There is no strategy concerning human rights.
We are the second country in the ECHR by the number of petitions.
The authorities do not know and apply the European Convention to the required extent.
1. Lack of strategy with regard to human rights
National authorities have often asserted that Romania had no problems in the field of human rights observance and promotion. Nevertheless, practice has proven the opposite. Mistaken understanding of the fundamental human rights notion has generated elementary confusion both among the members of the civil society and especially at the level of national administration. The authorities’ lack of interest for this field has currently cost Romania the amount of approximately EUR 50 million1, representing the damage compensation owed on the grounds of ECHR decisions pending on the violation of the stipulations from the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.2
Although at an international level, Romania has assumed the responsibility to implement an effective educational system with regard to human rights, the lack of cooperation among state institutions has not allowed the fulfillment of the assumed obligations. 3 From this point of view, an extreme importance is assigned to Recommendation (2004) 4E of the Committee of Ministers from the Council of Europe imposing many obligations required from member states, especially from the ministry of education and justice, with regard to the mandatory and proper training of jurists regarding the European Convention and jurisprudence related to the European Court on Human Rights4. Moreover, in Warsaw, no more than one year ago, Romania assumed responsibility that “at the national level, it should observe … an adequate training with regard to the norms of the Convention that ought to be perfectly integrated into higher education and professional training systems. As a consequence, we (the Committee of Ministers from the Council of Europe) decide to initiate a European educational program with regard to human rights aiming at the training of individuals of legal profession while also calling upon member states to contribute to its actuation” 5.
Nevertheless, we have no knowledge of educational strategies in compliance with the mentioned international instruments elaborated by Romania at a national level. One would have hoped them to be implemented by national authorities, all the more so as Romania has been assigned the presidency of the Committee of Ministers during November 2005 – May 2006. The local programs, progressing with interruptions and random financing are, in the lack of a global and integrating national vision, lacking efficiency, reflecting in the low degree of specialized juridical education and especially current practice of the judges, prosecutors, police-men, lawyers or clerks from the public office.
2. Petitions addressed to the Strasbourg Court
Romania is currently ranked second from the viewpoint of petitions whose adjudication is in progress at ECHR6, which represented an alarm signal for the Romanian authorities. With a population much smaller than Russia, ranked ahead of us in the above mentioned classification, Romania is practically the state comprising most ECHR petitions per inhabitant in Europe. This situation proves the decreasing interest of the Romanian state in the promotion of human rights, the existence of national stipulations contrary to the provisos of the Convention, the lack of accuracy and coherence of valid legal norms as well as the low level training of magistrates7 with regard to the compliance with these rights by enforcing international norms8, mainly the European convention and the ECHR jurisprudence.
According to ECHR statistics, approximately 9500 complaints against Romania have currently been brought to the attention of the court. Out of them, more than 6000 causes have already been assigned to adjudication committees. It was noticed that during the past 3 years, the number of causes communicated by ECHR continues to rise: 53 causes in 2003, 70 causes in 2004, 137 causes in 2005 and 162 causes by July 20069. This either proves violation of certain rights guaranteed by the Convention or legal incompatibility or improper enforcement of the law.
All European states have encountered certain problems with regard to the observance of certain human rights yet Romania stands out by complaints regarding violation of most articles stipulated by the Convention. The background issues identified by ECHR are generated both by improper legislation and by the manner of case solving by the Romanian judicial structures10:
3. The violation of human rights in certain actual cases
SoJust proceeded to analyzing certain cases of human rights violation in Romania, with the intention of drawing the attention of the institutions and authorities that were involved at a certain time to the way of handling such causes as well as to their consequences.
I. THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
SoJust strongly draws the attention to the current practices of the state authorities that are susceptible of violating the presumption of innocence, a fundamental right provided by art. 6 par. 2 from the ECHR, according to which “everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”
In Romania, there exist both the theoretical but mostly the practical tendency to transfer to the courts of law alone the responsibilities derived from the obligation of this presumption’s observance. The judges are not allowed to start from the preconceived idea that the accused person has committed the offence of which he is accused, and its entire behavior during the trial should be according to this obligation13.
