human rights – APADOR-CH

Posts

APADOR-CH report 2018

19/02/2019/in Anuale /by Rasista

Human Rights in Romania 2018

After a 2017 marked by political turmoil and street protests, 2018 started with a governmental crisis – the 2^nd in only six months’ time – and continued to deepen the lack of trust in society. Not only between the competing political parties, but also in the citizen’s mentality, who became more doubtful and disoriented after the recent years filled with socio-political upheaval, deceptions and disappointments. An INSCOP survey made in the autumn of 2018 shows that 74% of the Romanians believed the country was heading towards a wrong direction.

The second government of the governing coalition, installed in the first month of 2018, remained unchanged over the course of the entire year. Nonetheless, the social stability of the country was still absent, having been shaken by two major street protests, contradictory statements, the dismissal of several key people from the justice system, everything under the close supervision of the European Union.

The Judiciary has caught the public discourse and attention again in 2018, overshadowing other topics that influence the everyday life, which in turn have been affected by last-minute decisions, having lacked the appropriate debates between the power, the opposition and society. The Parliament and the Government continued to work in order to change the basic legislation of the judiciary system. The following issues have been on the agenda:

Changing leadership in important prosecutors’ offices – the most infamous having been the chief prosecutor of NAD (The National Anticorruption Directorate);
Elaborating a normative act which would allow for the review of sentences issued on the basis of intelligence services interceptions;
The operationalisation of the section for investigating justice offences;
new random draws for the 5 judges panels of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ), panels which, when it comes to criminal matters, judge (ultimately) the people with the most important public functions; MPs, ministers, etc.

The latter was based on the Constitutional Court’s (CCR’s) decision number 685/2018 which determined that the ICCJ panels of 5 judges established between 2014-2018 were illegally created and also lacked impartiality and independence. As a result, CCR declared that all papers drafted by the panels, including court orders through which the criminal files have reached a conclusion, are invalid. As a consequence of CCR’s decision, multiple prison sentences have been suspended, allowing the inmates to be free. After a retrial, the individuals can be either released or convicted (including prison time).

CCR’s decision created strong disagreements within society, especially since according to current provisions ofthe Criminal Procedure Code (CPP), only certain individuals judged by the panels of 5 – which have been declared illegally constituted and lacking impartiality – can challenge the null decisions. This is because the Criminal Procedure Code stipulates a very short term for challenging such decisions, a term which had already expired in the majority of casefiles (solved between 2014-2018) to challenging such decisions, time limit which already expired in most files (which reached a settlement between 2014-2018) by the time the Constitutional Court declared the unlawful character of the 5 judge panels.

There have been voices in the public space which claimed that the decision regarding the illegal composition of the panel of 5 judges should be maintained, even if it is hit by absolute nullity, as there is the risk of applying the prescription of criminal liability for that person if a retrial occurs, resulting in “freedom” for the above-mentioned individual. These opinions are debatable, since the prescription of criminal liability is a legal benefit and it is a consequence of culpable conduct of the state’s agents (not of the person sent to court) – who could not finalize a trial, in the conditions of the law and within the maximum period fixed by the law. By the end of 2018, there was no legislative solution for this problem.

In the Parliament, the parliamentary majority has been consistently modifying the Criminal Codes, despite receiving warnings both from the judicial system and from various surveillance European supervision mechanisms. Close to the end of the year, over one hundred modified articles have been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, while the Venice and European Commission have recommended a return to the pre-2017 legislation.

In December 2018, the Social Democratic Party has insistently demanded for both Penal Codes to be adopted by the Government through an emergency Ordinance and for the adoption of the infamous government ordinance on amnesty and pardon which continued to be a hot topic on the publics’ agenda in 2018 and will most likely continue in 2019, as long as over the winter holidays the Government did not issue any of the controversial ordinances.

Two major protests took place on 20^th January and 10^th August 2018, the latter resulting in the use of force by the authorities which ultimately triggered a series of criminal investigations and resulted in a Resolution of the European Parliament which addresses the way Romania respects fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression, the right to peaceful protests, etc.

