.......................................................

.......................................................

.......................................................

.......................................................

.......................................................

Monthly report for December 2003 and January 2004

1. PUBLIC EVENTS AND VIOLATIONS OF DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE

1.1 The strike in education and the right of children to education. - The wave of social dissatisfaction of the employees in the schools and kindergartens expressed through the general strike led by the Syndicate for education, science and culture (initiated on 26.01.2004) seriously addressed the issue of the disregarding the obligations undertaken by the Government in the laws and bylaws. The Government never even offered and elementary explanation of how it can happen that these obligations were never foreseen and "covered" in the Budget, nor a legal foundation for the disregard of these obligations. For example, the Law for the Execution of the Budget of the Republic of Macedonia for 2004 1), there is no mention of abolishment of these rights of the education workers, and not even a hint of legal basis for recalling any legal regulations in this direction.
With the refusal to even initiate discussions, the Government has put at stake the right of children to education, guaranteed in the Convention on the rights of children (Art. 28), especially with regards to the fact that education is mandatory for all. Unfortunately, the education workers on strike were blamed for this and the problem of disregard of the obligations on behalf of the Government was shown as a problem caused by the strikers.
Having in mind that the State organs are obliged to perform their legal obligations, the Helsinki Committee requests from the Ministry of Education and Science to take appropriate measures not only for the realization of school education but also to take measures which will positively influence the increase of the quality of the education process.

1.2. The former monks of the Macedonian Orthodox Church - test of Macedonian democracy. - The internal discord within the Macedonia Orthodox Church (MOC), which the Serbian and Greek orthodox churches took part in openly, created several dilemmas relevant in the aspect of human rights and liberties. Without entering further into the reasons for the discord, the Helsinki committee finds importance in three dimensions of management of this issue on behalf of the State authorities.
The first dimension is the reaction of the Police, but also the court in Bitola. Taking into consideration the information at our disposal, we can find, with a relatively high degree of certainty, that the event took place as follows: the Police received or issued and internal order to "manage the dissenters". Hence, most probably, on 10.01.2004 a warrant was issued for the search of premises due to the suspicion that the owners or tenants have committed (or will commit) "the crime of causing national, racial, religious hate and intolerance under Article 319, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code". The Police carried out the search the following day, precisely at the time of religious services. At that, besides several remarks on the "treachery and dissidence" and putting into confusion some of the monks that they are searching for illegal weapon (pistol), the search was carried out in a correct manner. They even waited for the religious service to be, more or less, completed. After not finding a weapon, but only a toy-gun (so called "plaslivec" - scary gun), the Police identified and released the civilians, while the persons in cleric attires were taken into custody at the Police station - but without any apparent reason. The reason was "discovered" during the questioning at the Police station when an amalgam was created from the misdemeanor (disturbance of public order with noise pollution) and the crime (causing religious intolerance and hatred). The Loudness was never measured, while religious intolerance was not supported by elements contained in the specific liturgy (they actually attended to). Still, those accusations were brought to the Primary court in Bitola. The Court, finding itself in extreme trouble, decided upon a Solomon compromise- it discarded the accusations for the violation and separated the procedure against Jovan Vraniskovski.
The second dimension is the reaction of the Police in the towns where the alleged "dissenters" lived. On basis of its obligation to "uphold court rulings", the Police fulfilled the decisions of the MOC (which does not have the status of a court instance) with great efficiency. Such activity of the Police is repeated during the second attempt of the monks to return to the monasteries, which are their place of dwelling, also included in their identification papers (issued by the Ministry of Interior). Furthermore: the Police takes the position, protecting the views of the MOC, that these persons may not organize any church or monk life, and treats them as "a group of foreign clergymen", although their civilian documents clearly show that they are Macedonian citizens and active inhabitants of the Republic of Macedonia.
The third dimension is the reaction of the Assembly. In its Declaration 2) "…beginning with the constitutional setting of the MOC … (and its) … historic role", it takes a stand in the defense of the indigenousness and unity of the MOC. Doing this, the Assembly had "overseen" all other regulations with regards to this issue, above all the Constitution, the rule of law, the equality of all citizens according to their religious belief, all the way through to the separation of all religious communities from the State. The decisiveness of the Assembly to work on the affirmation of freedom of religion seems quite strange, when it does not accept (or is even afraid to discuss) the indigenousness and unity of the MOC. Or, perhaps, the acceptance of these two certainties is a condition for the freedom of religion? However, the form in which this Declaration was adopted in is attack against secularity of the State.
Special dimension of treating this issue is the wide media coverage, which was bias and one-sided advocating the MOC standings, emphasizing the link with the ethnic and cultural identity, and utter lack of sense for the freedom of belief and religion.
The Helsinki Committee, having in mind all the issues covered in sect. 3.6 and 3.7 of this Report, as well as the understanding of the traditionalist position of the MOC, and on this occasions points out that the Police is not allowed to become the protector of the MOC, and that the Assembly has missed an ideal opportunity to request from the competent organs to perform their obligations in the legal framework (with a duty of reporting for that to the Assembly) and to direct the solution of this problem within the institutional framework.

