Archive for category: Rapoarte

Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian. 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.

CUPRINS

I. INTRODUCERE

II. PROMOVAREA DREPTURILOR OMULUI PRIN LEGISLATIE

III. PRESA SI LIBERTATEA DE EXPRIMARE

IV. RELATIA POLITIE – PERSOANE FIZICE

V. PROBLEME DIN PENITENCIARE

VI. MINORITATILE IN ROMANIA
1. Minoritati nationale
2. Minoritati sexuale
3. Minoritati religioase

VII. REFUGIATII IN ROMANIA

VIII. ALEGERI 1996

IX. ALTE ACTIVITATI
1. Centrul pentru Drepturile Omului
2. Cazuri in atentia APADOR-CH
3. Programul “Moldova 95/96”
4. Programul “Drepturile omului si securitatea regionala in sud-estul Europei”

I. INTRODUCERE

Anul 1996 a fost, pentru Romania, anul schimbarii pasnice a puterii, element esential al unei democratii functionale. In afara acestei realizari insa, situatia drepturilor omului nu a inregistrat nici o evolutie spectaculoasa, ea inscriindu-se pe linia celei din anii precedenti.

Evenimentul legislativ cel mai important, in sensul coborarii standardelor drepturilor omului, a fost adoptarea legilor de modificare a Codului penal si a Codului de procedura penala. In felul acesta a devenit posibil ca diferenta dintre protectia persoanei obisnuite si cea a functionarului public, favorizandu-l pe cel din urma, sa fie masurata in ani de inchisoare, iar ingerinta in viata privata prin ascultarea telefoanelor si deschiderea corespondentei sa fie admisa “in vederea prevenirii savarsirii de infractiuni”, deci impotriva oricui, oricand si pentru orice. Tot astfel, dezvaluirea unor afaceri murdare in care ar fi implicati oameni de stat poate fi lesne socotita “ofensa adusa autoritatii”, ceea ce se pedepseste cu ani grei de inchisoare, iar dreptul la asociere le este interzis homosexualilor in dispretul total al prevederilor constitutionale.

Tendintelor legislative de acest tip li s-a adaugat initiativa Guvernului de a emite ordonante de urgenta in materia legilor organice, procedura acceptata de Parlament si devenita obisnuinta, chiar daca ea contravine principiului separarii puterilor in stat.

Incalcarile drepturilor omului au continuat. Gravitatea cazurilor aduse la cunostinta APADOR-CH, in special ale celor care au implicat politisti, jandarmi, gardieni publici, a crescut. In cateva actiuni acestia au folosit arme de foc care au facut victime.

Nici in anul 1996 nu au fost elaborate instrumentele si nu au fost construite institutiile constitutionale menite sa asigure exercitarea unor drepturi ale cetatenilor (legea accesului la informatie, legea si institutia avocatului poporului, legea raspunderii ministeriale etc).

In ceea ce priveste rolul Justitiei, este de remarcat ca abia in luna iulie 1996 judecatorii au fost declarati inamovibili. Acest fapt nu a determinat o sporire a increderii cetatenilor in actul de justitie ca atare. Evenimentele cele mai importante raman primele decizii ale Comisiei Europene pentru Drepturile Omului de admitere in principiu a unor plangeri inaintate impotriva statului roman. Chiar daca e vorba de o instanta supranationala, este de sperat ca ea va avea un impact major atat asupra victimelor din Romania, cat si asupra instantelor de judecata nationale.

Reactionand la aceste provocari, APADOR-CH a fost constant prezenta si activa in viata publica. Trebuie astfel mentionate relatiile foarte bune pe care asociatia le-a dezvoltat cu presa scrisa si audio-vizuala, esentiale pentru promovarea in constiinta publica a valorilor drepturilor omului. Activitatea APADOR-CH – materializata in investigatii, rapoarte, studii, comentarii, intalniri, mese rotunde, editarea Revistei Romane de Drepturile Omului si suplimentele ei – a avut in vedere ca realizarea statului de drept constituie o conditie sine qua non a respectarii drepturilor omului.

II. PROMOVAREA DREPTURILOR OMULUI PRIN LEGISLATIE

Programul APADOR-CH de monitorizare a felului in care Parlamentul respecta valorile si principiile drepturilor omului a continuat pe tot parcursul anului 1996. Se poate afirma ca provocarile la adresa drepturilor si libertatilor s-au manifestat in activitatea legislativa la fel de des ca in anii precedenti. Trebuie semnalata in particular adoptarea, in 1996, a legilor prin care s-au adus modificari Codului penal si Codului de procedura penala. Rezultatul este o legislatie penala ce contravine, intr-o proportie covarsitoare, principiilor care trebuie sa guverneze un regim democratic.

1. Legea partidelor politice

In 1995 Camera Deputatilor a fost sesizata cu un proiect de lege privind organizarea si functionarea partidelor politice. Ideea de baza a acestei reglementari era de a scoate partidele politice din sfera societatii civile – unde, firesc, aparusera – si a le transfera in sfera autoritatii publice, prin transformarea lor in persoane juridice de drept public. Au fost aduse argumente in favoarea avantajelor pe care un asemenea statut l-ar putea conferi, cele mai importante tinand de reglementarea aspectelor financiare. APADOR-CH a semnalat insa dezavantajul major, decurgand din stabilirea unor reguli imperative privind organizarea si functionarea partidelor politice. La inceputul anului 1996 proiectul de lege, astfel cum fusese adoptat de Camera Deputatilor, a fost trimis spre dezbatere Senatului. APADOR-CH a elaborat un comunicat pe care l-a transmis senatorilor si presei.

COMUNICAT AL APADOR-CH

in legatura cu

PROIECTUL LEGII PARTIDELOR POLITICE

La 21 noiembrie 1995 Camera Deputatilor a adoptat proiectul Legii partidelor politice, text de lege care urmeaza sa fie dezbatut de catre Senat. El introduce unele modificari majore fata de legislatia actuala, care vor afecta evolutia societatii civile din Romania.

La baza proiectului de lege se afla intelegerea gresita a notiunilor de “societate civila” si “stat”, ca si a raportului dintre ele. Societatea civila, care cuprinde totalitatea formelor de autoorganizare a societatii, se deosebeste de stat, care este o organizatie politica si juridica indreptatita sa ceara supunere cetatenilor sai, si este reprezentat prin autoritatile sale. Prin modul lor de constituire, de functionare, ca si prin rolul pe care il au, partidele fac parte din societatea civila si nu se confunda cu autoritatile statului. Ele participa in alegeri si astfel, din randurile lor, sunt desemnati cei care vor face parte din autoritatile legislative sau executive, dar ele, ca structuri independente, nu fac parte ca atare din autoritatile statului.

Conform art. 1 al proiectului de lege, partidele politice, desi asociatii ale cetatenilor, sunt definite ca “persoane juridice de drept public”. Asadar, ele sunt scoase din sfera societatii civile, nemaifiind persoane juridice de drept privat, asa cum prevedea Legea nr. 21/1924 si Decretul-lege nr. 8/1989.

Raporturile de drept public sunt insa raporturi juridice de autoritate care presupun, pe de o parte, posibilitatea de a impune respectarea unor norme juridice, iar pe de alta parte existenta unui raport, fie de egalitate, fie de subordonare fata de celelalte autoritati ale statului. Caracteristic pentru raporturile de drept public este guvernarea lor de catre norme de drept imperative. Legislatia actuala stabileste pentru organizarea si functionarea partidelor politice, prin norme permisive, numai cateva cerinte obligatorii, mai mult procedurale decat de substanta. Spre deosebire de acestea, proiectul de lege introduce foarte multe norme imperative care reglementeaza functionarea partidelor, determinandu-le organizarea si stabilindu-le competenta.

Astfel, se stabileste ca partidele se organizeaza si functioneaza pe criteriul administrativ-teritorial, criteriu ce si-ar gasi locul intr-o lege a administratiei publice locale, dar in nici un caz intr-o lege care se refera la dreptul de asociere al cetatenilor, asa cum este el reglementat de art. 37 din Constitutie (art. 6 alin. 1). Interventia criteriului teritorial determina prevederi imperative in legatura cu numarul de membri in fiecare judet (art. 17). Proiectul de lege impune ca organizarea structurilor care se vor ocupa de problemele unei anumite categorii sociale sau profesionale sa se poata realiza numai in cadrul organizatiilor teritoriale (art. 6 alin. 3). Conform art. 2, partidele politice “organizeaza initiativa legislativa a cetatenilor”, ceea ce reprezinta o grava incalcare a art. 73 din Constitutie.

Un numar foarte mare de articole sunt dedicate chestiunilor ce tin exclusiv de viata interna a partidelor, normele fiind, si de aceasta data, imperative: structura organelor de conducere, prevederea, in statut, a drepturilor, a obligatiilor si a sanctiunilor, obligativitatea votului secret, stabilirea prin lege – si nu prin statut – a criteriilor de excludere a membrilor de partid, obligatia de a prevedea in statut dreptul fiecarui membru de partid la initiativa politica si obligatia partidului de a lua in discutie parerile fiecarui membru etc.

Se creeaza astfel, prin lege, un partid-cadru, multiplicat in cateva exemplare. Criteriul ideologic nu mai are nici o relevanta, iar alegatorii nu mai au nici o posibilitate de a vedea in ce masura principiile democratice sunt sau nu insusite de partide. Credibilitatea partidelor nu mai are cum sa joace vreun rol cu ocazia alegerilor. Toate partidele sunt obligate sa aiba aceleasi reguli, acelasi comportament, considerat de proiectul de lege ca democratic, desi in realitate, in acest mod, se incalca un drept fundamental care sta la baza democratiei, dreptul la asociere.

Transformarea partidelor politice in persoane juridice de drept public nu este insa facuta fara un pret: subventionarea lor de la bugetul de stat, in functie de numarul de parlamentari pe care il au. Este evident ca actualele partide parlamentare au dorinta elaborarii unei legi care sa le avantajeze si sa excluda din start orice posibila viitoare concurenta.

Dar restrictiile aduse prin acest proiect de lege exercitarii dreptului la asociere sunt in afara cadrului stabilit de insasi legea fundamentala, prin art. 49. Avand in vedere ca adevaratul pret al acestei noi conceptii despre partidele politice il va plati societatea civila romaneasca, APADOR-CH solicita Senatului sa nu adopte acest proiect de lege, dand astfel dovada ca respecta Constitutia tarii in litera si spiritul ei.

1 februarie 1996

Consiliul de conducere

Proiectul de lege a fost adoptat insa de Senat asa cum fusese adoptat si de Camera Deputatilor. In final, numarul de membri cerut pentru constituirea unui partid politic a fost stabilit la 10.000 iar dispozitiile imperative enumerate mai sus au fost mentinute. Desi legea prevedea un termen pentru reinscrierea partidelor politice deja existente, Guvernul Romaniei a elaborat o Ordonanta de urgenta, fixand un alt termen limita pana la care urmau sa se (re)inscrie partidele doritoare sa participe la alegerile parlamentare din 3 noiembrie 1996.

Cateva observatii trebuie facute in legatura cu acest aspect. In primul rand, Ordonanta de urgenta era neconstitutionala, conform art. 114 (1) din Constitutie Guvernul putand fi abilitat de catre Parlament sa elaboreze ordonante numai in domenii care nu fac obiectul legilor organice. Cu atat mai putin ar fi putut Guvernul sa adopte ordonante de urgenta (care se emit in cazuri exceptionale si fara sa existe o lege speciala de abilitare – art. 114 [4]) in domenii care se reglementeaza prin lege organica, asa cum este cazul partidelor politice. Explicatia data de catre Guvern, si cu care Parlamentul a fost multumit, a fost ca “isi asuma raspunderea” pentru acest gest.

O alta observatie priveste situatia reala existenta dupa intrarea in vigoare a legii. Inaintea alegerilor din toamna anului 1996 au fost inregistrate 50 de partide politice, fiecare avand minimum 10.000 de membri. Nu exista date privind felul in care au fost verificate listele de membri la momentul inregistrarii, dar rezultatele alegerilor sugereaza ca multe partide au prezentat liste cuprinzand persoane fictive. Din partidele angajate in cursa electorala au trecut pragul de 3%, reusind sa patrunda in Parlament doar 10, cu precizarea ca unele din ele au reusit aceasta performanta numai datorita apartenentei la o coalitie. Alte aproape 30 de partide au obtinut sub 10.000 de voturi pe intreaga tara, deci sub numarul de membri pe care ele, obligatoriu, l-ar avea. In acelasi timp, rezultatul alegerilor dovedeste ca reglementarile imperative nu au dat rezultatul asteptat, ceea ce este firesc, intrucat seriozitatea unui partid nu poate fi impusa prin lege si nu este data numai de numarul de membri.

2. Legea privind regimul strainilor in Romania

In cursul anului 1995, Senatul Romaniei adoptase proiectul de lege privind regimul strainilor, act normativ continand cateva prevederi incompatibile cu spiritul si valorile drepturilor omului. Proiectul a intrat in atentia APADOR-CH in momentul cand se afla deja pe agenda de lucru a Camerei Deputatilor. Avand in vedere timpul scurt si declaratiile favorabile facute de oamenii politici pe marginea textului, APADOR-CH nu a mai recurs la mijloacele sale clasice de actiune – intalniri cu parlamentarii, analize exhaustive – ci a elaborat un Protest pe care l-a difuzat urgent prin mass-media.

PROTEST AL APADOR-CH

in legatura cu

REGIMUL STRAINILOR IN ROMANIA

Parlamentul Romaniei finalizeaza in aceste zile proiectul de Lege privind regimul strainilor in Romania, act normativ care, daca va fi adoptat in forma actuala, va face din Romania una din cele mai neprimitoare tari ale continentului european.

Intr-un moment in care interesul national si obiectivul principal de politica externa al Romaniei este integrarea in structurile Uniunii Europene si NATO, proiectul de lege are un puternic caracter xenofob prin conditiile impuse strainilor aflati pe teritoriul Romaniei, precum si prin restrictiile aduse exercitarii de catre ei a unor drepturi ale omului si libertati fundamentale.

Strainii care intra pe teritoriul Romaniei au obligatia ca, in termen de 48 de ore, sa se prezinte la organul de politie, pentru a-si anunta prezenta, aceeasi obligatie revenind si persoanelor fizice sau juridice care acorda gazduirea (art. 15). Proiectul de lege excepteaza de la indeplinirea acestei obligatii persoanele venite in tara in delegatii oficiale sau la invitatia organelor de stat ale Romaniei. Aceasta reprezinta o discriminare a strainilor care doresc sa vina in Romania ca turisti, sau in vizita, si care exercita astfel un drept fundamental prevazut de legislatia internationala a drepturilor omului: libertatea de miscare. Discriminarea are la baza instituirea unei suspiciuni fata de cei care vin pe teritoriul Romaniei altfel decat oficial, dand astfel un puternic caracter xenofob reglementarii regimului juridic al strainilor.

Varianta adoptata de Senat, si aflata inca in dezbaterea Camerei Deputatilor, interzice strainilor sa faca parte din partidele sau gruparile politice existente in tara, precum si sa initieze sau sa organizeze “manifestatii si intruniri cu caracter politic” – in orice conditii, deci inclusiv atunci cand siguranta nationala sau ordinea publica nu sunt afectate (art. 2). Intr-o Europa in care schimbul de informatii si de know-how, inclusiv in domeniul politic, sta la baza relatiilor dintre societatile civile ale diferitelor tari, Romania isi inchide frontierele, cel putin din punct de vedere politic.

Proiectul de lege prevede, de asemenea, restrangerea libertatii de miscare pe teritoriul Romaniei. Conform art. 37, in varianta adoptata de Senat, Ministerul de Interne poate limita deplasarea strainilor, sau le poate stabili temporar domiciliul sau resedinta in anumite zone sau localitati, pentru considerente ce intereseaza apararea sigurantei nationale, a ordinii, a linistii, a sanatatii sau a moralei publice, a drepturilor si libertatilor cetatenilor. Camera Deputatilor a adaugat precizarea ca toate aceste situatii vor fi stabilite prin hotarare a Guvernului.

Chiar daca varianta Camerei Deputatilor prevede ca impotriva actului administrativ de restrictionare a libertatii de miscare, emis in baza hotararii Guvernului, strainul poate face contestatie la instanta judecatoreasca, art. 37 din proiectul de lege intra in contradictie cu Protocolul 4 al Conventiei Europene a Drepturilor Omului. In conformitate cu prevederile art. 2 paragraful 3 din Protocol, exercitarea dreptului la libertatea de miscare “nu poate face obiectul altor restrangeri decat acelea care, prevazute de lege, constituie masuri necesare intr-o societate democratica…”. Ambele variante ale Parlamentului incalca cerinta fundamentala ca aceste masuri sa fie expres prevazute de lege, atat Ministerul de Interne cat si Guvernul Romaniei facand parte din autoritatea executiva a statului, distincta de cea legislativa. Prin proiectul de lege se incalca insusi principiul fundamental care sta la baza statului de drept, acela al separatiei puterilor in stat.

APADOR-CH cere Parlamentului sa nu adopte Proiectul de lege privind regimul strainilor in Romania in forma sa actuala si sa ii aduca acele modificari care sunt necesare pentru asigurarea principiului suprematiei Constitutiei, pentru asigurarea concordantei dintre legile interne si legislatia internationala de drepturile omului ratificata de Romania si devenita astfel parte a dreptului nostru intern.

APADOR-CH cere Parlamentului sa nu prejudicieze sansa Romaniei de a fi considerata un stat democratic si de drept, partener egal al celorlalte state europene, ci sa o sprijine prin adoptarea unei legislatii moderne, in spiritul respectului drepturilor omului.

14 februarie 1996

Consiliul de conducere

Preluat de catre aproape toata presa scrisa, Protestul a avut un impact major, cateva zile mai tarziu Camera Deputatilor respingand proiectul de lege.

3. Codul penal si Codul de procedura penala

Cea mai semnficativa interventie legislativa a anului 1996, vadind lipsa de respect fata de ideea statului de drept si dispret fata de valorile drepturilor omului, ramane modificarea Codului penal si a Codului de procedura penala.

Tentativa de modificare a celor doua coduri a avut o lunga istorie. Legea de modificare a fost trimisa Parlamentului in 1993, votata de Senat si respinsa de Camera Deputatilor, in 1994. Retrimisa Senatului, ea a fost, din nou, adoptata de acesta si respinsa de Camera Deputatilor, pentru a doua oara, in 1995. Conform Constitutiei, o a doua respingere era definitiva. Evident, acest lucru nu insemna ca cele doua coduri nu mai puteau fi modificate, ci ca ar fi trebuit sa fie elaborata o noua lege de modificare, cu un spirit total diferit de cel al legii anterioare.

La inceputul anului 1996, doi senatori, avand functia de presedinte si, respectiv, vicepresedinte, ai Comisiei juridice a Senatului, au recurs la un truc: au luat textul adoptat de Senat si au separat proiectul de lege in doua propuneri de modificare, una a Codului penal, alta a Codului de procedura penala. Pentru a da impresia ca ne aflam in fata unei initiatiave legislative noi au marit insa cuantumul unor pedepse, asta in ciuda faptului ca legislatia penala era si asa foarte severa. (Pentru analiza de fond a modificarilor propuse, a se vedea Raportul APADOR-CH pe anul 1995.)

O prima actiune a APADOR-CH a fost aceea de a atrage atentia opiniei publice in legatura cu ilegalitatea comisa de cei doi senatori.

SFIDAREA CONSTITUTIEI ROMANIEI

Comunicat al APADOR-CH

privind propunerile legislative de modificare

a Codului penal si a Codului de procedura penala

La 1 februarie 1996 senatorii Ion Predescu si Valer Suian au trimis Biroului permanent al Senatului doua proiecte de lege – propuneri legislative – privind modificarea si completarea Codului penal si a Codului de procedura penala, solicitand dezbaterea lor in procedura de urgenta. Cele doua texte reiau varianta adoptata de Senatul Romaniei in 1995 si respinsa de Camera Deputatilor, singurele schimbari vizand majorarea, in unele cazuri, a pedepselor.

Conform art. 75 din Constitutie “Proiectele de legi sau propunerile legislative adoptate de una din Camere se trimit celeilalte Camere a Parlamentului. Daca aceasta din urma respinge proiectul de lege sau propunerea legislativa, ele se trimit, pentru o noua dezbatere, Camerei care le-a adoptat. O noua respingere este definitiva”. Proiectul de modificare a Codului penal si a Codului de procedura penala a fost adoptat prima data de Senatul Romaniei in 1994, fiind respins, in acelasi an, de Camera Deputatilor. Adoptat inca o data de Senat in 1995, el a fost, pentru a doua oara, respins de Camera Deputatilor. Aceasta a doua respingere este, conform legii fundamentale, definitiva. O noua incercare de modificare si completare a celor doua coduri poate fi luata in discutie numai daca este substantial diferita de cea anterioara, atat in litera cat si in spiritul ei.

Demersul celor doi senatori de a prezenta propuneri legislative care reiau o varianta respinsa deja de doua ori de Parlamentul Romaniei este vadit anticonstitutional. Mai mult, el demonstreaza o sfidare a Constitutiei Romaniei, cu atat mai grava cu cat vine din partea unor membri ai forului legiuitor.

APADOR-CH atrage atentia cu privire la pericolul in care se afla statul de drept in Romania, prin incercari de felul acesta, si cere Senatului sa le sanctioneze si sa salveze principiul suprematiei Constitutiei, prin respingerea de plano a celor doua propuneri legislative.

14 februarie 1996

Consiliul de conducere

Desi reactia jurnalistilor a fost peste asteptari, Comunicatul fiind preluat de mai toate ziarele centrale, cei doi senatori au profitat de pozitiile lor in Comisa juridica a Senatului si au considerat ca initiativa lor legislativa era foarte buna, astfel ca cele doua texte de lege (discutate tot timpul impreuna) au fost trimise Plenului Senatului si au fost, din nou, votate de aceasta Camera.

In preajma alegerilor parlamentare, proiectele de lege se aflau deja pe agenda Camerei Deputatilor unde, spre deosebire de anii anteriori, s-a manifestat un curent favorabil adoptarii modificarilor, din considerente preponderent electorale. In plus, principalul partid de opozitie de la acea data, Partidul National Taranesc – Crestin Democrat, a declarat ca va vota in favoarea legilor de modificare daca se va opta pentru mentinerea incriminarii relatiilor homosexuale (care au loc in intimitate, intre adulti care consimt). In acest context, APADOR-CH a lansat un apel partidelor din Camera Deputatilor, atragand atentia asupra gravitatii adoptarii unor legi intr-o procedura si cu un continut anticonstitutional.

APEL

al Comitetului Roman Helsinki

in legatura cu propunerea legislativa

de modificare a Codului penal

Zilele acestea Camera Deputatilor a luat in discutie propunerea legislativa de modificare a Codului penal. Aceasta este o reluare a proiectului de lege respins deja in doua randuri de Camera Deputatilor. Conform art. 75 din Constitutie, “Proiectele de legi sau propunerile legislative adoptate de una din camere se trimit celeilalte Camere a Parlamentului. Daca aceasta din urma respinge proiectul de lege sau propunerea legislativa, ele se retrimit, pentru o noua dezbatere, Camerei care le-a adoptat. O noua respingere este definitiva.” Proiectul de modificare a Codului penal si a Codului de procedura penala a fost respins de Camera Deputatilor in 1994 si 1995. O noua incercare de modificare si completare a celor doua coduri este admisibila numai daca textul este substantial diferit de cel anterior, atat in litera cat si in spiritul lui. Altfel, prevederea constitutionala este golita de continut.

Actuala propunere legislativa pastreaza in intregime spiritul proiectului deja respins si reia intr-o proportie covarsitoare textul anterior. Initiatorii, domnii Ion Predescu si Valer Suian, au despartit proiectul anterior in doua, elaborand doua propuneri legislative, cate una pentru fiecare cod, fara ca prin aceasta sa modifice substanta textului, astfel ca initiativa lor reprezinta o sfidare a Constitutiei Romaniei. Modificarea Codului penal in aceste conditii ar avea consecinte dintre cele mai grave pentru Romania. In primul rand, ar reprezenta o subminare a statului de drept, prin incalcarea Constitutiei. In acelasi timp, datorita faptului ca unele articole contravin prevederilor Conventiei europene a drepturilor omului si jurisprudentei Curtii Europene a Drepturilor Omului, Romania va fi perceputa ca o tara care nu respecta nici angajamentele pe care si le-a asumat si nici legislatia internationala pe care a acceptat-o. In plus, modificarea Codului penal acum si in asemenea circumstante ar submina in mod evident credibilitatea Romaniei ca tara in masura a-si asuma responsabilitatea integrarii euro-atlantice.

Comitetul Helsinki Roman face apel la Camera Deputatilor sa respinga actuala propunere de modificare a Codului penal.

13 septembrie 1996

Consiliul de conducere

Din nefericire, apropierea alegerilor a fost hotaratoare, deputatii considerand ca au obligatia de “a da” electoratului un Cod penal extrem de sever si ca astfel vin in intampinarea asteptarilor populatiei. Modificarea Codului penal s-a realizat numai cu sapte voturi impotriva, iar cea a Codului de procedura penala cu 14 voturi impotriva – din numarul celor prezenti in sala la momentul votului.

Pentru anul 1997 si anii urmatori, APADOR-CH isi propune sa promoveze si sa sprijine ideea unei legislatii penale noi, moderne, in spiritul epocii si al valorilor democratice. Aceasta presupune inclusiv elaborarea unui nou Cod penal, si a unui nou Cod de procedura penala, fundamental diferite de cele actuale.

4. Lobby pentru rolul Justitiei

In perioada imediat urmatoare alegerilor si inainte de prezentarea Programului de guvernare in Parlament, APADOR-CH a elaborat, impreuna cu mai multe organizatii neguvernamentale, un pachet de recomandari privind masurile ce ar trebui luate in cateva domenii importante ale societatii romanesti. Acestea au fost publicate sub forma unui supliment al revistei 22 si au fost puse la dispozitia noului Guvern si a Parlamentului nou ales. APADOR-CH s-a preocupat de domeniul Justitiei, al Politiei si al problematicii privind minoritatile (pentru ultimele doua seturi de recomandari, a se vedea capitolele corespunzatoare din prezentul raport).

SCHIMBARI PENTRU CA JUSTITIA SA DEVINA O ADEVARATA PUTERE IN STAT

Respectul fata de puterea judecatoreasca presupune cateva transformari imediate si de anvergura ale sistemului de justitie. Se impun modificari constitutionale si de legislatie si, mai ales, schimbari comportamentale care sa asigure Justitiei statutul de adevarata putere in stat. Pentru ca cetateanul sa aiba incredere in sistem, el trebuie sa aiba incredere in actul de justitie, sa fie convins ca acesta este, in acelasi timp si drept si eficient.

1. Garantarea independentei Justitiei

In Constitutia din 1991, sub denumirea de “Autoritatea judecatoreasca” sunt reglementate trei institutii distincte: Instantele judecatoresti, Ministerul Public – organism ce apartine puterii executive – si Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii. Componenta si competentele acestuia din urma incalca separatia puterilor in stat, cu repercusiuni asupra independentei judecatorilor: Consiliul, care este alcatuit atat din judecatori cat si din procurori, propune Presedintelui Romaniei numirea in functie a judecatorilor si procurorilor, si indeplineste rolul de consiliu de disciplina numai pentru judecatori. Asadar, judecatorii sunt controlati de procurori, dar nu si invers, procurorii, asa cum este firesc pentru functionarii executivului, raspunzand disciplinar numai in cadrul Ministerului Public.

Se impune, de asemenea, modificarea Legii de organizare judecatoreasca. Acordarea statutului de “magistrat” procurorilor este fireasca numai din punctul de vedere al unor garantii de care acestia ar putea beneficia, nu insa si din punctul de vedere al competentelor pe care ei le-ar exercita. “Egalitatea armelor” intre partile aflate in proces, principiu pe care se intemeiaza Conventia europeana a drepturilor omului si jurisprudenta Curtii Europene de la Strasburg, trebuie sa devina o realitate si in Romania. Situatia actuala, in care procurorii efectueaza urmarirea penala – fiind astfel parte interesata in proces – si decid si cu privire la masurile care trebuie luate impotriva prezumtivului infractor, sau in care nu exista posibilitatea atacarii in Justitie a deciziei parchetului de neincepere a urmaririi penale, ori de scoatere de sub urmarirea penala, face ca persoana fizica sa fie lipsita de aparare in raport cu Ministerul Public.

Nu este corect ca ministrul Justitiei – persoana politica! – sa fie asimilat magistratilor. La fel, loctiitorii sai si personalul de specialitate juridica din Ministerul Justitiei, deci demnitari si functionari ai executivului. Este firesc a considera perioada petrecuta in aceasta structura drept vechime in magistratura, dar prevederea din lege potrivit careia asimilarea cuprinde si “perioada indeplinirii functiei” trebuie inlaturata.

Un alt aspect care va trebui sa stea in atentia Parlamentului si Guvernului se refera la salariile judecatorilor. Pentru ca judecatorilor sa le fie garantata independenta, ei trebuie sa fie feriti nu numai de posibilele influente politice, dar trebuie pusi la adapost si de tentatiile materiale. Tocmai pentru a asigura judecatorilor un nivel de trai decent, unele tari, inclusiv dintre cele foste comuniste din jurul nostru, au decis ca salariile judecatorilor sa fie echivalentul a trei salarii medii, in vreme ce altele au stabilit salariile judecatorilor la nivelul celor ale parlamentarilor. Romania n-a optat pentru nici una din aceste solutii, preferand sa desconsidere judecatorii, si prin aceasta puterea judecatoreasca, stabilindu-le salarii mai mici nu numai decat ale demnitarilor, dar si decat ale politistilor.

S-a afirmat in ultimii ani ca o Justitie saraca este o justitie proasta. Aceasta se refera nu numai la cuantumul salariilor magistratilor, ci si la inzestrarea logistica a instantelor de judecata. In prezent, in Romania, se lucreaza in conditii improprii, cu consecinte asupra actului de justitie insusi. Supraaglomerarea instantelor, care face ca un proces sa dureze ani de zile, are, alaturi de alte cauze, si lipsa de personal, dar si lipsa unor spatii corespunzatoare, precum si lipsa echipamentelor care sa le faciliteze activitatea.

2. Executarea hotararilor judecatoresti

La ora actuala sistemul de justitie functioneaza atat de deficitar, incat orice victima, in loc sa aiba siguranta garantarii dreptului sau de a apela la actul de justitie, risca sa devina o noua victima, a sistemului insusi. In cauze civile, comerciale, administrative, de dreptul familiei sau al muncii, neaplicarea in practica a hotararilor judecatoresti a devenit ceva firesc, indiferent daca este vorba de punerea in posesie a terenurilor, de obtinerea despagubirilor din partea unor ministere, agentii guvernamentale sau societati comerciale, de plata pensiilor de intretinere sau reincadrarea in munca. Or, cand nerespectarea hotararilor judecatoresti devine regula, atunci sistemul de justitie este in pericol. Astazi, in Romania, ideea predominanta a celor care incalca legea (intr-o mai mica masura cea penala, intrucat in aceste situatii exista, totusi, riscul arestarii) este ca merita sa o faca pentru ca oricum vor trece atat de multi ani pana la restabilirea situatiei, incat, la acel moment, raporturile juridice vor fi altele. O asemenea mentalitate este caracteristica nu numai persoanelor fizice, dar si institutiilor statului si unitatilor comerciale sau de alta natura.

Schimbarile care ar trebui facute in acest domeniu nu tin neaparat de modificarea legislatiei, ci vizeaza mai ales comportamentele. In primul rand instantele judecatoresti si parchetele. Prin serviciile lor de executori judecatoresti, instantele sunt primele chemate sa asigure punerea in aplicare a propriilor hotarari. In prezent, “principiul” care pare sa guverneze institutia executarii silite este amanarea sine die a aplicarii hotararilor, ceea ce, evident, contribuie la mentinerea si incurajarea ideii ca justitia poate fi eludata. Pentru ca in acest domeniu sa se produca o adevarata schimbare este necesar ca orice hotarare a unei instante de judecata sa fie pusa in aplicare imediat si fara concesii, indiferent de persoana obligata. Aceasta inseamna aplicarea principiului constitutional potrivit caruia nimeni nu este mai presus de lege.

3. Nerespectarea hotararilor judecatoresti

Nerespectarea unei hotarari judecatoresti ar trebui sa fie considerata o infractiune de maxima gravitate, avand in vedere rolul ei in subminarea ideii de Justitie. In prezent, parchetele par sa o considere ca fiind cea mai putin importanta, ceea ce explica atitudinea lor de adevarat refuz de trimitere in judecata in astfel de situatii. Pentru a schimba aceasta stare de fapt, nu este necesara o modificare de legislatie. Dar este nevoie ca procurorii sa-si faca datoria, indiferent de functiile si pozitiile pe care le au cei care isi permit sa nu respecte o hotarare a puterii judecatoresti. Situatia actuala frizeaza absurdul, daca ne gandim ca, pentru neplata unor amenzi pentru banale contraventii, mii de oameni au fost condamnati, aproape automat, la pedepse de luni de zile de inchisoare contraventionala, in vreme ce sfidarea unei hotarari judecatoresti, in alt domeniu decat cel penal sau contraventional, adica imensa majoritate a cazurilor, este vesnic nepedepsita. Singura explicatie, profund nesatisfacatoare, ar fi aceea ca intr-o astfel de situatie nu se aduce atingere statului, ci raporturilor dintre persoane, iar persoanele, in viziunea Ministerului Public, nu sunt suficient de importante.

Sanctionarea unei infractiuni grave nu inseamna neaparat pedepse mari; dar ea presupune constanta in aplicarea imediata a legii. Mai ales in cazul unei infractiuni a carei dovada este usor de facut. Trimiterea in judecata a tuturor celor care isi permit sa sfideze puterea judecatoreasca ar avea ca rezultat, pe termen mediu si lung, o schimbare a felului in care este perceput, in Romania, rolul Justitiei, facand posibila increderea in ea.

Ministrul Justitiei si Procurorul General al Romaniei ar trebui sa aiba un rol activ in aceasta materie, ei avand nu numai competente, dar si puterea de a le exercita. Lipsa lor de implicare ar putea fi inteleasa ca un consimtamant la perpetuarea unei stari de fapt profund daunatoare statului de drept. La randul sau, insusi Presedintele Romaniei are atributii in acest domeniu. Avand in vedere ca executarea silita a hotararilor judecatoresti se face in numele Presedintelui Romaniei, si tinand cont de indatorirea sa constitutionala de a exercita “functia de mediere intre puterile statului, precum si intre stat si societate”, nu este firesc ca acesta sa aiba o atitudine pasiva. Implicarea sa in acest domeniu ar fi si legala si de dorit. Ea se poate realiza prin intermediul parghiilor politice pe care Presedintele le are la dispozitie: participarea la sedintele Guvernului, remanierea guvernamentala (schimbarea ministrului Justitiei), inlocuirea Procurorului General.

4. Apararea persoanei si a drepturilor sale – adevaratul obiectiv al Justitiei

Actuala putere politica din Romania are obligatia de a concepe un sistem care sa protejeze nu numai societatea romaneasca in ansamblul ei, ci si pe fiecare individ in parte. Cadrul legislativ prezent, in ciuda unor imbunatatiri aduse in ultimii ani, continua sa fie deficitar. El protejeaza marii infractori, pedepsindu-i insa exemplar pe cei marunti, ale caror drepturi constitutionale sunt adesea incalcate. Ultimile modificari aduse codului penal si codului de procedura penala nu au facut decat sa accentueze caracterul represiv al legislatiei romane si sa legalizeze abuzurile.

Se impune elaborarea unei adevarate politici penale a statului roman, ceea ce presupune si adoptarea unui nou cod penal, a unui nou cod de procedura penala, in general, a unei legislatii care sa fie intr-adevar in concordanta cu Conventia europeana a drepturilor omului si cu celelalte angajamente internationale pe care Romania si le-a asumat in ultimii ani.

III. PRESA SI LIBERTATEA DE EXPRIMARE

1. Programul “Libertatea presei si ‘hate speech'”

Programul a fost coordonat de Federatia Internationala Helsinki pentru Drepturile Omului, cu sediul la Viena si s-a desfasurat intr-un grup de tari din Europa Centrala si de Est, in perioada august 1995 – mai 1996. In Romania, el a fost realizat de APADOR-CH si a constat in monitorizarea presei in aceasta perioada de timp, urmarindu-se cateva aspecte specifice celor doua dimensiuni ale programului:

a) In privinta libertatii presei, s-a avut in vedere monitorizarea cazurilor de jurnalisti acuzati, sau arestati, sau trimisi in judecata sau condamnati pentru:

– infractiuni legate de activitatea lor jurnalistica, de afirmatiile pe care le-au facut privind comportamentul sau trecutul unor personalitati politice sau publice (ofensa adusa autoritatii, ultraj – in locul insultei, calomniei);

– afectarea imaginii tarii;

– infractiunea de luare de mita etc.;

De asemenea au fost urmarite situatiile in care reprezentanti ai Presedintiei, ai Guvernului sau ai Parlamentului – in aceasta calitate si nu in nume propriu – s-au exprimat cu agresivitate la adresa presei, reprosandu-i afectarea imaginii tarii si consecintele ce decurg de aici;

b) In ceea ce priveste “discursul urii” (hate speech), monitorizarea a vizat actele, discursurile politice, luarile de pozitie, declaratiile la nivelul presedintiei, guvernului, parlamentului (ca institutie, sau ale unor parlamentari), ale puterii judiciare, ale administratiei centrale si locale, politiei, SRI, partidelor politice reprezentate sau nu in parlament, ONG-uri, personalitati politice, civice sau culturale, in cateva domenii, si anume:

– respectarea drepturilor omului in Romania si eventuale comparatii facute de autoritati, jurnalisti etc., cu situatii de incalcare a drepturilor omului din alte tari, in scopul justificarii violarilor din Romania;

– regimul minoritatilor in Romania si eventuale comparatii, facute de autoritati, jurnalisti etc., cu alte situatii din lume, pentru a justifica standardele autohtone;

– relatiile Romaniei cu alte tari, sau cu institutii si organizatii internationale;

– problematica integrarii euro-atlantice a Romaniei si negarea valorilor instutiilor europene;

– referiri ale autoritatilor sau ale jurnalistilor la legi si alte acte normative cu valoare in sensul dezvoltarii democratice a Romaniei (sau in sensul regresului ei pe acest plan);

De asemenea, a fost monitorizata prezentarea raporturilor inter-etnice la toate nivelurile in societatea romaneasca, interesand analizele, evaluarile, statisticile, pozitiile exprimate, indiferent de autor.

O atentie deosebita s-a acordat folosirii in presa a acelui limbaj care exprima sau promoveaza dispretul, ura fata de cei care sunt diferiti de majoritate, cu mentiunea ca nu intotdeauna un astfel de limbaj este agresiv sau incitator la violenta, el putand sa se manifeste si prin negarea valorilor democratiei, drepturilor omului, respectului fata de minoritari etc.

In cadrul programului au fost monitorizate:

a) presa scrisa:

– ziare: Vocea Romaniei, Dimineata, Adevarul, Romania libera, Evenimentul zilei, Cronica romana;

– saptamanale: Romania Mare, Totusi iubirea, Dilema, 22;

b) posturi de televiziune:

– Televiziunea romana:

– actualitatile de la ora 20;

– emisiunea in limba maghiara;

– “Pro Patria” – emisiune realizata in colaborare cu Ministerul Apararii Nationale;

– “Convietuiri” – emisiune dedicata minoritatilor nationale si relatiilor interetnice;

– “Viata spirituala” – emisiune realizata in principal pentru promovarea religiei ortodoxe;

– alte emisiuni (reportaje, dezbateri, interviuri etc);

– “Credo” (canalul 2) – numai in legatura cu tematica programului (de exemplu dezbaterile privind homosexualitatea sau cele al caror scop este afirmarea “unicitatii” poporului roman, prin denigrarea valorilor europene)

– Tele 7 abc:

– emisiunea de stiri de la ora 21

– alte emisiuni care intereseaza tematica supusa monitorizarii (reportaje, dezbateri, interviuri etc);

– Antena 1

– emisiunea de stiri de la ora 20,30;

– alte emisiuni care intereseaza tematica supusa monitorizarii (reportaje, dezbateri, interviuri etc).

In fiecare luna au fost elaborate ample rapoarte, separat pentru presa scrisa si cea audiovizuala, insotite de extrasele de presa sau inregistrarile video referitoare la tematica programului.

2. Programul “Libertatea de exprimare, libertatea presei si democratia”

Programul a inceput in septembrie 1996 si va continua pe parcursul anului 1997. El este coordonat de organizatia internationala “ARTICLE XIX”, cu sediul la Londra, si se desfasoara in mai multe tari din Europa Centrala si de Est, partenerii din Romania fiind APADOR-CH si Centrul pentru Jurnalism Independent. Programul isi propune, pe de o parte, sensibilizarea ziaristilor si a opiniei publice in legatura cu libertatea de exprimare, libertatea presei, accesul la informatie, iar pe de alta parte, elaborarea unor instrumente de lucru la indemana celor din presa. Un alt obiectiv al programului il constituie dezincriminarea infractiunilor de insulta, calomnie si ofensa adusa autoritatii, prin trecerea lor din sfera legii penale in cea a dreptului civil si sanctionarea lor in acest cadru.

Ca activitati concrete in cadrul programului sunt prevazute mai multe ateliere de lucru, traducerea si editarea unui “manual” al ziaristului, activitati de lobby legislativ etc.

Un prim atelier de lucru a avut loc in perioada 18-19 octombrie 1996. La el au participat ziaristi, avocati si reprezentanti ai unor organizatii neguvernametale, temele discutate referindu-se la:

– statutul jurnalistilor din perspectiva legislatiei romane;

– delictele de presa in sistemul juridic romanesc, comparativ cu diferite sisteme europene;

– presa ca factor de influenta in campania electorala;

– protectia ziaristilor in cadrul legislatiei internationale privind drepturile omului;

– modalitati practice de aparare a ziaristilor.

Un al doilea atelier de lucru a avut loc in zilele de 6 si 7 decembrie 1996, in cadrul lui abordandu-se doua teme:

– evaluari post electorale: discutiile au avut loc pe marginea felului in care a fost reflectata in presa campania electorala, a fost analizat rolul presei in pregatirea actului electoral, rolul sondajelor de opinie si al mediatizarii lor, precum si importanta presei ca factor de formare a opiniei publice in procesul electoral;

– accesul la informatie: s-a realizat un interesant schimb de opinii intre invitatii din Marea Britanie si cei din Romania privind cadrul legislativ si cel politic in aceasta materie.

3. Cazuri individuale

In ultimii ani libertatea de exprimare a ziaristilor a fost o preocupare constanta a APADOR-CH, materializata in principal prin investigarea unor cazuri individuale (a se vedea cazurile ziaristilor Andrei Zanopol – Galati, Nicolae Andrei – Craiova, Lucian Matachescu – Craiova, cazul Ionel Buzoianu – Bucuresti sau cazul Constantin Zgambau – Bucuresti din rapoartele anuale 1994 si 1995 si din Revista Romana de Drepturile Omului).

In 1996 aceasta activitate de investigare a unor cazuri individuale a devenit mai sistematica, in conditiile in care, pe de o parte, asociatia a avut si are programe care se refera direct la libertatea presei, iar, pe de alta parte, actiunile privind intimidarea presei s-au inmultit. APADOR-CH s-a preocupat in mod special de situatia ziaristilor trimisi in judecata pentru insulta (art. 205 Cod penal), calomnie (art. 206 Cod penal) si ofensa adusa autoritatii (art. 238 Cod penal).

Radu Mazare si Constantin Cumpana de la cotidianul Telegraf (Constanta)

Ambii ziaristi au semnat un articol intitulat “Fostul viceprimar P.N.L. Dan Miron si actuala judecatoare Revi Moga, prin concurs de infractiuni, au realizat escrocheria ‘Vinalex'”, publicat In cotidianul “Telegraf” nr. 84(580) din 12 aprilie 1994. In esenta, articolul relata despre o aprobare data de Consiliul local al municipiului Constanta pentru o societate particulara (SC CBN-SRL) ce urma sa ridice autoturismele parcate ilegal (Hotararea nr. 33/30.06.1992). Sase luni mai tarziu, Primaria a incheiat un “Contract de asociere in participatiune” (nr. 14390/16 XII 1992) cu o alta societate particulara (SC VINALEX), document semnat de viceprimarul Dan Miron pentru primar, de Revi Moga, pentru consilier juridic si de economista Raveca Gorcea. Cei doi ziaristi au considerat acest lucru ilegal, semnaland totodata ca timp de un an cat s-a derulat programul, SC VINALEX nu a reusit sa-si indeplineasca una din obligatiile esentiale asumate, si anume procurarea utilajelor adecvate pentru ridicarea masinilor ilegal parcate. De altfel, ulterior aparitiei articolului, contractul de asociere a fost reziliat de Primarie.

In articol, Dan Miron, la acea vreme viceprimar, era acuzat de luare de mita pentru incheierea contractului cu alta firma decat cea autorizata de Consiliul local. Iar despre Revi Moga, jurista a Primariei la data semnarii contractului cu SC VINALEX, dar functionand ca judecatoare la Constanta la data aparitiei articolului, ziaristii au facut urmatoarea supozitie : “Ori a semnat contractul de asociere necunoscand legile tarii, si atunci nu intelegem cum ulterior a ajuns judecator (impartind dreptatea pe baza acelorasi legi pe care nu le cunoaste), ori a luat spaga si poate lua in continuare!” Pe langa aceste afirmatii, articolul in cauza include si o caricatura reprezentandu-i pe viceprimar si fosta jurista, primul carand un imens sac (cu bani?) pe care scrie VINALEX. Cei doi din caricatura comenteaza posibilitatile de a calatori in afara Romaniei pe bani, se subintelege, murdari.

Revi Moga, judecatoare la Judecatoria Constanta la data aparitiei articolului, s-a considerat si insultata si calomniata in acelasi timp si i-a actionat in justitie pe ziaristii Radu Mazare si Constantin Cumpana (art. 205 si 206 din Codul penal), in luna mai 1994 (dosar nr. 522/1994). Initial, dosarul s-a aflat pe rolul Judecatoriei Constanta dar, cunoscand calitatea de judecatoare a reclamantei, ziaristii au cerut stramutarea cauzei. Cererea lor a fost aprobata, Judecatoria Lehliu-Gara pronuntandu-se in prima instanta. Dupa mai multe sedinte la care partile au absentat pe rand, la 17 mai 1995, Judecatoria Lehliu-Gara a considerat plangerea lui Revi Moga intemeiata si i-a condamnat pe Radu Mazare si Constantin Cumpana la cate 3 luni inchisoare pentru insulta, 7 luni inchisoare pentru calomnie, 25 milioane lei despagubiri civile si un an interdictie de exercitare a profesiei (art. 71 Cod penal).

Recursul s-a judecat la Calarasi la data de 2 noiembrie 1995 (dosar nr. 1314), in absenta paratilor care, din motive independente de vointa lor, au ajuns la tribunal dupa terminarea sedintei. Tribunalul a respins recursul celor doi ziaristi, confirmand sentinta data de Judecatoria Lehliu.

Procurorul General a introdus recurs in anulare. La data de 9 iulie 1996, Curtea Suprema de Justitie a respins recursul in anulare, condamnarea celor doi ziaristi ramanand definitiva. Simultan, Procurorul General a dispus suspendarea executarii pedepsei mai intai pana la 30 august, apoi pana la 28 septembrie 1996 si apoi pana la 30 octombrie 1996. In final, impotriva vointei declarate a celor doi ziaristi, ministrul Justitiei – Gavril Iosif Chiuzbaian – a cerut presedintelui Ion Iliescu sa ii gratieze, lucru ce s-a intamplat dupa al doilea tur de scrutin pentru alegeri prezidentiale din 17 noiembrie 1996, deci inainte de predarea puterii.

Trebuie precizate cateva aspecte legate de desfasurarea procesului :

a) In prima faza a procesului, cei doi ziaristi nu au avut avocat. Angajat inainte de epuizarea primei faze de la Judecatoria Lehliu-Gara, avocatul nu s-a prezentat la nici unul din termene, nici la prima instanta si nici in recurs. Contributia sa s-a limitat la a-i cere Procurorului General sa introduca recurs in anulare. Evident, aceasta atitudine a avocatului ales tine de deontologia profesionala, fiind de competenta Baroului de Avocati. Cu toate acestea, tinem sa constatam ca insusi avocatul ales a ignorat dreptul clientilor sai la aparare, punandu-le in pericol libertatea.

b) Paratii Radu Mazare si Constantin Cumpana au tratat cu o usurinta condamnabila acest proces, absentand la majoritatea termenelor. Ei nu au cerut administrarea “probei veritatii”, prevazute la art. 207 Cod penal, considerand ca documentele citate sau reproduse in facsimil in articolul aparut in “Telegraf” ar fi fost suficiente pentru ca justitia sa isi faca o parere corecta. Afirmatia lor ca ar fi putut aduce in aparare si alte documente decat cele publicate (un raport al Curtii de Conturi din 1994 si un raport al Comisiei juridice a Consiliului local Constanta) daca ar fi fost prezenti in instanta, este lipsita de temei, deoarece nimeni nu i-a impiedicat sa vina la termene.

c) Este clar ca Radu Mazare si Constantin Cumpana au primit pedepse exagerat de mari. Mai intai, ei au fost condamnati pe baza a doua temeiuri juridice (insulta si calomnie) pentru aceeasi fapta. Al doilea, li s-a aplicat pedeapsa privativa de libertate, fara suspendare, desi Codul penal prevede posibilitatea suspendarii ca si varianta pedepsei mai blande cu amenda. Al treilea, justitia a aplicat gresit art. 71 care face trimitere la art. 64 si art. 65, acesta din urma stabilind ca pedeapsa complimentara (suspendarea exercitarii meseriei) poate fi aplicata “daca pedeapsa principala stabilita este inchisoare de cel putin doi ani”.

Trei instante de judecata, inclusiv Curtea Suprema de Justitie, au ignorat jurisprudenta Curtii Europene a Drepturilor Omului de la Strasbourg in legatura cu articolul 10 din Conventia Europeana, cu privire la libertatea de exprimare. In mai multe cazuri, Curtea de la Strasbourg a precizat in mod expres ca persoanele aflate in functii publice sunt mai expuse criticii si monitorizarii din partea presei si a opiniei publice, decat celelalte persoane. Persoanele publice trebuie sa accepte acest risc.

Legea romana nu prevede, din pacate, decat proba veritatii ca aparare a ziaristului sau persoanei acuzate de insulta sau calomnie. Standardele europene prevad si dovedirea bunei sau relei credinte a persoanei acuzate. Articolele 11 si 20 din Constitutia Romaniei statueaza ca tratatele internationale si respectiv documentele internationale cu privire la drepturile omului fac parte din dreptul intern iar, in situatia in care exista neconcordante intre acestea si legile interne, primele au prioritate. Conventia europeana pentru apararea drepturilor omului si a libertatilor fundamentale, ce nu poate fi separata de jurisprudenta Curtii de la Strasbourg, trebuie sa prevaleze asupra dreptului intern. Ca atare, este absolut necesar ca proba bunei credinte sa intre in practica justitiei romane. Daca s-ar fi procedat asa, este posibil ca instantele de judecata sa fi dat o decizie diferita in procesul celor doi ziaristi constanteni.

Nu s-a invocat in nici un moment ideea de “interes public” sau, conform legii romane, “interes legitim”, cu toate ca foarte multi cetateni din Constanta au avut de suferit de pe urma mijloacelor tehnice precare folosite de SC VINALEX de-a lungul anului in care au ridicat autoturisme parcate ilegal.

Conform informatiilor de care dispune APADOR-CH, in ultimii 10 ani, nici un ziarist din nici o tara democratica nu a fost condamnat la pedepse privative de libertate pentru insulta sau calomnie. Singura pedeapsa aplicata a fost amenda. Cu toate ca legea penala romana are in vedere si varianta amenzii, trei instante de judecata, inclusiv Curtea Suprema de Justitie, au ales varianta privarii de libertate a celor doi ziaristi. In plus, cele 25 milioane acordate drept daune morale reclamantei Revi Moga nu isi gasesc justificare. Dar cel mai grav lucru ramane pedeapsa complimentara privind interzicerea dreptului celor doi ziaristi de a-si exercita profesia, pedeapsa data prin gresita citire a legii.

Ziaristii Radu Mazare si Constantin Cumpana au adresat plangeri Comisiei Europene pentru Drepturile Omului de la Strasbourg.

Valentin Popescu de la ziarul Cuget Liber din Constanta

Valentin Popescu a semnat un articol intitulat “Primarul Corneliu Neagoe a blocat la sediul PNTCD o tipografie pentru a-i difuza posterul (inainte de alegeri) si retetele medicale (dupa alegeri)” aparut in ziarul “Cuget Liber” la data 5 octombrie 1995. Ziaristul semnala faptul ca o tipografie donata cetatenilor orasului Constanta de cetatenii orasului Rotterdam, orase infratite, fusese trimisa la sediul PNTCD din Constanta, fara acordul Consiliului local. Ziaristul a afirmat ca tipografia ar fi trebuit sa fie pusa la dispozitia redactiilor diferitelor ziare din Constanta si nu sa fie arbitrar repartizata partidului din care primarul facea parte. Pe 12 martie 1996, Valentin Popescu a mai publicat un articol intitulat “O mica tipografie pentru un mare mincinos”, in fapt un interviu cu viceprimarul Ilie Vintila care a declarat ca tipografia nu fusese destinata CDR sau PNTCD si ca nu a existat vreun acord in acest sens intre primariile din Rotterdam si Constanta.

Documentul in posesia caruia a intrat ziaristul Valentin Popescu si, totodata, baza de la care a pornit atunci cand si-a lansat acuzatia, este un fax primit la 2 august 1993 de primarul Neagoe de la Primaria din Rotterdam prin care era informat ca in port sosise containerul continand donatia pentru constanteni.

Procesul de calomnie intentat de primarul Corneliu Neagoe ziaristului Valentin Popescu a fost judecat la Constanta la 6 martie 1996. Pronuntarea in dosarul nr. 2974/1995, data pe 20 martie 1996 (sentinta penala nr 593) condamna pe ziaristul Valentin Popescu la trei luni inchisoare cu suspendare. In mod surprinzator, primarul Corneliu Neagoe a depus, in instanta, un al doilea fax, datat 3 august 1993, provenind insa nu de la primaria din Rotterdam ci de la “Rotterdam Multi Party Group”, prin care se confirma ca tipografia inclusa in donatie era destinata CDR. Numai ca ziaristul Valentin Popescu si cei mai multi dintre membrii Consiliului municipal au afirmat ca nu au avut cunostinta de acest al doilea fax.

Valentin Popescu a introdus recurs ce urmeaza a fi judecat.

Mai trebuie semnalata si o stranie coincidenta: judecatoarea care a dat sentinta in acest caz este Revi Moga.

Ca si in cazul ziaristilor Mazare si Cumpana, ar fi fost necesar ca instanta de judecata sa tina cont de standardele europene consfintite de Curtea Europeana a Drepturilor Omului de la Strasbourg cu privire la acceptarea, de catre persoane publice, a unor critici si monitorizari mai severe decat in cazul unor persoane obisnuite.

Judecatoria Constanta ar fi trebuit sa tina cont de buna credinta a ziaristului care a sustinut ca nu a avut cunostinta de al doilea fax primit de primarul Corneliu Neagoe.

Judecatoria Constanta a ales pedeapsa privativa de libertate, dar cu suspendare, cu toate ca avea posibilitatea sa condamne paratul la amenda.

Paratul ar fi trebuit sa ceara recuzarea judecatoarei Revi Moga, ea insasi implicata ca reclamanta intr-un proces de insulta si calomnie intentat ziaristilor de la “Telegraf”.

Sorin Rosca Stanescu si Tana Ardeleanu de la ziarul Ziua

Cu privire la acest caz, dupa condamnarea celor doi ziaristi de catre Judecatoria sectorului 1 Bucuresti, APADOR-CH a dat urmatorul comunicat:

“In legatura cu recenta condamnare a ziaristilor Sorin Rosca Stanescu si Tana Ardeleanu la pedepse privative de libertate pentru infractiunea de “ofensa adusa autoritatii” (art. 238 Cod penal), APADOR-CH declara urmatoarele :

1. Judecatoria sectorului 1 a pronuntat hotararea de condamnare a celor doi ziaristi in timp ce problema constitutionalitatii infractiunii de ofensa adusa autoritatii se afla inca in dezbaterea Curtii Constitutionale. Este adevarat ca legea nu prevede suspendarea automata a judecatii pana la adoptarea unei decizii de Curtea Constitutionala, lasand acest aspect la latitudinea instantei, dar din practica de pana acum a rezultat ca, in diferite cauze, tribunalele au asteptat deciziile Curtii Constitutionale. O astfel de solutie este singura care da consistenta prevederilor art. 145 din Constitutie, potrivit carora “Deciziile Curtii Constitutionale sunt obligatorii si au putere numai pentru viitor”.

2. Hotararea Judecatoriei sectorului 1, care confirma un text de lege ce pune in discutie insasi libertatea de exprimare, contrazice in mod vadit Conventia europeana pentru apararea drepturilor omului si a libertatilor fundamentale, parte a dreptului intern. Conventia europeana trebuie citita si aplicata impreuna cu jurisprudenta Curtii europene a drepturilor omului de la Strasbourg. Mai multe decizii ale acesteia statueaza ca “libertatea de exprimare, garantata de articolul 10 paragraful 1, constituie unul din fundamentele esentiale ale unei societati democratice … Sub rezerva paragrafului 2 al articolului 10, ea acopera nu numai informatiile si ideile primite favorabil sau cu indiferenta ori considerate inofensive, dar si pe acelea care ofenseaza, socheaza sau deranjeaza. Acestea sunt cerintele pluralismului, tolerantei si spiritului deschis, fara de care nu exista societate democratica”. Toate acestea “sunt cu atat mai importante atunci cand in discutie este presa”, intrucat “libertatea presei constituie unul din cele mai eficiente mijloace prin care publicul afla ori isi formeaza opinii despre ideile si atitudinile conducatorilor politici” (cazurile Sunday Times v. Regatul Unit, Lingens v. Austria, Oberschlick v. Austria s.a.).

…

3. Condamnarea celor doi ziaristi de la ziarul Ziua confirma tendinta din ce in ce mai evidenta din ultima vreme de a intimida ziaristii care se manifesta in mod critic la adresa autoritatilor romane sau a persoanelor care le reprezinta. Se pot aminti in acest sens si cazurile ziaristilor Radu Mazare si Constantin Cumpana de la Constanta (condamnati la 7 luni inchisoare, 25 milioane despagubiri si un an interdictia de a profesa pentru “insulta si calomnie”), Valentin Popescu tot de la Constanta (3 luni inchisoare cu suspendare pentru “calomnie”, sentinta recurata de ziarist), Dumitru Tinu, directorul ziarului “Adevarul” (amenda penala pentru “calomnie”, recursul fiind pe rol), Petre Mihai Bacanu (amenda penala pentru “calomnie”, cu recurs pe rol). Toate aceste condamnari penale, indiferent daca sunt sau nu definitive, daca este vorba de amenda penala sau inchisoare cu executare in penitenciar sau cu suspendare, vor avea drept consecinta instaurarea cenzurii si autocenzurii in presa si deci restrangerea libertatii de exprimare dincolo de limitele admise si “necesare intr-o societate democratica”.

Publicatia Monitorul de Braila

“Monitorul de Braila” a fost infiintat in primavara anului 1996, primul numar aparand la 1 aprilie. Ziarul a luat de la inceput o pozitie critica fata de autoritatile locale, dezvaluind si unele afaceri dubioase ale “mafiei” brailene. In scurt timp, impotriva unora din ziaristi si chiar a ziarului in sine au fost intentate actiuni in justitie pentru “insulta” si “calomnie”.

Monica Paraschiv, redactor sef, si Stefan Catalin Iordache, ziarist, au fost dati in judecata de primarul Anton Lungu pentru “calomnie” (art. 206) in urma unui articol aparut in mai, sub titlul “Tovarasul Lungu a transformat viata unui om in cosmar”, referitor la un caz de evacuare abuziva. La al treilea termen de judecata, juristul primariei a cerut schimbarea incadrarii juridice in “ofensa adusa autoritatii” (art. 238). Dosarul a fost trimis la Parchet, cazul fiind in curs de investigare. Asadar, in situatia in care Parchetul Braila i-ar socoti vinovati pe ziaristii de la “Monitorul” si i-ar trimite in judecata pentru “ofensa adusa autoritatii” ei nu ar mai beneficia de “proba veritatii” (art. 207).

Celalalt cotidian local – Libertatea – a dat in judecata Monitorul de Braila pentru calomnie, deoarece ultimul publicase un articol privitor la spatiul in care functioneaza Libertatea. Separat, directorul ziarului Libertatea a dat si el in judecata Monitorul care a relatat despre “afacerile” sale cu terenuri in zona braileana numita “Varsatura”.

La randul sau, Monitorul a dat si el in judecata ziarul Libertatea pentru insulta si calomnie.

Un patron local a intentat actiune impotriva Monitorului care a publicat unele declaratii si documente prezentate de fosta sa sotie. Reclamantul a considerat ca ziaristii de la Monitorul trebuiau sa-l consulte inainte de a face publice afirmatiile fostei sotii.

Din cele de mai sus rezulta ca ziaristii de la Monitorul de Braila sunt supusi unor presiuni si intimidari. Intr-o tara in care libertatea presei este garantata prin Constitutie, acest gen de actiuni poate descuraja ziaristii, anuland practic rolul mass media de “caine de paza” al democratiei.

IV. RELATIA POLITIE – PERSOANE FIZICE

1. Aspecte teoretice

Din punct de vedere al garantiilor oferite persoanelor fizice de cadrul legal existent, APADOR-CH a constatat ca nici una din prevederile legale semnalate in anii precedenti ca posibile surse de abuz din partea politistilor nu a fost eliminata. Adoptarea unor modificari ale Codului penal si ale Codului de procedura penala nu a facut decat sa mareasca nepermis de mult pedepsele si sa mentina prevederi ambigue in materie de procedura (perchezitia domiciliara cu mandat emis de procuror sau consimtamantul scris al persoanei, emiterea mandatului de arestare preventiva intr-un numar de cazuri inexistente in art. 5 din Conventia europeana a drepturilor omului), sau sa introduca prevederi noi, care vin in conflict cu Conventia europeana, cum ar fi posibilitatea oferita politistilor de a intercepta convorbirile telefonice si corespondenta persoanelor fizice sau juridice, pentru prevenirea savarsirii infractiunilor.

Nu s-a modificat art. 16 lit b) din Legea 26/1994 a Politiei, in virtutea careia politistii pot priva o persoana de libertate, fara mandat de arestare, nu numai pe durata celor 24 de ore prevazute de Constitutie (retinerea), ci si pentru alte 24 de ore denumite “conducere la sectia de politie”. Nu s-a adoptat Statutul Politistului. Prezentat Parlamentului cu mare intarziere fata de data limita stabilita de insasi Legea 26/1994, proiectul Statutului Politistului cuprinde mult prea multe privilegii pentru aceasta categorie precum si ceea ce se poate numi “garantarea impunitatii” pentru membrii sai (pentru detalii, a se vedea analiza APADOR-CH in Raportul anual pe 1995).

