INTRODUCTION
The year 2004 was marked by a
deterioration of human rights and civil liberties in
For instance, in what concerns the freedom of expression, direct political control was replaced by more subtle forms of pressure, of economic nature. Suspicions about the use of such forms of pressure became certainty after a national newspaper published a document issued by the Government General Secretariat, requesting all ministries and public institutions to submit the 2004 publicity budgets to the Prime Minister, for approval. Thus, public money was divided among the various media institutions according to political preferences, turning into a tool of control against critical voices.
Under such circumstances, with the PSD controlling the most important media channels, including public radio and television – the main sources of information for rural areas – in the spring of 2004 a group of NGOs, APADOR-CH among them, created the Coalition for a Clean Parliament. It was meant to give people accurate information on candidates for the Parliament.
Besides the economic constraints imposed to media institutions, journalists continued to be subject to criminal trials, which are considered by the European Court of Human Rights as a violation of freedom of expression. In 2004, ECHR issued two more rulings against Romania by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights – the cases Sabou and Pârcălab, as well as Cumpănă and Mazăre, both cases of criminal sentences against journalists for calumny. The former was supported by APADOR-CH and is also an instance of violation of private life, since one of the victims was automatically deprived of certain rights. From this point of view, the ECHR decision should lead to changes into the domestic criminal law.
The tendency of courts to sentence journalists and media institutions to pay ever higher amounts of money as penalties in both civil and criminal cases was also worrying, since the fines are in themselves a form of pressure, resulting into self-censorship.
There have been other attempts to limit the freedom of the press in 2004, such as a Bill on the protection of individual privacy, name, image, residence and correspondence, proposed by members of the ruling party. The proposal generated serious protests from non-governmental organizations, including APADOR-CH, and was rejected by the special parliament committees. Also in terms of legislation, the new Criminal Code, approved in June 2004 and coming into effect in June 2005, represents a step forward in what concerns the freedom of expression, but still preserves certain provisions which are incompatible international standards. Calumny is still a criminal offence, although it is no longer punished by prison. Communication of false information also remains a criminal offence, despite constant criticism from APADOR-CH. State and professional secrets, as well as certain foreign officials, are protected by the criminal law to an unjustified extent.
In 2004, APADOR-CH continued to monitor the implementation of the Law on free access to public information. The efforts of non-governmental organizations have started to bear fruit: most public authorities and institutions now have officers in charge with information requests, and requests which do not pose special problems are usually granted. It is not the case, however, of complex requests, or requests on “delicate” matters, which are often ignored. Moreover, some public authorities or institutions create administrative/financial obstacles for those who try to obtain information, such as, for example, huge fees for document photocopying (30 cents, 60 cents or even 3 USD for one page). APADOR-CH managed to solve a few such individual cases (the Şelimbăr local council, the General Prosecutor’s Office), but a unitary norm is needed for all public authorities and institutions to public to regulate the photocopying fee and prevent further abuse.
The reform of the judicial system and the independence of justice remained a problem during 2004. Although some steps were made towards these objectives both in 2003 and in 2004 (such as the elimination of appeals in cancellation and in criminal matter, the time limit for preventive arrest, introduction of court control over preventive arrest, searches and surveillance), some problems remained unsolved: the jurisdiction of military prosecutors and courts over civilians, the restricted access of lawyers to their clients during preventive arrest, etc. Nor have the three justice laws adopted in June 2004 have managed to solve of the problems of justice reform: courts are still financially dependent from the executive (excepting the High Court of Cassation and Justice); prosecutors are still on equal footing with judges, etc.
The demilitarization of police in 2002 has not brought about the expected changes. The problems repeatedly underlined by APADOR-CH remained largely the same in 2004: “leading” people to the police station, an administrative measure involving deprivation of freedom, is not accompanied by the same guarantees as detention and arrest (since, the high number of abuses), the disproportionate use of firearms, aggression cases, impunity of those accused of applying treatments in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the European convention of Human Rights. In this respect, 2004 brought about the first two ECHR decisions against the Romanian state for infringements of article 3 of the European Convention, for both police abuse and lack of effective investigations into alleged abuse, as well as the first admissibility decision on a cause which has the Romanian state accused of infringement of the right to life. Moreover, another ECHR decision, in the Notar case, triggered a change in the stamp duty legislation, eliminating the respective tax in the case of victims of abuse provided by Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention.
The year 2004 also brought about the long awaited demilitarization of prison staff, as well as new legislation on custodial sentences (the latest expected to become effective in June 2005, alongside the new Criminal Code). Both laws are a big step towards a reform of the prison system, but to what extent their provisions will be implemented remains to be seen. Aside from the legal framework, the material conditions of detention are still precarious. Overcrowding, lack of adequate medical treatment, lack of activity and of efficient social reinsertion programs are still serious drawbacks of the prison system. Moreover, the activity of social reinsertion and observation services (Probation Services), which should double the activity prison educational departments is almost inexistent in this field. Services concentrate their human and material resources (rather limited, as it is) in preparing pre-sentence reports and monitoring persons on probation.
In what concerns the protection of privacy, 2004 failed to bring any remarkable progress. The 1991 Law on National Security is still effective, and has not been ammended. At least five bills on national security have been submitted to the Parliament, some of which containing the so much needed changes. None of them has even been debated.
The harassment of certain religious groups labeled by the authorities as “sectarian” continued during 2004: Ananda Marga, Family International and especially MISA. In what concerns the latter organization, APADOR-CH protested against the display of crude force during searches at MISA members’ residences, when goods were destroyed, people under investigation were publicly humiliated, possessions were confiscated, etc.
2004 was an election year, when all the three categories of elections took place: local, parliamentary and presidential elections. In terms of volume of work, the activity was at the same level as in previous years: the Parliament passed 602 laws and the Government issued 142 emergency ordinances and 94 ordinances. That means a total of 838 acts of primary legislation.
In 2004, too, there were tendencies to regulate through secondary legislation (acts subordinated to parliamentary laws: government decisions, ministerial orders, regulations, etc). Thus, 2373 government decisions and 1002 ministerial orders were issued during 2004. Both figures are substantially higher than in 2001, for instance (819 government decisions and 556 ministerial orders).
The great number of acts adopted each year and the tendency to regulate chiefly through secondary legislation lead to legislative instability and create an objective barrier for citizens (the beneficiaries of these acts), who are faced, year after year, with a huge „wave” of regulations they are supposed to know and observe. In 2004, for instance, a citizen who wanted to be fully informed needed to read 4213 such acts (laws, ordinances, government decisions and ministerial orders) – an impossible task, of course. Moreover, some of the regulations amend the very laws they are based on. As a consequence, the legislation lacks predictability (any person should be able to know precisely what are the legal provisions and the consequences for infringing each law).
Among the laws passed in 2004, a few are worth mentioning as relevant for APADOR-CH in terms of its constant preoccupation for civil rights:
-Law No. 27/2004 approving Government Ordinance No. 77/2003 regarding the amendment and completion of Government Ordinance No. 137/2000 on the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination. Unfortunately, even after several upgrades, the law still had the same widely/vaguely defined terms, that reduced the predictability of the act.
-Law No. 28/2004 Government Ordinance No. 108/2003 on the abolition of contraventional prison. This is a logical step, since art. 23 of the Constitution sanctions only crimes, not contraventions, by deprivation of freedom.
-Law No. 294/2004 on the execution of sentences and measures taken by the judiciary during criminal trials. The law, to become effective on June 29, 2005, will replace the existing law, No. 23/1969, after 36 years.
-Law No. 301/2004 – the Criminal Code. It is a complex law, bringing conceptual and structural changes in the matter of criminal law. When it becomes effective, on June 29, 2005, it will abrogate the current criminal code (Law. No.15/1968), after 37 years. Parliamentary debates around the criminal code bill started as early as 2003. The 2003 Report included the comments made by APADOR-CH about the bill.
-Law No. 303/2004 on the status of magistrates.
-Law No. 304/2004 on judicial organization.
-Law No. 317/2004 on the Superior Council of Magistracy.
APADOR-CH made several observations and proposals regarding the latter three laws (No. 303, 304 and 317 of 2004) also known as the justice reform laws. These observations and proposals are detailed below. As a general comment, the laws do not solve the matter of efficiency and responsibility in the act of justice. They unfortunately create the framework to support the existing staff structure, which has generated the widespread negative perception of justice.
-Law No. 550/2004 on the organization and functioning of the Romanian Gendarmerie. The law still includes provisions that violate human rights, as pointed out by APADOR-CH in its comments regarding the draft bill, which are widely presented in the report below.
-Law No. 576/2004 for the modification and completion of the Criminal Procedure Code. This law eliminated the appeal in cancellation in criminal matter, as a logical step after eliminating the appeal in cancellation in civil matter.
Besides its observations regarding laws passed during 2004, APADOR-CH also examined other bills – which were not adopted – but which posed certain problems in terms of human rights. APADOR-CH asked for some of the bills to be rejected; others were still under debate by the end of 2004.
For example, in September 2004, APADOR-CH asked for the rejection of a bill regarding the protection of individual privacy, name, image, residence and correspondence. In a nutshell, the bill aimed at “shutting down” the media. The arguments advanced by APADOR-CH are presented in the report below. The bill has not come under debate in the chambers.
In October 2004, APADOR-CH issued some observations and comments regarding the bill on the establishment, organization and functioning of the National Control Authority for Personal Data Management. The bill was still debated in Parliament at the end of 2004.