Nevertheless, the European Court has firmly ruled - in causes that should be models of good practice for the Romanian authorities - that the violation of the presumption of innocence may come both from a judge and from any other public authority. The person accused with an offence must be presumed innocent not only in the court room, but generally in society. For that reason, the state must institute formal measures for the efficient guarantee of the presumption, first by regulating the public authorities’ behavior towards the suspected person and by instituting self-control to the way in which they provide information concerning the presumptive illegal act and its author. Any informing of the public with respect to the ongoing penal investigations must be done discretely and especially with all due reserves imposed by the observance of the presumption of innocence14.
These obligations apply both to the police bodies, the Prosecutor’s Office or other special investigating bodies, but also to the authorities in general, including the ministries, the parliament or the local public authorities. The press conferences, the handouts and the communiqués offered by the investigating bodies from Romania are abundant in these unequivocal references to the persons’ guilt. The declarations of guilt indiscriminatingly issued by the authorities incite the public, prejudice the appreciation of facts by the judges, may constitute a disallowed pressure on them, but especially represent an equal number of possible convictions of the state for the violation of this fundamental human right.
II. THE HĂDĂRENI CASE
A. The actual case
On the night of the 20th of September 1993, inter-ethnical incidents took place in Hădăreni. As a consequence of Crăciun Cheţan’s murdering by Rupa Lăcătuş (Romany), 3 other Romanies were lynched, namely: Rupa Lăcătuş, Aurelian Pardalian Lăcătuş and Mircea Zoltan, 14 houses belonging to the Romany community were set on fire, 4 houses were partially destroyed, and 175 romanies were chased out of the village. According to official data, Pardalian Lăcătuş died of 89 distinct wounds on his body, Rupa Lăcătuş died as a consequence of wounds covering „nearly 70% of his body”, and Mircea Zoltan burned to death in his own house which he did not dare leave due to the offensive crowd outside.
Witnesses stated that local policemen incited the angry mob to set the Romanies’ houses on fire and promised the involved villagers that they will help them cover up the entire incident. As a consequence of the three Romanies’ death, the police did nothing to prevent the villagers from destroying the Romanies’ houses and goods.
The days following the incidents were marked by forbidding the Romanies to return to the village by the Romanian and Hungarian communities, with the authorities’ approval. Only by international pressures could most of the Romanies return to the village.
B. The situation of the ECHR internal decisions in the Hădăreni Case
The case was investigated in own penal prosecution by the Prosecutors’ Office by the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal until November 1994, when the case was sent to the Millitary Prosecutors’ Office, after which it returned to the initial prosecutor’s office for continuing investigations, after the Mureş Territorial Military Prosecutor’s Office issued (in September 1995) a resolution of canceling penal prosecution of the police-men from the local police station by motivating that their incapacity of stopping the crown did not represent a form of participation in itself15.
On the penal side, after it disposed the disjunction of the civil from the penal side, the first court, namely the Mureş Court (the 17th of July 1998 decision), disposed the conviction of five villagers for the offences of first degree murder and twelve villagers, among which the first five, were convicted for other offences, their convictions varying from 1 to 7 years.
As a consequence of the appeal formulated by the Prosecutor’s Office, the appeal court convicted a sixth citizen for first degree murder and increased the conviction of one of the defendants; the convictions of the other defendants were reduced. In November 1999, The Supreme Court of Justice maintained the convictions for destruction, but changed the accusation from first degree murder to voluntary manslaughter for three of the defendants.
In 2000, two of the convicted villagers were reprieved.
Shortly after the attack on the Romanies, the Romanian Government allocated the sum of 25.000.000 lei 1) for the reconstruction of the damaged or destroyed houses. Only 4 houses were rebuilt from these funds. In November 1994, the Government allocated another 30.000.000 lei 2), other 4 houses being rebuilt16.
