Tu știi ce drepturi ai?
O campanie de informare APADOR-CH și un sondaj de stradă printre români, despre drepturile omului și despre ce se mai știe din revendicările pentru care s-a ieșit în stradă în 1989.
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.
O campanie de informare APADOR-CH și un sondaj de stradă printre români, despre drepturile omului și despre ce se mai știe din revendicările pentru care s-a ieșit în stradă în 1989.
On March 4, 2014, Gabriel-Daniel Dumitrache, aka “Dinte” (Tooth), aged 26, living in district 3 in Bucharest without an official address, left the house he shared with his mother and many other family members around 7 p.m., on his way to work, in Unirii neighborhood. An ethnic gypsy, Daniel had no education and no job, but earned his living as a „parking boy” and an odd-job man. On the same night (March 4 to 5), several policemen showed up at his mother’s house and asked her for Daniels’s ID card. About 20 minutes after the policemen left with Daniel’s birth certificate, the police announced his family that he was dead.
The family accuses the police of having beaten him to death. According to official documents, the death occurred at No. 15 Stelea Spătaru Street, a former venue of Police Section 10, currently accommodating the Old Center Police Station. It also includes a room where suspects are brought in by Section 10 agents, as well as Section 10 garages. The death certificate noted that death was caused by acute anemia, massive hemoperitoneum and pathologic rupture of the spleen. The document was registered on 05.03.2014, mentioning that the death occurred on March 4, and leaving the time of death blank.
The representatives of APADOR-CH talked to Gabriel-Daniel Dumitrache’s family and neighbors, with the last persons to see him before he was led to the police station, with the chief of Police Station 10 and with the chief of the Old Center Police Station. They also analyzed the related press release issued by the General Direction of the Bucharest Metropolitan Police on March 7.
Gabriel-Daniel Dumitrache lived with his bed-confined mother in one room, in the semi-basement of a building in district 3, in an area with many derelict buildings crammed together, which made it impossible not to hear next door’s noises. According to his relatives, Daniel was about 1.75 m tall and had an athletic constitution. He was in good health, although he had been a drug user 6-7 years before, a habit that had sent him to jail for 1 year and 3 months. He had been treated for his addiction at the Rahova Penitentiary Hospital and was released in a very good state, which he had maintained. As an odd-job man he also helped moving furniture, for instance. Daniel’s mother, whom he nursed, said that the young man left home on March 4 around 7 p.m. in perfect health, heading for the parking lots around Unirii area. That night, at 1.10 a.m. (already on March 5, therefore), the woman heard knocking on her window and saw the glare of a searchlight. The knocking came from Section 10 policemen, who asked to have one of Daniel’s ID papers. When she asked them whether they were holding the boy, they allegedly answered that Daniel was retained, but not by them, rather by the Metropolitan Police. After about 10 minutes, during which a relative (Vasilica Marin, the mother’s sister-in-law) brought a file containing official papers, including Daniel’s birth certificate), the policemen took the document and left. According to members of the family and neighbors, about 20 policemen in 4 cars came for the ID paper.
Another 20 minutes later, three police cars returned and one policeman gave the birth certificate back to Vasilica Marin and told her Daniel was dead. “You’ll find him at the Forensic Institute, go and pick him up tomorrow at 10.00”. According to the woman, she started to cry in grief, so all neighbors came out from their homes and started to question the police. The men allegedly gave contradictory answers – that he had been hit by a car, that he had been held by the Metropolitan Police – then left. The family said that on the same night they inquired at the Metropolitan Police and the Traffic Police, and none of the institutions had information about any incident involving Daniel-Gabriel Dumitrache.