1. The Bills on judicial organization and the status of magistrates
During 2003, two bills (one on judicial organization and the other on the status of magistrates), designed to become a first step in the Romanian justice reform, were submitted to the Parliament. At the time, APADOR-CH issued some comments on the two draft bills (see the 2003 Report). After being voted, the bills were referred back to the Parliament by the President of Romania. APADOR-CH formulated new comments on the two bills, considering they were far from satisfying their objectives, and sent these observations to the MPs for documentation and analysis.
COMMENTS BY APADOR-CH REGARDING THE LAW ON JUDICIAL ORGANIZATION[1]
(Excerpts)
The Romanian Government has informed the European Commission that the draft Law on judicial organization was going to be on public debate until the end of April, 2004. In order to launch the promised public debate, the draft bill was returned to the Judicial, Discipline and Immunity Committee of the Deputy Chamber, upon its request. The main objection of the European Parliament regarding the Romanian judicial system was the lack of judicial independence caused, among others, by the excessive powers of the Minister of Justice (member of the Government) and the lack of budgetary autonomy of the courts.
APADOR-CH suggested the following changes, which it considered as minimal conditions for the reform of the judicial system.
1. In its current form, the draft bill does not ensure judicial independence. In order to legally ensure judicial independence, the following amendments must be made:
1.1. Abolishing the positions of general judicial inspector and of inspecting judge. According to Art. 124 of the draft bill, these magistrates inform the Minister of Justice about “the functioning of the courts, the celerity of trials and the conduct of judges”. Obviously, as already demonstrated by the practice, such “inspectors” are an instrument of political pressure and of intimidation against judges, originating before 1989 and having no place in a democratically reformed judicial system. Court presidents and the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM) must be the only ones in charge of the celerity and good functioning of courts, while the responsibility to discipline the judges must also fall in charge of the CSM.
1.2 Eliminating the financial power exercised by the Ministry and Minister of Justice over the courts. Article 116 of the draft bill provides that the Ministry of Justice administers the budgets for the courts of appeal, tribunals and district courts, while the Minister of Justice is the main credit manager, which means that he is „ruling the roast”. It is crucial that courts of all ranks, starting from local courts, are given the status of credit manager. Without financial independence, the objective of real judicial independence cannot be reached.
……...
1.5. Removing the authority of the Minister of Justice to approve by ministerial order the Court Judicial Organization Regulations (art. 126). The Regulations must be approved solely by the CNM. A similar solution should also be found in the case of the Administrative Regulations for Prosecutor’s Offices (art. 127).
………
1.9. The court panel must only be changed in exceptional cases, clearly described by the law and explained by a motivated court decision.
1.10. Abolishing military courts (art. 121). The existence of military courts (and of military prosecutors) can only be justified in case of war. Besides the anachronism of such an institution, it should also be added that military judges will never be truly independent, even if the judiciary as a whole becomes independent, since they will be subordinated to the Ministry of Defense (Government). The draft bill does not only keep military courts into place, but also stipulates a separate law to govern their organization and functioning.
………
2. Revisiting the position of the Public Ministry, Prosecutor’s Offices and prosecutors.
Unfortunately, the draft bill deliberately maintains a false equality between judges and prosecutors. The whole draft bill needs to be revisited in that respect. We shall therefore point out only a few of the anomalies of the proposed system. First of all, the law on judicial organization should not include provisions on the Prosecutor’s Office and prosecutors’ attributions. The draft deliberately maintains – due to influences from prosecutors inherited from the dictatorial regime – a mixed judicial-prosecutorial system, creating an intended confusion in favor of the prosecutors, who want to preserve their status and much of the powers they enjoyed during dictatorship. The authors of the draft bill made a serious conceptual error: prosecutors, who are subordinated to their superiors and the Government (articles 60, 61), are only entitled to press charges in the name of the state (representing, in its turn, the victims) in criminal trials. It is illogical (and demagogical) to believe that, while representing the People, prosecutors may also act on behalf of the defendants or in finding the truth, when this is not in favor of the accusation. The truth, as established in courts, is the judiciary truth, decided by judges based on evidence brought by prosecutors and defense lawyers.
On the other hand, in exercising their function as public prosecutors, in the name of the People, prosecutors must be able to be independent from political pressures and intimidation by the defendants. The draft bill does not give them, however, the needed independence, maintaining prosecution as an obedient instrument of the government, as facts have often demonstrated.
3. Beside the modifications suggested under chapters 1 and 2, other changes – also minimal – are needed to provide, besides judicial independence, the equitable character of trials.
3.1. The right to defense must be guaranteed explicitly during the phase of preliminary investigations. In practice, the police run the same activities then as after the investigations are officially beginning. Article 12 of the draft bill should be rephrased as follows: “Over the length of the trial as well as during the preliminary investigations, the parties, or according to the case, the perpetrator or the victim, have the right to be assisted or represented by legal counsel…”
3.2. The prosecutor who prepared the indictment must not be allowed to appear in court (art. 63, par. 3). The draft bill legalizes the participation of the prosecutor who made the indictment. Obviously, the prosecutor who decided to send a person to court (or perhaps even ordered or asked for the preventive arrest) can not be objective.
3.3. The draft bill must include the explicit right of the judge to request and receive all the information, documents and papers he/she deems necessary in trying a cause, irrespective of who detains them or what the nature of the case is. No authority/institution may refuse, under any circumstance, the request of the judge. Only this kind of provision might reduce the exaggerated powers detained by certain public authorities/institutions, and in the first place the intelligence services and structures. Surprisingly, the draft bill only stipulates the right of the prosecutors to ask for and be given access to secret service information, ignoring the need that judges, too, or chiefly judges, benefit from this right.
3.4. The obligation to publish in the Official Gazette all orders issued by the General Prosecutor (art. 72 and 80) must be stipulated in the draft. The Prosecutor’s Office is a public authority and must ensure the transparency of its activities, all the more so when its orders include procedures that people need to know.
………
COMMENTS BY APADOR-CH REGARDING THE DRAFT LAW ON THE STATUS OF MAGISTRATES[2]
In its current form, the draft bill does not ensure judicial independence and does not eliminate the powers through which the Minister of Justice and the whole executive may put pressure on judges and thus influence the act of justice. In order to ensure judicial independence by law, the following minimal amendments must be made:
1. Putting an end to the status of equality between judges and prosecutors, which is maintained throughout the draft bill, with the exception of stability[3], which is a mere matter of wording without any effect, since the whole career of judges and prosecutors – naming, promotion, disciplinary sanctions, removal from office – are regulated in very similar ways. The main argument in favor of the elimination of the equality status is that, according to the draft Law on judicial organization, prosecutors work in a hierarchical system under the control of the Minister of Justice, who is a member of the Government. In many of its rulings against Romania, the European Court for Human Rights noted the lack of independence of prosecutors (among others, cases Vasilescu, Brumărescu, Pantea), precisely for the above reason.
Of course, the independence of prosecutors must be ensured, but not by making them equal to judges, the only ones who have the power and responsibility of delivering justice.
A disastrous effect of such equality over the justice act comes from the possibility that, at any moment during their careers, prosecutors be appointed as judges, as if they had a judge’s years of work and experience. It is at least necessary that prosecutors who want to become judges should at least undergo professional and psychological testing in order to assess their capacity to fill the balanced and impartial role of a judge.
It is absolutely necessary to modify art.50, par.1 of the draft bill, allowing prosecutors with at least 15 years of experience – as prosecutors – to become judges of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. It is unacceptable that prosecutors who have worked for 15 years or more in a hierarchically subordinated position, both inside the system (to the head prosecutor) and outside (to the executive) and have only worked to put people under accusation, should become judges of the supreme court of law, which is supposed to be the essence and symbol of justice.
2. In the same context, art. 107, par. 1, stipulating that all provisions in the draft bill be applied to military judges and prosecutors, should be removed. First of all, justice must be demilitarized by removing the two abovementioned functions. Secondly, military judges and prosecutors must not be allowed to become civilian judges, especially not with the supreme court of law. Their subordination to the executive, as members of the military – impairs their capacity to act independently and impartially.
3. The decision of taking disciplinary action and of conducting preliminary inquiries should only belong to the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM), and the investigation can be only conducted by inspecting judges appointed to that purpose by the CSM. It would be desirable that CSM inspecting judges be part of an independent or at least autonomous structure attached to the CSM. The inspecting judges could be elected during elections for the CSM.
The Minister and Ministry of Justice – the political players – must have no power whatsoever over the career of judges.
The decision of exerting disciplinary action and conducting preliminary inquiries must be taken by the CSM in the case of prosecutors, as well.
4. Dismissing the “commission” made of the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, the Chairman of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Minister of Justice, charged with analyzing nominees for the position of judge at the High Court of Cassation and Justice and handing proposals to the CSM (art 50, par. 4). This provision in the draft bill shows once again that the executive wants to have a word in appointing Supreme Court judges. Article 50, par. 4 must be completely removed, allowing the CSM to examine all nominations Supreme Court judges directly and unscreened.