1.3. The Bilateral Macedonia- USA agreement. - The Helsinki Committee has appealed and criticized on several occasions regarding the Bilateral Agreement for the exemption of the US from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Still, what is interesting is the lack of transparency of governmental institutions with regards to the publishing of this RIT (Ratified International Treaty) 3).
Namely, this document published on the official web-site of the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia "Overview of the laws introduced during 2002 and 2003 (until 31.12.2003)" never mentions a "Law for the Ratification of the Treaty between the Government of Macedonia and the Government of the United States of America, regarding the Extradition of Persons to the International Criminal Court" although such a law has been published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia no.70/03, of November 3rd 2003, and the same has come to force on the eighth day after publication (Art. 3).
Furthermore, although it is usual to include international treaties in the contents of the specific issue of the Official Gazette, it is not the case with the content of the Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia no.70/03 where this RIT is not mentioned.
The Helsinki Committee finds it hard to believe that this is a matter of "coincidence" or an identical mistake of the services both of the Assembly and of the Official Gazette, and for this reason believes that this is an attempt of the authorities of the Republic of Macedonia to hide this RIT from the eyes of the public.

1.4. The Ministry of Interior and Human rights. - At the beginning of 2004, the Minister of Interior has introduced a "Code of Police Ethics" according to which the first goal of the Police in the Republic of Macedonia is "the protection of basic human rights and liberties guaranteed in the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia, as well as the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights." (Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia 3/04).
It is evident that this is a step forward, although from this, as a normative measure, to its realization in practice - there is a long way to go. Above all, the dissemination and acquainting of the Police with this very important act, the quality and fair training of how this should be realized, as well as the most important part - its realization.
A more significant omission in the normative aspect is the obvious conscious failure to introduce regulations on the responsibility in the case of failure to realize the regulations in the Code, which can be solved, but is an extremely important issue.
Having in mind that even at this moment, the internal bodies of the Ministry of Interior are upholding procedures for inquiry in complaints, by taking the statements and evaluations of their colleagues- Policemen, completely uncritically, the Helsinki Committee believes that the absence of responsibility standards can be transformed into an advantage and calls for the Ministry of Justice to make recommendations for the possibilities of control of the Police outside of the Ministry of Interior structures.

2. VIOLATIONS OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS

2.1 The situation with RAE in Kosovo. - After the "conclusions" of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia of 22.09.2003, not to continue the "temporary humanitarian protection" for the displaced persons from Serbia and Montenegro, more than 90% of the RAE answered the "appeal" and applied for asylum (in the period 06.10-06.11.2003).
According to the spokesperson of the Ministry of Interior, Mirjana Kontevska, (Dnevnik, 22.01.2004, p. 5) the definite decision on the status of these persons will be made "most probably in May or August of 2004". In spite of her statement the law states different timeframes that should be respected by the asylum department. The legal regulation (Art. 27 of the Law on Asylum and Temporary Protection) foresees that a decision should be made in the period of two (2) months after submitting the request for asylum. Hence, the asylum department, which was already supposed to decide upon at least a part of the requests, is continuing the practice of prolonging and violation of legal regulations since the start of the creation of an asylum system and policy which is declared to be in compliance with law and international standards. The prolongation both of the procedure and of deciding upon the asylum requests puts these persons (after four years) again in situation of uncertainty, at the same time maintaining the fear that they will be returned to Kosovo although the conditions for this still have not "matured".
Contrary to this, they continue to express their preparedness to return to Kosovo - if the security situation changes. This was confirmed at the meeting held on 30.01.2004 by Nezdet Mustafa, mayor of the municipality of Suto Orizari and deputy in the Assembly, in the presence of representatives of the UNHCR, OSCE, IOM, the Helsinki Committee and others. The representatives of the RAE declared that they feel "deceived by the promises of the international community" made at Medzitlija in view of the opportunities offered by the UNHCR program for repatriation and possible departure to third countries. With regards to the asylum seeking procedure, the representatives of the RAE complained that they still have not been informed of the legal and procedural possibilities, despite the fact that the OSCE office in Warsaw financed a project for the introduction of the new Law on Asylum. An indication of the lack of offered to the RAE information in view of the regulations of the Law on Asylum concerning temporary protection is the fact that the very representatives of the UNHCR and of the organization which offers legal assistance to the asylum seekers, were not familiar with Art. 74 of the Law, according to which the persons from Kosovo received the status of "temporary protection" after its coming to power. The representatives of the RAE made an appeal for the solution of certain current problems they are faced with, such as the problem of education of their children, and the problems steaming from the high prices of apartment rent.

