui martor important;

c) familia Carabulea nu cunoaste numele posesorului masinii Dacia cu care masina condusa de Gabriel Carabulea a intrat in coliziune in dimineata zilei de 13 aprilie 1996 cand a fost retinut de politistii de la sectia 14 Politie. La aceasta sectie trebuie sa existe datele legate de accidentul de circulatie si credem ca ar fi necesara audierea proprietarului Daciei pentru a se putea stabili cat de grav au fost avariate cele doua masini. Mai precizam ca masina pe care a condus-o Gabriel Carabulea a fost luata de la sectia de politie de fratele sau, autovehiculul avand doar bara din fata lovita si masca radiatorului usor infundata. Audierea proprietarului celeilalte masini ar ajuta la confirmarea sau infirmarea sustinerii politistilor de la sectia 9 – unde a fost transferat G.C. – conform careia decesul din 3 mai ar fi survenit in urma accidentului din 13 aprilie.”

Pana la sfarsitul anului 1997, APADOR-CH nu a fost informata asupra rezultatului completarii investigatiilor initiale ale Parchetului militar. Dupa parerea APADOR-CH, acesta este un caz deosebit de grav de tortura care a condus la moartea victimei.

Decizia CEDO – România condamnată pentru tortură

Pe data de 13 iulie 2010, Curtea Europeană a Drepturilor Omului s-a pronunţat în cauza Carabulea împotriva României şi a condamnat statul român pentru încălcarea dreptului la viaţă şi a dreptului de a nu fi supus torturii, tratamentelor inumane sau degradante . Reclamantul,
Viorel Carabulea, a fost susţinut în demersurile sale în faţa Curţii Europene
de APADOR-CH.

Reclamantul, Viorel Carabulea s-a plâns în faţa Curţii Europene, că fratele său, Gabriel
Carabulea, în vârstă de 27 de ani, a fost torturat de către ofiţeri de poliţie din Bucureşti, în perioada imediat următoare arestării sale şi a murit în custodia poliţiei în lipsa unui tratement medical corespunzător. Reclamantul s-a mai plâns şi de faptul că autorităţile române nu au făcut o anchetă imparţială şi eficientă care să identifice cauzele morţii lui Gabriel Carabulea. Faptele au avut loc în aprilie 1996.

Curtea Europeana a constatat încălcarea Art.2, 3 şi 13 din Convenţia Europeană. Curtea a considerat că moartea lui Gabriel Carabulea a survenit ca urmare a traumatismelor suferite de acesta în timp ce se afla în custodia poliţiei. Curtea a reţinut că autorităţile nu i-au acordat acestuia tratament medical corespunzător, nu au oferit „o explicaţie plauzibilă” pentru moartea sa şi nu au realizat o anchetă eficientă care să stabilească circumstanţele morţii lui Gabriel Carabulea In concluzie, statul român a fost găsit vinovat de încălcarea articolului 2 al Conventiei.

De asemenea, Curtea Europeana a Drepturilor Omului a concluzionat că Articolul 3 din Convenţia Europeană care garantează dreptul de a nu fi torturat a fost încălcat atât sub aspect material cât şi procedural. Faptul că reclamantul a fost lipsit de o cale de atac eficientă în privinţa decesului fratelui său în custodia poliţiei a determinat Curtea Europeană să constate că şi articolul 13 din Convenţie a fost încălcat.

APADOR-CH atrage atenţia că prin aceasta hotărâre statul român este condamnat pentru încălcarea unor drepturi fundamentale ale omului -dreptul la viaţă si dreptul de a nu fi torturat sau supus unor tratamente inumane sau degradante.

Textul integral al hotărârii Carabulea împotriva României (45661/99) este disponibil în limba
engleză pe e-ul www.echr.coe.int.

Annual report – 2010

06/03/2010/in Anuale /by Rasista

In 2010, 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

In the first half of 2010, APADOR-CH continued to monitor the debates on the new Criminal Code and the new Criminal Procedure Code in the Parliament. 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 were adopted.

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 June 2010, regarding the case Ciupercescu v. Romania on freedom of expression (15 June 2010). It was distributed to the media and posted on APADOR-CH’s web-page.

On 26 March 2010 APADOR-CH organized a public festivity to celebrate 20 years of activity. On this occasion a brochure with the major moments in the history of APADOR-CH was released and shall be further used for promotion.

In the first half of 2010, 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 ECHR cases, answering letters from individuals addressing APADOR-CH, organizing events and administrative matters.

In the second half of 2010, APADOR-CH’s efforts to strengthen the constituency for human rights with political actors, in media and with the general public were part of the ongoing advocacy activities, as well as of its reactions to human rights threats, which included repeated contacts with politicians and media. These activities are detailed under the respective objectives.