Legea 61/91 cu privire la contraventii a continuat sa faca victime mai ales in randurile oamenilor simpli, fara minime cunostinte in domeniul juridic. Agentul constatator al contraventiei, este, in proportie de 99%, un politist. Acesta hotaraste ce fel de contraventie s-a comis (din lunga lista cuprinsa in art. 2 din Legea 61/91) si care va fi pedeapsa (cuantumul amenzii – marit pentru a doua oara de insusi Parlamentul Romaniei in octombrie 1996 – sau numarul de zile/inchisoare contraventionala). (A se vedea analiza APADOR-CH din Raportul anual pe 1995).

Transformarea in zile/inchisoare a amenzii necontestate in 15 zile sau neachitate in 30 de zile s-a facut, in foarte multe cazuri, prin impartirea cuantumului amenzii la 300 lei/zi, cu toate ca insasi Curtea Constitutionala a dat – in octombrie si noiembrie 1995 – doua decizii privind luarea in calcul a sumelor prevazute in varianta initiala a legii, deci dinainte de marirea amenzilor prin ordonanta guvernamentala. Nu s-a acordat atentie nici argumentului juridic conform caruia o amenda neachitata nu poate fi transformata in zile/inchisoare daca pentru contraventia respectiva nu exista si varianta acestui gen de pedeapsa. Din discutiile avute de reprezentantii asociatiei cu numerosi judecatori a rezultat ca unii din acestia nici macar nu cunosteau deciziile Curtii Constitutionale. In aceasta situatie, APADOR-CH a facut zeci de copii ale acestor decizii pe care le-a trimis presedintilor de judecatorii din toata tara, cu rugamintea de a le aduce la cunostinta magistratilor. In acest context merita subliniata si imprejurarea ca unii magistrati contesta obligativitatea deciziilor Curtii Constitutionale, in ciuda prevederilor exprese ale legii fundamentale.

Modificarile aduse de Parlament in octombrie 1996 se refera, pe langa deja mentionata sporire a amenzilor, la noi contraventii adaugate celor vechi (atragerea persoanelor in vederea comiterii unor acte sexuale contra plata) precum si la ridicarea coeficientului de calcul in cazul neplatii amenzilor de la 300 lei/zi la 10.000 lei/zi.

Unele sectii de politie au atasat la procesul verbal de constatare a contraventiei un “fluturas” in care se precizeaza doar ca amenda trebuie achitata in termen de 30 de zile dar nu si posibilitatea contestarii sale la judecatorie in termen de 15 zile.

*

Avand in vedere experienta APADOR-CH in domeniul posibilitatilor savarsirii unor abuzuri de catre politisti, asociatia a pregatit un set de propuneri, unele imediate, altele pe termen mediu si lung, in vederea ameliorarii relatiei dintre autoritatea publica investita cu atributii in domeniul aplicarii legilor si al respectarii drepturilor omului si persoanele fizice. Propunerile au fost avansate noului Parlament si noului Executiv in decembrie 1996 si se refera la urmatoarele aspecte:

A. Masuri imediate (pana la modificarea Codului de procedura penala, a Legii 61/91, a Legii 26/1994 a politiei, etc) :

1. Sa fie asigurat accesul liber al reprezentantilor organizatiilor neguvernamentale care urmaresc respectarea drepturilor civile si politice in aresturile politiei, fara instiintare prealabila, pe baza unei aprobari permanente date de ministrul de Interne sau seful Inspectoratului General al Politiei;

2. Legea Politiei nr. 26/1994 prevede pe langa retinerea de 24 de ore prevazuta si in Constitutia Romaniei inca o posibilitate de a priva o persoana de libertate, fara mandat de arestare, denumita “conducerea la sectia de politie” (art.16 lit b). “Conducerea” poate dura tot 24 de ore, contravenind astfel atat Constitutiei cat si Codului de procedura penala. Propunem ca pana la eliminarea pe cale legislativa a art.16 litera b) politistii sa fie instruiti in sensul respectarii duratei maxime de 24 de ore privare de libertate, indiferent daca e vorba numai de “retinere” sau numai de “conducere” sau de amandoua;

3. Avand in vedere dispozitiile legale privind dreptul persoanei retinute de a fi asistata de un avocat ales sau din oficiu, propunem ca in fiecare sectie de politie, inclusiv la IPJ, sa existe liste, afisate la vedere, cu numele si numerele de telefon ale avocatilor dispusi sa asigure asistenta juridica;

4. In situatia in care retinerea are loc in comune, politistii sa transporte imediat persoana retinuta la sectia de politie din cel mai apropiat oras sau la Inspectoratul Politiei Judetene. Masura interzicerii retinerii in posturile de politie din comune se justifica prin imposibilitatea asigurarii apararii in aceste locuri, precum si prin lipsa spatiilor corespunzatoare;

5. In situatia in care un politist este investigat pentru comiterea unui abuz, propunem ca, in functie de gravitatea faptei de care este acuzat, sa se ia fie masura suspendarii, fie a mutarii in alta sectie sau a transferarii intr-o functie administrativa pana la incheierea cercetarilor. Aceasta masura este necesara intrucat au fost semnalate multe cazuri in care politisti invinuiti de comiterea unor abuzuri au recurs la intimidari si hartuiri ale victimelor si martorilor acestora pentru a le convinge sa-si retraga sau modifice declaratiile;

6. Avand in vedere numarul mare de cazuri in care, sub pretextul consimtamantului – scris sau verbal – al persoanei sau conducatorilor institutiei, politistii au patruns in locuinte sau in incinta unor institutii comitand abuzuri, propunem ca politistii sa fie instruiti astfel incat sa nu mai patrunda intr-o locuinta sau institutie fara mandat de perchezitie. Unica exceptie admisa sa fie flagrantul delict;

7. Daca un politist (sau jandarm) a facut uz de arma si este cercetat pentru acest fapt, sa i se ridice dreptul de a purta arma pana la incheierea cercetarilor;

8. Orice proces verbal de constatare a unei contraventii conform Legii 61/91 intocmit de politisti sa fie insotit obligatoriu de o nota privind dreptul persoanei amendate de a se plange impotriva masurii luate (catre cine se adreseaza plangerea, care este termenul limita), perioada aflata la dispozitia sa pentru a achita amenda si consecintele neachitarii amenzii in limita timpului prevazut de lege.

Dat fiind ca in prezent in Romania conditiile de detentie sunt aceleasi pentru contravenienti si pentru detinutii condamnati penal, propunem ca politia sa renunte a mai cere automat, la finele perioadei de achitare a amenzii, pedeapsa alternativa cu inchisoarea contraventionala;

9. Raziile efectuate de politie si jandarmerie cu scopul declarat al prevenirii producerii unor fapte antisociale in special de romi sa fie efectuate numai cu respectarea stricta a legilor : mandate de perchezitie si/sau arestare emise pe numele unor persoane suspecte, intocmirea in dublu exemplar a proceselor verbale de confiscare a unor bunuri etc. Raziile sa fie organizate numai in situatiile in care exista indicii clare si temeinice ca un criminal s-ar fi refugiat in comunitatea romilor sau ca unul sau mai multi membri ai comunitatii romilor ar fi furat obiecte identificabile. Raziile nu trebuie sa urmareasca intimidarea si inspaimantarea unei intregi comunitati.

B. Masuri legislative imediate:

1. Modificarea Codului de procedura penala in sensul

– asigurarii dreptului la asistenta juridica pe toata durata procedurilor inclusiv in perioada retinerii de 24 de ore;

– prevederii exprese a dreptului persoanei retinute, a invinuitului sau inculpatului de a nu raspunde la intrebari;

Ca urmare, orice declaratie luata invinuitului in absenta avocatului ales sau din oficiu sa fie considerata nula in fata organului de urmarire penala si a instantelor de judecata daca nu s-a respectat dreptul la aparare. Dreptul persoanei invinuite de a nu raspunde in absenta aparatorului ales sau din oficiu este o regula fundamentala a oricarui stat democratic;

– protejarii reale a integritatii fizice si psihice a persoanei retinute;

– stabilirii clare a responsabilitatilor ce revin politistilor pe perioada cercetarii penale.

Ar fi de dorit o prevedere expresa prin care raspunderea pentru starea fizica si psihica a unei persoane retinute de politie sa revina solidar politistului care a efectuat retinerea, politistului care a preluat persoana retinuta in sectia de politie si sefului sectiei de politie impreuna cu institutia ca atare. Acelasi lucru sa fie valabil si in cazul persoanelor cercetate penal de politie dupa emiterea mandatului de arestare;

2. Modificarea Legii Politiei nr.26/1994 in sensul eliminarii lit. b) din art.16 (“conducerea la sectia de politie”) precum si a notiunii de “consimtamant” (scris sau verbal) in cazul perchezitiilor prevazute la art. 16 lit. f) si g);

3. Refacerea proiectului Statutului Politistului, eliminandu-se prevederea care instituie o adevarata imunitate politistilor pentru a caror cercetare penala se cere consimtamantul ministrului de Interne. Avand in vedere riscurile profesiunii de politist este firesc ca acestia sa aiba unele avantaje compensatorii. Dar se impune eliminarea acelor privilegii cum ar fi credite cu dobanda redusa, chirii mai mici, asigurarea transportului cu ocazia efectuarii concediilor de odihna, etc. care i-ar separa de restul populatiei.

C. Masuri in perspectiva. Democratizarea politiei prin

demilitarizare si descentralizare:

1. Trecerea politiei, jandarmeriei si pompierilor in subordinea primariilor. Ministerul de Interne va pastra un corp de inspectori/detectivi care se va ocupa numai de infractiunile foarte grave sau care depasesc limitele jurisdictionale ale primariilor, precum si corpul politiei de frontiera;

2. Constituirea unor comisii formate exclusiv din persoane civile care nu au fost niciodata angajate in Ministerul de Interne care vor supraveghea desfasurarea investigatiilor intreprinse in cazuri de posibile abuzuri ale politistilor, jandarmilor si pompierilor din subordinea primariilor precum si ale corpului de inspectori/detectiv si politiei de frontiera din cadrul Ministerului de Interne;

3. Eliminarea gradelor militare;

4. Cu exceptia politistilor care patruleaza pe strazi, a jandarmilor, a agentilor de circulatie si a politistilor de frontiera, toti ceilalti vor purta haine civile cu ecusoane pe care va fi trecut numele politistului;

5. Independent de cercetarea penala in cazuri de abuzuri ale politiei, jandarmilor etc, persoana care se va considera victima acestora va putea da in judecata fie autorul abuzului reclamat, fie primaria;

6. Politistii, jandarmii etc. suspecti de a fi comis un abuz vor fi investigati de procurori civili si, daca va fi cazul, vor fi judecati de instante civile.

2. Cazuri individuale

Pe parcursul anului 1996, APADOR-CH a continuat investigarea unor cazuri semnalate asociatiei drept abuzuri din partea unor politisti.

a) Cazuri investigate in perioada dinainte de 1996 (inca nesolutionate de Parchet sau de instanta de judecata)

Radu Daniel Achim (Bucuresti, 1994)

Decedat in ianuarie 1994 in spitalul “Filaret” unde fusese transferat cu o saptamana mai inainte de la spitalul penitenciar Bucuresti, Radu Daniel Achim fusese detinut, inca din decembrie 1992, la Gaiesti unde functioneaza un centru de reeducare pentru minori. In ciuda eforturilor mamei sale si ale APADOR-CH, nici pana la data intocmirii acestui raport (decembrie 1996) nu exista vreo concluzie a Parchetului militar, singura autoritate abilitata sa investigheze modul in care a fost tratat Radu Daniel Achim la Gaiesti si la spitalul penitenciar Bucuresti.

O emisiune a postului de televiziune Tele 7 ABC despre acest caz, transmisa in 1996 si pregatita in colaborare cu APADOR-CH, a starnit o neasteptat de dura reactie a generalului Ioan Chis, directorul Directiei Generale a Penitenciarelor, care a acuzat asociatia de “denigrare” a institutiei pe care o conduce.

Tudorel Tanase si familia Dragnea-Tanase (satul Mihai Voda, comuna Bolintin Deal, 1995)

Pe data de 17 noiembrie 1995, Tudorel Tanase, tatal sau Grigore Tanase si Constantin Dragnea, fiul concubinei lui Grigore Tanase, au fost impuscati de politistii condusi de capitanul Lepadatescu, in curtea casei lor. Actiunea, cu totul disproportionata, avea drept scop retinerea lui Tudorel Tanase, suspect de a fi fost complice la trei acte de talharie. Cei trei impuscati au fost supusi unor interventii chirurgicale de urgenta. In cazul lui Tudorel Tanase a fost nevoie de extirparea unui rinichi si de aplicarea repetata a ghipsului la picior. Nici la sfarsitul anului 1996 Tudorel Tanase nu putea merge normal. Tudorel Tanase a fost judecat in stare de arest pentru complicitate la talharie. Avocatul pus la dispozitie de APADOR-CH a pledat pentru achitarea sa, avand in vedere probele neconcludente administrate in dosar dar instanta de la Bolintin Vale l-a condamnat la un an si doua luni inchisoare. Deoarece Tudorel Tanase efectuase deja mare parte din pedeapsa in arest preventiv si dorea sa iasa cat mai repede din penitenciar, a refuzat sa faca recurs.

Pe de alta parte, investigatiile intreprinse de Parchetul militar in cazul politistilor care i-au impuscat pe cei trei, nu fusesera inca finalizate pana la sfarsitul anului 1996.

Liviu-Petrisor Oprea (Campina – 1994)

Ajuns, in sfarsit, in justitie, cazul in care tanarul Liviu-Petrisor Oprea a intrat sanatos in sectia de politie din Campina si a iesit cu un traumatism cranian ale carui urmari se resimt pana in prezent, a fost judecat in prima instanta de Tribunalul militar Bucuresti. Instanta a hotarat ca politistii din Campina sunt nevinovati. Urmeaza recursul.

Viorel Constantin (Tandarei – 1995)

Un grup de cinci politisti si gardieni publici l-au batut pe Viorel Constantin in prezenta mai multor martori. In urma investigatiilor efectuate de Parchetul militar, patru din cei cinci agresori au fost trimisi in judecata. Dosarul este pe rolul Tribunalului militar Bucuresti, unde a suferit numeroase amanari. Atat Viorel Constantin cat si unii din martorii sai au afirmat ca au fost amenintati in repetate randuri de inculpati cu scopul clar de a-i intimida si de a-i face sa-si modifice declaratiile. APADOR-CH a cerut IPJ si sefului sectiei de politie din Tandarei sa ia masuri pentru ca aceste actiuni ilegale sa inceteze.

b) Cazuri investigate in 1996:

Ioan Rosca (Bucuresti)

Ioan Rosca s-a plans in legatura cu tratamentele la care au fost supusi el, fiul sau si cativa vecini si prieteni, de politisti de la Sectia 14 din capitala.

Pe data de 16 septembrie 1995, Ioan Rosca impreuna cu fiii si cativa cunoscuti, s-a deplasat in strada Alexandru Balasescu, sector 4, unde poseda o proprietate dobandita prin act notarial. Aici au fost intampinati de trei persoane in civil dar cu arme de foc asupra lor, care au inceput sa-l imbranceasca si sa-l injure pe Ioan Rosca, intentia evidenta fiind de a-l obliga sa paraseasca locul. In cateva minute a aparut un echipaj de la Sectia 14. Politistii s-au alaturat persoanelor in civil, l-au lovit pe Ioan Rosca in cap si stomac si l-au amenintat cu pistoalele. Apoi l-au dus la sectie unde au continuat sa-l loveasca.

Unul din fiii lui Ioan Rosca – Marian Lucian Rosca – precum si cinci din persoanele care-l insotisera la proprietatea sa au fost condusi la aceeasi sectie de politie, unde au fost loviti si amenintati. Politistii le-au cerut sa declare ca Ioan Rosca i-ar fi agresat in curtea din str. Alexandru Balasescu, ceea ce ar fi “justificat” brutalitatile la care ei insisi au recurs.

Ioan Rosca a fost retinut circa 24 de ore, martorii si Marian Lucian Rosca, circa 10 ore. Prezentat la Parchet pe data de 17 dimineata, Ioan Rosca a fost pus in libertate intrucat procurorul a refuzat sa emita mandat de arestare impotriva sa.

Ioan Rosca are un certificat medico-legal (nr.A2/9555 din data de 18 septembrie 1995) in care se mentioneaza pe langa “leziuni traumatice…(ce) necesita 14 – 16 zile ingrijiri medicale” si o completare privind o interventie chirurgicala la piramida nazala efectuata la Spitalul Coltea, ceea ce a sporit la 24-26 numarul de zile ingrijiri medicale.

Toti martorii dusi la sectie (Gheorghe Bucse, Constantin Hutanu, Mihai Hritu, Aurel Stefanov si Lucian Cretu) au fost loviti si injuriati iar Marian Lucian Rosca a fost batut cu salbaticie chiar in fata lor. I s-a eliberat un certificat medico-legal (nr.A2/9554 din data de 18 septembrie 1995) in care sunt consemnate leziuni traumatice necesitand 5-6 zile ingrijiri medicale.

Ioan Rosca a depus o plangere penala la Parchetul Militar Bucuresti, dosarul primind numarul 1380/P/95. Reclamantul a nominalizat ofiterii si subofiterii de politie vinovati de purtare abuziva si violare de domiciliu. Cu toate ca plangerea dlui Ioan Rosca a fost inregistrata la numarul 256 la data de 23 octombrie 1995, el a fost convocat la Parchet pentru a da declaratii abia la sfarsitul anului 1996.

Cercetarile Parchetului militar nu erau inca incheiate la sfarsitul anului 1996.

Societatea Comerciala CELROM S.A. din Turnu Severin

Descrierea conflictului de munca de la CELROM

La sfarsitul lunii martie 1995 intreprinderea a fost privatizata prin vanzarea cotei de 51% detinuta de FPS catre intreprinderea ROMCARTON, cu sediul in Bucuresti, ultima facand parte din grupul SICAL (Franta) – ROTHMANS (SUA). Restul de 49% apartine salariatilor de la CELROM. In aceeasi perioada s-a constituit si Sindicatul Liber CELROM la care s-au afiliat circa 430 de membri nemultumiti de prestatia celor doua sindicate deja existente. Acestea mai numarau in 1996 aproximativ 80 de membri. Un al patrulea sindicat a fost format in septembrie 1995 – Viitorul CELROM – la el aderand circa 380 de salariati.

In mai 1995 a fost negociat cu noul patron contractul colectiv de munca, valabil un an. In februarie 1996, cele doua sindicate mici, considerate nereprezentative, au negociat un nou contract colectiv de munca, neacceptat de sindicatele mari. Intre altele, acest nou contract impunea reducerea concediului de odihna la 18 zile, indiferent de vechime, concediu ce trebuia luat de toti salariatii in doua etape: jumatate in august si jumatate in decembrie. Cele doua sindicate mari au fost puse practic in fata unui fapt implinit, deoarece, la 1 februarie li s-a prezentat noul contract colectiv vizat de Directia de munca si ocrotire sociala a judetului Mehedinti si datat 1 ianuarie 1996. Ca urmare, reprezentantii lor au refuzat semnarea contractului, dupa care directorul a trecut la masuri de intimidare, oferind salariatilor alternativa semnarii contractelor de munca individuale sau demiterea.

Sindicatele au declarat greva pe data de 24 februarie 1996. Curtea de Apel Turnu-Severin a hotarat ca greva era legala. Din totalul de 1127 de salariati, circa 900 au intrat in greva, ocupand curtea si cladirile societatii.

La 14 martie, conducerea intreprinderii s-a adresat Curtii de Apel cerand ca, in conformitate cu Legea 15 cu privire la conflictele colective de munca, grevistii sa fie obligati sa permita accesul la locurile de munca a celor circa 200 de salariati care nu s-au alaturat lor. Curtea de Apel a dat castig de cauza conducerii si a informat sindicatele aflate in greva de aceasta decizie pe data de 18 martie. Sindicalistii afirma ca au permis celor 200 salariati sa intre in fabrica intr-una din zile, dar ca acestia, din nepricepere, ar fi distrus cateva utilaje. Sindicalistii au considerat ca trebuie sa protejeze bunurile fabricii care sunt si ale lor si din aceasta cauza, dupa aceea, nu i-au mai lasat sa intre in incinta.

Intre timp, numarul revendicarilor grevistilor a crescut la sapte, incluzand si cercetarea modului in care FPS a vandut partea de 51% lui Vladimir Cohn, patronul ROMCARTON.

Pe data de 15 martie, liderii sindicali au participat la o conciliere cu Vladimir Cohn care a acceptat sase din cele sapte revendicari ale grevistilor, respingand-o pe cea de-a saptea privind revizuirea vanzarii cotei de 51% a FPS. Grevistii au respins la randul lor rezultatul concilierii si, din 16 martie, au intrat in greva spontana.

Interventia politiei

In dimineata zilei de 20 martie, la ora 4:00, s-au aliniat in fata portii numarul unu circa doua sute de politisti. Deoarece liderul sindical Ion Tirziu fusese anuntat cu o seara inainte ca urma sa aiba loc o interventie in forta a politiei, sub pretextul punerii in aplicare a hotararii judecatoresti privind revenirea la locul de munca a celor doua sute de salariati neparticipanti la greva, acesta a convocat aproximativ 350 de grevisti, din care jumatate femei. (In celelalte nopti, in incinta ramasesera doar pichete de 20 – 30 persoane).

Dupa cateva minute, micul grup de grevisti care pazea poarta numarul doi – aflata la circa 1 km distanta de poarta 1 – a dat alarma pentru ca un grup de circa o suta de scutieri, insotiti de o masina blindata, fortase intrarea in curte. Majoritatea barbatilor de la poarta unu s-au deplasat imediat acolo si, timp de aproximativ o ora, au incercat sa-i opreasca pe scutieri, folosind drept arme, bete si pietre. Reactia scutierilor a fost foarte violenta: i-au lovit cu bastoanele si cu bocancii si i-au tarat la masinile parcate afara, injurandu-i permanent. Dumitru Mihaescu, unul din salariati, a fost injurat, lovit si dus intr-un ARO unde a fost tinut aproape o ora. Gabriel Popescu a fost batut, prins de scutieri si bagat in masina blindata. A auzit ordinul comandantului scutierilor catre soferul blindatei de a trece peste oameni. La refuzul acestuia de a executa ordinul, comandantul s-a urcat in locul lui la volan si a pornit masina dar, intre timp, sindicalistii reusisera sa-l traga din fata blindatei pe Mihai Gascan, cazut in urma loviturilor primite de la scutieri.

Scutierii i-au impins pe grevisti pana la poarta unu, unde au facut jonctiunea cu grupul de politisti. Aici erau foarte multe femei care au fost, si ele, lovite de scutieri. Tanta Paleacu a fost lovita cu bastonul mai intai peste brat si apoi pe spate. Maria Serban a primit lovituri pe spate care i-au provocat deplasarea a doua vertebre, fiind ulterior internata in spital. Maria Serban a fost consultata de mai multi medici, punandu-se in discutie necesitatea unei operatii la coloana vertebrala. Ea refuza acum orice discutie in legatura cu incidentul din 20 martie si nu mai vrea sa mai depuna plangere. Aceasta atitudine poate fi interpretata fie ca un rezultat al unor posibile intimidari, fie ca efect al unor aranjamente financiare. “Operatiunea” politiei s-a incheiat la ora 5:39.

Mai trebuie amintite urmatoarele aspecte :

– politistii aflati la poarta unu au filmat actiunea desfasurata in campul lor vizual;

– scutierii au avut si ei un aparat de filmat cu raze infrarosii;

– pe intreg parcursul actiunii politienesti a sunat continuu sirena, ceea ce a atras un mare numar de cetateni in zona;

Investigatiile efectuate de IGP au condus la concluzia, data publicitatii prin presa, ca “interventia a fost legala dar inoportuna”, comandantul IPJ, Marian Tutilescu fiind sanctionat cu suspendarea indemnizatiei de conducere pe o perioada de trei luni, cazul urmand a fi prelucrat cu toate IPJ-urile.

Multi dintre grevistii loviti de scutieri s-au prezentat la Laboratorul de medicina legala pentru a obtine certificate medico-legale. Doamna doctor Pasca, sotia loctiitorului comandantului IJP, a refuzat eliberarea certificatelor. Reactia doamnei doctor Pasca nu este singulara, APADOR-CH avand cunostinta si de alte cazuri in care laboratoarele din alte localitati ale Institutului Medico-Legal au refuzat eliberarea unor certificate medico-legale in situatia in care victima unei agresiuni indica politisti drept autori.

APADOR-CH considera ilegala interventia politiei din data de 20 martie 1996 pentru urmatoarele motive :

– Decizia Curtii de Apel cu privire la obligarea grevistilor de a permite accesul in fabrica persoanelor care nu participau la protest a fost emisa pe data de 15 martie si transmisa sindicatelor pe data de 18 martie. Chiar daca decizia era definitiva si investita cu formula executorie, sindicalistii aflati in greva ar fi trebuit sa fie somati s-o puna in aplicare si numai dupa aceea sa se recurga la executarea silita, care nu poate fi, in nici un caz, facuta cu concursul a circa 300 de politisti si scutieri, la ora 4.00 dimineata, ci prin intermediul unui executor judecatoresc;

– Interventia in forta a politiei este vadit disproportionata fata de scopul propus si anume accesul celor circa 200 de persoane care nu participau la greva la locurile lor de munca. Coroborand aceste elemente, numarul mare de politisti si scutieri, cu ora declansarii actiunii – ora la care cei 200 de salariati ce solicitau intrarea in fabrica nici macar nu erau prezenti – rezulta ca interventia politistilor nu a avut drept scop aplicarea hotararii judecatoresti, ci lichidarea, in forta, a grevei;

– Refuzul medicului legist de a elibera certificate medico-legale grevistilor loviti este nu numai o incalcare a deontologiei medicale, ci si o dovada de complicitate cu politia. Coroborand aceasta reactie cu altele similare, APADOR-CH considera ca exista, in momentul de fata, o tendinta evidenta din partea Institutului/laboratoarelor medico-legale de a acoperi abuzurile unor politisti.

La cateva luni dupa incidentele de la CELROM, patronul Vladimir Cohn a renuntat la partea sa din intreprindere care a fost rascumparata de FPS.

Marius Cristian Palcu (Bucuresti)

In dimineata zilei de 2 mai 1996 au avut loc incidente violente in Bucuresti in urma carora si-au pierdut viata trei persoane. Soldatul Laurentiu Cotea a dezertat inarmat de la garnizoana in care isi satisfacea stagiul militar. Dupa ce a impuscat mortal doi politisti, politia si jandarmeria au declansat o actiune de urmarire de o anvergura neobisnuita (circa trei mii de oameni), in timpul careia a fost impuscat un nevinovat, soldatul Marius Cristian Palcu, considerat “suspect” pentru ca era imbracat in uniforma militara. In legatura cu modul in care au actionat politistii din capitala, APADOR-CH a dat publicitatii urmatorul comunicat:

“1. Politistii aflati in misiune de patrulare si impuscati in dimineata zilei de 2 mai 1996 erau angajati in Politie de circa un an de zile. Ar fi fost normal ca un astfel de echipaj sa fie format dintr-un tanar angajat relativ recent in politie si un politist cu experienta, pregatit a face fata unei situatii extreme de tipul celei in care s-au aflat. APADOR-CH considera ca factorii de raspundere din Politie poarta cel putin raspunderea morala pentru deznodamantul tragic al unei misiuni care ar fi trebuit sa fie una de rutina.

2. Impuscarea mortala a soldatului in permisie Marius Cristian Palcu a fost posibila datorita incalcarii principiilor care trebuie sa stea la baza pregatirii teoretice si actiunii practice a politistilor.

Conform Legii nr. 26/1994 privind organizarea si functionarea Politiei, articolul 1 enumera atributiile acestei institutii, care sunt “apararea drepturilor si libertatilor fundamentale ale persoanelor, a avutului public si privat…”. Art. 21 care reglementeaza uzul de arma prevede la finele paragrafului 1 urmatoarele : “Uzul de arma se va face in asa fel incat sa duca la imobilizarea celor impotriva carora se foloseste arma, pentru a se evita cauzarea mortii acestora” (subl.n.). Decretul nr. 367/1971 privind regimul armelor, munitiilor si materiilor explozive – in vigoare la acea data – contine in art. 36 aceeasi precizare si anume folosirea armei din dotare pentru imobilizarea infractorilor, iar articolul 39 prevede clar “Uzul de arma, in conditiile si situatiile prevazute in prezentul articol, se va face in asa fel incat sa duca la imobilizarea celor impotriva carora se foloseste arma, tragandu-se, pe cat posibil, la picioare, pentru a se evita cauzarea mortii acestora.” (subl.n.)

Mai mult, in cazul de fata politistii nu aveau voie sa foloseasca arma de foc intrucat “se interzice uzul de arma … in situatiile in care s-ar primejdui viata altor persoane…” (Decretul 367/1971, art. 40, alin. 2). Politistii care il urmareau pe soldatul in permisie Palcu au facut uz de arma in plina zi, intr-o zona locuita, punand in pericol si vietile altor persoane.

Art. 19 din Legea Politiei prevede ca politistul poate face uz de arma din dotare “in caz de absoluta necesitate si cand folosirea altor mijloace de impiedicare sau constrangere nu este posibila”. Trebuie precizat ca in zona se aflau deja desfasurate importante forte de politie, dotate cu masini. Ar fi fost deci posibil ca politistii sa foloseasca o varietate de mijloace pentru retinerea celui urmarit, fara a face uz de arma.

In acelasi timp trebuie precizat ca soldatul Marius Cristian Palcu nu se afla in nici una din situatiile prevazute de Legea Politiei pentru uzul de arma, el nefiind nici “infractor prins in flagrant care incearca sa fuga si nu se supune somatiei de a ramane la locul faptei” (art. 19 litera d) si nici “infractor care a ripostat cu arme albe sau de foc…” (art. 19 litera e).

Trebuie mentionata si actiunea unor politisti de a aduce la locul faptei pe matusa si nepotul prezumtivului asasin, nepotul avand catuse la maini. Publicul prezent s-a manifestat cu violenta impotriva lor, crezand ca nepotul era asasinul. Actiunea politistilor, de aducere a celor doua rude la locul faptei constituie un abuz.

3. Laurentiu Gabriel Cotea – prezumtivul asasin al celor doi politisti – este, dupa spusele membrilor familiei, o persoana care prezinta labilitate psihica. In momentul in care a fost prins, dupa incercarea esuata de a se sinucide, el a spus, conform relatarilor din presa, ca nu a mai putut suporta umilintele la care fusese supus in timpul efectuarii stagiului militar. Soldatul si-a parasit postul si a comis acele acte violente dupa unsprezece luni de armata, cand mai avea doar o luna pana la liberare. APADOR-CH cere Ministerului Apararii Nationale si Parchetului Militar sa investigheze modul in care soldatul Laurentiu Gabriel Cotea a fost tratat in perioada satisfacerii stagiului militar.

APADOR-CH a aflat din informatiile furnizate de presa ca diagnosticul stabilit soldatului Laurentiu Gabriel Cotea la internarea in Spitalul de urgenta a fost “rana toracica prin autoimpuscare”. Sinuciderea sau tentativa de sinucidere nu poate fi stabilita, conform legii, decat in urma unei anchete penale efectuate de un magistrat. Un medic poate descrie aspectul plagii, genul de arma folosita, distanta de la care s-a tras, dar nu are competenta de a stabili autorul unei asemenea fapte.

APADOR-CH spera ca institutiile statului de drept sa-si faca datoria. In particular, APADOR-CH asteapta ca Parchetul Militar si Justitia militara sa solutioneze cu aceeasi operativitate atat cazul soldatului Laurentiu Gabriel Cotea cat si pe cel al politistului sau politistilor care l-au ucis pe soldatul Marius Cristian Palcu.”

Soldatul Laurentiu Gabriel Cotea a fost condamnat la pedeapsa inchisorii pe viata. Procesul politistului care l-a impuscat pe Marius Cristian Palcu continua. Nimeni din conducerea Politiei nu a fost considerat responsabil pentru felul in care a fost condusa actiunea soldata cu impuscarea unui om nevinovat.

Gabriel Carabulea (Bucuresti)

Pe data de 13 aprilie 1996, Gabriel Carabulea a avut un accident de circulatie, fara victime, in urma caruia masina sa a fost usor avariata. La sectia 14 Politie, unde a ajuns initial impreuna cu posesorul autovehicolului cu care a intrat in coliziune, a fost identificat drept persoana suspectata de talharie de politisti de la sectia 9. In aceeasi zi a fost transferat la sectia 9. Pe data de 16 aprilie, Gabriel Carabulea, impotriva caruia se emisese un mandat de arestare, 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. Pe data de 3 mai 1996, el a decedat. 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 a 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 un urias hematom in zona organelor genitale.

APADOR-CH a sesizat Parchetul militar in legatura cu acest caz prin adresa nr.44/14 mai 1996. Dupa cateva luni, asociatia a aflat din presa ca Parchetul militar insarcinat cu investigarea cauzei decesului susnumitului a decis neinceperea urmaririi penale impotriva politistilor de la Sectia 9 Politie Bucuresti.

Asociatia a venit cu noi argumente care contrazic sustinerea politistilor, asa cum a fost relatata in presa, conform careia Gabriel Carabulea ar fi decedat in urma accidentului de masina avut chiar in ziua retinerii (13 aprilie 1996). Astfel:

– Nela Carabulea, sotia lui Gabriel, a stat cu el circa 2 ore la sectia 14, practic pana in momentul mutarii retinutului la sectia 9. Gabriel nu s-a plans ca l-ar fi durut ceva. De la locul accidentului, Gabriel Carabulea a fost dus direct la sectia de politie, fara sa se puna problema unui examen medical. Concluzia logica este ca nu avea nevoie de o astfel de consultare.

– Pe data de 16 aprilie, Nela Carabulea s-a prezentat la sectia 9, exact in momentul in care sotul ei era transportat pe brate de politisti la masina care urma sa-l duca la spital. Afirmatia politistilor conform careia lui Gabriel Carabulea i s-ar fi facut subit rau si ar fi cazut in sala de dusuri a arestului politiei ca urmare a accidentului de masina, este discutabila sub mai multe aspecte :

a) de vreme ce victima nu s-a plans de vreo durere nici in ziua accidentului si nici in urmatoarele doua zile, este greu de crezut ca i-ar fi venit rau a treia zi dupa accident;

b) daca Gabriel Carabulea s-a plans politistilor de la Sectia 14 sau celor de la Sectia 9 in legatura cu eventuale urmari ale accidentului de masina, se pune intrebarea de ce nu a fost transportat mai devreme la spital;

c) eventualitatea decesului lui Gabriel Carabulea in urma accidentului de masina nu explica prezenta enormului hematom din zona organelor genitale, mentionat si in Raportul medico-legal de autopsie intocmit de Institutul de Medicina Legala “Prof.Dr.Mina Minovici” sub numarul A3/962’96, din 7 august 1996.

Vineri, 3 mai 1996, Gabriel Carabulea a murit in spitalul Fundeni. Certificatul medical constatator al mortii a fost emis de IML – Bucuresti pe data de 4 mai, sub numarul 962. Documentul mentioneaza drept cauza directa a decesului “insuficienta cardiorespiratorie acuta” iar la starea morbida initiala, “bronhopneumonie cu zone de infarctizare”. Raportul medico-legal de autopsie mentioneaza la concluzii ca moartea lui Gabriel Carabulea “s-a datorat insuficientei cardio-respiratorii acute consecutive unei trombembolii pulmonare cu zone intinse de infarctizare pulmonara (pulmonul drept), la un organism cu afectiuni cronice preexistente, miocardioscleroza, hepatita cronica agresiva cu tendinta cirogena, nefrita cronica interstitiala.” Gabriel Carabulea era, dupa spusele sotiei, un om perfect sanatos, care nu suferise decat de bolile copilariei. In plus, in luna mai 1995, isi facuse si un examen radiologic la dispensarul Institutului de Ftiziologie, rezultatul fiind “nimic patologic pleuro-pulmonar”. Este aproape imposibil de crezut ca un tanar de 26 de ani, sanatos tun, sa se fi imbolnavit de plamani, inima, ficat si rinichi atat de grav, fara ca macar sa isi dea seama.

Art. 29 din Legea Politiei nr. 26/1994 precizeaza ca: “Personalul politiei este obligat sa vegheze ca sanatatea si integritatea corporala a persoanelor a caror paza o exercita sa fie deplin ocrotite si, in special, sa ia imediat masuri ca ingrijirile medicale sa le fie acordate de fiecare data cand acestea se impun.” Art. 27 din aceeasi lege prevede ca: “Politistului ii este interzis sa provoace unei persoane suferinte fizice ori psihice, cu scopul de a obtine, de la aceasta persoana sau de la o terta persoana, informatii sau marturisiri …. De asemenea, politistului ii este interzis sa comita acte de tortura, in orice imprejurare, oricare ar fi ea….”. Codul Penal stabileste pedepse pentru cercetarea abuziva (art. 266 alin. 2 : “Intrebuintarea de promisiuni, amenintari sau violente impotriva unei persoane aflate in curs de cercetare, ancheta penala ori judecata, pentru obtinerea de declaratii, se pedepseste cu inchisoare de la unu la 5 ani.”), supunerea la rele tratamente (art. 267 : “Supunerea la rele tratamente a unei persoane aflate in stare de retinere, detinere … se pedepseste cu inchisoare de la unu la 3 ani.”) sau tortura (art. 267/1 : “Fapta prin care se provoaca unei persoane, cu intentie, o durere sau suferinte puternice, fizice ori psihice, indeosebi cu scopul de a obtine de la aceasta persoana … informatii sau marturisiri … atunci cand o asemenea durere sau astfel de suferinte sunt aplicate de catre un agent al autoritatii publice … se pedepseste cu inchisoare de la 2 la 7 ani.” Paragraf 3 : “Tortura care a avut ca urmare moartea victimei se pedepseste cu detentie pe viata sau cu inchisoare de la 10 la 20 ani.”)

Mai trebuie amintit si ca insasi Constitutia interzice tortura si relele tratamente si ca Romania a semnat mai multe documente internationale cu privire la drepturile omului – Conventia europeana pentru apararea drepturilor omului si a libertatilor fundamentale cu Protocoalele aditionale, Conventia europeana pentru prevenirea torturii, Pactul international cu privire la drepturile civile si politice, etc – toate continand aceleasi garantii pentru persoanele detinute, retinute sau arestate.

Sectia Parchetelor Militare a infirmat prima decizie in acest caz, cerand completarea investigatiilor, nefinalizate pana la sfarsitul anului 1996.

Andrei Mardare (Bucuresti)

Andrei Mardare din Bucuresti a fost retinut de politistii de la sectia 7 de politie (Colentina) pe data de 10 iunie 1996, in jurul orei 23.00, fiind acuzat de talharie. In fapt, Andrei Mardare ar fi acostat o femeie pe strada careia i-ar fi dat o palma si ar fi incercat sa-i ia geanta. Familia Mardare a fost anuntata de sectia de politie la ora 1.00, cerandu-i-se sa se prezinte cu buletinul de identitate al retinutului. Lucia Mardare, mama lui Andrei, a venit la sectie pe data de 11 iunie dimineata cand i s-a comunicat ca fiul ei se afla la spital.

Din certificatul medical nr. C/323 emis de Spitalul clinic de urgenta – sectia neurochirurgie – rezulta ca Andrei Mardare a fost adus la spital, de la sectia de politie, la ora 3,25 pe data de 11 iunie, cand i s-a pus diagnosticul :”contuzie cerebrala minora, contuzie auriculara stanga”. In aceste conditii apare suspiciunea intemeiata ca Andrei Mardare a fost lovit in sectia de politie, in timpul retinerii. Fratele lui Andrei Mardare a declarat ca acesta a fost insotit la spitalul de urgenta de un plutonier de la sectia 7.

Lucia Mardare a revenit la sectie pe data de 12 iunie si si-a vazut fiul cu urme clare de lovituri pe fata, in special la nas si ureche.

Familia Mardare a depus plangere impotriva politistilor la Sectia Parchetelor Militare (numar de inregistrare 14756 din data de 1 august 1996). Andrei Mardare se afla in prezent in penitenciarul Bucuresti, in arest preventiv.

APADOR-CH considera ca atat rezultatele examenului medical de la Spitalul de urgenta cat si declaratia mamei lui Andrei Mardare sunt indicii clare de purtare abuziva din partea politistilor de la sectia 7 Bucuresti.

Pana la sfarsitul anului 1996 nu au fost finalizate cercetarile in acest caz.

Kerim Asim si Dervis Givan (Medgidia)

Informatiile au fost furnizate APADOR-CH de seful Politiei municipale. Nu au putut fi contactati si suspectii implicati in incident intrucat unul se afla deja in arest preventiv la penitenciarul Poarta Alba iar celalalt a disparut, fiind dat in urmarire generala.

Dl. comandant a relatat ca, in noaptea de 1 spre 2 iunie a.c., doi romi – Kerim Asim si Dervis Givan – au furat de la cetateanul G.D. care locuieste la caminul de nefamilisti, un televizor alb/negru si obiecte de imbracaminte. In jurul orei 3.00 noaptea, cei doi au fost opriti de o patrula formata dintr-un politist si un jandarm. Intrucat explicatiile date de romi in legatura cu provenienta bunurilor aflate asupra lor au fost nesatisfacatoare, patrula a solicitat unui cetatean din zona sa-i duca pe toti cu masina lui la sectia de politie. Ajunsi aici, cei doi suspecti au abandonat lucrurile sustrase si au fugit. Politistul a luat un taxi si a pornit in urmarirea lor. La un moment dat, taxiul a taiat calea celor doi romi care s-au despartit fugind in directii diferite. Politistul l-a somat pe Kerim Asim, dupa care a tras, nimerindu-l in picior. In total au fost trase patru focuri de arma. Kerim Asim a fost consultat de un doctor din Medgidia, dupa care, considerandu-se ca nu se afla intr-o stare grava, a fost dus in arest preventiv la penitenciarul Poarta Alba. Celalalt suspect – Dervis Givan – a disparut si este dat in urmarire generala.

Politia a retinut-o si pe Sali Sevij, o femeie care “lucra” impreuna cu cei doi romi. Ea racola diversi cetateni – intre care si pe G.D.- cu care intretinea relatii sexuale, dupa care transmitea informatii celor doi romi privind bunurile existente la domiciliile persoanelor racolate, facilitandu-le actiunile infractionale.

Problema care s-a ridicat a fost de ce politistii nu i-au imobilizat pe cei doi romi folosind catusele, lucru ce i-ar fi impiedicat sa fuga din fata sediului politiei. Raspunsul sefului politiei din Medgidia a fost ca “nu au suficiente catuse”. Asadar, patrula nu era dotata cu catuse si nu avea masina (pentru intreaga politie din Medgidia exista o singura masina, iar aprovizionarea cu benzina se face defectuos), ceea ce nu numai ca ingreuneaza munca politistilor dar poate avea consecinte nefaste, cum a fost cazul impuscarii lui Kerim Asim.

Cazul Ionut Vlase (Mangalia)

Pe data de 1 iunie 1996, in jurul orei 16.30, Ionut Vlase, in varsta de 13 ani, se juca in zona dintre blocurile de pe Soseaua Constantei unde locuieste impreuna cu familia. Urmarind un suspect presupus a fi furat o suma de bani de la un turist francez cazat la hotel “Mangalia” din apropiere, un politist – Curti Dindar – a ajuns in zona respectiva si a tras sase focuri de arma. Un glont l-a nimerit pe copil in cap. Transportat de familie mai intai la spitalul din Mangalia – unde comentariul unui medic a fost “nu vedeti ca e beat?” – Ionut Vlase a fost dus apoi de urgenta la spitalul judetean Constanta unde a fost operat imediat de doctorul Schiopu. Din fisa medicala rezulta ca glontul a avut punct de intrare fronto-temporal dreapta, iar punct de iesire temporal posterior dreapta. Cele doua orificii sunt de dimensiuni aproape egale, ceea ce pune problema distantei de la care s-a tras : ori de foarte aproape, ori de foarte departe. Din declaratiile unor vecini care au vazut incidentul, se pare ca politistul a tras de la o distanta de 25 -30 metri, deci de la o distanta mica.

Ionut Vlase nu stie nimic in legatura cu incidentul. Stie doar ca a auzit circa sase focuri de arma dupa care a cazut la pamant. Cu toate ca in iunie 1996 se simtea relativ bine, el se plangea de dureri de cap. Doctorul Schiopu a declarat ca Ionut Vlase si-a pierdut “simtul artistic” in urma impuscarii si ca nu excludea eventuale complicatii ulterioare, din care cea mai posibila este epilepsia posttraumatica.

La locul unde s-a petrecut incidentul se vedeau clar, pe calcanul blocului unde locuieste familia Vlase, urmele a cinci gloante, imprastiate pe o suprafata de maximum un metru patrat. Vecinii din blocurile din jur au declarat ca, la ora 16.30 cand s-a petrecut incidentul, erau multi copii care se jucau in spatiul respectiv. In aceste conditii, apare evident ca recurgerea la arma de foc s-a facut cu incalcarea Legii nr.17/1996 privind regimul armelor de foc si al munitiilor care, la art.52 paragraf b) prevede urmatoarele : “Se interzice uzul de arma in situatiile in care s-ar primejdui viata altor persoane ….”. Este clar ca, recurgerea la arma de foc s-a facut intr-o zona populata, la o ora cu circulatie intensa. Tot Legea 17/1996 prevede la art.51, alin.3 ca “Persoanei ranite trebuie sa i se dea primul ajutor si ingrijiri medicale”. Nici aceasta prevedere nu a fost respectata de politist, care, dupa sosirea unui coleg, a parasit locul incidentului cu masina acestuia.

Comandantul Politiei Mangalia a afirmat ca : 1) politistul nu a stiut ca a impuscat un copil; 2) in zona incidentului nu s-ar fi aflat nimeni in momentul impuscaturilor; 3) suspectul Isai Iasar l-ar fi amenintat pe politist cu o piatra, ceea ce explica recurgerea la arma de foc. Or, legitima aparare nu poate fi invocata in nici un caz, intrucat chiar daca suspectul l-ar fi amenintat pe politist cu o piatra, este evidenta disproportia dintre o asemenea “arma” si o arma de foc. Iar daca se poate admite ca politistul nu a stiut, in momentul respectiv, ca a impuscat un copil, afirmatia ca nu se afla nimeni in zona este contrazisa atat de marturiile locatarilor din blocurile invecinate cat si de producerea incidentului caruia i-a cazut victima Ionut Vlase.

Isai Iasar, presupusul hot, se afla in arestul Politiei Judetene Constanta, deoarece incidentele in care sunt amestecati straini intra in competenta inspectoratelor judetene.

In urma anchetei efectuate de Parchetul Militar Constanta politistul vinovat de ranirea prin impuscare a unui copil de 13 ani a fost trimis in judecata.

Fratii Viorel si Marius Burueana Damian (Turceni)

Conform relatarilor celor doi frati, pe data de 29 ianuarie 1995 ei se aflau la targul din Novaci, incercand sa vanda un fierastrau mecanic si un transformator de sudura – ambele de fabricatie straina – aduse de Viorel Damian din Germania unde lucrase cu contract de munca aproape un an. Venisera la targ cu masina Opel pe care Viorel Damian o imprumutase de la un cetatean german si pe care urma sa i-o restituie la intoarcerea in Germania. Un politist din Novaci le-a cerut mai intai actele de proveninta a bunurilor, apoi buletinele (a retinut buletinul de identitate al lui Viorel Damian) ca, in cele din urma, sa-i invite la sediul politiei din Novaci. Aici li s-a spus ca trebuie sa lase obiectele (fierastraul si transformatorul) la politie, conform Legii 12 (?!). Fratii Damian – Viorel este inginer iar Marius Burueana este proaspat absolvent al facultatii de drept – au fost de acord sa le lase dar cu conditia – perfect legala – a intocmirii unui proces verbal. Politistii din Novaci au refuzat acest lucru, asa incat fratii au plecat cu obiectele respective acasa la Turceni. Buletinul de identitate al lui Viorel Damian a ramas la Novaci.

Spre seara, mai multi politisti de la sectia din Turceni s-au prezentat la domiciliul lui Viorel Damian cerandu-i sa-i insoteasca. Folosindu-si cunostintele de drept, Marius Burueana a intervenit si le-a solicitat o invitatie scrisa. Discutiile au avut loc in fata blocului, in prezenta mai multor persoane. In cele din urma, fratii Damian au fost introdusi cu forta in masina ARO cu numarul 3 – GJ – 535, apartinand IFTE Turceni, condusa de Gabriel Calina, fiul sefului de post din Turceni, Stefan Necsoiu (Gabriel Calina nu este politist). Pe traseul pana la sectia de politie, fratii Damian au fost loviti cu salbaticie in special de Gabriel Calina si de plt.Nicolae Draghici in timp ce erau imobilizati de maiorul Stefan Necsoiu, de sg. maj. Marian Miu, plt. maj. Titel Sganca si martorul Iulian Musescu. Trebuie mentionat ca, ulterior, politistii au adus o masina a politiei pe care au fotografiat-o in fata blocului, depunand fotografia la dosar (?!). Dar insusi Gabriel Calina a recunoscut in declaratie ca a condus masina ARO apartinand IFTE.

Fratii Damian au fost dusi la sectia din Turceni, de unde au fost transferati la IPJ Gorj (Tg. Jiu). Pe numele lor s-a emis – de catre Parchetul de pe langa Tribunalul Tg. Jiu – un mandat de arestare de 30 de zile (nr. 44/31.01.1995), sub acuzatia de ultraj la adresa politistilor din Turceni (art. 239/2 si 321/1 CP).

Marius Burueana Damian a intrat in greva foamei cerand sa fie examinati de un medic legist atat el cat si fratele sau. Acest lucru s-a intamplat pe data de 2 februarie 1995 dupa care s-a emis un certificat medico-legal (nr.182/6.02.1995) care constata ca Marius Burueana Damian prezenta numeroase echimoze pe fata, precum si o lovitura la genunchi. Viorel Damian a fost si el examinat de un medic legist dar abia pe data de 6.02.1995, in urma continuarii grevei foamei declarate de fratele sau. Certificatul medico-legal nr.203 din 7.02.1995 constata, de asemenea, prezenta a numeroase leziuni traumatice pe diverse parti ale corpului. Trebuie mentionat ca politistii care au pretins ca ar fi fost agresati de cei doi frati si-au scos certificate de la IML Gorj dupa ce fusese examinat Marius Burueana.

O data cu privarea de libertate, lui Viorel Damian i-au fost confiscate masina Opel (returnata la eliberare) si cele doua obiecte mentionate mai sus (fierastraul si transformatorul). Pe data de 29 ianuarie, in jurul orei 22.00, Viorel Damian a fost dus de la politie inapoi la domiciliu, unde i s-a efectuat o perchezitie. Nu i s-a ridicat nici un obiect din casa. In schimb, i-a fost confiscata, tot fara proces verbal, rulota care se afla parcata in curtea unui vecin, ceea ce pune problema procedurii folosite de politisti : au avut sau nu mandat de perchezitie pentru vecin? au obtinut sau nu acordul sau scris pentru a ridica rulota?

Fratii Damian au fost eliberati pe cautiune dupa 25 de zile de privare de libertate. Procesul de ultraj intentat impotriva lor a fost stramutat de la Tg. Jiu la Bucuresti, fiind in curs de judecata (dosar nr 7517/96 la Judecatoria Sectorului 3).

Mama fratilor Damian a depus o plangere la Parchetul militar Craiova pe data de 3 februarie 1995. Viorel si Marius au depus si ei plangeri la acelasi parchet. S-a constituit dosarul nr.123/P/95 dar, inainte de finalizare, unul din politistii implicati a fost avansat in grad, intrand in competenta Parchetului militar Bucuresti. Cum la Parchetul militar Craiova adjunctul primului procuror are competenta si pentru Bucuresti, a fost schimbat doar numarul dosarului (nr.1294/P/95), lucru de care victimele au aflat intamplator. In cadrul investigatiilor, care inca nu au fost finalizate cu toate ca a trecut un an si jumatate de la incident, fratii Damian au dat declaratii in doua randuri la Parchetul militar Craiova.

Pana la sfarsitul anului 1996 cazul nu a fost solutionat de Parchetul militar. In acelasi timp, dosarul impotriva fratilor Damian pentru ultraj la adresa politistilor din Turceni este mereu amanat in asteptarea deciziei Parchetului militar. Este evident ca daca Parchetul militar va decide neinceperea urmaririi penale impotriva politistilor reclamati pentru abuz, atunci fratii Damian vor fi condamnati pentru ultraj. Invers, daca Parchetul militar stabileste ca politistii din Turceni s-au facut vinovati de purtare abuziva, atunci acuzatia de “ultraj” cade si Ministerul de Interne, impreuna cu procurorul care a emis mandatele de arestare preventiva vor trebui sa raspunda pentru privare ilegala de libertate.

Ion Laurentiu Corneliu Apostolescu (Bucuresti)

Inginerul Ion Laurentiu Corneliu Apostolescu din Bucuresti, a fost agresat de politisti si de doi civili care s-au recomandat a fi “pompieri” in statia de metrou Unirea 2 in noaptea de 17/18 noiembrie a.c. Inginerul, insotit de fiul sau in varsta de 13 ani, Laurentiu Apostolescu, si nepotul sau, Mihai Damian, in varsta de 22 de ani, a participat la manifestarile spontane din Piata Universitatii in urma anuntarii rezultatelor alegerilor prezidentiale. Inginerul Apostolescu avea asupra sa un drapel tricolor. In statia de metrou, au fost acostati, in jurul orei 1.00 de un grup de politisti si de doi civili. Unul dintre politisti le-a cerut drapelul pe care l-a desfasurat si agitat oarecum amenintator in directia inginerului. Lucrurile s-au precipitat cand au intervenit si cei doi civili. Mihai Damian a fost trantit la podea si lovit, apoi inginerul Apostolescu a fost imobilizat de politisti cu catusele, lovit si el si tarat spre sectia de politie metrou. La strigatele lor, a aparut un ziarist de la “Monitorul de Iasi” care a fost martor la intreaga intamplare si a si dat declaratie la politie. Inginerul Apostolescu si nepotul sau Mihai Damian au fost retinuti la sectia de politie din metrou pana in jurul orei 4.00 dimineata. Ei au semnat declaratii in legatura cu cele intamplate, timp in care, la o masa alaturata, cei doi “pompieri” isi scriau declaratiile dupa dictarea unuia din politisti. Mai trebuie mentionat si faptul ca la adresa inginerului si nepotului sau au fost proferate amenintari de genul “va sparg”, “va omor” etc. si ca drapelul a fost facut bucati de politisti.

Mihai Damian are certificat medico-legal (nr. A2/11556) care mentioneaza ca “prezinta leziuni corporale…si necesita 3-4 zile ingrijiri medicale”. In cazul inginerului Apostolescu, loviturile primite la gat si pe spate nu au lasat urme, asa incat certificatul sau medico-legal (nr. A2/11557) nu indica si numarul de zile de ingrijiri medicale.

Pe data de 25 noiembrie, inginerul a primit prin posta un proces verbal prin care era amendat cu suma de 500.000 lei pe baza Legii 61/91. A contestat amenda la Judecatorie, avand termen in ianuarie 1997.

APADOR-CH considera ca politistii care se aflau in statia de metrou in noaptea de 17/18 noiembrie precum si cei doi pompieri se fac vinovati de purtare abuziva. Chiar daca inginerul Apostolescu ar fi “tulburat” linistea publica – ceea ce, in acea noapte, au facut cateva zeci de mii de bucuresteni – nimic nu poate justifica interventia brutala a oamenilor legii.

Victima a depus plangere la Parchetul Militar Bucuresti, inregistrata sub numarul 912/22.11.1996.

CONCLUZII:

– Din cazurile investigate de APADOR-CH rezulta in mod clar faptul ca reactia politistilor fata de cei pe care ei ii suspecteaza de a fi comis o contraventie/infractiune a ramas neschimbata : desconsiderarea fiintei umane, folosirea excesiva a fortei fara teama de a suporta rigorile legii, acoperirea colegilor vinovati de abuzuri, recurgerea la acuzatia de “ultraj” pentru justificarea purtarii abuzive etc;

– Lipsa de profesionalism a politistilor implicati in cazurile descrise este evidenta : recurgerea la forta atunci cand nimic nu justifica acest lucru, necunoasterea (sau nerespectarea) legilor tarii (mai ales in privinta situatiilor in care poate fi folosita arma de foc), abuzarea de Legea 61/91 cu privire la contraventii etc;

– Cadrul legislativ trebuie modificat in sensul sporirii protectiei drepturilor omului si libertatilor sale fundamentale; propunerile avansate de APADOR-CH in aceasta privinta sunt doar o parte din masurile administrative si legislative imperios necesare;

– In privinta colaborarii cu diferite Parchete Militare, trebuie facute cateva precizari:

– APADOR-CH a constatat tergiversarea unor cazuri socotite de asociatie drept flagrante incalcari ale drepturilor omului, precum si modalitatea de solutionare a altora, in sensul emiterii cu foarte multa usurinta a deciziei de neincepere a urmaririi penale impotriva unor politisti;

– Apeland, in asemenea situatii, la Sectia Parchetelor Militare din cadrul Parchetului General, APADOR-CH a colaborat bine cu aceasta institutie, apreciind in mod deosebit atitudinea deschisa si dorinta de dialog a unor procurori militari.

– APADOR-CH a precizat in repetate randuri ca o dorita demilitarizare a politiei nu va avea alt impact asupra procurorilor militari decat disparitia gradelor militare si eliminarea sursei de permanenta suspiciune care este “disciplina militara” si care inseamna indeplinirea ordinelor superiorilor ierarhici ceea ce poate afecta independenta magistratilor.

V. PROBLEME DIN PENITENCIARE

APADOR-CH a continuat programul de investigare a unor plangeri individuale adresate asociatiei de persoane aflate in detentie. Cu acele ocazii, reprezentantii asociatiei au vizitat si penitenciarele respective. In 1996, spre deosebire de anii precedenti cand aprobarea de intrare intr-un anume penitenciar era valabila pentru perioade de trei-patru saptamani, Directia Generala a Penitenciarelor a cerut APADOR-CH sa precizeze datele vizitelor. Intentia de “cosmetizare” a realitatii a fost evidenta in toate penitenciarele vizitate, ceea ce dovedeste ca factorii de raspundere din DGP nu au inteles inca rolul organizatiilor neguvernamentale pe care le considera “adversare” si nu partenere de dialog.

1. Aspecte generale

Aspectele semnalate de APADOR-CH in 1994 si 1995 raman, in mare parte, valabile si in 1996.

a) Supraaglomerarea

Una din principalele cauze ale supraaglomerarii din penitenciare este usurinta cu care procurorii emit mandate de arestare preventiva. Codul de procedura penala prevede numeroase situatii in care se poate lua aceasta masura privativa de libertate, unele din ele fiind in contradictie cu articolul 5 din Conventia europeana pentru apararea drepturilor omului si a libertatilor fundamentale, cum ar fi emiterea aproape automata a mandatului de arestare preventiva daca suspectul este recidivist, sau daca pedeapsa pentru fapta de care suspectul este acuzat este mai mare de doi ani inchisoare. In afara de aceasta, institutia eliberarii pe cautiune sau sub control judiciar nu functioneaza decat rar si greu. In aceste conditii, exista penitenciare in care aproape jumatate din detinuti se afla in arest preventiv.

O alta categorie de detinuti care contribuie la crearea supraaglomerarii este cea a contravenientilor. In marea lor majoritate, ei au ajuns in penitenciar pentru ca nu au putut – sau au neglijat – sa-si plateasca o amenda contraventionala. Transformarea amenzii in zile/inchisoare pe baza Legii 61/91, prezinta, dupa parerea APADOR-CH, numai dezavantaje pentru ca :

– suma reprezentand amenda nu este recuperata de stat;

– statul cheltuieste bani pentru fiecare detinut, indiferent de motivele pentru care i s-a aplicat o pedeapsa privativa de libertate;

– rolul educativ al pedepsei este cel putin discutabil datorita mediului si mentalitatilor din locurile de detentie.

O solutie ar fi amenajarea unui penitenciar numai pentru contravenienti, in care conditiile de detentie sa fie mult mai usoare. La ora actuala, cu exceptia unor mici avantaje, contravenientii au aceleasi conditii si acelasi tratament ca si cei condamnati pentru infractiuni grave.

O a doua solutie, aplicata cu succes in tarile cu traditii democratice indelungate, este inlocuirea pedepsei privative de libertate cu prestarea de servicii in beneficiul comunitatii.

Prin recentele amendamente aduse Codului penal (octombrie 1996), limitele superioare ale pedepselor privative de libertate au fost dublate sau chiar triplate, ceea ce va determina aplicarea unor pedepse mai severe, in toate cazurile infractionale. In felul acesta detinutii vor petrece si mai mult timp in penitenciare, ceea ce va avea urmari serioase cu privre la supraaglomerarea locurilor de detentie.

b) Fonduri insuficiente

Hrana, dar mai ales conditiile de igiena sunt precare. Cu toate ca numarul de calorii stabilite pentru fiecare categorie de detinuti (cei care muncesc/cei care nu muncesc; detinuti bolnavi/detinuti sanatosi; detinuti tineri sau minori etc) a crescut simtitor in ultimii ani, el este atins, in regula generala, prin folosirea subproduselor de carne (cap si picioare de porc) si a slaninii. Nu este greu de imaginat ce efecte poate avea, in timp, acest meniu invariabil asupra sanatatii detinutilor. Sistemul centralizat al penitenciarelor nu permite initiativa locala: exista locuri de detentie care au propriile ferme de animale sau gradini de zarzavat si care ar putea imbunatati hrana zilnica din propriile resurse. Ar fi de dorit ca DGP sa stabileasca doar norma minima de calorii zilnice, lasand la latitudinea comandantilor si cadrelor din fiecare penitenciar decizia de a o spori, in functie de posibilitati.

Conditiile de igiena inseamna practic inca o pedeapsa pentru detinuti. In conditii “normale”, o camera cu 30 – 40 de detinuti este dotata cu grup sanitar format din maximum doua WC-uri si un spalator cu trei-patru robinete. Nu exista apa calda in camere si, uneori, nici apa rece. Detinutii fac dus o data pe saptamana, fiecare avand la dispozitie doar cateva minute. Paturile, cearceafurile, saltelele, paturile sunt foarte vechi si degradate ceea ce face practic inutila orice dezinsectie.

In unele penitenciare, cabinetele medicale sunt lipsite de aparatura si medicamentele absolut necesare, uneori chiar si de doctori. Un detinut bolnav, care nu poate fi tratat in penitenciar si nici nu poate fi transferat la unicul spital penitenciar din Romania, poate fi internat intr-un spital civil din zona respectiva, dar aceasta presupune scoaterea din dispozitiv a unor cadre care trebuie sa-l pazeasca. O solutie ar fi asigurarea pazei de politie sau jandarmerie sau gardieni publici.

Aceste probleme ar putea fi rezolvate mult mai usor daca ar exista fonduri suficiente.

c) Mentalitatea cadrelor din penitenciare

Este sigur ca s-au facut progrese in acest domeniu. Cadrele din penitenciare au inceput sa inteleaga ca persoanele aflate in detentie nu inceteaza sa fie oameni chiar daca au savarsit infractiuni pentru care societatea i-a pedepsit prin privare de libertate. Procesul ar putea fi accelerat daca DGP ar inceta sa fie o institutie militara care blocheaza orice initiativa ce ar putea fi luata la nivelul fiecarui penitenciar si daca ordinele militare ar fi inlocuite cu regulamente redactate conform standardelor europene.