The Helsinki Committee joins the appeal of the RAE to the "international community" for finding long term, even permanent solutions to their problems- that shall take into consideration the individual goals of each person (which does not exclude collective solutions if all individuals have the same goals). The Helsinki Committee requests from the Government to respect the legal timeframe in the procedure for seeking asylum, as well as to respect the principle of transparency in the work.

2.2. Internally displaced persons (IDP). - The Deputy of SDSM and former member of the Permanent Survey Committee for the Protection of the Rights and Liberties of the Citizens (Survey committee), Karolina Ristova, after the visit to Aracinovo on behalf of the work group of the Survey committee (on the preposition of the citizens from the association "Zora") raised the idea that the "Survey committee should appeal to the DPA, the political party of the mayor, to be activated in the process of solving the problem of the IDP, and the return of mutual trust as an obligation coming forth from the framework agreement signed by the DPA."
The proposal of the deputy is indicative of the way in which people's deputies are functioning. Although it may only be pragmatic, still the proposal indicates not only disregard of the existent system of parliamentary democracy, but also derogation of the principle of the rule of law. According to this deputy, the Constitution (with all its regulations) and the laws are not applied in the Republic of Macedonia but some political agreement (signed by four parties) without any legal power (even more so since it has not been published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia).
The Helsinki Committee has several times pointed out to the inappropriate treatment on behalf of the Government for the IDP during the attempts for their forceful return, condemning the lack of preparedness of the Government to take the responsibility for the suffered damages during the conflict of 2001, as well as its indolence with regard to the conditions of life in the collective centers. To illustrate, the Helsinki Committee was approached by a person who was forced to leave the State Student Dormitory "Pelagonija" - Skopje, after forcing the door (on basis of the notification of the Dormitory of 04.07.2003, which is based on Conclusions of the Government from the 18th session and lists published on 03.0-6.2003). The same person has submitted a document from the Ministry of Transport and Communication of 23.12.2003, which clearly shows that his home still has no electricity counter installed and the building is still not connected to the water supply!!! After being forced out of "Pelagonija", during the last 6 months the person was forced to seek accommodation with distant relatives.
The alarming situation of the IDPs is contained in the National Ombudsperson's warnings, mentioning that his proposals, opinions and recommendations were not understood and respected by the Government and other competent institutions, as the Law on the National Ombudsperson requires. According to the remarks of the National Ombudsperson, the worst conditions of life are the ones in the Center "Cicino Selo" where mostly Roma are accommodated. After the performed inspection of the center, the National Ombudsperson finds that "due to the low level of hygiene in this center, several months ago among the internaly displaced persons appeared mange-cases and were forced to pay themselves for the medication for its treatment."

The Helsinki Committee requests from the Government to urgently adopt measures proposed by the National Ombudsperson, especially with regards to the introduction of a specific program for the protection of the rights of the displaced persons and for the resolving of the problems they are faced with. The Helsinki Committee draws the attention of the National Ombudsperson that through the Survey committee it can require from the Assembly to discuss the responsibility of the persons who fail to offer protection for the violated rights (stated by the National Ombudsperson) set by the Constitution and international treaties, and that he may personally inform the President of the State and the President of the Government of the problems he is faced with during his work (disrespect of the Law on National Ombudsperson), who are obliged to schedule a meeting immediately upon his request.

2.3. The case of "Welfare Apartments". - On 26.12.2003 the Ministry of Transport and Communication announced a new tender for the distribution of apartments (built under the project of the Council of Europe for the construction of apartments which should be rented by persons with low income) in Gostivar - municipality of Dolna Banica. The announcement mentions 40 housing units, although the constructed building previously made available and awarded 42 housing units. The apartments, which are again announced by the Ministry of Transport and Communication, are already inhabited by the persons who have already signed leases with the said ministry (the contracts have not been annulled with any of the contractual parties). The tenants are regularly paying their rent according to the lease contracts as well as their electricity bills.
The following procedures are still active:
- For the fulfillment of contracts - with the Primary Court in Gostivar;
- For the evaluation of the constitutionality and legality of the new Governmental decision on the new conditions and criteria (Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia 51/03) - with the Constitutional Court;
- For making a decision to stop the execution of separate actions taken on basis of the disputed Ruling - with the Constitutional Court.

The Helsinki Committee appeals to the competent courts for a speedy ruling on the submitted requests on behalf of the citizens for court protection on this matter, even more so since one of the parties in this case (the Government through its Ministry of Transport and Communication) continues with legally unfounded actions. Simultaneously, the Helsinki Committee has sent a request for information to the Ministry of Transport and Communication - what are the two apartments from the first notice, not mentioned in the second announcement, intended for, since the Ministry has a lease contract for them with specific citizens.