In terms of street protests, 2018 has been marked by a controversial decision of the High Court of Cassation and JusticeJ. The panelassigned to solve the appeal in the interest of the law (RIL) decided, through decision number 19/2018, that there is an obligation to declare in advance (‘prior notification’) any assembly, each time it is going to going to manifest itself in squares or in public places (public road, roadways and pavements) or in any other outdoor setting which is situated in close proximity to the headquarters/residence of legal entities of public or private interest. Therefore, any public gathering will have to be declared in advance. The supreme court’s decision remained definitive and mandatory starting with 13^th December 2018 (when it was published in the Official Gazette) and will have to be respected by all courts when solving cases in relation to public assembly gatherings. APADOR-CH published a perspective regarding the regime that should be applicable for the spontaneous public gatherings (‘spontaneous rally’), given that there is no such regulation provided by the law.

Another reason for major dissensions in society, at least at the level of public debates, was the referendum for modifying the Constitution and redefinition of marriage. Although it involved significant actors from society, was supported and promoted by important parties, by the Orthodox Church and by other known cults, the referendum recorded only 21,2% turnout, a new low since ’89.

It still is to be seen whether all these issues, which have characterised 2018 will be reflected in the electoral ballots in 2019 (Euro parliamentary and presidential elections) and in their outcomes. A higher turnout – compared to the 40% registered at the last elections in 2016 – would be the real achievement of these years, during which people should have understood that active citizenship requires voting turnouts, but also monitoring the chosen politicians. Doing only one would bring frustrations both to the people who voted, as well as to those who chose not to vote.

Therefore, similarly to the 2017’s conclusion, the loss of this year is that given the civic activation doubled by a tremendous flow of information, a general state of confusion appeared within society. Caused by the special nature, hardly accessible by the masses, of the legal, technical data spread in the public space, but endorsed by fake news, misinformation campaigns, manipulation and propaganda, the general state of confusion is harmful even for the civic spirit and demobilised a big part of the population. As a result, the Romanian society finds itself more and more radicalised, with moderate opinions and factual information being often rejected or overlooked by all the actors involved.

In its activism for civil rights, APADOR-CH has advocated again this year for organising public debates regarding any amendments to the legislation, has elaborated proposals for the improvement of the Criminal Codes and has been involved in the prevention campaign against those measures which aimed to limit limit the right to free association and abusive control of the NGOs, and on an European level has been part of civic coalitions that aimed to stop the Copyright directive.

In 2018 there have been at least 3 attempts to adopt certain regulations that would substantially affect (in a negative way) the normal functioning of NGOs:

Under the pretext of applying the national Directive against money laundering, a new law was adopted, which stipulates that all NGOs have the obligation to declare/report to the authorities any ‘real beneficiaries’, hence, nominal lists containing the personal data of every individual who benefits – in any form – from the activity of an NGO. It is worth mentioning that, in the European directive that needs to be applied, the obligation to declare real beneficiaries lies with the banks and financial institutions, not with NGOs. The law has been declared unconstitutional, but only due to a minor reason (the wrongful exclusion of national minorities’ organisations from the reporting obligation), not on the basis that it improperly adds to the European Directive. On that account, it is highly possible that in 2019, after the minor correction required by the Constitutional Court, this law will be adopted, thus, affecting the smooth running of any NGO.
Under the pretext of transparent funding of the NGOs (objective which, in its core, is appropriate), the majority party has initiated in 2017 a draft law which contained disproportionate obligations and sanctions for the NGOs, in relation to reporting each funding and grant maker , no matter how small the sum was. The mandatory activity would have required such a great level of involvement, that each NGO would have needed to allocate one person (out of the already small staff) to conduct financial reports only. Additionally, the stipulated sanctions for non-reporting and even late reporting were heavily disproportionate, ultimately leading to the decomposition of the organisation. This draft law was passed tacitly in the Senate. Until it was debated into the decisional chamber (Chamber of Deputies), the draft law was examined by the Venice Commission and OSCE which, in a shared opinion, have brought numerus critics. At the end of the year, the draft law was ‘pending’ in the Chamber of Deputies since it did not constitute a priority. However, it can be brought into debate at any given time, and even adopted.
Under the pretext of caring about the spending of public money, a new initiative was promoted at governmental level (Ministry of Finance): establishing regular inspections in NGOs in order to check how funds (from sponsorship and from redirecting the 2% from the annual income tax) are being spent. This step has been materialised through Ordinance number 18/2018 regarding the regulation of several measures in the economic-financial inspection field carried by the Ministry of Public Finance and for the completion of particular normative acts. Although there have been various complaints from the authorities regarding the insufficient personnel in the economic-financial inspection bodies, the governors have decided to continue redirecting the staff’s activity towards scrutinising the NGOs, instead of focusing on the relevant economic-financial entities.