The next morning, on March 5, a first cousin, Dan Ionescu, and two other close family members went to the Forensic Institute between 10 and 11 a.m. to pick up the body. Dan Ionescu told the representatives of APADOR-CH that the body showed clear signs of violence: the right leg was allegedly broken under the knee, the jaw was bruised, the abdomen swollen and uncountable injuries: deeper or superficial, covered it. A friend of Daniels, who wanted to remain anonymous, said his experience as a funeral house worker allowed him to see for sure that the right leg was broken. Several members of the family who saw the body in the coffin said they saw the broken jaw and burned marks on his chests (as from electroshocks)
The family and friends of Gabriel-Daniel Dumitrache consider he was the victim of violence committed by a certain policeman (with the complicity of several others) from Section 10, whose name they did not know but who was nicknamed “Moldoveanu”. They say the man had hit and humiliated other gypsies, acquaintances of the family, on other occasions, at the same venue in Stelea Spătaru Street.
The family believes that Daniel was already dead when the police came to ask for his birth certificate. To confirm this supposition, the day of his death mentioned in the death certificate was March 4, while the police arrived at the house after midnight, therefore on March 5.
Parking boys are men who indicate available street parking spaces to drivers, in exchange for a tip. They know each other, they “do the parking” in established places, avoiding to overlap each other’s territory. Some of them are gypsies, some are or were drug-users, many have no ID papers, some are homeless. The only thing they all have in common is extreme poverty.
The representatives of the Association talked to five “parking boys” who worked in Unirii and Decebal areas. They all knew that “Dinte” (Daniel’s alias) was dead and were convinced he had been killed by a blond cop nicknamed “Moldoveanu”. They said they were also beaten by the same cop. One of them, “Chelie” (Baldie), said he had met “Dinte” (Daniel) on the evening of March 4, around 7 p.m., in the Careffour Unirea parking lot, and that Daniel had left around 9 p.m., telling him he was going to Decebal Boulevard to meet “Căpățână” (Bighead).
“Căpățână” – Cristian Tudor – confirmed that Daniel arrived on Decebal Boulevard around 9 p.m. but left soon afterwards to buy some sandwiches. While Dumitrache was away, a police car with a crew of two stopped by and fined him. The same car came back after Daniel returned from his shopping. The two policemen put Daniel in their car and left. According to Cristian Tudor, this happened between 10.30 and 11 p.m. at 17 Decebal Boulevard (an area with many cafes and restaurants). Tudor said he asked the police why they were taking Daniel and they allegedly answered “Shut up, or we’ll take you, too!”
The representatives of APADOR-CH wanted to find out some matters of procedure that could clarify the circumstances of Gabriel-Daniel Dumitrache’s death while in custody of Section 10 policemen.
More precisely, the chief was asked whether Section 10 kept a record of persons led to the police station (an administrative measure), as required by police internal procedures, and whether a minute for contravention was signed or any other papers indicating why and for how long the person in question was deprived of freedom. The chief refused to answer any of the questions, although, obviously, they would not have impeded in any way upon a pending investigation. He asked that the questions should be sent to him in writing.
The only information he provided was that that a suspicious death case was opened, that the Internal Control Direction of the General Police Inspectorate was notified and that there was no video surveillance system at the Stelea Spătaru Street venue. The chief also said that many of the statements made by the family and friends of the deceased were false.
The representatives of APADOR-CH also visited the Old Center Police Station (in whose courtyard the incidents leading to Daniel’s death took place and where the garages and a hall used by Section 10 policemen were situated) and talked to the chief. He said that Section 10 still had a training room, the policemen’s locker rooms in the semi-basement and the garages at the same address, but that the activity of the two sections did not overlap.
The chief said that Section 10 agents used the training room from the Old Center Police Station when they enforced the administrative measure of leading persons to the police station, but that he could not provide details of their activity, because they were a separate unit.
APADOR-CH considers that information in the press release[2] issued by the General Direction of the Bucharest Metropolitan Police regarding the death of Gabriel-Daniel Dumitrache is insufficient and tardy. The press release was issued on March 7, 2014, after 6 p.m., three days after the death, and made no mention of the time of death. This is all the more suspicious as this particular item of information was also missing from the death certificate.