2.4. Dismissals without explanation and legal remedy. - Despite the notifications of the Helsinki Committee thus far (based on the explanations from the court rulings), the Government continues the practice of dismissing appointed officials without giving any reason for it, violating Article 206 section 3 of the Law on General Administrative Procedure.4)
It serves to illustrate, mentioning the case of Stojka Stamenova, dismissed from the office of acting director of the National Library "Vanco Prke" - Vinica. The decision for dismissal under no. 17-4539/2 of 20.10.2003 does not contain the explanation or legal remedy, and is based solely on Art. 100, section 1 of the Law on Culture5). The mentioned Article implies the appointment of acting directors, and not automatically their dismissal.
The lack of directions for legal remedy allows for the legal vacuum in the realization of the right to an effective legal remedy stipulated in Article 15 of the Constitution, and in Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Helsinki Committee has addressed the Government with the purpose of clarifying certain ambiguities with regards to the appointment of acting directors, and the question of the reasons for the inexistence of legal remedies was also asked.
In its reply, (No. 17-4539/4, 26 December 2003), the Government ignored most of the questions, claiming that in accordance with Article 224 of the Law on General Administrative Procedure no complaints are admitted6). However, the lack of legal advice practically prevents citizens from exercising their right to judicial protection, despite the fact that Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Law on Administrative Disputes envisages institution of an administrative dispute even if no complaints against the decision are allowed.

The Helsinki Committee calls upon the Government to cease the practice of dismissals without explanation and legal advice, and informs the citizens that in such cases they can institute an administrative dispute before the Supreme Court.

2.5. Indications for unlawful appointment of a Secondary School Principal by the Minister of Education and Science. - The Helsinki Committee was contacted by a group of teachers at the Lazo Tanev Secondary School in Skopje, regarding the election and appointment of Principal in this secondary school. Namely, on 3 July 2003, the Minister of Education and Science appointed Marija Todorovska for acting Principal of this school. Regarding the decision for appointment for acting principal, the State Education Inspectorate established a violation of Article 102, paragraph 3 of the Law on Secondary Education (Official Gazette No. 52/02)7). According to the State Education Inspectorate, Marija Todorovska does not fulfill the conditions to be appointed for principal since she does not have five-year experience, which is, in fact, a legal obstacle to her appointment for a principal in this school. Therefore, on 4 September 2003, the Minister of Education and Science adopted Decision No. 11-5293/1, by which he instructs that public competition for election of a Principal for the Lazar Tanev Secondary School is urgently published. The Commission that was established to undertake activities regarding the public competition concluded that the candidate Marija Todorovska does not fulfill the legal conditions for appointment for Principal of the secondary school. Hence, the advantage was given to the other three candidates employed at the school. Despite the fact that the State Education Inspectorate issued an opinion in which it stated that Marija Todorovska does not fulfill the legally prescribed conditions for performance of the office of Principal, the rejected candidates were informed that the Ministry of Education and Science again adopted a decision appointing Marija Todorovska for Principal of the Lazar Tanev Secondary School in Skopje.
The Helsinki Committee forwarded a letter to the Ministry of Education and Science requesting information whether the Minister signed again such decision contrary to the findings of the State Eructation Inspectorate and contrary to the opinion of the Ombudsman who also points to illegalities in the decisions adopted by the Ministry in the given case.

3. POLICE AND COURT CASES

3.1. Partisan policy pursued in the Police: After the media and the Helsinki Committee criticized the verbal duel of the Ministry of the Interior with the political opponents of the Minister of the Interior, Mr. Hari Kostov, the Ministry of the Interior justified its statements stating that as a politician the Minister is entitled to do so.
However, it is a matter of mistaken thesis. Namely, neither the Helsinki Committee or the media, at least according to the Helsinki Committee's findings, did not oppose the right of the Minister to enter into polemic debates with his political opponents. This becomes a disputable matter when it is done by the Ministry of the Interior or especially by the Spokesperson, Mrs. Mirjana Konteska. Namely, she would be entitled to enter into polemic debates on his behalf, if she was the spokesperson of the politician Hari Kostov, and if her salary is paid out of party funds (or by Mr. Kostov.)
If she is a spokesperson of the Ministry of the Interior (and she is delivering statements in that capacity), then her salary is paid by the Ministry, i.e. with State funds. Hence, the entering into a political dialogue would be beyond her competencies. First and foremost, this prevents the clearing of disputable cases from the expert or administrative aspects, and at the same time it is an attempt to refocus the public attention from the current situation. Hence, instead of discussing the activities of the Police (from the viewpoint of the manner of their performance, or from the aspect of how they should have been conducted or how they were perceived by the public) the State communication is (ab)used to criticize a party opponent.

