Bimonthly Report (December 2009 – January 2010)
1. PUBLIC EVENTS AND VIOLATIONS OF DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES
1.1. “Cooperation and Transparency” of the Government regarding the Anti-Discrimination Law
1.2. Does the freedom of speech become hate speech when it comes to the credibility of the Constitutional Court?
1.3. Alternative Report of the Non-Governmental Organizations to the State Reports on the Situation with the Rights of the Child in the Republic of Macedonia
1.4. The Government provides, but does not seek real accountability!
2. POLICE AND COURT CASES
2.1. The case of I. S.
2.2. The case of Apostol Krstevski
2.3. The case of Basic Court from Gostivar
2.4. The case of “Snake’s eye II”
3. VIOLATIONS OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS
3.1. Discrimination of beneficiaries of social welfare and permanent financial aid
_______________________________________________________________________
1. PUBLIC EVENTS AND VIOLATIONS OF DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES
1.1. “Cooperation and Transparency” of the Government regarding the Anti-Discrimination Law
Back in 2005, the Helsinki Committee has submitted its own draft law on the protection from discrimination to the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia, but unfortunately the parliamentary composition at that time did not support it. Since then, there is a growing debate in the country on the need for adoption of special law, which will regulate the discrimination and provide adequate protection for the citizens on all grounds. This issue has become a regular point of discussion in the correspondence between the international community and our government.
The Government of the Republic of Macedonia has finally submitted to the Parliament its view on the text of the anti-discrimination law. The media reports say the first reading in the Assembly is scheduled for February 24.
So far, so good, but something fascinating happened.
By slaughtering the text of the draft law, which the competent Ministry of Labour and Social Protection (MLSP) has harmonized with several non-governmental organizations, the Government has literally fooled and devaluated those that were called to cooperate on this issue!
While the civil society sector has made its capacities and knowledge available to the government for a longer period of time, convinced in its sincerity for mutual cooperation with a primary goal to create European and efficient law, the Government in the spirit of “transparency and cooperation” is adopting new version of the law, without even informing the civil sector!
On the way from the Ministry to the Government and then to the Parliament, the jointly composed text of the draft law was reduced from 61 to 42 articles. But even more important is that there were causalities in the process: definitions of the basic terms are gone thus reducing the chances for recognition as well as efficient prevention and protection from discrimination; also missing is the promotion of the equality principle, protection from inciting discrimination, criteria and practices from the definition on indirect discrimination, calling on and inciting discrimination, lack of access and victimization… The proposed body “Commission for Equality” has been changed into “Commission for Protection from Discrimination”, where only three of the originally 16 competences of the commission were sustained (process during which the operational, functional and financial independence of the Commission has been jeopardized).
This slap, however, of the hypocritical Government towards the non-governmental sector is also an expression of the inappropriate arrogance towards what we call international community, because the final draft law ignores the analyses, opinions and recommendations sent to the Ministry and the Government by the Venice Commission (or officially the European Commission for Democracy through Law within the Council of Europe), OSCE Spillover Monitoring Mission and OSCE –Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) based in Warsaw… Finally, the negative reactions arrived immediately from the European Parliament (both as an announcement of some of the European parliamentarians to sue Macedonia in front of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg, and what is more serious as an amendment during the adoption of the progress report for Macedonia, labelled by some of the media as “European slap”. The special representative and EU Ambassador in the country announced the arrival of a delegation of the European Parliament, which would have a say on this issue as well. What does it mean then to have the European flag on the draft law distributed among the Macedonian deputies?
In addition, the most influential NGO in US, Human Rights Watch, has sent a press release and a letter to the Prime Minister urging “Macedonia not to turn away from international human rights standards and isolate itself in the region” with recommendation to the Government: “We urge you to change the draft law and make the anti-discrimination framework law compatible with international human rights standards.”
Of course most of the international reactions refer to elimination of sexual orientation as a ground for discrimination. Frankly speaking, during the process of cooperation with the MLSP the civil sector has made many concessions, including the treatment of the sexual orientation. The sexual orientation as a ground for discrimination is an integral part of the European Convention of Human Rights, EU Directives (we still expect the EU to set a date for starting the membership negotiations) and some domestic laws, so one may wonder why the Government resists to do the same with this law, particularly as the state has become a subject of harsh criticism in regard with this issue in the final report of the European Commission.