On the civil side (the decision from the 12th of May 2003 of the Mureş Court) the judge granted the plaintiffs material compensations for the destruction of houses, ascertaining that during the 20th of September 1993 events 18 houses belonging to the Romany population of Hădăreni were completely or partially destroyed and three Romanies were killed. Relying on an expertise report, the court granted material compensations for those houses that had not been rebuilt in the meantime, as well as supporting pension for the children of the Romanies who were killed in the incident. On the grounds of an expertise, the court granted material compensation for the partial or total destruction of the houses of the fifth, the ninth, the fifteenth, the seventeenth, the eighteenth and the nineteenth plaintiffs. The demands regarding the loss of personal objects and moral damages were rejected as unsubstantiated17.
On the 24th of February 2004, the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal granted the plaintiffs moral compensations. By Decision no. 1420/2005 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice18 (case no 1425/2004 of the Supreme Court) both the appeals of the defendants and the civil parts were rejected, so that the decisions on the civil side remained permanent, sanctioning the defendants’ obligation to pay material and moral compensations, mainly considering that by the previous decisions on the penal side the defendants were found guilty and convicted for several offences.
The High Court of Cassation and Justice holds the expresis verbis concerning the “contest” of compensations granted by the Romanian state and those that are about to be paid by the defendants who were found guilty, namely: “i) upon setting the quantum of the granted material compensations, the appeal court did not consider that, by concern of the Romanian Government, the injured parties’ houses were rebuilt and their current value surpasses the one of the destroyed buildings; in other words, the appeal court correctly considered that, the assistance given to the victims by the Romanian state, must not diminish the material and moral liability of the defendants, who are still compelled to an integral compensation of the damages”19
On the 5th of July 2005, the ECHR pronounced the aforementioned partial decision by which it confirmed the partial agreement between the 18 civil parties and the Romanian state, such that the ECHR ruled the case’s dismissal, considering that the commitments of each party represented a just solving of the case, according to ECHR standards. So, the Government committed to pay the 18 plaintiffs sums between EUR 11.000 and 23.000 as material and moral compensations, as well as to initiate or to continue the implementation of measures meant to prevent similar cases in the future; these are provided for in the Governmental Strategy concerning the improvement of Romanies’ situation from 2001.
Among these, we find the improvement of educational programs for the prevention and the fighting of the Romanies’ discriminations, the stimulation of Romany participation in the economical, social, cultural and politic life, respectively the identifying, the prevention and the solving of conflicts that are likely to generate family, community, or inter-ethnical violence. In their turn, the plaintiffs committed to discarding any claims to the Romanian state deriving from the present cause.
In the summer of 2005, the civil parts that were granted material and moral compensations by internal court decisions started the procedures of enforcement, for which the judicial executor elaborated 11 distrains protocols upon the goods of the defendants shown in the disposition of Decision no. 1420/2005 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
With respect to these enforcement papers, the defendants and their families formulated contestations upon execution; their first term was set in September 2005.
One disposed 10 successive adjournments in the cause concerning the contestations upon execution, by the execution instances, namely the Luduş Court. The reasons were various, mainly that the ECHR decision was not transmitted to the court by the Romanian Foreign Affairs Ministry, or that this decision was not yet translated into Romanian and was not published in “Monitorul Oficial al României” 20.
In the end, on the 27th of April 2006, over 8 months from the formulation of requests regarding the contestations on execution, the Luduş Court acknowledged these contestations and annulled the execution papers made by the judicial executor21.
At the time of drawing up this document, the cause is in appeal in the Mureş Court.
An extremely important element, with serious consequences on an independent and impartial justice act, is the communiqué of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, published on the 18th of August 2005 and addressed to the Romanian authorities22. In this communiqué, one shows that concerning the 18 plaintiffs (civil parties and parties in the case concerning the contestations upon execution) the ECHR, in the cause of Moldovan and Rostaş vs. Romania, took act of the amiable agreement between the Romanian state and the 18 plaintiffs, that is the Romanian state (i.e. the Government), committed to paying sums between EUR 11.000 and 23.000 with the designation of material and moral compensations (a total of EUR 262.000), and the plaintiffs committed to discarding any claims whatsoever, stating that „this is the permanent solving of these causes, including our internal civil actions.”