The Helsinki Committee calls upon the Minister Hari Kostov to clearly delimit the competencies of the spokesperson (in terms of party or State organ) or to cease tolerating the existing duality.

3.2. The Kostadinovski case, Kumanovo. - Saso Kostadinovski, from the village of Tromegja, Kumanovo region, was deprived of freedom in his home on 25 February 2002 by Police officers of the Kumanovo Police Station, without court order, without being informed about the reasons of the arrest and without being informed about his rights. According to the statement of Saso Kostadinovski, he was beaten and ill treated by two Police officers and one reserve Police officer. He has a medical certificate confirming the injuries he suffered from as consequence of the beating (issued by MD Zoran M. Gorgievski-Kumanovo Clinical Center on 15 March 2003, based on prior examination) in which it is stated that "it is a matter of bodily injuries on the vital parts of the organism" and the anamnesis states that " the injuries were inflicted in a fight here in the city on 25 February 2002)." Saso Kostadinovski was not brought before the investigative judge, nor there were criminal charges instituted, and he was released an hour and a half afterwards from the Police station with bleedings from the mouth and nose.
After Kostadinovski instituted criminal charges to the Ministry of the Interior, against the involved Police officers, the Ministry informed him (signed by Branko Bojcevski, Director of the Public Security Bureau, on 21 January 2003) according to which the Police officers "acted contrary to the rules and regulations of the Ministry of the Interior" and that " there will be appropriate measures undertaken in the terms of their responsibility." After the Helsinki Committee submitted a request for information, about what type of measures have been instituted, a reply was received (from the Head of Department Vasile Janevski on 22 January 2003) informing the Committee that due "to the statute of limitation preventing the institution of a procedure to establish the responsibility, before the Dismissal Committee, the only measures that can be undertaken against the said officers of the Kumanovo Police Department are reprimand, warning and transfer to another job."
Afterwards, Kostadinovski instituted a private lawsuit before the Kumanovo First Instance Court on 16 May 2002 against the Kumanovo Police Department (in the introduction is stated: against __________________ - the names of the involved Police officers are stated) that was rejected by a decision K. No. 295/02, dated 15 February 2003, due to the lack of interest by the plaintiff: "considering the fact that the court does not have confirmation of the dully forwarding of the court documents to the plaintiff." In the explanation it is stated that the judge issued an apprehension order for the private plaintiff for purposes of his precise definition of the lawsuit.
Finally, Kostadinovski submitted proposal for submission of criminal charges to the Kumanovo First Instance Public Prosecutor. In the reply to the request for information of the Helsinki Committee, the Deputy Public Prosecutor informed that the First Instance Kumanovo Public Prosecutor instituted charges to the Kumanovo First Instance Court (No. Ko 214/02) against the officers of the Kumanovo Police Department for the crime of ill treatment in the performance of duties, under Article 143 of the Criminal Code. On the other hand, there is no hearing scheduled, although more than a year has passed, despite the fact that the President of the Council is obliged to schedule the main hearing within 30 days at the latest from the day of receipt of the charges at the court (pursuant to Article 271, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code).

Considering that the intervention with the President of the Kumanovo First Instance Court produced no results, the Helsinki Committee forwarded a letter to the State Judicial Council and to the Supreme Court, in which it informed about the indications that there was a serious overstepping of judicial competencies: a) by the judge that unlawfully rejected the private law suit and b) by the judge that has still not scheduled the hearing neglecting the strictly defined terms in the Criminal Procedure Code.

3.3. The Kunovska Case, Skopje. - In connection with the Ana Kunovska case (see the November 2003 Report), the internal organs of the Ministry of the Interior have examined the case and established that there were no violations of the procedure. However, even in the written reply they state a certain curiosity. Namely, allegedly based on a orderly search warrant, there was a search conducted of the apartment of Kunovska on grounds of suspicions that "she was involved in a case of illegal trafficking with narcotic drugs." The objects searched for were not found. However, Kunovska was detained in the Kisela Voda Police Station, allegedly "…. for purposes of clearing the suspicions (i.e.) for purposes of clarifying the case."
In addition to the quite unexpected turn of events, the case has a continuation. Namely, "the clearing of the case of illegal trafficking in drugs for which Kunovska was detained" according to the Ministry of the Interior lasted from 21.15 hrs. until 10.00 the following day. According to Kunovska "the clearing of the case" lasted from 11.oo hrs. to 13.30 the following day. After this "clearing of the case" criminal charges were submitted against one person, while "due to lack of material evidence Ana Kunovska was not part of the criminal charges and was released immediately."