Stating the “ideological” reasons is really frivolous because the rightist, conservative, national, Demo Christian parties (whatever term you may use) in the democratic countries have not only recognized the issue of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but also some of the high party or governmental officials (in the countries where they rule) have openly declared themselves as people with different sexual orientation.
The Committee, five years ago and now, still believes that this law is required in the Republic of Macedonia in order to create mechanisms for prevention and protection from discrimination, as well as to prevent the discrimination of marginalized groups and provide explicit protection.
The level of protection and respect of human rights is a measure of democracy in one society, which is gauged by the efficient protection provided by the state for the vulnerable groups, so it is important for the grounds of discrimination of these groups to be explicitly mentioned in the legislation.
The Committee believes that Macedonia needs efficient and not declarative protection from discrimination, with a law that should raise the awareness of the citizens about the problems of a certain group of citizens, equal in their obligations towards the state (e.g. payment of taxes), but deprived of certain rights. We wonder if it is possible to achieve this when even the Government itself has no awareness on this issue. The government and majority in the Parliament face two, mutually excluding alternatives: either to adopt the law that will not be recognized by Europe as an European or to withdraw the draft law and return it to the parliament with a refined text and harmonized with the international standards and experiences. Therefore, the Committee has joined the NGO group that submitted a request to the Government about withdrawing the Anti-Discrimination Law for modification.
1.2. Does the freedom of speech become hate speech when it comes to the credibility of the Constitutional Court?
The division of power into legislative, executive and judiciary is one of the fundamental values of the constitutional order of the Republic of Macedonia and is a pillar of the democracy and protection of human rights and freedoms. In order to restrict the power within the law, the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia foresees a constitutional-legal control over the constitutionality and legality by the Constitutional Court, thus granting the role of the most significant actor, keeper of the spirit and word of the Constitution. This type of control aims at raising the awareness of all entities in the political system about the basic values of the society embedded in the Constitution.
However, this theory for division of power is far from reality, which would have been much different if the executive power has considered it seriously. Obviously the New Year’s wish of the President of the Constitutional Court in 2010 to lessen the pressure on the work of the Court remains unfulfilled. The practice of attacking the work of the Constitutional Court and judges continues in a more obnoxious and unscrupulous manner.
There is a frightening frequency of attacks, accusations and pressures on the account of the Constitutional Court’s work, which are not appropriate for a democratic society, which respects the division of power and guarantees the independence of judiciary. The freedom of speech and information is frequently crossing over the border and turning into hate speech, so the President of the Government evidently not being able to understand the role of the executive power takes his own right to say that the Constitutional Court is under “influence of another factor in the state, political factor, another political party. I’m really sorry about the doings of this political party”. The President of the Government naively “complained” that he could not affect the work of the judges and their decisions as they were “orchestrated by the power that appointed them.”
More than obvious is the tendency of the executive power to circumvent/ ignore the decisions of the Constitutional Court by finding out “alternative solutions” and creeping through the already adopted ideas/solutions, which are deemed as unconstitutional. The political parties occupied with their political confrontations neglect the protection of constitutional content and dimension of basic liberties and rights of the citizen and through their behaviours emphasize the arbitrary will of the legislative and executive power. This conduct is seriously undermining the postulates of the lawful state, the concept of rule of law, thus introducing insecurity and mistrust in the state.
The Helsinki Committee for Human Rights has emphasized in several occasions that in order for one state to be called democratic and lawful it is not sufficient only to adopt a Constitution, but it is necessary to provide conditions for its implementation and control over its implementation. Only in this way, the Constitution as the highest legal act will have a meaning and will represent a barrier against arbitrariness.
The Committee sincerely hopes that the President of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia shall not remain silent to the numerous remarks, including those of the European Commission and the representatives of the international factors referring to the pressure exerted from the government on the Constitutional court and that in future with its behaviour will contribute for respecting the independence of judiciary and will prove the maturity of our society. Certainly, we hope that in future a more noble feeling will be developed and distinction will be made between freedom of speech and hate speech, thus contributing for the credibility of all institutions not to be subject to daily political sensations.
1.3. Alternative Report of the Non-Governmental Organizations to the State Reports on the Situation with the Rights of the Child in the Republic of Macedonia
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 20, 1989, and enforced on September 2, 1990. The Republic of Macedonia has accessed the Convention in November 1993.