Conclusions:
Maria-Nicoleta Andreescu
Dollores Benezic
Adelina Boboșatu
March 12, 2014
[1] Special thanks to Marian Ursan, chairman of Carusel – www.carusel.org and also to activists from other organizations: www.rhrn.org, https://www.facebook.com/badd.org , http://www.senspozitiv.ro/, for their support in preparing this section of the report.
APADOR-CH protests the decision taken by the Constitutional Court on February 5, 2014, with a majority of votes, regarding the Law for the amendment of Government Ordinance no. 26/2000 on associations and foundations. The Association considers that such a decision can only be explained by the politicized structure of the Court.
The surprising decision by the Constitutional Court allows for the arbitrary dissolution of associations and foundations which were legally created, by court judgment, some of them many years ago, but which bear a name that no longer pleases the current Parliament.
Following this decision, one question arises: how can associations and foundations continue their activity, attract new members, apply for funding and develop as organizations if they have no assurance that they will continue to exist. Now they can be dissolved at any moment, for reasons related to their process of creation (their name), although a court of law has irrevocably decided that their creation, including the name, was in full compliance with the law.
APADOR-CH considers that a such a decision, taken with a majority of votes and prone to seriously threaten the activity of non-governmental organizations, can only be explained by the politicized structure of the Constitutional Court . According to the current Constitution, the Court is not made up only of judges, but also of legal experts named by the various political parties or with political connections. For that reason, it is reasonable to suppose that the relation/conflict between the various political forces who named members of the Court could prevent a strictly technical and impartial analysis of legal matters raised by the constitutional challenge.
We must remind that during 2013, in its motivated proposals for the review of the Constitution (as submitted to the Constitutional Forum and the special parliamentary committee), APADOR-CH constantly maintained that the Constitutional Court needed to be reformed by creating a distinct section, made up exclusively of judges, to solve constitutional challenges – since they refer to matters which are strictly legal, not political.
Other matters regarding the applicability of the Constitution have a mainly political nature and can be solved by a different section, which could be made up of legal experts named by the various political entities.
The proposals submitted by APADOR-CH on the review of the Constitution, including a reform of the Constitutional Court , may be found here .
APADOR-CH asks the Government to use the solution of an emergency ordinance, as it has often done before, in much less critical situations, in order to abrogate Article II of the Law for the amendment of Government Ordinance no. 26/2000 on associations and foundations – the article stipulating the arbitrary dissolution of non-governmental organizations.
Maria-Nicoleta Andreescu
APADOR-CH executive director
0733.078.721
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.
Către Oficiului Național pentru Jocuri de Noroc
Calea Victoriei nr. 9, sectorul 3, București
4 februarie 2014
Stimată doamnă președinte Cristinela Odeta Nestor,
Organizațiile semnatare vă atrag atenția asupra încălcării drepturilor omului prin cenzurarea accesului la Internet de către furnizorii de servicii de acces la Internet (ISP).
Subliniem că orice măsuri de blocare a unor site-uri web prin intermediul furnizorului de servicii Internet, în afara unui act de justiție, constituie o măsură de cenzură a conținutului media online , măsură ce ridică probleme serioase în ceea ce privește respectarea drepturilor omului și în special a dreptului la liberă exprimare.
Vă aducem la cunoștință că au existat și există numeroase discuții atât în România, cât și la nivelul UE, în ceea ce privește blocarea site-urilor web prin ISP pentru diverse tipuri de conținut ilegal (ex. pornografie infantilă, distribuire produse etno-botanice) sau dăunător (ex. pornografie adultă, încălcarea drepturilor de autor – tratatul ACTA), iar organizațiile semnatare au explicat în nenumărate rânduri 1 nu doar ilegalitatea unui astfel de act, ci și inutilitatea din punct de vedere tehnic.