In the same communiqué, one also shows that the ECHR specified on par. 152 from the decision that, “these sums are the complete and permanent solving of the case, including the ones that are granted at an internal level.” The Ministry of Foreign Affairs continues by saying that “By consequence, the sums granted with the designation of compensation by the decisions of the European Convention for Human Rights include the ones granted by national courts of law, the prejudice suffered by the plaintiffs not being able to be repaired twice. On the 16th of August 2005, the Governmental agent for the ECHR informed the local authorities, the judicial executor and the plaintiffs on the dispositions of the aforementioned decisions of the ECHR.”
On the 12th of July 2005, The ECHR ruled a decision concerning the other 7 plaintiffs, who had not accepted the amiable solving of the cause. The plaintiffs were given sums between EUR 11.000 and 95.000 as material and moral compensation, a total sum of EUR 238.00023 .
C. Possibly violated rights
1. SoJust considers that at the time of drawing this up, the appeal regarding the contestations upon execution is on trial in the Mureş Court, so it avoids pronouncing itself on the background of this cause until the decision remains irrevocable.
But it cannot disregard the lengthy trial. From this point of view, the first court has already ruled, so that SoJust may have assessments concerning the reasons for successive postponing, not fewer than 10 terms being needed for the case’s solving.
As the media accounted, the reasons for postponing the cause were those either linked to the publishing of the ECHR’s24 decision, in which one sanctioned the Romanian state’s violation of the rights provided for by art. 8 from the Convention, art. 3 from the Convention, art. 6. par. 1 from the Convention concerning the duration of the trial (par. 131) as well as art. 14 from the Convention, related to art. 6 and 8 from the Convention, either by the communication of this decision by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Or, the Decision no. 1420/2005 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice correctly ruled that the appeal court has decided that the assistance given to the victims by the Romanian state must not diminish the defendants’ material and moral liability; they are still compelled to integrally pay the damages that were done25.
More than that, Decisions 1 and 2 / 2005 of the ECHR have the Romanian state and the defendants (the Romany civil parties) as parties and do not consider the convicted-defendants.
Besides, they were convicted for different offences (voluntary manslaughter, voluntary destruction), with respect to which one established moral and material compensations.
In exchange, for example, in the ECHR Decision no. 1/2005, the Romanian state assumes guilt not for the actual offences for which the 12 people were convicted, for which one began the forced execution, but for the context that led to the 1993 events from Hădăreni, but also the much delayed judicial procedures, a fact for which one is also held liable for remedying these situations (we quote in extenso for a better understanding: - improving the educational programs for preventing and fighting the Romany discrimination in the school curricula from the Hădăreni communitiy, Mureş county;
- elaborating programs for public informing and for removing stereotypes, prejudices and practices affecting the Romany community in the public institutions from Mureş that are competent for the Hădăreni community.
- Initiating juridical education programs in cooperation with the members of the Romany community;
- Supporting the positive changes in public opinion from the Hădăreni commnunity concerning the Romanies, on the grounds of tolerance and the principle of social solidarity;
- Stimulating the Romanies’ participation in the economic, social, educational, cultural and political life of the local community from the Mureş County, by promoting mutual assistance and community development programs;
- Implementing programs for the rehabilitation of the houses and the community environment;
- Identifying, preventing and actively solving the conflicts that are likely to generate family, community or inter-ethnical violence.).
From this perspective, it is more than obvious that we have two different cases: one of them is connected to the two ECHR decisions, the compensations that were granted being related to human rights violations by the authorities, and decision no. 1420/2005 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice is referring to the material and moral compensations that are directly connected to the established guilt of the convicted persons by the internal Romanian courts of law. Also, the executing procedures concern only the internal decisions, connected to the guilt of individual persons and do not refer to the Romanian authorities.
We may say that, from this viewpoint, the successive postponements did not consider this actual case, such that, regardless of the solution given to the contestations upon execution, there is doubt that the parties benefited from judgment within reasonable term.
Another problem that is raised regarding the trial of the contestations upon execution concerns the unjustified mixture of another state power, namely the executive, which, by the aforementioned communiqué intervened without having this right, affecting the independence and impartiality of the court invested with judging the contestations upon execution.
So, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs communiqué it ensues that it anticipated or led or influenced the court to rule a certain solution (we remind that this communiqué was issued on the 18th of August 2005, after distrains were set upon the goods of the convicted, and the convicted have immediately afterwards formulated contestations upon execution, knowing the fact that (even the ECHR having ruled this several times) even the phase of forced execution is a part of the civil process, and the court judging such contestations is an independent and impartial court, according to art. 6 par 1 from the Convention).
In other words, SoJust considers that there are strong suspicions concerning the Romanian’s state violation of the independence and impartialness provided for in art. 6 par. 1. from the Convention.
III. The M.I.S.A. case
A. The actual case
One of the cases that arose publice suspicions regarding the procedural correctness and compliance with the fundamental rights is that of the Spiritual Movement for Integration into the Absolute (MISA) 25. The M.I.S.A. leader, Gregorian Bivolaru and others of his disciples were prosecuted, put under arrest, beaten by the Securitate even from the 70’s. One does not rule out that the prosecution of the M.I.S.A. leader continued after 1989 as well. To these, one adds the public’s reticence towards the yoga techniques, especially in the 90’s, due to a lack of a reasonable education.
The biggest official action directed against MISA took place in March 2004: Operation “CHRIST”. On the 18th of March 2004, a few hundred policemen, gendarmes and prosecutors forcefully broke into several personal property buildings belonging to yoga students, locations where tens of yoga practitioners were living together, pursuing their spiritual practice by the model of the Indian ashrams. The immersion was broadcasted by several TV stations and an entire country could see the breaking of doors by law-enforcement officers and the forceful treatment of persons who were found in the buildings (of whom some were foreign citizens): while being held at gunpoint, they were summoned to lie down on the floor, face down and hands around their necks; they were not allowed to get dressed; they were not asked for their approval to be recorded on camera. In one of the cases, it seems that there was no search warrant. Several tens of persons were carried by police vans to the Prosecutor’s Office where they were questioned. One did not allow them to contact their lawyers, for the reason that they were questioned as witnesses, and the Romanian Law provides for the possibility of allowing defense only for parties, and not for witnesses27.
According to the content of the search warrants, they were supposed to concern information data, regarding information users and traffic. The people who were searched claimed that huge quantities of personal goods were confiscated28, some of them without being mentioned in the search protocols and most of them having no connection to the motives specified in the warrants whatsoever; two years later, the owners were only returned one third of all these. One of the evidence, the journal of a yoga practitioner witness, was released to the press and made public, although the authorities guaranteed confidentiality.
The prosecutor now investigates organized crime and human traffic cases concerning some of the MISA members. One has instituted the measure of “insuring arrestment” on 70 buildings for covering the damages that they claimed. Officially, one has noted that, under the cover of courses for initiation in the yoga practices, the investigated persons attracted, manipulated and exploited the participants (of whom many were minor) to their own personal interest, thus endangering their psychic development29. Nevertheless, from the contradictory data published by the media, there are only 8 victims. Some of the investigated persons were sent to trial. A completely unusual thing for Romania, the entire indictment was made public30 by the penal prosecution body, which among violating the rights to an equitable trial and the protection of the investigated persons’ private life, may be yet another element for the manipulation of public opinion.
B. The MISA files
With all the internal investigations performed by the CSM31 or the judiciary ones performed as a consequence to the filed complaints, the presumptive negative aspects concerning the actual development of the investigation were not cleared up. From the 55 penal complaints that were filed in May 2004, only 9 were retained in view of solving at the Prosecutor’s Office, and those for a single offence. The rest got a non-prosecution resolution, without even questioning the victims; at present, this resolution is appealed at the Supreme Court.
At the same time, two arrest warrants were issued on the name of Gregorian Bivolaru (gone to Sweden), one for the offense of sexual act with a minor and the other for human traffic. These were the grounds for the Romanian State’s request of his extradition. But the Supreme Court of Stockholm got to the conclusion that, due to the violation of the presumption of innocence, of implicating the political scene32and the media in this case (one even got a special mention that the authorities deliberately turned the public opinion against the defendant), the Romanian Justice cannot ensure an equitable trial to the citizen whose extradition was requested, a reason for which the Romanian State’s request was turned down33. After two more months, the Swedish Government accepted to grant Mr. Bivolaru the statute of political refugee.