Mai exista inca ofiteri si subofiteri care considera ca, odata ajunsa in penitenciar, o persoana aflata in perioada urmaririi penale sau a judecatii este automat vinovata. Prezumtia de nevinovatie nu este, inca, o notiune general acceptata. Chiar si in locurile unde ea este respectata in principiu, se practica separarea intre cei care nu au fost inca judecati si cei deja condamnati in prima instanta, neintelegandu-se ca numai o decizie ramasa definitiva dupa epuizarea tuturor cailor de atac in justitie conteaza.

d) Reinsertia sociala

Nu exista in prezent un program coerent al autoritatilor in privinta reinsertiei sociale a detinutilor care sunt pusi in libertate. Riscurile ca un fost detinut sa nu gaseasca de lucru, sa fie repudiat de familie si sa ramana pe drumuri sunt bine cunoscute. De aici si numarul mare de recidivisti. Cateva organizatii neguvernamentale incearca sa faca ceva in acest domeniu, dar ele dispun de bani prea putini. Ar fi nevoie de un program guvernamental, cu finantare de la buget, pentru a evita, pe cat posibil, ca detinutii eliberati sa ajunga in situatia revenirii in penitenciare in urma comiterii unor noi infractiuni.

2. Aspecte din cateva penitenciare. Cazuri individuale

a) Penitenciarul Bucuresti (29 februarie 1996)

Conditiile din penitenciar

La data vizitei, se aflau in penitenciar 3.360 detinuti la o capacitate de 2.400 paturi. Din acestia, 118 erau contravenienti, adica persoane ale caror amenzi neachitate au fost transformate in zile de inchisoare.

509 detinuti erau folositi la diverse munci in incinta penitenciarului, circa 200 fiind FP (fara paza). O parte din ei sunt platiti (75.000 lei/luna, din care detinutului ii revin 10%), altii muncesc numai pentru scaderea pedepsei, care poate ajunge la 7 zile/luna.

Exista un preot ortodox cu statut de angajat permanent, dar si reprezentanti ai altor culte – evanghelist, penticostal, adventist – au acces in penitenciar o data pe saptamana sau o data la doua saptamani. O organizatie intitulata “Serviciul umanitar pentru penitenciare” combina educatia moral-religioasa cu mici ajutoare materiale sau servicii facute detinutilor.

In camerele vizitate (camera 41 : 27 paturi cu 35 persoane; camera 53 – tineri intre 18 si 21 ani – : 25 paturi cu 35 persoane; camera 54 – recidivisti – : 31 paturi cu 43 persoane) conditiile de detentie au ramas aceleasi ca in 1995, in privinta igienei si cazarmamentului : aceleasi saltele si paturi vechi, aceleasi uniforme degradate, acelasi grup sanitar rudimentar format din unu sau doua WC-uri si un spalator cu doua sau trei robinete pentru fiecare camera. Detinutii continua sa faca dus cu apa calda o data pe saptamana, avand la dispozitie circa o jumatate de ora pentru fiecare camera.

O camera de izolare, cu doua paturi, in care nu se afla nici un detinut in acel moment nu mai avea geam, robinetul chiuvetei nu era utilizabil iar WC-ul era infundat. Explicatia starii in care se afla camera a fost aceea ca persoana care o ocupase fusese un detinut-problema. Hrana zilnica a detinutilor nu s-a mai imbunatatit nici ea fata de anul 1995 : ceai cu margarina sau marmelada, dimineata, o ciorba si un fel de mancare, la pranz, si un singur fel, seara. Ca la fiecare vizita, s-a pus din nou problema carnii din alimentatia detinutilor. In ziua respectiva, felul doi la pranz a constat in cartofi “cu carne”, s-a spus initial, “cu subproduse de carne” s-a precizat la bucatarie, ceea ce insemna capete si picioare de porc. Carnea (24 kg.) ar fi fost folosita numai pentru mancarea de regim (cam 240 – 260 de detinuti). Cei care se afla in arest preventiv ar avea mancare mai buna decat cei condamnati definitiv, dar este greu de crezut ca diferenta de 5 grame de carne (40 gr. pentru primii si 35 gr. pentru cei din urma) poate fi respectata in realitate.

Cazuri individuale

Robert Constantin Toth este un detinut condamnat la 5 ani inchisoare pentru talharie (art. 211 combinat cu art. 37 din codul penal), din care a executat 2 ani si patru luni. Rudele sale au trimis sesizari atat autoritatilor publice cat si APADOR-CH prin care sustineau ca, in urma unei incaierari cu un grup de detinuti, lui Robert Constantin Toth i s-ar fi fracturat maxilarul si ca nu ar primi ingrijirile medicale necesare. Din discutia avuta cu detinutul si apoi cu cadrele medicale din penitenciar si din verificarea fisei sale medicale a reiesit ca el a avut intr-adevar o fractura mandibulara dar ca a refuzat imobilizarea prescrisa de specialistii de la Facultatea de Stomatologie. In fisa medicala exista refuzul scris al detinutului. Intrucat nu se cunoaste o alta metoda pentru vindecarea unei fracturi mandibulare si intrucat numai in situatia imobilizarii mandibulei personalul medical ar fi trebuit sa efectueze spalaturi zilnice ale cavitatii bucale, reprezentantii asociatiei au considerat ca plangerea privind neacordarea asistentei necesare nu este justificata. In privinta medicatiei, Robert Constantin Toth a declarat ca nu i s-a dat nici un fel de medicament dar doctorita i-a amintit ca primea deja antibiotice pentru o alta afectiune contactata inaintea fracturarii mandibulei si ca i s-au dat si analgezice. De fapt, detinutul, care a refuzat si sa formuleze plangere impotriva agresorilor si sa accepte imobilizarea maxilarului, a crezut ca fractura mandibulei va putea fi un motiv pentru o eliberare pe motive de boala.

Gheorghe Manaila este unul din contravenientii aflati in penitenciar. El a fost amendat de sectia 15 politie din Bucuresti pe data de 2 aprilie 1995 pe baza Legii nr. 61/91, art. 2 lit. p) (“provocarea sau participarea la scandal in localuri publice”) cu suma de 150.000 lei. Nu a achitat-o si, pe data de 3 iulie 1995, Judecatoria sectorului 4 Bucuresti a transformat-o in 180 zile/inchisoare contraventionala prin impartirea sumei de 150.000 lei la 300 lei/zi. Au rezultat, asadar, 500 de zile/inchisoare dar Legea 61/91 prevede ca maximum de pedeapsa cu inchisoarea este de 180 zile. Cu toate ca exista sentinta Judecatoriei inca din luna iulie, mandatul de arestare nr. 387 poarta data de 18 decembrie 1995 si a fost adus la indeplinire pe 18 ianuarie 1996. Deoarece deciziile Curtii Constitutionale cu privire la neconstitutionalitatea transformarii unei amenzi neachitate in zile/inchisoare prin impartirea sumei respective la 300 lei/zi dateaza din 10 octombrie 1995 si 14 noiembrie 1995, ar fi fost firesc ca, in cazul Manaila, Parchetul General sa dispuna suspendarea executarii pedepsei.

b) Spitalul penitenciar Bucuresti (29 februarie 1996)

La data vizitei erau circa 700 de detinuti bolnavi la cele 748 de paturi ce reprezinta capacitatea spitalului. Ca si la vizitele precedente, sectia TBC era cea mai aglomerata, cu 351 bolnavi. Dar, in urma unei repartitii mai judicioase a bolnavilor, s-a reusit evitarea supraaglomerarii. Astfel, la camera 105 erau 45 bolnavi la 55 de paturi iar la camera 102 erau 23 bolnavi la 24 paturi. In aceasta din urma, un detinut bolnav de TBC, Cristian Badoi, transferat de la penitenciarul Deva unde ispasea o pedeapsa de 9 ani si 7 luni pentru talharie din care executase deja 6 ani – era legat cu catuse de pat. Seful de camera, sustinut de toti ceilalti detinuti, a declarat ca Badoi este un detinut periculos care a incercat in repetate randuri sa se automutilize inghitind bucati de sarma sau alte obiecte si de asemenea solutie de clor. Cristian Badoi refuza tratamentul pentru TBC si explica tentativele de automutilare prin dorinta sa de a fi retrimis la penitenciarul Deva unde, pe data de 15 martie, urmeaza sa se intruneasca comisia de eliberare conditionata de la care nu vrea sa lipseasca. Dupa parerea reprezentantilor APADOR-CH, Cristian Badoi este dezechilibrat psihic si ar fi cazul ca spitalul penitenciar sa ceara expertizarea si eliberarea sa pe motive de boala, ceea ce ar insemna practic transferarea la un spital psihiatric. Numai un dezechilibru psihic (care a gasit teren prielnic de manifestare in conditiile de incarcerare) ar putea explica frenezia autodistructiva care l-a cuprins.

La sectia dermato-venerice si boli infectioase a spitalului, bolile cele mai frecvente sunt lues, psoriazis, raie suprainfectata si hepatita. Medicul a afirmat ca exista un ordin al ministrului sanatatii prin care se cere ca testul HIV sa fie facut tuturor detinutilor bolnavi. Pana la data vizitei, 80 de bolnavi fusesera testati HIV fara a li se cere acordul si fara sa li se spuna macar despre ce test era vorba.

Maternitatea are conditii mult mai bune decat restul spitalului. Dar la camera 326 erau trei gravide, dintre care una in varsta de 16 ani, transferata de la SSMR Gaiesti. Cele trei femei, dupa toate aparentele debile mintal, au sustinut ca doreau sa li se faca intrerupere de sarcina, lucru imposibil de realizat medical, deoarece toate depasisera cele trei luni de sarcina pana la care se poate face raclaj. Intrebarea este insa de ce nu s-a procedat la intrerupere de sarcina cand acest lucru mai era posibil, avandu-se in vedere nu numai gradul de subdezvoltare mintala ci si faptul ca una din cele trei detinute fusese condamnata pentru pruncucidere.

Ca o concluzie la vizitele de la penitenciar si spitalul penitenciar se poate spune ca, aparent, exista o usoara imbunatatire a conditiilor de detentie, cel putin sub aspectul supraaglomerarii. Cu toate acestea, impresia a fost, mai ales la spitalul penitenciar, ca se facusera unele “cosmetizari” de ultima ora, stiindu-se data exacta a vizitei reprezentantilor APADOR-CH.

O alta concluzie, semnalata deja de APADOR-CH cu ocazia vizitelor precedente la diverse penitenciare, priveste lipsa de interes si de comunicare intre persoanele aflate in arest preventiv si aparatorii lor, mai ales cei numiti din oficiu.

c) Penitenciarul Colibasi (8 martie 1996)

Conditiile din penitenciar

Penitenciarul acopera patru judete : Arges, Valcea, Giurgiu si Teleorman. Cele cinci corpuri de cladire sunt neadecvate, cu exceptia unui corp recent construit. Conform standardelor (6 metri cubi aer pentru fiecare detinut) penitenciarul ar trebui sa aiba 1.379 de locuri. In realitate, sunt 2.000 de paturi si, la data vizitei, numarul detinutilor se ridica la 1.841. Desi, aparent, nu ar fi trebuit sa existe supraaglomerare, datorita principiului separarii pe categorii de detinuti, unele sectii aveau mai multe persoane decat numarul de paturi.

Din totalul de 1.841 de detinuti, 1.085 erau in arest preventiv (din care 48 femei), 551 aveau condamnari definitive, 178 erau contravenienti si 27, minori.

Penitenciarul are 280 de cadre, iar asistenta medicala este asigurata de patru medici si sase asistenti. Un preot ortodox are statut de angajat permanent dar si alte culte, ca de pilda evanghelistii si adventistii, isi trimit reprezentantii, de regula o data pe saptamana.

Cu aprobarea Ministrului Justitiei, penitenciarul acorda detinutilor condamnati definitiv invoiri, cu ocazia sarbatorilor religioase mai importante sau in caz de deces in familie.

Un invatator tine in penitenciar lectii la nivel de curs primar (clasele 1 – 4) pentru detinutii cu condamnari definitive. Comandantul si loctiitorul sau tin raport cu detinutii de doua ori pe luna, orice detinut putand spune ce doreste, fara a fi obligati la o inscriere prealabila.

La o intrebare privind procedura folosita in situatia in care persoane care au stat in arestul politiei si depuse apoi in penitenciar ar prezenta urme de bataie, comandantul a raspuns ca ar refuza sa le primeasca, urmand ca politia sa le aduca inapoi doar dupa vindecare. Daca totusi ar trebui sa le primeasca in penitenciar, atunci doctorul va mentiona in fisa medicala starea fizica a arestatilor. Domnul comandant s-a grabit sa adauge ca nu a avut asemenea situatii pana in acel moment.

La data vizitei se aflau in penitenciar 17 cetateni straini (2 turci, 5 moldoveni, 4 bulgari, un sirian, un ceh, un georgian, un azer si 2 ucraineni) executand pedepse privative de libertate. O masura buna este renuntarea la separarea detinutilor straini de cei romani, fiind exclusa in acest fel suspiciunea existentei unor standarde de detentie preferentiale.

Dupa cum afirmase initial comandantul, in cele cateva camere vizitate erau exact atatea paturi cati detinuti. Numai ca, din discutiile cu persoanele aflate in detentie, a reiesit ca, cu doua zile inaintea venirii reprezentantilor APADOR-CH, o parte din detinuti fusesera mutati in alte camere. Loctiitorul comandantului a confirmat acest lucru.

Cu toata “cosmetizarea” recenta, conditiile de detentie raman proaste. La o camera cu 60 de persoane (camera 31 recidivisti) exista un grup sanitar format din doua WC-uri si un jgheab din tabla prevazut cu o teava cu gauri prin care curge apa. Este evident ca nu exista conditii pentru asigurarea igienei personale. Saltelele si paturile sunt vechi si, in ciuda dezinsectiei care se face oricum destul de rar (o data pe an, conform detinutilor, o data pe trimestru, conform cadrelor penitenciarului), exista paduchi, iar detinutii au tot felul de eczeme, iritatii ale pielii si chiar raie.

Camera 30 (contravenienti) avea 61 de detinuti la 60 de paturi. Aici se aflau cei care nu contestasera la judecatorie amenzile primite pentru diverse contraventii si nu le achitasera in termenul legal.

Hrana zilnica este asemanatoare celei din alte penitenciare vizitate : dimineata – ceai cu biscuiti, la pranz – o ciorba si un fel de mancare cu slanina sau subproduse (numite de cadrele penitenciarului carne) iar seara – un fel de mancare, cu sau fara slanina. Peretii bucatariei prezentau condens pe suprafete foarte mari.

Legea nr. 61/1991

Conform Legii 61/91, amenzile neachitate se transforma in inchisoare contraventionala. Dar, prin Ordonanta Guvernului nr. 55 din august 1994 – aprobata de Parlament in decembrie 1994 – s-a marit cu de la 10 pana la 50 de ori cuantumul amenzilor, pastrandu-se insa neschimbat coeficientul de calcul al transformarii amenzilor neachitate in inchisoare contraventionala (300lei/zi). Ca urmare, amenzile neachitate in limita de timp legala (o luna) au fost transformate intr-un numar sporit de zile/inchisoare contraventionala, depasind – de cele mai multe ori – maximum de 6 luni prevazut tot de Legea 61/91, dar reduse, de fiecare data, la acest maxim. De exemplu, o amenda de 200.000 lei – foarte frecventa – ar da, prin impartirea la 300 lei/zi inchisoare contraventionala, 666 zile de privare de libertate. Dar contravenientul va executa 180 zile, respectiv maximum prevazut de Legea 61/91.

Multe din deciziile judecatorilor de transformare a amenzilor neplatite in zile de inchisoare contraventionala au fost date dupa data de 10 octombrie 1995, data de la care este in vigoare Decizia Curtii Constitutionale nr. 91 prin care se declara drept neconstitutionala transformarea unei amenzi neplatite prin impartirea la coeficientul de 300lei/zi. Cu alte cuvinte, unii judecatori fie nu cunosc, fie ignora cu buna stiinta o decizie a Curtii Constitutionale, care, conform Constitutiei Romaniei (art. 145 paragraful 2), este obligatorie si are putere pentru viitor.

Cateva exemple concrete, potrivit afirmatiilor detinutilor: Lini Lungu, amenda neplatita de 100.000 lei, transformata de Judecatoria Zimnicea in pedeapsa maxima de 180 zile inchisoare contraventionala; Ion Berbecaru si Gheorghe Paun, amenzi neplatite de 100.000 lei fiecare, transformate de Judecatoria Videle in pedeapsa maxima de cate 180 zile inchisoare contraventionala; Dorel Preda, amenda neplatita de 20.000 lei, transformata de Judecatoria Oltenita in 66 zile inchisoare contraventionala. In cazul lui Dumitru Olteanu, Judecatoria Campulung Muscel i-a transformat o amenda de 20.000 lei in 66 zile inchisoare contraventionala desi contravenientul sustine ca a achitat amenda cu o luna inainte de a fi citat la Judecatorie. Ispas Nabarogu, caruia Judecatoria Zimnicea i-a transformat o amenda neplatita de 200.000 in pedeapsa maxima de 6 luni, sustine ca nu a fost citat la instanta. Multi dintre cei aflati in acea camera aveau doua, trei sau chiar mai multe amenzi neplatite care fusesera – sau urmau sa fie – transformate in inchisoare contraventionala. Cum in cazul contraventiilor nu se face contopirea, multi dintre contravenienti pot sta in inchisoare pe perioade privative de libertate consecutive pentru comiterea unor fapte minore, care nu prezinta pericol social semnificativ.

Cazuri individuale

Pavel Dumitru, subofiter de intendenta in unitatea militara de la Lugoj, afirma ca, pe data de 20 decembrie 1989, cand se daduse ordin de lupta, unitatea sa militara a fost inconjurata de revolutionari. Din greseala – sustine el – i s-a descarcat arma in multime, rezultand doi morti si doi raniti. A fost judecat si condamnat la 17 ani inchisoare, din care a executat deja 6. Afirma ca este nevinovat, ca nu si-a facut decat datoria fata de tara si ca nu intelege de ce altii care au comis fapte mai grave in decembrie 1989 sunt liberi, in timp ce el continua sa se afle in detentie. A facut plangeri practic la toate autoritatile, inclusiv la Presedintie, fara a primi vreun raspuns. Din modul in care s-a desfasurat discutia, a rezultat ca Pavel Dumitru este profund marcat psihic. Reprezentantii APADOR-CH au sugerat comandantului adjunct al penitenciarului sa ceara o expertizare psihiatrica a acestuia.

Tudorel Tanase (a se vedea sectiunea “relatia dintre politie si persoane fizice”). Impuscat de politistii din Bolintin in noiembrie 1995 in urma unei actiuni in forta al carei scop a fost de a-l retine pentru ca era suspect de complicitate la furt, Tudorel Tanase a fost transportat la spital unde i s-a scos un rinichi si i s-a pus piciorul drept in ghips. S-a emis mandat de arestare impotriva lui si a fost transferat la spitalul penitenciar Bucuresti. Pe data de 27 februarie 1996 a fost transferat la penitenciarul Colibasi, la cererea sa. Tudorel Tanase are mari dureri in zona bazinului si, dupa trei luni de ghips, nu poate pune piciorul drept in pamant, deplasandu-se cu ajutorul carjelor si al altei persoane.

Varianta lui Tudorel Tanase in legatura cu descinderea politiei din noiembrie 1995 difera foarte putin de cea a celorlalti membri ai familiei. Tudorel Tanase a sustinut ca el nu a disparut de acasa – cum au afirmat politistii – si deci nu avea de ce sa fie dat in urmarire generala pe tara. A explicat ca, exceptand drumurile saptamanale cu camionul pentru a aduce apa minerala pentru micii intreprinzatori din zona Bolintin, nu a lipsit de la domiciliu. Rechizitoriul intocmit de parchet mentioneaza complicitatea lui Tudorel Tanase in trei cazuri de spargeri, invocandu-se si gasirea unora din obiectele furate acasa la inculpat. Tudorel Tanase a spus ca, prin septembrie 1995, i s-a facut o perchezitie acasa, in urma careia i-au fost confiscate un radiocasetofon vechi si un obiect de lenjerie feminina care nu proveneau din nici o spargere.

d) Penitenciarul Poarta Alba (14 noiembrie 1996)

Conditiile din penitenciar

La data vizitei, in penitenciar se aflau 2.648 de persoane din care 1.304 cu condamnari definitive, 1.131 in arest preventiv si 70 de contravenienti, in mare majoritate prin transformarea amenzilor neachitate in zile/inchisoare. Restul detinutilor era format din condamnati cu pedepse de pana la un an. Chiar in ziua respectiva, avusese loc sedinta comisiei pentru eliberari inainte de termen in cursul careia fusesera aprobate 37 din cele 53 de cazuri examinate. Printre persoanele care se aflau pe lista de eliberari inainte de termen figura si Mihai Filip, condamnat la 2 ani inchisoare pe baza art. 200 alineat 1 Cod penal, detinut cu care reprezentantii APADOR-CH au dorit sa stea de vorba.

Fata de situatia constatata la vizita precedenta (septembrie 1995), nu s-au schimbat multe lucruri in penitenciar. Totusi, doua initiative merita amintite : deschiderea unei brutarii proprii – ceea ce va asigura paine proaspata pentru detinuti – si desfasurarea experimentului UNITER privind terapia prin teatru. Mai trebuie mentionata si improspatarea substantiala a bibliotecii penitenciarului si sporirea veniturilor rezultate din munca detinutilor (intre 116.000 si 140.000, cota ce revine detinutilor continuand sa fie de 10%).

Norma de calorii pe zi este de aproximativ 3.800 pentru cei care muncesc si pentru bolnavi si mai redusa pentru ceilalti (de exemplu : “stationarii” au 100 gr. carne si 594 gr. paine pe zi, in vreme ce bolnavii si cei care muncesc au 150 gr. carne si 788 gr. paine pe zi).

Continua sa existe doar doua sectii cu sali proprii de baie, celelalte opt folosind o sala cu 30 de dusuri aflata intr-o cladire separata, ceea ce ridica probleme in sezonul rece. La bucatarie, tot tavanul si peretii sunt acoperiti cu condens ca urmare a proastei functionari a sistemului de ventilatie.

Din patru camere vizitate, una era in reparatie si igienizare. Detinutii fusesera mutati la camera 10 (sectia VI). Camera era prevazuta – ca majoritatea celorlalte – cu trei WC-uri si un spalator cu circa 6 robinete din care 4 nu se puteau utiliza. Toti detinutii din camera 10 s-au plans ca de circa doua luni nu sunt scosi la aer si la diverse actiuni cultural-sportive, pomenind de un colonel Dughila de la Directia Generala a Penitenciarelor care le-ar fi declarat ca “este camera pedepsita”. In fapt, cu circa doua luni in urma, se facuse o perchezitie in camera lor (operatiunea aceasta se desfasoara o data pe luna), revenindu-se in ziua urmatoare pentru o noua perchezitie. Aceasta masura a atras reactia de protest a detinutului Stelica Dragomir (care ispaseste o pedeapsa de 16 ani si jumatate, considerat de conducerea penitenciarului drept un om cu influenta negativa asupra colegilor de camera), sustinut de ceilalti detinuti. Ofiterii si subofiterii au folosit forta pentru a intra in camera si a efectua perchezitia in urma careia lui Stelica Dragomir i-au fost gasite si depuse la magazie doua televizoare, foarte multe cutii de conserve, pantofi, pulovere etc. Si altor colegi de camera li s-au gasit diverse obiecte care depaseau baremurile stabilite prin regulament intern. Stelica Dragomir a fost pedepsit cu izolarea. Nu este insa deloc clar de ce sunt in continuare pedepsiti toti cei 40 de detinuti din camera 10. In afara de Stelica Dragomir, inca trei-patru detinuti s-au plans ca obiectele ridicate cu acel prilej – care ar fi trebuit sa se afle in magazia cu efecte civile – nu au mai fost gasite atunci cand au venit rudele lor sa le preia. Toti detinutii din camera 10 au sustinut ca, desi au cerut in repetate randuri sa iasa la raport la comandant nu au reusit sa vorbeasca cu el. Domnul comandant a admis ca situatia detinutilor de la camera 10 este deosebita dar a negat ca ar fi “camera pedepsita” si ca ar fi fost privati de dreptul la plimbare si de participarea la manifestari cultural-sportive. Cat priveste obiectele personale ridicate si depuse la magazie, domnul comandant a dezmintit categoric faptul ca acestea ar fi putut sa dispara. A declarat insa ca, in urma unui incident recent in care un detinut s-a ascuns in magazia de efecte civile si a ravasit multe lucruri, a fost nevoit sa ordone o reinventariere a bunurilor detinutilor.

Cazul Mihai Filip (vezi capitolul “Minoritati”, sectiunea “Minoritati sexuale”)

VI. MINORITATILE IN ROMANIA

A. MINORITATILE NATIONALE

1. Aspecte generale

Cu o singura exceptie, in 1996 nu s-a produs nimic nou, semnificativ, in domeniul legislatiei privind minoritatile nationale, in raport cu anii anteriori. Acea exceptie este semnarea si ratificarea Tratatului romano-ungar, care cuprinde prevederi importante in domeniul protectiei minoritatilor nationale. Schimbul instrumentelor de ratificare dintre cele doua state s-a facut de abia in ultimele zile ale lunii decembrie 1996. Efectele intrarii in vigoare a Tratatului vor putea fi avute, drept urmare, in vedere, de abia in 1997.

In aceste conditii, activitatea APADOR-CH a constat in dezvoltarea, pe linia anterioara, a studiilor privind drepturile minoritatilor nationale, promovarea prin presa a informatiei si a principiilor care guverneaza acest domeniu si actiunea de sustinere a Tratatului romano-ungar. De asemenea, ca si in anii anteriori, asociatia a monitorizat actiunile indreptate impotriva comunitatii romilor, efectuand investigatii proprii si sesizand autoritatile statului in legatura cu aceste aspecte.

2. Tratatul romano-ungar

Pe tot parcursul anului 1996, ca si in anii anteriori, APADOR-CH a sustinut, cu diferite ocazii, atat in Romania, cat si in Ungaria, necesitatea incheierii unui tratat de baza intre Romania si Ungaria (vezi capitolul ultim, programul “Drepturile omului si securitatea regionala in sud-estul Europei).

a) Analiza efectelor Tratatului privind drepturile minoritatii maghiare din Romania

In cadrul Tratatului dintre Romania si Ungaria, articolul 15 este dedicat masurilor pe care cele doua state se angajeaza sa le ia, in domeniul protectiei minoritatilor nationale. Anexa Tratatului include documentele internationale pe care Romania si Ungaria se angajeaza sa le respecte: Documentul de la Copenhaga (CSCE, 1990), Declaratia privind drepturile minoritatilor etnice sau nationale, religioase si lingvistice (ONU, 1992), Recomandarea 1201 (Consiliul Europei, 1993; cu un amendament de interpretare) si Conventia-cadru privind protectia minoritatilor nationale (Consiliul Europei, 1995). Avand in vedere articolele nr. 11 si nr. 20 din Constitutia Romaniei, toate documentele enumerate devin parte a dreptului intern si au prioritate in raport cu reglementarile interne cu care ar intra, eventual, in conflict.

APADOR-CH a facut o prima analiza a efectelor Tratatului dintre Romania si Ungaria asupra legislatiei interne privind minoritatile nationale:

“O situatie noua o reprezinta includerea Recomandarii 1201 a Adunarii Parlamentare a Consililui Europei in Tratatul romano-maghiar, documentul dobandind astfel forta juridica. Cele mai importante sunt articolele 6, 7, 8, 9 si 10 ale Recomandarii, care recunosc drepturi si remedii efective in caz de nerespectare.

Potrivit art. 7 alin. 3 din Recomandare, “In regiunile in care locuieste un numar substantial de persoane apartinand unei minoritati nationale acestea au dreptul de a folosi limba materna in contactele lor cu autoritatile administrative…”. Textul art. 7 alin. 3 este suficient prin el insusi pentru ca un consiliu local sau judetean sa poata decida care este numarul pe care il considera “substantial” pentru a permite persoanelor apartinand minoritatilor nationale sa adreseze cereri in limba lor materna si pentru a obliga functionarii autoritatilor publice locale sa raspunda in aceeasi limba. Daca cineva ar ataca in justitie asemenea decizii, judecatorii ar trebui sa raspunda in sensul mentinerii deciziilor autoritatilor locale. Argumentul este dat de prevederile art. 20 alin. (2) din Constitutia Romaniei: in cazul unui conflict intre norme privind drepturile omului din legea interna – care este legea administratiei publice locale – si din legea internationala – care este Tratatul romano-maghiar, din care Recomandarea 1201 este parte integranta – au castig de cauza acestea din urma.

Un consiliu local ar putea, pe baza aceluiasi text din Recomandare, sa considere ca intr-o anume localitate “numar substantial” insemna oricat de putin, 10% sau chiar mai putin. Si iarasi, in situatia contestarii unei asemenea decizii, judecatorii ar trebui sa dea castig de cauza consiliului local, caci numai astfel s-ar respecta prevederile art. 119 din Constitutie, potrivit caruia “Administratia publica din unitatile administrativ-teritoriale se intemeiaza pe principiul autonomiei locale si pe cel al descentralizarii serviciilor publice”.

Acelasi rationament trebuie sa stea la baza deciziilor consiliilor locale privind inscriptionarile bilingve. Potrivit art. 7 alin. 4 “In regiunile in care locuieste un numar substantial de persoane apartinand unei minoritati nationale, aceste persoane au dreptul de a afisa in limba lor nume locale, semne, inscriptii si alte informatii similare vizibile pentru public. Acest fapt nu priveaza autoritatile de dreptul lor de a afisa informatiile mentionate in limba sau limbile oficiale ale statului”.

Concret, aceasta ar insemna ca situatiile petrecute in ultimii ani nu se vor mai putea repeta. O instanta de judecata nu va mai putea da castig de cauza hotararii unui prefect de inlaturare a unor inscriptii bilingve, caci textul constitutional coroborat cu textul Recomandarii 1201 constituie temeiul juridic pe baza caruia un consiliu local poate hotari in acest domeniu.

Altfel se pune problema folosirii limbii materne in justitie. Potrivit art. 7 alin. 3 din Recomandare, “In regiunile in care locuieste un numar substantial de persoane apartinand unei minoritati nationale acestea au dreptul de a folosi limba materna … in procedurile in fata instantelor judecatoresti si a autoritatilor legale”. Dar Constitutia se refera, in art. 127 (2), la un drept general pe care persoanele apartinand minoritatilor nationale – sau altele, care nu vorbesc limba romana -, aflate oriunde pe teritoriul Romaniei, il au de a apela la serviciile unui interpret. Legea de organizare judecatoreasca nu face nici ea vorbire la situatia judetelor sau oraselor locuite de minoritati intr-un “numar substantial”. Spre deosebire de administratie, care, conform Constitutiei, se intemeiaza pe principiul descentralizarii, justitia, dimpotriva are la baza sistemul ierarhizarii instantelor de judecata. O Judecatorie, sau un Tribunal judetean, sau o Curte de apel nu ar putea decide in acest domeniu, pentru ca, pe de o parte, nu este de competenta lor, iar pe de alta parte ele se afla intr-un sistem ierarhic ce nu le permite astfel de initiative. Fara o modificare a Legii de organizare judecatoreasca, sau fara adoptarea unei legi a minoritatilor nationale care sa contina prevederi exprese in acest sens, textul din Recomandarea 1201 nu poate fi aplicat. Ne aflam in fata unui conflict intre norma interna si internationala. Pentru respectarea prevederii constitutionale in legatura cu prevalenta unui tratat international din domeniul drepturilor omului, se impune modificarea Legii de organizare judecatoreasca.

Ce semnificatie au pentru diversele institutii publice din Romania prevederile din art. 7 alin. 1: “Orice persoana apartinand unei minoritati nationale are dreptul de a folosi propria limba materna in viata privata si publica, atat oral cat si in scris. Acest drept se aplica si la folosirea limbii materne in publicatii si in sectorul audio-vizual (subl. n.)”. Recent, candidatului UDMR la Presedintia Romaniei i-a fost cenzurat, de catre Televiziunea romana publica, un mesaj electoral, prin inlaturarea numai a partii in care acesta se adresa in limba maghiara. Constituie sau nu o asemenea cenzura o interdictie a dreptului de folosire a limbii materne, in public, in sectorul audio-vizual? La acea data Tratatul romano-maghiar nu intrase inca in vigoare nefiind ratificat si de Parlamentul de la Budapesta. Altfel, in temeiul articolului pe care l-am citat mai sus si a dispozitiilor din Codul civil roman, domnul Gyorgy Frunda ar fi fost indreptatit sa ceara despagubiri materiale insemnate pentru prejudiciul ce i-a fost cauzat, urmare a interzicerii de a se adresa electoratului in limba sa materna. In ce masura era sau nu oportun sa foloseasca limba maghiara sau limba romana – pentru a fi inteles si de electoratul nevorbitor de limba maghiara – este o chestiune care il privea in exclusivitate pe candidat, Televiziunea romana – sau alte institutii publice sau private – neavand competenta de a face aprecieri de oportunitate in acest domeniu.

Chiar daca Recomandarea capata forta juridica prin includerea ei in Tratatul romano-maghiar, prevederile ei se aplica si celorlalte minoritati nationale din Romania. Altfel, ne-am gasi in situatia de a discrimina intre persoanele apartinand diferitelor minoritati, ceea ce este impotriva literei si spiritului art. 16 din Constitutie.”

b) Sustinerea Tratatului romano-ungar

Avand in vedere activitatea sa anterioara in domeniul protectiei drepturilor minoritatilor nationale, APADOR-CH a sustinut, prin interventii in presa scrisa si audio-vizuala, din Romania si din Ungaria, importanta Tratatului romano-ungar si a includerii Recomandarii 1201. Dupa ratificarea Tratatului de catre Parlamentul de la Bucuresti, APADOR-CH a desfasurat o adevarata activitate de lobby in vederea ratificarii tratatului bilateral de catre Parlamentul de la Budapesta. In acest scop, in perioada 28.11.1996 – 7.12.1996 doi reprezentanti ai asociatiei au fost la Budapesta pentru a sustine ratificarea Tratatului romano-ungar de catre Parlamentul ungar si pentru a motiva partidele de opozitie, sa nu transforme acest eveniment intr-o campanie de invrajbire nationala. Cu acest scop au fost realizate intalniri cu reprezentantii celor mai importante partide din parlament (Forumul Democratic Maghiar, Partidul Micilor Proprietari, Partidul Crestin si Democrat al Poporului, FIDESZ, Partidul Democrat Maghiar al Poporului, Uniunea Democratilor Liberali, Partidul Socialist Maghiar).

Reprezentantii APADOR-CH au prezentat analiza privind efectele Tratatului romano-ungar privind drepturile minoritatii maghiare din Romania, insistandu-se asupra imprejurarii ca acest document reprezinta un instrument cu efecte directe asupra drepturilor minoritatii maghiare. In cadrul intalnirilor s-a insistat asupra importantei unor declaratii privind dorinta fortelor politice din Ungaria de a stabili relatii de cooperare cu Romania, in beneficiul drepturilor minoritatilor nationale din cele doua tari. La momentul ratificarii, opozitia ungara nu a votat in bloc impotriva Tratatului, asa cum anuntase initial.

c) Monitorizarea pozitiilor ungare privind Tratatul

APADOR-CH a constatat ca, in ultimii ani, considerentele politice au prevalat asupra drepturilor minoritatilor nationale, situatie care a produs o stare de frustrare in randul unor minoritati, in special cea maghiara. Asociatia s-a preocupat de asigurarea cadrului care sa faca posibila exercitarea efectiva a drepturilor, dincolo de agenda politica a diferitelor partide. In acest context au fost monitorizate si pozitiile partidelor de opozitie din Ungaria, cu ocazia dezbaterilor privind incheierea si apoi ratificarea Tratatului de catre Parlamentul ungar. Folosirea temei drepturilor minoritatilor nationale impotriva Tratatului romano-ungar in cadrul declaratiilor partidelor de opozitie din Ungaria este semnificativa in contextul apropierii alegerilor din Ungaria. Astfel de observatii trebuie luate in considerare, in perioada punerii in aplicare a Tratatului, pentru a preveni tensionarea relatiilor dintre cele doua tari, prin invocarea problematicii drepturilor minoritatii maghiare.

Formatiunea cunoscuta ca fiind cea mai nationalista, Partidul micilor agricultori – care este impotriva tuturor tratatelor de baza – a votat in totalitate contra ratificarii. Principala idee a partidului a fost ca “tratatul trebuie renegociat, nu ratificat”. La conferinta de presa a deputatului Sandor Kavassy, s-a afirmat ca Tratatul ocoleste problemele de baza, care ar fi: autonomia teritoriala pentru secuime; autonomia religioasa si culturala pentru ceangai; acordarea dreptului la autodeterminare pentru cei 1,5 milioane de unguri care traiesc langa granita.

Partidul Popular Crestin-Democrat a exprimat pozitii eterogene, el fiind in curs de sciziune. Partea moderata s-a abtinut, sau nu s-a prezentat la vot, ceilalti au votat impotriva. Iese in evidenta cuvantarea lui Laszlo Surian (reprezentant al partidului in internationala crestin-democrata), care a sustinut, printre altele: “faptul ca o forta politica maghiara a devenit membra a Guvernului roman da dreptul la sperante”; “dorim relatii bune cu Romania, de tipul celor dintre Norvegia si Suedia, sau Austria si Ungaria”; “sprijinim la toate forurile dorinta Romaniei de integrare”.

Printre cele mai critice declaratii se numara cele facute de catre Zsolt Nemeth si Zoltan Rockenbauer in numele Partidului Civic Ungar- FIDESZ. Citam: “daca Guvernul nu mai sprijina dorinta de autonomie a maghiarilor de peste hotare prejudiciaza integrarea euroatlantica”; “pentru noi autonomia ramane un scop strategic, iar rezultatele concrete obtinute vor fi raportate la acest scop”; “Tratatul nu poate fi aplicat pentru ca nu contine nimic care poate fi aplicat”; “viitorul Tratatului este mai mult decat incert, trebuie sa construim un nou cadru al relatiilor bilaterale”; “comunitatile nationale maghiare trebuie sa devina subiecti autonomi ai dreptului international” etc.

In numele Partidului Popular Democrat a vorbit Geza Jeszenszky, fostul ministru de Externe ungar. Declaratiile lui sunt deosebit de importante pentru viitorul relatiilor romano-ungare: “Romania este cea mai importanta vecina a Ungariei”; “trebuie sa avem incredere in noua putere”. Faptul ca la momentul votului acest partid s-a abtinut in totalitate impiedica celelalte partide de opozitie sa afirme ca au fost nevoite sa se ralieze la o pozitie comuna.

*

Pentru anul 1997 APADOR-CH a elaborat un program de promovare si monitorizare a implementarii Tratatului.

3. Relatia dintre autoritatile publice si comunitatile de romi

In 1996 nu s-au mai semnalat conflicte interetnice intre romani si/sau unguri pe de o parte si romi, de cealalta. Tensiuni au fost insa semnalate (de exemplu chiar in Bucuresti, in zona Magurele, in luna iunie 1996) dar, din fericire, ele nu s-au transformat in violente de grup datorita atat interventiei politiei si jandarmeriei cat si a unor asociatii ale romilor. Ramane insa problema nesolutionarii – sau solutionarii nesatisfacatoare – a actelor violente savarsite de grupuri de persoane impotriva romilor in perioada 1990 – 1995. Acolo unde persoane din grupurile de agresori au ajuns in instanta, pedepsele au fost de un an – un an si jumatate inchisoare cu suspendare, tribunalele neretinand in sarcina inculpatilor decat infractiunile minore petrecute in timpul conflictelor si nu pe cele majore cum ar fi incitarea la crima, incendierea, uciderea cu intentie etc. Este adevarat ca in cazurile Racsa (1994) si Bicu (1995), – doua din ultimele trei conflicte interetnice care au fost si cele mai violente -, 38 si respectiv 19 persoane din randurile agresorilor au fost aduse in justitie, dar procesele treneaza. Cel de al treilea caz, si cel mai mediatizat, Hadareni (1993) este inca in faza in care dosarul este mutat de la Parchetul civil la cel militar si invers.

Tot in 1996 s-a accentuat tendinta manifestata deja in anii precedenti, de inasprire a masurilor luate de unele autoritati publice impotriva romilor.

a) Politia

Deoarece in cele peste 30 de conflicte interetnice care au avut loc in perioada 1990-1995 politia a fost constant acuzata ca nu a luat masurile necesare pentru prevenirea lor sau, odata izbucnite, pentru limitarea consecintelor, Ministerul de Interne a creat o directie pentru prevenirea criminalitatii ale carei scopuri declarate includ detensionarea starilor conflictuale, educatie, schimbarea mentalitatilor majoritatii fata de minoritati, in principal romi, etc. Din pacate, cu exceptia unor simpozioane, conferinte, vizite in si din strainatate, singurele actiuni vizibile au fost raziile politiei si ale jandarmeriei intreprinse exclusiv in zone locuite de romi. “Modelul” acestor razii a fost urmatorul: pe la 4.00-5.00 dimineata, grupuri masive de politisti si jandarmi, dotati cu masini cu sirena, caini politisti si arme de foc, au inconjurat zona (sau satul) locuita de romi, au patruns in casele si curtile oamenilor, au efectuat perchezitii confiscand bunuri, au dat amenzi si, eventual, “au condus” la sectia de politie pe unii romi, in majoritate tineri. Aceste operatiuni s-au defasurat fara ca politistii sa arate vreun mandat de perchezitie (daca acesta a existat) – de consimtamantul scris al persoanelor perchezitionate neputand fi vorba, avand in vedere faptul ca romii din aceste zone sunt analfabeti -, fara intocmirea in dublu exemplar a proceselor verbale de confiscare si fara nici o explicatie in privinta amenzilor aplicate (motive, posibilitati de contestare in justitie, consecintele neachitarii amenzii etc).

APADOR-CH a investigat modul de organizare si desfasurare a acestor razii inca din 1995 (a se vedea raportul anual pe 1995).

Cazul familiei Vlad din Targoviste

Familia Vlad locuieste la marginea orasului, intr-o zona in care toti locuitorii sunt romi si unde, conform declaratiilor mai multor persoane, politistii din Targoviste fac dese razii.

In dimineata zilei de 17 ianuarie 1996, in jurul orei 6.00, un grup de politisti inarmati au patruns in casa din strada Oltului. Maria Vlad, sotul ei si cei patru fii au fost “invitati” la politie fara a li se spune motivul. Din cei patru fii, Cristian (care dormea cu nevasta si copilul lor, in varsta de 6 ani), Laurentiu (16 ani) si Iulian au fost luati cu duba. Maria Vlad si celalalt fiu, Georgian, care dormise in vecini, s-au dus putin mai tarziu la sectie. Cristian si Georgian Vlad au fost tinuti in sectia de politie pana in jurul orei 22.00 unde au dat declaratii. Georgian declara ca, la un moment dat, l-a vazut prin usa deschisa pe fratele sau Iulian ghemuit la perete si alb la fata in urma loviturilor primite de la politisti. Maria Vlad a auzit tipetele baietilor ei si a plecat dupa un avocat. Politistii i-au permis acestuia sa ia legatura cu trei dintre frati, dar nu si cu Iulian. In jurul orei 22.00, avocatul i-a comunicat Mariei Vlad ca fiii ei, din nou cu exceptia lui Iulian, urmau sa fie pusi in libertate, ceea ce s-a si intamplat, dar numai cu Cristian si Georgian. Minorul Laurentiu a fost dus pentru o zi la un centru de minori si eliberat a doua zi, o data cu fratele sau Iulian Vlad.

Membrii familiei Vlad au fost confruntati cu doi paznici de la o ferma aflata la circa 25 km de Targoviste de unde se pare ca se furase o cantitate de fan. Paznicii au declarat ca nu i-au vazut niciodata. In afara de familia Vlad, si alte familii din cartierul romilor au fost banuite ca au furat fan de la acea ferma. Acest motiv a fost considerat suficient de politisti pentru a-i lua si a-i duce cu dubele la sectia de politie si pe alti romi din zona, pentru a da declaratii: Nicolae Stanciu, Cornel Ghica, Rica si Florin Dinache, Marian Vasilescu, Eduard Solomon, Liviu Toader si altii. In unele gospodarii s-a facut perchezitii – in cazul familiei Vlad, cu acordul verbal, si nu scris, asa cum dispune in mod imperativ Codul de procedura penala, al Mariei Vlad – si s-au luat probe de fan, care urmeaza sa fie analizate in laborator. Totii romii au fost confruntati cu cei doi paznici, care nu au recunoscut pe nimeni ca fiind eventualii hoti. Iulian Vlad este singurul care a declarat ca a fost batut de politisti. Explicatia ar fi ca un paznic de la ferma ar fi lovit pe unul din hoti la o mana, iar Iulian avea un semn mai vechi, ceea ce a trezit suspiciunea si reactia violenta a politistilor. In schimb, marea majoritate a celorlalti romi retinuti de politie s-au plans ca au fost permanent insultati si jigniti de politisti.

Membrii familiei Vlad au mai fost convocati la politie si dupa incidentele din ianuarie. La ultima convocare, din luna martie, nu s-au mai dus si au declarat ca nu se vor mai duce decat cu avocatul, intrucat se tem ca vor fi batuti.

Concluziile APADOR-CH referitor la acest incident au fost urmatoarele:

– Razia efectuata de politistii din Targoviste nu a respectat normele legale prevazute de Legea Politiei nr. 26/1994 si de Codul de procedura penala deoarece :

i. conducerea la sectia de politie se poate face atunci cand unele persoane “prin actiunile lor pericliteaza ordinea publica, viata persoanelor sau alte valori sociale”, precum si in cazul persoanelor suspecte a caror identitate nu a putut fi stabilita (Legea 26/1994, art. 16 lit a). Este clar ca nici una din aceste situatii nu putea fi invocata in cazul familiei Vlad;

ii. masura retinerii poate fi luata “daca sunt probe sau indicii temeinice (subl.n.) ca (persoana) a savarsit o fapta prevazuta de legea penala” (C.p.p art. 143). De vreme ce paznicii de la ferma nu au recunoscut pe nici un membru al familiei Vlad, simplul fapt ca in gospodarie exista fanul necesar hranirii cailor nu poate constitui proba sau indiciu temeinic care sa justifice o retinere;

iii. nu a existat un mandat de perchezitie pentru nici una din familiile supuse raziei. In cazul familiei Vlad, Maria Vlad si-a dat consimtamantul verbal si nu scris asa cum cere art. 101 din C.p.p.

– Romii s-au plans ca astfel de descinderi ale politistilor sunt frecvente, ca sunt amenintati si insultati si ca traiesc intr-o permanenta stare de tensiune.

– Nu exista nici o justificare pentru retinerea prelungita a minorului Laurentiu Vlad. Constitutia Romaniei prevede la art. 23 alin. 3) ca “Retinerea nu poate depasi 24 de ore”. Si Codul de procedura penala, la art. 144, prevede acelasi lucru, instituind si obligativitatea emiterii unei ordonante de catre seful postului de politie sau un procuror. Minorul Laurentiu Vlad a fost privat de libertate mai mult de 24 de ore.

Maria Vlad a adresat o plangere in legatura cu purtarea abuziva a politistilor Parchetului Militar Ploiesti, cerere inregistrata cu numarul 165/P/96.

b) Gardienii publici

Institutia gardienilor publici are un statut discutabil, ea depinzand atat de prefect cat si de primar iar, in materie de folosire a armelor de foc, de Ministerul de Interne. Corpul gardienilor publici are dreptul, prin lege, sa incheie contracte de paza cu diverse unitati, de stat sau particulare, ceea ce inseamna ca, din momentul semnarii contractului, gardienii publici se vor subordona si unitatii angajatoare. Din atatea subordonari, nimeni nu mai stie cine raspunde si pentru ce, fapt care a generat o serie de abuzuri din partea gardienilor publici, unele din ele soldate cu victime omenesti. Doua asemenea cazuri, investigate de APADOR-CH, s-au dovedit a fi extrem de grave, in ambele cazuri victimele fiind romi. Cum in 1995 a existat un caz cu totul deosebit – o razie (??) intreprinsa de gardienii publici din Botosani impotriva unui cartier intreg locuit de romi – si cum APADOR-CH nu are cunostinta de actiuni ale reprezentantilor acestei autoritati publice in urma carora sa existe victime din partea romanilor sau a altor minoritati in afara romilor, se poate trage concluzia ca ultimii sunt tratati de gardienii publici in mod discriminatoriu.

Dumitru Margean (Buzau)

Dumitru Margean – rom, in varsta de 35 de ani, casatorit, tata a patru copii – a fost impuscat mortal, la data de 19 aprilie 1996, de gardianul public Ilie Iulian Cristinel.

Corpul Gardienilor Publici Buzau are incheiat un contract de paza cu Societatea Comerciala CONCIFOR S.A., o unitate de constructii si reparatii. Ilie Iulian Cristinel (28 de ani, casatorit, un copil) era repartizat la acest obiectiv, avand in paza latura de sud-est a acestuia. Ilie Iulian Cristinel era angajat in corpul gardienilor publici de circa o luna si jumatate. Principalul consemn al postului consta in prevenirea furtului de materiale de constructii, in principal ciment, de la S.C. CONCIFOR. Seful Corpului Gardienilor Publici din Buzau a declarat ca grupuri de romi patrundeau frecvent in zona pentru a fura ciment de la S.C. CONCIFOR si fier vechi de la unitatea invecinata – REMAT S.A.

In ziua de 19 aprilie, Ilie Iulian Cristinel a intrat, dupa instructajul care i s-a facut, in postul sau. Potrivit declaratiilor sefului Corpului Gardienilor Publici, in jurul orei 16.00 un grup de romi a patruns in raza postului lui Ilie Iulian Cristinel. La somatiile gardianului, romii au parasit zona. In urma lor au ramas Dumitru Margean si sotia sa, carora Ilie Iulian Cristinel le-a cerut sa plece imediat, luandu-se dupa ei. Potrivit acelorasi declaratii, in dreptul statiei de betoane, langa calea ferata – deci in raza postului – a avut loc prima altercatie intre gardian si Dumitru Margean. Acesta l-a luat de guler pe gardian, care a tras imediat un foc de arma (AKM). La auzul focului de arma, colegul lui Ilie Iulian Cristinel, aflat in postul sau de la REMAT, s-a uitat peste gardul unitatii si a vazut ca gardianul era cazut la pamant, iar Dumitru Margean era deasupra sa cu arma in mana. Gardianul public a tras un foc de avertisment (cu pistolul “Carpati” din dotare) si s-a deplasat spre locul incidentului. Ajuns la portile REMAT-ului, in timp ce incerca sa le deschida, a mai auzit un foc de arma. La locul incidentului, l-a gasit pe Dumitru Margean impuscat.

Seful Gardienilor Publici a precizat ca pe timpul investigatiilor proprii a constatat ca victima prezenta doua rani impuscate: una in antebrat si una in fata, cauzate de focurile de arma trase de gardian asupra sa; au fost trase doua focuri in serii de doua cartuse, arma fiind semiautomata si tragand, la foc automat, cate doua cartuse intr-o serie. Victima a fost insa gasita la 6 – 7 metri distanta de locul din care gardianul executase focul, seful gardienilor publici fiind de parere ca Dumitru Margean incercase sa fuga in momentul in care si-a dat seama ca gardianul de la REMAT va veni in ajutorul colegului sau. El a mai declarat ca personal crede ca gardianul “nu este vinovat deloc”, intrucat a actionat in conformitate cu consemnele pe care le avea.

La data vizitei, Ilie Iulian Cristinel se afla in arest preventiv, fiind suspendat din functie si urmand sa i se desfaca contractul de munca in cazul in care durata arestului ar fi depasit 60 de zile. Cazul era cercetat de Parchetul de pe langa Tribunalul judetean Buzau.

Descriind incidentul din 19 aprilie, sotia victimei, Maria Ilie a declarat ca in jurul orei 16.00 a intrat, impreuna cu sotul sau, in incinta S.C. CONCIFOR, pentru a lua rumegus si lemne de foc. La scurt timp a aparut gardianul Ilie Iulian Cristinel care a inceput sa le vorbeasca urat si sa-i injure, cerandu-le sa iasa din curte. Cei doi au iesit si au plecat de-a lungul liniei de tren de langa S.C. CONCIFOR, fiind urmati indeaproape de gardian, care continua sa-i injure. Reprosandu-i gardianului injuraturile, Dumitru Margean a fost lovit din spate, cu patul armei, in cap. S-a intors si l-a apucat de umeri pe Ilie Iulian Cristinel. Gardianul i-a pus lui Dumitru Margean teava armei in burta, acesta a prins-o indreptand-o in sus, moment in care Ilie Iulian Cristinel a tras primul foc. Cei doi s-au incaierat si, luptandu-se, au cazut la pamant, gardianul scapand arma din mana. Dumitru Margean i-a cerut sotiei sa ia arma si s-o arunce peste gard. In momentul in care aceasta a pus mana pe arma, colegul lui Ilie Iulian Cristinel a ajuns langa ea, a prins-o de mana si a tras un foc de arma in sus. Dumitru Margean i-a strigat atunci sotiei sa lase arma jos si sa fuga. Ilie Iulian Cristinel s-a ridicat, a luat arma si a tras un foc in umarul victimei, care, in genunchi, i-a strigat gardianului sa nu mai traga. Colegul lui Ilie Iulian Cristinel i-a zis acestuia: “Trage, ma, ca pedeapsa tot aia e”, ceea ce el a si facut, tragand asupra victimei inca un foc in fata.

Atrase de zgomotul impuscaturilor, la locul incidentului au venit imediat mai multe persoane. Fratele victimei a incercat sa se apropie de aceasta, in speranta ca nu a murit inca si o poate salva. Ilie Iulian Cristinel i-a amenintat insa pe cei prezenti spunandu-le: “Cine se apropie de mort il omor!”, tragand chiar un foc de arma inspre ei. Seful garii, venit si el la locul incidentului, a anuntat politia. Amenintarile si comportamentul gardianului au produs teama si asupra politistilor. Ilie Iulian Cristinel a fugit in cele din urma de la locul faptei, fiind totusi retinut de politie la scurt timp dupa aceea.

Aflata in stare de soc, Maria Ilie a fost dusa la spital si, in seara aceleiasi zile, condusa la politie, unde i s-a luat o declaratie. Pana la data vizitei APADOR-CH, nimeni altcineva din cei prezenti la incident nu mai fusese chemat pentru audieri.

Familia victimei a prezentat Certificatul medical constatator al decesului (nr. 132 din 21 aprilie 1996) in care sunt retinute cauzele decesului: “dilacerare cerebrala”, “plaga impuscata craniana (prin arma cu gloante)”. Sotia si rudele victimei au spus ca nu le-a fost dat certificatul de autopsie.

Decretul nr. 367/1971 privind regimul armelor, munitiilor si materiilor explozive precizeaza in capitolul III art. 36 conditiile in care se poate face uz de arma. Daca gardianul public Ilie invoca legitima aparare, trebuie precizat ca situatia in care se afla victima in momentul in care a fost impuscata in doua randuri, nu mai justifica uzul de arma. In plus, erau doi gardieni publici cu arme de foc impotriva unei persoane neinarmate;

APADOR-CH are cunostinta de un caz similar, intamplat in februarie a.c. la Targoviste, unde, un gardian public a impuscat in picior un rom suspectat de furt dintr-o fabrica. Luand in considerare numai aceste doua cazuri, APADOR-CH considera ca uzul de arma de catre gardienii publici ar trebui drastic limitat si controlat.

Gardianul public Ilie Iulian Cristinel a fost trimis in judecata pentru omor deosebit de grav.

Satul Coltau, comuna Sacalaseni

Satul Coltau, situat la circa 13 km de Baia Mare, are o populatie de aproximativ 1.800 de locuitori din care mai mult de jumatate sunt maghiari si restul romi. Nu au existat conflicte intre maghiari si romi. In apropiere de sat se afla o livada de ciresi. Patronul livezii a incheiat un contract valabil zece zile cu Corpul gardienilor publici din Baia Mare pentru asigurarea pazei livezii in perioada recoltarii intre orele 14.00 – 22.00 zilnic.

Pe data de 1 iunie 1996 doi gardieni publici l-au surprins pe romul Roman Rezmives in livada, l-au batut si l-au dus intr-o cladire din ferma pentru a-i lua o declaratie. Intre timp, circa zece-cincisprezece romi au venit din sat, fara obiecte ce ar fi putut servi drept arme, sustin ei, somandu-i pe gardieni sa-l elibereze pe Roman Rezmives. Comandantul corpului de gardieni din Baia Mare a afirmat ca ar fi fost circa treizeci-patruzeci de romi inarmati cu tarnacoape, furci, bastoane. Unul din gardieni a tras trei focuri de avertisment si romii s-au imprastiat, tanarul retinut reusind sa fuga. Gardienii au plecat la terminarea programului luand-o pe un drum ocolit, fara sa mai treaca prin sat.

Pe data de 2 iunie, comandantul corpului gardienilor publici din Baia Mare a decis dublarea pazei, trimitand la Coltau patru gardieni publici, toti inarmati. Nu s-a petrecut nimic deosebit in timpul serviciului dar gardienii publici au fost sfatuiti de un localnic ca, la plecare, sa nu treaca prin zona romilor deoarece acestia erau foarte iritati de incidentul din ziua precedenta. Gardienii publici au ignorat avertismentul si, in jurul orei 22.00, au coborat in sat. Au fost intampinati cu ostilitate evidenta de romi, inclusiv de copii si femei care au aruncat cu pietre spre ei. Gardienii publici au replicat tragand spre grupul de romi cu armele de foc din dotare. Comandantul a sustinut ca romii i-au amenintat pe gardieni cu furci si topoare, unul dintre agresori lovind un gardian cu harletul la picioare. Comandantul a declarat ca “Spre norocul lui, gardianul avea in mana o punga de plastic cu pantofi de tenis, asa ca harletul a taiat doar punga, fara a-l rani”. Un alt gardian ar fi declarat ca una din pietrele aruncate de romi “a ricosat din cascheta”, fara a-l lovi. Nici un gardian public nu are certificat medical din care sa rezulte ca ar fi fost agresat.

In momentul in care gardienii publici au deschis focul (comandantul declara ca s-au tras opt focuri din care patru de avertisment cu doua pistoale-mitraliera si un pistolet), romii Alexandru Rezmives (circa 35 ani) si Nelu Craitor (sau Croiter) au fost grav raniti. Un alt rom – Zoltan Rezmives – a fost usor ranit, dar nu de glonte ci probabil de o piatra ratacita.

Romul Gabriel Lingurar a cerut gardienilor publici sa nu mai traga ca sa se poata duce sa cheme salvarea. Gardienii au tras insa trei focuri in directia sa, Lingurar fiind nevoit sa se arunce in sant. In cele din urma, gardienii publici s-au urcat in masina care ii astepta si au plecat la Baia Mare.

Ranitii au fost dusi la spitalul judetean din Baia Mare de un rom. Lui Alexandru Rezmives i s-a amputat piciorul drept de deasupra genunchiului si prezinta cicatrice pe torace si pe brat. Nelu Craitor (sau Croiter) a fost impuscat in gat si brat. Ambii au parasit spitalul, cel de al doilea fiind in prezent arestat preventiv pentru o infractiune pe care ar fi comis-o la Baia Mare anterior incidentelor din sat.

Seful corpului de gardieni a afirmat ca toti cei patru gardieni au fost testati pentru alcoolemie, rezultatul fiind zero grade alcool in sange. Adjunctul sau a declarat ca gardienii implicati in incidente “au actionat legal si trebuie sa fie felicitati”.

APADOR-CH considera ca incidentul din 2 iunie in urma caruia doi oameni au fost grav raniti, unul ramanand invalid pe viata, ar fi putut fi evitat cu usurinta daca gardienii publici ar fi coborat la masina pe celalalt drum, evitand astfel agitarea spiritelor. Nu s-a dat nici o explicatie pentru faptul ca in seara precedenta romii s-au dispersat atunci cand unul din gardieni a tras focuri de avertisment iar pe 2 iunie ar fi continuat actiunile amenintatoare la adresa unui numar dublu de gardieni inarmati care ar fi tras foc dublu de avertisment. Seful gardienilor publici este convins ca romii nu credeau ca oamenii sai erau dotati cu munitie de razboi. Acest lucru ar fi fost insa valabil si in cazul incidentului din 1 iunie.

Legea nr. 17/1996 privind regimul armelor de foc si al munitiilor intrata in vigoare la 11 mai 1996 prevede foarte clar la art. 52: “Se interzice uzul de arma: b) in situatiile in care s-ar primejdui viata altor persoane…” Este evident ca, tragand in multime, gardienii publici au pus in pericol viata tuturor romilor de pe ulita principala, inclusiv femei si copii. Explicatia data de un subaltern al sefului gardienilor publici conform careia intreg grupul de romi ar fi fost “agresorul” – cu alte cuvinte ar fi constituit “o persoana” – nu merita comentarii.

APADOR-CH are cunostinta de alte trei cazuri numai in 1996 in care gardieni publici au facut uz de arma impotriva unor potentiali infractori romi. In unul din cazuri victima a decedat. APADOR-CH considera ca in toate aceste situatii a fost incalcat atat dreptul la viata si la integritatea fizica a persoanei (art. 22 alineat 1 din Constitutie) cat si principiul proportionalitatii interventiei (admitand ca romii ar fi avut asupra lor obiecte ce pot servi drept arma, ceea ce ei neaga, nu se poate justifica folosirea pistoalelor din dotare impotriva unor oameni inarmati – eventual – cu bate sau coase);

Parchetul Baia Mare a hotarat neinceperea urmaririi penale impotriva gardienilor publici vinovati de impuscarea a trei oameni din care unul este invalid pe viata.

c) Alte institutii

In luna martie 1996, medicii si asistentele de la dispensarul nr. 28 din Constanta, la care este arondat si cartierul Palas unde locuiesc multi romi, au declansat o campanie de vaccinari antitetanos. Deoarece vaccinul s-a facut numai fetelor si femeilor (intre 5 si 45 de ani) din colectivitatea romilor, s-au raspandit imediat diferite zvonuri in legatura cu scopul real al acestei campanii, cel mai frecvent pomenit fiind sterilizarea. S-a creat o stare de tensiune si de panica printre romi, alimentata si de felul in care au procedat cadrele sanitare. Astfel, la scoala nr. 31, fetele de romi au fost convocate la cancelarie si la secretariat de o femeie de serviciu care mergea din clasa in clasa si striga “le cheama pe tiganci jos”; aflate intr-o masina fara insemne medicale, asistentele medicale opreau copiii mai mari de 5 ani pe strada si ii vaccinau; ambulantele au stationat la colturi de strada in cartierul Palas, iar femeile de romi au fost invitate cu insistenta sa se vaccineze. Toate acestea s-au petrecut fara a li se oferi romilor nici o alta explicatie decat ca ar fi vorba de un vaccin antitetanos. Intrebarile lor – de ce numai fetele si femeile de romi, de ce limita de varsta intre 5 si 45 de ani, de ce nu erau vaccinati si romanii, au ramas fara raspuns. In felul acesta s-a creat o stare de suspiciune, panica si chiar manie.