The rights embedded in the Convention define the universal principles and norms on the status of a child. Today it becomes increasingly clear that the governments alone are not fully capable of providing for the child’s rights without the participation of society at large and in this direction the non-governmental organizations play a fundamental role in implementation of the Convention.
In order to promote the implementation of the Convention, special protocols were designed so the states that have ratified them should also report on the progress of their implementation, including:
The Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography adopted in New York on May 25, 2000 and ratified by the Republic of Macedonia on October 17, 2003.
The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict adopted in New York on May 25, 2000 and ratified by the Republic of Macedonia on January 12, 2004.
In 2007, the Republic of Macedonia has submitted the Second Periodical Report on the Convention and in 2008 the Initial Reports on the Optional Protocols.
Regarding the protection of the right of child in the Republic of Macedonia, the Helsinki Committee has participated in the preparation of the Alternative Report[1] of the Non-Governmental Organizations to the State Reports on the Situation with the Rights of the Child in the Republic of Macedonia, prepared by the National Coalition for the Rights of the Child (informal coalition comprised of 21 civil society organizations and 2 coalitions of citizens’ associations).
The report provides a series of examples of numerous omissions made by the state bodies competent for implementation of the Convention and protection of the rights of the child as well as numerous recommendations, whose fulfilment would improve the situation with the children in the Republic of Macedonia.
All reports are reviewed by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which holds several meetings per year in Geneva. This year a pre-session is scheduled for Macedonia in February, at which a representative of the Helsinki Committee will be a member of the team presenting the Alternative Reports before the Committee on the Rights of the Child.
1.4. The Government provides, but does not seek real accountability!
The Helsinki Committee for Human Rights of the Republic of Macedonia based on an Open Call for Providing Financial Assistance for the Association of Citizens and Foundations released on February 25, 2009 has applied with a project “Human Rights Schools”, focused on training of young person on the human rights concept and protection mechanism in order to contribute for Macedonia’s integration into the European Union and NATO.
With the decision of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia for allocation of the budget funds for 2009 for financing the program activities of the association of citizens and foundations, we have obtained financial resources for realizing the project “Human Rights Schools”.
The Helsinki Committee for Human Rights of the Republic of Macedonia has first obtained the finances on the bank account (December 28, 2009) and then it received a brief notice by the Government (January 11, 2010) containing information on the Decision of the Government for allocation of budget funds and the deadline for submitting report on the utilization of funding.
The Helsinki Committee did not conclude special agreement, listing the rights and responsibilities as a beneficiary of budget funds granted by the government, nor was notified of the time period for realization of the project activities, the manner and form of reporting, etc.
The necessity for this information is not stated even in the Decision of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia for allocation of funds from the Budget of the Republic of Macedonia for 2009 aimed at financing the programme activities of the associations of citizens and foundations.
It seems that the Government is providing budget funds (ultimately money of the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia) and does not care too much to receive guarantees how the money is spent and for what purpose. This has undermined the principles of transparency (publicity) and accountability, principles that are stipulated in the Strategy for Cooperation of the Government with the Civil Society Sector for 2001-2011.
The Helsinki Committee for Human Rights of the Republic of Macedonia believes that in future the Government of the Republic of Macedonia should develop more serious approach towards the process of budget funding, clear criteria and procedure with defined rights and responsibilities of all stakeholders, a procedure that will contribute for increased accountability in allocation and utilization of budget fund both by the Government and the Association of Citizens and Foundations.
2. POLICE AND COURT CASES
2.1. The case of I. S.
Despite the frequent reactions by the Helsinki Committee and the warnings that the torture is absolutely forbidden according to the international documents and standards ratified by the Republic of Macedonia, clients still address the Helsinki Committee with allegations of being beaten and maltreated by the members of the Ministry of Interior.
One of them is Mr. I. S. from Veles, who due to previous harassment on the phone by a person employed in the Ministry of Interior has reported the case to the police station in Veles. The harassment went on, so Mr. I. S. turned to the police and reported the case again. Since there were no results, he decided to schedule a meeting with the chief of the police.
On the day of the meeting, he was stopped by members of the police and when he entered the police station, he was maltreated, beaten, intimidated, insulted and humiliated by the police. After entering the police station he went in one office on the first floor, followed by a police officer who punched him on the mouth and the forehead, and then he put his hands around his neck and started strangling him and banging his head against the wall. During the beating, the police officer said that he was the person that called Smilev on the phone.