Avem în vedere în special articolul 7 litera c) din Hotărârea nr. 298 din 29 mai 2013 privind organizarea și funcționarea Oficiului Național pentru Jocuri de Noroc ce prevede monitorizarea și supravegherea jocurilor de noroc cu ajutorul furnizorilor de internet și articolul 26 ce introduce articolul 73 3 din Hotărârea nr. 823 din 10 august 2011 privind modificarea și completarea Hotărârii Guvernului nr. 870/2009 pentru aprobarea Normelor metodologice de aplicare a Ordonanței de urgență a Guvernului nr. 77/2009 privind organizarea și exploatarea jocurilor de noroc, dar și o nouă Ordonanța de care dumneavoastră ați vorbit în mass-media.
Astfel de măsuri de blocare prin ISP reprezintă în fapt măsuri de cenzură a accesului la un site web, care este unanim recunoscut ca un mijloc de comunicare în masă, ceea ce ar contraveni Constituției României Art.30 alin (2) Cenzura de orice fel este int erzisă și alin (4) Nici o publicație nu poate fi suprimată.
Considerăm că astfel de măsuri de blocare afectează negativ sectorul serviciilor de comunicații electronice (Internet) și pot duce pe scară largă la foarte multe probleme tehnice, inclusiv la încetinirea întregii rețele și funcționarea greșită sau cu un randament foarte redus. Sunt deja documentate cazuri la nivel mondial în care, în funcție de metoda tehnică folosită, blocarea a dus la imposibilitatea accesului la site-uri 100% legale, dar găzduite pe același IP sau la blocarea unui site întreg (de ex. Wikipedia sau Instagram) pentru un singur conținut discutabil.
Aceste aspecte sunt cu atât mai importante cu cât se dorește nu numai crearea unei liste negre cu societăți neautorizate care va fi transmisă furnizorilor de Internet, dar și identificarea website-urilor care în cadrul unor activități de marketing, reclamă, publicitate sau alte activități cu caracter promoțional, oferă legături către jocurile de noroc. Atenționăm asupra arbitrarului acestei prevederi și semnalăm faptul că ridică numeroase probleme de interpretare. 2 Observăm în același timp că nu se menționează dacă aceste companii se adresează consumatorilor români sau străini, aspect ce pune anumite probleme legate de jurisdicția aplicabilă site-urilor blocate. Nu există nicio procedură de rezolvare a erorilor legate de un site sau altul.
În același timp reamintim obligația statelor membre ale Uniunii Europene în ceea ce privește faptul că accesul la Internet nu poate fi blocat sau limitat în mod abuziv, prevedere susținută în pachetul de directive în domeniul comunicațiilor electronice 3.
În același timp, măsura de blocare a unor site-uri este total ineficientă deoarece există o multitudine de modalități prin care utilizatorul sau deținătorul unui site poate evita cenzura prin ISP. De exemplu: utilizarea adresei IP în loc de domeniu, schimbarea manuală a DNS-urilor, utilizarea de servicii de tip proxy sau VPN, utilizarea de software specializate de anonimizare – gen Tor – ca o foarte scurtă listă cu metode posibile de evitare a măsurii blocării unui site. Toate măsurile de mai sus pot fi găsite și implementate la o banală căutare cu orice motor de căutare, fiind disponibile în mod liber.
Având în vedere implicațiile negative grave pe care le au astfel de măsuri pentru drepturile omului și mediul online per ansamblu, vă solicităm să modificați hotărârile de guvern mai sus menționate în sensul anulării prevederilor care fac posibilă cenzura și să implementați metode alternative care să ia în considerare realitățile Internetului de astăzi.
De asemenea, vă atragem atenția că adoptarea unei ordonanțe sau ordonanțe de urgență care ar impune blocarea site-urilor web este neconstituțională din punct de vedere formal, întrucât se încalcă dispozițiile art. 115 alin. 1 și 6 din Constituție, potrivit cărora nu pot fi emise nici ordonanțe simple și nici ordonanțe de urgență prin care sunt afectate drepturile și libertățile prevăzute de Constituție. Or, dreptul la libertate de exprimare, dar și dreptul la viață privată care poate fi afectat, sunt prevăzute în Constituție și măsurile propuse de dvs. afectează grav acest drepturi, prevăzute atât în Constituție, cât și în Convenția Europeană a Drepturilor Omului sau Carta Drepturilor Omului a UE (parte din Tratatul de la Lisabona).