At the beginning of September 2018, APADOR-CH has asked the Ombudsman to raise a constitutionality question to the Constitutional concerning the nature of Court Ordinance number 18/2018, since it endangers the good functioning of the NGOs and, implicitly, affects the freedom of association. The Ombudsman’s reply was that notifying the Constitutional Court is not required. Nevertheless, through the same answer, the Ombudsman has made a few essential remarks regarding the necessity of retroactive non-application of the civil law (namely of the Ordinance number 18/2018).

The only reasonable explanation for the series of anti-NGO measures that have been initiated by the Government in 2018 is that, at the level of the majority coalition, there was a desire to burden the activity of the non-governmental sector, mainly for the purpose of decreasing the reaction capacity (which, in many cases, was rather critical).

At an organisational level, APADOR-CH continued to pursue its ongoing projects, has ran multiannual projects in partnership with other European organisations and has pursued activities such as legal advice and representing strategic cases before the European Court of Human Rights.

Read APADOR-CH’s extensive activity report in 2018.

Georgiana Gheorghe

Executive Director of APADOR-CH

APADOR-CH Annual report 2011

24/02/2011/in Anuale /by Rasista

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

Annual Report

1 January 2011 – 31 December 2011

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

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

Reacting to human rights threats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objective #4: Increasing transparency of administration

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

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

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

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

Objective #5: Improving reasoning and transparency of judicial decisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objective #7: Reacting to human rights threats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other reactions to human rights threats included the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annual report – 2010

06/03/2010/in Anuale /by Rasista

In 2010, APADOR-CH’s activity was aimed at contributing to the organization’s overall objective, which is for the organization to successfully carry out its mission to raise the level of awareness on, and respect of human rights and the rule of law. In this respect, APADOR-CH followed to meet a number of seven specific objectives:

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

Reacting to human rights threats

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

In the first half of 2010, APADOR-CH continued to monitor the debates on the new Criminal Code and the new Criminal Procedure Code in the Parliament. APADOR-CH was in constant dialogue with both the members of the parliamentary commission and the staff, and was weekly updated on the decisions of the commission. As a result, almost all amendments proposed by APADOR-CH were adopted.

APADOR-CH continued to issue newsletters regarding cases decided by the ECHR in which APADOR-CH was involved, explaining the way the judgements affect the legal order. One such newsletters was issued in June 2010, regarding the case Ciupercescu v. Romania on freedom of expression (15 June 2010). It was distributed to the media and posted on APADOR-CH’s web-page.

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

In the first half of 2010, two volunteers were involved, on a regular basis, for more than three months, in APADOR-CH activity: Alexandra Savencu (student in European Studies), and Bogdan Carpan (lawyer). They were involved in ECHR cases, answering letters from individuals addressing APADOR-CH, organizing events and administrative matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the first half of 2010, APADOR-CH continued to implement the project started on 1 May 2009 and aimed at strengthening the capacity of social service NGOs working with disadvantaged groups to defend the rights of their beneficiaries, including in the field of anti-discrimination. A conference was organized on 23 April 2010. Participants from NGOs and attorneys at law were invited as well as representatives of Bar associations. The aim of the conference was to disseminate the information regarding the legal network of attorneys trained during the project in the field of anti-discrimination and human rights as well as to encourage the victims of discrimination to take legal action, and seek remedy for the violation of their rights.

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

In respect of the project aimed at transferring APADOR-CH’s experience on advocacy to ARAS, the lead Romanian NGO in providing assistance to individuals infected with HIV/AIDS, during the reporting period APADOR-CH organized a training on advocacy with leader of 9 ARAS branches. Following the training a general advocacy plan was developed and then adapted by the 9 branches. In the second half of 2010, the ARAS branches shall each implement a locally tailored advocacy campaign.

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

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

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

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

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

In the first semester of 2010 APADOR-CH participated in the working group set up by the Ministry of Justice in order to identify the best solutions for implementing the OPCAT in Romania.

In the second semester of 2010 APADOR-CH continued to participate in the working group set up by the Ministry of Justice in order to identify the best solutions for implementing the OPCAT in Romania. The major success of the APADOR-CH representatives was to convince the international experts of the project that the Romanian Ombudsman is not the proper institution to take over the responsibilities of the national protective mechanism. Therefore their final report issued by the Ministry of Justice in the fall of 2010 does not clearly point out to this solution, although that was the initial intention.