5. The modification of transitory regulations allowing that, until the Law on the organization of the CSM becomes effective (at an unspecified date, but not before 01.01.2005), persons loyal to the current government be appointed as judges and prosecutors, although they lack the independence and impartiality required by the judicial position (art. 106, par. 2). The risk of such politically motivated appointments is demonstrated and increased by the possibility to appoint as judges and prosecutors persons of legal background working for “the public administration, the Parliament, the Presidency, the Constitutional Court, the Court of Accounts, the People’s Advocate or the Legislative Council”. People hired by these institutionswere generally selected for reasons of political loyalty to the current government[4]. Besides, the accusations of corruption and lack of efficiency made by European institutions against, for example, today’s public administration, should determine one to avoid appointing members of the aforesaid administration for life, as judges or prosecutors.
6. Eliminating the “recommendation” made by the Minister of Justice for the appointment of the General Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, his first deputy and deputy (art. 52, par. 1). It is totally sufficient that the CSM make one nomination for each of these positions after analyzing all the candidates. In what concerns such decisions, the Minister of Justice, who is a member of the Government, must play no role whatsoever.
.……..
12. Modifying the provision according to which judges and prosecutors may be “searched, retained or arrested” with the approval of the CSM “president” (art. 102, par.2). The President of the CSM, that is one person, may be vulnerable to pressures of political or any other nature, while the risk is considerably reduced if the decision is taken by the judiciary section (in the case of judges) and the prosecutors section (in the case of prosecutors) of the CSM, while maintaining, of course, the confidentiality of the decision, in order not to interfere with the investigation. Such a modification is all the more logic since in the case of flagrant crimes approval is not required (art. 102, par. 3).
Modifying the provision according to which, when caught in the act, judges and prosecutors may be searched or arrested without approval from the CSM, but with the obligation to inform the CSM “without delay” (art. 102, par. 3). The wording “without delay” is much too vague and must be accompanied by the mention “in at most 6 hours”.
………
18. Finally, art. 92 of the draft must be modified, in order not to limit the access to justice for victims of judicial errors and to observe the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Dalban vs. Romania. First of all par. 4, art. 92 stipulates an unjustified limitation of the right to compensation for damage caused by judicial errors in cases of civil, administrative, etc, trials – other than criminal. The current draft stipulates that this right can only be enjoyed after “a definitive ruling by another court regarding the criminal or disciplinary responsibility of the magistrate in committing the judicial error”. Or, the state is liable for all judicial errors, irrespective of the criminal or disciplinary responsibility of judges. The article of the draft bill also contravenes to art. 998 of the Civil Code, which provides for liability even in case of involuntary miscarriage of justice.
Another problem regards par. 5 of art. 92, stipulating that “A person is not entitled to compensation if, during the trial, he/she has contributed in any way to the committing of the judicial error by the magistrate”. APADOR-CH asks for this paragraph to be removed, since it arbitrarily limits the right of the victim to seek redress. At worst, the wording “contributed in any way” could be replaced by “determined”.
Also, the right to a compensation trial is lost by negative prescription after one year (art. 92, par.8), an excessively short term that indicates the tendency of the state to reduce at maximum the conditions in which citizens are able to make the state answerable. At the same time, the term in which a citizen may be made answerable for tax liabilities to the state is of five years. Citizens and state must be placed under equal terms in this respect. The state is no less answerable to citizens than the citizens are to the state. As a consequence, APADOR-CH asks that the negative prescription is increased to five years, in order to treat the citizens and the state equally.
2. The Draft Bill regarding the Superior Council of Magistracy
To complete the justice reform legislative package, the Ministry of justice has prepared a Draft Bill on the organization and functioning of the Superior Council of Magistracy, which was published on the Ministry of Justice web site, for public debate. APADOR-CH prepared its comments within the legal term, hoping they would be taken into account before the Government voted and draft and handed it in for debate to the Parliament.
Comments by APADOR-CHRegarding the Draft Bill on the Superior Council of Magistracy[5]
(As published on the site of the Ministry of Justice, for public debate)
(excerpts)
APADOR-CH considers that the draft bill still contains provisions that fail to secure the main role of this law, the real independence of the judicial power. The Association’s objections point out to the following aspects:
1. According to the current version of the draft bill, the “authority” in charge to decide the career of judges is made up of 10 judges (who, unfortunately, may also be military judges, subordinated to the executive) 9 prosecutors and other persons, the 9 not being selected by the judiciary. This is exactly the reason why APADOR-CH asks, in the following paragraphs, the transfer of certain essential competences regarding the career of judges from the CSM assembly to the Judicial Section.
2. The transfer of attributions regarding the appointment, promotion, transfer, suspension and removal of judges and prosecutors from the assembly of the CSM to that of specialized Sections (articles 37, 39 and 40 of section 2 – the attributions of the CSM assembly - should be moved to section 3 – the attributions of Sections). The careers of judges must not depend on the will and votes of prosecutors, who are part of a hierarchy controlled by the executive. Without the above mentioned modification, the creation of separate sections for judges and prosecutors remains a mere artifice meant to deceive the European institutions. There is also the possibility that the assembly voted exclusively proposals submitted by the sections, under strict and limitative regulations that made it impossible to shun those proposals. Likewise, being part of the executive, prosecutors must not have any saying on the annual budget of courts and of the National Institute of Magistrates (art. 39) or on the organization and functioning of courts (art. 40). Such decisions must be transferred to the two sections of the CSM.
3. The elimination of military courts and prosecutor’s offices. APADOR-CH takes a firm stand on this point. The first step has already been made by closing the military section of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, which, unfortunately, has not been followed by any other changes. Military judges and prosecutors cannot possibly be independent since they are subordinated to their hierarchical superiors. Their presence in the CSM places a doubt on the real independence of the institution. As a consequence, APADOR-CH asks that article 15 be removed from the draft bill.
4. The power to approve the search, detention or preventive arrest of judges, prosecutors or assistant magistrates must be transferred from the competence of the CSM president to that of the Sections, according to the position of the person under investigation (for judges and assistant magistrates, the Judicial Section; for prosecutors, the Prosecutor’s Section) (art. 26, par. 2, letter e; to be moved to section 2, art 43 on the attributions of Sections). APADOR-CH believes that such decisions are not supposed to be taken by a single individual, the head of the CSM, who is exposed to pressures and may be influenced by the government. If decisions in this respect are taken by the Sections, the risk and the chance to give discretionary powers to a single individual are substantially reduced.
……
3. The bill on the protection of individual privacy, name, image, residence and correspondence
The draft bill was brought before the Parliament by a member of the government party. As 2004, an election year, was from the beginning characterized by strong clashes among political parties, the purpose of the proposed law was clear from the very start: curbing or even suppressing the critical comments of the media about political players involved in the elections. The bill was not only uncalled for, it was also contravening to European principles and documents on the matter. APADOR-CH firmly expressed its position and asked for the bill to be rejected.
THE POSITION OF APADOR-CH REGARDING THE BILL ON THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY, NAME IMAGE, RESIDENCE AND CORRESPONDENCE
(Excerpts)
APADOR-CH signed a protest alongside several NGOs, as a first reaction of the civil society against a bill aimed at „shutting down the press”. Fully sharing the indignation of the other signatories, APADOR-CH made the following comments:
……
2. The content of the bill violates the European principles designed for cases when the exercise of the two rights under debate – the freedom of expression (mainly the freedom of the press) and the right to privacy – are conflicting with each other.
3. One of the European principles which is severely infringed upon is the total lack of protection for the freedom of expression and for one of its most important components – the freedom of the press. The bill suggests an illegal and prohibited hierarchy between the two rights under debate.
Under such circumstances, art. 1, par. 2 of the bill stating that the two rights „have equal value” remains purely declarative, as the announced „equality” is annulled by the other provisions of the bill. Articles 3 and 8, providing for exceptions, that is situations and circumstances when „the exercise of rights making the object of the present law” (the right to privacy, name, image, residence and correspondence) may be restricted, show clearly that the right of the public to be informed and the correlated right of the media to inform are not among the possible exceptions. In fact, the bill limits the freedom of the press and the right of the public to information to an unacceptable extent, hiding under the appearance of a bill that protects the right to privacy.
4. Another principle that was seriously infringed by the bill was the lack of any distinction between ordinary people and public persons (including politicians), respectively between the different levels of protection of privacy for the two categories. The bill proposes a large protection of privacy (image, name, etc.) for any person. Moreover, since the press is notoriously not interested in ordinary persons, it is obvious that the illegal and illegitimate purpose of the bill is to protect public persons, and mainly politicians, from media attention and public control.
The decisions taken by those elected or appointed in a public office, who occupy positions of essential importance for citizens, can be – and, indeed, are – influenced by a series of personal elements which, according to the bill, should remain hidden from the public opinion, under the pretext of privacy. But „ordinary people” have the right to information regarding those who exercise direct influence over their lives, including more private aspects, if these are connected to the way they fulfill or fail to fulfill their official duties.
5. The bill under debate is obviously designed in order to leave the freedom of expression – and mainly the freedom of the press – void of content, with the clear intent of suppressing investigative journalism and obstruct the right of the public to receive information.
…….
7. The prohibition imposed to media institutions and left to the competence of courts, to publish „documents, information, images and recordings”, as provided by art. 25, par. 3 of the bill, represents a very dangerous form of prior censorship, contravening European principles.