Considering the fact that the Ministry of the Interior ignores the clear indication for unlawful deprivation of freedom (justifying their illegal act stating that "Ana Kunovska was a well known criminal offender") the Helsinki Committee forwarded a letter to the Public Prosecutor requesting undertaking decisive measures against those persons that violated the right to freedom and security of the person, as well as against the persons who in neglect of their official duties have not provided protection of this inalienable human rights.

3.4. The "Nikolovski" case, ex-"Lion". - According to the Minister of the Interior, "the apprehension" of Nikolovski (from 04.00 hrs. to 24.000 hrs. on 6 November 2003) was conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Ministry of the Interior, in which respect "the entire necessary documentation was prepared and there was no application of force by the authorized officers in the conduct of the entire Police procedure."
In its reply, the Ministry of the Interior neglects the indications about torture and humiliating treatment by the Police supported by: a) the statement of Nikolovski (in which he claimed that he was beaten with rubber bats, baseball bats and Police flash lights, and he was handcuffed all the time, all for the purpose of extorting a confession; b) medical documentation confirming the inflicted injuries; c) enclosed photographs, which clearly show the inflicted injuries. In this case the Ministry of the Interior does not offer explanation about the reasons for the injuries although the circumstances in the case point to the fact that the person was in good health conditions upon detention, and was released with visible bodily injuries.

Taking as a point of departure the case law under the European Convention for Human Rights, that the burden of offering an acceptable explanation about the reasons for the violation is on the authorities (in the case when a person is detained in good health conditions, and upon release injuries are established) the Helsinki Committee requires the Public Prosecutor Office to ex officio undertake all measures to clear the case (in order that the eventual criminal liability of the authorized officers is established or the responsibility of those who violated the prohibition of torture and humiliating treatment or who have not provided appropriate protection).

3.5. The "Stojkov" case, ex-"Lion". - The Helsinki Committee contacted the Strumica First Instance Court and asked for confirmation whether the Investigative Judge of the Skopje I First Instance Court, Skopje (that issued the warrant for search of the home of Goran Stojkov in Strumica, which was not presented by the Police) respected Article 154, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code: The Investigative Judge performs investigative activities as rule only in the circuit of the relevant court. If so required by the investigation, the investigative judge may perform certain investigative activities outside the circuit of his/her court, but is obliged to accordingly inform the court on the territory of which he/she performs the investigative activities."
In the reply dated 30 December 2003, the President of the Strumica First Instance Court informed that:" The Investigative Judge of the Strumica First Instance Court has not received proposals for issuance of an order for search of the home of Goran Stojkov from Strumica, nor the Investigative Judge has been informed by an investigative judge of another court that certain investigative activities will be performed on the territory of the Strumica Municipality related to this person." Despite the fact that the Helsinki Committee addressed the President of the Skopje I First Instance Court, Skopje in connection with the search warrant, there has been no reply thus far.
As regards the invitation to his nine year old son with the remark to immediately report to the Strumica Interior Affairs Department accompanied by a parent for purpose of "informative interview", in the comments signed by the Minister of the Interior it is stated that the same day when the invitation was forwarded, Goran Stojkov voluntarily reported himself to the Strumica Police Station, when he was explained that a complaint against his minor son was received" and " he was warned that he is obliged to undertake measures for purposes of good behavior by his son" after which he left the Police station. Neither the Minster nor the Strumica Internal Affairs Department offer explanation based on which legal provisions or article of the Rules of the Ministry of the Interior the minor was invited for purposes of "informative interview".

The Helsinki Committee forwarded information to the State Judicial Council in connection with the indications for violation of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Investigative Judge from the Skopje I First Instance Court Skopje (who issued an order to search the home of Goran Stojkov in Strumica). The Helsinki Committee forwarded an additional request for information to the Internal Control and Professional Standards Unit at the Ministry of the Interior and to the Strumica Internal Affairs Department about the legal provisions or articles of the Rules of the Ministry of the Interior based on which this child (he cannot be defined even as a minor since he is less than 14 years of age) was invited for purpose of "informative interview"