In addition, 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. The were … such newsletters during the reporting period, regarding the following cases:

– Carabulea v. Romania (ECHR judgement of 13 July 2010). The Court found violations of the right to life, of the prohibition of torture and of the right to effective remedies in the case of Mr. Carabulea, who was killed while in police custody in April 1996.

– Cucolas v. Romania (ECHR judgement of 26 October 2010). The Court found violations of the prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment for the detention conditions in which Mr. Cucolas was held while arrested on remand in Suceava, as well as in Botosani, Bucuresti-Jilava and Poarta Alba penitentiaries.

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

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

In the first half of 2010, 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. A conference was organized on 23 April 2010. Participants from NGOs and attorneys at law were invited as well as representatives of Bar associations. The aim of the conference was to disseminate the information regarding the legal network of attorneys trained during the project in the field of anti-discrimination and human rights as well as to encourage the victims of discrimination to take legal action, and seek remedy for the violation of their rights.

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 carried out an analysis by performing a review of legal regulatory framework and interviewed service providers for identifying the actual situation. APADOR-CH interviewed representatives of four service providers from Bucharest as it follows: one NGO, a facility of Ministry of Health, a center under the responsibility of General Inspectorate of Romanian Police (National Antidrug Agency) and a private clinic. APADOR-CH participated at the round-table organized on changing the Law no. 143/2000 on preventing and combating illicit drug use and traffic, among other representatives of NGO’s in the field of social services for IDU’s and representatives of authorities. It resulted in APADOR-Ch becoming part of a working group to develop three documents: a legislative proposal amending the Law no. 143/2000, proposals for changes that fall within the competence of central authorities and proposals to establish a coordination mechanism. The documents were finalized and posted on the website of online working group in March 2010.

In respect of the 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, during the reporting period APADOR-CH organized a training on advocacy with leader of 9 ARAS branches. Following the training a general advocacy plan was developed and then adapted by the 9 branches. In the second half of 2010, the ARAS branches shall each implement a locally tailored advocacy campaign.

In respect of the 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, during the reporting period APADOR-CH assisted 9 ARAS branches to implement locally tailored advocacy campaigns in order to convince local authorities to support (including financially) the services for HIV/AIDS individuals and risk groups. The budgetary crisis in Romania drastically affected the success of these efforts. Nevertheless, ARAS Timisoara managed to sign a protocol with the local council in Lugoj and ARAS Bucharest gain the financial support of the Sector 3 Local Council for one project. ARAS Bucharest also filled a request for funds to the City-Hall based on the advocacy campaign plan developed together with APADOR-CH. The lessons learned during the implementation of the advocacy plans were discussed with all ARAS branches during a meeting organized by APADOR-CH in Bucharest on 8 October 2010.

Another result of the above-mentioned project was the drafting of a report on the state of affairs as regards the involvement of public authorities in supporting services for vulnerable groups. It was one of the first efforts to document extensively this field, which completely lacks transparency. The report was launched during a press conference, organized on 8 November and which enjoyed large press coverage both in the general media and the medical one. The report was later distributed to all county councils (42), all municipal councils (102), to central authorities with responsibilities in this area (the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labor and the National Agency for Persons with Disabilities). In addition the report was distributed locally to other NGOs, decision-makers and journalists and can be read on the APADOR-CH’s own web-site.

During the reporting period, APADOR-CH continued to represent Roma victims of forced evictions in Tulcea in a civil case against the local authorities. 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.

On 11-12 December 2010, one representative of APADOR-CH delivered a presentation on the discrimination of HIV infected individuals in Romania during a conference organized in Moldova by the Institute for Human Rights.

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

In the first semester of 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.

In the second semester of 2010 APADOR-CH continued to participate 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.

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. The project proposal was short listed by the CEE Trust. If funded the project shall be implemented in 2011. If no funding is secured for the project, APADOR-CH shall implement those activities that do not require extensive additional funding.

Objective 4: Increasing transparency of administration

As regards project aimed at involving the youth organizations and the young people in using the transparency laws, in the first semester of 2010 APADOR-CH developed instruments for teaching young people (high-school students) about the transparency laws, in cooperation with school inspectorates and youth organizations.

As regards project aimed at involving the youth organizations and the young people in using the transparency laws, in September-October 2010 APADOR-CH held 13 classes on civil rights and transparency in 4 high-schools in Bucharest. A brochure contacting the main provisions of the laws on transparency was also drafted and distributed to high-school students as well as to teachers in 18 high-schools in Bucharest.