8. The bill also represents an obstacle in the long boasted fight against corruption. The fight cannot possibly succeed without the essential contribution of the media, especially of investigative press. Corruption act do not take place in public places, but far from sight. Preventing the media to investigate suspicious persons under the pretext of protecting privacy means to encourage corruption. On the contrary, journalists must be encouraged to run their own investigations and publish the results, thus supporting the authorities. Or the bill prohibits photographing, taping, observing – even private objects or properties, publishing private information, images and documents „in a way that misrepresents reality” – limitations which render such investigations impossible.
…….
11. Also, the definition of „public interest”, risky and most of the times incomplete, is here extremely limited and summary, therefore very dangerous (article 4 letter q). For instance, the definition retained by the bill does not include the discovery or unmasking of a crime or any other violation for the law, which must be considered part of public interest. Moreover, limiting the notion of „public interest” by the determinants „legitimate and pertinent” in art. 8, letter b is completely wrong. „Public interest is always legitimate and „pertinence” is always subjective.
12. Also wrong is the requirement of consent for retransmitting information, images, recordings, etc., when the person in cause divulged the information of agreed to the transmission in the first place (article 8, par. 2). There is no condition required for the dissemination, publishing or transmission of information, once it entered the public space.
For all these reasons, as well as for other which have not been mentioned here, APADOR-CH asked for the bill on protecting individual privacy, name, image, residence and correspondence to be REJECTED.
4. The Draft Bill for the modification of the Romanian Gendarmerie Law
In 2003, the General Inspectorate of Gendarmerie (IGJ) made an attempt at modifying the legislation governing the organization and functioning of the institution. APADOR-CH made some critical comments (See the 2003 Report) regarding the proposal that never materialized into a draft bill. In 2004, the Government brought before the Parliament a draft bill aimed at modifying the Gendarmerie Law, maintaining those provisions which could lead to infringements of human rights.
Observations by APADOR-CH to The Draft Bill for the Modification Of the Romanian Gendarmerie Law (Nr.116/1998)[6]
1. By the nature of the institution and its attributions, the Romanian Gendarmerie takes direct part in concrete, immediate action. Therefore, the gendarmes are confronted with flagrant contraventions or criminal offences. Art. 19, letter q, gives them the right to ascertain contraventions and apply sanctions, while letter r allows them to fill in „the necessary documents to start criminal investigations for offences ascertained during specific missions in accordance with art. 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code” (our highlight). Art. 214, par. 4 of the CPC stipulates that „in the case of flagrant offences”, the same bodies (ascertaining bodies) are under obligation to immediately hand the perpetrator over to the prosecutor, along with the paperwork and the material evidence” (our highlight).
But art. 35 of the bill allows gendarmes to lead perpetrators „to the nearest police or gendarmerie station” instead of handing them over to a prosecutor. Thus, art. 35 comes in contradiction with the Criminal Procedure Code and encourages human rights violations (the right to personal freedom, the right to defense, etc.). Already used by the Romanian Police, the practice of „leading” a person to the station has been constantly criticized by APADOR-CH. „Leading” someone to a place that one is unable to leave freely means deprivation of freedom. The optional Protocol of the UN Convention against torture includes a similar definition for deprivation of freedom.
To conclude, the Law on the organization and functioning of Police infringes the international human rights documents and practices by authorizing an unacceptable form of deprivation of freedom, and it is hard to admit that another public authority – the Romanian Gendarmerie – should assume the same „right”.
APADOR-CH asks that art. 35 of the draft bill should be eliminated.
2. The Association also considers that art.20, par. 1 of the bill includes an inappropriate provision stipulating that physical or legal entities should be under obligation, when requested by gendarmes, to provide „the information, data and documents they need to fulfill their duties…”. The Gendarmerie is not – and should not be – a criminal investigation body or an information body. As a consequence, gathering information, data and documents is unjustified. Moreover, physical and legal entities cannot be placed under obligation to contribute to the activity of a public authority.
APADOR-CH asks that the provision should be eliminated.
3. APADOR-CH asks that, during the exercise of their duties, gendarmes should wear, at all times and visibly, badges with their name and rank, or at least their number. Art. 27, par. 5 of the bill must be modified in this respect. On the one hand, it would help gendarmes be aware that they are individually responsible for their actions, and on the other hand, persons who consider themselves victims of abuse by gendarmes would be able to identify the alleged perpetrators, facilitating an investigation by the authorities in charge.
4. The wording used in art. 49 of the bill implies that the gendarmerie is free to rent out disposable goods, including - according to art. 46, par. 1 - firearms, ammunition as well as technical and other specific equipment.APADOR-CH asks for the provision to be eliminated, considering it unacceptable that a key public order institution, supposed to discourage and sanction violence, should provide arms and ammunition to outsiders, physical or legal entities. Besides, the Gendarmerie must remain an exclusively state financed institution, not allowed to obtain other types of income, which are hard – or impossible – to control.
APADOR-CH asks that art. 49 of the draft bill should be eliminated.
5. The bill on the creation, organization and functioning of the National Control Authority for Personal Data Processing
In October 2004, the Government brought before the parliament a bill aimed at creating a national agency for the supervision of personal data processing. The bill was meant to take data processing from the control of the Ombudsman and create and independent authority to administrate it. European Commission documents were also used in support of the bill. APADOR-CH made some comments and criticized certain provisions of the draft bill.
COMMENTS BY APADOR-CH REGARDING THE BILL ON THE CREATION, ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONING OF THE NATIONAL SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY ON PERSONAL DATA PROCESSING[7]
(Excerpts)
Article 3 par. 5 and 6
APADOR-CH asks for modification of art. 3, par. 5, so that the decisions and instructions given by the Authority’s chairman should be mandatory only for that institution, not for other „institutions and bodies”, as the text stipulates.
The Authority about to be created is a control body. Therefore, it is supposed to make sure that laws are observed, not to create new general regulations. The authority may suggest modifications of the law, following its activity experience, but must not replace the legislator by issuing decisions and instructions „with normative character”.
Article 4, par. 2
APADOR-CH asks for art. 4, par. 2 to be eliminated because the text is too general and leaves the decision regarding the public/confidential character of the activity at the discretion of the Authority’s chairman.
Exceptions for free access to public information have been provided by Law No. 544/2001 and no further exceptions are necessary.
……..
Article 11, letter b
APADOR-CH asks for letter b of article 11 to be modified or to be completed by a new entry, b/1, providing, as part of the attributions of the chairman:
“b/1) ensures that each person on whom personal data processing operations have been conducted, is informed in writing, ex officio, at least once in a calendar year, about the identity of the operators and the number of times data were processed by each of the operators”
It is only natural that a person should address the supervisory authority when one needs to find out whether one’s personal data have been processed, and by whom. The practice established by the bill – that a person should ask all the possible operators (of whose existence the person is unaware) whether they have processed his/her personal data – is only a way to prevent people from finding out information which they are fully entitled to.
..........
Article 19, par. 3
The entry modifies art. 21 of Law No. 677/2001.
APADOR-CH asks for the modifications to art. 21 of Law No. 677/2001 to include an express attribution for the authority chairman, besides the two attributions mentioned in the above comments to art. 11, letter b, of the bill.
Thus, art. 21 of Law No. 677/2001 must expressly provide, among the attributions of the supervisory authority: Informing the persons in cause, in writing, ex officio, at least once a year, about the identity of the operators and the number of times data were processed by each of the operators.
Receiving, solving and communicating the solution of requests for information on data processing, the operators who conducted it, the number of times data were processed and the interval of time when each of them operated.
APADOR-CH continued in 2004 to monitor the implementation of Law No. 544/2001 on free access to public information, by officially requesting information and taking the case to justice if the request was denied without justification by the respective authorities and public institutions. At the same time, the Association took part in the international law implementation monitoring program launched and coordinated by Open Society Justice Initiative. Besides monitoring the implementation of the law, APADOR-CH was also involved in promoting this instrument among the general public, by editing, publishing and distributing information kits and offering legal assistance to people who wanted to request information or use the legal channels to petition against a refusal.
Monitoring through information requests and court actions
In 2004, APADOR-CH filed requests for information with the Public Ministry - the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Supreme Court of Justice (statistics about surveillance authorizations, requested in accordance with the Law on National Security and the 2003 Criminal Procedure Code), the Foreign Ministry (the stage of adoption by Romania of international treaties and information on the way voting stations were organized abroad during the Romanian parliamentary and presidential elections in November 2004), the Ministry of Administration and Interior (information on procedures used by authorities in returning Romanian citizens from foreign states and the nominal list of 71 journalists who complained of abuse to the police from 1999 to 2004, their employer, the nature of abuse, the solutions and duration of investigations), the General Direction of Penitentiaries (information on persons serving custodial sentences for libel and calumny). Most of the public institutions/authorities answered the request for information within the legal term.
At the same time, APADOR-CH carried on court actions launched in previous years by virtue of Law No. 544/2001, as well as enforcement procedures against public authorities/institutions that were sentenced by the courts, through irrevocable decisions, to communicate the requested public information but failed to do so.
In 2003, APADOR-CH obtained definitive and irrevocable decisions against the Public Ministry – the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice – which was obliged to provide statistic information on surveillance authorizations issued by virtue of the Law on national security and the Criminal Procedure Code between 1991-2002, respectively 1996 and 2002, as well as against the Ministry of Public Finance, obliged to communicate statistic data regarding stamp duty exemptions.