From the strangulation and the bangs on the wall, Mr. I. S. fell unconscious. When he came back to consciousness, the police officer was standing in front of him with two other police officers. The three of them insulted him and yelled at him and then the first policeman pull out a pistol and told Mr. I. S. to open his mouth and put the pistol in his mouth threatening that he would kill him and his family if he tells anyone about the incident.
After a while, Mr. I. S. was told to get up from the floor and to put his hands behind, when they handcuffed him and told him to walk in front of them. They took him to the second floor and told him to sit on one of the chairs. When Mr. I. S. sat down, suddenly one of the police officers kicked him in the head after what he fell on the closet and again went unconscious. They called an ambulance and after their intervention he was placed in a police car and taken to hospital.
Regarding this case, the Helsinki Committee has addressed the police station in Veles and the Sector for Internal Control and Professional Standards within the Ministry of Interior. Surprising and amazing is the answer received from the Sector, in which they inform us that the allegations were unfounded, with an explanation that “two police officers in the police station have used means of coercion according to Article 80 of the Police Law in the form of physical power with use of grip and tying devices in order to prevent this person from inflicting self-injuries, after what this person has climbed on the desk in the office.
The alleged police officer came in to the office upon the order of the assistant chief of the police station in Veles, who himself accidentally passing near the office heard the cries “Help me colleagues” and entered the room. He then ordered the near-by police officers to go into the room and help the two policemen, who were using the physical power to prevent the applicant from inflicting self-injury, and gave the tying devices – police handcuffs – to one of the officers who tied the applicant”.
As a reminder, we would like to emphasize that the torture is prohibited, pursuant to:
– Article 1[2] of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, passed by the United Nations;
– Principle 6[3] of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations from 1988;
– Article 3[4] of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In accordance with the principles on efficient investigation and recording of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, all complaints and reports of torture must be checked out quickly and with an efficient investigation and a procedure should be opened by an objective and independent body.
The obligation for conducting an efficient investigation in cases where there are indications of torture was stated as a ground for violation of Article 135 referring to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the ruling of the European Court for Human Rights, Jashar vs. Macedonia[5].
The Helsinki Committee has pressed criminal charges to the public prosecutor in Veles on “Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” and “Maltreatment while performing the Duty” and calls on the competent bodies to seriously regard the remarks from the European Court of Human Rights, to order efficient investigation and to punish the offenders without exceptions although they are members of the Ministry of Interior.
2.2. The case of Apostol Krstevski
Apostol Krstevski addressed the Helsinki Committee notifying us about the criminal procedure opened in the Basic Court Skopje 1[6] against Z.K. and I.K. on criminal charges for “Organization of a group and enticing human trafficking and migrants smuggling” and “Smuggling of Migrants”.
On November 29, 2006 the Basic Court Skopje 1 – Skopje reached a verdict finding the accused persons guilty.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the defendants and the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Macedonia – Department of Organized Crime and Corruption have filed complaints in the legally prescribed period.
The Appellate Court Skopje at a public meeting held on February 1, 2008 made a decision[7] rejecting the complaints of the defendants and their attorneys as ungrounded, while accepting the complaint of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The acceptance of the prosecutor’s complaint resulted in changing the ruling in the part on proper application of the Criminal Code and the decision on criminal sanctions, thus increasing the jail sentence for the defendants for additional two years each.
In 2008 a request was filed for extraordinary examination of the verdict to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia. The case was documented under the No. 145/08, but it is still pending.
Due to the time consuming procedure, the Helsinki Committee has addressed the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia. The Court has provided us with the following reasons for the long procedure: the case was administratively returned to the Basic Court Skopje 1 – Skopje and then re-submitted to the Supreme Court on January 30, 2009. Then again it was returned to the Basic Court on June 22, 2009 and it has not been received by the Supreme Court yet.
The Helsinki Committee reminds the Supreme Court of the Republic Macedonia of the obligation to conduct the court procedures within reasonable time, according to the Law on Criminal Procedure and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
We expect the administrative problem of sending and receiving the case between the two courts to be soon overcome and the case to be finally resolved.