Toate aceste aspecte care pot afecta libertatea de a accesa Internetul trebuie discutate public și nu decise de o manieră discreționară de o autoritate sau alta. Nu putem să nu observăm faptul că proiectul de ordonanță este disponibil spre o „așa zisă consultare publică” pe un site necunoscut opiniei publice largi 4, care nu este indexat în vreun motor de căutare, fără o dată a publicării și fără nicio informare pe site-ul principal al Guvernului.
Astfel în conformitate cu Art 6 alin (7) din legea nr. 52/2003 privind transparența decizională în administrația publică vă cerem organizarea unui întâlniri în care să se dezbată proiectul de act normativ și care să fie anunțată public nu doar prin Oficiu, ci și prin site-ul oficial al Guvernului României.
În concluzie subliniem faptul că măsurile în vigoare nu sunt deloc proporționale și că există o serie de alte metode de a combate funcționarea ilicită a societăților de pariuri sportive sau jocuri de noroc. Totodată aducem în atenție importanța păstrării valorilor democratice și necesitatea de a nu se interveni la nivel statal în buna funcționare a Internetului printr-o măsură de cenzură ce contravine bunelor practici și reglementărilor europene, în speță art. 1 alineatul (3 a ) din Directiva 2002/21/CE care prevede obligația statelor membre ca accesul la Internet să nu poată fi blocat sau limitat în mod abuziv.
Cu consideraţie,
ActiveWatch www.activewatch.ro
Asociaţia pentru Apărarea Drepturilor Omului in Romania – Comitetul Helsinki (APADOR – CH) www.apador.org
Asociația pentru Tehnologie și Internet (ApTI) www.apti.ro
Centrul pentru Jurnalism Independent – CJI www.cji.ro
Centrul Român pentru Jurnalism de Investigații- CRJI – www.crji.org
Fundația Ceata – www.ceata.org
1Vezi de exemplu Comunicat de Presa 21 Iulie 2011 – Comunicat de presă: Blocarea unui site de Internet prin ISP este o măsură de cenzură – http://apti.ro/Blocarea-unui-site-de-Internet-prin-ISP-este-o-masura-de-cenzura
2 O pagină de Facebook este o pagina web? Un videoclip pe Youtube.com este promovare? Dar pe Trilulilu.ro? Dacă Google.ro arata rezultate care promovează site-uri de pariuri neautorizate va fi blocat? Dar Google.com? Dar Okidoki.ro? Un link către un torrent poate blocat? etc.
3Directiva 2002/21/CE privind un cadru de reglementare comun pentru rețelele și serviciile de comunicații electronice, Directiva 2002/19/CE privind accesul la rețelele de comunicații electronice și la infrastructura asociată, precum și interconectarea acestora, Directiva 2002/20/CE privind autorizarea rețelelor și serviciilor de comunicații electronice, așa cum au fost modificate de Directiva 2009/140/CE.
4 Proiectul este la http://www.onjn.gov.ro/relatii_pubilce/anunuri/transparen-decizional dar nu și în zona de proiecte de acte normative.
The draft ordinance, prepared by the Ministry of Justice in a rush at the end of last week, under the pressure of the civil society, proves that with the amendments to the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code should not be prepared hurriedly, because they risk to throw the whole justice process into chaos and do more harm than good in fixing what was broken by the coming into effect of the new codes on February 1 st .
APADOR-CH points out that this draft ordinance contains serious errors, like allowing some crimes to be investigated before they are committed or phone/home surveillance for people who have committed no crime but are suspected they will, in an unforeseen future.
APADOR-CH maintains that the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code must not be made in a rushed, improvised way, but through parliamentary procedures, in order to enable a correct wording of the new provisions and their correlation to the other provisions of the codes.