APADOR-CH experience in this project was transferred to 22 youth NGOs, during a fall school which took place on 14-16 October 2010. A guide for the NGOs was drafted and distributed as well. 8 of the trained NGOs further implemented the project locally, by holding their own classes on transparency to high-school students. Via the 22 NGOs trained more than 5000 brochures on transparency were distributed to high-school students and teachers all over the country.

Objective 5: Improving reasoning and transparency of judicial decisions

During the reporting period, APADOR-CH monitored the new portal of judicial decisions, set up by the Ministry of Justice. As the portal provides little information as compared to its aims (i.e. publishing all relevant decisions), APADOR-CH prepared a request for information to be sent to the Ministry of Justice and the Superior Council of Magistrates on the matter. It shall be revised and sent out as soon as APADOR-CH forms a documented opinion based on its monitoring of the portal.

During the reporting period, APADOR-CH continued to monitor the new portal of judicial decisions, set up by the Ministry of Justice. APADOR-CH also started discussions with the National Institute for Magistrates for implementing a joint project to increase the quality of the judgements, which was not yet finalized.

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

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. In the first half of 2010, APADOR-CH collected data on such obstacles via legal analysis and requests for information. A guide for interviewing NGOs was also designed and shall be use in collecting further data on the exact problems NGOs are facing.

APADOR-CH continued to implement the project on identifying and removing legal and practical obstacles in exercising the freedom of associations via NGOs. In July-August 2010 50 NGOs were extensively interviewed on the legal problems and state interferences they encounter during their day-to-day activities. The obtained information regarded the setting up of associations and foundations, the allowed names for NGOs, the practices on receiving donations and sponsorships, the use of volunteers, the excessive and unevenly applied requirement of obtaining fiscal records for founding members and new members of associations, the excessive obligations for NGOs under the Law on Money Laundering and the Law on Personal Data etc. All the problems identified during the interviews as well of those identified in the first semester of the year via legal analysis and request for information to courts and central authorities were put together in a catalogue of NGOs problems.

The problems were further discussed with NGOs’ representatives and those of the authorities in a two-days conference/workshop (5-6 October 2010). A position paper on the solution identified was drafted and used in further advocacy efforts of APADOR-CH. The paper was also distributed to NGOs and authorities and published on the association’s web-site. Seven draft laws with amendments to existing legislation affecting NGOs were also drafted. They were sent to members of Parliament and further face-to-face meeting were held with MPs, representatives of the Ministry of Justice, General Secretariat of the Government, National Fiscal Administration. These meetings resulted in 6 MPs accepting APADOR-CH’s proposals. The draft laws were lodged with the Parliament on 14 December 2010 and on 15 December 2010 APADOR-CH held a press conference in this respect.

The amendments to be discussed by the Parliament regard: 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.

In addition, APADOR-CH drafted a practical guide for NGOs on their legal obligations. 3000 copies were distributed in November-December 2010. The guide can also be found on www.apador.org.

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 June-July 2010 APADOR-CH and CREDO drafted a plan for a comparative study on freedom of assembly in Bucharest and Chisinau. The comparative study will be finalized in December 2010. In September 2010, APADOR-CH organized a study visit for 4 representatives of Moldovan public authorities to their counterparts in Bucharest. The visit took place between 20-23 September 2010. On 9 and 10 December 2010, APADOR-CH participated, together with two representatives of Romanian authorities, in a monitoring visit to Chisinau.

Objective 7: Reacting to human rights threats

During the reporting period, the main difficulty in reacting to human rights threats was 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 politician, in order to avoid accusations of political bias.

On 13 April 2010, APADOR-CH protested against the National Administration of Penitentiaries’ initiative to change the framework on medical assistance of detainees. In 2006, as a result of years of APADOR-CH pressure, the legal framework had been changed so that only detainees received medical assistance from the medical prison staff. In April, the NAP initiative was aimed at reversing this important achievement, meaning the already insufficient medical staff should provide assistance to both detainees and prison staff.

On 28 April 2010, APADOR-CH sent comments regarding the draft order of the Ministry of Justice on the Rules on the Safety of Detention Places. The main problems identified by APADOR-CH regarded the classification of detainees as dangerous and the breaches to confidentiality of phone talks and of the meetings with the judges in charge of supervising places of detention.

In April 2010, APADOR-CH issued a report on the death of Sorin Parvu (in September 2009) shot dead by the police in his car, in Braila. In April 2010, the APADOR-CH representatives had a meeting with the relatives of the deceased and, as no progress was made in respect of sending the culprit to justice, decided to release its report as a form of pressuring the authorities to act.

In May 2010, APADOR-CH visited the arrest of the 13 Police Precinct in Bucharest, following reports on the lack of medical assistance to individuals deprived of liberty. A report on the visit was issued and sent to the competent authorities.