2.3. The case of Basic Court from Gostivar
“The internal work of the courts provides legal, timely and efficient performance of function as well as unrestricted, within reasonable time and efficient exercise of the rights and responsibilities of the clients,” reads Article 2 of the Court’s Rules of Procedures.
Furthermore, Article 10 of the Law on Litigation says that “the Court shall be obliged to implement the procedure without any delays, within reasonable time, cost-effectively and will prevent any abuse of rights of the clients in the procedure”.
Whether these and many other, well-stipulated, legal provisions are really implemented or are just decoration in our body of laws can be seen from the numerous reactions on violation of rights of the clients for trial within reasonable time.
This is also confirmed by the numerous complaints submitted to the Helsinki Committee, but also to the Courts. The most recent case is the one about the Basic Court in Gostivar, which proceedings were disputed by the person O.S. from Gostivar.
The client says that allegedly in the past few years that court has continuously delayed the hearings on the procedure initiated by him back in 2003, due to the absence of the defendants, as they are abroad due to temporary work. Therefore, as the client says, the procedure is still under way and the court does not take any measures for overcoming the obstacles and reaching the final verdict.
The Helsinki Committee of Human Rights has sent a letter to the Basic Court in Gostivar. In the reply to the Committee, but also to the Judicial Council, the court says the following: the case was in the hands of a judge, who from the time of the appointment to the time of redeployment has cancelled ten hearings because of the absence of the defendants. The second judge has scheduled, held and cancelled 21 hearings, mainly because of the unavailability of the defendants, as two of them have been temporarily working abroad. In mid-2008, fortunately for the client, the records of the real estate subject to the lawsuit have changed, so the things have finally moved forward. However, due to the retirement of the judge, the case was given to a third judge in September 2009.
It took almost seven years, tangible and intangible costs of the plaintiff for the court to start holding hearings, thanks to the newly emerged situation in the interest of the plaintiff for speeding up the procedure. Otherwise, the court did not pay attention to the provisions from the Law on Litigation, Article 277, paragraph 2, which reads: “If the defendant does not appear at the preparatory hearing, although he/she was summoned properly and fails to justify the absence and there are no conditions for reaching a verdict because of absence, the court will hold the session with the present client”, and particularly Article 280, paragraph 2 “If the defendant fails to appear at the first hearing and does not have justification for the absence and there are no conditions for reaching a verdict because of the absence, as well as when the defendant is not present at the further hearings, the session may take place”. So, the procedure is still on.
Unfortunately, neither the Judicial Council, which is authorized to monitor and evaluate the work of the judges, found it necessary to point out to the violation of the right to trial within reasonable time and failure to provide all legal measure available to the judge to protect this right as well as the obligation for providing the preparations and objective conditions for sooner completion of the procedure (Article 300 of the Law on Litigation). Taking into account the lack of functionality and efficiency of the law when requesting a protection of the right to trial within reasonable time from the Supreme Court, it may obviously be concluded that our judicial system has no control over the work of the judges in this respect, i.e. the existing mechanisms are inefficient.
2.4. The case of “Snake’s eye II”
In May 2008 the public was informed about another police operation of spectacular detentions with huge media coverage, the so-called “Snake’s Eye II” in which the pay toll officers employed by the public enterprise “Makedonija Pat” were detained and taken before the investigation judge for “abuse of official position and authorizations”.
The next day the Public Prosecutor’s Office – Department for Organized Crime has opened an indictment act against 25 persons, 19 of which were working on the pay tolls, five were controllers and one was the head of the payment service.
The employees of “Makedonija Pat” were all accused for “abuse of official position and authorizations”[8], in the period April – November 2007, with an intention together with the previously accused in the case “Snake’s Eye 1” for acquiring property gain as pay toll collectors. Therefore, they have acted as an organized group and were also charged for “criminal association”[9].
In the indictment the Prosecutor’s Office is also charging the defendants for damaging the Fund for National and Regional Roads in the same amount as the defendants in the case “Snake’s Eye 1”?!?
In this procedure, some of the defendants were detained for two months or were in house arrest for six months.
In parallel with the initiation of the criminal procedure, the defendants were removed from duty with an explanation that they have violated the working obligations and discipline and because they were in detention or house arrest as part of the criminal procedure, in reference with the work and performance of work tasks. The removal from work will last until the completion of the procedure. It is worth noting that although the reason for suspension has been eliminated, the defendants are not yet back at work.