In the fall of 2010, APADOR-CH drafted a project proposal on the inclusion of the OPCAT definition of deprivation of liberty in the internal legal order. The project proposal was short listed by the CEE Trust. If funded the project shall be implemented in 2011. If no funding is secured for the project, APADOR-CH shall implement those activities that do not require extensive additional funding.

Objective 4: Increasing transparency of administration

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

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

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

Objective 5: Improving reasoning and transparency of judicial decisions

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

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

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

APADOR-CH started to implement a project on identifying and removing legal and practical obstacles in exercising the freedom of associations via NGOs in November 2009. In the first half of 2010, APADOR-CH collected data on such obstacles via legal analysis and requests for information. A guide for interviewing NGOs was also designed and shall be use in collecting further data on the exact problems NGOs are facing.

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

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

The amendments to be discussed by the Parliament regard: easing the requirements for NGOs under the Law on Money Laundering and the Law on Personal Data, eliminating the written form of the contract with volunteers, eliminating the Executive’s interference with the names that can be used by NGOs, clarifying the possibility to receive small amounts of money as donations under the new Civil Code, including/increasing fiscal deductions for those donating money/concluding sponsorship contracts with NGOs.

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

According to its decision to expand its activities (in line with its strategic objectives) in the neighboring countries, in June 2010 APADOR-CH started to implement a project in partnership with CREDO Moldova. The project is aimed at improving the exercise of the freedom of assembly in Moldova, by reforming the relevant structures of the Chisinau City-Hall, as well as the Police procedures regarding public assemblies in Moldova. As part of the project, in June-July 2010 APADOR-CH and CREDO drafted a plan for a comparative study on freedom of assembly in Bucharest and Chisinau. The comparative study will be finalized in December 2010. In September 2010, APADOR-CH organized a study visit for 4 representatives of Moldovan public authorities to their counterparts in Bucharest. The visit took place between 20-23 September 2010. On 9 and 10 December 2010, APADOR-CH participated, together with two representatives of Romanian authorities, in a monitoring visit to Chisinau.

Objective 7: Reacting to human rights threats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 9 November 2010, APADOR-CH asked the Ministry of Health to organize a public debate over the draft Government Ordinance to modify the Law on Health, which included provisions on the electronic medical card. The debate was organized on 18 November 2010 and APADOR-CH both participated and sent its comments on the draft. It also protested against the plan to adopt provisions which limit the rights of the individual via a Government Ordinance. Until the present the draft was not adopted and there were promises from the officials of the Ministry that a right to opt between the electronic and the classic card shall be included.

On 17 August 2010, APADOR-CH addressed the members of the parliamentary commissions discussing the National Defence Strategy with the request to eliminate any reference to the media as a vulnerability to the national security.

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

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

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

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

As regards, APADOR-CH’s efforts to the challenge the authorities’ lack of investigations into the accusations of Romania being a part of the CIA rendition program, in July 2010 APADOR-CH lodged court complaints on the refusals of several authorities (the Senate, Mihail Koglaniceanu and Baneasa Airport and the Ministry of Defence) to release information on the institution that classified the annexes to the Senatorial Commission of Enquiry into the allegations as well as on the whereabouts of these documents (for the moment every authority involved claims they do not hold them). The first hearings were scheduled for April 2011. Once APADOR-CH obtains such information it can start the declassification procedures. As regards the enforcement proceedings against the Civil Aeronautical Authority who was forced by a court order to disclose information on the flights allegedly included in the rendition circuits in Romania, APADOR-CH’s appeal was dismissed on 23 September 2010. During the reporting period APADOR-CH also had several discussions and meetings on future steps to be taken with representatives of Open Society Justice Initiative, Reprieve and Amnesty International.

In respect of people addressing APADOR-CH with problems related to human rights, between September and 15 December 2010, around 75 individuals received legal advice on submitting complaints to the European Court of Human Rights in direct meetings. The activity of providing advice via letters also continued.

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

APADOR-CH also continued to represent Mr. Marinescu in domestic procedures regarding his ill-treatment by the Police. In September 2010 the first instance court decided to resend the case to the prosecutor office for starting a criminal investigation. The policemen’s appeal was denied on 18 November 2010.

Tag Archive for: human rights

Posts

Human Rights in Romania 2018