C. Possibly violated rights
On the way in which the searches, the hearings and the investigations were conducted one has questions as to the possible violation of several internal dispositions (illegal confinement; threatening; unjust repression; illegal entry; destruction; misfeasance against the person’s interests; misfeasance by restraining rights; attempt to determine false testimony; illegal arrest and abusive investigation; abusive behavior) and international ones (freedom from torture, the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial, freedom from arbitrary interference with one's privacy and family life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association; freedom from discrimination; the right to own property).
The inefficiency of the internal investigations concerning the claimed abuses is all the more serious as Bivolaru got the asylum and then the refugee status in a foreign country. From this viewpoint, the competence or the bona fide of the Romanian bodies is seriously questioned.
IV. SRI – The audio or video interceptions and recordings
A. The premises
The audio and video interceptions and recordings are means to obtain very important evidence especially in cases of serious offences like drug traffic, human traffic, corruption, national security. No doubt, the audio or video interceptions or recordings are interference in the individual’s private life, which the Strasbourg Court does not rule out, to the extent in which such interference rigorously meets the principles of lawfulness, proportionality and legitimacy.
B. Legal regulations
In Romania, for the first time in the Penal Procedure Code, by Law number 141/199634, the audio or video recordings were added to the evidence means. This regulation was successively modified by the 281/200335 Law, then by the 356/200636 Law. Along with common law in the matter, contained in the Penal Procedure Code, there is also a special body of laws that instate dispositions concerning the audio or video recordings and interceptions in the respective fields, either with direct reference to the general provisions37, or with a derogating content38.
On a legislative level, although perfectible, the documents that were adopted after 2003, referring to audio or video recordings and interceptions, show the Romanian legislator’s preoccupation to align the internal provisions with every individual’s right to his private and family life. (art. 8 from the European convention and explained by an evolving jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights). Thus, the measures are disposed only in the case of actions that are considered to be serious, expressly determined, only if they are needed, only by the judge39 and for a specific limit period determined by the law. This way, the positive regulation that is brought in agreement with the Strasbourg Court jurisprudence, claiming the instituting of a jurisdictional control, exerted by the independent and impartial magistrates, in view of objectively supervising the concrete ways of using this investigation method40. Or, establishing a competence plenitude of the prosecutor in the initial regulation - without any control possibility from another authority than the network of Prosecutor’s Offices - was generating abuses.
SoJust further points out a case from this year’s spring, regarding “Serviciul Român de Informaţii (S.R.I.)”, a case that proves to be – as the Foundation for an Open Society41 emphasized at that time – “a menace and a huge regress of the state of law, an inadmissible disconsidering of the judges and the act of justice, with serious consequences for the democratic future of the country.”
Thus, by a communiqué that was made public42 on the 28th of February 2006, SRI expresses its point of view according to which the regulations of the Penal Procedure Code - regarding the need for the phone conversations’ interceptions and recordings to be done on the ground of an authorization issued by the judge - does not apply to SRI actions that are done by considering art. 3 combined with article 13 from the Law of National Security no. 51/199143, considering that, for the information activity, one suffices the warrant that is issued by the prosecutor who is specifically designated by the general prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office by the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
No mention is made to art. 20 and 21 of the Law no. 535/2004 regarding the prevention and the fighting of terrorism44. At the same time, one does not consider art. 46 from the Law no. 535/2004, according to which, at the time of that Law’s coming into effect, any other contrary provisions are abolished, by consequence the text of art. 13 from the Law no. 51/1991 is abolished even from the 11th of December 2004. So, more than a year and 2 months from the coming into effect of Law no. 535/2004, SRI is guided by an abolished legal document and supports its validity with arguments that, even if we relate to the period between the 1st of January 2004 and the 11th of September 200445, flagrantly argue with the principles of the law state and raise natural questions: “is the citizen protected against abuse in Romania?” and “why does “Serviciul Roman de Informatii” fear a judge?” 46.