Enforcement procedures opened in 2003 continued during 2004, with no definitive rulings issued until the end of the year. In the case of the Ministry of Public finance and the finance minister, the Bucureşti Court of Appeal ruled in March 2004 that the Ministry and the finance minister were sentenced to joint payment of compensatory damages of 3.000.000 lei to the Association, and fined the minister with 500 lei/day of delay - the civil penalty provided by the Administrative Justice Law – for the period when he failed to comply with the court decision. Both the Ministry and the minister appealed the decision, which shall be judged in 2005 by the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
In what concerns the enforcement procedures against the Public Ministry and the Prosecutor General Tănase Joiţa, the Bucureşti Court of Appeal on October 28, 2004, ruled in first instance that the defendants should pay joint damages of 300.000 lei/ day of delay for the period between May 20, 2003 and August 29, 2003 (when Tănase Joiţa resigned as prosecutor general). For the same period, Prosecutor General Tănase Joiţa was fined with 500 lei/day of delay. Moreover, the Public Ministry was sentenced to pay damages of 300.000 lei/ day of delay for the period between August 30, 2003 and December 10, 2003 (when the ministry partially communicated the information requested by the Association)
As APADOR-CH considers that by the information communicated on December 10, the Public Ministry failed to fulfill its obligation, not providing complete information on the surveillance authorizations issued by virtue of the National Security Law, the Association asked the Bucureşti Court of Appeal to sentence the Public Ministry to pay damages until it fully complies with its obligation to communicate public information. The Court of Appeal only enforced the payment of damages until December 10, 2004, considering that the Ministry had complied with its obligation, so APADOR-CH appealed the decision. The procedures are pending.
In what concerns the enforcement procedures against the Public Ministry and Prosecutor General Ilie Botoş, launched in December 2003, the Bucureşti Tribunal, through its administrative section, sentenced the Prosecutor General to pay a civil fine of 500 lei/day of delay in enforcing the court ruling, but denied the Association’s request for damages for delay. APADOR-CH appealed the ruling and the cause will be retried by the Bucureşti Court of Appeal, at Bucureşti Tribunal. Procedures are pending.
In 2003, APADOR-CH got involved, alongside other four NGOs, in the unacceptable situation in Şelimbăr, where the local council imposed a 100 000 lei/page fee (over 3 USD) for photocopies requested by virtue of Law 544/2001. The five organizations filed a criminal complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Sibiu Court, accusing the mayor and the local council of abuse of authority. The prosecution decided non-indictment, and the claimants filed a contestation with the chief prosecutor. Following the contestation, the prosecution decided an administrative sanction (a 10.000.000 lei fine) against all the members of the local council involved in the decision to increase the copying price. Subsequently, the Şelimbăr local council reviewed its decision to increase the photocopying price, which was finally set at 1.500 lei/page.
Also regarding the exaggerated fees for photocopying documents requested by virtue of Law No. 544/2001, this time at the Public Ministry (8.000 lei/page), APADOR-CH filed a petition with the institution, asking to reduce the fee to the market value. The Public Ministry denied the request and APADOR-CH filed and administrative complaint against the refusal to reduce the photocopying fee. The administrative complaint was solved and the Public Ministry informed the Association that the fee for photocopying documents requested by virtue of Law No. 544/2001 was thereon set at 2.000 lei/page.
Another court action by virtue of Law 544/2001, launched by APADOR-CH in 2003 and carried on, followed a request for information filed with the Romanian Government. The Association has requested the documents regarding the appointment of former Prosecutor General Tănase Joiţa as general consul in Strasbourg, including medical documents. The complaint was not admitted by the court of first instance - The Bucureşti Tribunal – which considered that the Romanian Government had communicated all the existing documents (the Association had received a single document: a note of the Foreign Ministry advancing Joiţa’s name as consul general). APADOR-CH appealed the decision at the Bucureşti Court of Appeal, which decided that the Tribunal should re-judge the case. The case was dismissed again after being retried, on the merits. The Association will appeal again when the motives are issued by the court.
During both 2003 and 2004, APADOR-CH supported the requests for public information filed by some of the lawyers who participated in the workshops on Law No.544/2001 organized by the Association (requests filed formulate in the name of clients or in its own name) and court actions against public authorities/institutions which failed to communicate the requested information. The Association offered assistance and documentation, or even financial support for five court actions: newspaper Ziua de Vest vs. the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Timişoara Tribunal (the requested information concerned the dossier of a legal enforcement officer in Timişoara; the Timişoara Tribunal ruled against the defendant, who was obliged to communicate the number of files concerning the aforementioned officer in which the investigation was closed and the legal solutions enforced); the Timişoara Society vs. the National Health insurance Agency - Timiş (the requested information concerned statistical data on the institution budget, the expenditure, the main debtors to the health insurance funds; as a result of the court action, the institution provided all information); the Vrancea branch of the National Liberal Party (PNL) vs. the Court of Accounts - Vrancea (information concerning controls activities by the institution; the court action against the denial of information was declared admissible in first instance, and the institution was summoned to communicate the requested information; the court of appeal denied the request); Bogdan Aanei vs. the Competition Council (information concerned statistical data on state subsidies; the court action against the denial of information was irrevocably denied by the courts); Dragoş Ivanovici vs. the Ministry of Education, Research and Youth (the requested information concerned various data on teacher titularity and high-school graduation exams; following the court action, the ministry partially answered the questions and the court rejected the case as groundless).
Open Society Justice Initiative Monitoring
In 2003 Open Society Justice Initiative ran a pilot program monitoring the implementation of access to information laws in four European countries. The program had two main objectives: to prepare a comparative study at international level and to develop methodologies and software for those interested to monitor the way related legislation is implemented. In 2004, OSJI decided to extend the program to 15 countries in Europe, South America and Africa, with Romania included for the first time in such a large scale monitoring of access to information. APADOR-CH was in charge of the monitoring at national level, and for that purpose the Association filed 140 requests for public information with the Defense Ministry, the Ministry of Labor and Social Solidarity, the Ministry of Environment and Water Management, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Public Finance, the Romanian Government, the High Court of cassation and justice, the Bucureşti Tribunal, the Mayor’s Offices in Sector 1 and Sector 4, the Târgovişte City Hall, the Buftea City Hall, the Bucureşti Prefect’s Office, the Giurgiu Prefect’s Office, the Department for Agriculture and Rural Development in Călăraşi, the Forest Department in Ialomiţa, the Romanian Television (TVR) and RADET. Besides requests for information, APADOR-CH also sent the abovementioned institutions questionnaires on the concrete steps and organizational measures taken for the implementation of Law 544, and conducted interviews with official representatives about the flaws discovered during the monitoring. The final results of the monitoring in the 15 countries will be released by OSJI in 2005.
Promoting the Law on access to public information
In 2003, APADOR-CH prepared a Practical Guidebook for the implementation of Law No. 544/2001, addressing the general public. In 2004, the Guidebook was printed and distributed by Ziua newspaper and several NGOs. It was also made available on the Association’s web site.
APADOR-CH also published a selection of cases entitled “Access to Public Information in Romania”. It includes the correspondence with public institutions/authorities, as well as documents from court files which resulted from the refusal to communicate public information (legal proceedings, statements of rebuttal, grounds for second appeal, court rulings, etc.) in seven cases based on Law No. 544/2001. The selection also includes relevant documents of the declassification court action taken by APADOR-CH in 2004 against the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Health, of the enforcement procedures against the Public Ministry and Prosecutor General Ilie Botoş and of the court action against the Romanian Government for withdrawing/annulling G.D No. 952/2003 on the Integrated Computer System. The compendium will be distributed to courts, bar associations and law schools during 2005.
III. DETENTION, REEDUCATION AND SOCIAL REINSERTION OF PERSONS SERVING CUSTODIAL SENTENCES
In 2004, APADOR-CH continued to monitor detention conditions in prisons under the General Direction of Penitentiaries, paying special attention to juveniles serving custodial sentences. Besides penitentiaries, the Association also visited the corresponding Social Reinsertion and Observation Services, in an attempt to assess the efficiency of the current system. At the same time, APADOR-CH monitored the law proposals aimed at modernizing the penitentiary system, as it was the case of the Bill on execution of sentences and the Bill on the status of public workers in the system of prison administration
Regulations regarding the execution of custodial sentences
In 2004, a first attempt to modernize the penitentiary system was a bill concerning the status of its workers, which proposed a most welcome change: the demilitarization of penitentiary staff. APADOR-CH saluted this initiative of the Ministry of Justice, while adding the observations of the Association regarding the bill, which were communicated to the Ministry on February 27, 2004 and presented, in short, in the following:
Observations Regarding the Bill on the Status of Public Workers
In the System of Prison Administration
(Excerpts)
“1. Art 2 (1) – including the National Prison Administration (ANP) and subordinated units into the “state defense, public order and national security structures” is against the very nature and role of this institution. This all the more obvious since the proposed bill aims at the demilitarization of penitentiary staff, a long delayed process of adjusting to European standards. The specific role of the ANP and the new status of the staff (“civil public workers”, rather than “military staff”) the ANP cannot be included into the “state defense, public order and national security structures” (the national defense system”, as defined by constitutional provisions and by Law No. 39/1990 on the organization and functioning of the Supreme Council of National Defense);
…….
3. Given certain mentalities and practices, still persisting in the penitentiary system, art. 49, par. (1), letter c) should explicitly prohibit ethnical, national and sexual discrimination.