3.6. The Jovan Vraniskovski case. - The Helsinki Committee forwarded a request to the Bitola First Instance Prosecutor's Office for information about the following: a) what is the crime in respect of which there are reasonable suspicions that was perpetrated by Vraniskovski and the other detained monks; b) what evidence is the in support of the suspicions; c) what are the grounds of the detention measure?
The Helsinki Committee forwarded a request to the Bitola Internal Affairs Department for information about the legal grounds of the apprehension of Vraniskovski and the other monks, as well as their detention in the Police station.
The Bitola First Instance Prosecutor's Office informed that on 12 January 2004 a request for institution of an investigation was submitted to the Bitola First Instance Court only against Jovan Vraniskovski "on grounds of reasonable suspicions that he has committed the crime of causing national, racial, religious hate and intolerance under Article 319, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code" (Unfortunately, the information does not state how the crime was committed). The Bitola Prosecutor also informs that it has submitted a proposal for detention of Vraniskovski, which was approved by the investigative judge. (Again it is not stated what points to the danger of the person charged absconding). The Bitola Internal Affairs Department has still not submitted a reply.
A representative of the Helsinki Committee requested an approval from the Investigative judge to visit the detained Vraniskovski on 15 January 2004. The representative announced himself with the judge Slobodanka Bakovska, by telephone. The only condition for approval of the visit set by the Investigative Judge was an authorization from the relevant organs of the Helsinki Committee. Despite the fact that upon arrival in Bitola, the representative of the Helsinki Committee, identified himself by presenting the authorization issued by the President of the Committee, the investigative judge did not approve the visit to the detained person, giving an oral explanation that "there are no legal grounds for the visit." When she was remained of the telephone conversation, the judge stated that at that moment she had visitors in her office and she was not prepared for the conversation, and that she gave a hasty promise. She also stated that, in the meantime, she had consulted with the deputy-prosecutor who had warned her "not to fool around, and not to allow visits". The representative of the Helsinki Committee had a meeting with the President of the Bitola First Instance Court who was not prepared to act after he was told that the investigative judge consulted one of the parties in the case in respect of an issue, which is beyond the competencies of the First Instance Public Prosecutor's Office.

The Helsinki Committee forwarded a written request to the President of the Bitola First Instance Court for information in connection with the activities of the investigative judge (consultations with the Deputy First Instance Public Prosecutor in connection with the request for visit to the detained Vraniskovski) as well as a written request to the Bitola First Instance Public Prosecutor's Office for information in relation to the said consultations. The Helsinki Committee will further follow the case.

3.7. The case of "banishing monks" from their homes. - The monks David Ninov and Maksim Ristevski, from the village of Markova Susica, Skopje, contacted the Helsinki Committee in respect of protection of the home and privacy upon Police assistance in their banishing from the Marko Monastery, as well as the nun Kirana Parilik in connection with the Police assistance in her banishing from the Monastery of the Holly Mother in the village of Jankovec, Resen region.
The Helsinki Committee forwarded a request to the Kisela Voda Internal Affairs Department and the Resen Internal Affairs Department for information in relation to the legal grounds upon which Police assistance was provided in the banishing of the monks and nun from their homes. The banished persons have identification documents at which the address of the Monasteries is stated as permanent residence.

Taking into consideration that the monks and nuns, regardless of other status related issues within the Macedonian Orthodox Church, were banished from their homes without documents envisaged in the Law on Housing and without notice of eviction, the Helsinki Committee considers that there are serious indications for violation of the right to inviolability of the home, especially in light of the fact that there was Police assistance.

3.8. The "Angelov" case, Bitola. - The Helsinki Committee monitored the trial of Borce Angelov at the Veles First Instance Court, who is first charged as accomplice in the perpetration of the crime of theft (under Article 236, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Code) at the jewelry store of the damaged Josif Andreev from Veles, the night between 18 and 19 August 1992.
According to the monitor of the Helsinki Committee, the charges are mainly based on the statement of the first charged person Borce Angelov that was given without presence of his lawyer, in the course of his hearing before an investigative judge on 3 September 1998, in which he admitted the perpetration of the crime. According to the statement of the first charged given at the main hearing (held on 29 December 2003), prior to being brought before the investigative judge, Borce Angelov was detained with force on 2 September 1998, about 09.00 hrs. by law officers (he was pulled down from the truck in which he was at that time), he was not informed about the reasons for the detention, he was ill-treated (beaten heavily) in order that he confesses the crime, he was detained for more than 30 hours and when he gave the statement before the investigative judge there were five Police officers in the court room.
Upon the proposal by the defense, the inspectors of the Veles Internal Affairs Department were invited at the next hearing, in order to testify on "how long was Borce Angelov detained at the Police, whether he was physically ill-treated, in what conditions he was when he gave his statement and whether a confession was extorted from him."

Considering the fact that the defense presented indications that the confession of the first charged was extorted in a procedure in the course of which other human rights were violated (unfortunately without formally disputing the confession as an illegally obtained evidence, referring to the relevant provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code) the Helsinki Committee will continue monitoring the trial, and especially the role of the judicial council which ex officio is not to base the eventual verdict on evidence obtained by violation of the freedoms and rights established by the Constitution, law and ratified agreements.

3.9. Avoidance of procedures by the judiciary. - The Kumanovo First Instance Court has still not adopted a decision upon the request for examination of the legality of the deprivation of freedom of Jovance Lazoroski8) in accordance with Article 142, paragraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code9) , submitted on 7 August 2003, although more than five moths have passed as of the day of submission of the request.
Furthermore, the Skopje I First Instance Court, Skopje has still not issued a deliberation regarding the request for examination of the legality of deprivation of freedom of the person Muhaedin Belja, although the request was submitted on 8 November 2001.