La dispensarul nr. 28 exista in registru o mentiune privind o nota telefonica din data de 28 februarie 1996, primita de la Sanepid Constanta cu specificarea etniei, sexului si varstei persoanelor care urmau a fi vaccinate. Unii doctori avusesera retineri in legatura cu aceasta masura si au incercat sa atenueze efectele negative asupra etniei romilor, vaccinand si copii romani, tocmai pentru a evita speculatiile asupra naturii campaniei. Ei au admis ca metodele folosite pentru vaccinare nu au fost cele mai potrivite.

Cu toate ca este clar ca nu a existat nici un scop ascuns in spatele campaniei de vaccinare (una din femeile vaccinate a ramas gravida), prin metodele la care s-a recurs si prin ignorarea totala a nedumeririlor si ingrijorarii romilor, s-a creat o stare de tensiune in comunitatea romilor din Constanta, care ar fi putut degenera in actiuni violente. Daca Sanepid Constanta ar fi organizat mai intai o campanie de informare si daca medicii si asistentele ar fi desfasurat campania de vaccinare cu respectul cuvenit oricarei persoane indiferent de etnie, s-ar fi evitat rastalmacirile si panica din randurile comunitatii romilor din Constanta.

Ca raspuns la scrisoarea si raportul trimise de APADOR-CH Ministerului Sanatatii, acesta a declarat ca respectiva campanie de vaccinare era justificata, perfect legala si ca, exceptand localitatea Constanta, toata actiunea s-ar fi desfasurat in restul tarii fara cel mai mic incident. APADOR-CH considera ca modul in care au actionat Ministerul Sanatatii, Directia Sanitara Constanta si medicii de la dispensarul 28 Constanta sunt o dovada a faptului ca autoritatile romane ii considera pe romi cetateni de rangul doi care nu merita explicatii sau justificari.

4. Propuneri ale APADOR-CH privind minoritatile nationale

Imediat dupa alegerile din noiembrie 1996, in perioada in care noul Guvern isi redacta Programul de guvernare, APADOR-CH a lucrat, alaturi de alte organizatii neguvernamentale, la elaborarea unor recomandari exprimand punctele de vedere ale societatii civile din Romania in cateva chestiuni de maxima importanta. Aceste recomandari au fost publicate sub forma unui supliment al revistei “22”. Una din temele analizate si pe marginea careia au fost elaborate recomandari a privit minoritatile nationale.

“A. Factori care mentin pericolul unor conflicte

a) Comunitatile care formeaza o societate tind spre separare iminenta atunci cand devin convinse ca autoadministrarea va avea ca rezultat mai multa justitie si va determina o calitate a vietii mai buna pentru variatele grupuri etnice decat in cazul sistemului unificat al statului. In acest caz, cu cat identitatea nationala este mai puternica, cu atat pragul inegalitatii si dezavantajelor (subiective) care declanseaza adversitatea este mai mic.

b) Alti factori rezistenti in timp, care duc la tendinta de separare si la violenta sunt:

– distanta dintre asteptari si realizari;

– asocierea frustrarilor cu mindria apartenentei la un anumit grup;

c) Evolutia conflictului intern depinde considerabil de absenta sau prezenta unor factori externi. S-a demonstrat in practica ca implicarea externa schimba complet posibilitatile de actiune ale factorilor interni.

B. Principiile rezolvarii contenciosului majoritate romana-minoritate maghiara

Doua sunt conditiile fara de care nu se poate spera rezolvarea pe termen lung, a problematicii minoritatii maghiare:

a) asigurarea drepturilor pe care populatia maghiara le-a avut (cel putin formal), ca minoritate, pina in 1990;

b) recapatarea institutiilor simbol ale comunitatii maghiare.

c) respectarea cadrului constitutional existent (principiu a carui intelegere este esentiala pentru liderii minoritatii maghiare).

C. Necesitatea unei legi a minoritatilor ca alternativa la strategia autonomiilor

Actuala clasa politica trebuie sa inteleaga ca asigurarea drepturilor minoritatilor, astfel incit acestea sa se simta confortabil reprezinta un obiectiv de civilizatie si, in acelasi timp, o conditie a stabilitatii interne, importanta nu mai putin pentru majoritate. Asigurarea drepturilor minoritatilor se poate face prin diferite instrumente.Exista un numar de cereri ale minoritatii maghiare, care privesc utilizarea limbii in justitie, in administratie, educatia, managementul institutiilor culturale maghiare s.a. In scopul promovarii acestora UDMR a propus, in 1993, un proiect de lege privind drepturile minoritatilor nationale si comunitatilor autonome, care are la baza conceptele autodeterminarii interne, ale autonomiilor personale si teritoriale, are in vedere acordarea statutului de subiecte de drept public institutiilor minoritatilor. Prin urmare, adoptarea unui astfel de proiect presupune schimbari constitutionale. Conditiile din Romania, politice si de mentalitate, nu permit promovarea unei strategii care sa urmeze modelul UDMR. Pe de alta parte, partenerii de negocieri cu minoritatea maghiara trebuie sa retina doua aspecte.

a) Conceptia autonomiilor este recunoscuta ca o formula legitima, de comunitatea internationala. Exista, pe de o parte, modelul autonomiilor si regiunilor cu statut special, in forme variate, in Europa. Pe de alta parte, specialisti de referinta in comunitatea internationala considera ca autonomia este unul dintre cele mai eficiente mijloace de rezolvare a problemelor minoritatilor nationale. Iata doua exemple care vorbesc despre “spiritul” in care se trateaza chestiunea autonomiilor: Documentul Reuniunii de la Copenhaga a Conferintei cu privire la dimensiunea umana, a CSCE, din 29 iunie 1990: “unul din mijloacele posibile, pentru atingerea acestor scopuri, sunt administratii corespunzatoare locale sau autonome, care sa corespunda imprejurarilor istorice si teritoriale specifice ale unor astfel de minoritati si in concordanta cu politica statului in cauza”; Rezolutia 232 (1992) cu privire la autonomie, minoritati, nationalism si Uniunea Europeana, adoptata de Conferinta Permanenta a Autoritatilor Locale si Regionale din Europa considera necesar ca statele sa actioneze pentru instaurarea democratiei “efectuand o redistribuire pe scara larga a puterilor intre guvernul central, regiuni si autoritati locale si, in special, prin recunoasterea si protejarea identitatii si dreptului minoritatilor de a juca un rol in administratia publica, conform principiului subsidiaritatii, respectandu-se structurile administrative ale fiecarui stat”.

b) Presiunea in sensul obtinerii autonomiilor poate scadea numai prin introducerea unei formule alternative (care sa domine strategia autonomiilor). Daca nu se raspunde pozitiv la strategia UDMR, trebuie asigurate in schimb minoritatii maghiare drepturile concrete care sa o faca sa se simta sigura si confortabila, ceea ce este posibil numai printr-un sistem de protectie generala. In principiu si cu atat mai mult in conditiile noastre, aceasta nu se poate realiza la nivelul unei politici guvernamentale (chiar una pozitiva), ci doar printr-o lege a minoritatilor nationale. Daca aceasta lege a minoritatilor nu va rezolva obiectivele de baza concrete ale maghiarilor, in nici un caz ea nu va apare ca o concurenta la ideea autonomiilor, ci din contra, va duce la concluzia ca autonomiile sunt ultima solutie.

D) O lege a minoritatilor nationale poate fi perceputa drept convenabila pentru toti partenerii politici

O astfel de lege va constitui un semnal pozitiv pentru comunitatea internationala. Ea poate fi o solutie de compromis atat pentru populatia romana cu sentimente nationaliste cat si pentru maghiari:

a) in primul caz, ca o afirmare a vointei politice pentru o strategie proprie privind drepturile minoritatilor nationale, care sa lase in urma dezbaterile pe tema autonomiilor etc., strategie capabila de a intari prestigiul statului roman;

b) din perspectiva populatiei maghiare, ca o victorie a vointei de reconciliere, a maturizarii politice, a dorintei de a depasi stadiul confruntarilor cu majoritatea, pentru un stadiu al colaborarii, in masura in care drepturile solicitate (in concret!) de-a lungul timpului, au fost indeplinite.

Un proiect de lege privind drepturile minoritatilor nationale a fost elaborat sub egida Centrului pentru Drepturile Omului in toamna anului 1994, a fost publicat si a primit, in acel moment, aprecierile unor cercetatori si oameni politici. El realizeaza compromisul amintit mai sus: (i) prevederile sale respecta actuala Constitutie a Romaniei; (ii) asigura minoritatii maghiare drepturile existente formal inainte de 1989; (iii) permite recastigarea institutiilor simbol ale minoritatii maghiare.”

B. MINORITATILE SEXUALE

1. Aspecte teoretice

Desi modificarea Codului Penal parea ca esuase la sfarsitul anului 1995, prin respingerea pentru a doua oara de catre Camera Deputatilor a Proiectului de lege privind modificarea si completarea Codului penal, Codului de procedura penala si a legii 61/1991, dezbaterea a fost reluata in luna ianuarie a anului 1996 la initiativa a doi parlamentari, Ion Predescu si Valer Suian. Acestia au remis Senatului doua proiecte de lege, unul pentru modificarea si completarea Codului penal si celalalt privind Codul de procedura penala. Proiectele erau identice cu cele respinse in 1994 si 1995, cu exceptia sporirii unor pedepse.

APADOR-CH a criticat metoda folosita de cei doi parlamentari, considerand ca ea se abate de la norma constitutionala. Cu toate ca acest punct de vedere a fost exprimat si de unii parlamentari in timpul dezbaterilor din Senat si in ciuda protestelor internationale, proiectul a fost adoptat in luna februarie. Articolul 200 al acestui proiect de lege prevedea pedepse mergand pana la cinci ani pentru relatii sexuale intre persoane de acelasi sex care au loc in public sau produc scandal public (paragraful intai), precum si pentru propaganda, asocierea sau “orice alte acte de prozelitism” savarsite in acelasi scop (paragraful cinci).

Cateva luni mai tarziu proiectul a fost dezbatut in Camera Deputatilor, intr-un cadru extrem de tensionat. Supusa presiunilor unor organizatii apropiate Bisericii Ortodoxe Romane si unor cotidiene, precum si unor deputati, Camera Deputatilor a adoptat la 10 septembrie, cu o majoritate covarsitoare, un text net diferit de cel adoptat de Senat: relatiile sexuale intre persoane de acelasi sex (care au loc in intimitate) se pedepsesc cu inchisoare de la 6 luni la trei ani iar relatiile sexuale intre persoane de acelasi sex, savarsite in public sau care produc scandal public se transforma in agravante pedepsite cu inchisoare de pana la cinci ani; raman pedepsite propaganda, asocierea sau orice alte acte de prozelitism. Initiatorul acestui text a fost chiar Ion Predescu, la data aceea ministru al Justitiei.

Intre momentul adoptarii articolului 200 si cel al votarii proiectului de lege in ansamblu, la 13 septembrie 1996, APADOR-CH a lansat un apel la ratiune si la respectarea angajamentelor internationale luate. In cuprinsul apelului, publicat de presa scrisa, se sublinia ca proiectul este contrar Constitutiei Romaniei si ca, in acelasi timp, “datorita faptului ca unele articole contravin prevederilor Conventiei europene a drepturilor omului si jurisprudentei Curtii Europene a Drepturilor Omului, Romania va fi perceputa ca o tara care nu respecta nici angajamentele pe care si le-a asumat si nici legislatia internationala pe care a acceptat-o. In plus, modificarea Codului penal in asemenea circumstante ar submina in mod evident credibilitatea Romaniei ca tara in masura a-si asuma responsabilitatea integrarii euro-atlantice”.

Reactii la decizia Camerei Deputatilor de incriminare a relatiilor homosexuale intre adultii care consimt si care au loc in intimate au avut si institutii pan-europene. Astfel, Parlamentul European, in sedinta sa din 19 septembrie, a adoptat rezolutia B4-1057, 1063, 1081/96. Redactata in termeni extrem de severi, Rezolutia Parlamentului European reamintea Presedintelui Romaniei si Guvernului principiile si valorile pe care Romania s-a angajat sa le respecte la admiterea in Consiliul Europei, cerand totodata Comisiei Europene si guvernelor tarilor membre ale Uniunii Europene sa depuna eforturi pentru ca aceste angajamente sa fie respectate de autoritatile romane.

Decizia Camerei Deputatilor de a mentine incriminarea relatiilor consimtite intre persoane adulte de acelasi sex a determinat si reactia organizatiei Amnesty International. Intr-un apel datat 11 septembrie, Amnesty International chema membrii si simpatizantii sai sa trimita Parlamentului, Guvernului si Presedintelui Romaniei scrisori prin care sa protesteze impotriva votului Camerei. Actiunea se inscrie in activitatea constanta a organizatiei in ceea ce priveste articolul 200 al Codului penal roman si victimele acestuia.

Comisia de mediere Camera-Senat, intrunita spre a pune de acord divergentele dintre textele adoptate de cele doua Camere, a dat castig de cauza variantei votate de Senat in februarie. Acest text a fost, in urma medierii, adoptat de Senat si de Camera Deputatilor in sedintele din 25 septembrie, respectiv 30 septembrie.

Nemultumiti de rezultatul dezbaterilor, 102 parlamentari au sesizat Curtea Constitutionala cu privire la constitutionalitatea art. 200 alin. 1 in redactarea adoptata prin Legea pentru modificarea si completarea Codului penal. In esenta, contestatarii sustineau ca: – principiul constitutional al protejarii vietii intime, familiale si private (art. 26) nu se aplica in cazul relatiilor homosexuale deoarece acestea aduc atingere bunelor moravuri in orice conditii, chiar si atunci cand nu au loc in public sau nu produc scandal public; – autoritatile statale, prin legalizarea homosexualitatii, au incalcat juramantul (conform art. 82 alin. 2 si 103 alin. 1 din Constitutie) depus cu invocarea ajutorului lui Dumnezeu; – articolul 20 din Constitutie privind prioritatea reglementarilor internationale fata de cele interne nu se aplica decat pentru drepturile fundamentale ale omului “printre care nu se poate include si sodomia”; – ar fi absurd sa se dea prioritate in mod neconditionat reglementarilor internationale, “deoarece ar insemna sa acceptam chiar si ceea ce este contrar intereselor nationale”. Prin decizia nr. 123 din 22 octombrie 1996, Curtea Constitutionala considera dispozitiile art. 200 din Lege ca fiind constitutionale. Legea a intrat in vigoare prin publicarea in Monitorul Oficial nr. 289 din 14 noiembrie 1996.

In aceasta ultima formulare, articolul 200 mentine principiile represive si discriminatorii ale vechiului Cod penal, adaugand prevederi care ating si libertatea de exprimare si cea de asociere:

– paragraful 1 mentine incriminarea relatiilor consimtite intre parteneri adulti de acelasi sex; circumstantierea faptei incriminate nu face decat sa sporeasca posibilitatea producerii de abuzuri prin nedefinirea notiunii de “scandal public” precum si prin definirea extrem de larga a situatiilor ce reprezinta “in public” (art. 152 cod penal);

– se pastreaza diferentele notabile dintre pedepsele aplicate faptelor cazand sub incidenta paragrafelor 2, 3 si 4 (viol, corupere de minori) si cele similare ale caror victime le sunt persoanele de sex opus, fapte incriminate prin alte articole ale codului penal; pe langa faptul ca fundamenteaza o discriminare, mentinerea acestor diferente precum si neunificarea articolelor respective conform faptelor incriminate este lipsita de sens;

– paragraful 5 anuleaza practic dreptul la libera exprimare si libera asociere, garantate de Constitutia Romaniei; in plus, el promoveaza concepte vagi, cum ar fi “propaganda” sau “prozelitismul”.

2. Cazuri individuale

O parte din neajunsurile legii sunt reflectate in cazurile individuale care au fost sesizate APADOR-CH si prezentate mai jos.

Cazurile G.I. si C.K. din Baia Mare

APADOR-CH a fost sesizata de doua persoane din Baia Mare care, datorita orientarii lor homosexuale, sunt persecutate si supuse unor puternice presiuni psihice de unii politisti.

Asociatia a trimis o adresa ministrului de Interne in care prezenta aceste cazuri si ii cerea sa ordone o ancheta si sa ia masuri impotriva politistilor din Baia Mare. Continutul adresei este urmatorul :

“In ziua de 13 martie 1996, la ora 12:30, G.I. a fost luat de pe strada de un locotenent-colonel si dus la sediul Politiei judetene, unde i s-a cerut sa identifice cat mai multi homosexuali din Baia Mare si din alte orase. Nu exista date din care sa rezulte daca a fost vorba de o “conducere la sediul politiei” sau de masura “retinerii”. Daca G.I. a fost “condus la sediul politiei”, atunci aceasta s-a facut prin incalcarea Legii Politiei nr. 26/1994 – art. 16, lit. b). Daca in cazul in speta a fost vorba de “retinere”, atunci politistii care au luat parte la aceasta actiune au incalcat art. 23 din Constitutie si art. 137/1 din Codul de procedura penala, intrucat nu i-au adus la cunostinta motivele retinerii.

Timp de circa 7 ore, G.I. a fost privat de libertate si interogat, fara a i se aduce la cunostinta faptul ca are dreptul sa fie asistat de un avocat. Dupa aceea, locotenent-colonelul si alti politisti s-au deplasat la domiciliul lui G.I. unde au facut o perchezitie , fara a avea mandat de perchezitie si fara a solicita si obtine consimtamantul scris al persoanei perchezitionate (C.p.p. art 101 alin. 2). Politistii au confiscat corespondenta, o agenda de telefoane si pasaportul lui G.I. fara a intocmi proces verbal si deci, evident, fara a inmana o copie de pe acesta persoanei perchezitionate (C.P.P. art. 108). Reintorsi la sectia de politie, G.I. a fost obligat, prin amenintari repetate, sa dea declaratie despre persoanele ale caror nume apareau in agenda personala si cu care intretinea corespondenta. In momentul in care a fost eliberat, lui G.I. i s-a cerut sa se prezinte la politie in ziua urmatoare. Traumatizat psihic, la revenirea in domiciliu G.I. a incercat sa se sinucida, inghitind diverse medicamente. A fost insa dus la spital si salvat. Dupa externare, G.I. a facut o noua tentativa de sinucidere.

Pe data de 17 aprilie 1996, ora 10:00, acelasi locotenent-colonel l-a ridicat de la domiciliu pe C.K. tot din Baia Mare, prieten cu G.I. Politistii nu au avut mandat de perchezitie si nici de arestare. Ca si in cazul lui G.I. politistii i-au cerut lui C.K. sa identifice persoane cu aceeasi orientare sexuala din Baia Mare si alte localitati. In jurul orei 17:00 a fost lasat sa plece dar a fost amenintat ca va fi convocat din nou “foarte curand”.

Politistii implicati in cele doua cazuri de privare de libertate fie nu cunosc, fie ignora intentionat prevederile legale existente in Romania.

Cu toate ca art. 200 alin. 1 era inca in vigoare in forma adoptata inca din 1969 (pedepsirea homosexualilor adulti care consimt la inchisoare intre 1 si 5 ani), prin Decizia Curtii Constitutionale nr. 81 din 15 iulie 1994, ramasa definitiva prin respingerea recursului introdus de Ministerul Public (Decizia nr 136 din 7 decembrie 1994) se “constata ca prevederile acestui alineat (art. 200 alin. 1) sunt neconstitutionale, in masura in care se aplica relatiilor sexuale intre persoane majore de acelasi sex, liber consimtite, care nu sunt savarsite in public ori nu produc scandal public”. Conform Constitutiei Romaniei, art. 145, alin. 2), “Deciziile Curtii Constitutionale sunt obligatorii si au putere numai pentru viitor.”

Art. 8 din Conventia europeana pentru apararea drepturilor omului si libertatilor fundamentale – parte din dreptul intern al Romaniei – protejeaza viata privata si de familie, domiciliul si corespondenta persoanei. De asemenea, Constitutia Romaniei statueaza la art. 26 alin. 1) ca “autoritatile publice respecta si ocrotesc viata intima, familiala si privata”.

Avand in vedere aceste dispozitii legale, este de neinteles practica interogarii unor persoane pentru a obtine informatii in legatura cu orientarea sexuala a altor persoane, parte a vietii intime si private a acestora.

APADOR-CH considera ca politistii din Baia Mare au comis un sir de ilegalitati care trebuie sanctionate imediat pentru a preveni repetarea unor asemenea acte prin care se incalca legile, inclusiv Constitutia Romaniei, precum si documentele internationale cu privire la drepturile omului.”

Ministerul de Interne a trimis un raspuns din care reiesea ca politistii de la Baia Mare investigau un caz de viol homosexual si sechestrare de persoana in care s-ar fi aflat implicati un numar de homosexuali din localitate si din imprejurimi, ceea ce explica metodele la care au recurs in cazurile C.I. si C.K. Este evident ca aceste afirmatii nu sunt deloc suficiente pentru a justifica perchezitiile domiciliare fara mandat sau consimtamant scris, confiscarea corespondentei si a documentelor de identitate fara proces verbal si, mai ales, presiunile psihice exercitate asupra celor doi.

De altfel, plangeri privind hartuirea din partea politiei au mai fost primite si din Bucuresti, in perioada 10-25 septembrie, cand Camera Deputatilor votase deja varianta dura a articolului 200.

Cazul minorilor G.P. si R.V. din Iasi

Tot in luna septembrie, un articol aparut in presa a atras atentia APADOR-CH asupra unui nou caz, la Iasi. Minorii G.P. si R.V. au fost surprinsi in apropierea unui bar, practicand ceea ce politia a declarat a fi relatii sexuale. Detaliile privind circumstantele in care se aflau cei doi, deloc convingatoare pentru a justifica incadrarea penala a faptei comise, precum si modul in care investigatia era intreprinsa de politie au determinat APADOR-CH sa intervina prin angajarea unui aparator in aceasta cauza. La sfarsitul anului 1996 investigatiile politiei inca nu se incheiasera, cei doi minori fiind cercetati in stare de libertate.

Cazul Mihai Filip

Nascut la 25.09.1954, Mihai Filip era paznic la liceul “Decebal” din Constanta. La data de 8 ianuarie 1994, Mihai Filip era de serviciu de noapte la liceu. O cunostinta recenta, Radu Lucian, in varsta de 21 de ani cu care intretinuse deja relatii sexuale liber consimtite a venit in vizita la liceu. Conform celor povestite de Mihai Filip, la un moment dat, o patrula de politie a venit in control, lucru practicat destul de frecvent. Mihai Filip afirma ca el se afla in secretariat, iar Radu Lucian, in cancelarie. Asadar nu puteau fi surprinsi “in flagrant delict” cum au declarat politistii. Radu Lucian si Mihai Filip au recunoscut ca intretinusera anterior relatii sexuale, ceea ce justitia a considerat suficient pentru a-i condamna. Mihai Filip a fost condamnat la o pedeapsa cu inchisoare de 2 ani, cu suspendare, iar Radu Lucian la un an, tot cu suspendare. Recursul introdus de Parchet a fost judecat in iunie 1995, deci dupa ce Curtea Constitutionala daduse Decizia nr. 81/15 iulie 1994 prin care homosexualitatea liber consimtita nu mai era incriminata decat daca provoca scandal public sau se petrecea in public. Cu toate acestea, Tribunalul Constanta a mentinut condamnarea dar a anulat masura suspendarii executarii pedepsei in cazul lui Mihai Filip. Acesta a introdus apel, care a fost respins. Hotararea ramasa definitiva poarta numarul 712/1995.

Este clar ca situatia in care s-au aflat Mihai Filip si Radu Lucian nu corespunde precizarilor aduse de Curtea Constitutionala la art. 200 alineat 1 Cod penal : ei nu au produs “scandal public” iar incinta scolii, inchisa pe timpul noptii, nu poate fi considerata “loc public” conform definitiei art. 152 C.p. In plus, potrivit lui Mihai Filip, ei nu au fost surprinsi in “flagrant delict”.

Asadar, nici Tribunalul Judetean Constanta si nici Curtea de Apel nu au tinut cont de decizia nr. 81/15 iulie 1994 a Curtii Constitutionale, iar Mihai Filip si Radu Lucian au fost pedepsiti pentru o fapta care, in urma deciziei Curtii Constitutionale, apare ca inexistenta.

Mihai Filip a executat deja jumatate din pedeapsa. El va fi, foarte probabil, eliberat curand, fiind trecut pe lista celor propusi judecatoriei pentru liberare conditionata.

APADOR-CH considera ca potrivit deciziei Curtii Constitutionale nr. 81/15 iulie 1994 fapta pentru care cei doi au fost pedepsiti nu mai putea fi definita ca infractiune la data la care s-au judecat recursul si apelul. Ca atare, a trimis o adresa Procurorului General al Romaniei solicitand introducerea unui recurs in anulare.

C. MINORITATILE RELIGIOASE

1. Aspecte generale

Anul 1996 a fost primul, dupa revolutie, in care problema minoritatilor religioase a devenit o problema preocupanta pentru situatia libertatii de constiinta, in Romania. Contestari fata de exercitarea libertatii de constiinta a unei grupari sau a alteia au intrat in atentia opiniei publice si in anii anteriori. Dar pana in 1996, ele nu au luat niciodata amploarea campaniilor din acest an si mai ales, niciodata autoritatile nu au intervenit impotriva minoritatilor religioase. Exista doua grupuri religioase ale caror drepturi constitutionale au suferit din cauza calomniilor si presiunilor prin mass-media si a interventiei autoritatilor: Martorii lui Iehova si MISA.

2. Martorii lui Iehova

Martorii lui Iehova sunt un cult neoprotestant avind, in Romania, circa 35.000 de adepti. Liderii cultului – inregistrat ca asociatie, in conformitate cu legea 21/1924 -, dau si cifra de 60.000 de simpatizanti. Cultul are o raspindire mondiala, numarul de membri ajungind, dupa datele aflate la sediul de la New York, la peste 5 milioane. Principalul detaliu cu care ei sint asociati, in imaginea opiniei publice, este dat de desele “previziuni” referitoare la sfirsitul lumii.

a) Campania impotriva Martorilor lui Iehova

Martorii lui Iehova pregatisera tinerea unui congres international, la Bucuresti, ce urma sa se desfasoare intre 19-21 iulie 1996. (Congrese anterioare avusesera loc anual, la Brasov si Cluj.) In acest scop, conducerea a incheiat un contract cu firma “Atlantis Tour”, iar aceasta a realizat o intelegere cu Ministerul Invatamantului pentru cazarea participantilor la congres in caminele de la Regie. In paralel, s-a semnat un contract cu Ministerul Tineretului si Sporturilor, caruia Martorii lui Iehova i-au platit 50% din valoarea de 50.000$, pentru inchirierea Stadionului National pe perioada celor doua zile ale congresului.

In ziua de 24 iunie 1996, Patriarhul Bisericii Ortodoxe Romane, Teoctist, a transmis presei o declaratie in care critica in termeni vehementi cultul Martorii lui Iehova si intentia acestuia de a tine un congres international la Bucuresti:

“Pentru prima data in istoria de doua ori milenara a poporului nostru dreptcredincios, va avea loc la Bucuresti, in luna iulie, un Congres international al Gruparii religioase Martorii lui Iehova, la care vor participa adepti veniti din toata lumea. Suntem ingrijorati ca autoritatile competente au acceptat cu atata usurinta organziarea acestei intruniri intr-o tara eminamente ortodoxa, fara sa se ia in consideratie faptul ca adeptii acestei grupari religioase nu reprezinta decat o infima minoritate in tara noastra.

Calauziti de lumina Duhului lui Hristos, ne indreptam chemarea parinteasca catre slujitorii sfintelor noastre altare si catre fiii duhovnicesti ai Sfintei noastre Biserici, pentru sporirea rugaciunii si a pastrarii credintei celei adevarate, prevenindu-i asupra invataturilor eretice, profesate de aceasta secta, care n-a gasit adapost pentru intrunirea ei in alta tara est-europeana.

In primul rand, atragem atentia credinciosilor nostri ca aceasta secta nu are caracter crestin. Desi pretind ca sunt crestini, totusi nu se sfiesc sa nege pe Iisus Hristos ca Dumnezeu adevarat, reducandu-l la un simplu intemeietor omenesc de religie, ca atatia altii in istorie. Odata cu aceasta se submineaza credinta neamului nostru in sfintirea omului si a intregii creatii realizata prin Iisus Hristos, Fiul Unic al lui Dumnezeu, intrupat pentru mantuirea si indumnezeirea oamenilor.

In al doilea rand, acesti sectanti, negand dumnezeirea mantuitorului Iisus Hristos, resping implicit invatatura Bisericii nedespartite despre Sfanta Treime, ca fundament al iubirii si comuniunii crestine. Uitand ca porunca iubirii fata de Dumnezeu si fata de aproapele se intemeiaza pe credinta noastra in Sfanta Treime, aceasta secta contribuie in mod iresponsabil la sporirea urii si violentei care confrunta lumea actuala.

In al treilea rand, pierzand din vedere ca lumea este creatia lui Dumnezeu, martorii lui Iehova infiereaza cultura si statul socotite de ei ca unelte ale diavolului si terorizeaza lumea cu iminenta sfarsitului tragic al lumii. In acelasi timp, ei resping cinstirea sfintilor, venerarea icoanelor si cultul mortilor, atat de scumpe poporului nostru si acest fel contribuie la procesul de secularizare si descrestinare a lumii in pragul mileniului al III-lea.

In al patrulea rand, o astfel de reuniune constituie o sfidare la adresa credintei ortodoxe si poporului roman, increstinat la nasterea sa cu 2000 de ani in urma si totodata o evidenta actiune prozelitista, menita sa sfasie unitatea spirituala si morala a neamului nostru.

“Chemarea” Patriarhului Teoctist a fost semnul care a declasat o ampla campanie impotriva cultului Martorii lui Iehova. La 31 iunie 1996, circa 5.000 de crestini ortodocsi au participat pe Dealul Mitropoliei la o adunare de protest impotriva organizarii la Bucuresti a congresului Martorilor lui Iehova, la chemarea Patriarhiei. Patriarhul Teoctist a rostit un discurs in care a cerut strangerea randurilor in jurul Bisericii Ortodoxe Romane “autocefala si nationala”.

Asociatia “Fratia Ortodoxa”, Asociatia Studentilor Crestini-Ortodocsi din Romania si Liga Studentilor au difuzat in comun, pe 1 iulie 1996, o scrisoare deschisa catre “toti Romanii, catre Autoritatile Statului Roman”, prin care: 1) se cerea suspendarea congresului “Martorilor lui Iehova”; 2) se aduceau acuzatii cultului (caracter de erezie, caracter antinational si antistatal); se solicita revizuirea actualei Constitutii, care sa redea Bisericii Ortodoxe Romane locul primordial.

In Bucuresti si in alte orase au aparut afise sau fluturasi in care Martorii lui Iehova erau prezentati drept “cult satanic anticrestin”, “criminali” etc.

Campania impotriva Martorilor lui Iehova a fost sustinuta de catre o mare parte din presa scrisa si audio-vizuala. Romania libera din 13 iulie 1996 a publicat un articol (“Grupari omenesti coagulate in jurul unor erori, minciuni si monstruozitati”) care enunta, sub semnatura Aidei Danaila, urmatoarele: “dintre organizatiile existente in Romania, aflate pe grila de periculozitate a … Comitetului anti-secta al Parlamentului European, sunt incadrate urmatoarele opt: Miscarea pentru Integrarea Spirituala in Absolut; Societatea de Yoga si Parapsihologie; Sahaja-Yoga; Ananda Marga; Hare Krishna; Noua Acropola; Martorii lui Iehova; Biserica Scientologica”.

Verificand aceste informatii, APADOR-CH a descoperit ca ele sunt false. Asociatia a adresat Comisiei Delegatiei Uniunii Europene la Bucuresti cateva intrebari:

– exista un Comitet anti-secta al Parlamentului European?

– in cazul in care un astfel de Comitet exista, este trecut cultul Martorii lui Iehova printre cele opt organizatii indicate de “Romania libera” ca aflandu-se in grila lui de periculozitate?

David Blackman, de la Directoratul general si de cercetare a Parlamentului European, a raspuns intr-un stil raspicat, ca “Nu exista nici un astfel de Comitet anti-secta al Parlamentului European si nici nu a existat vreodata. Domeniul sectelor si cultelor este abordat de catre sub-comitetul de drepturile omului al Parlamentului. Consideram ca ziarista in cauza nu a avut o clara intelegere a termenilor pe care i-a folosit in articol.”

Aceste date au fost trimise Romaniei libere, care nu a procedat la vreo rectificare.

Un ziar care a atacat agresiv cultul Martorii lui Iehova a fost Adevarul. Un exemplu semnificativ este textul din 27 iunie 1996, “Martorii lui Iehova au mintit autoritatile romane”. Desi in articol nu se arata decat ca, in solicitarea facuta Ministerului Tineretului si Sporturilor, Martorii lui Iehova se referisera la tinerea “unui congres de proportii mari”, neprecizarea caracterului “international” al acestuia a fost calificat cu litere mari, in titlu, drept “mintire premeditata”.

Vocea Romaniei, cotidianul Guvernului de la acea data, a prezentat pe larg declaratiile impotriva cultului protestant.

Ziarul Dimineata, considerat de unii analisti drept cotidianul “prezidential” de la acea data, a publicat in nr. 125 din 28 iunie 1996 un articol semnat de Serban Cionoff (“A marturisi pentru cine… pentru ce? Si de ce?”), in care se sugereaza implicarea Martorilor lui Iehova in conspiratii la nivel planetar. Articolul introduce si amenintari, deloc voalate.

Participarea ziarului Ziua la campanie se poate vedea, printre altele, din titlul “Hillary Clinton toarna gaz peste scandalul dintre ortodocsi si iehovisti”. O prezentare ambigua, cu accente tendentioase, a avut chiar si Nine o’clock.

Televiziunea romana a prezentat cazul Martorilor lui Iehova, in mai multe emisiuni, transformand postul public in mesagerul celor ce incitau la actiuni impotriva cultului.

Alte autoritati ale statului – Ministerul Invatamantului, Tineretului etc. – au cooperat la aceasta actiune de atac impotriva Martorilor lui Iehova. Ministerul Tineretului si Sporturilor a reziliat contractul cu Martorii lui Iehova, motivand ca datorita unei schimbari neprevazute de program, Stadionul National va fi ocupat, incepand din 27 iunie, cu pregatirea sportivilor romani.

La conferinta de presa a purtatorului de cuvant al Presedintiei, Traian Chebeleu, acesta a apreciat ca desfasurarea la Bucuresti a Congresului Martorilor lui Iehova “incalca reguli consacrate de respect reciproc, mai ales ca acestia nu au cerut aprobarile necesare unei manifestari de o asemenea anvergura” (Cronica Romana, nr. 1054, 5 iulie 1996).

Dar cea mai importanta actiune a autoritatilor, care a constituit o violare a drepturilor constitutionale de care beneficiaza orice cult, inclusiv Martorii lui Iehova este Declaratia Secretariatului General al Guvernului Romaniei. Afirmand ca “Secretariatul General al Guvernului Romaniei, luand cunostinta de Chemarea din 21 iunie 1996, prin care Patriarhul Bisericii Ortodoxe Romane, Preafericitul Parinte Teoctist, isi exprima ingrijorarea ca ‘autoritatile competente au acceptat cu prea multa usurinta organizarea unui … Congres international al gruparii religioase Martorii lui Iehova … intr-o tara eminamente ortodoxa'” acesta concluziona: “Secretariatul General al Guvernului Romaniei considera ca total inoportuna incercarea de a improviza o asemenea manifestare de amploare internationala la Bucuresti, in cursul lunii iulie, si nici in viitor”.

Mai multi oameni politici s-au raliat si ei la campanie. Radu Vasile, secretar general al PNTCD a declarat ca a refuzat sa participe la receptia oferita cu ocazia vizitei lui Hillary Clinton ca protest fata de refuzul sotiei presedintelui american, de a vizita Biserica Kretulescu (vizita planuita dar contramandata, datorita campaniei dusa de Biserica Ortodoxa impotriva Martorilor lui Iehova).

Radu Boroianu, vicepresedinte al Partidului National Liberal a declarat: “Inregistrarea ca legala a acestei asociatii religioase este o gafa monumentala a actualilor guvernanti. Scopul Martorilor lui Iehova este pulverizarea granitelor statale… Cer nu numai anularea congresului, ci si a creditarii legale a acestei asociatii si fac raspunzatori pe cei care, prin asemenea fapte, tradeaza interesele nationale. Asociatia Martorii lui Iehova atinge grav drepturile fundamentale ale natiunii, fruntariile culturale si sufletesti si cele ce definesc cel mai exact granitele politice” (Romania libera, 3 iulie 1996).

Din categoria luarilor de pozitie care s-au demarcat fata de incitarile impotriva cultului Martorilor lui Iehova se pot enumera urmatoarele:

PRO-TV a avut un inteligent reportaj pe tema Congresului Martorilor lui Iehova. Informatiile sale, privind calitatea organizarii congreselor, ordinea si curatenia ce insotesc activitatile sale au facut o impresie foarte buna. Academia Catavencu a ironizat campania impotriva Martorilor lui Iehova. Evenimentul Zilei, Azi au prezentat evenimentele intr-o maniera obiectiva. In revistele 22 si Dilema au aparut articole critice la adresa campaniei care incalca dreptul la constiinta, care violeaza libertatea exercitarii credintei religioase.

Dintre oamenii politici, doar Razvan Dobrescu (deputat PNTCD) a ripostat impotriva incitarilor. Intr-un articol aparut in Romania libera, a vorbit despre “amenintarile nemaiintalnite in Romania ale unor comunitati locale la adresa iehovistilor de a-i alunga pe acestia din localitatile respective”, in urma apelului Patriarhului Teoctist.

b) Pozitia APADOR-CH

APADOR-CH a fost singura organizatie care a protestat impotriva campaniei indreptata impotriva martorilor lui Iehova. Comunicatul APADOR-CH, din 25 iunie 1996, a fost preluat de numeroase agentii de stiri, dar, contrar altor comunicate ale asociatiei, a fost publicat de un singur ziar, Curierul National. El a fost transmis autoritatilor romane, ambasadelor, organizatiilor internationale de drepturile omului:

“In legatura cu campania desfasurata in ultimele zile de diferite grupuri si cu pozitia exprimata public de reprezentantul Bisericii Ortodoxe Romane, Patriarhul Teoctist, impotriva cultului “Martorii lui Iehova”, APADOR-CH declara urmatoarele:

1) Libertatea constiintei, incluzand libertatea de a participa la viata unui cult, constituie unul dintre drepturile fundamentale ocrotite de catre Constitutia Romaniei in art. 29 si de toate documentele internationale privitoare la drepturile omului, pe care Romania le-a ratificat.

Aceasta include si dreptul de a participa la intruniri cu caracter religios sau de alt gen, drept care cade si sub protectia art. 36 din Constitutie, privind libertatea de intrunire.

2) In aceeasi masura, prin prevederile art. 30, Constitutia Romaniei garanteaza dreptul la libertatea de exprimare. Aceasta cuprinde si afirmarea publica a unor opinii in legatura cu “autenticitatea” unui alt cult. In schimb, incitarea la discriminare a unui grup religios, in orice mod, constituie o instigare la incalcarea Constitutiei Romaniei care, in art. 29 (4) interzice, in relatiile dintre culte, manifestarea oricaror “forme, mijloace, acte sau actiuni de invrajbire religioasa”.

3) Afisele care declara cultul “Martorii lui Iehova” drept “criminal” si afirma ca el are drept obiectiv “dezbinarea nationala”, indemnind la actiuni impotriva cultului si adeptilor sai, constituie infractiunea de “impiedicare a libertatii cultelor” prevazuta si pedepsita de art. 318 din Codul penal.

Folosirea unui limbaj care promoveaza intoleranta aduce mari deservicii mentalitatii publice si afecteaza cursul democratiei in Romania. APADOR-CH solicita autoritatilor publice sa apere drepturile si libertatile fundamentale garantate de Constitutia Romaniei si face un apel catre cetateni, catre grupurile si miscarile religioase, catre cultele din Romania sa respecte dreptul fiecarei persoane de a practica religia careia ii apartine.”

La datele de natura constitutional-legislativa amintite de comunicatul APADOR-CH ar mai fi de adaugat faptul ca manifestarile sportive, culturale si religioase nu trebuie anuntate in prealabil la Politie si, in nici un caz incuviintate de autoritatile statului roman.

APADOR-CH a continuat sa urmareasca situatia cultului Martorilor lui Iehova. Date sosite la APADOR-CH la sfarsitul anului 1996 probeaza alte cazuri de violare a drepturilor membrilor cultului Martorii lui Iehova, in timpul acestui an:

– Dispozitia 104/8.05.1996, semnata de primarul Olaru Mihai, municipiul Husi, prin care “se interzice propagarea cultelor religioase in municipiul Husi in afara lacaselor de cult (Pe baza acestei dispozitii, mai multi membri ai Martorilor lui Iehova au fost amendati de catre Corpul Gardienilor Publici);

– expunerea in locurile publice din Husi a unui afis care declara ca Martorii lui Iehova reprezinta o secta ucigasa, incitand locuitorii impotriva acestui cult.

3. Miscarea de integrare spirituala in absolut (MISA)

In cursul anului 1996 au continuat actiunile impotriva unei organizatii ai caror membri practica Yoga, “Miscarea de integrare spirituala in absolut” si asupra unuia dintre liderii sai, Gregorian Bivolaru. Aceasta campanie a pus intr-o situatie delicata ansamblul miscarilor si doctrinelor cu filiatie asiatica.

a) Campania prin presa si represiunea membrilor MISA

Campania de presa impotriva MISA si a instructorului de Yoga, Gregorian Bivolaru fusese lansata in 1990 si a ajuns la apogeu in 1995. In 1996 au aparut, in continuare, articole cu caracter calomnios in Romania libera, Jurnalul national, Ziua, Academia Catavencu etc. MISA a depus plangeri in justitie impotriva unor ziaristi, acuzandu-i de calomnie. Faptul ca, in cateva cazuri, ziaristii au fost pedepsiti (Corneliu Reu, de la Tinerama si Cristian Negureanu, de la Romania libera, au primit amenzi penale in 1995) a dat impresia ca ostilitatea care s-a creat in jurul grupului, in aceste conditii, este tinuta de institutiile statului sub control. Acesta este si motivul pentru care APADOR-CH nu a facut demersuri, privind situatia MISA, anterior.

Pentru prima data, in 1996, autoritatile statului au intervenit la randul lor impotriva MISA. Pe 17 iunie 1996, in jurul orei 23.00, un grup de cateva zeci de ofiteri de politie, a navalit in sala de sport a Institutului Politehnic din Bucuresti, in care circa 150 de persoane participau la o sedinta de Yoga a MISA. Au cerut documentele de identitate si au inceput sa interogheze pe participanti pe un ton amenintator. Circa 20 de persoane care nu aveau buletinele de identitate cu ei au fost duse la politie. La un moment dat, un ofiter de politie a incercat sa ia cu forta camera video a unui cursant yoga care filma evenimentele din interiorul salii. Doua alte studente, Camelia Rosu si Carmen Efta au vrut sa se interpuna intre politist si colegul lor. In acest moment doi politisti au inceput sa le loveasca, producandu-le rani, atestate ulterior prin certificate medicale. Camelia Rosu si Carmen Efta au depus plangere la Parchetul general dar pana la sfarsitul anului 1996 nu se daduse curs acestei reclamatii.

b) Pozitia APADOR-CH

In luna august 1996, APADOR-CH a facut o investigatie la Costinesti, in tabara de la “Golful Parizianului”, unde se aduna in timpul verii membrii MISA. Timp de doua zile, reprezentantii APADOR-CH au urmarit daca alegatiile care se fac despre aceasta asociatie, privind tulburarea ordinii publice si actiuni impotriva bunelor moravuri se confirma ori nu. Adunarile membrilor MISA s-au desfasurat in conditii civilizate. Nimic din activitatea membrilor MISA nu intra in conflict cu legea si nu motiveaza campania impotriva lor.

In interviurile luate cu liderii Miscarii de Integrare Spirituala in Absolut acestia au contestat, cu date, informatiile care sunt vehiculate prin presa impotriva membrilor MISA. De asemenea, au confirmat declaratiile pe care cele doua studente molestate de politie le-au inaintat APADOR-CH.

APADOR-CH a inceput in 1996 investigatii asupra motivelor care au facut numeroase ziare sa publice articole impotriva MISA, dar pentru definirea unei pozitii asupra fenomenului, necesara pentru stoparea acestei campanii care atenteaza la libertatea de constiinta, activitatea asociatiei va continua si in 1997.

VII. REFUGIATII IN ROMANIA

In 1996, Romania a continuat sa fie o tara de primire pentru refugiati, nu numai ca zona de tranzit, ci si ca teritoriu in care au cautat protectie tot mai multe persoane din diferite regiuni ale lumii. Tarile de origine ale solicitantilor de azil in Romania sunt : Somalia, Afganistan, Iran, Irak, Turcia, Algeria, Bangladesh, Sudan, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, Rwanda, Zair, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Guineea, fosta Iugoslavie.

1. Cadrul legislativ

Anul 1996 a adus transformarile legislative pe care solicitantii de azil, refugiatii si autoritatile romane care vin in contact cu aceste categorii le asteptau. Dar procesul de elaborare a acestor transformari a fost de prea lunga durata, astfel ca multe persoane solicitante de azil au cazut “victime” inconsistentelor juridice.

In aprilie 1996 Parlamentul Romaniei a adoptat Legea nr. 15 privind statutul si regimul refugiatilor in Romania, lege intrata in vigoare la 2 mai 1996. Doua observatii se impun in legatura cu aceasta lege. In primul rand, trebuie remarcat ca, desi Romania aderase anterior la Conventia de la Geneva privind statutul refugiatilor, Legea nr. 15/1996, care implementeaza aceasta Conventie, este foarte restrictiva in insasi definirea notiunii de “refugiat”. Aceasta este incarcata de conditionari care restrang aplicarea textului Conventiei de la Geneva si contravin Conventiei Europene a Drepturilor Omului.

In al doilea rand trebuie mentionate limitarile in ceea ce priveste drepturile solicitantilor de azil si ale refugiatilor. Este vorba, in special, de dispozitiile care limiteaza in mod excesiv, comparativ cu documentele internationale in materie, accesul la procedura privind recunoasterea statutului de refugiat, libertatea de miscare, drepturile conferite prin recunoasterea statutului de refugiat.

Autoritatile insarcinate cu punerea in aplicare a prevederilor Conventiei de la Geneva si ale legii nationale privind refugiatii s-au confruntat in permanenta cu lipsa reglementarilor adiacente, necesare implementarii legii. Desi art. 28 din Legea nr. 15/1996 afirma obligatia Guvernului de a adopta o hotarare de aplicare a legii in termen de o luna de la publicarea legii in Monitorul Oficial, in realitate acest lucru a fost realizat cu o intarziere de aproape sase luni (Hotararea nr. 1182/13 noiembrie 1996). Datorita acestei intarzieri, autoritatile cu atributii in aplicarea legii, inclusiv instantele de judecata, au intampinat mari dificultati in interpretarea si implementarea legii, fapt care a generat practici diferite, unele neconforme cu legea sau cu principiile internationale in materie, ceea ce i-a prejudiciat grav pe refugiati.

2. Procedura obtinerii statutului de refugiat

Hotararea de Guvern privind aplicarea Legii nr. 15/1996 nu a clarificat un aspect esential al procedurii si anume cine are calitate procesuala pasiva in cauzele in care se contesta deciziile Comitetului Roman pentru Probleme de Migrari (mai exact, Comisia de decizie din cadrul acestui organism). Potrivit art. 13 alin. 3 din Legea nr. 15/1996, impotriva unei hotarari pronuntate in aceasta materie pot declara recurs contestatorul (solicitantul de azil) si procurorul. Ministerul de Interne – Directia Generala pentru Straini, Pasapoarte si a Politiei de Frontiera a invocat exceptia lipsei calitatii sale procesuale pasive in aceste cauze. In interpretarea acestei institutii, in toate aceste procese, nu “exista”, stricto sensu, un parat, procedura fiind considerata ca similara celei contraventionale. Aceeasi interpretare a fost data si de Ministerul Justitiei, la solicitarea Judecatoriei Sectorului 1 si a Programului de asistenta legala pentru refugiati al APADOR – CH. Concluzia este ca, atunci cand va exista o hotarare irevocabila privind statutul de refugiat, ea nu va fi opozabila nimanui si nu se va putea solicita executarea ei silita.

Ca urmare a dezbaterii in instanta a acestei chestiuni procedurale, Judecatoria Sectorului 1 a creat o practica legal justificata, in sensul ca a dispus citarea ca parat a Guvernului Romaniei, in principal pornind de la urmatoarele argumente:

– atat CRPM, cat si Ministerul de Interne sunt organisme guvernamentale, care exercita atributiile lor specifice privind refugiatii ca reprezentante ale puterii executive;

– fiind vorba de o hotarare cu autoritate de lucru judecat, pentru care de principiu nu exista o opozabilitate erga omnes (legiuitorul nu a prevazut nimic in acest sens), ea trebuie sa poata fi pusa in executare, ca orice alt titlu, fata de o anumita persoana (parte in proces), cu respectarea principiului contradictorialitatii.

E de remarcat ca Decizia Guvernului nr. 805/12.10.1995 a modificat substantial Decizia nr. 417/1991 prin trecerea activitatii Comitetului Roman pentru Probleme de Migrari in competenta Ministerului de Interne. Lucrarile de secretariat si evidenta privind procedura de obtinere a statutului de refugiat sunt asigurate de Directia Generala de Pasapoarte, Straini si a Politiei de Frontiera din cadrul Ministerului de Interne – Biroul de Migrari (actualmente Oficiul pentru Refugiati). Desi procesarea cererilor solicitantilor de azil s-a imbunatatit in mod clar prin sporirea personalului implicat si prin fluidizarea completarii cererilor, drepturile solicitantilor de azil au fost frecvent incalcate.

In cursul anului 1996 procedura stabilita de Biroul de Migrari a avut cateva carente majore:

– lipsa unui interpret pe parcursul intregii proceduri incepand din faza de interviu pana la emiterea deciziei privind statutul de refugiat;

– refuzul de a comunica decizia de respingere; in locul comunicarii s-a procedat la aplicarea literei majuscule “R” pe legitimatia provizorie solicitantului de azil (in urma criticilor aduse de organizatiile non-guvernamentale care lucreaza in domeniu, APADOR-CH si SIRDO, acest aspect a fost eliminat din practica politiei de migrari);

– nemotivarea deciziilor de respingere a cererilor privind statutul de refugiat, sau motivarea sumara si confuza, fapt care nu permite celui respins sa-si formuleze apararile necesare (cel mai adesea, motivul respingerii este: “nerespectarea procedurilor prevazute in Conventia de la Geneva din 1951 privind statutul refugiatilor”);

– comunicarea cu mare intarziere a deciziilor de respingere. Mai trebuie precizat ca Biroul de Migrari refuza sa reinnoiasca viza pe legitimatia provizorie in absenta unui document emis de o instanta de judecata care se ocupa de cazul solicitantului de azil. Acest fapt a condus la un aflux masiv de solicitanti de azil care s-au adresat APADOR-CH pentru ca nu posedau un document valabil de identitate si nici o dovada a statutului lor. APADOR-CH le-a eliberat acestora adeverinte care contineau datele esentiale de identificare individuala si informatiile actualizate privind stadiul procedurii de obtinere a statutului de refugiat. Nu o data, asemenea acte au impiedicat expulzarea unor solicitanti de azil.

Unele din aspectele negative prezentate mai sus au fost solutionate la sfarsitul anului 1996, ca urmare a aparitiei Hotararii nr. 1182/13.11.1996 a Guvernului Romaniei. Practica Oficiului pentru Refugiati (fostul Birou de Migrari) privind procedura obtinerii statutului de refugiat s-a modificat astfel incat:

– fie se asigura un interpret de pe lista Ministerului Justitiei (conform art. 7 alin. 5 din Hotarare), fie se tolereaza prezenta unui prieten, de obicei conational al solicitantului de azil care cunoaste si limba romana, atunci cand nu se poate asigura un interpret oficial (cea de a doua situatie poate prejudicia uneori interesele solicitantului de azil si, in orice caz, este in afara legii);

– potrivit art. 5 alin. 1, exista obligatia functionarului care primeste cererea solicitantului de azil de a-i comunica acestuia procedurile de urmat, precum si obligatiile ce-i revin, nu insa si drepturile pe care acesta le are, ceea ce este nejustificat;

– potrivit art. 9 alin. 1 si 3, autoritatile au inceput sa comunice in scris solicitantului de azil hotararea motivata de respingere a cererii sale, cu respectarea anumitor elemente care sunt in mod expres prevazute in textul amintit (similar cu o hotarare judecatoreasca). Comunicarea consta in inscrisuri cu o structura formala legala. Din pacate, ele au inca un caracter foarte sumar, relativ tipizat si nu ofera o analiza individualizata a cazului si nici o solida argumentare in drept.

3. Asistenta juridica acordata de APADOR-CH

In anul 1996 aceasta activitate a fost realizata ca un program distinct al APADOR-CH, in colaborare cu Inaltul Comisariat al Natiunilor Unite pentru Refugiati (UNHCR). Printre problemele cele mai importante pe care acest program al APADOR-CH a reusit sa le solutioneze, sunt urmatoarele:

a) Asistenta acordata in cursul procedurii pentru obtinerea statutului de refugiat

Acest tip de asistenta a fost acordat in cele trei etape distincte de derulare a procedurii:

– in perioada premergatoare depunerii cererii de azil, aceasta s-a realizat prin completarea chestionarelor necesare la CRPM, prin furnizarea informatiilor necesare la intervievare si a celor privind protectia oferita de UNHCR;

– in perioada dintre momentul depunerii cererii si cel al luarii deciziei de catre CRPM privind obtinerea statutului de refugiat, asistenta s-a realizat prin incercarea de prelungire a valabilitatii legitimatiei provizorii certificand calitatea de solicitant de azil, prin informatii referitoare la posibilitatea obtinerii permisului de munca sau a obtinerii cetateniei romane;

– in perioada ulterioara luarii deciziei (pozitive sau negative), sprijinul APADOR-CH s-a concretizat in furnizarea informatiilor necesare privind drepturile si obligatiile ce decurg din statutul de refugiat, asistenta pentru redactarea si depunerea contestatiei impotriva deciziei la CRPM si apoi redactarea si depunerea actiunii in justitie (Judecatoria Sectorului 1 Bucuresti), asistenta pentru obtinerea prelungirii vizei temporare de sedere sau a reinnoirii legitimatiei provizorii, precum si asistenta pentru redactarea si sustinerea recursului in unele cazuri – aflate actualmente pe rolul Curtii Supreme de Justitie – Sectia Contencios Administrativ.

b) Asistenta in alte domenii

APADOR-CH a acordat asistenta juridica solicitantilor de azil si refugiatilor si in situatii de natura diversa, cum ar fi:

– cazuri de inregistrare tardiva a nasterii copiilor;

– obtinerea de permise de munca;

– dobandirea cetateniei romane;

– efectuarea studiilor in Romania;

– regimul legal al asistentei medicale;

– stabilirea domiciliului copiilor.

c) Asistenta acordata solicitantilor de azil aflati in zona de tranzit a Aeroportului Otopeni

O prima observatie se refera la faptul ca nici in anul 1996 nu a fost solutionata problema de drept rezultata din practica abuziva a autoritatilor referitoare la statutul persoanelor din aceasta zona de tranzit: politia de frontiera sustine ca aceste persoane nu sunt private de libertate, dar, in acelasi timp, nu le permite sa paraseasca zona, intrucat ar fi “la dispozitie”.

Pana in prezent autoritatile nu au creat posibilitatea unui acces normal in aceasta zona al ONG-urilor active in domeniu si al avocatilor care pot apara interesele acestor persoane. Nu exista transparenta cu privire la situatia si statutul acestor persoane si adeseori se afla post factum despre expulzarea unora dintre ele in tarile de origine, ceea ce contravine flagrant principiului “non refoulement” (art. 33 din Conventia de la Geneva). Legea nr. 15/1996, prin continutul art. 1 si al art. 6 alin. 2, incurajeaza aceasta practica abuziva.

Amnesty International a semnalat un astfel de caz, cel al cetateanului sirian H.K., returnat fortat din Romania in Siria, dupa ce autoritatile romane i-au refuzat accesul la procedura privind recunoasterea statutului de refugiat. In Siria, el a fost arestat imediat dupa returnare. Eliberat dupa cateva luni, el a sustinut ca in timpul arestarii a fost supus la tortura. I s-a ridicat cetatenia siriana si i s-au negat toate drepturile civile si politice.

d) Asistenta juridica acordata solicitantilor de azil contravenienti la Legea nr. 61/1991

APADOR-CH a invocat exceptia de neconstitutionalitate a dispozitiilor articolului 16 alin. 6 din Legea nr. 61/1991 care priveste transformarea cuantumului amenzii in zile de inchisoare contraventionala potrivit proportionalitatii de 300 de lei pentru o zi de inchisoare. In apararea contravenientilor solicitanti de azil au fost folosite cu succes deciziile Curtii Constitutionale pronuntate in materie (dosarul nr. 7000/1995 al Judecatoriei Sectorului 4, respectiv dosarele nr. 2040/1996 si 2402/1996 ale Tribunalului Municipiului Bucuresti – Sectia a 4-a Civila).

e) Asistenta acordata in procese penale

Au fost asistati de avocat urmatorii solicitanti de azil:

– M.A.K., din Irak, judecat si condamnat de Judecatoria Sectorului 1 la o pedeapsa de 3 luni inchisoare, pentru savarsirea infractiunii de complicitate la fals si uz de fals. Sentinta a fost apelata, dar solicitantul de azil nu s-a mai prezentat pentru a solicita asistarea de catre un avocat.

– S.M.I., din Somalia, anchetat de Parchetul Sectorului 4 in cadrul dosarului nr. 2356/P/1996, pentru savarsirea infractiunilor de fals si uz de fals, caruia i s-a aplicat o amenda penala de 50.000 lei.

– A.H.S. si A.F.H. – Somalia, anchetati la Directia Cercetari Penale a Politiei Municipiului Bucuresti, pentru savarsirea infractiunii de vatamare corporala (art. 181 C. p.), cercetarile nefiind inca finalizate in aceasta faza procesuala.

4. Cateva cazuri speciale

Cu titlu exemplificativ, ne referim la urmatoarele cazuri care sunt semnificative prin problemele de drept si situatia de fapt prezentate :

a) A.R.K.M. – Iran – dosar nr. 903/1996 pe rolul Sectiei Contencios Administrativ a Curtii Supreme de Justitie – in faza procesuala a recursului.

In anul 1995, A.R.K.M. a declansat o actiune in justitie prin care s-a solicitat anularea deciziei de respingere a statutului de refugiat si obligarea CRPM de a emite o noua decizie, pozitiva. Cererea sa a fost respinsa printr-o hotarare extrem de sumara, data cu incalcarea normelor imperative ale art. 261 pct. 3 si 5 Cod procedura civila, fara a exista vreo analiza a situatiei de fapt a solicitantului de azil si a multiplelor probe din care rezulta persecutia a carei victima este intr-un stat totalitar, ca Iranul. In aceasta cauza, ca si in majoritatea celorlalte, CRPM – iar ulterior MI – DGSPPF, au invocat exceptia necompetentei materiale a instantelor de judecata, ceea ce echivaleaza cu o negare a principiului liberului acces la justitie – art. 21 din Constitutia Romaniei. In plus, au mai fost invocate doua asa-zise impedimente contradictorii:

– initial, ca nu s-a facut dovada existentei unui proces penal sau a unei hotarari de condamnare a solicitantului de azil (in Iran);

– ulterior, cand s-au depus inscrisuri doveditoare in acest sens, s-a invocat imprejurarea ca acesta este un individ periculos si trebuie sa se intoarca in Iran, care este un stat suveran, independent, pentru a suporta consecintele faptelor sale (care constau in regizarea unei piese de teatru cu continut antitotalitar, in Iran).

b) G.S. – Irak – dosar nr. 14413/1996 pe rolul Judecatoriei Sectorului 1.

Cetatean irakian care a trait cea mai mare parte a vietii in Kuweit, avand frati irakieni care au locuit in Irak si frati vitregi – cetateni kuweitieni (cetatenia dobandindu-se in raport cu statutul tatalui), care locuiesc in Kuweit. In timpul razboiului din Golf a fost arestat, impreuna cu un alt frate al sau, irakian, de catre autoritatile kuweitiene, ambii fiind ulterior pusi in libertate, sub conditia de a parasi imediat teritoriul Kuweitului.

In combaterea cererii, CRPM a sustinut ca solicitarea statutului de refugiat este neserioasa pentru ca se face vorbire despre arestarea mai sus mentionata, desi nu exista nici o hotarare de condamnare si nici vreun alt inscris doveditor. In realitate, prin intermediul Inaltului Comisariat ONU pentru Refugiati – Biroul de Legatura din Bucuresti – solicitantul de azil a obtinut si o dovada privind detentia fratelui sau in Kuweit, respectiv faptul ca i s-a interzis prin lege sa mai lucreze in Kuweit, ceea ce nu a schimbat pozitia cel putin bizara mai sus aratata.

c) S.F. – Sudan – dosar nr. 13517/1996 pe rolul Judecatoriei Sectorului 1.

S.F. a invocat persecutia religioasa la care a fost supus in Sudan, el fiind catolic intr-o tara islamica, starea de razboi civil din Sudan si respectiv conflictul cu Ambasada Sudanului la Bucuresti (proces penal privind incendierea cladirii acestei ambasade, finalizat in decembrie 1996, prin achitarea tuturor inculpatilor – cetateni sudanezi, printre care si S.F.). Si in acest caz contraargumentele CRPM au fost in afara reglementarilor in materie: pe de o parte se arata ca nu ar exista dovada unei condamnari in tara de origine, pe de alta parte, se sustine ca un razboi civil presupune o protectie de ordin umanitar si nu acordarea statutului de refugiat (argument invocat constant privind toate cererile solicitantilor de azil provenind din tari africane, macinate de razboaie civile, cu ignorarea art. 2 din Legea nr. 15/1996), iar in final se mentioneaza ca e vorba de un pericol care ameninta ordinea publica si securitatea nationala a Romaniei, deci se impune respingerea cererii. In legatura cu acest din urma aspect, trebuie precizat ca, in sine, comiterea unei fapte penale, daca nu se inscrie in cele prevazute in Conventia de la Geneva din 1951, nu poate constitui un obstacol absolut in acordarea statutului de refugiat. Mai mult, persoana in cauza a fost achitata de o instanta judecatoreasca din Romania, astfel ca CRPM isi bazeaza decizia negativa pe o prezumtie de vinovatie dupa o hotarare judecatoreasca de achitare.

In realizarea programului sau, in 1996, APADOR-CH a colaborat cu mai multe organizatii, guvernamentale si neguvernamentale, precum: UNHCR (Inaltul Comisariat al Natiunilor Unite pentru Refugiati), ECRE (European Council on Refugees and Exiles), ELENA, SIRDO (Societatea Independenta Romana pentru Drepturile Omului – Programul de asistenta sociala), GRADO (Grupul Roman pentru Apararea Drepturilor Omului – Programul de integrare), AIDROM, Salvati Copiii.