4. The wording used in art. 49, par. (1), letter h) regarding the state and professional secret - „as well as confidentiality with respect to fact, information or documents to which one had access in the exercise of professional duties” – suggests that the notion of confidentiality, already included in the extremely restrictive Law on classified information (Law No. 182/2002) is now extended to all the aforesaid facts, information and documents (see also art. 63, letter h, regarding the „confidentiality about the activity exercised” – our highlight). Thus, any request of information about the penitentiary system, even is not sanctioned by Law 182, may be denied under the pretext of confidentiality, which is in contradiction with Law No. 544/2001 on free access to public information. As a consequence, instead of greater transparency, the penitentiary system manages to achieve total secrecy.
APADOR-CH asks that the obligation under letter h) should only refer to the preservation of state and professional secrecy, as provided by the law. Letter h) of art. 63, on „the breach of confidentiality norms with regard to the activity exercised”, should also be eliminated.
…….
7. Art.76 refers to other military staff that is part of the Ministry of Justice, with responsibilities in coordinating and controlling the penitentiary system activities. As APADOR-CH knows, only SIPA includes „other military staff”.
APADOR-CH asks for the abolition of this anachronistic and dangerous institution, with no equivalent in countries with strong democracies.
..….”
The bill was voted as Law No. 293/2004 on the Status of Public Workers in the System of National Prison Administration, in effect since September 2004. The critical observations made by APADOR-CH were included to a very little extent in the final version of the law.
*
At the beginning of May 2004, the Ministry of Justice submitted the Bill on the execution of sentences to public debate, as required by Law No. 52/2003 on decision transparency. The Bill was coming after 15 years during which domestic and foreign, governmental and non-governmental organizations constantly requested the replacement of the obsolete Law No. 23/1969 with a modern legal norm, based on international – and primarily European standards. Moreover, a new law on the execution of sentences was also necessary following the adoption in 2004 of a new Criminal Code, containing many provisions regarding the execution of sentences that were inapplicable in the absence of framework regulations.
APADOR-CH appreciated that the bill proposed by the Ministry of Justice solved many of the inconsistencies between Law No. 23/1969 and the Romanian Constitution, and also between the same law and international regulations on the matter (primarily the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted Aug. 30, 1955 by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, approved by ECOSOC by resolutions 663 C (XXIV)/1957 and 2076 (LXII)/1977, the European Prison Rules, as provided by R (87) 3 of the Committee of Ministers, as well as report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in the matter.
APADOR-CH however considered that the bill on the execution of sentences has some flaws of principle, in the way it solves certain provisions and in the wording of certain articles. Excerpts from the comments made by APADOR-CH on these aspects are presented below:
Comments by APADOR-CH Regarding the Bill on the execution of sentences
(Excerpts)
“1. Matters of principle
1.1. Maintaining the centers for preventive arrest (during investigation) under the control of the Ministry of Administration and Interior, respectively of the police.
APADOR-CH has repeatedly asked that persons should be kept in police custody only during the 24 hour retention. In European democracies, but also in Canada and the United States, it is against the policy to keep a retained/arrested suspect in custody after the court has issued an arrest warrant against the respective person. Undoubtedly, the Romanian system leaves a retained suspect, arrested as the result of a warrant issued by a judge, becomes vulnerable if left at the discretion of policemen who suspect him/her of crime. There is a risk - as shown by the investigations conducted by APADOR-CH, but also by the statements of 50% of the detainees who stayed in police custody – that persons in custody should be victims of physical/psychological pressure in order to admit their guilt. Moreover, the data gathered by APADOR-CH show that suspects are pressured to admit other offences, as well, more exactly the ones classified as „UA”s (unknown/unidentified author). Besides, the Romanian Police is among the most conservative repressive state institutions. As a consequence, APADOR-CH is unimpressed by the pledges of the MAI to „observe” human rights when it comes to people suspected by policemen of having committed a crime.
APADOR-CH asks that Title V (the execution of custodial sentences) should be completely modified, so that all persons retained by the police should be transferred to the penitentiary system as soon as the judge has issued an arrest warrant.
The MAI would only take care of retained persons. Those against whom the judge has issued an arrest warrant would be immediately placed under the custody of the National Prison Administration, subordinated to the Ministry of Justice. As a consequence, Title V (art. 93-96) would make a clear distinction between custody centers (under MAI custody) from preventive arrest centers (under ANP custody).
........
2. The way of solving certain provisions
2.1. The role and attributions of the delegate judge for the execution of sentences
a) APADOR-CH points out to art.6, par. 1, according to which “one or several judges of each first instance court are assigned every year as delegate judge for the execution of sentences”. The wording implies that (a1) any judge, irrespective of specialization, may be assigned as delegate judge. In the opinion of APADOR-CH, the delegate judge should be selected from those competent in criminal law. A judge competent in other type of causes, civil, for instance, might need a period of time to review criminal law and become familiar with the penitentiary system regulations and custom. (a2) The delegate judge is appointed for only one year, too little time to effectively control the way custodial sentences are executed. In the opinion of the Association, the appointment should last for at least two years.
Also, APADOR-CH considers it necessary to underline the idea that, during the entire appointment, the delegated judge would cover exclusively the problems of custody and preventive arrest centers and penitentiaries.
b) In what concerns art.56 of the bill (the right to correspondence), APADOR-CH noted that, although paragraph 3 provides that correspondence “may only be opened or retained under the limits of the law” (by virtue of an surveillance authorization issued by a judge), paragraphs 5 and 6 give the prison governor the power to put the detainee’s mail under surveillance – in breach of the criminal law.
APADOR-CH asks that the prisoner’s mail should not be opened or retained unless there is a surveillance authorization in that respect, issued by the delegate or another judge. The prison governor may make a proposal in that respect and provide the judge with all the justifying documents and information. But the decision lies exclusively with the latter. If the judge decides to place a detainee’s mail under surveillance, the detainee shall be immediately informed, in writing. Copies of the authorization and the notification shall be annexed to his penitentiary file.
2.2. The regimes for the execution of custodial sentences (Title IV, chapter II)
a) The problem of prison uniforms.
APADOR-CH considers that no detainee, under no category, should be obliged to wear a prison uniform. (At the moment, excepting court uniforms, detainees wear former military uniforms, more or less reconditioned, which are highly inappropriate for personal hygiene). Or the bill provides the mandatory use of “distinctive” uniforms for each category of detainees (art.34 – maximum security, art.35 – closed regime, art.36 – semi open regime), excepting those on open regime. This is against the UN and European Prison Rules, according to which detention conditions must be as close as possible to the lifestyle of free people…
APADOR-CH asks for the obligation to wear prison uniforms to be abolished. Uniforms may be only given to detainees who do not own decent clothing or who expressly ask for it. Anyway, even they will be provided with plain clothes whenever they are taken out of the detention place, and when they receive visitors.
b) With respect to the open detention regime (art.37), the Association asks for the detainee’s rights to be extended.
In Netherlands, for instance, detainees may go home on weekends or go, unescorted, to their workplace. Of course, any breach of regulation or hours is sanctioned by a limitation of these rights. APADOR-CH makes the following suggestions:
- Detainees under this category who go out to work for farms, factories or workshops should not be escorted. Of course, a very strict evidence of departure and arrival hours should be kept. Periodically, detainees should be checked on at the workplace by a prison representative;
- Detainees working for private farms or households shall be escorted to their workplaces and placed under the care of their employers. At the end of the working hours, they should be escorted back by a supervisor;
- Detainees under this category, whether they work or not, may be allowed to leave the penitentiary, without escort, once a week, including the visiting day. The duration of the leave, as well as departure and arrival hours, shall be strictly monitored. Excepting unforeseen situations, the detainee shall file an application with the prison management 24 hours in advance, mentioning the purpose of the leave of absence (staying with the family, with other close persons, visiting a doctor’s private practice, etc);
- Detainees who go to work or go on a leave of absence shall be allowed to take money out of their personal accounts to pay for transportation and other expenses necessary to their declared purpose. Upon return to the prison, all expenses shall be accounted for.
- Detainees under this category are prohibited from making errands or shopping for detainees from other categories, or risk to be sanction by a change of regime.
APADOR-CH considers that in the absence of such facilities, the open regime does not differ substantially from the others and does not help detainees serving light sentences or close to release to effectively prepare for reinsertion.
2.3. Conditions of detention (Title IV chapter III)
a) Accommodation of convicted persons
The bill makes no mention of any obligation of detention institutions to ensure reasonable space for every detainee. The UN and European Minimum Rules refer to “cubic meters of air” (more precisely, 6 cubic meters). The European committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) recommends the use of square meters (4.5 sq m per detainee). APADOR-CH asks that the law should mention (art.45, par. 2) the obligation of the administration to ensure an acceptable amount of vital space for each detainee, preferably in conformity with CPT standards.
…….
c) The food of detainees
Art. 47, par. 2 stipulates that “the mandatory minimum food norms shall be established by order of the minister of justice” (our highlight). APADOR-CH considers that these norms should be decided by prison and police custody doctors, after consulting and obtaining the mandatory endorsement of nutrition experts and accredited institutions. The “order of the minister of justice” is a purely bureaucratic method that fails to answer the real needs of detained persons. The Association insists that the doctors are given as much freedom as possible in deciding the food norms.
……..
e) Restraint of convicts (art. 49)
APADOR-CH asks that the following phrase be added at the end of the article: “The means of restraint shall only be used when absolutely necessary and shall be removed as soon as the aggressive behavior had ceased”. The UN Minimum Rules and the European Prison Rules include similar provisions.