In June 2010, APADOR-CH addressed the NAP with a requested for information on the death of detainee Constantin Sandu in Galati Prison on 4 June 2010. The answered received mentioned that 11 employees of the prison are under criminal investigation for the incident. APADOR-CH shall continue to monitor the case.

On 24 June 2010, APADOR-CH joined a protest initiated by Active Watch against the mentioning of the media in the National Strategy on Defence, as a threat to national security. APADOR-CH decided to join the protest of media organizations although it already prepared its own protest, in order to increase impact. Nevertheless APADOR-CH shall monitor the strategy once in the Parliament on its own and pressure the MPs to eliminate any reference to the media as a threat to national security.

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, at first 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).

One of the APADOR-CH’s main concerns during the reporting period was related to the legislation on the identification cards and that on medical card, to include, in the future, biometric and other personal data. On one hand the authorities did not provide any guarantee in respect of safeguarding the right to private life once this system is in place. On the other hand various religious groups expressed objections to having such electronic identification cards due to their religious beliefs. Nevertheless, the authorities ignored such complaints and did not provide alternatives for such persons (as it was the case with biometric passports, where one can obtain a temporary passport without biometric data included).

In respect of the electronic identification card, on 16 August 2010 APADOR-CH requested the Ministry of Interior and Administration to organize a public debate on the draft Government Ordinance on these cards. It also publicly protested (on 20 August) against the initiative to pass such legislation via a Government Ordinance and issued its comments on the draft. The public debate was held on 20 August 2010 and led to the withdrawal of the draft Ordinance, which was transformed into a draft law to be discussed by the Parliament. The draft-law included the possibility of opting between an electronic card and a classic one, without biometric data. At this point, the new draft is about to be sent to the Parliament.

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. Until the present the draft was not adopted and 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 17 August 2010, APADOR-CH addressed the members of the parliamentary commissions discussing the National Defence Strategy with the request to eliminate any reference to the media as a vulnerability to the national security.

At the end of September 2010 APADOR-CH received complaints from the families of several detainees from Targsor Penitentiary, that on 20 September 2010 around 10 detainees were aggressed and then transferred to other prisons. On 22 September 2010 APADOR-CH addressed the National Administration of Penitentiaries on the issue, receiving the official position on 6 October 2010. One of the detainees lodged a criminal complaint for aggression. APADOR-CH continues to monitor the case, being in contact with the respective families.

On 25 September 2010, APADOR-CH joined a protest initiated by four Romanian media NGOs against the draft European Directive on combating child pornography. This directive contained provisions on blocking access to web-sites (leading to a form of censorship of the Internet). The organizations propose that such web-sites should be deleted and gave examples of banking phishing sites, which are deleted on average in 4 hours. The child pornography sites are, at present deleted on average in 4 days. The inefficiency of the authorities’ response in case of child pornography should not lead to measures that can open the door to the increased censorship of the Internet.

On 30 September 2010 protested against the draft order of the Ministry of Health, limiting the access to public information. Until the present the order has not been adopted. On 11 November 2010 APADOR-CH issued a press release, protesting against the brutalities of the gendarmes against the football supporters during a match in Bucharest.

On 15 November APADOR-CH joined the initiative of Publish What You Fund (London) to push for aid transparency and mutual accountability at the European level, by signing a letter addressed to European commissioners Ashton, Piebalgs and Georgieva. On 30 November 2010, APADOR-CH joined Access-Info Europe and Regards Citoyens in a protest against the newly proposed amendment to the French national security law will severely damage the right of access to information and would also create more obstacles for the development of a French open government data movement. This included addressing a letter to the French MPs discussing the proposed amendment.

As regards, APADOR-CH’s efforts to the challenge the authorities’ lack of investigations into the accusations of Romania being a part of the CIA rendition program, in July 2010 APADOR-CH lodged court complaints on the refusals of several authorities (the Senate, Mihail Koglaniceanu and Baneasa Airport and the Ministry of Defence) to release information on the institution that classified the annexes to the Senatorial Commission of Enquiry into the allegations as well as on the whereabouts of these documents (for the moment every authority involved claims they do not hold them). The first hearings were scheduled for April 2011. Once APADOR-CH obtains such information it can start the declassification procedures. As regards 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, APADOR-CH’s appeal was dismissed on 23 September 2010. 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.

In respect of people addressing APADOR-CH with problems related to human rights, between September and 15 December 2010, around 75 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. 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. By the end of December 2010 APADOR-CH will also lodge a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. It shall be a test case as Mr. Garcea has no relatives and APADOR-CH shall lodge 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.

APADOR-CH also continued to represent Mr. Marinescu in domestic procedures regarding his 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.