VIII. ALEGERI 1996

Pe parcursul intregului an 1996, APADOR-CH a urmarit activitatea de pregatire a alegerilor, unele aspecte ale desfasurarii campaniilor electorale si alegerile propriu-zise. In ciuda propunerilor de imbunatatire a legilor electorale adresate mai ales de organizatii neguvernamentale, Parlamentul s-a multumit doar cu modificari ale Legii alegerilor locale. La sfarsitul sesiunii parlamentare din vara, celelalte doua legi electorale – pentru alegeri parlamentare si respectiv prezidentiale – ramasesera neschimbate, cu toate ca ele contineau unele prevederi valabile numai pentru alegerile din 1992. Pentru ca totusi, alegerile fusesera deja anuntate pentru 3 noiembrie 1996, Guvernul Romaniei a decis modificarea lor prin hotarari de Guvern, lucru acceptat de Parlament, desi el contravine Constitutiei Romaniei. APADOR-CH a reactionat prompt, asa cum a facut-o si la incercarea Consiliului National al Audiovizualului de a se substitui legislativului prin emiterea unei decizii care modifica Legea alegerilor locale.

1. Alegerile locale (2 si 16 iunie 1996)

a) Pregatirea alegerilor

La 15 ianuarie 1996, CNA a emis Decizia nr. 2 cu privire la prezentarea si durata programelor posturilor de radio si televiziune publice si particulare pe perioada campaniei electorale pentru alegerile locale. APADOR-CH si-a exprimat punctul de vedere critic in privinta acestei decizii.

“Decizia contine un numar de restrictii si precizari care afecteaza libertatea de exprimare garantata de Constitutia Romaniei (art. 30), de Conventia europeana pentru apararea drepturilor omului si libertatilor fundamentale (art. 10) si chiar de Legea Audiovizualului nr. 48/1992.

Trebuie precizat de la inceput ca decizia CNA instituie cenzurarea opiniilor exprimate de candidati prin posturile de radio si televiziune, publice si particulare, ceea ce echivaleaza cu restrangerea nelegala a exercitiului libertatii de exprimare. Astfel, in interventiile lor, candidatii nu vor putea :

– ‘sa conteste ordinea constitutionala’;

– ‘sa foloseasca in decor monumente si edificii reprezentative ale patrimoniului national’;

– ‘sa utilizeze documente care implica personalitati ale vietii publice, fara acordul scris al acestora sau al celor care le detin drepturile’.

Aceste restrangeri ale exercitiului libertatii de exprimare nu exista nici in Constitutie, nici in vreo lege in vigoare, inclusiv Legea Audiovizualului nr. 48/1992. Prin introducerea lor in Decizie, CNA isi depaseste atributiile, substituindu-se Parlamentului, singurul autorizat sa emita legi.

Textul Deciziei CNA nu precizeaza cine cenzureaza discursurile candidatilor dar, intrucat sanctiunile vizeaza postul de televiziune sau radio public sau privat care le difuzeaza, rezulta ca tot acesta ar urma sa efectueze operatiunea. Amintim ca atat Constitutia cat si Legea Audiovizualului interzic cenzura sub orice forma.

Conform Constitutiei (art. 49) ‘Exercitiul unor drepturi sau al unor libertati poate fi restrans numai prin lege (subl.n.) si numai daca se impune, dupa caz, pentru: apararea sigurantei nationale, a ordinii, a sanatatii ori a moralei publice…’ Si Conventia europeana, care este parte din dreptul intern si are prioritate asupra legilor interne in cazul existentei unor neconcordante (Constitutia Romaniei, art. 20), precizeaza ca restrangerile aduse exercitiului libertatii de exprimare trebuie sa ‘fie prevazute de lege’, ‘sa constituie masuri necesare, intr-o societate democratica, pentru securitatea nationala, integritatea teritoriala sau siguranta publica, apararea ordinii si prevenirea infractiunilor…’. Asadar, prima conditie este existenta unei legi. Or, dupa cum s-a dovedit, jumatate din conditiile restrictive impuse de CNA nu figureaza in nici o lege. O decizie a unei institutii de natura administrativa nu poate avea putere de lege. Legea Audiovizualului impune in art. 2 o serie de restrangeri ale exercitiului libertatii de exprimare. CNA trebuia sa se limiteze la acele restrangeri si nu sa impuna altele noi.

Documentul CNA prevede ca, in cazul nerespectarii conditiilor impuse, sa fie retrasa decizia de autorizare a postului de televiziune sau radio, public sau privat. Legea Audiovizualului precizeaza in o serie de sanctiuni care merg gradat de la somatie la retragerea deciziei de autorizare sau a licentei de emisie. Asadar CNA recurge direct la ultima treapta a sanctiunilor, ignorandu-le pe cele intermediare.

Pe de alta parte, decizia CNA nu pomeneste nimic despre candidatul care ar fi incalcat prevederile restrictive intr-o emisiune la radio sau televiziune. Se trunchiaza astfel art. 2 pct. 5 din Legea Audiovizualului care stipuleaza ca “Raspunderea civila pentru continutul informatiei transmise prin mijloace de comunicare audiovizuale prin care s-au adus daune materiale sau morale revine, dupa caz, in conditiile legii, realizatorului, autorului, titularului licentei de emisie, proprietarului statiei radioelectrice prin care s-a facut comunicarea.'(subl.n.)

Intr-un caz celebru judecat de Curtea europeana pentru drepturile omului de la Strasbourg in 1994 (Jersild contra Danemarcei), statul danez a fost gasit vinovat de violarea art. 10 din Conventia europeana. Decizia Curtii se bazeaza pe faptul ca masura adoptata de autoritatile daneze nu s-a dovedit ‘necesara intr-o societate democratica’. Citam din argumentatia Curtii de la Strasbourg :

‘Curtea aminteste ca libertatea de exprimare constituie unul din fundamentele esentiale ale unei societati democratice si ca garantiile acordate presei capata, deci, o importanta deosebita. Aceasta nu poate depasi limitele fixate mai ales pentru ‘protejarea reputatiei si drepturilor altora’; cu toate acestea, ii revine sarcina de a comunica informatii si idei asupra unor chestiuni de interes public. La functia sa de a difuza, se adauga dreptul publicului de a primi. Daca nu ar fi asa, presa nu si-ar putea juca rolul indispensabil de ‘caine de paza’ public. Cu toate ca au fost formulate initial pentru presa scrisa, aceste principii se aplica fara indoiala si mijloacelor audiovizuale’.

‘In acelasi timp, o prezentare obiectiva si echilibrata poate folosi cai foarte diferite in functie, intre altele, de mijlocul de comunicare in cauza. Nu este de competenta Curtii si, de altfel, nici a jurisdictiilor nationale, (subl.n.) de a se substitui presei pentru a spune ziaristilor ce tehnica de prezentare trebuie sa adopte. In aceasta privinta, Curtea aminteste ca, pe langa substanta ideilor si informatiilor exprimate, articolul 10 protejeaza modul lor de exprimare’.

APADOR-CH considera ca CNA trebuie sa elimine din Decizia nr. 2 atat restrictiile impuse candidatilor care isi vor prezenta opiniile la posturi de radio si televiziune publice si private, cat si sanctionarea posturilor respective in cazul nerespectarii acestei decizii.”

In urma protestelor reprezentantilor societatii civile – inclusiv APADOR-CH – CNA si-a retras decizia pe care a emis-o din nou, sub o forma modificata, dupa ce Parlamentul a adus la zi legea alegerilor locale.

b) Desfasurarea alegerilor

La primul tur de scrutin din data de 2 iunie, APADOR-CH a colaborat cu asociatia Pro Democratia in vederea supravegherii corectitudinii alegerilor din Bucuresti. Echipe mobile au fost prezente in numeroase sectii de votare. Concluziile dupa primul tur de scrutin au fost facute publice printr-un comunicat comun APADOR-CH – Pro Democratia in care se precizau urmatoarele :

“Organizarea generala in Capitala a fost extrem de defectuoasa:

a) Listele electorale au continut erori mai numeroase si mai grave decat cele de la alegerile din 1990 si 1992: portiuni de strazi sau blocuri intregi nu figurau pe liste; multe imobile erau trecute la doua adrese; persoane decedate erau trecute totusi pe liste; persoane inexistente au aparut pe listele unor sectii de votare nou infiintate; multe persoane au fost radiate de pe listele folosite in 1992, desi domiciliau la aceeasi adresa etc. A fost necesara intocmirea unor liste suplimentare care, in unele cazuri, au cuprins pana la o patrime din numarul alegatorilor.

b) Au existat carente in aprovizionarea sectiilor cu materialele necesare desfasurarii votarii: cantitati insuficiente de tus, ceea ce a dus, in unele sectii, la oprirea temporara a votarii; calitatea foarte proasta a tusului, ceea ce a dus fie la neimprimarea stampilei, fie la penetrarea mai multor foi din buletinul de vot; repartizarea nejudicioasa a urnelor, ignorindu-se numarul alegatorilor inscrisi pe liste; lipsa urnelor volante.

c) In majoritatea sectiilor de votare nu erau afisate nici listele electorale si nici modelele buletinelor de vot, desi acest lucru ar fi fost in folosul cetatenilor.

Interpretarea legii electorale de catre Biroul Electoral Central, Biroul Electoral al Circumscriptiei Bucuresti si Birourile Electorale ale sectoarelor:

a) Modul de anulare, la sfarsitul votarii, a buletinelor de vot ramase nefolosite: la sectoarele 1 si 2 s-au dat instructiuni pe data de 1 iunie 1996 privind anularea fiecarui buletin de vot neutilizat prin stampilarea cu stampila de control a sectiei de votare si inscriptionarea cuvantului “Anulat” pe prima pagina; la sectoarele 3, 4 si 6 la instructajul facut de circumscriptiile de sector s-a precizat ca anularea buletinelor de vot ramase nefolosite se poate face prin returnarea pachetelor nedesfacute si aplicarea mentiunii “Anulat” pe ambalaj. Biroul Electoral al Circumscriptiei Bucuresti a confirmat ca pachetele astfel returnate vor fi considerate ca “buletine de vot anulate”.

Din cauza instructiunilor diferite nu s-a putut tine o evidenta corecta a numarului de buletine de vot primite de sectii.

b) Aplicarea stampilei de control pe buletinele de vot: cu toate ca legea electorala mentioneaza ca stampila de control a sectiei de votare se aplica pe spatele ultimei file a buletinului de vot (fila alba), in sectoarele 3 si 4 s-au dat instructiuni de aplicare a stampilei de control pe prima pagina a buletinului de vot. Desi acest procedeu nu afecteaza valabilitatea votului exprimat, utilizarea lui in unele sectii din sectorul 4 a creat confuzii, mergand de la anularea buletinelor de vot neutilizate pana la anularea voturilor deja exprimate. A fost necesara interventia Biroului Electoral al Circumscriptiei Bucuresti pentru rezolvarea problemei ce a aparut ca urmare a interpretarii neuniforme a prevederilor legii.

c) Elaborarea si transmiterea de catre Biroul Electoral Central a unor hotarari continand clarificari privind desfasurarea alegerilor si constatarea rezultatelor alegerilor cu doar doua zile inainte de ziua algerilor (Nr. 319/31 mai 1996) a facut practic imposibila cunoasterea si aplicarea lor uniforma in toate sectiile de votare din tara.

d) Interpretarea prevederilor legale privind votul militarilor in termen din unitatile militare: desi legea prevede in mod expres ca militarii in termen voteaza numai pentru alegerea primarului si consiliului local din localitatea unde este situata unitatea militara, Biroul Electoral Central a trimis Birourilor Electorale Judetene instructiuni permitand acestora sa voteze si pentru consiliul judetean.

Cele doua asociatii au considerat ca aceste instructiuni nu reprezinta o interpretare a legii, ci o adaugare la prevederile sale, ceea ce este de competenta exclusiva a Parlamentului.

Contactat telefonic de APADOR-CH, unul din magistratii membri ai Biroul Electoral Central a recunoscut ca instructiunile elaborate de Birou adauga la lege, dar a considerat aceasta initiativa benefica, dat fiind ca legea este restrictiva.

Necunoasterea prevederilor legii electorale de catre unii presedinti si membri ai comsiilor electorale ale sectiilor de votare:

a) In unele sectii de votare alegatorilor care s-au prezentat la vot nu li s-a permis semnarea listelor electorale.

b) Au fost cazuri in care unor observatori acreditati conform legii, deci din partea organizatiilor neguvernamentale de drepturile omului, li s-a refuzat, initial, accesul in unele sectii de votare.

c) In unele sectii de votare, in afara reprezentantilor partidelor politice, a fost acceptata prezenta unor persoane care s-au recomandat ca fiind observatori din partea unor partide politice, cu toate ca aceasta categorie nu este prevazuta de legea electorala. Documentele de care s-au prevalat erau simple adeverinte din partea propriilor partide.”

APADOR-CH si Pro Democratia au considerat neregulile semnalate, care, prin numarul lor, pot influenta rezultatul alegerilor, o evidenta lipsa de respect a autoritatilor fata de cetatenii Romaniei, de principiile democratiei si ale statului de drept.

Intre primul si al doilea tur de scrutin APADOR-CH a semnalat difuzarea la televiziune a unui clip electoral al unuia din cei doi candidati la functia de primar general al municipiului Bucuresti ce reprezenta un caz de violare a drepturilor omului. In comunicatul dat publicitatii se mentioneaza urmatoarele :

“Autorii acestui clip au folosit materialele electorale ale unor contracandidati si au inserat declaratii apartinand unor personalitati publice, fara a fi cerut consimtamantul acestora. Astfel, ei au incalcat articolul 30 din Constitutie care stipuleaza la alineatul (6) ca : ‘Libertatea de exprimare nu poate prejudicia demnitatea, onoarea, viata particulara a persoanei si nici dreptul la propria imagine’ (subl.n.). Dreptului unei persoane la propria imagine ii corespunde interdictia, pentru oricare alta persoana fizica sau juridica, de a-i folosi chipul, fara acordul acesteia, in fotografii, filme, afise sau orice alte materiale pentru publicitate electorala sau comerciala.

APADOR-CH cere Consiliului National al Audiovizualului, organism direct raspunzator de modul in care se desfasoara campania electorala, sa ia imediat masurile ce se impun pentru tragerea la raspundere a autorilor oricarui clip electoral care violeaza dreptul la propria imagine.”

APADOR-CH a avut echipe mobile si la al doilea tur de scrutin pentru alegerea primarului Bucurestiului. Nu s-au mai semnalat decat nereguli minore, fara efect asupra rezultatelor alegerilor locale din capitala.

2. Alegerile parlamentare si prezidentiale (3 si 17 noiembrie 1996)

Dat fiind ca Legile nr. 68 si 69 din 1992 nu au fost aduse la zi de Parlamentul Romaniei, aceasta atributie a legislativului a fost preluata de executiv prin emiterea unui numar de noua Hotarari privind alegerile parlamentare si prezidentiale. APADOR-CH a considerat ca doua din aceste Hotarari (nr. 580 si 582) au modificat legile 68 si 69 din 1992 lucru nepermis de Constitutie. In comunicatul asociatiei, din 3 octombrie 1996, se mentioneaza:

” In legatura cu alegerile parlamentare si prezidentiale ce vor avea loc pe data de 3 noiembrie 1996, APADOR-CH semnaleaza incalcarea Constitutiei Romaniei si a mai multor legi referitoare la desfasurarea alegerilor si a campaniei electorale.

1. Modificarea legilor nr. 68 si 69 din 1992 privind alegerile parlamentare si prezidentiale prin Hotararile Guvernului nr. 580 si 582 din 1996

Guvernul Romaniei a adoptat un numar de noua hotarari in vederea desfasurarii alegerilor din luna noiembrie. Doua dintre acestea, nr. 580 si 582 din 1996, modifica legile 68 si 69 din 1992, legi neluate in discutie de Parlamentul Romaniei in actuala legislatura.

Articolul 107 (2) din Constitutia Romaniei prevede ca “Hotararile [Guvernului] se emit pentru organizarea executarii legilor” ceea ce inseamna ca un asemenea act guvernamental are scopul de a stabili modalitatile concrete de aplicare a prevederilor legale si nu de a adauga la lege.

a) Hotararea nr. 580 creaza un Secretariat Tehnic Central precum si secretariate tehnice judetene, organisme subordonate Guvernului, respectiv Prefecturilor. Hotararea prevede ca la nivel de prefecturi sa se constituie grupuri tehnice de lucru, conduse de directorii generali ai prefecturilor, iar Nota care insoteste Anexa 1 precizeaza: “Lucrarile operative ale Secretariatului Tehnic Central vor fi asigurate de catre Departamentul pentru Administratie Publica Locala”. Aceeasi Nota mentioneaza ca “Fiecare minister sau institutie din Secretariatul Tehnic Central va desemna cate un specialist care va lucra efectiv la Biroul Electoral Central si, respectiv, la Guvern”. Anexa 1 cuprinde lista celor 20 de ministere, agentii guvernamentale sau alte institutii care compun Secretariatul Tehnic Central, printre ele aflandu-se Secretariatul General al Guvernului, Ministerul Apararii Nationale, Ministerul de Interne, Ministerul Industriilor etc.

Legea nr. 68/1992 mentioneaza la art. 84 ca: “(1) Guvernul Romaniei va asigura, pentru sprijinirea activitatii birourilor electorale, statisticienii si personalul tehnic auxiliar necesar. (2) Pe perioada cat functioneaza birourile electorale, membrii acestora, statisticienii si personalul tehnic auxiliar, incadrati cu contract de munca, se considera detasati.” Este singurul articol din lege care se refera la vreun personal tehnic. Prin Hotararea 580, Guvernul Romaniei modifica Legea nr. 68/1992, transformand aceasta categorie intr-o structura paralela birourilor electorale si independenta de acestea, instaurandu-se practic un control al Guvernului asupra desfasurarii intregului proces electoral.

Prezenta reprezentantilor celor 20 de ministere sau institutii la Biroul Electoral Central unde vor “lucra efectiv” este cel putin discutabila. Care va fi rolul reprezentantilor – de pilda ai Ministerului de Interne, Apararii Nationale, Sanatatii, Invatamantului, Industriilor etc. sau ai Secretariatului General al Guvernului – la BEC, organism format, conform Legii 68, art. 24 paragraf 1 din 7 judecatori ai Curtii Supreme si 16 reprezentanti ai partidelor, formatiunilor politice si coalitiilor acestora? Cu toate ca Hotararea Guvernului nu o spune clar, ea da de inteles ca si la nivelul Birourilor electorale judetene se va petrece acelasi fenomen de dublare a atributiilor sau de control asupra membrilor BEJ.

Hotararea nr. 580 intervine si la nivel de sectie de votare, art. 9 din Hotarare precizand ca “Ministerul Invatamantului va dispune masurile necesare … pentru sprijinirea cu cadre didactice a operatiunilor tehnice de votare”. Prezenta acestor persoane, recomandate ca facand parte din “personalul tehnic auxiliar”, a creat foarte multe probleme atat la alegerile din 1992 cat si la “localele” din 1996. Intr-o sectie de votare, unde sarcinile birourilor electorale sunt foarte clar precizate, acest “personal tehnic auxiliar” este total inutil, nefacand decat sa incurce desfasurarea procesului votarii si sa starneasca suspiciuni. Art. 51 din Legea nr. 68/1992 reglementeaza in termeni precisi problema prezentei in sectiile de votare si nu exista nici un temei – de drept sau de fapt – pentru adaugiri sau modificari efectuate de Guvern.

b) Cea de a doua Hotarare, nr. 582/1996, modifica Legea 68 cu privire la observatorii interni. Prezenta acestora, acreditati de organizatii neguvernamentale de drepturile omului a fost limitata de Legea nr. 68/1992 doar la alegerile din 1992. Hotararea Guvernului nr. 582 schimba continutul art. 93 paragraful 1, autorizand prezenta observatorilor interni in sectiile de votare. APADOR-CH a militat in cursul ultimilor ani pentru modificarea Legilor nr. 68 si 69 din 1992 astfel incat acestea sa permita supravegherea alegerilor de catre observatori interni. Dar, in actualul cadru legislativ, chiar daca prezenta observatorilor interni este nu numai binevenita, ci si foarte necesara, aceasta nu poate sa constituie o justificare pentru nerespectarea de catre Guvern a Constitutiei Romaniei. De altfel, trebuie mentionat ca deoarece Parlamentul nu a efectuat aceste modificari ale Legilor nr. 68 si 69/ 1992, Hotararea Guvernului permite prezenta observatorilor interni, dar in conditiile din 1992, deci intr-o forma mult mai restrictiva decat la alegerile locale din vara acestui an (va fi admis doar un observator la o sectie de votare, iar daca vor exista cereri de acreditare pentru doi sau mai multi observatori pentru aceeasi sectie se va proceda la tragerea la sorti).

2. Nerespectarea de catre Guvernul Romaniei a art. 92 (2) din Legea nr. 68/1992 referitor la tiparirea si distribuirea cartilor de alegator

Conform acestui text, cartile de alegator urmau sa fie “tiparite, intocmite si eliberate” pana la 31 decembrie 1992. Vreme de aproape 4 ani Guvernul Romaniei nu si-a indeplinit aceasta obligatie. Prin articolul 4 (2) din Hotararea 580/17 iulie 1996 el a modificat insa legea alegerilor parlamentare, instituind un alt termen de eliberare a cartilor de alegator, anume 15 octombrie 1996. La inceputul lunii octombrie, devenind evident ca o asemenea actiune nu poate fi finalizata pana la alegerile din 3 noiembrie, Guvernul, incalcand prevederile art. 114 (1) din Constitutie, a emis o ordonanta de urgenta prin care a modificat legea alegerilor parlamentare, permitand prezentarea la vot fara cartea de alegator si acoperindu-si astfel nerespectarea, timp de aproape patru ani, a unei obligatii legale.

3. Nerespectarea Legii nr. 48/1992 de catre Consiliul National al Audiovizualului

Conform art. 21 din Legea audiovizualului (nr. 48/1992), “Prin serviciile de comunicatie audiovizuala distribuite prin cablu se pot efectua, separat sau cumulativ: a) retransmisia programelor difuzate pe cale radioelectrica, terestra sau prin satelit; b) retransmisia de productii audiovizuale inregistrate prin diverse mijloace; c) difuzarea programelor de conceptie proprie”. Singura cerinta pe care legea o impune este ca licenta de emisie sa specifice categoriile de servicii ce se vor efectua. Ignorand prevederile legale, Consiliul National al Audiovizualului a emis Decizia nr. 88 privind conditiile de prezentare si duratele programelor de radio si televiziune destinate campaniei electorale. La alineatul 3 al punctului 1.4 se precizeaza: “Operatorii CATV, in perioada campaniei electorale, se vor implica numai prin retransmiterea de programe in cadrul serviciului definit prin art. 21 lit. a) din Legea nr. 49/1992”. Asadar, in ciuda faptului ca unele televiziuni prin cablu au, conform licentei emise pe baza legii, posibilitatea de a difuza programe de conceptie proprie, sau de a retransmite productii audioviziuale inregistrate prin diverse mijloace, CNA interzice acest drept in virtutea unei prerogative pe care si-a arogat-o singur, fara vreun temei legal.

4. Nerespectarea de catre unele publicatii, unele posturi de televiziune si unii candidati a prevederilor legale privind propaganda electorala

Conform art. 44 alin. (4) din Legea pentru alegerea Camerei Deputatilor si a Senatului “Este interzis orice procedeu de publicitate comerciala prin presa sau mijloace de comunicare audio-vizuala in scop de propaganda electorala”. In prezent, mai multe formatiuni politice care se afla in cursa electorala au platit unor publicatii si unor posturi de televiziune, in regim de publicitate comerciala, spatii tipografice sau de emisie pentru propaganda lor electorala. Acest lucru a fost facut public de cei care au oferit respectivele spatii si nu a fost contestat de beneficiari, ceea ce confirma adevarul afirmatiilor.

In legatura cu toate aceste incalcari, APADOR-CH atrage atentia autoritatilor publice responsabile si participantilor la competitia electorala ca atitudinea de desconsiderare a principiilor statului de drept, sau lipsa de reactie la incalcarea acestor principii, constituie o amenintare cu consecinte greu evaluabile asupra procesului democratic din Romania.”

Avand in vedere experienta acumulata de APADOR-CH cu ocazia monitorizarii alegerilor locale si parlamentare din 1992, precum si a celor locale din 1996 si tinand cont de dificultatile cu care s-au confruntat multe birouri electorale de sectie in urma unor instructiuni neunitare si confuze emise de Biroul Electoral Central sau de Birourile electorale de circumscriptie, asociatia a pregatit un set de recomandari pe care le-a transmis Biroului Electoral Central inainte de desfasurarea primului tur de scrutin:

“a) Toti presedintii birourilor electorale de sectie sa fie obligati sa aplice intocmai, fara interpretari sau adaugiri, prevederile cuprinse in Legile nr. 68 si 69/1992 precum si instructiunile Biroului Electoral Central;

b) Toate buletinele de vot de la fiecare sectie de votare sa fie numarate si stampilate cu stampila de control inainte de inceperea votarii. Sa nu fie permisa, in ziua votarii, pastrarea buletinelor de vot in pachete nedesfacute si nici desfacerea lor pe parcursul zilei, in functie de prezentarea cetatenilor la vot. Stampila de control sa fie aplicata obligatoriu numai pe ultima coperta a buletinelor de vot;

c) Listele de alegatori sa fie afisate la vedere cu cel putin o saptamana inainte de ziua alegerilor;

d) Modelele buletinelor de vot sa fie afisate la vedere in fiecare sectie de votare cu precizarea expresa ca presedintele sectiei de votare sa anuleze fiecare pagina;

e) Depozitarea buletinelor de vot, in ziua alegerilor, sa nu se faca in alte incaperi decat cele care servesc drept sectie de votare;

f) Dupa inchiderea sectiei de votare, toate buletinele de vot nefolosite sa fie anulate in mod unitar, inainte de deschiderea urnei. Sugeram taierea unui colt al fiecarui buletin nefolosit.

g) Sefii birourilor electorale de sectie sa fie instruiti in mod foarte clar cu privire la ora de inchidere a sectiilor si anume

– nici o sectie nu poate fi inchisa inainte de ora stabilita prin lege (21.00)

– programul de functionare al fiecarei sectii poate fi prelungit peste ora 21.00 numai in situatia in care la acea ora exista persoane care asteapta sa voteze. Programul se va prelungi numai cu timpul necesar acestor persoane pentru a vota, fara a se mai permite accesul altora in sectie;

h) La incheierea operatiunilor din fiecare sectie de votare, sa se afiseze la vedere o copie dupa procesul verbal in care au fost consemnate rezultatele. Aceasta copie va ramane afisata pana dupa anuntarea rezultatelor oficiale.”

In acelasi timp, avand in vedere importanta respectarii principiilor statului de drept, APADOR-CH a urmarit solutionarea de catre Curtea Constitutionala a contestatiilor privind candidatura lui Ion Iliescu la functia suprema in stat. Considerand ca prin procedura de solutionare a contestatiilor aceste principii au fost prejudiciate, la 9 septembrie, APADOR-CH a elaborat un comunicat in care se preciza:

“In legatura cu Hotararea nr. 1 din 8 septembrie 1996 a Curtii Constitutionale, prin care s-au solutionat contestatiile depuse impotriva inregistrarii candidaturii domnului Ion Iliescu pentru functia de Presedinte al Romaniei, APADOR-CH considera ca judecarea cauzei in sedinta secreta, in absenta partilor sau a avocatilor lor, constituie un act care aduce grave atingeri dreptului fundamental al omului la un proces corect si echitabil.

Conform textelor de lege in vigoare, astfel de contestatii se solutioneaza pe baza prevederilor din Legea de functionare a Curtii Constitutionale, din legile privind alegerea Parlamentului si a Presedintelui, completandu-se cu dispozitiile referitoare la ordonanta presedintiala si principiile generale ale procedurii civile.

Art. 14 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 47/1992 prevede ca “Sedintele de judecata sunt publice, in afara de cazul in care, din motive intemeiate, presedintele Curtii sau completul de judecata hotaraste sedinta secreta.” Art. 581 alin. (3) din Codul de procedura civila precizeaza ca “Ordonanta (presedintiala) va putea fi data si fara citarea partilor…” Rezulta asadar ca PUBLICITATEA SEDINTELOR DE JUDECATA reprezinta principiul, in vreme ce caracterul secret constituie exceptia. Daca in cazul ordonantei presedintiale (art. 581 c.p.c.) judecatorul va putea hotari ca partile sa nu fie citate, fara a exista obligatia motivarii acestei decizii, in cazul Curtii Constitutionale legea cere ca declararea unei sedinte ca secreta sa se faca “din motive intemeiate”.

Argumentand decizia de a solutiona contestatiile in sedinta secreta (in absenta partilor sau a avocatilor lor), Hotararea nr.1/1996 precizeaza : “Curtea a decis solutionarea contestatiilor fara citarea partilor, avand in vedere cerinta legala a rezolvarii lor in maximum 48 de ore…” Asadar, in opinia instantei constitutionale, cerinta solutionarii cauzei in 48 de ore constituie “motiv intemeiat” pentru declararea sedintei ca secreta. In felul acesta Curtea Constitutionala transforma exceptia in regula, pentru ca ea va trebui intotdeauna sa solutioneze o astfel de contestatie in 48 de ore si deci INTOTDEAUNA sedinta va fi secreta. APADOR-CH considera ca aceasta interpretare contravine principiului fundamental al dreptului roman care consacra publicitatea sedintelor de judecata si contrazice vointa legiuitorului care, redactand textul art. 14 al legii de functionare a Curtii, l-a mentionat in mod expres inca o data.

In acelasi timp, decizia Curtii Constitutionale de a rezolva contestatiile in sedinta secreta (in absenta partilor sau a avocatilor lor) constituie o violare a art. 6 al Conventiei europene a drepturilor omului, care precizeaza ca “Orice persoana are dreptul la judecarea in mod echitabil, in mod public si intr-un termen rezonabil a cauzei sale…” Acelasi articol mentioneaza situatiile in care “accesul in sala de sedinta poate fi interzis presei si publicului…”, dar, evident, nu si partilor sau avocatilor acestora. Cum Conventia Europeana este parte a dreptului intern roman, iar potrivit art. 20 (2) din Constitutie are prioritate asupra legilor interne, Curtea Constitutionala avea obligatia de a da intaietate reglementarilor internationale.

Dispunand solutionarea contestatiilor in sedinta secreta, fara sa permita accesul partilor, Curtea Constitutionala a interzis in fapt dreptul acestora la aparare, consacrat de art. 24 din Constitutie, in conditiile in care, derogand de la dreptul comun, hotararea Curtii nu poate fi recurata.

Un ultim aspect ce trebuie subliniat priveste “interesul public”. Chestiunea unei noi candidaturi a domnului Ion Iliescu se afla de mai multa vreme in atentia publicului roman, datorita pozitiilor pro si contra ale participantilor la aceasta disputa. Opinia publica din Romania astepta cu mult interes dezbaterile din fata Curtii Constitutionale, ca si decizia acestei instante. In spiritul respectului fata de alegatori si al cultivarii increderii acestora in statul de drept, Curtea Constitutionala avea obligatia de a solutiona contestatiile “la lumina zilei”. Neprocedand asa, ea contribuie la subminarea increderii cetatenilor romani in statul de drept si in actul de justitie.”

Pe durata scrutinului pentru alegerea noului Parlament si a primului tur pentru prezidentiale, APADOR-CH a avut observatori la Biroul Electoral al Circumscriptiei Municipiului Bucuresti, scopul principal fiind monitorizarea rezultatelor votului din sectiile organizate in ambasadele si consulatele Romaniei pentru cetatenii romani aflati in strainatate. Cu aceasta ocazie, observatorii asociatiei au putut constata unele nereguli in primirea si prelucrarea proceselor verbale de la sectiile de votare din Bucuresti, nereguli pe care le-au prezentat opiniei publice. Astfel, APADOR-CH a observat ca:

“… s-au semnalat repetate modificari ale proceselor verbale de la sectiile de votare, lucru ce poate influenta semnificativ rezultatele finale pe Capitala.

Foarte multi presedinti ai sectiilor de votare au comis erori la intocmirea proceselor verbale de consemnare a voturilor. La verificarile facute la BECMB, ei au trebuit sa modifice procesele verbale in asa fel incat sa se poata inchide cheia aritmetica. Aceste modificari au fost efectuate de presedintii (sau vicepresedintii) de sectii in prezenta a cel mult un membru al comisiei sectiei respective;

Unele procese verbale au fost fie intocmite, fie recopiate in incinta BECMB, formularele fiind semnate anticipat, in alb, de membrii birourilor electorale ale sectiilor. Cateva procese verbale erau semnate numai de presedinte, altele nu erau semnate de totalitatea membrilor biroului de sectie.

Voturile nule aduse de la sectiile de votare nu au fost verificate decat rare ori, in special de candidatii partidelor politice prezenti la BECMB;

Dupa predarea proceselor verbale impreuna cu voturile nule si stampilele, unii presedinti ai sectiilor de votare (aproximativ 120) au fost chemati telefonic la BECMB, marti 5 noiembrie. In ciuda verificarilor de la predare s-a constatat, la introducerea datelor pe computer, ca procesele verbale prezentau operatii incorecte. Presedintii au venit si au operat noi modificari in documente, in unele cazuri folosind stampila propriei sectii de votare (recuperata din sacii cu stampile), sau chiar stampila altei sectii de votare. Dupa ce un numar de presedinti se prezentasera deja si modificasera cifrele, presedintele BECMB a hotarat sa foloseasca, pentru acest gen de modificari, stampila BECMB, dar numai in situatia in care cifrele modificate priveau numarul de voturi valabil exprimate sau cele nule.”

APADOR-CH a atras atentia opiniei publice ca “aceste modificari succesive, efectuate fara ca membrii birourilor electorale de la sectiile respective sa fie de fata si fara a se reverifica buletinele de vot valabil exprimate sau nule, afecteaza optiunile exprimate de electorat.”

La al doilea tur de scrutin, pentru alegeri prezidentiale, APADOR-CH a continuat monitorizarea centralizarii rezultatelor voturilor din sectiile organizate de ambasadele si consulatele Romaniei pentru cetatenii romani aflati in strainatate. Ca si la primul tur de scrutin, observatorii APADOR-CH au urmarit si preluarea proceselor verbale sosite la BECMB de la sectiile de votare din Bucuresti. Cu mici exceptii, nu s-au mai constatat nereguli, procedura de vot fiind mult simplificata, avand in vedere ca nu mai existau decat doi candidati.

XI. ALTE ACTIVITATI

1. Centrul pentru Drepturile Omului

a) Documentare, informare, baze de date

Anul 1996 a fost dedicat dezvoltarii bazelor de date existente. Publicul care viziteaza centrul are acum posibilitatea accesarii acestora prin intermediul unui computer instalat in sala de lectura si al unui echipament CD-ROM.

Ca si in anii precedenti, prioritate in achizitionarea de noi materiale a avut sistemul european de protectie a drepturilor omului, cu accent pe jurisprudenta Comisiei Europene a Drepturilor Omului si a Curtii Europene a Drepturilor Omului (din cadrul Consiliului Europei).

Incepand cu anul 1996, Centrul ofera vizitatorilor sai posibilitatea cautarii de informatii prin sistemul Internet. In acest fel s-a largit mult gama informatiilor furnizate precum si viteza de gasire a acestora. Posibilitatea stocarii de informatii in format electronic avantajeaza spatiul de expunere si depozitare al bibliotecii, si asa insuficient. Accesul gratuit la Internet a fost posibil prin intermediul unui proiect al Grupului pentru Dialog Social finantat de Fundatia Soros.

b) Asistenta acordata de CDO

La finele anului 1997, CDO a primit vizita documentaristei Centrului Bulgar pentru Drepturile Omului, recent infiintat. In timpul stagiului de o saptamana ea a putut sa se familiarizeze cu problemele specifice ale unui centru de documentare privind drepturile omului precum si folosirea programului de baze de date CDS-ISIS si a formatului standard HURIDOCS de inregistrare a referintelor bibliografice. Acest stagiu de pregatire a constituit prima parte a unui program ce va continua in 1997.

c) Revista Romana de Drepturile Omului (RRDO)

In 1996 au fost editate numerele 11, 12 si 13 precum si doua suplimente ale RRDO.

Premiera anului 1996 – primele trei cazuri impotriva Romaniei admise de Comisia Europeana a Drepturilor Omului – a fost marcata de RRDO prin publicarea traducerii integrale a deciziei de admisibilitate. Locul meselor rotunde a fost luat, in 1996, de anchetele CDO pe doua din temele acute ale anului: constitutionalitatea candidaturii Presedintelui Ion Iliescu, functionarea sistemului votului electronic in Senatul Romaniei si corectitudinea procesului legislativ.

Cele doua suplimente ale RRDO au tratat accesul la informatie in Romania si libertatea de exprimare in jurisprudenta Curtii Europene de la Strasbourg.

Accesul la informatie in Romania (autori Gabriel Andreescu, Manuela Stefanescu si Renate Weber) a dorit sa ofere solutii unei probleme a societatii romanesti de astazi: discrepanta dintre nevoia de informatii aflate in custodia institutiilor statului si raspunsul acestora la cererile formulate de cetateni. Lucrarea efectueaza o trecere in revista a cadrului legislativ privind accesul la informatie, a practicii institutionale precum si comentarii cu privire la transparenta procesului legislativ si a formatiunilor politice. Suplimentul promoveaza un anteproiect de lege privind accesul la informatie formulat de APADOR-CH.

Libertatea de exprimare: decizii ale Curtii Europene a Drepturilor Omului (traducerea si selectia Monica Macovei) a avut ca scop necesitatea de a veni in intampinarea a doua mari probleme: numarul mare de cazuri de ziaristi trimisi in judecata pentru delicte de opinie prin presa, precum si slaba informare a instantelor nationale cu privire la dreptul international aplicabil in Romania. Lucrarea contine traducerea unor fragmente relevante dintr-o selectie a deciziilor Curtii Europene de la Strabourg privind articolul 10 al Conventiei europene a drepturilor omului.

d) Publicarea volumului Dreptul international al drepturilor omului

Autorul cartii este binecunoscutul expert in drept international Thomas Buergenthal. Lucrarea reprezinta un adevarat curs de drept international al drepturilor omului, ea nelimitandu-se la descrierea sistemelor internationale existente si la enumerarea instrumentelor elborate, ci fiind un document viu, bogat in referinte cazuistice. Volumul cuprinde si un capitol privind “Romania si dreptul international al drepturilor omului”, elaborat de Renate Weber.

2. Cazuri in atentia APADOR-CH

a) Constanta Dramba (Bucuresti)

Constanta Dramba, in varsta de 80 de ani, vaduva unui reputat savant, a fost internata pe data de 19 iulie 1996 la spitalul “Gheorghe Marinescu” din Bucuresti si transferata – se pare – la un azil de batrani handicapati. Conform celor declarate de persoanele care au vizitat-o pe doamna Dramba – fosti elevi si colegi de catedra -, aceasta nu prezinta manifestari specifice unui bolnav psihic, avand memoria intacta si un tonus normal. Conform acelorasi relatari, doamna Dramba nu si-a dat consimtamantul in vederea internarii. Avand in vedere ca se pune problema clarificarii conditiilor in care doamna Constanta Dramba a fost privata de libertate, APADOR-CH a trimis o adresa spitalului si copii la Ministerul Sanatatii, Directia Generala Sanitara si Autoritatea Tutelara sector 2 cerand raspuns la urmatoarele intrebari :

– Care a fost temeiul, de fapt si de drept, al internarii doamnei Constanta Dramba?

– Cine a transportat-o pe doamna Dramba la spital, cine i-a facut internarea si cu ce diagnostic?

– Daca a existat vreo hotarare judecatoreasca, ce instanta a emis-o, sub ce numar si la ce data?

– Daca s-a efectuat o expertiza psihiatrica, de catre cine si care au fost rezultatele?

– Daca i s-a facut vreun tratament si cu ce medicamente?

– Daca doamna Dramba mai este internata in spital iar daca nu, cand si cu ce diagnostic a fost externata sau transferata?

Pana la data redactarii prezentului raport, asociatia nu primise nici un raspuns.

b) Ilie Rotundu – satul Deia, comuna Frumosu

Comuna Frumosu, de care apartine satul Deia, este situata la circa 50 km de Suceava, pe drumul spre Vatra Moldovitei. Comuna este strabatuta de o linie ferata pe care circula cam opt trenuri in 24 de ore (personale sau curse, precum si marfare). Linia ferata nu este separata de sosea prin garduri sau sisteme de semnalizare, cu exceptia “crucii Sfantului Andrei”, amplasata la punctele in care soseaua intretaie calea ferata. Pe timpul noptii – cand circula cel putin doua trenuri – iluminatul este inexistent. Toate acestea fac ca riscul accidentelor sa fie foarte mare. SNCFR nu a luat nici o masura de protectie iar satenii par atat de obisnuiti cu situatia incat nici nu le trece prin minte sa protesteze.

In seara zilei de 26 decembrie 1993, Ilie Rotundu, in varsta de 17 ani, a plecat de acasa avand asupra sa suma de 14.000 lei. La discoteca din Frumosu, a consumat – conform declaratiei proprietarei – un sfert de litru de vin. In jurul orelor 24 (dupa unele persoane) sau 1:00 (dupa alta varianta) Ilie a iesit din discoteca, a traversat soseaua si s-a dus sa urineze in spatele unor magazii in constructie. El sustine ca in acel moment a primit o lovitura puternica la cap, dupa care nu a mai fost constient de nimic. A fost gasit in ziua urmatoare (27 decembrie), in jurul orei 10:00 dimineata, de doi sateni si transportat – cu caruta – de un al treilea, la spitalul din Campulung Moldovenesc. Starea sa fiind foarte grava, a fost dus la Spitalul Clinic de Neurochirurgie nr. 3 de la Iasi, unde a fost operat la cap. Biletul de iesire din spitalul din Iasi (sectia a II-a Neurochirurgie – nr 15365 din 1 ianuarie 1994) precizeaza ca Ilie Rotundu a fost internat la 27 decembrie cu diagnosticul “plaga cranio-cerebrala dreapta”, “stare de coma grad II cu hemiplegie stg. dupa un traumatism cranio-cerebral prin agresiune”. Dupa operatie, care a constat in montarea unei placi, menita a inlocui portiunile de calota craniana expulzate de lovitura, tanarul, aflat inca in coma, a fost transferat de la spitalul din Iasi la un alt spital “pentru continuarea tratamentului”. Dupa doi ani si jumatate de la operatie, Ilie Rotundu nu isi putea folosi normal nici piciorul, nici bratul, in ciuda tratamentelor repetate. Atat Ilie cat si tatal sau sustin ca suma de bani pe care tanarul o avea asupra sa a disparut, ceea ce i-a facut sa traga concluzia ca baiatul a fost victima unui act de talharie. Ei au si nominalizat doi suspecti.

Ancheta efectuata de procurorul Gheorghe Rusu din Campulung Moldovenesc – delegat de Parchetul de pe langa Tribunalul Suceava sa faca cercetarile – a ajuns la concluzia ca Ilie Rotundu ar fi fost “lovit de un tren in miscare” si ca nu poate fi vorba de “tentativa de omor” din partea celor doua persoane banuite de victima si de tatal acesteia. Rezolutia data de procuror la data de 7 decembrie 1994 privind neinceperea urmaririi penale a fost confirmata de Parchetul de pe langa Tribunalul Suceava si de Parchetul de pe langa Curtea de Apel Suceava. Trebuie precizat ca Parchetul de la Campulung Moldovenesc a investigat doar acuzatia adusa de victima si nu incidentul extrem de grav care, fara a avea drept consecinta moartea victimei, i-a provocat suferinte ale caror urmari vor fi suportate de-a lungul vietii. Rezolutia nu pomeneste nimic despre potentialul accident de tren: nu se vorbeste despre eventuale declaratii ale mecanicului de locomotiva, nu se mentioneaza nimic in legatura cu natura izbiturii (locomotiva, usa deschisa etc) si, in consecinta, SNCFR este complet exonerata de orice implicare sau raspundere.

Cum ancheta Parchetului de la Campulung a lasat unele intrebari fara raspuns (cum de a fost victima “surprinsa [de tren] in picioare, din spate” dar a fost lovita numai la cap? cum de s-au gasit – si ale cui erau – pete de sange si fire de par pe o distanta de 15 metri de-a lungul caii ferate etc.)

APADOR-CH a cerut Parchetului completarea investigatiilor. Raspunsul primit a confirmat din nou drept cauza a incidentului, “accident de tren”.

Interesul APADOR-CH fata de acest caz a fost determinat si de imprejurarea ca in perioada 1993-1994, in comuna Frumosu, s-au mai petrecut trei incidente asemanatoare, in care doua victime au decedat iar una a supravietuit. In unul din cazurile de deces s-au efectuat investigatii de catre Parchet, incheiate foarte rapid cu decizia de “accident de tren”. In celalalt caz de deces, nu a avut loc decat o cercetare formala a politiei locale, incheiata cu acceasi concluzie : “accident de tren”.

c) Gheorghe Horj (Constanta)

Niculina Horj, domiciliata in Constanta, nu a primit nici pana la sfarsitul anului 1996 un raspuns clar in legatura cu decesul sotului ei, Gheorghe Horj, decedat la data de 26 iulie 1995 in Catania (Italia).

Gheorghe Horj era comandantul navei DACIA iar moartea sa a avut loc in conditii suspecte care au dus, intre altele, la retinerea ofiterului Znagoveanu de catre autoritatile italiene. Acesta a fost eliberat dupa circa trei luni, si s-a intors in tara, unde nu a putut fi contactat de nici una din rudele decedatului. Trebuie mentionat ca Niculina Horj l-a vazut pe sotul ei cu putin timp inaintea decesului si ea sustine ca Gheorghe avea multiple lovituri la cap care nu pot fi, in nici un caz, rezultatul “alunecarii pe covorul din cabina”, dupa cum au afirmat unii din marinari aflati la bord.

Tatal lui Gheorghe Horj a sesizat Parchetul de pe langa Tribunalul Constanta, de la care a primit un singur raspuns, deloc clarificator, datat 31 august 1995. De atunci, nici vaduva, nici parintii lui Gheorghe Horj nu au mai aflat nimic in legatura cu acest caz, in ciuda eforturilor si insistentei lor.

Nici APADOR-CH nu a primit vreun raspuns in legatura cu desfasurarea anchetei (daca exista vreo ancheta!). Niculina Horj a fost informata de autoritatile italiene ca trebuie sa mearga in Italia pentru a vedea dosarul, procedura cel putin discutabila, autoritatile romane avand dreptul de a cere copii de pe actele privind decesul unui cetatean roman. Ea va incerca sa faca acest efort financiar deosebit in 1997.

d) Petre Mihalache, satul Zadariciu, comuna Vanatorii Mici

Petre Mihalache are 83 de ani. In martie 1996, el se afla in arest preventiv la penitenciarul Colibasi, fiind acuzat de tentativa de omor impotriva consateanului lui, Gheorghe Brandusescu. In timpul vizitei la penitenciar, din data de 8 martie 1996, reprezentantii APADOR-CH au avut o discutie cu inculpatul, care, la cei 83 de ani ai sai, se prezinta intr-o stare fizica foarte proasta: este schiop si semi-surd, se misca foarte greu, iar la spitalul penitenciar din Bucuresti unde a stat din mai 1995 pana la inceputul anului 1996, reprezentantilor APADOR-CH li s-a spus ca este o adevarata “colectie de boli”.

In iulie 1994, Petre Mihalache si Gheorghe Brandusescu au avut un conflict in urma caruia primul a fost lovit de al doilea cu sapa si furca, provocandu-i leziuni ce au necesitat 19 zile de ingrijiri medicale. Martori oculari au fost si ei loviti de Gheorghe Brandusescu. Prin sentinta penala nr. 94 din 27 februarie 1995, Judecatoria din Bolintin Vale l-a condamnat pe Gheorghe Brandusescu la o amenda penala de 200.000 lei pentru savarsirea infractiunii de lovire (art. 180 alin. 2 Cod penal) precum si la plata sumei de 44.567 lei catre Spitalul Bolintin Vale unde fusese internat Petre Mihalache. Gheorghe Brandusescu a facut recurs -inca nejudecat in martie 1996 – si a introdus si el o actiune impotriva intregii familii Mihalache, sub motiv ca ar fi fost agresat de acestia.

Pe data de 8 mai 1995, Gheorghe Brandusescu a fost injunghiat in jurul orei 14.00. El l-a acuzat pe Petre Mihalache de aceasta tentativa de omor. Arestat in seara zilei respective, Petre Mihalache a fost transferat la spitalul penitenciar Bucuresti si apoi la Colibasi, unde se afla si in luna martie 1996. Parchetul Giurgiu a inaintat rechizitoriu impotriva sa.

Petre Mihalache sutine cu tarie ca este nevinovat. El a afirmat ca in ziua de 8 mai 1995 a fost plecat de dimineata la Bolintin, s-a intors pe la ora 13.00, a mancat, s-a culcat putin si apoi, dupa o discutie cu un prieten care a venit in vizita, s-a dus sa-si sape gradina de zarzavat. A sustinut ca nu a stiut absolut nimic de incidentul caruia i-a cazut victima Gheorghe Brandusescu. Prietenul a declarat ca in acea zi a venit intr-o scurta vizita la Petre Mihalache, in jurul orei 14.00 – 14.30 si l-a gasit dormind. Cum tentativa de omor a fost savarsita – se pare -in jurul orei 14.00, marturia acestuia l-ar disculpa pe batran. Doi nepoti ai lui Petre Mihalache, cu care acesta nu mai avea nici un fel de relatii, au dat insa declaratii care il incriminau pe batran.

Petre Mihalache a fost pus in libertate, dar procesul continua. Chiar daca acuzatia de tentativa de omor este foarte grava, ramane de discutat faptul ca un procuror a emis mandat de arestare – si judecatorii l-au prelungit – impotriva unui batran de peste 80 de ani, aflat intr-o stare fizica deplorabila, incapabil sa suporte regimul de detentie.

3. Programul “Moldova 95/96”

a) Scopul programului

Programul “Moldova 95/96” initiat de APADOR-CH si-a propus:

– identificarea organizatiilor si grupurilor preocupate de problematica apararii drepturilor omului ca si de raspandirea notiunilor de baza in acest domeniu;

– difuzarea de literatura de specialitate (carti, reviste, brosuri, documente internationale) acestor organizatii.

b) Organizatii identificate

In cadrul programului reprezentantul APADOR-CH a efectuat 5 deplasari in Republica Moldova, stabilind legaturi cu urmatoarele organizatii:

– Comitetul Helsinki din Republica Moldova;

Este organizatia cea mai puternica si recunoscuta atat de opinia publica, cat si de autoritati. Comitetul este condus de prof. univ. Stefan Uratu, numara aproximativ 30 de membri si are filiale in principalele centre urbane. Filiala din Balti este condusa de Gheorghe Briceag, cea din Floresti de Mihai Balaur. Organizatia urmareste indeaproape cazuri flagrante de incalcare a drepturilor omului, dar desfasoara si o activitate de educatie in domeniu precum si de difuzare a materialelor documentare de specialitate;

– Societatea Independenta de Educatie si Drepturile Omului (SIEDO);

Este recent infiintata de un grup de studenti si este condusa de Gheorghe Carasenie. Principalele sale activitati sunt axate pe educatia in domeniul drepturilor omului in scoli si pe formarea de formatori, motiv pentru care grupul tinta cel mai important al asociatiei il constituie cadrele didactice;

– Sectia nationala a lui Amnesty International;

Este condusa de Victor Suruceanu si are, prin mandatul sau, preocupari specifice, dar coopereaza cu celelalte organizatii.

Mai exista alte cateva asociatii care, desi nu au ca obiectiv expres apararea drepturilor omului, se implica si in acest domeniu (un exemplu ar fi Asociatia Oamenilor de Stiinta, Cultura si Arta, condusa de Ion Odoeniuc), fie abordand problematica de principiu, fie invocand teme specifice, cum ar fi drepturile sindicale, drepturile de proprietate intelectuala etc.

c) Activitati desfasurate in cadrul programului

In cursul celor cinci deplasari, reprezentantul APADOR-CH a avut mai multe intalniri cu membrii fiecareia dintre organizatiile mentionate si a acordat consultanta atat in examinarea unor cazuri aflate in studiu, cat si in organizarea unor activitati si elaborarea de programe.

In luna aprilie 1996 a avut loc, in organizarea APADOR-CH si a Comitetului Helsinki din Chisinau, un seminar de doua zile cu tema “Predarea drepturilor omului in scoli si universitati” la care au participat 36 de persoane (profesori, studenti, ziaristi). Cu aceasta ocazie au fost prezentate programele APADOR-CH si s-a discutat pe marginea aspectelor legate de legislatia in tranzitie.

In luna mai, a avut loc, in aceeasi organizare, o masa rotunda cu tema “Rolul organizatiilor neguvernamentale in consolidarea societatii civile”. In cadrul acestei mese rotunde, desfasurate pe parcursul a doua zile, reprezentantul APADOR-CH a prezentat o comunicare in legatura cu urmarirea activitatii parlamentare si monitorizarea legislatiei. Printre cei 37 de participanti s-au numarat si activisti de drepturile omului din alte localitati si chiar reprezentanti ai autoritatilor.

In luna august a avut loc un seminar consacrat modului in care se intocmeste si se motiveaza un program in vederea obtinerii finantarilor necesare activitatilor unei organizatii neguvernamentale. Au participat toate organizatiile mentionate si au fost distribuite cate de 25-30 de exemplare din Raportul anual al APADOR-CH pe l995, Revista Romana de Drepturile Omului, suplimentele revistei, Accesul la informatie in Romania si Legislatia in tranzitie, volumul Dreptul international al drepturilor omului de Thomas Buergenthal si Renate Weber, precum si brosuri continand texte ale documentelor internationale privind drepturile omului.

d) Concluzii

Comitetul Helsinki din Republica Moldova si Societetea Independenta de Educatie si Drepturile Omului dispun de un capital uman de calitate si entuziast, iar activitatea lor poate fi considerata, date fiind conditiile in care se desfasoara, remarcabila. Dificultatile cu care aceste organizatii se confrunta sunt determinate de:

– lipsa de experienta in organizarea programelor si in coordonarea acestora, de unde si o oarecare incoerenta si aritmie a activitatilor;

– absenta unui fond documentar bine pus la punct cu literatura si presa de specialitate. Comitetul Helsinki din Chisinau are in intentie deschiderea unui centru de informare si documentare, dar lucrurile sunt doar in faza de proiect;

– lipsa de resurse financiare si chiar de sedii in care sa poata lucra. Sediul Comitetului Helsinki este foarte modest si cu mijloace logistice insuficiente, iar SIEDO nu are nici macar un birou de lucru.

4. Programul “Drepturile omului si securitatea regionala in Sud-estul Europei”

Programul coordonat de APADOR-CH a facut parte dintr-unul mai amplu, desfasurat in perioada iunie 1995-mai 1996 sub egida Federatiei Internationale Helsinki pentru Drepturile Omului.

Programul a vizat doua dimensiuni fundamentale ale procesului de definire a unei relatii institutionale noi, la nivel national si international, intre conceptul actual de securitate, asa cum este el promovat de institutiile interconectate euro-atlantice si problematica drepturilor omului, inclusiv cea legata de minoritatile nationale. Pe de o parte s-a urmarit realizarea unei abordari teoretice in masura a surprinde stadiul real al raporturilor dintre conceptul de securitate si problematica drepturilor omului la nivel national si international. Pe de alta parte, s-a dorit exemplificarea acestui raport intr-un cadru concret, pe baza unei formule de case-study, in care sa fie analizate practic componentele noii relatii intre securitate si drepturile omului. S-a optat, in acest sens, pentru organizarea unui Seminar romano-ungar cu tematica generala: Relatiile romano-ungare in procesul de integrare euro-atlantica.

Dimensiunea teoretica

In vederea definirii stadiului real al raporturilor dintre conceptul de securitate si problematica drepturilor omului, au fost monitorizate evolutiile politice, luarile de pozitie importante, in planul vietii sociale si politice, care exprimau stadiul raportului securitate/drepturile omului in societate. In acest scop, un rol important l-a avut monitorizarea presei de orice tip. Datele obtinute prin procesul de monitorizare au constituit substanta elaborarii unei lucrari teoretice care a fixat specificul societatii romanesti la capitolul raporturilor constientizate intre securitate si drepturile omului. Monitorizarea propriu-zisa si realizarea lucrarii teoretice s-au derulat pe patru directii mai importante:

– Relatia dintre drepturile omului si securitate: in primul rand prin monitorizarea actelor si pozitiilor politice exprimand gradul general de intelegere si acceptare, in Romania, a noului concept de securitate promovat de Uniunea Europeana, NATO, OSCE, UEO, prin care drepturile omului – inclusiv drepturile persoanelor apartinand minoritatilor nationale – sunt considerate parte integranta a sistemului international de securitate si, in consecinta, subiect de preocupare internationala;

– Identificarea problemelor legate de protectia drepturilor omului care depasesc cadrul frontierelor nationale afectand securitatea regionala;

– Nivelul de constientizare de catre elitele politice si autoritatile din Romania a faptului ca procesul de consolidare a institutiilor de stat trebuie facut evitandu-se consecintele adverse respectarii drepturilor omului, care ar afecta inclusiv securitatea regionala. S-a avut in vedere, in primul rand, discursul politic incitand la ura interetnica, promovat inclusiv la nivelul unor structuri de stat, si vizand adversari politici sau minoritati nationale care au legaturi etnice, religioase, lingvistice sau culturale cu cetatenii majoritari din unele tari vecine, acestea din urma fiind descrise ca dusmani ai Romaniei, ceea ce a avut efecte negative asupra relatiilor de securitate regionala intre tari vecine. De asemenea, s-a insistat asupra legislatiei care poate restrange libera exprimare si dezvoltare a identitatii nationale, cu potential negativ asupra stabilitatii interne, deci cu posibile consecinte regionale (este vorba de restrictiile, prin lege, referitoare la folosirea limbii materne in justitie, administratie si invatamant, folosirea simbolurilor nationale ale minoritatilor, practicarea diferitelor religii, accesul la informatie in general si prin presa in special);

– Relatia intre indivizibilitatea securitatii la nivel international si universalitatea drepturilor omului.

Dimensiunea practica

Exemplificarea raportului drepturile omului/securitate, intr-un cadru concret, pe baza unei formule de case-study, in care sa fie analizate practic componentele noii relatii intre securitate si drepturile omului s-a realizat prin organizarea unui Seminar romano-ungar cu tematica generala: Relatiile romano-ungare in procesul de integrare euro-atlantica. Scopul seminarului a fost acela de a initia contacte intre reprezentantii societatii civile, oficiali guvernamentali, parlamentari, experti si oameni politici din Romania si Ungaria, intr-un cadru larg, in care sa poata participa si reprezentanti ai unor organizatii internationale, propice pentru a identifica practic aspectele relatiei de securitate si protectie a drepturilor omului dintre cele doua tari. Discutiile s-au derulat pe parcursul a sapte sesiuni, timp de doua zile, in perioada 9-10 februarie 1996, la Bucuresti:

– Sesiunea I. “Securitatea Democratica” si relatia romano-ungara. A vizat o abordare a modului in care democratia devine o dimensiune a noii securitati la nivel continental si contributia celor doua tari la intarirea securitatii regionale prin relatia bilaterala si protectia drepturilor omului;

– Sesiunea II. Legislatia drepturilor omului si conceptul de securitate. A vizat modul in care incalcarea drepturilor omului poate periclita securitatea regionala;

– Sesiunea III. Conceptul euro-atlantic de securitate si drepturile omului ca problematica de preocupare internationala. A vizat modul in care se realizeaza astazi interpretarea dreptului international prin scoaterea problematicii drepturilor omului de sub jurisdictia interna absoluta a statelor si rolul, in acest sens, al unor institutii europene ca Uniunea Europeana spre care se indreapta Romania si Ungaria;

– Sesiunea IV. Suveranitatea de stat si drepturile omului: Securitatea statului sau securitatea individului? A vizat noua filosofie a drepturilor omului care pune la baza securitatii statului securitatea fiecarui individ excluzand posibilitatea ca securitatea statului sa fie conceputa in detrimentul sau opusa securitatii fiecarui cetatean;

– Sesiunea V. Securitatea regionala si problematica minoritatilor nationale ca dimensiune internationala. A vizat discutarea aspectelor esentiale ale procesului de definire a problematicii minoritatilor nationale ca baza a securitatii internationale, in lumina documentelor OSCE si ale Uniunii Europene si contributia Romaniei si Ungariei la acest proces;

– Sesiunea VI. Problematica minoritatilor nationale in tratate bilaterale – necesitate sau consens politic? A vizat aspectele legate de reglementarea raporturilor bilaterale romano-ungare prin Tratatul politic de baza, in contextul inscrierii in documentul bilateral a unor importante prevederi referitoare la regimul minoritatilor din Romania si Ungaria, precum si semnificatia acestor prevederi pentru atingerea obiectivelor de integrare euro-atlantica a celor doua tari;

– Sesiunea VII. Modele de reconciliere: Reconcilierea romano-ungara si modelul romano-ungar. A vizat dezbaterea modelelor europene de reconciliere istorica cu accentul pe necesitatea preluarii elementelor valoroase din experienta altor tari europene pe drumul integrarii, dar cu sublinierea oportunitatii elaborarii unui model specific romano-ungar, in conformitate cu situatia speciala existenta in cele doua tari, model in masura a oferi o solutie pentru dezvoltarea raporturilor bilaterale si integrarea comuna in structurile euro-atlantice.

– O masa rotunda referitoare la rolul organizatiillor neguvernamentale din Romania si Ungaria in promovarea unei relatii noi, de parteneriat, intre cele doua tari, in scopul intaririi climatului de securitate regionala si al respectarii drepturilor omului.

In 1996 activitatea APADOR-CH a fost sprijinita financiar de:

– The German Marshall Fund of the United States;

– CEBEMO/BILANCE;

– Inaltul Comisariat pentru Refugiati al Natiunilor Unite;

– USAID Democracy Network prin intermediul World Learning Inc.;

– Programul Phare Democracy;

– Agir Ensemble pour les Droits de l’Homme (Lyon, Franta);

– Ministerul Comunitatii Flamande prin intermediul Facultatii de drept a Vrije Universiteit Bruxelles, Belgia.

CONTENTS:

I.INTRODUCTION

II. PROMOTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THROUGH LEGISLATION

III. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE POLICE AND INDIVIDUALS

IV. MINORITIES IN ROMANIA

V. REFUGEES IN ROMANIA

VI.OTHER ACTIVITIES:
THE HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE
LEGAL ASSISTANCE
FOLLOW-UP MONITORING OF THE SITUATION IN TIRASPOL
SEMINARS AND COURSES ORGANIZED BY APADOR-CH/page 83

INTRODUCTION

1994 was an extremely important year for human rights in Romania: the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Additional Protocols were ratified, the right to individual complaint and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights being consequently accepted. Thus, the mentioned documents and their adjacent instruments have become part of the domestic law, and can be now directly invoked in front of Romanian authorities. This allowed the Romanian Helsinki Committee (for purposes of simplicity, furthermore referred to in this report under its Romanian acronym, APADOR-CH) to invoke Romania’s membership to the Council of Europe and the provisions of the European Convention throughout its activity.

However, despite the mentioned legislative success, despite permanent efforts made towards the promotion of theoretical expertise in the field, as well as persistent attempts to raise awareness of their importance in a European context, the human rights record of Romania continued to be defective. This is due to legislative pressure, serious human rights violations perpetrated by the executive power — primarily, by law enforcement bodies — as well as persistent failures to protect human rights on behalf of the judiciary, which either remained passive or proved to be ineffective in a number of cases.