3.10. Judicial Novelty. - On 27 January 2004, the Skopje I First Instance Court adopted a decision No. I 4720/91 (with an approval for execution of the decision) regarding the principal debt in the amount of 0.018 denars (with an interest on overdue accounts as of 20 July 1987 until payment). The Decision was adopted based on the legally valid court decision dated 23 May 1990.

4. MISSING AND KIDNAPPED PERSONS AND ARBITRARY DETENTIONS

4.1. The Rastanski Lozja case. - It is with regret that the Helsinki Committee concludes that after all delays, the alleged deadline of 31 December 2003 has passed, and the Ministry of the Interior has not presented the results of the investigation (and the announced criminal charges). Thus, the question is: whether at least some of perpetrators of this acts are still in the current composition of the Police, on positions that enable them to persistently cover up this case?

4.2. Missing persons. - Despite the statement issued by the Ministry of the Interior, by the Coordination Body of the Government and the International Commission for missing persons that measures are undertaken for clearing the case of the "missing persons" the final epilogue is still not visible even after more than two years. The latest "obstacle" for the activities of the Ministry of the Interior is the very interesting interpretation of the law that the eventual investigation would violate the Law on Amnesty!??
It cannot be a matter of a violation of the Amnesty Law. Namely, only if it is established that it a matter of kidnapping with execution, which as criminal acts have been perpetrated before the last date as of which the amnesty applies- only then the investigative judge is to issue a decision to stop the investigation. All other cases, including the cases when the hostage situation lasted even a minute after the date of amnesty are cases, which can and must be appropriately investigated.

The Helsinki Committee calls upon the Ministry of the Interior to publish the number of the investigative decisions and to seriously approach the resolution of all 18 cases, without using these investigative activities to prosecute some other persons/acts to which the amnesty applies.

ANNEX
ON THE RIGHT TO STRIKE AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE AUTHORITIES

The right to strike is one of the fundamental human rights and as such is guaranteed and protected by the State. This right has been raised at this level because of the long history of political autocracy, which caused inhuman treatment of employees, and prevented active resistance of the employees by threatening their very existence.
According to Article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the States Parties to the Covenant undertake to ensure the right to strike. Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia guarantees the right to strike, while the Law on Strike defines the manner and conditions for exercise of this right. By signing the Collective Agreements, the Ministry of Education and Sciences has specifically recognized its duty to deal with this right in the frameworks of its competencies.
The strike is in indicator that large number of people are threatened their legally guaranteed rights and that the system institutions do not react for the purpose of resolving the problem. The strike is resolved by way of negotiations and reaching an agreement between the involved subjects.
In the case of the strike of the employees in sectors of education and science, the State is in violation of international, constitutional and legal guarantees on several grounds:

· It does not honor agreed upon obligations undertaken with the signing of the Collective Agreements;
· It does not create conditions to negotiate and reach an agreement in order that problems are settled as promptly as possible;
· It, using threats and exerting pressure, forces the strikers to interrupt their strike;
· It incites national intolerance through the special form of influence exerted on the employees in these sectors belonging to the Albanian community;
· It threatens children's right to education;

The Helsinki Committee calls upon the Ministry of Education and Science and the relevant state structures to honor their obligations for protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms, as well as to act within the Constitution and laws, and interrupt the practice of shrinking their responsibilities and mistakes on the citizens. The Helsinki Committee further calls upon all involved subjects to seat at the negotiating table, as soon as possible and to find a satisfactory solution that will facilitate children to exercise their rights, not only to education (in pursuance with Article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child), but their right to quality education as well, based on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms (in pursuance with Article 29 of the said Convention). (12.02.2004)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Official Gazette 85/2003

2) Official Gazette 4/2004

3) "RIT" stands for Ratified International Treaty

4) "The written ruling contains: an introduction, enacting clause, explanation, directions for legal remedy, name of the institution with a number and date of the ruling, signature of the official and seal of the institution…"

5) "The Government of the Republic of Macedonia, without a public notice, in the period of 15 days of the enactment of this law, appoints acting directors of the organi9zations in Article 94 of this Law.

6) According to paragraph 2 of this Article: No complaint may be lodged against decisions of the federal, republic executive council, as well as against the decision of their commission and committees."

7) A person who in addition to the general conditions prescribed by law fulfills the conditions for a teacher, pedagogue or psychologist and has five-year experience in the education-instruction fields may be appointed a principal of a public school. "

8) See the September 2003 Report.

9) Article 142, paragraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code: "In respect of paragraph 2 of this Article, the citizens can request the court to examine the legality, and the court is obliged to issue a decision in this respect."