Comments by APADOR-CH on the draft emergency ordinance to amend the new criminal codes
1. As a general remark , APADOR-CH considers that an emergency ordinance should not be in the situation of regulating, even partially, the surveillance regime, because surveillance (interception of phones, mail, SMS, other communication and personal surveillance in public spaces or at home, etc) infringes upon a constitutional right, the right to personal, family and private life, guaranteed by Article 26 of the Constitution.
Thus, the only direct consequence of amending Article 305, par. 1 of the new Criminal Procedure Code, as proposed by article 3 (5) of the draft ordinance, is that persons who have committed no crime but are suspected they might commit one in an uncertain future will be included among those susceptible of being placed under surveillance.
Article 115, par. 6 of the Constitution expressly forbids the issuing of emergency ordinances that infringe upon constitutional rights and freedoms. Or, the effect of the proposed emergency ordinance – expanding the category of persons who can be placed under surveillance by including, alongside people who have allegedly committed a crime, persons who may commit a crime at some point in the future – represents an infringement upon the right to personal, family and private life.
That is why the Association considers that, in order to observe the constitutional path, it is necessary that any amendment to that effect should be made not through an Emergency Ordinance of the Government, but by law. The current draft ordinance should therefore be replaced by a draft bill .
*
2. As concerns Article 3 (5) of the draft ordinance, modifying Article 305, par. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code , it allows the launch of a criminal investigation prior to the crime, therefore while a crime is under preparation.
The only explanation and consequence of such an amendment, as reflected, among others, by the intense public debate taking place these days, is that since surveillance can now only be decided after an investigation is officially opened, the tendency is to expand the possibilities to open an investigation up to exaggerated and inadmissible limits .
Thus, from the normal situation, when an investigation is launched after someone had committed a crime (or attempted to commit one), we have come to a provision that allows the launch of a criminal investigation before any crime is committed.
APADOR-CH states that, logically, a criminal investigation is not possible for an inexistent/uncommitted crime – a crime that has not been attempted or commenced, but is just a plan – and therefore is not sanctioned by the existing criminal legislation.
This basis for launching such a criminal investigation even contravenes to Article 285, par. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides that a criminal investigation is aimed at collecting evidence to prove the existence of a crime, of a deed already committed, not to prove the eventuality of a crime tbeing committed in an uncertain future.
If the lawmaker considers that some aspects in planning a crime pose a special social threat, the legal solution is to incriminate the acts as such, therefore to include them in the Criminal Code as distinct crimes.
Currently, the Criminal Code includes such incriminations. For instance, Article 412 par. 2 of the new Criminal Code lists as a distinct crime any preparatory act (procurement or production of means or instruments, taking organizing or planning steps etc) in view of committing crimes such as:
– treason
– attack against a community
– attack that endangers national security
– acts of diversion
– hostile actions against the state etc.
That is why, the Association considers it unnecessary to maintain a wording like ” preparing a crime ”, which is extremely vague, in the Criminal Procedure Code. The acts of preparation considered by lawmakers to be dangerous have already been covered by being listed as distinct crimes in the Criminal Code. Similar observations have been submitted by the Association as early as 2009, when it issued comments on the then draft Criminal Procedure Code.
It means that a person needs not to be placed under surveillance solely based on the generic ground that he/she allegedly prepared to commit a crime; the surveillance may be launched after the suspect has actually committed a crime, in the form of various acts of preparation that are clearly sanctioned by the law.
The Association points out that, although the prosecutor plays an important role in the criminal investigation (when surveillance takes place), the regulations in the criminal codes must not follow entirely the wish of the prosecutor’s office, but must harmonize the prosecutors’ requests regarding the extended use of surveillance techniques with the guarantee of civil rights, among which the right to personal, family and private life.
Maria-Nicoleta Andreescu
executive director APADOR-CH
0733.078.721
APADOR-CH
Str. Nicolae Tonitza 8A
Sector 3 – Bucuresti
030113 Romania
Telefon: (40) 0733.078.720
e-mail: office@apador.org
Utilizarea și distribuirea informațiilor de pe acest site sunt libere, cu citarea sursei.