APADOR-CH action often appeared as a response to these challenges, and took the form of independent fact-finding and investigation missions and publication of the association’s position towards the concerned authorities. At the same time, APADOR-CH made theoretical analyses and proposed its own conceptual framework for issues relating to national minorities, a domain in which such efforts are absolutely necessary for the continuation of the dialogue between various ethnic groups and the majority by means of the political decision-making agencies in Romania. Likewise, an important part of the APADOR-CH activity was the continuing effort to influence legislative decisions so as to promote human rights values.

The whole activity of APADOR-CH, as instantiated in investigations, analyses, round tables, information, has been carried out so as to contribute to the implementation of the rule of law, which provides the framework for any substantive declaration on human rights.

II. THE PROMOTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THROUGH LEGISLATION[1]

During 1994, APADOR-CH continued this program (started in 1993), pursuing two main objectives: the transparency of the works of the Parliament and the promotion of a legislation based on human rights principles.

As far as the first objective is concerned, APADOR-CH joined efforts with other organizations in the attempt to establish an NGO liaison office within each of the two Chambers of the Parliament. Unfortunately, various factors, among which bureaucratic obstacles, prevented the materialization of this project. However, a procedure has been established in the Chamber of Deputies for the accredited media and NGO representatives to access information as any parliamentarian, by means of individual “mail boxes” where incoming materials are deposited.

The second objective, though, was the one which defined the true dimension of APADOR-CH’s activity in the field: access to information is not an end in itself; the information has to be made use of in order to achieve significant results. Thus, in 1994 APADOR-CH continued to analyze draft bills under parliamentary scrutiny, containing provisions potentially jeopardizing the implementation of the rule of law and, implicitly, the protection of human rights in Romania. These analyses, elaborated from the perspective of the Romanian Constitution and international human rights documents, contain references to similar regulations from other countries and are accompanied by excerpts from the jurisprudence of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the UN Committee for Human Rights in Geneva.

It should be mentioned here that, despite the reserve with which parliamentarians initially met these analyses, APADOR-CH documents came to be welcomed in both chambers (and even solicited by individual members for the information contained in them), the Parliament openly admitting that there are no other sources of information. Likewise, APADOR-CH members came to be invited to participate in the works of the specialized committees of the legislature. In addition, media representatives have highly appreciated the utility of APADOR-CH analyses for their efforts to raise public awareness and participation in the reform of the Romanian legislation.

a) The draft law for the modification and completion of the Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes

Throughout 1994, the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code were under the scrutiny of the Romanian Parliament, first in the Senate, and later in the year, in the Chamber of Deputies. This process started in 1993, when the Government forwarded the Senate a draft law for the modification of the two basic texts of the Romanian penal law. At the time, APADOR-CH exchanged views and documents with the Legal Affairs Committee of this Chamber. In February 1994, the Senate voted on the whole package of amendments. Considering that some provisions impose unacceptable restrictions upon rights which are fundamental for the functioning of the Romanian society — and especially upon freedom of expression — APADOR-CH released a set of commentaries in the margin of the version adopted by the Senate; the commentaries, as presented below, were distributed to all parliamentarians, in view of influencing the decision-making process in the Chamber of Deputies:

THE COMMENTARIES OF APADOR-CH TO THE AMENDMENTS OF THE ROMANIAN SENATE TO THE CRIMINAL CODE WHICH THREATEN THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

…Some of the amendments passed by the Romanian Senate unfortunately demonstrate an intention to create severe limitations on freedom of expression generally, and freedom of the press in particular. In particular, the Senate’s amendments provide that:

* the penalties for insult, libel and outrage are increased;

* new provisions are added almost doubling the penalties for perpetrating the same acts through the media;

* a disproportionate protection is guaranteed to civil servants and politicians, taking into account both the protection guaranteed to ordinary citizens (when victim of the same deeds) and the place that civil servants occupy in a democratic society, normally subjecting them to public scrutiny and a more severe, often relentless criticism;

* “defamation of the country or nation” is criminalized, though it is an offense without a defined content; and

* a new offense has been added to the chapter regarding offenses against state security; it has a vague and ambiguous content (“the transmission of false news”) which leaves too much room for malign interpretations.

These amendments demonstrate the failure of the Romanian Senate to understand the role of freedom of expression in society, especially the essential need for political discourse (including criticism) in a true democracy. At the same time, the amendments reflect a fear of the press’ influence on shaping public opinion. This attitude is in direct conflict with a recent finding by the U.N. Economic and Social Council in its Review of Further Developments in Fields with which the Sub-Commission [on Human Rights] has been Concerned: “The right to freedom of opinion and expression is a decisive vehicle of social change and as such will always be at the centre of political struggles and discourse. The recent changes in Central and Eastern Europe and in other parts of the world have confirmed this once again. The changes that will be necessary in the future will be possible only if the right to freedom of opinion and expression is preserved and properly protected…”

…The right to freedom of opinion and expression is guaranteed by international treaties, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (art. 19), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (art. 19) and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (art. 10), as well as other regional instruments. At the same time, the constitutions of democratic states enshrine this right and prescribe guarantees for its exercise. The Romanian Constitution is no exception to this rule: art.11 and 20 provide that such international treaties ratified by Romania have the effect of domestic law and take precedence over conflicting domestic norms for purposes of interpretation and enforcement.

Moreover, art.8 of the Romanian Constitution provides that “[p]luralism in the Romanian society is a condition and safeguard of Constitutional democracy.” Art.30 of the Constitution, which enshrines the freedom of expression, and art.31, concerning the right to information, should both be interpreted according to that principle. Pluralism must refer to more than just the existence of many political parties; it must also comprise a plurality of ideas and opinions and the obligation to ensure that the public can be informed about them. Any attempt to limit such rights should be interpreted as an attempt to limit the democratic process itself.

INSULT, LIBEL AND OUTRAGE

The fact that the Romanian Senate considers the perpetration of libel and insult in the media as an aggravating circumstance proves the intention of this institution to threaten the media, as it did by modifying the provisions for outrage. Even if threats or violence against civil servants or politicians jeopardize the physical integrity or activity thereof and should be sanctioned accordingly, there is no justification for considering the perpetration of these deeds through the media or against certain officials to be aggravating circumstances, for which the maximal punishment is 7 years in prison… Within a true democracy, public persons are subject to greater public exposure than common citizens. Politicians and civil servants give up a lot of the advantages of the right to privacy, especially concerning their political activity, by the very fact of agreeing to become public persons. Because of their position in society, they are more likely to abuse their power or to become corrupt, and that is why they have to be permanently accountable to their constituents and to the taxpayers. Within a democratic regime, the press acts as a “watchdog;” in order to play that role effectively, the press must not be threatened or restricted by the authorities.

A ruling by the Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany (20, B Verf GE 162) is instructive: “A free press, not limited by government control and censorship, is the essential foundation of a free society; a free, politically active and regularly printed press is particularly indispensable in a modern democracy. If citizens are to make political decisions, they have to learn about the opinions of others, in order to be able to consider the alternatives. The press is the one to animate this permanent discussion; it provides the information and takes a position in this respect, thus orienting the public debate.”

The fact that sometimes unpleasant formulations are used for expressing certain opinions (which may be regarded as insults) is a price which public persons have to pay for the positions they hold. According to the Romanian Senate, however, “the public statement or reproach of a certain fact which, if proven true, would expose its author to criminal, disciplinary, or administrative sanctions, or public contempt” is one of the components of outrage as an offense, which entails censorship of any criticism of the activity of civil servants or politicians. Moreover, this would give these officials unlimited possibilities to perpetrate any abuse, enjoying impunity, as their deeds would not be publicized; at the same time, it would deprive the Romanian voters of their constitutional right to be informed of the activity of their representatives…

DEFAMATION OF THE COUNTRY OR NATION

Since its adoption, the Romanian Constitution has been criticized for the excessive restrictions imposed on freedom of expression contained in art.30 para.7. The first restriction contained in that provision refers to “defamation of the country or nation.” …The new offense created by the Senate amendments to art.236 defines the criminal act as “[p]ublic defamation of the Romanian country or nation, by any means.” This formulation provides no additional clarity because adding the self-evident qualifications “public” and “by any means” does nothing to answer the legitimate question of which particular act of expression may be considered a defamation of the Romanian country or nation. Does criticizing government policy constitute an offense? Does criticizing the activity of the President? Is the statement that the Romanian Senate does not understand democracy an act of defamation of the country? Who does “country” represent? According to art.2 of the Romanian Constitution, “[n]ational sovereignty resides with the Romanian people.” Does this mean that defamation of the country actually means defamation of Romanian citizens?…If these issues are not resolved, a capricious interpretation of the law will undoubtedly result. Romanian citizens will not know how to observe it because they will not know what it means. Judges will act according to their own interests; the truly independent ones will be very cautious in applying the law, while judges who support extremist nationalistic groups or who still have the attitudes of an outdated mentality might apply the greatest possible penalties. Ultimately, the new offense could only result in the arbitrary application of justice, in contradiction to the principles of a state governed by the rule of law.

Even if the legislature would succeed in properly defining the substance of this offense, the provision still should not be included in the bill, as it conflicts with all international documents that make reference to freedom of expression:

– the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides under art.19 the right to freedom of expression and opinion and its corollary, the right to receive and disseminate information, with no further restriction;

– the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides in art.19.3 the only possible restrictions to the freedom of expression: (a) in order to protect the rights and reputation of others; (b) in order to protect national security, public order, public health, or good mores.

However vague the definition of this offense may be, it is clear that it could not fall within any of the two categories of restrictions mentioned above; the non-compliance with the international regulations could only result in a violation of art.20 para.1 of the Romanian Constitution, which specifies that “[c]onstitutional provisions concerning the citizens’ rights and liberties shall be interpreted and enforced in conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with the covenants and other treaties Romania is a party to.” The European Convention restrictively mentions the situations within which limitations may be imposed upon the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, none of these bearing any relationship to the defamation of the country or nation. Para.2 of art.10 of the Convention requires not only that the restrictions be prescribed by law, but also that they be “necessary in democratic society.” It is true that Romania, although a member of the Council of Europe, and a signing party to the European Convention, has not yet completed the ratification procedure;[2] however, this is a matter of time, and the Romanian Government has constantly reiterated its aspiration to European integration and its commitment to observe art.11 para.1 of the Constitution, which stipulates that “[t]he Romanian State pledges to fulfil as such and in good faith its obligations deriving from the treaties it is a party to.”

TRANSMISSION OF FALSE NEWS

The newly proposed art.168(1), punishing with prison from one to 5 years “the dissemination of false news, data, information, or forged documents, if possibly putting into jeopardy state security or the international relations of the Romanian state” is equally ambiguous. It begs the question: how will a judge determine if an act is liable to jeopardize state security?

It is the first time the formulation “state security” has been used in recent times; it cannot be found in the Constitution or in Law 51/1991 concerning “national security.” All international documents Romania is a party to refer to “national security.” The formulation of the amendment might leave the impression that the legislature is trying to protect the state (rather than national security) and its power structures.

Even more vague is the reference to “the international relations of Romania.” This formulation could cover almost anything, from a purchase order for wheat signed by a government agency to Romania’s adherence to NATO. What if someone falsely implies that the wheat might be spoiled — does he thus jeopardize the international relations of Romania and become liable for a 5 year prison sentence? What if someone argues that Romania has not fulfilled its obligations to the IMF and that negotiations would therefore discontinue? Just such an assertion was made quite often in the press during 1993, and the Prime Minister publicly accused the press of acting against the interests of the country. Are the international relations of Romania so frail that they could be jeopardized by such reports, even when published in a newspaper? The Romanian Senate’s addition of art.168(1) (which is placed at the end of the chapter referring to crimes against state security!) merely lays the groundwork for a policy of scapegoating the press for the government’s own foreign policy failures.

APADOR-CH considers that the modifications brought to the mentioned articles of the Criminal Code are in violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as enshrined by the Romanian Constitution and by the international human rights documents referring to freedom of expression and information — all legal texts the Romanian state committed to observe. The adoption of these amendments by the Parliament would jeopardize the democratic process in Romania.

The Board of APADOR-CH

During the next stage, APADOR-CH representatives kept in permanent contact with members of the Legal Affairs Committee within the Chamber of Deputies, as the amendments to the Criminal Code were to be debated by the lower Chamber. Given the fact the Romania had in the meanwhile ratified the European Convention, the Committee members were provided by APADOR-CH with information on the European Court and Commission case-law referring to freedom of expression and protection of private life (the latter aspect being related to the criminalization of same sex relations). The Committee adopted improved (as compared to the Senate) versions of the Criminal Code amendments referring to freedom of expression and same sex relations.

Surprisingly enough, the article-by-article debates in the plenum of the Chamber of Deputies allowed for the victory of conservative and nationalist political approaches, which led to the adoption of versions which are unacceptable from a human rights standpoint. The criminalization of transmission of false information and defamation of the country and nation was maintained, while a new sub-type of offense against state insignia was added; at the same time, the punishment for offense against the authority was extended, and an aggravating circumstance was added under this offense: damage to the honour of the President, a parliamentarian, minister, or judge of the Constitutional Court or Supreme Court of Justice, punished with up to 7 years in prison. Given the fact that the Standing Orders provide that the bill has to be voted on as a whole, after the completion of the article-by-article vote, APADOR-CH promptly drafted an analysis of these texts, which was sent to individual deputies and the media, and was subsequently published in several newspapers:

ROMANIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE COMMENTS ON THE

LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THE ROMANIAN PARLIAMENT

UPON THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

… As the law-making process has not been completed as yet in this particular case, APADOR-CH launches a new appeal towards the Romanian Parliament, asking for the modification or even elimination of the articles or paragraphs of law that impose inadmissible restrictions upon the right to freedom of expression by defining as crimes actions absolutely indispensable to the existence of a democratic and pluralistic society…

OFFENSE AGAINST STATE INSIGNIA

Art.236 leaves the provisions of para.2 included in the Criminal Code currently in force unchanged, making punishable by prison from 3 months to one year any “[m]anifestation of contempt for the emblems or insignia used by the authorities.” Under the conditions within which the Romanian penal system does not contain any indication as to the understanding of the notion of “contempt,” while the Explanatory Dictionary of the Romanian Language defines contempt as a “feeling of disrespect for somebody or something…lack of respect or esteem,” the idea of making such a manifestation towards the insignia employed by the state authorities punishable cannot be accepted. Such manifestations are nothing more than the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, and the restriction of this right spelled out in art.30 of the Constitution cannot be made otherwise than under the conditions of para.7 of the same article — and the manifestation of contempt towards the state insignia does not fall within the scope of the restrictions mentioned there.

The inclusion of this crime among the ones provided by the 1969 Criminal Code aimed at protecting the authorities of the communist state against which criticism or manifest contempt was forbidden under any circumstances. Under the current conditions in Romania, it would not be acceptable to come back to such a state of affairs. The attempt to impose by means of force respect towards the authorities is obviously in conflict with the provisions of art.10 of the European Convention, which allows for restrictions of the right to freedom of expression on behalf of a state authority only “for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Another new paragraph is para.3 of art.236, referring to “[d]isplaying the flag or insignia or the intonation of the national anthem of other states on Romania’s territory under other conditions than the ones provided for by law” — an offense punished by prison from 6 months to 3 years. It is obvious that the display of flags or insignia, as well as the intonation of anthems are forms of exercising the right to freedom of expression. The exercise of this right is regulated by art.30 of the Constitution and by art.10 of the European Convention, which is, by means of art.11 of the fundamental law of the Romanian domestic legal system, part and parcel of the national law prevailing over conflicting domestic provisions. According to art.10 para.2 of the European Convention, in order for a restriction upon the right to freedom of expression to be justified, it must be “necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety.” It obviously follows from the formulation of this amendment to the Criminal Code that the mere display of a foreign flag or intonation of an anthem is punished in itself, although these manifestations as such do not pose any threat to the national security, territorial integrity, or public safety. Which means that the limitation imposed upon the right to freedom of expression by means of this article is totally unjustified.

At the same time, the formulation “on Romania’s territory” is in conflict with the provisions of art.26 of the Constitution which protects the right to private life, as this notion includes private property as well as public one. Imposing restrictions upon the right to freedom of expression in a private framework is inadmissible, as crimes are punished due to the social danger they represent. The display of a foreign flag or the intonation of a foreign national anthem in, for instance, private apartments is a manifestation of the right to freedom of expression as enshrined and protected not only by art.30, but also by art.26 of the Romanian Constitution…

OFFENSE AGAINST THE AUTHORITIES

The crime under art.238, para.1 and 2 is maintained under the same formulation as in the current Criminal Code, only that the punishment is extended as follows: for “damage to the reputation or public threat” of an individual in an important state or public position (as defined by art.160 of the Criminal Code) “in relation to [his/her] capacity and of a nature to impair [his/her] authority” — the punishment is prison from 6 months to 5 years; for violent attack upon such a person the punishment is prison from 2 to 7 years. Recently the Chamber of Deputies added another paragraph to this article, specifying that: “If the deeds provided in the paragraphs above are perpetrated against the President of Romania, a Member of the Parliament or of the Government, or against a magistrate in the Constitutional Court or the Supreme Court of Justice, the maximal punishment shall be extended by two years.”

While understanding the seriousness and disapproving of deeds such as threat or violence, APADOR-CH nevertheless notes the harshness of the punishments provided for these deeds. At the same time, it seems unacceptable that the criminal regime of violence be applied to “damage brought to the honour [of an official]” — i.e. to the criticism brought to such a person relating to the activity carried out in an official capacity. Damage to the authority is not brought by criticism (whether formulated in an insulting manner or in a more civilized one), but by faulty activity in itself. Curbing criticism by threatening with years in prison means to establish the foundation for a totalitarian society, where the only authorized form of expression in the hands of the public opinion is the approval. Such a tendency is proven by para.3 which creates new categories of persons favoured by law, in contradiction with the provisions of art.16 of the Constitution…

CONCLUSIONS

1. With respect to the regime of penalties, the fact that Romania has one of the toughest criminal systems in Europe (not only as compared to Western European standards, but also in relation to the legislation of other formerly communist countries) is already notorious. The extensions of the punishments proposed by the new amendments to the Criminal Code are incompatible with the standards of a civilized society. The adoption of these penalties would prove that in the conception of the Romanian Parliament, the individual (even when a perpetrator), his/her life and dignity, are of too little value, as long as freedom is “weighed” in years spent in prison allotted with unacceptable ease, especially in the case of crimes whose main purpose is to restrict the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and to protect the representatives of public authorities.

2. The whole criminal system grants disproportionate protection to civil servants and politicians, as compared both to the degree of protection granted to regular citizens (when they are the victims of the same deeds), and to the position of civil servants and politicians in any democratic society, position which exposes them to the scrutiny of the public opinion and obliges them to accept much harsher and often unyielding criticism.

3. As for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression it is drastically limited by the amendments pending now before the Parliament. These restrictions are obviously unconstitutional, being an attempt to intimidate the media, as well as any criticism directed against public authorities.

The adoption of these amendments to the Criminal Code would prove the failure of the Romanian Parliament in understanding the role played by the right to freedom of expression in forwarding the society, as well as the role of political discourse (with its unavoidable critical accents) in the existence of a truly democratic society…At the same time, they reflect a fear of the influence of the press in informing public opinion, which results in the tendency to impose harsh limitations…

The Board of APADOR-CH

November 29, 1994″

Another important aspect of the criminal code was the debate around the criminalization of same sex relations between consenting adults (art.200 para.1). The Council of Europe also

focused on this issue, as the decriminalization of same sex relations is one the commitments made by Romania upon its acceptance as a full member of this international forum.[3]

*

b) The Law on the organization and functioning of the police[4]

*

c) Two draft bills on national minorities[5]

*

d) The draft law on the protection of the state secret

On November 23, 1994, the director of the Romanian Intelligence Service presented before the Parliament the annual report of this agency, covering the period between October 1993 and September 1994. The conclusions of this report accounted for the fragility of national security in terms of the absence of a law regulating the “state secret”. The report was pushing for the emergency adoption of such a law, an opinion shared by most parliamentarians, whatever their political orientation. The need for such a law providing not only the categories of information classified as state secrets, but also the obligations of persons dealing with them, cannot be contested. However, it is absolutely necessary that these provisions be clear and that they do not interfere with human rights and fundamental freedoms under the pretext of protecting national security.

Unfortunately, though, the Senate was forwarded in 1993 a controversial legislative initiative of 4 senators; as of autumn 1994, the Government had not forwarded its own draft bill on the issue. Under these conditions, it is obvious that the “emergency adoption” mentioned by the director of the Romanian Intelligence Service referred to the already existing draft. Considering the draft incompatible with the Romanian Constitution and international human rights standards, APADOR-CH drafted an analysis of the draft bill and a reference list of similar legislation from 8 Western countries, which were sent to the Romanian Senate and media:

THE COMMENTS OF THE ROMANIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE

ON THE DRAFT BILL ON THE PROTECTION OF THE STATE SECRET

THE CONTEXT

The draft bill on the protection of the state secret was submitted to the Senate in November 1993 as the legislative initiative of a group of four senators of the Social Democracy Party in Romania (Alexandru Radu Timofte, Ilie Platica-Vidovici, Dimitrie Popa, and Doru Ioan Taracila), asking for an emergency procedure. On November 23, 1994, the director of the Romanian Intelligence Service presented before the Parliament the annual report of this institution, covering the period between October 1993 and September 1994; the report made constant reference to the urgent need for a law on the protection of the state secret. Consequently, it was suggested that the draft bill currently pending in the Senate be debated and voted following an emergency procedure — a proposal supported by a large number of parliamentarians.

This bill is supposed to replace Law 23/1971, whose spirit is preserved by the proposed draft (although the four authors consider it obsolete): the aim of the draft is to drastically restrict access to information and free flow of information, and to re-institute a centralized control exercised by the Romanian Intelligence Service.

INSTITUTIONS EXCEPTED FROM THE CONTROL OF THE ROMANIAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

According to art.2 para.2 of the draft bill, “the Parliament, the President’s Office, the Supreme Council for the Defense of the Country, the Ministry of National Defense, the Ministry of Interior, the Foreign Intelligence Service, the Guard and Protection Service, the Special Telecommunications Service and the General Penitentiary Directorate under the Ministry of Justice,” which establish their own independent structures for the protection of the state secret, are not subject to the control exercised by the Romanian Intelligence Service.

It is worth underlining the fact that while the activity of the Romanian Intelligence Service is subject to parliamentary control, this institution being bound by law to submit an annual report to the two Chambers, all the other structures for the protection of the state secret within the above mentioned institutions escape any democratic control (be it direct or indirect).

This danger becomes obvious if one takes into account a statement made in the Parliament by the director of the Romanian Intelligence Service, who made it clear that this agency is not responsible for the activity of other 6 intelligence agencies and that he does not hold any kind of information as to the involvement of the latter in potential activities of telephone tapping and mail monitoring.

One instance would be the Special Telecommunications Service, instituted by a mere Government decision in May 1993, at the precise moment when the Parliament was debating the establishment of the Romanian Intelligence Service Control Committee. A few month later, the Government stated in front of the General Secretary of the Council of Europe that the organization of this service represented a purely administrative measure, as its competencies are purely administrative (although this service has the right to set up its own commercial companies). However, the Special Telecommunications Service is listed in the draft bill among the institutions excepted from the control of the Romanian Intelligence Service. Only after one year from its establishment the Parliament was submitted a draft law regulating the situation of this institution.

THE DRAFT BILL

The first article of the draft bill on the protection of the state secret provides that “[t]he defense of the state secret is a legal obligation and a moral duty of all citizens of Romania, by means of which they express their loyalty to the country.” This wording reiterates the Constitutional thesis according to which “faithfulness towards the country is sacred” and further underlines the idea included in the National Security Law –i.e. “Romanian citizens have the moral duty to contribute to the achievement of national security.” If the regulation of a “moral duty” in a legal text is questionable because it cannot, in itself, engender legal obligations whose violation would trigger the enforcement of a sanction, the regulation of a legal obligation has completely different juridical consequences. This is why the vague wording in the draft bill can allow for abusive interpretations. It should be mentioned that the obligation to protect the state secret functions within the framework of the draft bill — which should clearly spell out the conditions within which sanctions for violations are applicable.

The manner in which art.4 of the draft bill defines the state secret practically covers all fields of activity: “Information, data, documents, objects, and activities whose disclosure, transmission, unlawful appropriation, destruction, modification, or disappearance, as the case may be, can jeopardize national security or state defense, or damage Romania’s political, economical, technological, scientific interests or interests of a different nature shall be considered state secrets.” (emphasis added) It should be underlined here that according to the Law on the Organization and Functioning of the Romanian Intelligence Service, this institution carries out activities that are necessary to the counteraction of “any actions that, according to the law, pose a threat to national security” (emphasis added, art.2 of Law 14/1992). It is therefore only natural for the draft bill to make reference to national security or national defense. But it is unacceptable for the Romanian Intelligence Service to coordinate and control activities which may impair “Romania’s political, economical, technical, scientific interests or other interests of a different nature,” as long as they do not jeopardize national security in any way. Likewise, it is not only inappropriate, but also unacceptable for a legal text to include phrases such as “of a different nature” which allow for arbitrary interpretation.

Art.5 lists along 13 paragraphs the “categories of information, data, documents, objects, or activities which are classified as state secrets.” The draft bill mentions some categories which, obviously, are state secrets. Apart from these, however, it mentions documents and information (diagrams, maps, topographical plans to a certain scale, etc.) which should not be defined as state secrets.

Special mention should be made of lit.j), which includes among the categories of state secrets “scientific, technological or economic activities, investments included, connected to national security or defense or presenting special importance for the economic and technical-scientific interests of Romania.” (emphasis added) It would be only natural for a legal text to qualify certain data and information as state secrets, but only restrictively. In the case of this bill, though, the language is very general and allows for abusive interpretations. A full understanding of the danger originating in the ambiguity of the text is provided by correlation with the provisions in art.12 lit.j), instituting the possibility for the Romanian Intelligence Service to completely control even research and production activities carried out by individuals and private companies.

Art.5 lit.m) introduces a new category of data, information, and documents classified as state secrets — i.e. the ones related to “foreign affairs of any kind and activities of the Romanian state, except for the ones which may and must be publicized according to the law.” (emphasis added) In the absence of a statute on publicly available data, information, and documents, as well as of a law on access to information (for which the Constitution offers a framework-guarantee in art.31), any data on foreign affairs and activities can be classified in keeping with this legal provision.

Art.6 of the draft bill provides for a classification of state secrets into 3 categories “top secrets of special importance”, “top secrets” and “secrets”; the only function of this classification can be to further the confusion, as long as these notions are not defined in any way, there are no special sanctions applicable for the violation of each of them, and there are no special regulations as to their definition or protection.

Art.7 introduces the notion of “work secret”, defined as follows: “Information, data, documents, objects and activities which are not considered state secrets but are not meant for publicity either, are classified as ‘work secrets’; the disclosure or transmission thereof, by any means, shall be prohibited.” Several observations are necessary in the margin of this provision.

The draft bill does not say exactly what is the work secret, it does not give a positive definition of the notion. It only mentions what “work secrets” are not — i.e. that they “are not considered state secrets, but are not meant for publicity…” The legal logic of the rule of law imposes the obligation for statutes to define the contents or the components of terms employed in their texts. Beyond this, though, the regulation of secrets relating to work should not be found in a law on the state secret.

Secondly, the text makes reference not only to public authorities and governmental agencies, but also to commercial companies and not-for-profit independent groups, without distinction. Each of these categories should have the right to decide as to what is to be made public or not, which the draft bill fails to mention, suggesting that the competence to classify work secrets falls with the legislature or even the executive.

Thirdly, in the absence of a law regulating access to information, this article potentially eliminates any possibility to obtain information from any source, as the “work secret” can always be invoked as pretext, and the disclosure or dissemination of such information is considered to be a (petty or criminal) offense and is punished by either prison or, at best, a fine. This is, as a matter of fact, a legitimation for the lack of transparency of public authorities.

The practice of democratic states presupposes that institutions themselves be the ones to issue, if necessary, any guidelines for their personnel, as well as lists of work-related secrets — i.e. information that is not considered to be public — so as not to impair access to information as guaranteed by the Constitution. Likewise, it is absolutely necessary for one to be able to challenge the validity of such classifications in court, as access to information of public interest should be guaranteed.

Fourthly, the danger presented by this article also derives from its correlation with the attributions granted to the Romanian Intelligence Service by the draft law. Art.12 lit.c) allows the Romanian Intelligence Service to carry out “investigations and verifications” and to provide data, upon the request of the heads of public authorities and institutions, “on persons to be employed by these in positions presupposing access to information or activities classified as state or work secrets.” (emphasis added) In turn, lit.j) of the same article makes it possible for the Romanian Intelligence Service to “grant specialized assistance for the protection of the secrets — other than the state ones — held by individuals or legal entities of private law, on the prevention of information and leakage of data which cannot be publicized, upon the request thereof and payment according to mutually convened fees.” (emphasis added) This is in flagrant violation of the character and attributions of the Romanian Intelligence Service, which is defined, according to art.1 of Law 14/1992, as “the state agency specialized in information on Romania’s national security, as a component of the national defense system…” (emphasis added)

The draft bill provides under art.9 the obligation for all public authorities and institutions, self-managing state enterprises and trade companies to establish special compartments in order to ensure the security of documents classified as state secrets (very similar to the Secret Documents Offices functioning before 1989 in Romania). According to art.11 lit.d), the heads of the institutions or organizations concerned are obliged to “elicit the approval of the Romanian Intelligence Service” for the employees chosen to work in the special secret documents compartments and to “observe the opinion of the Romanian Intelligence Service.” (emphasis added) These obligations are in conflict with the provisions of art.4 of the Law for the Organization and Functioning of the Romanian Intelligence Service, which provides that the Romanian Intelligence Service can offer data on persons supposed to work in compartments that presuppose access to secret information “upon the request of the head of the public institution, self-managing enterprise, or commercial company concerned” (emphasis added), without instituting any obligation to observe by the opinion of the Romanian Intelligence Service on the part of those concerned, the responsibility for this falling exclusively with the head of the institution. Likewise, the institution of such an obligation would be in violation of art.16 of the Constitution, which bans discrimination.

At the same time, art.9 of the bill spells out an obligation on the part of the mentioned institutions to establish “special protocol compartments for the enforcement of the legal norms concerning the protection of the state secret…during the reception of delegations, talks or negotiations, as well as official visits and other such activities.” (emphasis added) Apart from the fact that this reiterates the inconsistencies between the draft law on the state secret and the organic law of the Romanian Intelligence Service, one should underline the fact that the re-establishment of special protocol compartments is unacceptable. Any head of institution should have the right and competence to take all measures considered necessary for the protection of the state secret. If this right is not recognized, it means that a presumption of incompetence or even guilt is instituted, which is the only explanation for the presence of Romanian Intelligence Service representatives in the institution. Moreover, the establishment of special protocol compartments would drastically restrict human and business contacts, as well as freedom of expression, information and circulation.

Art.12 lit.a) of the draft law allows the Romanian Intelligence Service to verify the way in which the legal norms on the protection of the state secret are respected and enforced. It means that this institution substitutes itself to the judiciary, violating at the same time the principle spelled out in art.5 of Law 14/1992, according to which the Romanian Intelligence Service provides assistance upon request.

According to art.12 lit.h) of the draft bill, the Romanian Intelligence Service “approves draft documents having implications in the protection of the state secret.” Taking into account the fact that art.5 of the bill defines the state secret in relation to any field of activity, the natural conclusion to be drawn from here is that most of the Romanian legislation will have to be subject to the approval of the Romanian Intelligence Service, which is a symptom of a totalitarian state.

Chapter V lists the obligations of individuals and legal entities. Art.14 provides under lit.b) the obligation for individuals or legal entities that have had access to state secrets to allow for verifications made both by the ones who have entrusted the secret and by the Romanian Intelligence Service. This provision permits the Romanian Intelligence Service to make verifications under any circumstances, under the pretext that an individual or a legal entity might have had access to state secrets. The draft bill does not provide for any possibility for those concerned to attack potential abuses on behalf of the Romanian Intelligence Service in court.

Art.20 para.1 provides that an employee has the obligation to “notify at once” the employer, the Romanian Intelligence Service and the penal investigations institutions whenever he/she notices a violation of the obligations stipulated under art.15-19. Para.2 of the same article provides the obligation to notify the Romanian Intelligence Service for any individual who “outside his[/her] job attributions, finds out the content or gets hold of some state secret information, data, documents or activities.” Taking into account the fact that nobody can exactly know which are the data, documents, or information classified as state secrets, this article, as worded in the current form of the draft bill, would encourage abuse and reporting to the authorities among Romanian citizens.

Actually, the correlation of the provisions of art.15-21 with the rest of the provisions included in the draft bill leads to the suspension of the presumption of innocence: any individual is supposed to know which are the classified state secrets and to notify the Romanian Intelligence Service and the law enforcement bodies whenever the content of such secrets is brought to his/her knowledge. This is supposed to happen under the conditions within which all institutions have the obligation to draw up lists of documents, information, data, etc. classified as state secrets, the content of which is not revealed.

Art.29 allows the Government to issue decisions on the classification of state secrets, their registration, drafting, multiplication, transportation, transfer, etc., as well as on the conditions regulating access to information, which means that the executive substitutes itself to the legislature.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The draft bill seriously jeopardizes fundamental rights and freedoms, such as access to information, free circulation of information, freedom of expression, presumption of innocence, etc. At the same time, the draft bill is an invitation for citizens to report each other to the authorities, while the Romanian Intelligence Service becomes a control body with functions that go beyond the attributions stipulated in the Law on the Organization and Functioning of the Romanian Intelligence Service.

2. The draft bill does not provide for any possibility to attack in court potential abusive decisions of the Romanian Intelligence Service and, even to a lesser degree, of the other state agencies excepted from the provisions of this bill.

3. The draft bill does not provide any possibility — generally prescribed by the legislation of democratic countries — for the regular citizen to invoke, in his/her defense, unawareness of the classified character of documents, information, etc.

4. None of the provisions of the draft bill make reference to the notion of public interest, unlike the case of state secret statutes in traditionally democratic countries, where public interest takes precedence upon the classified character of state secrets.

(References to similar legislation in Austria, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, the US, and Germany are attached to these comments.)

The Board of APADOR-CH”

*

e) The draft law for the modification of Law 60/1991 on public rallies

In November 1994, the Chamber of Deputies debated the draft law for the modification of Law 60/1991 on public rallies[6]. Following an intense campaign started in 1993 by APADOR-CH and other non-governmental organizations, the Legal Affairs, Human Rights, and Defense Committees of the Chamber recommended the plenum to repeal the bill, which was nevertheless maintained on the agenda of the Chamber. However, on November 7, 1994, the draft was debated and finally repealed.

III. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POLICE AND INDIVIDUALS

CONTEXT

In 1994, APADOR-CH continued the program started in April 1993, whose purpose was to monitor the behaviour of the police officers in their relations with individuals. The need for such a program is due to the fact that, although after December 1989, the Romanian police has undergone a series of transformations, the democratization of this fundamental institution of the state is still at an incipient phase, the stumbling block being the mentality of police force members. APADOR-CH started this program as an attempt to establish a dialogue with the General Police Inspectorate within the Ministry of Interior, in other words as a dialogue between law enforcement agencies and a segment of the civil society. The motivation springs from the fact that for half a century the activity of the militia was — to all intents and purposes — a secret one and the Romanian citizens were deprived of any opportunity to learn about abuses perpetrated by militia forces unless they experienced them directly, or, even less so, about sanctions ordered against lawbreaking officers. The opinion that militia officers — turned into police officers after December 1989 — enjoyed impunity was thus formed.

On the other hand, the military organization system of the Romanian police, currently perceptible especially at the level of the justice system, gives exclusive jurisdiction to the military prosecutors and courts to investigate and punish alleged abuses. Since civilian[7] justice is the rule, while the military system is the exception to this rule, maintaining this exception can only give rise to suspicion.

The Romanian justice system does not allow civilian victims to seize an independent and impartial court in order to appeal the conclusions of a military prosecutor. The only venue available is the complaint lodged with a higher military prosecutor. In case the latter decides to complete the initial investigation, this task is generally fulfilled by the same military prosecutor that investigated the case in the first place. Moreover, the current police system includes officers supposed to investigate their own colleagues, suspected to have perpetrated abuse. Due to a shortage of staff, lack of means of transportation to go on location or lack of time, some military prosecutors found their conclusions mainly on the information forwarded by these police officers. There have been cases when the latter covered up for their colleagues, which led to the military prosecutor’s decision that no charges should be brought against the alleged perpetrators.

APADOR-CH focused also on another aspect, i.e. the practice of military prosecutors to prosecute police officers only when there is absolutely irrefutable evidence pointing to an abuse, their personal opinion on the case ranking only second. In principle, this position would be correct, if it were not for the fact that in this way, in most cases, the bench is not offered the possibility to judge the allegations involving the police. It is deliberately ignored that most abuses are perpetrated in police quarters, where external witnesses can obviously not be present and there are chances that the only witnesses be other police officers, who, for reasons of professional solidarity, would not testify against colleagues charged with abuse by civilians. Apart from this, the Romanian legal system does not offer victims of police abuse any chance to seize civilian courts, in order to obtain moral or material damages in cases where the Military Prosecutor’s Offices decide not to bring charges against some police officers.

As for the approach of this program, APADOR-CH undertook to consider both the theoretical aspect, by analyzing the documents regulating police activity, and the practical one, by initiating extra-judicial investigations in individual cases of violation of human rights by the police.

The first step for APADOR-CH was to publish a poster with excerpts from the Romanian Constitution and the international human rights documents referring to the relationship between police and individuals. Following an agreement with the General Police Inspectorate, part of these posters were to be distributed throughout the country, so as each police station could display one poster. The General Police Inspectorate committed to distribute 5,500 posters, which, according to General Police Inspectorate representatives, sufficed for all police stations in the country. With only one exception, neither the APADOR-CH representatives, nor any other person having come into contact with the association, have so far seen the posters displayed in police stations.

The round tables with representatives of the County Police Departments were organized so as to start from individual cases investigated by APADOR-CH and reach general conclusions on the way in which the police understand to protect human rights. Such (often heated) debates were organized in Galati, Bacau and Botosani (the first two with the participation of an American legal expert in human rights teaching at police academies in the US, while the last with the participation of representatives of the French police). The information offered by the foreign participants on the police systems in their own countries were received with great interest by the Romanian participants enroled in the police. However, their reactions to the concrete examples of police abuse presented by APADOR-CH were as strong as diverse. Beyond all efforts to appease their widely shared suspicion towards the fact that “some civilians” mean to “teach” them how to enforce the law or to question their methods, APADOR-CH representatives were under the impression that some real dialogue can be established.

In January 1994, a documentary on cases of police abuse was produced by the social issues department of the Romanian state-owned television channel in collaboration with APADOR-CH. The program triggered a vehement reaction of the Ministry of Interior, in the form of a reply — broadcast on the same television channel — presenting statistical data on achievements of the Romanian police in their struggle with crime, on the number of police wounded or deceased during missions, without even mentioning the subjects presented in the show at stake. This broadcast reply was followed by a “chilling” of contacts with APADOR-CH; as of this writing, the “chilling”, i.e. refusal of collaboration, is still in effect.

Under these circumstances, as APADOR-CH did not intend to discontinue the police abuse program, it proceeded with its extra-judicial investigations and re-oriented towards closer collaboration with the Military Prosecutor’s Offices Department within the General Prosecutor’s Office. APADOR-CH started to regularly forward this agency its reports on individual cases where civilians had been victims of police abuse. In some cases, the Military Prosecutor’s Offices did take into account the results of APADOR-CH investigations and decided to complete their own investigations. However, in very few instances was the initial decision of the military prosecutors reversed so as to favour the victims.

Wishing to broaden its collaboration with other state agencies, whose mandate, even if different from that of the police, concerns personal liberty, APADOR-CH extended its program so as to include the Border Police, which is part of the Ministry of Interior, too. This new approach is closely linked to another APADOR-CH program which targets the asylum-seekers in Romania.[8]

APADOR-CH has also started to collaborate with the General Department of Penitentiaries within the Ministry of Justice, with a view to investigate individual complaints of prisoners or of their families. On the occasion of visits to different penitentiaries, representatives of APADOR-CH learned about detention conditions and were in a position to make certain comments and suggestions.

THEORETICAL ASPECTS

The Romanian police is placed under the supervision of the Ministry of Interior and is structured as follows:

– General Police Inspectorate (“Inspectoratul General al Politiei”);

– Bucharest Police Department (“Directia Generala de Politie a Municipiului Bucuresti”);

– County Police Departments (“Inspectorate de Politie Judetene”);

– police departments for railways, air and naval transportation;

– institutions for education and specialized training of police.

Special police stations can be established for guarding certain social and economic objectives, depending on their importance.

According to estimates published by the press, the Ministry of Interior has approximately 75,000 employees. APADOR-CH asked the ministry to communicate the number of active police, but no concrete answer was received, the motivation being that figures relating to personnel are “varying”. An estimate based on unofficial data shows that there are approximately 50,000-55,000 active police throughout the country, which would represent an average of one policeman to every 440 inhabitants. There are approximately 5,000 police stations, which means roughly one station per 4,600 persons. However, APADOR-CH noticed that the distribution of police throughout the country still leaves certain areas unprotected, which leads to their inability to prevent or control crime, especially in rural zones. In a small town like Victoria (county of Brasov), with approximately 12,000 inhabitants, there are 18 police officers in the station, while municipalities like Chetani, county of Mures, or Orasul Nou, county of Satu Mare, administering each 6-7 villages and 7,000-8,000 inhabitants, only have 2-3 non-commissioned officers. Besides the insufficient number of police in rural areas and their poor equipment (most police stations supposed to cover several villages do not have their own transportation means and it is practically impossible to call the police in difficult situations due to the extremely small number of telephone lines in such areas), mention should be made here of the low level of professional training of those police officers. The large majority of the more than 30 conflicts between Romanians (and/or Hungarians) and Roma took place in villages and one of the factors that led to these — often tragic — events was the inability of the local police to prevent or control such situations.

Starting from the belief that respect for human rights implies an adequate legislative framework, APADOR-CH analyzed certain aspects of the statutes regulating police activity, to see to what extent they correspond to the Romanian Constitution and to the international documents ratified by Romania (especially to the European Convention on Human Rights). Until the adoption of the new Police Law (Law 26/1994) in May 1994, APADOR-CH tried — through written commentaries and contacts with parliamentarians — to influence parliamentarians so as to improve the initial form of the draft. Although the legislative eliminated from the text the term military, which is a first step, be it formal, on the road to the demilitarization of the police force, until the stage is reached when police officers can be prosecuted in civilian courts, the demilitarization of the police remains only an aspiration. At the same time, there are significant differences or even inconsistencies between Romanian and international standards.

a) The criminal record

Chapter III, art.15 lit.p) of Law 26/1994 makes reference to the criminal record as a document meant to “register individuals convicted for criminal offenses or against whom other penal measures have been taken.” From discussions held in 1994 between APADOR-CH representatives and the commander of the police station in Victoria (county of Brasov), it turned out that after the signing of the agreement between the Romanian and German ministries of interior on the repatriation of German and Romanian illegal aliens on each party’s territory, the Romanian Minister of Interior issued an order instituting a special procedure for registering Romanian citizens repatriated from Germany (separate files, fingerprints, etc.). As Romania ratified similar agreements with other countries (the Czech Republic, Poland, France), the procedure reportedly extended to the Romanians repatriated from these countries as well. The existence of this order has neither been confirmed nor contested by the Ministry of Interior, although APADOR-CH solicited details in a letter that has not been answered. If still in force, it is obvious that this order denies the exercise of the right to leave one’s country or to return to one’s country of origin; both are human rights and their exercise cannot be assimilated to crimes for which criminal records are opened.

b) Deprivation of liberty

Chapter IV of Law 26/1994 refers to rights and obligations of police officers during the exercise of law-enforcement.

Art.16 lit.a) of Law 26/1994 stipulates that police officers have the right to request self-identification and establish the “identity of individuals violating legal provisions or suspect of having done so, as well as to take the appropriate measures in such circumstances.” Thus, lit.a) allows police officers to decide not only whether an individual is suspect of violating legal provisions, but also whether he has done so. The phrase “legal provisions,” though, covers the whole legislation currently in force, from the Penal and Civil Codes to the Labour and Family Codes. The police, however, has competence only over matters of criminal and contraventional law.

Art.16 lit.b) para.1 authorizes police officers to “lead to police quarters, in order to take legal measures, individuals who, by their actions, jeopardize public order, the life of other individuals, or other social values, as well as suspects whose identity could not be established,” while para.2 allows them to lead to police quarters “suspects…who refuse to reveal their identity or whose identity cannot be established,…in order to clarify the matter and, as the case may be, promptly bring them before the criminal investigation agency which has competence in the matter, action which cannot be extended beyond 24 hours.” (emphasis added) The notion of “public order” employed in art.16 lit.b para.1 is not defined in any legal document, which may lead to abusive interpretations. The phrase “as the case may be” in lit.b para.2 implies that it is not mandatory to bring an individual under custody before the competent judiciary authority; rather, this is a decision where the police use their discretion. In other words, in virtue of lit.a) and b), police officers may request the presentation of identity papers of any individual, may deprive anyone of liberty for 24 hours, after which they may release that person with no further legal formalities, and all these for the mere reason that they think that the individual should not be brought before the competent criminal investigation agency. The European Convention mentions in art.5 para.1 “reasonable suspicion,” while the Criminal Procedure Code specifies, as a pre-condition necessary in order to decide placement under custody, the existence of “well-founded evidence or indications” (art.143). The opinion of police officers as to an individual’s violation of some legal provisions or suspicion of having done so (art.16 lit.a), as well as their authorization to lead to police quarters “suspects…whose identity cannot be established,” can be considered neither reasonable suspicion, nor well-founded evidence or indications. Moreover, the wording of the provisions under lit.b) so as to avoid the term custody may lead to the conclusion that for such measures police officers do not even need an order that the criminal investigations agency or a magistrate has to issue in custody cases.

A question arises; if police officers are authorized to “lead” to the police station suspects whose identity could not be established and, according to lit.b) para.2, they have 24 hours to clarify the matter, what is this 24 hours’ interval, during which the individual “led” to the police station is obviously deprived of liberty? It is true that the text does not employ the term custody in connection to such actions, but it is equally obvious that the individual concerned is actually placed under custody in the police station.

Lit.d) of art.16 of the Police Law authorizes police officers to “take the measure of placing under custody…in cases and conditions prescribed by law.” Given the fact that lit.b) and d) each authorize deprivation of liberty for 24 hours, it follows that in virtue of the new Police Law an individual may be placed under custody for 48 hours without an arrest warrant, which is in violation of art.23 para.3 of the Constitution which provides that “[d]etention [custody] may not exceed 24 hours.”

From discussions that APADOR-CH representatives held with lawyers, judges and prosecutors, it turned out that such situations, i.e. 48 hours’ custody, have already occurred, which proves that the interpretation above is not only a theoretical speculation.

Art.148 of the Criminal Procedure Code refers to situations in which preventive arrest can be enforced. Naturally, this measure can be taken only after the issuing of an arrest warrant by a magistrate (a first warrant for up to 30 days is issued by a prosecutor, subsequent to which all 30-days extensions must be decided by a court; the total length of the preventive arrest period cannot exceed half of the maximal punishment provided for the alleged offence). Although police officers only enforce the warrant issued by the prosecutor, still, given the fact that in most cases of placement under custody, they forward the file to prosecutors eliciting that the latter issue warrants, a brief analysis of art.148 of the Criminal Procedure Code may prove useful at this point. This article specifies the conditions to be met so that an arrest warrant be issued; some of those provisions raise a series of questions, i.e. situations within which:

“a) the identity or domicile of the defendant cannot be established due to insufficient data…

“d) there are sufficient indications that the defendant tried to obstruct the uncovering of the truth by means of influencing witnesses or experts, destruction or modification of material evidence, or other such deeds…

“f) the defendant is a repeat offender;

“g) when one of the aggravating circumstances is present;

“h) when the defendant committed a crime for which the law provides prison terms of over 2 years, and by not arresting him, the public order would be endangered.”

It is obvious that the “well-founded evidence or indications” (art.143 of the Criminal Procedure Code) have to pre-exist the issuance of an arrest warrant. The obligation to prove either the attempt or the actual crime lies entirely with the criminal investigations agencies. The much too frequent practice of the placing of defendants under preventive arrest for a period during which evidence is collected to permit prosecution of the case, denies the general trend of democratic systems — spelled out in another international human rights document, i.e. the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art.9 — to consider detention, placement under custody or arrest of an individual to be an exception to the general rule represented by liberty.

Art.5 para.1 of the European Convention makes no reference to repeat offenders. It is obvious that they should enjoy the same degree of protection as any other suspect during the pre-trial period and that it is entirely and exclusively the responsibility of the court to decide as to more severe punishment (if at all) to be applied to this category. It goes against the spirit of the European Convention to automatically arrest a person for the sole reason that he/she has previously perpetrated and been convicted for other offenses (art. 148 lit.f of the Criminal Procedure Code). The presumption of innocence must function equally in such cases, as well as all the other types of protection, irrespective of whether the suspect is a first or a repeat offender.

Likewise, the European Convention does not make any reference as to aggravating circumstances (mentioned in art.148 lit.g of the Criminal Procedure Code), nor as to the length of the punishment (art.148 lit.h of the Criminal Procedure Code) as representing valid grounds for deprivation of liberty.

c) Domicile search

Art.16 lit.f) and g) of Law 26/1994 refers to searches conducted both “on any precincts of companies, public or private institutions, social-political organizations, irrespective of their form of ownership, administration or destination, aboard Romanian ships and aircraft, according to legal provisions” (lit.f) and “in the residence of individuals” (lit.g). When no arrest warrant has been issued, in the first case the consent of the management of the institution concerned is required and there is no specification as to whether it should be written or verbal, while in the second case the consent must be in writing.

Art.27, para.3 of the Romanian Constitution specifies that “[s]earches may be ordered only by a magistrate and carried out exclusively under the observance of the legal procedure.” (emphasis added)

There are two interpretations as to the consistency of art.16 lit.f) and g) of Law 26/1994 and art.27 para.3 of the Romanian Constitution. A first interpretation holds that the mentioned provisions of the new Police Law are constitutional, in the sense that domicile searches can be conducted based either on an arrest warrant issued by a magistrate or on the written consent of the person concerned. Another interpretation is that art.27 para.3 of the Romanian Constitution contains two obligatory conditions: the order issued by a magistrate and the legal provisions. So no one — the police included — may initiate domicile search without the prior order of a magistrate. Consequently, lit.f) and g) of the mentioned article of law are in violation of the constitutional provisions.

Lit.f) and g) of art.16 of Law 26/1994, corroborated with art.103 of the Criminal Procedure Code are also contrary to para.4 of art.27 of the Romanian Constitution, which provides that “[s]earches at night time shall be prohibited, except in cases of flagrante delicto.” Art.103 of the Criminal Procedure Code, after restricting the period of time within which domicile searches can be conducted between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m., nullifies this limitation by further specifying that “[s]earches started between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. may continue during the night;” “[d]omicile searches can be conducted by prosecutors (as well as by agencies competent in matters of national security) during the night, too.” (emphasis added) The first provision authorizes any search made during the night, on condition that it is started between the specified hours, while the second one eliminates even this pseudo-limitation by restricting only the agencies competent to conduct night searches. Both provisions are unconstitutional. The emphasized and bracketed text in the quotation above is drawn from the volume “Legea Politiei nr.26/1994 si alte acte normative utile pentru aplicarea acesteia” (“Police Law no.26/1994 and Other Legal Texts Relevant for Its Enforcement”), edited and annoted by Radu Stancu, Esq. (Bucharest: Romfel, 1994). It is worth mentioning that, although art.205 of the Criminal Procedure Code — stipulating the competencies of the “[state] security[9] agencies” over matters of penal offenses — has been repealed, art.103 has not been modified as yet. As before 1989, it specifies that the “[state] security agencies” (not the “agencies competent in matters of national security”, as updated by the mentioned author) are authorized to conduct night searches. It may be argued that this part of art.103 is obsolete and should no longer be enforced, considering the 1991 Constitution, the National Security Law and the Romanian Intelligence Service Law, all adopted after 1989. Why then did the mentioned work make no specification in this direction?

In any event, it is difficult to explain the current lack of legislative initiative to modify art.103 on the night searches, even if conducted by a prosecutor. This article is unconstitutional.

d) Criminal investigations in cases involving police officers

Art.24 of the Police Law stipulates that “[p]olice officers authorized to act as criminal investigation agencies are appointed by order of the general police inspector.” On the one hand, it is natural for the Ministry of Interior to investigate its own employees suspect of having violated the law. The Ministry decides, according to the results of the investigation, upon sanctions such as administrative fines, disciplinary transfers, de-activation, etc. On the other hand, the Military Prosecutor’s Office is the judicial jurisdictional authority in matters of investigation of all military personnel, police included. Military prosecutors carry out their investigations without taking into account the results of the investigations conducted by the Ministry of Interior. There are, however, situations when, due to a shortage of personnel (there are around 80 military prosecutors for the whole country), military prosecutors solicit the collaboration of the investigation agencies within the Ministry of Interior in order to investigate cases of police officers suspect of having violated the law. This only further fuels suspicions as to the objectivity of this type of investigation.

During a meeting with representatives of the General Prosecutor’s Office, APADOR-CH was informed that, following an order dated March 31, 1994, of the General Prosecutor, who supervises the activity of military prosecutors, too, the investigation of cases involving police officers suspect of misconduct (art.250 para.2 of the Penal Code) will be exclusively performed by the Military Prosecutor’s Offices. In the opinion of APADOR-CH, the next step towards a real demilitarization of the police would be for the law to include provisions allowing victims of police abuse to request from civilian courts to grant them appeals against decisions of the Military Prosecutor’s Offices. As a matter of fact, this right is enshrined and guaranteed by the Romanian Constitution in art.21: “(1) Every person is entitled to bring cases before the courts for the defense of his[/her] legitimate rights, liberties, and interests. (2) The exercise of this right may not be restricted by any law.”

e) Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatments

Art.27 of Law 26/1994 prohibits police officers to inflict upon any individual “physical or mental suffering” in view of obtaining information or confessions, or in order to punish, intimidate or pressure. Para.2 of the mentioned article refers to torture, which is banned under any circumstances “whatsoever” (including war time or threat of war, internal political instability, etc.) According to art.3 (from which member states may not derogate) of the European Convention, “[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Para.2 of art.27, though, mentions only torture, despite the fact that inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment should be equally banned, irrespective of the circumstances under which they take place.

f) Law no.61/1991 on sanctioning misdemeanours[10]

The Law on sanctions for violations of social cohabitation norms, public order and peace (no.61 from September 27, 1991) is another legal text regulating police activity in Romania. Art.2 of the law lists a large number of misdemeanours (lit.a-x), some of which allow for abusive action on behalf of the police. For instance, lit.a) provides that “the perpetration, in public, of obscene deeds or gestures… of a nature to disturb public order and peace or to provoke indignation among citizens or offend the dignity and honour thereof or of public institutions” (emphasis added) shall be punished. It is not clear how one could offend the dignity and honour of public institutions — a misdemeanour punishable by fine. Under lit.d) “unrightful[11] possession of knives, switch-blade knives, brass knuckles ….or other such objects machine-produced or manufactured for the specific purposes of cutting, piercing or hitting…” (emphasis added) is punished. It is thus possession (not use or threat of use) that is punished by prison terms from 1 to 6 months or by a fine. Would scissors, Swiss army knives, or needles be also listed under lit.d)? Lit.t) — punishing by fine refusal of an individual to produce identity documents or to go to a police station “upon the request or motivated invitation of the criminal investigations or public order safeguarding agencies” — is a provision that led to a large number of abuses committed by police officers. First of all, because “identity documents” are still understood by the police to be represented only by the identity card, or at best, by one’s passport; no other document is considered valid, be it a photo permit, certification, or any other proof of identity. Secondly, because the “request or motivated invitation” has often been proven to be abusive and used as a means of intimidation. The same for lit.u), which punishes “obstruction under any form” of police or criminal investigators identifying or leading individuals to police quarters.

By virtue of Law 61/91, appeals to the punishments applied under this law have to be requested within 15 days and are judged by a one-judge panel; upon the request for another appeal of either the individual concerned or of the prosecutor in the case, the panel includes two judges of the same court. The sentence pronounced in this last case is final and enforceable. Law 61/91 does not further specify the way in which the fine should be applied (for this, see art.40 of Law 32/1968 on the definition and punishment of misdemeanours), except for the fact that it should be paid within 30 days from the date when the sentence becomes final. Likewise, the law does not mention other possibilities to enforce the fine by other venues such as subtracting it from the incomes or possessions of the offender, but it allows for directly converting the fine into contraventional prison, by dividing the sum to be paid as fine by 300 lei per day of prison.

In case the fine is not paid within the 30-days deadline, the police may ask a civilian court to rule to convert it into contraventional prison. APADOR-CH has recorded two cases in which courts, upon the request of the police, converted fines into prison, although the alleged offenders contested the contravention reports within the legal deadline and the lawsuits were pending before the court; these situation were subsequently rectified and the persons concerned were released.

According to the law, the conversion of fines into prison is made by dividing the sums representing the fine by 300 lei per each day of prison term; the result cannot exceed 180 days, though. A Government Ordinance from August 1994 (approved by the Parliament by Law 129 of December 21, 1994) multiplied all current fines up to 50 times; however, the system of dividing this new sum to 300 lei per day was not changed accordingly. It is obvious that the conversion of the current fines into prison terms based on the same 300 lei per day divider would result in convictions of maximum prison terms, as they are specified by Law 61/1994.

As for the right to defense, it raises the following question: how could one exercise this right as long as, in cases of arrest based on Law 61, alleged offenders are presented before the court within 24 hours from their arrest (holidays included) or, exceptionally, within 5 days, if there is an arrest warrant issued by a prosecutor? What happens to alleged offenders under arrest/custody who do not know any lawyer? From a practical point of view, if a person is placed under custody/arrested on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday, he/she has to wait at least until Monday, when the bar can delegate a defense lawyer ex-officio. It is also unlikely that during weekdays this issue can be solved within 24 hours. In other words, the right to defense works effectively only in the exceptional situations in which the prosecutor issues a 5 days arrest warrant.The very short deadline (24 hours or, exceptionally, 5 days for the first instance and 24 hours for re-examination) does not allow for the preparation of the defense, be this made by a defense lawyer or by the alleged offender him/herself (as it happens in most cases). The re-examination itself (24 hours) does not offer any guaranties in terms of effective appeal.

The analysis above clearly shows that Law 61/1991, which preserves an emergency procedure unjustifiable in the current Romanian conditions, offers a large range of potential violations of the rights provided under art.5 and 6 (the rights to personal liberty and to a fair trial, respectively) of the European Convention, as well as the right to defense enshrined in art.24 of the Romanian Constitution.

There is another unresolved issue relating to the legal framework within which the Romanian police functions: the Status of Police Officers, whose draft law was supposed to be forwarded for adoption to the Romanian Parliament within 90 days from the adoption of Law 26/1994. The deadline passed by the end of August 1994; by late December 1994 this document meant to regulate important aspects of the relationship between police and individuals was not forwarded to the Parliament yet.

*

SIGNIFICANT INDIVIDUAL CASES DOCUMENTED BY APADOR-CH

a) Cases started in 1993

1. The Comanesti (county of Bacau) case

On November 22, 1992, the brothers Ciprian and Florin Banu from Comanesti were lethally shot in their own yard by police officers from the same locality. A third brother, Aurel Banu, against whom an arrest warrant had been issued for a previous offence, escaped the police but was arrested the next day. Likewise, during the November 22 incident, the father of the Banu brothers was also wounded in the leg by a gunshot. The data gathered during fact-finding missions and extra-judicial investigations led APADOR-CH to the conclusion that the intervention of the police was disproportionate in relation to the offence perpetrated by the Banu brothers (they had started a scandal in a local disco, resulting in insults, broken glasses, etc.).

The investigation of the Bacau Military Prosecutor’s Office concluded that no charges be brought against the police officers involved in the incident on the grounds that they acted in self-defense. In all subsequent meetings with representatives of the Ministry of Interior, and of the Bucharest and Bacau Military Prosecutor’s Office, APADOR-CH brought up the disproportionate use of force in the Comanesti case. While Aurel Banu was serving his sentence for the offence committed previous to the November 22 incident, the Comanesti police solicited that he be prosecuted for outrage perpetrated against police officers on the occasion of the mentioned incident, when the police made use of firearms. His file was returned by the court to the Prosecutor’s Office for completion. In June 1994, the Military Prosecutor’s Office notified APADOR-CH that they requested to see the files of the two cases with a view to analyzing the initial solution. Until late December 1994, APADOR-CH did not receive any further information.

2. The Costel Covalciuc case (Dorohoi)

Arrested on June 29, 1993, judged according to the emergency procedure and sentenced to 3 months in jail for breaking Law 61/91, Costel Covalciuc, father of 6, died on July 4, 1993, in the police lock-up or in the police van, on the way to a hospital. The Military Prosecutor’s office investigated the case and concluded that Covalciuc died of a heart attack and, consequently, the Dorohoi police cannot be held liable for his demise.

There have been allegations relating to Covalciuc’s death coming from the parents of the deceased, but also from APADOR-CH, whose representatives visited Dorohoi three times. According to Covalciuc’s parents’ testimony, he had bruises on his chest, traces of violent attack on the head and wounds indicating cuffing. The post-mortem made first in Dorohoi and then on separate organs in the Forensic Section of the Iasi County Hospital established heart-attack as the cause of death, without any mention as to what might have provoked it.

Covalciuc’s parents requested the excavation of the body for a second autopsy. The Military Prosecutor’s Offices Department decided to complete the investigations but refused to unearth the body. The initial decision was eventually confirmed, absolutely clearing the Dorohoi police officers. They were not even held liable for the fact that, despite being responsible for the physical and mental integrity of offenders under arrest or custody, they did not ensure a health check at the time of Covalciuc’s arrest, which might have helped to save him, and did not react promptly by calling a doctor and taking the man to hospital, which also might have avoided Covalciuc’s subsequent death. As a matter of fact, the idea that the police is responsible for the physical and mental integrity of those under its custody is hardly accepted among the police officers themselves.

3. The Dorel Dinca case (Bors)

On February 20, 1993, Dorel Dinca, a watchman in a private parking lot from Bors, was beaten up by three police officers. As the forensic certificates prove, Dinca subsequently had to be placed under medical care for as long as 12 days. Following the complaints filed with the Military Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Interior, the Oradea Military Prosecutor’s Office carried out investigations that initially concluded by a no-indictment decision for the police officers involved in the case. The investigations also concluded that the police officers had hit Dinca and punished them by administrative fines. Upon the insistence of APADOR-CH, the Military Prosecutor’s Office Department within the General Prosecutor’s Office invalidated the first decision in April 1994; in June 1994, officers Gheorghe Mihalcea, Mihai Palcut and Carol Varodi were prosecuted on charges of abusive conduct under art.250 para.2 of the Penal Code. The first instance, the Timisoara Military Court, fined them by 150,000 lei each, which represents too light a punishment for the deed they committed and pleaded guilty of, but the Military Prosecutor’s Office appealed this decision. The higher court decision is still pending.