2.4. Rewards and disciplinary sanctions (Title IV chapter VII)
……..
b) Disciplinary procedure (art.84)
APADOR-CH asks for paragraph 6 (“Enforced disciplinary sanctions shall be noted in a special registry and decisions of the disciplinary board shall be included in the individual file of the convicted person”) to be complemented as follows: “All statements and documents used by the discipline board in deciding a disciplinary sanction shall be included in the individual file, which shall be transferred alongside the convict to all detention places. The procedure shall be followed irrespective of court decisions regarding a possible contestation of the sanction. The convicted person shall have access to the individual file at all times and is entitled to photocopy the contents of the file”. This modification should also be included under art. 90 (the individual file of the convict), letter L, and art. 95 (the individual file of persons under preventive arrest), letter k. In art. 95, letter k, the last sentence of the suggested text becomes: “The person under preventive arrest shall have access….”
3. Wordings used in certain articles
……...
- art.62 (medical examination), par. 3. The Association suggests the modified text: “the doctor who conducts the examination has… the obligation to write down in the medical file all his/her observations, as well as all the declarations made by the convicted person regarding the state of health and any other circumstances that could have deteriorated it. The convicts make declarations of responsibility”.
………
- art.81 (disciplinary offences), letter b. The Association asks for the article to be eliminated. “Disturbing social and educational programs in any way” is too vague and general a wording. Any gesture or sound might “disturb” the activity. Moreover, social and educational programs involve an active participation of detainees. In the current form, letter b is bound to inhibit detainees and thus reduce to nothing the expected positive effects of such programs on persons deprived of freedom.
Also, letter g of the same article is phrased in unacceptable terms: “failing to observe any obligation of the detainee, if this is of such nature as to bring damage to the order and security of the prison”. The final part is extremely vague and may be easily interpreted by the prison management according to their wish. The Association asks for the last part of letter g to be modified as follows: “… if it creates a real and demonstrable danger for the order and security of the prison”. The burden of proving the materiality of the danger for the order and security of the prison rests, of course, with the management.
……..”
The comments prepared by APADOR-CH were to the Ministry of Justice on May 17, 2004, within the legal term established by Law No. 52/2003 on decisional transparency and announced on the ministerial web site. However, APADOR-CH was surprised to find out that the bill had been presented to the Government for approval well ahead of the official deadline for the public debate, in breach of Law No. 52/2003. As a consequence, the Association filed administrative petitions with both the Ministry of Justice and the Government, asking for the annulment of acts produced in breach of the law on decisional transparency and for the recommencement of the procedure, as provided by Law No. 52/2003. Both petitions were unsuccessful and APADOR-CH sued the Ministry of Justice and the Romanian Government, seeking, besides the requirements in the petition, moral and physical damages. The Bucureşti Court of Appeal rejected the motion of the Association after having exonerated the Romanian Government, on grounds that the Government is not subject to Law No. 52/2003. APADOR-CH appealed against the verdict of the Bucureşti Court of Appeal, and the appeal will be judged by the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
In the meanwhile, the bill was approved and adopted, becoming Law No. 294/28.06.2004 on the execution of sentences and other measures decided by judicial bodies during the criminal trial. The law comes into effect alongside the new Criminal Code, on June 29, 2005.
*
In the 2003 Report, APADOR-CH pointed out to the uninspired initiative of the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Health to create, by joint order, a joint committee for analyzing the deaths in the prison system. The committee was supposed to publish only the causes of death, while the information regarding medical care prior to the death was classified as “professional secret”. As a consequence, no one, not even the families of deceased detainees, would have been able to access this kind of information. The obvious purpose was to eliminate any possibility of contesting the quality of the medical act prior to the death. Considering such a provision unacceptable, APADOR-CH launched the procedure of “declassification”, as stipulated by Law No. 182/2002 on classified information. As the administrative contestation had no results, APADOR-CH appealed against the provision at Bucureşti Tribunal – the administrative section. As a result, in January 2004, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Health issued another joint order which abrogated the provision.
Visits to institutions subordinated to the General Direction of Penitentiaries and to social reinsertion and observation services
In 2004, the representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Botoşani Penitentiary, the Juvenile Re-education Centre in Tg. Ocna, the Giurgiu Penitentiary, the Juvenile and Youth Penitentiary in Craiova, the Maximum Security Penitentiary in Craiova, the Târgşor Penitentiary, as well as the social reinsertion and observation services attached to the Bacău, Dolj and Timiş Tribunals. Detailed reports of each visit were sent to the General Direction of Penitentiaries, respectively to the Direction for Social Reinsertion and Observation of the Ministry of Justice and were posted on the Association’s web site (www.apador.org). The representatives of the Association also visited the new reeducation centre in Buziaş, inaugurated at the beginning of June 2004, but were unable to get a realistic impression because, at the time, there were no juveniles in the centre.
The general situation in Romanian prisons has not known any significant improvement during 2004, as compared to the previous year. The problems remain very much the same: overcrowding, lack of adequate health care for some of the ailing detainees, lack of daily activities for many of the adult detainees, lack of confidentiality during phone-calls, excessive use of force by intervention forces in penitentiaries.
A particularly disturbing problem identified by the representatives of APADOR-CH during their visit to the Giurgiu Penitentiary, in February 2004, was the reintroduction of chains as means of restraint for detainees. During the visit, the representatives of APADOR-CH found out that in October 2003, the General Director of the DGP issued Order No. 383/10.10.2003 on approving “The Methodology regarding high risk detainees”. According to the aforementioned Order, “detainees in that category shall be restrained by safe means during transportation to courts, hospitals, clinics or other places outside the detention unit. In courts, chains shall also be used when taking the detainee from the arrest chamber to the secured space in the court room, as well as during the trial itself, after informing the judge. If the judge decides to unchain the detainee, it shall be done so. The same procedure shall be used when taking detainees to other institutions or bodies”. After issuing the Order, the DGP bought and distributed to penitentiaries – including the one in Giurgiu – chains for restraining detainees. They are made of metal and sensibly thinner than the “classic” ones. There are two types of chains: one is used to tie the detainee by the waist to the vehicle and the other one is used to tie the legs together and then to the handcuffs.
APADOR-CH expressed its total disapproval with the use of chains to restrain detainees, asking the Ministry of Justice and the General Direction of Penitentiaries to eliminate the criticized provisions from the order. The Association’s point of view is reproduces in the following excerpts:
"1. The Order allows again the use of chains for the restraint of high-risk detainees, a measure in contradiction with theUN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Detainees (adopted in 1955 and approved by ECOSOC in two resolutions: No. 663 C (XXIV)/1957 and No. 2076 (LXII)/1977). Firstly, Rule 57 of the UN document, cited in the Methodology regarding high-risk detainees does not stipulate that “one of the major objectives of penitentiary activity is to maintain the order and discipline, so as the make the prison a safe place for both staff and detainees”, as mentioned in the introduction to the Order. Rule 57 stipulates in the first place that the main punishment of a convict is deprivation of freedom in itself, and then concludes: “Therefore the prison system shall not, except as incidental to justifiable segregation or the maintenance of discipline, aggravate the suffering inherent in such a situation”. The introduction to the Methodology interprets Rule 57 by turning the exception into a main objective.
Secondly, the UN document expressly prohibits, in Rule 33, the use of chains as means of restraint. At the same time, the DGP Order No. 383 also violates Rule No. 33 of the European Minimum Standard Rules for Prisons (adopted by resolution (73)5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe), which includes the same prohibition, reiterated by Rule 39 of Recommendation R (87) 3 issued by the same body.
2. The Order encourages arbitrary decision in establishing the degree of risk posed by detainees. In the opinion of APADOR-CH, art. 1, letter a), b) and c) refers to highly disputable principles. “The nature of the crime” (letter a), “the behavior of detainees before arrest and during the investigation” (letter b)and “the available data about previous detention” should have no impact on whether a detainee is categorized as dangerous or not, unless they are corroborated with the criterion of behavior of detainees during the execution of their last custodial sentence. The obligation to corroborate the facts must be expressly mentioned by the Order (see, for this, art.15, letter b of Recommendation (2003) 23 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe regarding life sentence and other long term prisoners: “Since risk and needs assessment instruments always contain a margin of error, they should never be the sole method used to inform decision-making but should be supplemented by other forms of assessment.”).
……...
3. Art. 3, chapter VII of the DGP Order violates Rule 33 (letter a) of the UN document quoted in the first paragraph, stipulating that the accepted instruments of restraint (handcuffs, straightjacket) must be removed when detainees are brought before the judge. However, art. 3 of the Order stipulates that the means of restraint should be maintained for dangerous detainees even when they are brought before the court and on the whole duration of the trial, unless the court decides to remove the respective means of restraint (including the chains).
……...
For all these reasons APADOR-CH considers that the cited provisions of the DGP Order No. 383/10.10.2003 represent a real danger for the fundamental human right of not being tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. The danger is real because the DGP has already purchased and distributed chains, which are currently used in all penitentiaries that have sections for high-risk detainees. The Association asks for the provisions to be eliminated.
In what concerns the activity of social reinsertion and observation services, APADOR-CH notes that their activity concentrates on preparing pre-sentence reports (at the request of courts and prosecutor’s offices) and on monitoring convicted persons for whom the court has requested the suspension of the sentence under probation. Activities with detainees in penitentiaries are minimal, and post-custodial assistance for released detainees does not cover the needs.