Besides the violation of the right to privacy with the public stigmatization of the defendants, the inconsistencies during the indictment and its change after seven months as well as the delays in the procedure, there is a more than evident violation of the principle on presumption of innocence in a situation when a group of persons is charged for a criminal act related with a previous criminal act, which is not yet proved to exist?!?
The fundamental constitutional principle in the legal order in the Republic of Macedonia is the principle on presumption of innocence according to which “A person indicted for an offence shall be considered innocent until his/her guilt is established by a legally valid court verdict”[10].
Unfortunately, this leaves us with an impression that the Prosecutor’s Office and the judicial authorities have apparently forgotten this fundamental principle when they decided to initiate this criminal procedure, bringing them in a position from being institutions responsible to protect and implement the laws into those violating the laws.
Nevertheless, this lack of logic is at the expense of the citizens indicted in this court procedure, which is being delayed for two years, waiting for the outcome of the previous procedure, the case “Snake’s Eye I”, and having in mind its outcome it is obvious that the agony in this case will last for a long time.
In the meantime, the defendants are exposed to anticipation and stress, costs for the attorneys and by removing them from work their right to work and appropriate compensation is also jeopardized, thus violating the right to human dignity, which is guaranteed in the court procedures. This has created a situation in which a number of citizens have been removed from work and are still receiving salary, while new citizens have been hired to do their work and also receive salary.
Therefore, one may conclude that with their irresponsible behaviour, the institutions are conducting court procedure, which is contrary to the principle of a trial within reasonable time, thus undermining the legal order violating the human rights of the defendants in the case.
3. VIOLATIONS OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS
3.1. Discrimination of social welfare and permanent financial aid beneficiaries
In December 2009, the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy has adopted a Rulebook on the manner for exercising the right to permanent financial aid and the Rulebook on the manner of exercising the right to social welfare[11].
The Rulebook on the manner for exercising the right to permanent financial aid stipulates that the parental allowance for a child will be included in the income, based on which the total incomes of the person applying for permanent financial aid and the person obliged to support him pursuant on the Law on Family are calculated.
In addition, in the Rulebook on the manner of exercising the right to social welfare it stipulates that the parental allowance for a child will be included in the total incomes of the household, based on which it is established whether the applicant fulfils the conditions for receiving social welfare.
The adoption of these articles is direct violation of the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia and the European Convention on Human Rights, ratified by the Republic of Macedonia.
The rulebooks in the part on parental allowance are contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia and Article 14[12] of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits discrimination on any grounds and Protocol 12[13], which foresees general prohibition of discrimination and is supplementing Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
With these rulebooks, the beneficiaries of social welfare and permanent financial aid are put in an unequal position compared with the other citizens in the Republic of Macedonia receiving parental allowance for third child.
The employed persons with three children receive the money for parental allowance without any restrictions. The rulebooks of the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy should be based on this principle and the parental allowance for a child should not be an obstacle for them to exercise the right to permanent financial aid or social welfare.
The purpose of the parental allowance for a child is to stimulate the birth rate and not replace the income of the beneficiaries of permanent financial aid or social welfare.
In order to establish equality among all citizens recipients of the parental allowance for a child, the item foreseen the parental allowance to be included as part of the income of the applicant, should be deleted from the rulebooks.
The Helsinki Committee has submitted an Initiative to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Macedonia and expects from the Court to annul the disputed provisions from the Rulebooks.
——————————————————————————–
[1] http://www.mhc.org.mk/WBStorage/Files/Pravata%20na%20deteto%20-%20mk.pdf
[2] Torture means “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as … intimidating ….when such pain or suffering is inflicted by …. a public official …….“.
[3] No person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. No circumstance whatever may be invoked as a justification for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
[4] No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
[5] Application No. 69908/01 as of 15 February 2007
[6] No. 1533/06
[7] No. 2735/07
[8] Article 353 paragraph 5 in reference with paragraph 3 in reference with paragraph 1. in reference with Article 45 of the Criminal Code
[9] After Article 394 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code
[10] Artcile 13 of the Constitution of RM
[11] Official Gazette No.146 as of 7 December 2009
[12] Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
[13] Protocol 12:
General prohibition of discrimination
1. The enjoyment of any right set forth by law shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
2. No one shall be discriminated against by any public authority on any ground such as those mentioned in paragraph 1.