4. The Andrei Zanopol case (Galati)

A journalist with the local publication “Impartial” and a correspondent of some Bucharest-based dailies (“Ora” and “Ziua”), Andrei Zanopol was arrested on June 27, 1993, and charged with influence peddling for a deed he had allegedly perpetrated in 1991. Upon his arrest, two plain clothes police who did not have a warrant, handcuffs or a police van with them, immobilized Zanopol by tying his hands with wire to a metal bar, and then beat him. The incident occurred around 8 p.m., during daytime, between apartment buildings in the Mazepa neighbourhood in Galati. He was subsequently taken to the police station, where — according to him — was further beaten. Upon the request of Zanopol’s defense lawyer and of APADOR-CH, the case was transferred to Bucharest. At the end of an investigation that lasted 21 days, during which Zanopol was kept in the police lock-up, the Criminal Investigations Department no.1 within the General Prosecutor’s Office decided to drop charges. However, in order to probably justify his being held in detention, Zanopol was punished with an administrative fine, decision which he contested.

The Iasi Military Prosecutor’s Office (which has jurisdiction over Galati) investigated the brutal conduct of the two non-commissioned officers — Ion Dima and Costin Cotoranu — who had arrested Zanopol and decided not to prosecute them. Upon the insistence of APADOR-CH, the Military Prosecutor’s Offices Department decided to complete the investigations, which lasted until November 1, 1994, when the following conclusion was reached: “Since the person concerned (Andrei Zanopol) resisted arrest, and, at the same time insulted and threatened the police officers, they immobilized him by means of force, tying his hands with wire and cord to a metal bar…Under these circumstances, the evidence, including the forensic reports, points to the fact that Zanopol was injured and needed to be placed under medical care for 7-8 days…Considering the mentioned circumstances, the Iasi Military Prosecutor’s Office appreciates that the conduct of the two police officers should be punished by means of an administrative fine under art.91 of the Penal Code.” (emphasis added) It has thus been admitted that the two police officers have acted with brutality and the victim needed medical supervision as a consequence of their misconduct. It is clear though that “immobilization by means of force” alone, be it with the help of wire and cord could not cause injuries that needed medical care for so many days; obviously, the two police officers had beaten Zanopol savagely. However, the final decision is not to prosecute them.

On the evening of November 9, 1994, Zanopol together with Sorin Titei and Viorica Caprita, municipal council member, were attacked by 5 employees of the private company “Autobloc” (towing illegally-parked vehicles) in the presence of several police officers that did not intervene in the incident in any way. Zanopol and Titei were there in their capacity of journalists with “Impartial,” trying to investigate a conflict between the above-mentioned municipal councillor and employees of “Autobloc”. During the incident, the aggressors destroyed a camera and a tape recorder belonging to the “Impartial” publication. As of this writing, the complaints lodged with the Galati Police have not received any answer. Zanopol and Titei also complained to the Iasi Military Prosecutor’s Office about the passivity of the police officers witnessing the incident.

5. The Ion Trifan case (Bucharest)

Ion Trifan was one of the victims of the miners who plundered Bucharest in June 1990. Between June 14-21, 1990, he was “held” in the military unit of Magurele “for investigations”. The moment he was taken there, he was confiscated everything he had with him, including a sum of money — rather large at the time — destined for the purchase of health treatment resort tickets. No report was made and nothing could be recuperated after his release.

Ion Trifan decided to sue the authorities, i.e. the Ministry of Finance, the Legal and Administrative Review Department, asking for moral and material damages. After many delays, Civil Section no.4 of the Bucharest Court pronounced sentence 31 on January 18, 1994, rejecting Trifan’s claims of 600,000 lei worth of damages; the reasoning was that the complainant could not prove the connection between his 8-days “arrest” — without a warrant — and the deterioration of his health condition, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, that those who confiscated his possessions could not be identified. Consequently, considering his material damage claim unjustified, the claim to moral damages was also “forgotten”. Moreover, Ion Trifan had to prove that no warrant had been issued in his name to justify his detention in the Magurele military unit. It was only in November 1994, that the Military Prosecutor’s Offices Department and the Prosecutor’s Office with the Bucharest Court issued documents confirming the fact that no arrest warrant had been issued for both cases (resulting from the splitting of the initial file) concerning Trifan. The Court of Appeal, seized by Trifan after the rejection of his case by the first instance, refused to include new documents in the file and rejected his claim once more. The appeal filed again by Trifan is due for 1995.

The Ion Trifan case is clear: an individual was held under arrest illegally for 8 days, under very harsh conditions, without having perpetrated any crime. There is evidence to show that a decision not to prosecute him had been taken, and there are two notifications of the fact that no warrant was issued for his arrest. Trifan was therefore placed under arrest illegally in June 1990. He is therefore obviously entitled to be paid damages by the state, which is responsible for the conduct of its agencies. The Romanian judiciary, however, has been procrastinating for almost 4 years taking a decision in this case.

*

b) Cases taken up in 1994

1. The Ionel Buzoianu case (Bucharest)

At the end of 1992, three officers of the Bucharest Traffic Police Brigade arrested Ionel Buzoianu. The police officers then showed up at the domicile of the suspect and carried out a domicile search in the presence of his girl-friend, confiscating a number of possessions — which were subsequently returned to the owner — and an important, according to Buzoianu, sum of Deutsch marks, never returned to him. Buzoianu notified the Military Prosecutor’s Office, accusing the police officers that arrested him and conducted the search of abusive conduct. On March 31, 1993, he was summoned by the Bucharest Military Prosecutor’s Office for April 8. But on March 1, he had already been arrested and prosecuted under the charge of offense against the authority for having written in graffiti on his brother’s car, parked in a public place, that “the traffic police commander forces his employees to accept bribes so that he can buy himself a villa.”

The court had not made any judgement for one year and a half, between the time of his arrest and early September 1994 when he was released, as to the charges brought against him under art.238 of the Penal Code. According to the Romanian law, an individual may be held under preventive arrest for as long as half of the maximal sentence provided in the law for the offence he had allegedly perpetrated. In Buzoianu’s case, the Penal Code prescribes a maximal sentence of three years. As of this writing, neither the court made a judgement as to the charges brought against him, nor the Military Prosecutor’s Office considered his complaint of abusive conduct of police officers, a complaint lodged more than two years ago.

APADOR-CH repeatedly notified the General Prosecutor, the Military Prosecutor’s Offices Department, and the Ministry of Justice as to this case, and visited Buzoianu in the Bucharest Penitentiary in August 1994. Buzoianu has a criminal record containing several convictions (for theft of public or private property). His detention under preventive arrest for one year and a half on grounds that, on the one hand, he is a repeat offender, and, on the other hand, that he had expressed an opinion, is in violation of art.5 para.1 of the European Convention (liberty of the person) and of art.10 of the same document (freedom of expression), the exercise of both rights being guaranteed also under the Romanian Constitution.

2. The Emil and Virgil Macau case (Victoria)

In May 1991, Emil Macau, together with his wife and their five children, left Romania and, according to their own statements, were granted political asylum in Hungary in August 1992, based on allegations of abuses of Romanian authorities and violations of minorities’ rights (the Macau family belongs to the Roma minority). In April 1993, the Macaus were repatriated from France to Romania: the French police had caught them only with their Romanian passports with no French visas. According to the Macaus’ statements, this was due to the fact that their documents — issued by the Hungarian authorities — had been stolen from them during their stay in France. Upon their return to Romania, the police in the town of Victoria invited Emil Macau at the police quarters in order to register him, in keeping with the new regulations allegedly instituting a special registration procedure for repatriated Romanian citizens. Afraid of repercussions, Emil Macau refused to go to the police quarters, triggering thus a long history of harassment and persecution that continues to this day. Thus, Emil Macau was repeatedly fined under Law 61/1991 for refusal to come to the police quarters (even in the cases when he had been the one to complain to the City Hall against the police), inebriety, disturbance of public peace, and disturbance of the peace of citizens. Although he considered the fines to be unjustified, Emil Macau paid them each time, hoping to avoid further problems with the police.

According to Emil Macau’s wife, in March 1994 the local police conducted a domicile search without having a previously issued warrant or a report made following the search. The Ministry of Interior denied these allegations. In February 1994, Emil Macau had an argument in a restaurant with an individual who subsequently reported to the police that Macau had hit him and broke his leg, following which he needed to be placed under medical care for 80 days. The Fagaras Prosecutor’s Office started the investigations and summoned Macau to testify. He did not go to their quarters, and consequently, a subpoena (requiring law enforcement officers to bring him before the prosecution) was issued.

In April 1994, Emil Macau and his brother, Virgil Macau, while shopping in a local store with their wives, were beaten and forcibly taken to the police quarters (in Victoria) by police officers invoking the above-mentioned subpoena issued by the Fagaras Prosecutor’s Office. According to the law, Emil Macau was supposed to be taken directly to the Fagaras Prosecutor’s Office, without being brought first to the police station. The two brothers say that the police officers continued to hit them in the presence of the prosecutor (who had come from Fagaras to Victoria) and that they were forced to sign statements whose content was not known to them. After approximately one hour, the Macau brothers were taken to the Fagaras police quarters and tried under the emergency procedure prescribed by Law 61/1991 for obstructing criminal investigations or public order maintenance agencies from carrying out their duties. Emil Macau was sentenced to 60 days prison term and Virgil Macau to 40 days. While held in the Fagaras police lock-up, Emil Macau was visited by Deputy Imre Andras, Vice-President of the Human Rights Committee of the Chamber of Deputies, who confirmed that the former had been subjected to physical violence and that it turned out from the file of the two brothers that they did not have a lawyer and had not been informed of their right to appeal for the re-examination of the case.

Following discussions with the commander of the Victoria police, major Gheorghe Maftei, APADOR-CH believes that the case of the Macau brothers involves indeed a series of human rights violations. The commander maintained at first that the special attention the Victoria police paid to the Macaus originated in the fact that in 1992, before leaving Romania, Emil and his wife Maria Macau had been fined for travelling by train without tickets and that this unpaid fine had been converted into contraventional prison terms. However, later on, it turned out from the discussion that the mentioned incident had no bearing to the series of persecutions started after the Macaus return to Romania, as the prescription deadline had passed by that time. As far as the Macaus’ arrest in April 1994 is concerned, the Victoria police commander specified that it was carried out based on a subpoena issued by the Fagaras Prosecutor’s Office, and that, even though at the time of the arrest the validity of the subpoena had passed, the document remained in force until the person concerned was found. Such a statement is in obvious conflict with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, which specify that such a subpoena has to mention the day, time and location where the person concerned has to be brought. Moreover, the Victoria police commander was totally convinced that the enforcement procedure for such a subpoena issued by the Prosecutor’s Office is to bring the person concerned to the police station first, for interrogation, and only then to the Prosecutor’s Office that had issued the subpoena. Not even the fact that the military prosecutor from Brasov — assisting to the meeting — confirmed APADOR-CH’s doubts on the matter could convince the Victoria police commander that it is the prosecutor who conducts an investigation, while the police is entirely subordinated to the prosecution.

This attitude of the police commander demonstrated to the APADOR-CH representatives how little police officers from small localities in the province know about the Romanian legislation and the international human rights documents ratified by Romania.

Following the notifications of the General Secretariat of Amnesty International and the pressures of APADOR-CH the Military Prosecutor’s Offices Department within the General Prosecutor’s Office decided that the Brasov Military Prosecutor’s Office start an investigation in the case. As of this writing, APADOR-CH has not yet received an answer to the matter.

3. The Ioan Epure case (Lunca Pascani, Iasi)

In March 1993, Ioan Epure was arrested by the Pascani police under charges of homicide. The suspect notified APADOR-CH that, during investigations, the police in charge of his case had taken statements from him by means of violence: he was hit on his naked body with wire and rubber sticks, he was placed a wood board on his chest while the police officers would hammer it, etc. From the discussion with Epure, detained in the Iasi penitentiary, it turned out that the Iasi Military Prosecutor’s Office, notified of these abuses, had decided not to prosecute the police officers accused by Epure. Notifying the Military Prosecutor’s Offices Department within the General Prosecutor’s Office, APADOR-CH was answered, in April 1994, that the investigation conducted by the Iasi Military Prosecutor’s Office were incomplete and the decision not to bring charges against the police officers was not founded. Consequently, the initial decision was invalidated and prosecution of the police officers charged now with abusive conduct started. Until late 1994, the case had not been solved.

4. The Liviu-Petrisor Oprea case (Cimpina)

Liviu-Petrisor Oprea, a young man of 19, was arrested in the bar where he worked as bartender and then taken to the Cimpina police quarters, on basis of Law 61/1991, on the evening of April 11, 1993. According to his parents, the arrest originated in the fact that their son had refused to credit on a police non-commissioned officer, who wanted to “offer a drink” to some of the people present in the bar that evening. Once inside the police station, according to Oprea, the non-commissioned officer hit him with his fists and a stool on the head. Upon his arrival at the police station, Oprea’s father found his son, Liviu-Petrisor, laying on the ground with clear signs of violence on his head, and surrounded by pieces of a broken stool. Notified of the youth’s condition by Oprea senior, the officer on duty in the police quarters took immediate action to transfer the victim, accompanied by two other officers, to the local hospital in the police van. The local hospital, as other two hospitals later on (Hospital no.9 and the Central Military Hospital), diagnosed a “skull trauma.”

Notified as to this case (in which all evidence, numerous medical documents included, indicates that Oprea was violently attacked, and that this could have only taken place during the time the victim spent under police custody), the Ploiesti Military Prosecutor’s Office decided, however, not to bring charges against the police officer responsible for Oprea’s condition. The military prosecutor in charge of the case ignored all medical certificates issued by specialized doctors and requested the Bucharest Forensic Institute to examine Oprea once again, nine months after the incident. Obviously, the Forensic Institute last report did not maintain the previous diagnosis, however without excluding the possibility that a trauma had occurred several months before the examination. The Ploiesti Military Prosecutor’s Office issued a no-indictment decision based solely on this document.

From its own investigations, APADOR-CH considered this solution to be obviously unfounded and communicated this conclusion to the Military Prosecutor’s Offices Department, which, in July 1994, decided to invalidate the initial solution and complete the investigations, assigning the case to another prosecutor. Until December 31, 1994, APADOR-CH received no communication as to the final solution of the case.

In the opinion of APADOR-CH, the Oprea case is a typical example of the difficulty, if not outright impossibility, of a civilian victim to seek redress for violence inflicted in the police quarters. At the same time, the fact that there is no consideration shown for the obligation of the police to ensure the physical and mental integrity of the persons placed under their custody is the best indication of the perpetuation of the old mentalities and habits.

5. The Ioan Neagu case (Brasov)

Ioan Neagu is well-known in Brasov for the long labour conflict he had with the S.C.Fartec company. On September 30, 1994, Ioan Neagu was waiting around the part of the company grounds to be visited later by President Iliescu. Two S.C.Fartec watchmen and one police officers requested that he leave the premises, but Neagu explained to them that he had no intention to speak to the President or to provoke any scandal. A few minutes later, Neagu was surrounded by a group of police officers, who hit him and pushed him into a police car that took him to the police station. He was held there for almost two hours, after which he was released, without any charges having been pressed against him. The medical certificate states that Neagu had been hit. Ioan Neagu complained against the police officers, whom he accused of abusive behaviour and notified APADOR-CH, too. As of this writing, neither our organization, nor the victim of the abuse, received any communication as to the stage of the investigations in the case.

6. The Gabriela-Ioana Gavrila case (Bucharest)

On July 4, 1994, Gabriela-Ioana Gavrila was hit by two police in the hall-way in front of her apartment. She was then dragged to the elevator, forcibly pushed into the police car, while continuously insulted and threatened. She was taken to the Sector 3 Prosecutor’s Office — although the police involved in the incident belonged to the Sector 1 — where she was interrogated briefly and subsequently released. Gabriela-Ioana Gavrila went immediately to a hospital where she obtained a medical certificate confirming the beating and the subsequent haemorrhage triggered by the blows she had received.

Gabriela-Ioana Gavrila lodged complaints with the Military Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Interior as to the abusive conduct of the police officers. There is also an eye-witness in the case, who made a written statement concerning the incident. APADOR-CH monitors the investigations in this case and has taken upon itself the victim’s legal defense. As of December 31, 1994, no communication was received as to the stage of the investigations.

*

c) Cases investigated by APADOR-CH in penitentiaries

Following individual complaints coming from detainees or relatives thereof, APADOR-CH considered necessary to extend its activity upon detention places as well. This was additionally motivated by the fact that Romania ratified in 1994 the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, scheduled to enter into force in February 1995. APADOR-CH decided to study detention conditions only from the perspective of individual complaints.

A first observation concerning the APADOR-CH’s relationship with the Penitentiaries Department within the Ministry of Justice would be that there is manifest willingness to collaborate with organizations representing the civil society, despite the tendency to permanently invoke the obsolete notion of “state secret,” even in connection to the internal regulations of penitentiaries. If a comparison were made between the different degrees of openness of Romanian law enforcement agencies, it would suffice to mention that, while the Ministry of Justice and the General Department of Penitentiaries authorized all visits to penitentiaries requested by APADOR-CH and made available for consultation (true, only at the quarters of the two institutions) the internal regulations of penitentiaries, the Ministry of Interior denied access to police lock-ups regulations (different from those of the penitentiaries) and refused APADOR-CH a permit to access Bucharest police lock-ups expediently, with no prior notification, having in view the rule of the 24 hours prescribed for custody without an arrest warrant.

1. The Radu-Daniel Achim case (Bucharest)

Radu-Daniel Achim, a young man of 16, was sentenced in 1992 to two years and six months internment in the Special Labour and Re-education School in Gaiesti, being found guilty of theft. In August 1993, he was placed in the Jilava Penitentiary hospital under the diagnosis of lung tuberculosis. On January 14, 1994, he was transferred to the Filaret TB Hospital, where he died one week later. From the investigations carried out by APADOR-CH it turned out that Achim’s death was due to the late diagnosing of his condition while at the Special School from Gaiesti and the long bureaucratic procedure of approval of transfer to the Bucharest TB hospital. Achim was brought to this last place in extremely critical condition, with no real chances to survive: TB in both lungs, acute renal failure and cachexia. According to the medical experts consulted by APADOR-CH, the period elapsed between the time the patient solicited the suspension in serving the sentence in order to take care of his health (October 10, 1993) and the date the court decided to grant this request (January 13, 1994) was too long for Achim’s condition. APADOR-CH notified the Ministry of Justice, supervisor of detention places. Likewise, the Military Prosecutor’s Office has started investigations relating to the cause of Achim’s death. As of this writing, the investigations are ongoing.

2. The Marian Tudorache case (Gherla Penitentiary)

In May 1994, prisoner Marian Tudorache brought to APADOR-CH’s attention the degrading treatment inflicted upon him in the Gherla Penitentiary. The fact-finding mission, conducted by APADOR-CH on the location largely confirmed his allegations: he was illegally and unjustifiably prevented from marrying his girlfriend, herself temporary detained in the Gherla Penitentiary; there is evidence pointing to the fact that Tudorache was subjected to physical violence inflicted by some of the guards; likewise, he was severely punished for attempting to send a letter to APADOR-CH, the letter being withheld on grounds that it “slandered the personnel”.

APADOR-CH informed the General Department of Penitentiaries of these irregularities, as well as of other general problems. At the same time, APADOR-CH solicited and obtained Tudorache’s transfer to another penitentiary, motivated by the hostility of most personnel officers in Gherla towards the detainee.

3. The Relu Axinte case (Gherla Penitentiary)

In August 1990, a mutiny of the prisoners took place in the Gherla penitentiary. Relu Axinte, one of the participants, was sentenced to five additional years in prison. The detainee notified APADOR-CH as to the ill-treatments inflicted upon him by the penitentiary personnel. The fact-finding mission sent by APADOR-CH in 1994 confirmed most of his allegations, in the sense that, for almost two months after the mutiny, the participants in the incident were isolated in a separate building, and kept there with their hands tied and their legs chained. The guards admitted that such punishment had been resorted to at the time; later, the General Department of Penitentiaries forbid such practice. Relu Axinte also stated that they had been ordered to sit on their knees from morning till bed-time, that they had been beaten daily, and that their food ration had been reduced to 6-7 tablespoons per day throughout the investigation period. He also declared that in his case the ill treatments continued, an allegation confirmed by the entries of the penitentiary doctor in his medical record.

APADOR-CH informed the General Department of Penitentiaries of this situation, as well as of the other problems encountered during the visit to the penitentiary. Relu Axinte was transferred to another penitentiary.

4. The Nicolae Gheorghe case (Bucharest Penitentiary)

Prisoner Nicolae Gheorghe complained to APADOR-CH of having been horribly beaten by a supervising officer (guard), following which he had been taken to the hospital in a coma; he also alleged that the left side of his body was paralysed as a result of the beating. Likewise, he complained about not being allowed to challenge a decision of the court which denied his release on parole. APADOR-CH representatives investigating the case in the penitentiary concluded that most of his allegations were not true: the accused officer had not been on duty on the respective day, the prisoner had been taken to hospital long after the date mentioned by him, the medical record had not registered any trauma, while the paralysis he invoked did not exist. On the other hand, the medical record of the prisoner registered a long list of diseases, from TB to spondilosis, but all of them stabilized. Despite all this, on the cover of the medical file, the penitentiary doctor had written in large characters “simulant”. The arguments used by the doctor to support this labelling consisted of the fact that the prisoner simulated fits of blood cough which were actually the consequence of self-inflicted blade cuts in the mouth. According to the doctor, the prisoner behaved in this manner in order to get transferred to the penitentiary hospital under the pretext that his TB had reactivated. For the APADOR-CH representatives who had visited the only penitentiary hospital in the country and seen that it was not only overcrowded, but also totally deficient in terms of food, daily exercise, hygiene, etc., it was hard to comprehend why any prisoner would want to be transferred there. As for the refusal of the penitentiary authorities to allow Gheorghe to appeal the court decision on his release on parole, confused explanations were received from both parties. Finally, it turned out that, upon the prisoner’s request, a decision had been taken to transfer him to another penitentiary where, in Gheorghe’s opinion, he might have better chances for release before serving the whole term in prison.

Likewise, in the Bucharest penitentiary — which has no formal connection to the Bucharest penitentiary hospital, except for their vicinity — APADOR-CH representatives heard the appreciations of a young officer on the subject of suspects under preventive arrest. In his opinion, such individuals waiting for trial should go through a period of “preparation”, of “adjustment to penitentiary life” for two weeks, as “they are all guilty and will therefore be sentenced by the court.” This young officer was thus rejecting the very notion of presumption of innocence. The Bucharest penitentiary, as many similar institutions, does not make a difference between convicts and suspects awaiting trial.

*

d) Ethnic conflicts; the reaction of the local police[12]

1. The Hadareni case (municipality of Chetani, county of Mures)[13]

On September 20, 1993, following a violent incident between two Roma — brothers Rupa Lupian and Pardalian Lacatus — and one Romanian — Craciun Chetan — the latter was wounded and died on the way to hospital. The two Roma took refuge in the house of a relative, while the villagers surrounded and set fire to the house in order to force them out. The Chetani police officers who had arrived on the spot in the meanwhile attempted to arrest the Lacatus brothers, but were obstructed by the angry crowd. The two Roma were lynched by the villagers, the house was burned to the ground, and a carbonized body was found among the ruins, later identified as the corpse of another Roma, Mircea Zoltan. For several hours after this first incident, despite the presence of the police, the villagers set on fire other 12 Roma houses.

From the facts presented above it follows that the police failed to protect the two Roma from the mob and to prevent the arson. Moreover, the police had already received information about tensions in Hadareni, springing from the dissatisfaction of the villagers with the way in which the local authorities had dealt with their complaints about the anti-social behaviour of the Roma community. Preventive measures should have been taken under these conditions, either by installing a temporary police station on the location, or by putting the Tirgu Mures police and gendarmerie on the alert. After the conflict irrupted, their intervention was not efficient.

The only measure taken until the end of December 1994 (one year and three months after the conflict) was to dismiss colonel Palade, the chief inspector of the Mures county police. A representative of the Council for National Minorities stated that one of the police officers present in Hadareni during the conflict had been arrested. On the occasion of a seminar held in Tirgu Mures in November 1994, a representative of the General Police Department confirmed it, while later on, non-governmental sources from Tirgu Mures denied these facts.

2. The Racsa case (municipality of Orasul Nou, county of Satu Mare)

In Racsa, on May 26, 1994, two Roma men, both living in another village, robbed and killed a Romanian shepherd. The police captured the perpetrators in less than 24 hours and returned 64 of the 66 sheep stolen to their legal owners from Racsa. Three days later, on May 29, the funeral of the victim was held. The participant villagers, inflamed by alcohol, went to the Roma neighbourhood located 2 kms out of the village. The Roma, warned beforehand of the intentions of the villagers, rapidly abandoned their nine households, which were subsequently plundered and set on fire by the villagers. A police patrol from Negresti, which happened to be in the area, could not do anything, as upon their arrival in Racsa, all the Roma households were already on fire. The police maintains that they could not risk to intervene, given the small number of police officers present (three), as compared to the 800-1,000 angry villagers. The violence stopped only upon the arrival of the gendarmes from Satu Mare.

Following the investigations conducted by the county police, the Prosecutor’s Office issued arrest warrants for 13 suspects, who were subsequently released by the Satu Mare court. On June 30, 1994, the indictment of the Prosecutor’s Office with the Satu Mare court charged the 13 mentioned individuals, as well as other 25 persons, with theft of private property, damage to private property (including arson),illegal entry into a residence, and outrage against good mores. The first hearing was held on November 23, 1994, but, since part of the defendants were not represented by attorneys, a new hearing was scheduled for January 18, 1995.

In the Racsa case, the police took action more promptly and effectively than in similar cases. However, one could say that they failed to anticipate the violent reaction of the villagers, under the circumstances within which at least two such incidents had already taken place in the county of Satu Mare (Turulung and Apa). The Racsa Roma refused to come back to the village, despite the insistence of the county authorities that had obtained from the villagers a commitment to rebuild the destroyed houses. The Roma argued that the police in the municipality of Orasul Nou (2 kms away from Racsa) could not guarantee that the incident would not recur. However, the county police transferred another police officer in the municipality, increasing the number of police from two to three.

*

CONCLUSIONS

1. The General Police Inspectorate has demonstrated that it is neither prepared nor willing to collaborate with human rights groups. The opinions of APADOR-CH and the General Police Department differ radically as far as priorities are concerned: the latter consider that police officers perpetrating abuses are exceptions and their cases should not be dwelt upon lest the public image of the police be damaged, while the former believe that abuse victims should be defended and police officers responsible for abuse should be publicly held liable. In the opinion of APADOR-CH, the down-playing or even cover-up of such cases is precisely the factor that damages the reputation of the institution as a whole.

2. Especially in rural areas or in small towns, many police officers have incomplete legal training, even with respect to the Constitution, the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. As far as human rights are concerned, such police officers fail to understand that suspects under custody or arrest benefit from the presumption of innocence until a court decision becomes final. Although inhuman or degrading treatments — battery included — are banned, there are quite a few cases in which police officers resort to such methods in order to constrain suspects to confess deeds they are held liable for or even other offenses perpetrated by “unidentified authors”, as well as because they are indignant at the crime the suspects allegedly perpetrated (robbery, rape, same sex relations).

3. The professionalism of some police officers, especially of those not operating in large urban centres, is defective; this is demonstrated by their insufficient theoretical training, the alternation of failure to intervene in critical situations with brutal reaction in others, the insufficient knowledge of the many techniques for immobilizing an adversary (otherwise than by disproportionate force), the inability to detect potentially explosive reactions of the civilian population, resulting in a failure to curb violent incidents.The objective difficulties the Romanian police is confronted with are not to be contested, including the lack of properly trained personnel. The current educational system for future police officers emphasizes the idea of hyper-specialization by means of profound theoretical studies. Doubtlessly, experts are necessary in a democratic law-enforcement system, but their presence does not solve the issue of poorly-trained police in rural areas or in the small towns. Intensive several-months courses organized for the benefit of the many young persons interested in joining the police might help the speedy refreshment of police troops outside the large cities.

4. The existence and enforcement of laws such as Law 61/1991 (adopted before the Constitution) offer police officers a legal though unconstitutional chance to violate human rights.

5. The demilitarization of the police is still at the level of aspiration, despite the formal elimination of the term military from Law 26/1994. The status of the police officers, which could have settled many controversial issues in this respect, has not yet been forwarded to the Parliament, although the Ministry of Interior was supposed to initiate the procedure as early as August 1994. As long as police officers accused of abuse are investigated by military prosecutors (sometimes with the help of criminal investigation agencies within the Ministry of Interior), as long as they are judged by military tribunals, and especially as long as victims of alleged police abuse cannot appeal in court the decisions of the Military Prosecutor’s Offices, free access to justice guaranteed to all citizens by art.21 of the Romanian Constitution is still an aspiration.

6.Despite APADOR-CH’s opinion that the Military Prosecutor’s Offices’ jurisdiction over the investigations of police officers should be modified, this institution proved to be more cooperative with human rights groups than the General Police Inspectorate. On several occasions, the Military Prosecutor’s Offices Department seriously considered the arguments and pieces of evidence provided by APADOR-CH following fact-finding and investigations of individual cases of police abuse whose victims were civilians. There have been cases in which the Military Prosecutor’s Offices Department invalidated previous no-indictment decisions and, upon the completion of the investigations, decided to prosecute the police officers concerned.

Special mention should be made of the support provided to APADOR-CH by the Human Rights Service within the General Prosecutor’s Office.

IV. MINORITIES IN ROMANIA

A. THE SITUATION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES

1. Background

National minorities issues in Romania include a wide range of matters, among which violations of the human rights of the individuals belonging to national minorities. There are enough grounds to take into consideration the collective, systematic dimension of these issues. There are 18 recorded national minorities in Romania. The numbers of minority members differ from a few thousands, in the case of 16 minorities, to 409,723 ethnic Roma and 1,620,199 Hungarians (according to the January 7, 1992, census). The problems and needs of these minorities vary, function of the different ways in which they construe their identity as a minority or as a national group. The approach to the use of mother tongue and to access to education in the language of national minorities differs in the case of ethnic groups comprising of 10-20,000 members from the situation of, for instance, the Hungarian minority, which includes 1,700,000 members and is self-sufficient, in the sense that its members can live and work within this group alone. Likewise, the range of issues the Roma community is confronted with is wider than the narrow group of needs the authorities have so far responded to (publication of periodicals and running performances) and appropriate solutions should be sought immediately beyond this limited cultural domain.

The chauvinist, xenophobic, and anti-semitic campaign in the media continued throughout 1994, as well. An ethnic conflict that followed the same pattern as the previous 30 cases took place in Racsa, county of Satu-Mare: the Roma community was chased out of the village, following the arson of some of the houses. At the same time, at the end of 1993 the Chamber of Deputies was forwarded two national minorities rights bills drafted by the Democratic Alliance of the Hungarians in Romania and by the Council for National Minorities, respectively. A special committee was established for their analysis. 1994 was also the year of the first inclusion into the cabinet of representatives of a political party that defines itself as nationalist: the Party of the National Unity of Romanians. On the other hand, the Romanian Government begun to negotiate with the Hungarian cabinet a good neighbourhood relations treaty which should, in principle, contain references to the rights of the Hungarian minority in Romania.

This complex situation determined APADOR-CH to act simultaneously on two levels: on the one hand, the association drafted studies on principles defining the status of national minorities in Romania, and, on the other hand, continued to carry out investigations and fact-finding missions in cases of violations of the human rights of individuals belonging to national minorities — particularly in cases of collective violence against ethnic Roma.

2.1. The analysis of the draft bills on national minorities

APADOR-CH’s focus on the status of national minorities is, on a conceptual level, in agreement with the concerns of international fora in the field, concerns springing from the notoriety of the reemergence of ethnic tension, of the conflicts from the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union, as well as the reconsideration based on ethnic criteria of the European borders set after World War II, etc. The analyses have focused on legal and political aspects relating to the status of national minorities. The Centre for Human Rights (a section of APADOR-CH) drafted documents which provided a basis for the association’s actions and co-operation with agencies involved (whether directly or indirectly) in national minorities issues in Romania.

*

APADOR-CH decided at a first stage to debate with representatives of the Hungarian minority its options in terms of the status of national minorities. A meeting between members of APADOR-CH and the main authors of the bill on national minorities drafted by the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania took place in May 1994, at Tusnad Bai. Later on, in October 1994, the Centre for Human Rights published a Study on the Conception of the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania on the Rights of National Minorities (printed both in Romanian and in English), analyzing the conception of the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania on national minorities, as spelled out in the draft bill forwarded to the Parliament in November 1993.

The conclusions of this study are as follows: the draft bill proposed by the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania is consistent and allows for unambiguous interpretation of the concepts employed in its text. However, the draft proposes concepts that raise serious legal and political issues, requiring separate analyses.[14] The whole draft bill relies on three major concepts. The first one refers to the understanding of minority rights as collective rights which belong to the category of human rights, a theory which, despite the vivid debate around it, has not yet been enshrined in the international human rights legislation. The second principle states that minorities should have the right to define and organize themselves as “autonomous communities”, entitled to “internal self-determination” manifested by means of “personal, local, and regional autonomy.” Finally, the third point is the understanding of the autonomous community as political subject, integral part of the state, and legal entity of public law.

A first observation would be that the ethnic criterion lies exclusively at the basis of these concepts. This is why they can be interpreted from the perspective of the connotations similar concepts have received under international law, connotations which justify reservations. Thus, internal self-determination, when related to autonomous communities constituted on ethnic criteria, under the conditions within which communities can be understood as peoples (an interpretation already enshrined by the literature in the field), can easily loose its qualification as internal, gliding into the principle of self-determination of peoples as such, which can ultimately result in separatism. It should be noted that international terminology interprets internal self-determination as having a different meaning than that employed by the draft bill under discussion — i.e. “popular participation” involving all citizens, not only an ethnic group or particular community, the civic character of the term being the sole component of meaning.

To consider the autonomous community — envisaged exclusively in ethnic terms — a political and legal subject of public law and a constituting factor of the state means, first of all, to admit that the state can be made up of autonomous communities, ethnic or religious minorities, national majorities, etc.. But this entails a radical reinterpretation of the notion of state, opposed to the generally accepted one; present-day terminology defines the state as a political and legal organization having the power to require obedience and loyalty only from its citizens and having institutional relationships with them and not with ethnic communities or national minorities as such. On the other hand, this reinterpretation entails the acceptance of fragmentation and imbalance of the state, in its relationship to the various ethnic “components” (autonomous communities, majority, and minorities), under the conditions within which autonomous communities and minorities become subjects of law, while the national majority is denied this status.

Likewise, to consider a national minority a legal entity of public law means to establish an authority parallel to the state one, as public law regulates relationships established between persons holding authority and persons subjected to it. Two types of consequences derive from this: the first type refers to the relationship between the minority and the state, while the second one includes the relation between minorities and their own members. In the first case, the problem is the institutionalization of a potential competition at the level of the internal and external functions of the state. The granting of this status (claiming the right to internal self-determination of an autonomous community based on ethnic criteria) may lead to a fragmentation of the state sovereignty and to its substitution, at the level of international relations, with the autonomous communities. As for the internal functions, these communities are granted the same prerogatives upon their members — in specific fields relating to the mother tongue and national identity — as the state has upon its citizens. The communities are supposed to have jurisdiction upon their members, irrespective of where they live throughout the country, both in terms of protection and with respect to the obligations they are allowed to impose. But the draft bill does not provide any remedies against potential abuse perpetrated by the autonomous community as a subject of law. Individuals belonging to national minorities appear to be less protected against the autonomous community than against the state, which can be the subject of international procedures in cases of individual-state legal contentions.

At the same time, although it is obvious that de-centralization and administrative autonomy are the most effective means to ensure the exercise of the rights of persons belonging to national minorities, the insertion of ethnic nationalism as a structuring criterion for the state administration and the setting up of territorial-administrative boundaries within the state, on ethnic principles as sole criteria, cannot be accepted.

As for the rights listed in the draft bill as such, there is a number of provisions that are consistent with the international standards in the field and are indispensable to the protection and forwarding of national identity of ethnic groups. However, there is a number of rights that, although similar to those enjoyed by minorities in other states, do not have a correspondent in the Romanian political will, especially when it comes down to amendments to the Constitution proposed by the draft (as is the case of the employment of the mother tongue in the court system, or the allocation of quotas for members of national minorities in the public institutions and the judiciary).

*

A second study concerned the draft of the Council for National Minorities forwarded to the Parliament in December 1993. (The study was published in January 1995 in a collection entitled Legislation in Transition.) The draft is far from covering all issues relating to minorities rights and is defective in terms of its compliance with international standards. Despite the fact that it contains references to collective rights, it appears to be more interested in stressing the loyalty of national minorities members to the Romanian state and in ensuring financial security and some prerogatives for organizations representing national minorities. Even if some of the individual rights provided in the draft are natural and necessary, the mentioned approach to the whole set of issues relating to national minorities voids the draft of the substance necessary for such an important law.

Among the main observations made by APADOR-CH in the margin of this draft bill, the following should be mentioned:

(a) the text of the bill repeatedly stresses the loyalty of national minorities towards the Romanian state; thus, a presumption of potential subversive activity on behalf of the national minorities organizations is implicitly instituted;

(b) emphasis is laid less on the rights of persons belonging to national minorities (or of ethnic groups as such), and more on the rights of the representative organizations thereof;

(c) there are no prescriptions of natural guarantees, such as the right of national minorities to establish political parties on ethnic criteria provided in Council of Europe Recommendation 1201, which Romania committed to observe;

(d) as a domestic law, it fails to make specific reference to the prescribed proportion of persons belonging to national minorities in regions where the right thereof to address public authorities in their mother tongue would be enshrined; rather, the only reference of this kind is vaguely worded as “substantial proportions;”

(e) the draft bill contains the unacceptable obligation for “young persons belonging to national minorities” to learn the official language; the official language is the one in which authorities address citizens, which does not imply any the obligation for citizens to learn it;

(f) the draft bill defines several offenses, without prescribing punishment or referring to penal law; moreover, the formulations employed in this respect potentially jeopardize freedom of expression.

2.2. The drafting of an alternative bill

Considering that, for the reasons mentioned above, none of the draft bills stands any real chances of adoption, while a positive solution to issues relating to national minorities is a precondition for Romania’s internal stability, the Centre for Human Rights within the framework of APADOR-CH drafted an alternative bill. The main objective of this initiative is the achievement of recognition for the rights of persons belonging to national minorities and providing guarantees for their exercise, individually or in community with others, without resorting to formulations which the Romanian society and political circles are not ready to accept as yet. At the same time, permanent reference was made to the binding international standards in the field.

A few observations should be made in the margin of this last draft bill:

(a) the authors have considered national identity (which includes the use of mother tongue and cultural specificity of national minorities) to be a collective right within the domain of human rights;

(b) the right to promote the traditions of ethnic groups was understood to include the re-establishment of specific institutions in the field of education, religion, etc. (one of the most important issues with the Hungarian minority in Romania being that of the re-establishment of the Bolyai University in Cluj as a Hungarian language higher education institution);

(c) thirdly, the employment of mother tongue in the state administration and bilingual inscriptions was considered appropriate in localities where the percentage of minority members exceeds 20%; this limit is higher than that proposed by the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania (10%, offering more chances to smaller minorities), as it takes into account the Romanian traditions from the period between the two World Wars, as well as similar legislation from other countries; it should be mentioned that, according to the draft, this threshold can be lowered by the decision of local councils;

(d) provisions called to complement the Constitution were included, starting from the idea that any attempt to amend the fundamental law is regarded with hostility by political circles: any draft law aiming to undertake such modification is bound to fail; thus, while abiding by the constitutional provision that judicial proceedings are carried out solely in the official language (Romanian), the solution of the Centre for Human Rights draft is referring to using mother tongues of national minorities through interpreters provided free of charge in all categories of cases (currently, this system functions only in criminal cases); it is true that this solution does not give satisfaction to ethnic Hungarians (the 1965 Romanian Constitution stipulated using of mother tongue in judicial procedure), but it fully agrees with the provisions of the European Charter on Regional and Minority Languages, which Romania undertook to ratify upon its accession to the Council of Europe.

APADOR-CH followed up on this initiative by means of subjecting it to public debate in order to convince political and governmental agencies to promote the alternative bill. Thus, contacts were established with the Council for National Minorities, and parliamentary leaders representing a wide range of political parties. The end of the winter recess of the Romanian Parliament, in February 1995, will mean for APADOR-CH the beginning of a campaign for obtaining parliamentary support for the alternative minorities draft bill elaborated by the Centre for Human Rights.

*

3. The relationship with the Council for National Minorities

APADOR-CH continued in 1994 to cooperate with the Council for National Minorities; since 1993, the association has been participating in the meetings of the Council as an observer. In 1994, APADOR-CH representatives made presentations in the seminars organized by the Council for National Minorities, exchanged with this agency documents on minorities issues, and even established a principle agreement to promote a national minorities law.

The strategy used by APADOR-CH throughout its cooperation with the Council for National Minorities was determined by a few factors which emerged from the close monitoring of the activity thereof:

(a) the Council for National Minorities proved to be a useful structure for solving the problems the 16 smaller ethnic groups are confronted with; it offered an important framework for expressing and supporting the interests of these minorities; the Council made a real contribution to the preservation (or, in many cases, the revigoration) of their identities and traditions, by funding publications in the languages of national minorities or projects of their representative organizations;

(b) with its specific means, the Council for National Minorities intervened in narrowing the consequences of Racsa conflict, where Roma households were attacked, plundered and destroyed, while the Roma were chased away from the village; likewise, the Council made efforts to get involved in rebuilding the Roma houses in Hadareni; however, this effort proved to be more of a cosmetic nature (funds allotted for rebuilding houses, or directly to the victims, efforts to mediate between conflicting communities, etc.), as long as it failed to eliminate the factors contributing to the emergence of ethnic conflicts: (i) the persistence of chauvinistic and racial propaganda (even on the national state-owned television channel); (ii) the absence of political will or inability of the state agencies to ensure the necessary protection of the population in small localities against crime and violence; (iii) the emergence of a culture of impunity due to failure to prosecute cases of collective violence against Roma; moreover, in its capacity of governmental agency, the Council constantly tried to deny the ethnic character of conflicts to which Roma fell victims and the responsibility of the Government for such cases; this is why Roma organizations suitably reproach the Council’s inappropriate position on the situation of the Roma minority;

(c) the most controversial aspect of the organization and functioning of the Council for National Minorities, however, is its position of counterbalance to the claims regarding the rights of the Hungarian minority, as advocated by the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania; as an expression of dissatisfaction with the activity of the Council, this organization announced its withdrawal from this agency in 1993; it is only natural that the Hungarian minority should not receive the same treatment as the smaller ethnic groups; the strategy counteracting the claims of this minority by means of positive actions in the case of the 16 other groups can only be termed as dangerous.

Within this context, APADOR-CH considers that a mediation effort is necessary in order to bring together the Roma and Hungarian organizations with the Council for National Minorities. While maintaining contact with and enjoying the respect of all parties involved, APADOR-CH insisted for a real dialogue between the Government and the two large minorities, in the spirit of fundamental rights and freedoms, non-discrimination and tolerance principles, the Romanian Constitution and international documents, as a pre-condition for reducing the potential for ethnic conflicts.

4. Violence against Roma

In 1994, APADOR-CH continued to monitor cases involving collective violence targeting parts of the Roma community. Following a close analysis of these cases, APADOR-CH concluded that such conflicts have always had an ethnic character, beside their social one; this conclusion has been brought to the attention of the competent authorities. From the investigations conducted by APADOR-CH so far, it turned out that there is a constant pattern followed by all such incidents: an initial tension between Romanians and/or Hungarians, which deteriorates due to failures in punishing anti-social and even criminal conduct of some ethnic Roma; under these circumstances, large groups of local majority members decide to take justice in their hands by setting fire to Roma households, chasing the Roma out of the village, and sometimes even killing or wounding several of them.

Obviously, during the first incidents of this type, this reaction had a social character. However, subsequent developments led to changes in the nature of these conflicts: the authorities, instead of taking immediate action to identify and prosecute culprits (as the rule of law presupposes not only the abidance by the law on behalf of all citizens, but also indiscriminate enforcement of the law), procrastinated investigations (when they started them at all) until the cases waned in the public eye. Thus, the preconception that whenever Roma fall victims the Romanian and/or Hungarian assailants enjoy impunity was formed. Some of these cases have been extensively followed by the media: especially the national state-owned television channel insisted upon the social character of these conflicts and presented them so as to justify the actions of the villagers. At the same time, the media failed to make any reference to the legal consequences of such deeds. These facts encouraged the inhabitants of other villages to apply similar methods in “penalizing” their Roma neighbours.

The outcome of the over 30 cases of violence against Roma is incredible: on the victims’ part, hundreds of burnt houses (only few of which have been rebuilt), a large number of Roma (including old people, women, and children) chased away from their villages, and a few deaths; on the assailants’ part, no arrest made, and only a few convictions for minor offenses related to the incidents. In legal terms, this translates as impunity. This explains why such a position was expressed by one of the local political leaders during a rally in Hadareni. Likewise, it explains why the Military Prosecutor’s Office considered the “penalization” action undertaken by a group of military officers in the Rahova case as self-defense, despite the fact that the spark of the incident had taken place two days before, when an officer had a personal conflict with an ethnic Roma; this led to the invasion of the market place by the former’s colleagues, in uniforms and armed with truncheons, plundering the place and hitting several of the persons present.

By failing to enforce the law or protect the victims, the state authorities were precisely the factor that over time gave these conflicts an ethnic dimension.

4.1. The Racsa village, municipality of Orasul Nou, county of Satu Mare

The only ethnic conflict in 1994 took place in Racsa, county of Satu Mare. On May 26, two Roma youth from another village killed a shepherd from Racsa and stole his sheep. The police identified the perpetrators within 24 hours and returned 64 of the 66 sheep stolen to their legal owners. The funeral of the shepherd took place on May 29, when the villagers decided to tech the Roma in their village a lesson, although the latter had nothing to do with the crime and no conflict between Romanians and Roma had been previously recorded in Racsa. A few hounded villagers went to the Roma neighbourhood (approximately 2 kms away from the village) and set fire to 9 houses abandoned by their owners, who had been warned of the danger. A county police patrol that happened to be in the area went to the spot but could not intervene, due to the disproportion between the number of police officers (3) and that of the assailants (800-1000). The villagers then tried to set fire to the house of a Roma leader, Ioan Varga, but only succeeded to burn one of the separate wings thereof, after they stole electric appliances and electronic devices. The violence was curbed only upon the arrival of the Satu Mare gendarmes.

As opposed to the previous conflicts, the Satu Mare Police Inspectorate (led by commander Fernea) and the county Prosecutor’s Office promptly opened criminal investigations, so that the case was soon completed. The Prosecutor’s Office issued arrest warrants for 13 persons — subsequently released by the Satu Mare Court — and another 25 individuals were prosecuted without having been arrested for charges such as instigation, destruction (arson included), theft of private property, and outrage against good mores, pressed against the entire group of 38 defendants. A first court hearing was held in November 1994; due to the absence of defense attorneys, another hearing was scheduled for January 18, 1995.

The Roma in Racsa refused to return to the village, although the county authorities had obtained promises from the villagers supposed to re-build the burnt down houses. The Roma’s refusal was motivated by the authorities’ failure to guarantee that such incidents would not recur. The county police transferred an additional non-commissioned officer to the Orasul Nou police station, increasing the number of local police to 3; however, the Roma considered that this would not offer them sufficient protection. Consequently, they were offered an apartment building at the outskirts of the county capital.

APADOR-CH made two investigations in the Racsa case and sent its reports to the competent state agencies: the General Prosecutor’s Office, the Ministry of Interior, and the Council for National Minorities. APADOR-CH kept in permanent contact with these institutions, as well as with Roma organizations, and presented its opinion on law enforcement and the activity of the judiciary in the case. Despite the prompt action of the police after the incidents, the opinion that this law enforcement agency cannot cope with explosive situations was once more reinforced in the Racsa case: they are not properly equipped with transportation means and communication devices, which diminishes the effectiveness of any intervention and does not allow them to prevent such situations. At least two similar incidents had taken place in the county of Satu Mare before Racsa (Turulung and Apa), while the Hadareni case was still under public scrutiny at the time of the conflict: these precedents should have alerted the police in Orasul Nou on the day of the shepherd’s funeral. Maybe in this way the incident could have been avoided or at least its consequences — restricted.

4.2. The evolution of the main cases of violence against Roma recorded between 1990-1994

a) Cases investigated by APADOR-CH

In May 1994, representatives of APADOR-CH and of Human Rights Watch/Helsinki visited the locations where the most important cases of violence against Roma took place, looking into the progress of prosecutions and local conditions, generally (the rebuilding of burnt houses, return of the Roma communities, etc). Information was collected both from villagers (whether victims of the conflict or assailants) and from local public authorities.

Municipality of Turulung, county of Satu Mare (January 11, 1990)

Due to a local history of tension owed, according to some of the villagers, to thefts perpetrated by Roma, as well as to the latter’s dissatisfaction with the dismissal of the local mayor, one of the first cases of collective violence against Roma took place in Turulung on the night of January 10/11, 1990. 41 houses were set on fire, out of which 38 burnt down to the ground, and 3 partially destroyed by the fire. On January 12, Stefan and Veronica Varga announced the disappearance of their son, Istvan, age 3. The Roma took refuge in Satu Mare. They were offered material damages (5,000 lei per each child and 10,000 lei per each adult) from the “Libertatea” account, specifically in order to rebuild their houses. The Roma rebuilt 40 houses so far.

The victims filed complaints to the police and Prosecutor’s Office, but, according to their statements, the local authorities demanded that they withdraw their complaints lest they should not return to the village.

In May 1994, representatives of the Satu Mare Prosecutor’s Office declared that they renounced prosecution due to the plaintiffs’ withdrawal of their complaints. In July 1994, Mr. Ioan Rusu, first prosecutor of the Satu Mare Prosecutor’s Office declared to APADOR-CH representatives that the file of the case was not yet complete. The bottom line, however, is that, as of this writing, no one has been arrested or tried for arson and chasing Roma out of the village. Likewise, the disappearance of Istvan Varga has not been elucidated.

The Lunga village, county of Covasna (February 5, 1990)

On February 5, 1990, around 7 p.m., Roma households were attacked and put on fire by 200-250 Hungarian villagers. 6 houses were destroyed and burnt, together with other premises belonging to the Roma inhabitants of the village. 4 of the Roma beaten by the villagers during the conflict died.

According to Mr. Carol Fabian, the prosecutor in charge of the Lunca case, “everything was solved” between March and December 1990, as the villagers paid for the destroyed goods, in exchange for the Roma’s withdrawal of their complaints.

180 villagers were placed under investigation, but, although they did not refuse to go to the Prosecutor’s Office, were not willing to provide information on those involved in the conflict. Prosecutor Fabian maintains that the 4 Roma died due to a large number of wounds inflicted by means of different objects by at least 6 individuals, but it is impossible to establish the author of a specific wound that was the immediate cause of death. Prosecutor Fabian also considers that the authorities could not arrest such a large number of people (50-60 individuals), as such an action would have very serious consequences in a small village like Lunca. As of this writing, the case has not been concluded.

Town of Huedin, county of Cluj (August 20, 1990)

Following an incident in a local restaurant where the waiter refused to attend to a group of Roma, approximately 100 persons from Huedin gathered to beat and chase all Roma in the area. Two Roma were wounded.

Although all Roma interviewed declared that they would like the prosecution to proceed and bring their assailants before the court, the General Prosecutor’s Office stated that the investigations revealed three culprits (all Hungarian) for the violent attack upon the two Roma, but, since the victims reconciled with their assailants, a no-indictment decision was made.

The Mihail Kogalniceanu village, county of Constanta (October 9, 1990)

A number of minor conflicts led to the degeneration of tension between Roma and the other ethnic communities in the village (the Macedonian Romanians or Vallachs, in particular). On October 9, 1990, the villagers gathered in front of the church upon the signal given by church-bells and attacked and destroyed Roma households. 33 houses were attacked, 25 of which were burnt to the ground, while 8 were destroyed. Approximately 200 Roma were left without shelter.

Some of the houses were rebuilt with money paid as damages by the Romanian Government (10 million lei in 1990) and an aid received from Germany (9 million lei in 1991). According to the statement of Mr. Petre Anghel, a local Roma leader, another 28 million lei are need for the completion of all houses; the Roma seek to receive this money as damages in a civil lawsuit.

According to the statement of Ms. Monica Alexandrescu, the attorney of the Roma, 31 victims filed complaints. As of June 24, 1994, none of these complaints were withdrawn. The lawsuit is still pending.

APADOR-CH and Human Rights Watch/Helsinki representatives met on May 16, 1994, with some of the prosecutors in the Constanta Prosecutor’s Office, who declared that the investigations were still unfolding. 13 perpetrators had been identified; some of these had run away from the village and never came back. As of this writing, no one has been arrested; according to the interviewed prosecutors, the reason for this is that they were threatened that, in case they arrest any of the suspects, their own houses would be burned down.

The Bolintin Deal village, county of Giurgiu (April 7, 1991)

In Bolintin Deal, on the night of April 6, 1991, one Roma killed a Romanian during a fight. Although the police arrested the perpetrator a few hours later, on April 7, upon the call of the church bells, thousands of villagers gathered to attack the houses of the semi-nomadic Roma in Bolintin Deal, chasing them away and putting the households on fire. On May 7, some of the Roma attempted to return to the village, but the bells were rung once more, the villagers gathered again and set fire to another 5 Roma houses that had been devastated but not burnt on April 7. A total of 26 houses were thus burnt: 21 on April 7, and 5 on May 7.

As the Roma were not received back in the village, they found shelter in other locations. None of the houses was rebuilt, and many Roma were forced to sell out.

From the declarations of the Giurgiu police and Prosecutor’s Office it turns out that, during the first stages of the investigations, they could not interview any of the Roma, as nobody knew were they had taken refuge. The investigations gradually died and were resumed in March 1994. For two months before the arrival of the APADOR-CH – Human Rights Watch/Helsinki mission in the county of Giurgiu, hundreds of persons were interviewed, out of which 23 victims of the conflicts and 12 suspects. The priest and mayor of the village have been placed under investigation as suspects.

The Ogrezeni village, county of Giurgiu (May 17,1991)

This conflict appears to have been started by a fight during which an ethnic Roma stabbed a Romanian. Consequently, between May 16-17, 1991, the village underwent violent attacks of Romanians upon Roma. 21 Roma households were completely destroyed and burnt. All Roma were chased away from the village.

As of this writing, no house has been rebuilt, and none of the Roma families returned to the village.

From the statements of the Giurgiu police and Prosecutor’s Office, it turns out that there is a number of 11 suspects prosecuted under art.192 para.2, art.271 para.1, and art.321 para.2 of the Criminal Code, all defining minor offenses.

The Bolintin Vale village, county of Giurgiu (May 18, 1991)

The Ogrezeni conflict extended to the neighbouring village, Bolintin Vale, where the villagers attacked and set fire to the houses of the Roma, chasing the latter out of the village. The number of houses destroyed and/or burnt is either 11 or 13, according to the Giurgiu Prosecutor’s Office.

No one was paid damages. Some Roma came back to the village and took shelter in barracks, according to Mr. Emilian Niculaie, one of the representatives of Roma from the county of Giurgiu.

6 suspects were prosecuted, 3 being convicted to prison from 6 months to one year for minor offenses; the serving of the sentences was suspended; the trial of another 2 suspects is still pending, while charges against a sixth suspect were dropped, as the suspect was a minor.

The Gaiseni village, county of Giurgiu (June 5, 1991)

This case, too, is an extension of the conflicts in the neighbouring villages. The villagers chased away the Roma, destroyed and burnt 9 houses.

Some of the Roma came back to the village. The houses, however, were not rebuilt and no damages were paid to the victims. Following an investigation that lasted for more than one year, 25 suspects were prosecuted. As of this writing, the trial is still pending.

The Plaiesii de Sus village, county of Harghita (June 9, 1991)

This conflict between the Roma and the Hungarians in Plaiesii de Sus followed the stabbing of a Hungarian villager by a group of Roma on June 6, 1991. On the same night, an infuriated group of Hungarians violently attacked two Roma passing through the village in a cart; one of them was taken to hospital in a coma, and died. On June 8, 1991, villagers order the Roma to leave. Although the police and the city hall were notified by the Roma, no measure was taken to prevent the potentially violent conflict. On the night of June 9/10, the Hungarian villagers gathered to attack the houses already deserted by the Roma, burning 27 of them.

The local authorities made efforts to convince the Hungarian villagers to receive the Roma back. Consequently, the latter came back a few months after the incident, and lived without shelter until most of the houses were rebuilt.

The Chief County Prosecutor, Ms. Maria Rusu, and her assistant. Mr. Ioan Mihaly, declared that all Roma families in the village had filed complaints and as of May 12, 1994, when the mentioned interview with the Harghita Prosecutor’s Office took place, none of these complaints had been withdrawn. Approximately 450 persons had been interviewed, 30 of whom were Roma victims, while other 400, Hungarians. However, the latter refuse to give any information. As of this writing, the investigations are not completed as yet.

The Rahova square, Bucharest (July 3, 1992)

On July 1, 1992, a sergeant was beaten by a group of Roma in the Rahova square. There are sources that indicate that on the evening of the same day a group of Roma tried to force their way into the domicile of another sergeant of the same military unit. On July 3, the colleagues of the two sergeants decided to go to the Rahova square to identify the Roma responsible for the previous two incidents in order to turn them to the police. Thus, approximately 40 military officers, in uniforms (according to the statements of some of the Roma, wearing masks; this information was not confirmed by the representatives of the Bucharest Military Prosecutor’s Office) and armed with rubber batons, left their quarters and went to the Rahova square around 3 p.m.. Violent incidents took place between the officers and the Roma present in the square.

3 of the beaten Roma have forensic certificates issued in their name, while 9 filed complaints, although the number of molested individuals is much larger. No damages were paid to the victims, and no arrests made.

The Bucharest Military Prosecutor’s Office decided not to prosecute the officers, on grounds that they had acted in self-defense.

The Hadareni village, municipality of Chetani, county of Mures (September 20, 1993)

On the afternoon of September 20, 1993, a violent conflict erupted in Hadareni, following the attack of two Roma (brothers Rupa Lupian and Pardailan Lacatus) upon one Romanian (Craciun Chetan). Lupian stabbed Chetan, the latter dying on the way to the hospital. Shortly after the incident, a few tens of villagers, armed with axes, pitch-forks and seithes, gathered where the spark incident had taken place. The two Roma, together with one of their cousins, Mircea Zoltan, took refuge in the house of a relative. The villagers surrounded the house and set it on fire. At least two of the four police officers from the Chetani station (6 kms away from Hadareni) witnessed the arson. When the Lacatus brothers tried to escape from the burning house, the police tried to arrest them but were prevented to do so by the infuriated mob that proceeded to lynch the two Roma. The carbonized body of Mircea Zoltan was discovered after the fire had been put out. After killing the two brothers, the infuriated villagers continued to set on fire and destroy other Roma houses. Thus, 13 buildings were burnt, while several others were destroyed. All Roma were chased away from Hadareni and took refuge in neighbouring villages.

With the exception of 4 families that stayed in neighbouring villages, all the other Roma families returned to the village after the incidents.

In a rally held on the Hadareni stadium on October 5, 1993, the villagers adopted an open letter to the President, Parliament, and Government, expressing their wish not to continue to live together with the Roma. They invoked the numerous anti-social deeds perpetrated by Roma over the past few years, as well as the fact that most of these were left unpunished. (In the Tirgu Mures Prosecutor’s Office, 7 complaints against Roma had been registered in 6 files; two of these were closed due to the conciliation of the parties; aside from these, 17 Roma from Hadareni had been served with fines during 1990-1993). The speeches held during the rally mentioned similar cases of ethnic conflicts (Kogalniceanu, Bolintin, etc.) when the assailants of the Roma had not been prosecuted. Likewise, the speeches made reference to an alleged promise of the local authorities not to prosecute the villagers of Hadareni for the deeds perpetrated on September 20. Later on, the villagers decided to establish a “council of the wise” in charge of drafting “black” lists with the names of the undesirable Roma.

Despite the authorities’ many promises to legally solve the matter as soon as possible, none of the participants in the killing of Mircea Zoltan and the Lacatus brothers or in the arson of the Roma households was prosecuted as of late December 1994. In the summer, there was an attempt to arrest some of the suspects based on warrants issued by the Prosecutor’s Office, but they were released after a few hours, under the pretext that they needed to work their land. Although prosecutor Dan Petre from the Mures Prosecutor’s Office declared to APADOR-CH and Human Rights Watch/Helsinki representatives that he could issue a number of arrest warrants any time, no one was arrested for arson or homicide by May 11, 1994. This was explained by prosecutor Petre in the same terms as before, in November 1993: the representatives of the Prosecutor’s Office would like to fulfil their duty, but they are themselves subject to political pressure.

The only measure taken so far is the dismissal of colonel Palade, the chief of the Mures County Police Inspectorate.

On the other hand, the Council for National Minorities obtained funds from the Government to rebuild the destroyed houses. As of late 1994, 4 of the 13 burnt houses have been repaired or rebuilt.

The Racsa village, municipality of Orasul Nou, county of Satu Mare (May 29, 1994)[15]

*

b) Cases documented based on the data provided by the General and local Prosecutor’s Offices conducting criminal investigations

Municipality of Varghis, county of Covasna (December 1989)

Three inebriated Roma broke the windows of the local police station and threatened to kill a few villagers passing in the area. Being subsequently followed by approximately 200 villagers, they took refuge in the house of a relative. The conflict resulted in the death of one Roma and the damaging of two Roma houses. None of the victims filed any complaints.

11 defendants were brought before the court (two of them being placed under preventive arrest) under charges of homicide, attempted homicide and domicile violation. 10 of the defendants were Romanians and one was Roma. The latter had been charged with outrage and destruction. The defendants were sentenced to prison between 5 months and 3-6 years.

Reghin, county of Mures (January 29, 1990)

2 Roma houses and other goods were damaged in the course of a conflict between a group of Roma and 400-500 people. According to unconfirmed information, the local city hall offered apartments to the Roma families left without shelter as a result of the conflict.

On January 31, 1992, following the victims’ withdrawal of the complaints they had filed, a no-indictment decision was taken in favour of the assailants.

Village Casinul Nou, county of Harghita (August 12, 1990)

As a consequence of previously existing tension, over 400 Hungarians destroyed and set fire to the Roma houses in the village. 23 houses were burnt and 150 Roma were left without shelter. All Roma ran away from the village.

Although the villagers vigorously opposed the action, the local authorities supported the Roma’s return to the village, who came back a few weeks after the conflict.

The houses were rebuilt with the financial support of the state, while the Roma families benefited from foreign aid.

In November 1990, the County Prosecutor’s Office decided, based on the opinion of prosecutor Andrei Gabriel Burjan, not to investigate the case, motivating that the conflict had been in the public interest of the village and had originated in the fear of a Roma attack. On February 22, 1991, the General Prosecutor’s Office refused to confirm this solution and sent the case back to the Harghita Prosecutor’s Office. 10-15 suspects have been identified. As of this writing, the investigations are still unfolding.

Village Cuza Voda, county of Constanta (October 7, 1990)

A violent conflict erupted between the villagers here and one of the Roma groups in the village, fuelled by old accumulations of tension. The Romanians threw stones at the Roma, broke windows, and eventually set on fire 34 Roma houses. The Roma filed complaints and were subsequently paid damages by the city hall.

Several persons, most of them Roma, were fined. No one was charged with arson. The prosecutor investigating the case considered that the arson of the Roma houses did not imply any public danger, as they were “lousy tents and barracks,” not houses.

Municipality of Carpinis, county of Timis (March 17, 1993)

Several inhabitants of Carpinis attacked and damaged 5 houses and other goods belonging to local Roma.