The situation of juveniles serving custodial sentences
APADOR-CH began to monitor the situation of detained juveniles at the end of 2003 and ended it by mid-2004. Here are the main aspects noted during the monitoring process.
Firstly, APADOR-CH salutes the re-opening of the Re-education Centre in Tg. Ocna (2001) and the inauguration of the new centre in Buziaş (2004). These are the first steps of a modern approach in the treatment of juveniles convicted under the criminal law: small capacity re-education centers placed in the various regions of the country, to ensure a close connection between the juveniles and their families. In 2000, there were only two re-education centers, in Găeşti and Tichileşti, both very large and both placed in South-eastern Romania. Now, there are three functional centers while the fourth (Tichileşti) has been turned into a Prison for Juveniles and Youth. However, APADOR-CH considers that the number of re-education centers is still too small, since whole regions are at hundreds of kilometers away from any of them (Transylvania, for instance).
APADOR-CH notes the fact that the number of juveniles in re-education centers decreased. In 2000, for instance, there were 373 juveniles confined to the Găeşti centre, as compared with only 117 in October 2003. The obvious reason of this decline is the lower number of juveniles who have criminal responsibility, as a ratio of the total population, compared to previous years.
In terms of education and professional training for detained juveniles, APADOR-CH points out to the major differences between re-education centers/special prisons for juveniles and youth and regular penitentiaries. The former provide primary and secondary education as well as professional training, with the in-house teaching staff. Juveniles attend courses and receive graduation certificates. Moreover, they are allowed to participate in activities organized by local children clubs. Juveniles from special prisons have limited access to such community resources, and those in regular penitentiaries don’t have any such opportunities. In regular prisons, the educational system is left at the appreciation of the management. Usually, literacy courses are offered, but there are no articulate programs that allow juveniles to attend more complex courses and get graduation certificates, or to get any kind of professional training.
Even though this difference may find an explanation in the two different types of sanction (prison vs. the educative measure of confinement in a re-education centre) and by the limitations of regular prisons in providing adequate education, it is obvious that the interest of the child should be taken into account, irrespective of sanction and the place of confinement. Under such circumstances, efforts should be made to provide similar, if not equal, education and training opportunities for both juveniles sentenced to prison and juveniles from re-education centers.
In what concerns the re-education and social reinsertion programs for juveniles, problems are similar throughout the whole system. One of them is how juveniles are prepared for release. Although such programs should be conducted by social reinsertion counselors, they are in fact organized by the prison/centre staff. The visits made by APADOR-CH showed that the involvement of social reinsertion counselor in prison internal activities is minimal. One of the reasons is the insufficient number of counselors. There are services with just two counselors, a totally insufficient number to cover all the activities in their competence. That is why counselors need to set their priorities, and APADOR-CH reached the conclusion that activities inside prisons/re-education centers are the last one to be taken into account.
With regard to detention conditions for juveniles, APADOR-CH noticed certain improvements. New spaces have been built (the women’s section in Găeşti, the Buziaş centre, etc.) and overcrowding is no longer a problem. In other respects, the situation differs from one place to another. In Tg. Ocna, conditions are good, staff members communicate with the juveniles who are free to circulate throughout the detention unit. These aspects mirror the relaxed atmosphere in the centre. The improvement of detention conditions is also noticeable in Găeşti. In Tichileşti and Craiova, conditions are not as good, and there are tensions between the juveniles and the staff.
During the visits made by APADOR-CH, juveniles seldom complained of being badly treated. Usually, those who had such accusations talked about “slaps” from their teachers or educators. On the other hand, sanctions applied for breaches of regulations have diminished in numbers. It seems that the staff of juvenile prisons/centers has started to use a system that rewards good behavior instead of sanctioning misconduct. APADOR-CH considers this system much more appropriate for juveniles. However, there are still drawbacks in offering juveniles correct information about their rights, especially with regard to the possibilities to appeal disciplinary sanctions and to complain when they are subjected to bad treatment.
Healthcare in the case of juveniles is almost satisfactory, although this is more because they do not generally have serious health problems. Psychiatric conditions/deviant behavior problems are not given the appropriate attention, although an important number of juveniles are in an altered psychic state. In most cases, excepting the Tichileşti Penitentiary, juveniles admitted in civil hospitals are handcuffed during their stay, a practice which violates international standards and has been criticized by APADOR-CH on countless occasions.
Conclusions:
- The first steps have been taken for the improvement of conditions in re-education centers, but constant efforts are necessary in order to obtain satisfactory conditions;
- The education of juveniles in detention is satisfactory, excepting the juvenile sections in regular prisons; professional training is not market-oriented, and the equipment used in workshops is obsolete;
- Steps were made to promote the involvement of juveniles from re-education centers in activities alongside local children, but the practice should be extended to all juveniles deprived of freedom.
- There are still cases of bad treatments against juveniles; slapping is considered a normal and acceptable practice;
- Psychiatric treatment is unsatisfactory, although it is a key element for the future social reinsertion of the juveniles who suffer from such conditions;
- The involvement of social reinsertion and observation services in the activities of juveniles deprived of freedom is minimal.
Cases investigated by APADOR-CH
The Maftei case
Ionuţ-Cristian Maftei, detained at the Maximum Security Penitentiary in Iaşi, died on June 24, 2004, during detention. The representatives of APADOR-CH visited the penitentiary on July 20, 2004, to find out direct information on his death. The detailed report of their visit is posted on the web site of the Association (www.apador.org). Their main findings regarding the circumstances of his death included the following aspects:
On Sunday, June 20th, 2004, Ionuţ-Cristinel offered – according to his room mates – to exchange his cap for a few cigarettes, because he knew a man in the neighboring room (115). Detention rooms in Iaşi Penitentiary were built in symmetric pairs. Between every two neighboring rooms there was a small closet of about one square meter, provided with spy holes, from where the guards were able to watch the rooms. A man’s arm could be easily slipped through the spy hole and detainees used the space to exchange objects (usually cigarettes) with the neighboring room.
To make the exchange, Maftei lay down on the upper bunk by the door and slid his arm through the spy hole. The detainee in room 115 did the same. At a certain point, a room mate heard a moan. As the “negotiations” seemed to last a bit too long, the inmates took a better look at the young man who continued to lay down (his arm through the spy hole) and saw that his eyes had turned purple and his mouth drooled. Frightened, the inmates called the guard, Gabriel Geger, the only one on duty that afternoon.
The non-commissioned officer came right away, he noted that Maftei was comatose, put him in a blanket and, helped by the other inmates, carried him over to the prison gate, where an ambulance came. It was not clear how soon the ambulance arrived. Ionuţ’s parents said that the penitentiary doctors (Doctor Oatu’s name was mentioned) delayed the transfer to the hospital by two hours. They maintained that their son would have had better chances of survival if he had been taken to hospital immediately. After being transferred from the emergency room to the neuro-surgery section, he was finally admitted to the Emergency Hospital in Iaşi, but his life could not be saved. He died on June 24th. According to the medical death certificate No. 240/25.06, his death was caused by “cerebral coma”, while the “intermediary morbid state” was “cerebral edema; cerebral contusion” caused in their turn by “open acute skull trauma”. More plainly put, Ionuţ-Cristinel Maftei died because the right side of his head was violently hit against the metallic frame of the bunk bed (the skull was broken and displayed a 2-3 cm diameter depression). How could this have happened? Most probably, somebody pulled wildly at his arm which hung in the closet between the Rooms 113 and 115 (the marks on the arm seem to confirm this supposition). And who could that somebody be? The discussions with Maftei’s former room mates and the letters received by his parents from detainees suggest that the person might have been the guard on duty.
The civilian Prosecutor’s Office launched its investigation as late as Tuesday, June 22nd, and, of course, concentrated exclusively on the assumption that one or more detainees were guilty of the crime. The fact the Military Prosecutor did not get involved at that stage indicated that there was no intention whatsoever to investigate the guard as well (until September 2004, when the new Status of penitentiary staff came into force, guards were still part of the military and were investigated by military prosecutors).
In their report, the representatives of APADOR-CH expressed their fear that the prosecutors were trying to use one of the detainees as a scapegoat. Another suggested scenario, though highly improbable, was that Ionuţ was beaten by room mates who, when they saw him comatose, staged the story of the arm pulled through the spy hole. The room representative, Ionaşcu, was the alleged author of the beating and the subsequent scheming.
The representatives of APADOR-CH also talked to the Maftei family (in the village of Curături, Ciurea Commune, 30 km from Iaşi). The parents were informed of the incident on Monday, June 21st, and went to the Emergency Hospital in Iaşi only to find Ionuţ in a coma. They went back on Tuesday and Wednesday as well, but the young man died on the following night (Wednesday to Thursday). It must be said that, according to his parents, although comatose, Maftei was handcuffed during the night. APADOR-CH asks the DGP to abandon the use of handcuffs on detainees admitted into civilian hospitals. If it is absolutely necessary, they could be tied up with elastic bandages.
Later, the Military Prosecutor’s Office in Iaşi informed the Association that the file on Maftei Ionuţ’s death was transferred to the Military prosecutor’s Office attached to the Territorial Military Tribunal. Until the end of 2004, the cause had not been solved.
The case of juveniles deceased during the fire at the juvenile and Youth Penitentiary in Craiova