SoJust draws the attention to the fact that, up to this date, there is no official document to show the total number of interceptions made by the SRI, the number of warrants that were issued to this purpose and by whom (prosecutors, judges), respectively the number of causes in which the penal prosecution was disposed and the judging courts were notified as a consequence of the probatory material obtained in this way. Because SRI is the institution with competence to make such interceptions in causes concerning national security, it is obvious that such a statistics exist in its possession, being the only way to check its efficiency and justify its activity.
Performing such interceptions in lack of going to trial and possibly convicting the suspects raises great questions as to the formal correctness of the procedural system for issuing warrants, but also to the efficiency of SRI’s specific activity. As a principle, intercepting conversations, and breaking into houses or other locations means restraining the right to private life. The only legitimate justification of the state’s intrusion in the right to private life is its finality, given by the number of penal prosecutions that are began, by the number of trials under indictment and, especially, by the number of permanent convictions applied by the courts of law.
One has to emphasize that the Romanian legislation does not provide the possibility for a person whose private life was the object of SRI surveillance to go to trial in order to obtain compensations for the prejudices that were brought to him, because of the simple fact that he will never find out about the intrusion in his private life. From this perspective, the person’s access to justice is impossible to achieve and his possibility to obtain a remedy for the violated right is null.
Considering the previous, as well as the fact that most of the causes against Romania argue about the solutions of the courts and the prosecutors’ actions, SoJust advises the following.
· the fast implementation of the 4E Recommendation (2004) provisions of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers.
· giving a special importance to the human rights education and including the course regarding the European protection of the human rights in the curricula of law, police, administrative, political and social sciences schools etc;
· performing legislative modifications in view of ruling out contradictions, lack of clarity and coherence of the effectual normative acts; in this respect, one should create a special department in the Ministry of Justice or the Legislative Council which to check the compatibility of the entire legislation.
· the need for a better knowledge and acquirement of the ECHR jurisprudence by the internal courts of law and the direct application of the ECHR decisions by the Romanian judges, even before legislative modifications47; as well as adopting a national strategy concerning the forms of making the judges body responsible to the obligations that they directly have on the grounds of the Strasbourg court decisions.
· adopting a national strategy concerning the forms of making responsible the public administration bodies that dispose the selling of buildings to the tenants by breaking the decisions of the courts of law having disposed the in-kind restitution to the owner, by instating clear sanctions:
· adopting a national strategy concerning the forms of making responsible the magistrates’ body in view of a uniform interpretation and application of the law.
· Adopting a legislation which to explicitly deny the authorities that are involved in judiciary procedures (police, Prosecutor’s Office, special services, courts of law) but also the state authorities (government, ministries, parliamne, county or local authorities) to pronounce themselves as to a person’s state of guilt before the existence of a permanent judicial decision of conviction.
32. Note the stand of Senator Radu Tirle at the Romanian Senate Tribune, concerning a MISA meeting: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/steno/steno.stenograma?ids=6128&idm=2,04&idl=1
33. The decision from the 21st of october 2005, Case no. o 2913-05
34. Published in „Monitorul Oficial al României” part I, nr 289/Nov 14, 1996.
35. Published in „Monitorul Oficial al României” part I, nr 468/Jul 1, 2003.
36. Published in „Monitorul Oficial al României” part I, nr 677/Aug 7, 2006
37. See, for example, Law no. 143/2000 (published in „Monitorul oficial al României”, part I, no 362/Aug 3, 2000), Law no. 78/2000 (published in „Monitorul oficial al României”, part I, no. 219/May 18, 2000), Law no. 656/2002 (published in „Monitorul Oficial al României”, part I, no. 904/Sep 12, 2002), Law no. 39/2003 (published in “Monitorul oficial al României”, part I, nr. 50/Jan 29 2003).
38. See Law no. 535/2004 (published in „Monitorul oficial al României”, part I, no. 1161/Dec 8 2004).
47. SoJust shares the propositions included in the address no. 50844/June 7, 2006 sent by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice to the attention of the President of the National Council of Magistracy.