On June 9, 1993, the Prosecutor’s Office brought before the court 23 defendants charged with outrage, disturbance of public order, destruction, and battery. The trial is pending before the Timisoara court.

*

B.THE SITUATION OF SEXUAL MINORITIES

During 1994, APADOR-CH continued the series of protest actions against the criminalization of consensual same sex relations between adults (prescribed by art.200 para.1 of the Criminal Code), based on the conflict between the domestic criminal law, on the one hand, and, on the other, the international documents ratified by our country and the Romanian Constitution. The focus of the activity of APADOR-CH in this direction was determined by: (a) the seizure of the Constitutional Court by a Sibiu court in the case of homosexuals invoking the exception of unconstitutionality; (b) the parliamentary scrutiny of a number of amendments to the Criminal Code.

Following contacts between APADOR-CH and the Constitutional Court, in March 1994 APADOR-CH started a letter-writing campaign involving international human rights groups and foreign organizations trying to influence the decision of the Court in the Sibiu case, as it became clear that this type of information was missing from the original documentation of the case. The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, Amnesty International, Federation Internationale des Droits de l’Homme, Human Rights Watch/Helsinki, International Human Rights Law Group, International Commission of Jurists, International Lesbian and Gay Association, etc., responded to the call of APADOR-CH.

The Constitutional Court Decision pronounced in the public hearing on July 15, 1994, ruled as follows:[16]

1. [The Constitutional Court of Romania] partially admits the exception of unconstitutionality relating to art.200 para.1 of the Criminal Code, invoked by B.O.N., B.O., B.L., S.I.C., H.F.P., and N.G.C. by means of files no. 5298/1993, 5711/1993, and 5943/1993 with the Sibiu Court, and notes that the provisions of this paragraph are unconstitutional – to the extent to which they apply to same sex relations between freely consenting adults, not perpetrated in public or not producing a public scandal.

2. [The Constitutional Court] rules against the claim of unconstitutionality related to art.200 para.2 of the Criminal Code, raised by B.O.N. by means of file no. 5298/1993 and by B.L.in file no. 5711/1993 pending with the Sibiu Court.

APADOR-CH appreciated this decision as a step forward from the original legal provisions contained in the Criminal Code, but criticized the reference to “public scandal” contained in the text of the sentence, as there is no legal criminal definition of the notion, whether in theory or jurisprudence, which allows for abusive interpretations and actions. The wording of the decision is similar to that given in early 1994 by the Romanian Senate for art.200 para.1.

*

APADOR-CH gave special attention to the debates unfolding in the two Chambers of the Romanian Parliament in the margin of the amendments brought to art.200. After the Senate voted in favour of criminalization of same sex relations resulting in public scandal, the Legal Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Deputies eliminated the wording “public scandal” from the draft text of art.200, motivating that the notion is not defined in the Romanian criminal law and could therefore allow for abuse; the mentioned Committee voted in favour of criminalization of same sex relations perpetrated in public. Surprisingly enough, the plenum of the Chamber rejected this version on October 25, 1994, and took the alarming decision to maintain the formulation of the current Criminal Code, punishing with prison from one to 5 years same sex relations between consenting adults, irrespective of the circumstances in which they take place. On October 26, 1994, APADOR-CH forwarded a protest to the President of the Chamber, pressing for the re-opening of the debates on this article when the whole draft bill would be voted on. The APADOR-CH letter was also distributed to all members of the Chamber of Deputies:

To Mr. Adrian Nastase

President of the Chamber of Deputies

APADOR-CH, Amnesty International, International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch/Helsinki, as well as other organizations referred as early as 1991 to the continuous criminalization of same sex relations as being an anachronic situation as compared to the existing international human rights standards. Upon the accession of Romania as a full member of the Council of Europe, we welcomed the commitment made by the Romanian state to harmonize its internal legislation with the provisions of the European Convention. One of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly made express reference to the decriminalization of same sex relations between consenting adults.

In March 1994, the Romanian Senate adopted the draft Law on the modification of the Criminal Code. The wording of art.200 para.1 was changed so as to criminalize same sex relations resulting in “public scandal.” At the time, APADOR-CH expressed its concern regarding the vagueness of the language employed to criminalize same sex relations in this new version, given the fact that the Romanian criminal law provides no definition of public scandal, a fact which potentially allows for conflicting interpretations and abuse. Subsequently, the Legal Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Deputies modified this version and forwarded for the approval of the plenum of the Chamber a proposal aiming at the criminalization of only same sex relations taking place “in public”, formulation consistent with the provisions of the Romanian Constitution and the international standards of human rights protection.

On October 25, 1994, the plenum of the Chamber of Deputies voted in favour of the maintenance of the present stipulations of the Criminal Code, i.e. punishment with prison from 1 to 5 years of consensual same sex relations, even if conducted in private. Thus, art.8 of the European Convention, art.17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and art.26 para.1 and 2 of the Romanian Constitution were violated.

APADOR-CH considers this vote of the Chamber of Deputies as a victory of at least three positions unacceptable for a society that wishes to be regarded as democratic based on the rule of law:

1. The non-compliance with the commitments Romania made before the Council of Europe — to which Romania itself chose to apply — can be considered as a perpetuation of the unfortunate tradition established by the communist regime: signing, ratifying, or promising anything with a view to obtaining immediate advantages, while constantly disregarding any commitments made. When Romania was admitted to the Council of Europe, none of the political parties represented in the Romanian Parliament made any objections as to the Recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly. Moreover, the European Convention for Human Rights was ratified with two very precise reservations, none of which made reference to art.8 of the Convention concerning the respect of private life or to the related case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. The vote of the Chamber of Deputies, taken the very day when the Secretary General and four other dignitaries of the Council of Europe were opening in Bucharest the Documentation and Information Center of the Council of Europe, can be qualified, at best, as ignorance of the national interests.

2. The criminalization of same sex relations between consenting adults is a continuation of the tradition of the totalitarian state in terms of treating private life with contempt. This is in flagrant breach of the provisions of art.26 of the Romanian Constitution which institutes the obligation of public authorities to respect and protect intimate, family and private life. As a matter of fact, the Constitutional Court recently judged art.200 para.1 as unconstitutional.

APADOR-CH expresses its concern for the Romanian Parliament’s failure to distinguish between “traditional moral values” and brutal and unacceptable interference of the state in the intimate life of citizens, for the Parliament’s position in asserting that Romania’s situation would be unique in Europe, for the disregard of the legislature for the individual and his/her rights.

3. Discrimination based on sexual orientation, as instituted by the Parliament through its recent vote, is banned not only by the European Convention and the jurisprudence of the European Court, but also by the decisions of the UN Committee for Human Rights, based on the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Romania, too.

APADOR-CH urges the Romanian Parliament to reconsider its position and to adopt a legislation that would prove respect for human rights in the same way as the other member states of the Council of Europe.

The Board of APADOR-CH

October 26, 1994

On November 1, 1994, the Chamber of Deputies debated art.200 once again and, due to the efforts of some of the deputies, the following formulation of para.1 was adopted: “Same sex relations, if perpetrated in public or under conditions which lead to the disturbance of public order, shall be punished by prison from one to 5 years.” According to the legal procedure, the plenum of the Chamber was also supposed to vote on the draft bill as a whole. On December 13, 1994, the Chamber voted against the adoption of the draft bill for the modification and completion of the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code. For such situations, the Romanian Constitution provides that the draft bill has to be returned to the chamber that has approved it. Consequently, the Senate will have to debate the bill in 1995. APADOR-CH wishes to maintain the constant dialogue with the members of this Chamber; moreover, APADOR-CH intends to propose further amendments to articles (left unchanged by the mentioned drafts) containing provisions conflicting with the rule of law principles and seriously jeopardizing human rights.

V. REFUGEES IN ROMANIA

LEGISLATIVE AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS

Romania is still a country of origin for refugees, while at the same time, starting with 1990, it has begun to receive refugees from other countries. However, this new capacity of asylum-country did not determine the Romanian authorities to speed up the process of adoption for laws regulating the status of asylum-seekers and refugees, as well as the legal procedures leading to the granting of this status.

The UN Convention on the Status of Refugees (Geneva, 1951) and its Additional Protocol spell out a number of refugees-related obligations that the Romanian state committed to comply with by ratifying these documents in 1991. Art.11 and 20 of the Romanian Constitution incorporate these instruments into domestic law, giving them precedence over conflicting provisions in the national legislation. However, the mere existence of this general framework does not solve the legal and social issues asylum-seekers and refugees are confronted with in Romania. A law regulating these matters is absolutely necessary; still, it is unlikely that such a bill will be soon adopted, given the low priority of the draft on the agenda of the Chamber of Deputies.

The Romanian Committee for Migration Problems[17] was established by Government Decision no.417/14.06.1991 precisely in order to fill in the needs created by the absence of specific legislation and to bridge the gap between the international commitments made by the Romanian state and the influx of asylum-seekers. The purpose of the Migration Committee is to “coordinate all domestic activities relating to the migration of natural persons into and out of the country, actions connected to Romania’s relations with other states, and related actions concerning international bodies in the field.” (art.1(1) of the mentioned Decision) This body is made up of representatives (at the level of state secretary or sub-secretary) of the Labour and Social Protection, Foreign Affairs, Interior, Justice, Economy and Finance, Health Care, and Education and Science Ministries, as well as of the Local Public Administration Department within the General Secretariat of the Government. The same Decision establishes the Technical Secretariat of the Migration Committee, served by the Labour and Social Protection Sector within the cabinet of the minister in charge of welfare and social protection, the Passport Division and the Border Police within the Ministry of Interior, and the Human Rights Department within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Although art.3.1. of the mentioned Decision provides that one of the main attributions of the Migration Committee is to facilitate the return to Romania, as well as the social and professional reintegration of Romanian migrants, neither the Committee nor its Secretariat carried out any activities along this line.

The mechanism for registering requests for asylum and for establishing the status of aliens has been defined by the Guidelines issued on September 29, 1992, by 4 Migration Committee member Ministries: Labour and Social Protection, Interior, Foreign Affairs, and Justice. Important parts in the registration process are played by the Technical Secretariat of the Migration Committee, the Passport Division, and the Border Police. The local sections of the Border Police are obliged to identify asylum-seekers at border crossings, to allow them to declare this in writing, and then forward the requests to the Technical Secretariat of the Migration Committee. Asylum claims are further analyzed by a commission of the Migration Committee. The decisions taken are then individually communicated in writing to asylum-seekers. The latter have the right to ask the body that took the initial decision to re-examine their cases, whenever their request is rejected. If the request is granted, the Technical Secretariat has to take over matters of humanitarian assistance granted to refugees and their families, as well as issues relating to their legal status.

*

LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY APADOR-CH FOR REFUGEES AND ASYLUM-SEEKERS

Since 1992, APADOR-CH developed a program providing legal assistance to refugees and asylum-seekers. In 1994, the APADOR-CH program was supported by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. As the international practice and the interest of asylum-seekers and refugees require that the names of those involved in individual cases remain confidential, only the initials of the persons assisted by APADOR-CH will be used throughout this chapter.

Function of the individual cases taken up in 1994, the unfolding of the program was structured as follows:

1. assistance during procedural stages prior to filing asylum claims;

2. assistance during the period preceding the Migrations Committee decision as to the status of asylum-seekers; assistance provided to persons granted the refugee status;

3. assistance during the appeal procedure for cases in which the asylum claim is rejected.

*

1. The Guidelines issued in October 1992 establish the only procedure currently available to asylum-seekers; however, the Guidelines are not consistently enforced or respected. Although the Border Police is obliged to allow access to the country for all individuals claiming asylum in Romania, irrespective of whether they produce valid travel papers, APADOR-CH has been informed of cases in which asylum-seekers who, upon reaching the Otopeni airport without valid passports or visas, were not allowed to enter the country.

In March 1994, H.A., an Iraqi citizen, was prevented from entering Romanian territory by the border authorities on the Otopeni airport. Although he had declared his intention of seeking asylum in Romania, he had been held on the airport for 11 days, at the time APADOR-CH intervened. The Romanian authorities considered that, since the Iraqi citizen had come from Jordan, which is considered to be a safe country, he had to be returned. Only after APADOR-CH contacted the Romanian border authorities was he allowed to enter the national territory under the supervision of the Technical Secretariat of the Migration Committee. During the same period of time, another Iraqi citizen, M.A.H.M., spent 8 days in the transit area of the Otopeni airport, in spite of his declared intention to seek asylum in Romania. Similar incidents took place in May and then June 1994: Q.M., a Pakistani citizen, was held for approximately one month in the airport, waiting to be sent back to his country of origin; S.D. and K.S., Angolan citizens, were held on grounds that they had forged passports. Following the interventions of APADOR-CH and the Bucharest office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, they were allowed to write their asylum claims and to enter the country. In February 1994, a group of 91 persons, 30 of whom had come from Bangladesh, notified APADOR-CH, accusing some of the border police officers of ill-treatment. Similar allegations were made by R.F.T., an Iraqi citizen, who additionally mentioned that she had been refused health care.

As it turned out during the investigations conducted by APADOR-CH in various border crossing points,[18] the Guidelines are little known by the agencies supposed to enforce them. The conduct of police officers in some of the border crossing points hardly shows any understanding for the situation of asylum-seekers trying to enter Romania. Although the Guidelines emphasize the fact that border authorities and territorial passport offices are not competent to decide as to the grounds invoked in support of asylum claims, the very same Guidelines provide that aliens without valid travel documents going before one of the mentioned agencies in order to claim asylum have to specify in writing the reasons for not carrying the mentioned documents, as well as the justification for the imminent threat to their life, physical integrity, or liberty in their countries of origin. False testimonies may lead to the unappealable rejection of asylum claims (point 3 of the Guidelines chapter on requesting protection from the Romanian state). However, the Guidelines do not mention what happens with asylum seekers after making this statement. The fact that it is only those who do not possess valid travel documents that have to make this statement at the border crossing point casts doubts as to whether this procedure allows for the pre-selection of asylum-seekers on subjective criteria, precisely upon their entry into Romania.

Likewise, another point of concern is the return to the countries of origin of those refused access into Romania. Such cases appear particularly in the Otopeni airport, where there are possibilities to ship aliens directly to their countries of origin. The Romanian authorities construe non-refoulement as applicable only to aliens who claimed or have already been granted asylum. The Border Police generally offers little information to aliens as to venues for asylum claims in Romania and procedures and competent institutions included in the Guidelines. Travel documents of asylum-seekers who reach border points or passport offices are automatically taken away, and a certification is issued, specifying that the carrier is an asylum-seeker. However, some of the aliens are confiscated their forged documents and then let in the country with no proof of their claim to asylum (as was the case of the Angolan citizens S.D. and K.S.).

Before they enter into the asylum-granting procedure, part of the seekers are considered to be illegal immigrants. They can be arrested and convicted for crimes relating to border violation (art.65-68 of Law 56/1992 on Romania’s state frontier) or to forgery of official documents (art.288 of the Criminal Code), fraud (art.291 of the Criminal Code) or identity-related fraud (art.293 of the Criminal Code). Under such circumstances, they are sometimes subject to a “procedure of return” to the neighbouring country they came from, even before having the opportunity to formulate a claim to asylum.

APADOR-CH also assisted individuals to start the asylum-granting procedure. Thus, asylum-seekers have been assisted in formulating proper claims, and then directed towards the Technical Secretariat of the Migration Committee. Such were the cases of the Angolan citizen S.D., the Iraqi citizens A.K.D., M.H.M., and R.F.T., of the Sri Lankan citizen M.S.N., the Pakistani citizen M.H.S., the Iranian citizen S.S., and of an alien from Mauritania, B.M.S..

2. Asylum seekers and refugees were provided by APADOR-CH with legal assistance relating to procedures prescribed by the Romanian law, such as: marriage to a Romanian citizen, obtaining identity documents to replace lost papers, rent contracts for apartments, registration of newly born children, extension of visas, etc. Legal assistance was provided during 1994 to citizens from Somalia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Angola, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Mauritania.

3. According to the Guidelines, decisions of granting refugee status fall within the competence of a commission within the Migrations Committee, that has to make a pronouncement within 30 days from the filing of the claim. However, in practice, these provisions are not enforced and sometimes decisions are taken two years after the filing of the claims. This is one of the factors that contribute to the continuous deterioration of the material and social situation of asylum-seekers: some live under awful conditions, other get involved in illegal activities, while others try to go to Western countries, sometimes even crossing the border illegally or using forged passports.

Although the Guidelines were adopted in view of enforcing the Geneva Convention in Romania, they do not make any mention as to criteria for granting refugee status, nor do they further detail on the selection of persons entitled to this status.

Point 9 of the chapter on solving asylum claims of the Guidelines provides that the decision of commission within the Migration Committee has to be communicated in writing to the asylum-seeker concerned. The contestation of this decision is made “in writing, to the Bucharest Court, within 5 days from the date the refusal was communicated. Until the entry into force of the Law on the status of refugees in Romania, the Romanian Committee for Migrations Issues will function as a body of appeal” (emphasis added). This means that the very same agency acts as first instance and appeal body. Access to justice is thus blocked, which conflicts with art.21 of the Romanian Constitution, according to which everyone can resort to justice to defend his/her legitimate rights, freedoms, or interests. It is true that these Guidelines were issued for a period of “transition” until a law is adopted, but three years have already passed since they came into force, and there are no indications that this situation will come to an end very soon.

Often when asylum claims are rejected, the written answer of the Migration Committee either does not specify at all the motivation for the decision, or contains extremely vague formulations. The “inconsistency of the claims with the Geneva Convention,” “the non-compliance with the procedures specified in the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees” or the fact that “procedural grounds that cannot be changed add to the issue” or the claimant “did not comply with procedural terms” are invoked. The absence of clear motivation hampers the seekers’ efforts (as well as those of the non-governmental organization assisting them) to formulate coherent contestations.

*

In the case of the Pakistani citizens M.F. and M.S., as well as in the case of other Pakistani citizens, contestations were rejected on grounds that the political situation in the country of origin had changed following the 1993 events, with no further reference to the individual motivations brought by each of the claimants. The claim of A.A., another Pakistani citizen, based on religious grounds, was rejected because “it did not comply with procedural terms.”

*

APADOR-CH FACT-FINDING MISSION TO FOUR BORDER AREAS

Between July-August 1994, APADOR-CH representatives carried out a fact-finding mission in four border areas considered crucial for the entry into Romania of potential asylum-seekers. The fact-finding was conducted in order to gather first-hand information from each location, given the fact that procedures for allowing asylum-seekers into the country are unclear, while the practice of the Romanian authorities — completely unexplored.

1. The purpose of the mission

The mission aimed primarily at identifying and making a preliminary inventory of the main problems in the domain, function of location, institutions involved, and procedures followed, i.e.:

•To investigate border authorities’ procedures (and practice) regarding asylum‑seekers and foreign citizens who cross borders with false or no documents;

•Find asylum‑seekers at each location, and the number of foreign citizens detained, arrested, tried and sentenced for border violations;

•Obtain access to asylum‑seekers and foreigners detained for (attempted) illegal border crossing;

•Interview detained foreign citizens about detention conditions, their access to asylum procedures, legal counsel and interpreters.

2. Theoretical and procedural aspects

The Border Police and the National Border Guards Authority are the two governmental authorities that control Romania’s borders. Road, rail and harbour points which are specifically designated for border crossing are administered by the Border Police. The National Border Guards Authority controls the long stretches of border between transit points, which are usually not meant for passage, i.e. the green line. The Ministry of Interior administers both Border Police and Border Guards, which cooperate. Often, four border guards patrol the outer limits of each of the Border Police’s border passage points.

According to officials interviewed by APADOR-CH representatives, the Border Police are organized into six regional administrative zone centers: Arad, Bucharest, Constanta, Iasi, Oradea, and Timisoara. Officials at each zone center supervise several border crossing control points. A point of control for border crossing is an official border crossing point, including all the operations of guards, employees and specialists from different government agencies involved in work at that one point. In addition to the border police, representatives from the Ministries of Transportation, Health, etc. may conduct checks at border crossing points. A border police post is the actual quarters of the border police within a border crossing control point.

The National Border Guards Authority have six administrative brigades: Constanta, Giurgiu, Iasi, Oradea, Timisoara, Turnu- Severin. Each is divided into smaller units. Border guards control some minor traffic gates, which are generally designated for Romanian and citizens of neighbouring countries only.

Romanian authorities in Bucharest are currently changing the administration of borders. New zone centers are being formed, border crossing control points are being expanded, and some traffic points previously designated for regional traffic are now being open for international traffic. Central Romanian authorities apparently have undergone a process of formulating, organizing, and updating of the regulations, policy, administration, and communications of Border Police and Border Guards.

*

One of the major phenomena identified during the APADOR-CH mission is the so-called human trafficking, or people trafficking. Officials from all corners of Romania complained that individuals from Russia and the Ukraine locate vulnerable — and often illiterate — families on the move (in Moscow and other cities) en route to western Europe, extract large sums of their lifetime savings and promise to help them cross borders. According to Romanian authorities, many foreign citizens caught at borders describe their experiences with these organized criminals, who cooperate with Romanian partners. The foreigners say traffickers demand as much as 20,000 Deutsch Marks and their passports, pledge to return the travel documents and then fail to do so. The foreigners apprehended find themselves with little or no money and no nearer to their destination or safety.

*

a) Constanta zone center

Several officials declared that there is only one place of temporary detention for illegal border crossing: the Constanta police quarters. However, prosecutors from the city maintained that the Mangalia police quarters may as well temporarily detain aliens suspect of having crossed the border illegally. Prison terms are served in the Poarta Alba penitentiary, approximately 30 kms West of Constanta.

APADOR-CH representatives visited 3 types of border crossings: the Constanta port, the Vama Veche road border, and the Kogalniceanu airport and interviewed officials from the Passport Division, Prosecutor’s Office, and Trial Court in Constanta. In addition, APADOR-CH unsuccessfully tried to establish contacts with members of the Local (county) Migration Committee.

b) The Iasi zone center

Suspects are held in the Iasi County Police quarters, while accused and convicted persons are detained in the Iasi penitentiary.

APADOR-CH visited Albita (the main road border in the area), the border train station in Iasi, the Passport Division, Police Inspectorate, penitentiary, and border guards quarters of the county. Likewise, a prosecutor and a judge were interviewed.

c) Arad zone center

Suspects are held in the County Police quarters, while accused and convicted persons are detained in the Arad penitentiary.

The Nadlac border crossing control point, the Arad Passport Division, the court, and the border crossing point in the Arad airport were visited. Likewise, the chief prosecutor of the Arad Court Prosecutor’s Office was interviewed. APADOR-CH tried to interview a representative of the County Police Inspectorate, but failed.

d) The Giurgiu border crossing control point

The road border crossing in Giurgiu, as well as the County Police Inspectorate were visited. A judge, one prosecutor, and representatives of the Passport Division and border guards were interviewed.

3. Identified issues

a) Asylum-seekers

Constanta

Three foreign citizens had submitted asylum claims to the Constanta passport office during the past year and a half: I.V.S., a Ukrainian citizen, in 1994; J.K.M. and A.I.R., Iranian citizens, in 1993. A.I.R. was convicted for illegal border crossing. After serving part of his sentence, he was released in order for him to file his claim to asylum. Very few asylum-seekers come to Constanta, as most prefer to go all the way to Bucharest. One of the interviewed officials said the passport office is authorized to give two-months temporary identification to asylum-seekers. The latter have the opportunity to lodge asylum claims in Constanta, which are further forwarded by the Constanta passport office to the Bucharest Passport Division, which is then supposed to submit the claim to the Migration Committee. Upon the decision of the Committee, the Constanta passport office notifies the concerned asylum-seekers as to the final result.

Iasi

APADOR-CH representatives were informed by the Passport Division of the Iasi county that 4 asylum-seekers living in the area lodged claims in 1990. The Bucharest Migration Committee directed them to the Iasi office. The claims were still pending as of July 1994. The Bucharest Migration Committee office asked the Iasi passport office to provide asylum-seekers with two-months temporary identification.

At the Nicolina international railway station the commander of the Iasi zone center declared that no one lodged asylum claims in the Iasi area in 1992 and 1993. Foreign citizens crossing the border here come from the Republic of Moldova. Some have been convicted of illegal border crossing.

According to the deputy commander of the border guards brigade in Iasi, this agency is able to identify foreigners crossing the border illegally within 24 hours. However, they do not deal with asylum-seekers, but do accept special requests for asylum and include them in their reports to the prosecution. Written declarations, on a plain white sheet of paper, can be attached to the files that go to the Prosecutor’s Office. One of the problems border authorities are confronted with here is foreigners that enter the country legally and then destroy their documents, or whose visas expire. These generally claim asylum only after they realize that they cannot go further westward. Border guards have no mandate for handling asylum-seekers, and are consequently obliged to transfer such cases to the Prosecutor’s Office, irrespective of whether the persons have crossed the border illegally or are asylum-seekers.

Arad

The chief of the Arad passport office declared that the area has the highest number of problems with asylum-seekers and their status. The largest groups thereof come from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Most asylum-seekers transit Romania illegally, via Moscow, where they find human traffickers who promise to lead them to the West. At the time of the interview, no one had ever asked for asylum; the interviewed official was of the opinion that, generally, asylum-seekers go to Bucharest, to the Labour Ministry, trying to gain time to leave Romania illegally, after having obtained temporary identification documents. In the course of 1994, the authorities discovered 300 such people waiting in groups to leave illegally. They rent apartments in the poorer districts of Arad. The head of the Passport Division in Arad stated that this agency looks for these people, as it is the policy of the office to help them stay in Romania legally. Many have expired visas or passports, while some do not have any travel documents whatsoever. They pay large sums of money to traffickers who take advantage of their situation; likewise, most live in horrible conditions and have no possibility of material assistance. The head of the Arad passport office would have liked to find a solution for these people and considered that it was necessary to build a camp for them.

Giurgiu

Representatives of the Passport Division of the Giurgiu county informed APADOR-CH that if a person does not manifest his/her will to apply for asylum, the passport office does not have any contact with that person. This agency contacts only foreigners that enter Romania illegally, only after they are caught by the border police or guards, returning them to Bulgaria. 50% of the aliens crossing the border illegally here would not admit they have forged passports. The other 50% would admit to forgery and say they want to reach other destinations, alleging employment or relatives already in the West.

b) Illegal border crossing by foreign and stateless citizens

Constanta

According to the vice-president of the Constanta County Court, at the time of the interview there had been very few cases of aliens crossing the border illegally — around 10 every year. Only two such cases were recorded in 1994, which, just as cases recorded in 1993, had not been solved by the courts as of June 1994. APADOR-CH representatives were allowed by the vice-president of the court access to some of the files of the Constanta Court; one of these contained the case of a group of foreigners that had crossed the border illegally in 1994 and were all returned to Bulgaria.

Iasi

With respect to the Nicolina international railway station, the commander of the Iasi zone center said that those attempting to cross the border illegally usually come from Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, and generally travel in groups, falling prey to Moscow traffickers.

The Commander of the Iasi County Passport Division said he did not know of any cases of foreigners accused of illegal border crossing and detained in the Iasi penitentiary. In general, those captured at the green line — i.e. between two border crossing control points — are returned to the last country of transit.

The commander of the Albita border crossing control point declared that foreigners attempt to cross the border illegally, with no documents or forged ones; however, the matter falls less under the jurisdiction of the Border Police, being generally referred to the Border Guards. Likewise, a group of “Afro-Asians” with no documents had reportedly reached Albita by bus, and were returned to the Republic of Moldova. No foreigner was detained for illegal border crossing at this border crossing control point.

The data on illegal border crossings received from the commander of the Albita border crossing control point are as follows:

1993: – no case of border crossing without documents;

– 118 persons had problems with their documents, including people who had allegedly committed other violations, such as illegal border crossing;

– 6,633 had problems with the customs;

1994: (first semester):

– no case of border crossing with no documents;

– 63 cases of forged or expired documents;

– 851 persons were denied access to Romania.

The commander of the Iasi Penitentiary declared to the representatives of APADOR-CH that 7 Pakistani men who had allegedly come to Romania from the Republic of Moldova were held in this institution. They had been initially detained by the border guards and then sent to the police, who brought them to the penitentiary. A prosecutor subsequently issued arrest warrants. APADOR-CH was told that an official from the Pakistani Embassy had visited the penitentiary in order to take over the case. The 7 did not give any reason for coming to Romania. According to the commander, no other foreigners had been detained in the Iasi penitentiary for illegal border crossing.

The commander of the Iasi border guards brigade declared that this agency generally solves problems locally (not at the level of the brigade, however) and forwards reports to the county Prosecutor’s Office. Aliens caught are detained for up to 24 hours and fed in the brigade precincts, where there are no special detention rooms, but one or two offices are used for this purpose. Likewise, it was mentioned that the county police has difficulties with detaining large numbers of aliens, due to a shortage of medical staff, food, or cleaning facilities.

According to the commander of the border guards brigade, there was an explosion of foreigners crossing the border illegally after December 1989. The commander gave APADOR-CH the following approximations on the number of aliens caught by his brigade:

1990…………………100

1991…………………100

1992…………………885

1993…………………350

1994 (first semester)….200 (140 from Asia, 60 from the former USSR).

APADOR-CH representatives were given the following information:

– 12 Pakistani citizens had been convicted for illegal border crossing; the criminal file was opened in May 1993, the trial concluded in May 1994; the Pakistani were sentenced to one year and 3 months, with the suspension of their term in prison;

– 2 Pakistani citizens, M.A.A. and M.A.B., convicted for the same offense as the previous 7; the criminal file was opened in September 1993, the trial took place in February 1994; the two were sentenced to one year and three months, and the serving of the prison terms was suspended in both cases.

The commander of the County Police Inspectorate declared that he had not come into contact with any asylum-seekers and that, in 1994 as opposed to 1993, the number of aliens crossing the border illegally diminished. The commander described the following problems relating to refugees, asylum-seekers, and aliens that commit violations related to border crossing: citizens of the Commonwealth of Independent States often transit Romania on their way to Western Europe; when they are arrested, they often have no documents because human traffickers had taken them; victims are either unable or unwilling to provide information on the traffickers; the police are improperly equipped to provide these people with food and shelter.

According to the commander, the police do not investigate these cases because typical victims have little education and have faced many problems in their country of origin. Traffickers leave the victims near the Romanian border, say they will return, and fail to show up and meet them again. This problem appeared only in 1992 and continued in 1993. In 1994, counties Vaslui and Galati had problems of this type. Aliens apprehended for border violations are returned to the last transit country. The county police lock-up can shelter 100 people; as of mid-July 1994, 90 persons were detained there. 16 foreigners were detained in 1994 for border violations, as compared to 26, in 1993. When foreigners are apprehended for illegal border crossing, their files are sent to the Prosecutor’s Office.

The police commander also mentioned that foreigners caught at borders leave a lasting impression upon the Romanian authorities, due to their dramatic situation. In past cases where foreigners were not organized in groups and no Romanian citizens were involved in trafficking, those apprehended were released after they paid an insignificant fine. As aliens crossing the border illegally are now organized in groups, the Border Police are obliged to enforce the law much harsher than before. As a consequence of intensified police actions in 1993, traffickers began coming from the Republic of Moldova by night, helped by Romanian contacts.

Arad

The commander of the border crossing control point declared that Nadlac is an important location for illegal crossing and identified two categories of violations committed here:

– offenses prescribed by the Criminal Code (art.288, 291, and 293, defining respectively forgery of official documents, fraud, and identity fraud);

– crimes prescribed by Law 56/1992 on Romania’s state borders; the number of such crimes (150 in the first semester of 1994) is double as compared to the criminal offenses (76 for the same period of time).

Foreigners crossing the border illegally often hide in buses or trucks. The number of such incidents is increasing. According to the interview APADOR-CH had with the border point commander, foreigners committing border violations in Romania fall into two categories, function of their motivation:

– political: Kurds from Turkey, Iran and Iraq; deserters from the Gulf War;

– economic: “third world” citizens in search of employment, Asians and Africans, particularly from Sri Lanka, Senegal, Ghana, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

APADOR-CH representatives were told that in January 1994, 100 people (families with children — 15 from Iraq and 85 from Turkey) had hidden in an international merchandise truck and crossed the border illegally. The authorities say that they had used various legal and illegal connections to get to Romania. After crossing the border, the Hungarian authorities apprehended them, reported the case to the Nadlac border point, and started a criminal investigation. The foreigners were sent to the Arad county police where some were subsequently released, while others were placed under arrest and convicted to prison terms.

The police commander also declared that foreign citizens often attempt to exit Romania illegally, with false documents, are then apprehended and released, after which they try again. For short investigations, suspects are held in the police lock up, while for longer ones, in the penitentiary.

The commander of the Arad penitentiary declared that foreigners entering Romania legally and attempting to exit illegally are the most serious problem for this agency. Authorities take into account international circumstances when they decide on individual cases. As of the time of the mission, 22 foreigners were detained in the penitentiary: 17 under preventive arrest, and 5 convicts. All those convicted for violations under art.68 lit.b of Law 56/1992 (fraudulent border crossing of armed individuals or groups) are from Turkey.

According to the commander of the penitentiary, 173 foreigners were detained or served sentences during 1993 in Arad — all convicted for illegal border crossing. 166 of these had been released before the time of the interview. Terms are usually short — 3-6 months — and for approximately half of the convicts, the sentence is suspended. Defendants may be released on bail. The harshest punishments are applied to traffickers.

The commander of the penitentiary also said that the institution was overcrowded (at the time the APADOR-CH mission arrived there, 1,400 prisoners occupied 600 beds). Likewise, he mentioned that the penitentiary had problems with the special diets of foreigners (pork is generally served in the institution, but muslims have special requirements).

The same source specified that in Timisoara and Oradea there might be foreigners who attempted to cross the border illegally.

Representatives of APADOR-CH interviewed several prisoners in Arad. One of them, C.D., declared he was a Turkish muslim, and had been looking for employment as a truck driver at the time he was apprehended at the Varsand border point in Hungary, on January 13, 1993, 8 a.m.. He had been hiding in a truck, having his Turkish passport with him, and had been taken by traffickers to the border. When the Hungarian authorities apprehended him without a visa, he was returned to Romania. He was reportedly taken to the Arad police lock-up, where he stayed for one month, being kept in a small cell, with little air to breathe, as 15 or 16 other suspects were held in the same place; he could not feed himself, as only pork meat was served. He was not issued an arrest warrant within the first 24 hours. He maintains that he paid a defense lawyer 600 Deutsch Marks in the Arad police station, and never saw the attorney again. The lawyer had extorted the money for “bail,” but provided the defendant with no legal assistance. After paying, he said the police showed him a receipt, removed it, promising to bring it back to him. The receipt was never returned to him. For 29 days, he was not told what was happening. Then he was taken to the Prosecutor’s Office and brought to the penitentiary. The prisoner alleged that no one interpreted for him, and was sentenced to 5 years in prison, although he himself was never in court and does not know the charges brought against him. On January 16 or 17, 1993, he appealed, but, at the time of the interview, had not received an answer. He also complained that he cannot receive or send any mail, even from or to his family.

S.R.G., Afghan citizen in detention in Arad, declared that he left his home in Afghanistan because of the war and Russian intervention; his brother and his sister were killed. He was caught by Hungarian authorities on the morning of July 28, 1993, between 8 and 10 a.m., with a friend, at Varsand, on the Hungarian border. He was arrested and sent to the temporary detention area at the Arad Police station. He maintains that he had paid someone to falsify a French passport for him (with an altered photo), which he had with him when he was apprehended. Hungarian authorities brought him to the Romanian Border Police, after which he was taken directly to the Arad police lock-up. He said he paid 200 Deutsch Marks directly to a lawyer, as bail, around July 29, but he did not get a receipt and the lawyer never went to his trial. He remained in the police lock up for 36 days; there was no window, and the cell’s capacity was 8 but it held 16. Police did not speak to him properly; he did have a translator and was not harmed. He was then taken to the prosecutor and subsequently to the penitentiary. On January 17, 1994, he was taken for the last time to court, possibly to the county court. He lodged an appeal but did not remember on which day. He said he received a letter on March 17, notifying him that he was convicted.

In the Arad court, APADOR-CH representatives were informed that, since the beginning of 1994 and up to July 26, 45 files were recorded, involving 248 persons charged with or convicted for the following two types of violations:

– crossing the green line between border points;

– crossing at the border point with false documents, a combined crime (art. 291, 293 of the Criminal Code and art. 65 and 68 lit.b of Law 56/92).

The estimates show that 90% of the foreigners sentenced have had their punishments suspended. Prior to the trial, about 10% of them are let out on bail, fail to attend the hearing(s) and are arrested again.

Statistical data on illegal border crossings received from the Arad Prosecutor’s Office show the following dynamics:

– 1990 – 63 files;

– 1991 – no file, due to the lack of legislation;

– 1992 – 87 files involving 236 defendants, 176 of whom had been arrested, 35 brought before the court and released on bail, 17 released from prison after paying fines; of the total number, less than 10 are Romanian citizens;

– 1993 – 210 files involving 504 defendants, 185 of whom had been arrested, 36 released on bail, 19 paid fines under art.18(1) of the Criminal Code;

– 1994 (first semester) – 42 files for 261 defendants, 35 of whom were arrested, 12 released on bail, 4 released after paying a fine.

The chief prosecutor of the Arad Prosecutor’s Office said authorities always charge the maximum bail of 100,000 lei (the minimum is 10,000 lei). He said there is not enough room at the police lock‑up. On July 26, there were 14 foreigners detained for border violations in the police lock-up, coming from: Turkey (2), Algeria, Morocco, Angola (4), Nigeria (2), Rwanda, Somalia, plus two additional foreign detainees with unspecified citizenship.

Giurgiu

The deputy of the Giurgiu road border crossing control point said there have been no asylum‑seekers at this border point. Yet, almost every day there are 1-2 foreign citizens who try to enter here illegally. He estimated that 300‑400 aliens are caught per year for entering Romania illegally or attempting to do so. 5-6 foreigners claim every year to have entered at Giurgiu. According to him, border police do not formally punish foreign citizens who attempt to enter Romania illegally, but levy a fine; the same measure is applied for attempting to exit illegally. He said border authorities give a foreign citizen a receipt after paying the fine, and then return them to Bulgaria. He said foreign citizens typically try to enter Romania by hiding in buses or trucks or by using false identity.

90-95% of the foreign citizens entering illegally come from Turkey, Syria, Jordan, the Near East and Africa. There are some who have left the former Yugoslavia to avoid the conflict, and some Turks, mostly of Kurdish background. Often, the foreign citizens do not declare their intentions and do not say they are refugees because they are afraid to. Even after some are caught with false documents, they refuse to admit that the passports they have used are false. In such cases, border police issue the mild penalty of 1,000 lei fine.

c) The right to interpretation

Iasi

The deputy commander of the Iasi border guards brigade declared that among groups of foreigners caught at the border there is almost always an English‑speaker. If not, the guards contact foreign students in Iasi and pay them to interpret. A prosecutor does not receive a defendant’s file unless interpretation has been provided. There is still an old government budget line which pays for Russian interpretation sums that are disproportionate as compared to the other languages.

The commander of the County Police Inspectorate informed APADOR-CH representatives that some of the problems appearing between foreigners and the police are due to:

– inability to communicate with arrested persons;

– difficulties in finding interpreters, as in the case of Sri Lankans;

– difficulties in gathering information necessary to police investigations;

– inability to communicate with detainees on matters such as food and other necessities.

Arad

Regarding the large group that was recently caught at the border, the commander of the border crossing control point said officials and the apprehended foreigners communicated in English with great difficulty; authorities later provided Turkish translators.

d) Legal counsel

Iasi

According to the deputy chief prosecutor of the Iasi Prosecutor’s Office with the Court of Appeal, the Romanian government pays for legal counsel if a foreign citizen cannot afford it. While a case is investigated, the prosecutor asks the bar association to send an attorney ex officio. Funding for this comes from a budget line for legal counsel. The court judge makes sure that the needs of the accused are attended to; the prosecutor conducts investigations only in the presence of a lawyer; the judge will not rule on a trial unless the defendant has legal representation.

Arad

The commander of the border crossing control point declared that foreigners are entitled to legal counsel only upon submitting a written request.

4. Conclusions

At the 4 border zones visited by APADOR-CH, the numbers of refugees, asylum‑seekers and foreigners accused and/or convicted of illegal border crossing were very low. For that reason, it was felt that some information was not available. Border authorities were generally cooperative and receptive to the questions asked by the representatives of APADOR-CH.

Border Police do not inform people about their right to claim asylum. Foreigners caught without documents or with false papers are returned to the last country of transit (due to bi-lateral return agreements with most of Romania’s neighbours) or their country of origin. According to authorities’ statements, officials treat all foreigners as simply that ‑- foreigners ‑- even in cases of possible asylum‑seekers or refugees. In cases when authorities told us about foreigners’ fear of persecution in their countries of origin, officials still did not inform individuals that the asylum process could provide them with a remedy for their situation.Border authorities maintain that many foreigners do not have the notion of asylum, are very poor, uneducated, and consequently fall easily prey to traffickers from the former Soviet Union, who in turn cooperate with Romanian partners. The activity of these traffickers seems to be a major factor in bringing to Romania vulnerable persons, who are subsequently forced to hide and then live under precarious conditions. Naturally, some are apprehended by border authorities and end their trip in prison.

Local border and regional district police officers say foreigners and westward‑bound asylum‑seekers cross borders illegally at the green line, avoiding border crossing control points; the green line is controlled by the National Border Guards Authority, whose soldiers are generally young men on their obligatory military service. According to information received by APADOR-CH, more foreigners, asylum‑seekers and refugees cross the border illegally over the green line than at border crossing control points. Therefore, the role of the border guards is especially important in monitoring the treatment of foreigners who need to be protected from being “refouled”. Also, the rapid turnover of border guards results in a constant need for training of new draftees. For these reasons, the National Border Guards Authority is a primary candidate for legal and procedural training regarding asylum‑seekers and refugees, as is the Border Police and local police at critical border areas, such as Arad and Iasi.

The information collected by APADOR-CH points to Arad as the most critical area to which programs should be targeted for protecting refugees and asylum-seekers in Romania. Investigations of the cases of foreigners arrested, detained and convicted there should continue. Prisoners allege that Arad lawyers have taken hundreds of Deutsch Marks from them in exchange for promises of legal counsel, only to disappear and never be heard from again. Convicts serving prison terms in Arad also maintain they are detained without warrants, sentenced without trials and forced to go through legal proceedings without legal counsel. APADOR-CH representatives could not verify whether this information is true. One of the explanations for the low official figures of asylum-seekers could be that many foreigners, although aware of the availability of asylum procedures, decide not to apply in Romania because they have another final destination. Many want to apply for asylum in Western Europe. This leads to the idea that Romania is a “transit” country.

*

Although authorities have often shown themselves open for dialogue and cooperative towards APADOR-CH representatives, a few mentions should be made of the difficulties encountered during the preparation and unfolding of the mission:

•in order to solicit government information in Romania, APADOR-CH had to request permission in writing at the ministerial level in Bucharest for meetings and specific information sought; therefore, more time was devoted to gaining access instead of gaining information;

•lack of automation makes accessing court and other records difficult for officials; this contributed to logistical problems in gathering data, especially in courts;

• APADOR-CH was unable to speak with anyone at the Arad police station; the press service officer who would not consent to speak with APADOR-CH representatives, nor to fix any appointment, responded: “I don’t know who you are, what you want and it would take a long time to run a check on you. You must get approval from the Ministry of Interior.”

*

ROMANIAN REFUGEES TO OTHER COUNTRIES

During 1994, APADOR-CH continued to receive a large number of requests for information from foreign governmental and independent organizations and institutions, regarding cases of Romanian citizens seeking political asylum abroad and to Romanian legislation before and after 1989. This activity presupposed the carrying out of investigations and inquiries, drafting reports, etc.; substantive cooperation was established with Immigration and Refugee Board (based in Ottawa, Canada), Commission Permanente de Recours des Refugiés (Bruxelles), as well as other organizations from France, Switzerland, Norway, etc.

As far as the legislative aspects of this activity are concerned, it is worth mentioning that while inquiries about legislation adopted before 1989 concerned mostly the right to property, the issues that aroused the most interest in terms of current regulations were the criminalization of same sex relations, trade union freedom and activity, and alternate military service.

VI. OTHER ACTIVITIES

THE HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE

The information and documentation centre

In 1994, this section of the Human Rights Centre purchased a large number of human rights, comparative law, and international relations books and documents. The centre has been functioning not only as library, but also as a documentation centre, providing a continuous flow of information for both the internal needs of the association and beneficiaries outside it. When information from a certain field is not available in the already existing supply of documents, the centre identifies potential sources of information in the field and orders the necessary information or documents.

According to the needs it has to supply on a day-to-day basis, the centre functions as:

– documentation and information centre for experts, providing them with a large collection of books and periodicals, official documents of inter-governmental organizations, and the jurisprudence of international courts;

– data base on individual cases and actions taken to protect the victims of human rights violations; along this line, the centre continuously develops its collection of periodical and occasional reports on Romania and other countries, issued by APADOR-CH and other domestic and international governmental organizations and independent groups.

Thus, the centre provides:

– specific legal information and bibliographical references in support of the on-going projects and campaigns developed by APADOR-CH and other human rights groups;

– general and educations materials, information, data, bibliographical references for experts and interested persons.

The fields of interest or type of documentation contained in the collections developed by the centre vary function of the orientation of the activity of APADOR-CH and the requests of those who resort to the services of the centre.

A new theme section on international relations was established in 1994. The law section was enlarged due to the purchase of works on international and constitutional law. Likewise, in view of providing better assistance of asylum-seekers during the refugee status determination procedure, new contacts were established with governmental and non-governmental organizations publishing reports on the human rights record of various countries.

For a better management of the existing information, the centre has been developing computer data bases. The standard HURIDOCS (Human Rights Information and Documentation Systems) formats are employed for recording and cataloguing data, which facilitate exchanges of information between APADOR-CH and other organizations around the world. A data basis on all bibliographical materials (books, periodicals, documents, reports, etc.) already available in the centre has been completed. As of this writing, the data basis on human rights violations monitored by APADOR-CH is in progress.

The beneficiaries of information on human rights violations are APADOR-CH members, human rights organizations from Romania and abroad, asylum-seekers in Romania, and victims seeking assistance from the association.

Moreover, requests for books and bibliographical references also come from lawyers, law professors and students, who seek information on the jurisprudence of international tribunals and courts which can be invoked before the Romanian judiciary, on academic studies necessary in the preparation of theses, papers, lectures, and courses on human rights law.

Educational materials are usually sought by persons who, not having expertise in the field, look for basic information.

The number and categories of direct or indirect recipients of information springing from the centre, the types of requests (written, phone, personal, etc.), as well as the kinds of information sought are decisive factors for the development and structuring of the collection.

Round tables and surveys organized by the Human Rights Centre

As in 1993, human rights issues of utmost importance continued to be the focus of these activities developed by the Human Rights Centre in 1994. The round table on Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights benefitted from the participation of representatives of human rights groups and departments within important state agencies (General Prosecutor’s Office, Ministries of Interior and Foreign Affairs, the Romanian Academy, the Council for National Minorities, etc.). The debates focused on the concrete functioning mechanisms of these organizations or institutions, their effectiveness in terms of practical actions taken to protect human rights or change the mentality of state officials and agencies.

The survey on the Effects of the Ratification of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms upon the Romanian Domestic Law inquired into the positions of high Romanian dignitaries and prominent judges on the matter. Judges of the Constitutional Court, the Ministers of Justice and National Defense, the President of the Chamber of Deputies, etc., responded in support of the precedence of this document over the national legislation.

Both the round table and the survey were extensively presented in the Romanian Human Rights Review.

The Romanian Human Rights Review and its supplements

In 1994, the publication of the APADOR-CH quarterly continued, focusing on matters of domestic legislation and the compatibility thereof with the international human rights standards, on the presentation of individual human rights cases and their legal consequences (if any), as well as on the publication of the activities and positions of domestic and international human rights groups.

Two supplements to the Romanian Human Rights Review were published in 1994:

* The Conception of the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania upon the Rights of National Minorities,[19] an extensive analysis of the draft bill on national minorities proposed by the mentioned organization, of the conceptual formulations implied in the draft text and their compatibility with current international standards in the field; the supplement was published as a bi-lingual edition (Romanian and English), and distributed in 1,200 copies.

* Legislation in Transition is a supplement that resulted from the collaboration of APADOR-CH and the Netherlands Helsinki Committee; Romanian and Dutch experts analyze a number of chapters of the Romanian legislation from the standpoint of their compliance with international human rights instruments: constitutional law and the separation of state powers, independence of the judiciary, administrative review, human rights in labour law, Romanian criminal law, the rights of national minorities; the supplement was printed only in Romanian, in 1,200 copies.

*

* *

LEGAL ASSISTANCE

As in the previous years, the legal assistance program of APADOR-CH developed along two lines: legal counsel, on the one hand, and legal representation of human rights violations victims in court.

Free legal counsel

During 1994, starting from the successful experience from 1993, APADOR-CH continued to provide interested persons with free legal advice on a weekly basis, at the quarters of the association. The beneficiaries of this activity were individuals who, without necessarily being victims of human rights violations, have difficult legal problems and seek the advice of an attorney. The purpose of the consultations is to educate such citizens to fight for their rights themselves, as the association cannot provide representation for them. Thus, they were directed to resort to justice, to address specific authorities properly,etc., function of their situation. Some of the cases discovered during the unfolding of this program were referred to the legal assistance and representation program and benefitted from the support of APADOR-CH.

The total number of consultations given in 1994 was 274, of which 144 new cases. Function of the types of problems encountered, the cases fall into the following categories: civil, family, and labour law — 134 cases; criminal law — 15; political persecutions during the communist regime — 25; the rest dealt with issues of emigration, consequences of refusal to serve military service on religious grounds, etc.

Legal assistance provided in individual cases

STROESCU Nicolae

A victim of psychiatric abuse as political persecution during the communist regime, the plaintiff filed a request to be considered as such under Decree-Law 188/1990. His allegations and documents show that he was institutionalized a psychiatric patient in 1951-56, 1961, and 1973, and was arrested in 1948-1951, 1960-1961, as well as in 1962, following which he was placed under house confinement. The court decisions in his file show that he was convicted for political crimes, and there is evidence of searches conducted in his domicile by militia and “Securitate” forces, who confiscated from him manuscripts containing his position towards the communist regime.

The Stroescu case was adopted by APADOR-CH after the completion of a whole judicial cycle (including the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice), during the appeal to the second cycle (civil file 649/1994 of Civil Section 4 within the Bucharest Court of Appeal). The appeal was admitted and the challenged sentence repealed, the case being sent for re-examination to the first-trial court (registered as no.5584/1994 with Civil Section 4 of the Bucharest Tribunal). Upon the request of the plaintiff, the hearing for judging the transfer of the case is scheduled for January 20, 1995.

TRIFAN Ion[20]

Trifan sued the Romanian state, represented by the Ministry of Finance, claiming moral and material damages for the illegal arrest and inhuman treatments he had been subjected to between June 14-21, 1990. APADOR-CH adopted the case during the appeal to the decision of Civil Section 4 of the Bucharest Tribunal repealing his claims on the rationale that they were unfounded (civil file 534/1994 of Civil Section 3 with the Bucharest Court of Appeal). Although the appeal is a venue that allows for the revision of the facts of the case (i.e. the total re-administration of evidence), all evidence presented by the plaintiff was rejected, the only “rationale” being that they are immaterial and excessive to the case. The appeal was rejected as unfounded and was motivated in the same way as in the case of the first-trial court; specific human rights provisions were ignored, although they had been invoked throughout the appeal as a part of domestic law prevailing upon any conflicting national regulations. An appeal to be forwarded attached to the file of the case to the Civil Section of the Supreme Court of Justice was filed.

CARSTEA Rodica and GRECU Veronica

A labour conflict concerning the contestation filed by two journalists against a disciplinary dismissal order of the ROMPRES press agency, sanctioning the two for expressing their opinions against the management of the agency, according to their own allegations and to the evidence attached to the file. Freedom of expression, as protected by art.30 of the Romanian Constitution and art.10 of the European Convention, was thus violated. The case was adopted by APADOR-CH during the appeal phase of the second judicial cycle, after the first cycle had been completed (including the appeal to the Bucharest appellate court), being registered under civil file 7867/1994 with Civil Section 4 of the Bucharest Tribunal. The motivated appeal was filed, and a hearing was scheduled for January 18, 1995.

From the evidence attached to the file it turns out that no disciplinary investigation was conducted previous to the dismissals. Thus, the specific labour law provisions, the applicable constitutional provisions, as well as corresponding international human rights instruments which are part of the domestic law were violated. Likewise, it can be argued that the unfolding of the lawsuit, and especially the first-trial court and appeal proceedings, are in breach of art.6 of the European Convention.

GORBANESCU Adela

The plaintiff is involved in a labour litigation, contesting a transfer, change in job description, and disciplinary dismissal decided by the Bucharest Polytechnic Institute (currently Bucharest Polytechnic University); according to the plaintiff and to the evidence attached to the case, these measures sprung from the fact that in her capacity as trade union leader, she militated for the rights of the employees and for the sanctioning of those who had embezzled part of the assets of the institution (some of whom held management positions). The case was taken over at the first-trial phase (civil file 4808/1992 with the Civil Court of Sector 6). The two contestations filed were rejected as unfounded; an appeal was lodged and registered under no.6341/1993 with Civil Section 4 of the Bucharest Tribunal; the first hearing was scheduled for January 30, 1995.

Both the way in which the contested decisions were taken and the way in which the lawsuit has unfolded so far are in breach of human rights regulations, violating art.37 para.1 of the Romanian Constitution and art.6 and 11 of the European Convention.

G.S.

G.S. lodged a penal complaint against some of his relatives who, according to him, had involved his daughter (from the age of 3 until 6) in sexual practices which resulted in disturbance to the psychological development of the girl, as diagnosed by medical experts. G.S. complained of unjustified delays in the unfolding of the criminal investigations, as well as of interference of some of the persons named in his complaint with the proceedings of the investigations. Likewise, he directly accused the prosecutor in charge of the case of abusive conduct towards his wife (the step-mother of the child), including extortion of testimonies under duress.

Following the involvement of APADOR-CH, which suggested the transfer of the case to another investigator, the prosecutor in charge was changed. As of this writing, the file is with Section 1 of the Bucharest Police, who, apart from some testimonies of the authorities and of the girl, did not administer any other pieces of evidence, further procrastinating the investigations.

FOLLOW-UP MONITORING OF THE SITUATION

IN TIRASPOL

The situation of the convicts from the “Tiraspol Trial”

During 1993, when the trial of Ilie Ilascu, Andrei Ivantoc, Tudor Petrov-Popa, Alexandru Lesco, and Petru Godiac, APADOR-CH brought to the knowledge of international organizations the serious human rights violations related to the unfolding of the trial. The 5 did not benefit from a fair trial before an independent and impartial court, as requested by all international human rights documents. Likewise, APADOR-CH publicized the torture and inhuman and degrading treatments the defended had been subject to. Subsequent to their conviction (on December 9, 1993, Ilie Ilascu had been sentenced to death, while the other to between 2 and 15 years in prison), APADOR-CH representatives went on a mission to Tiraspol, in order to contact the 5 convicts and investigate their conditions of detention. A first brief visit took place on June 26-29, 1994, when 4 of the 5 convicts were still in prison, and APADOR-CH issued the following press release:

… The delegation of the Romanian Helsinki Committee faxed the de facto Tiraspol Ministry of Interior, asking for approval to visit the 4 convicts. Minister Fucidji rejected our request, motivating that the prison was under quarantine, and refused to have further discussions. The delegation, however, interviewed on of his deputies, Mr. Zaharov, who declared that the visit to the prison had not been approved because the Tiraspol authorities did not have the necessary time to make a decision, but in principle there was no difficulty in obtaining a positive decision. The Romanian Helsinki Committee was to be notified as to such a decision in the near future.

The Romanian Helsinki Committee delegation addressed the de facto Supreme Soviet in Tiraspol in order to find out the position of local authorities on the CSCE recommendation to re-open the trial in a neutral country, bringing it before an international tribunal. Mr.Victor Cebotari, the deputy of the head of the Foreign Policy Committee with the Tiraspol Supreme Soviet declared the local authorities were willing to accept that the trial be conducted by an international tribunal on condition that the proceedings take place on the territory of TransDniestria. Likewise, Mr.Cebotari mentioned that, according to a statement made by Mr.Grigore Maracuta, the president of the Tiraspol Supreme Soviet, in April [1994], the enforcement of the capital punishment in the case of Ilie Ilascu was out of the question…

As at the time Petru Godiac, one of the defendants, had served his term in prison and had already been released, APADOR-CH representatives interviewed him and gathered information on detention conditions: according to him, he had spent the last 6 months of his sentence in solitary confinement in a 1.5 m per 1.5 m cell, having a dim light on round the clock and being allowed to sit only between 0 a.m. and 5 a.m; he had been taken out to take air only 3 time during all this time, and had been beaten on several occasions, especially whenever he asked for medication; the food had been more than unsatisfactory. He consequently fell seriously ill, and subsequent to his release had to be placed in a hospital and undergo surgery.

Later, on November 22-23, 1994, APADOR-CH representatives came back to Tiraspol in order to visit the convicts. Although this time the approval to visit the convicts had been issued as early as June, the de facto Tiraspol authorities refused APADOR-CH access to the 4 prisoners, proving to be in breach of international human rights documents.

The situation of Romanian language education in Tiraspol

On the occasion of the November 22-23, 1994, mission to Tiraspol, APADOR-CH representatives gathered information on whether the Tiraspol authorities protect the right to Romanian language education. The conclusions of the mission were:

– during 1993, the Tiraspol Education Direction issued a program imposing the Cyrillic alphabet instead of the Latin one; a campaign was immediately started in order to intimidate teachers and faculty who would not comply with the order;

– as a consequence of this campaign, which resulted even in the dismissal of recalcitrant headmasters, School 20 in Tiraspol was on strike for 3 weeks, while the parents of students were interrogated on their option in terms of alphabet;

– despite the Moldovan nation-wide program for Latin alphabet education, Mr.Alexandru Caraman, the vice-president of TransDniestria’s Supreme Soviet, declared in August 1994, during the TransDniestrian primary schools teachers’ conference, that Romanian language schools in the region may function only as private institutions;

– a peaceful protest march of the Tiraspol School no.20 and Tighina School no.19 teachers, students, and parents was brutally ended by the Tiraspol militia forces;

– on the night of October 24/25, 1994, School no.20 from Tiraspol was attacked by a groups of 20-30 individuals claiming to be students in the “corporate university;” they immobilized and sequestered the watchman of the school, destroyed files and educational materials and equipment, stole the coupons and money deposited in the safe-box of the school, a few calculators, and 30 litres of gasoline; militia forces who came to the spot did not try to identify or arrest any of the assailants; the situation came back to normal within the next 24 hours;

– the campaign hostile to Romanian language and Latin alphabet education constantly intensified, even on television.

SEMINARS AND COURSES ORGANIZED BY

APADOR-CH

During 1994, APADOR-CH members participated in a number of freedom of expression, minority rights, parliamentary transparency, police abuse, legal assistance, etc. conferences and symposia, organized both in Romania and abroad by the Council of Europe, UN Human Rights Centre, International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, the Netherlands, Bulgarian, and Albanian Helsinki Committees, the European Studies Centre within the Institute for East-West Studies, the National Minorities Council, League Pro-Europe, Pro-Democracy Association, International Foundation for Electoral Systems, etc.. APADOR-CH representatives were asked to give presentations on specific themes in these seminars, due to their expertise in human rights.

*

Apart from this, APADOR-CH co-organized successful seminars and courses:

National Minorities Rights

This seminar was organized between March 21-23, 1994, in cooperation with the Humanitas Foundation and the Embassy of Sweden in Bucharest. UN experts, Romanian parliamentarians, members of the Government, representatives of political parties, non-governmental organizations, and foreign embassies, as well as judges participated in the seminar.

The protection of minorities in the international context was debated, with special reference to the UN and Council of Europe documents.

Likewise, concrete aspects of the situation of national minorities in Romania were debated, with special attention for the Hungarian and Roma minorities; the participants concluded that only official admission of the existence of problems in this respect can lead to solutions for these issues.

Human Rights and Democracy Advocacy

This course was organized within the Black Sea University Summer School series, between August 1-13, 1994. An APADOR-CH representative was involved in the theoretical preparation of the course, proposing themes for debate and conducting the course as such.

25 Romania, Albanian, and Danish law, sociology, politology, and journalism students, as well as members of independent human rights groups attended the course.

American professors and personalities of the civic and political life in Romania were invited to lecture.

The course included debates and moot trials,so that students could get actively involved in every single theme proposed for debate. A real interest was suscitated by the presentation of concrete issues from the activity of independent groups. Many students have maintained contacts with APADOR-CH, with perspectives for potential collaborations.

International Human Rights Protection and Domestic Legislation

The course was organized in cooperation with the Netherlands Helsinki Committee, and took place between October 31 and November 18, 1994, in the Peace Palace from the Hague.

The large majority of the 30 Romanian participants had legal training: attorneys, judges, prosecutors, members and expert staff of the two Chambers of the Romanian Parliament, independent human rights groups representatives.

Prestigious international human rights experts and professors from Dutch universities were invited to participate, their presentations being highly appreciated.

APADOR-CH representatives organized and conducted workshops linking theoretical aspects presented during the lectures to concrete issues of the Romanian legislation, thus allowing for a profound critical analysis thereof.

*

* *

The activity of APADOR-CH was sponsored during 1994 by:

* The German Marshall Fund of the United States

* The Dutch Government,

through the Netherlands Helsinki Committee

* Agir Ensemble pour les Droits de l’Homme (France)

* The UN High Commissioner for Refugees

* Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe (USA)

* The Flemish Government, through Vrije Universieit Law School at Brussels

The publication of this report was made possible by the financial support of the German Marshall Fund of the United States

[1] Throughout this report, quotations from Romanian statutes and official documents are based on unofficial translations, with the exception of the Romanian Constitution.

[2] The ratification instruments were completed in June 1994, after APADOR-CH distributed these commentaries.

[3] See Minorities in Romania.

[4] See Relationship Between the Police and Individuals.

[5] See Minorities in Romania.

[6] For details, see Aspects of the Evolution of Human Rights in Romania and the Reactions of APADOR-CH. 1993 Report.

[7] Throughout this report, the term “civilian” is understood as an antonym of “military”.

[8] See the fact-finding mission report under Refugees in Romania.

[9] The English term state security is used here to translate the Romanian securitate — i.e. secret (political) policing agency of the communist regime in Romania.

[10] The English term misdemeanour is employed throughout this report to translate the Romanian notion of contraven_ie, which is somewhere at the intersection of misdemeanour and petty offense.

[11] In such contexts, the term unrightful has been chosen to translate the Romanian f_r_ drept, whose meaning lies at the intersection of unauthorized, inappropriate and unmotivated.

[12] For further details on the inter-ethnic character of these conflicts, see Minorities in Romania.

[13] For details, see Aspects of the Evolution of Human Rights in Romania and the Reactions of APADOR-CH. 1993 Report.

[14] see G. Andreescu, V. Stan, R. Weber — Study on the Conception of the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania on the Rights of National Minorities, Bucharest: Centre for Human Rights, 1994.

[15] See 4.1. above

[16] APADOR-CH chose not to include the full names of the defendants in the case.

[17] For purposes of simplicity, furthermore referred to in this report as “Migration Committee.”

[18] See further the fact-finding report.

[19] See Minorities in Romania.

[20] Also see The Relationship Between Police and Individuals.