Monthly Report (April 2010)
1. PUBLIC DEVELOPMENTS AND VIOLATIONS OF DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES
1.1. Continued discrimination of the Roma children
1.2. Do the laws or the will of the rulers govern in Macedonia?
1.3. Where is the motion for the criminal charges? – the Brodec case
1.4. “Hot”/“cold” with the permits for the Helsinki Committee to visit the prisons
1.5. Initiative to start proceedings for assessing the constitutionality of the Construction Law
2. CASES INVOLVING THE POLICE AND THE COURTS
2.1. The right to equality of remedies, the right to defence as well as the right to fair trial – the case of Dragan Daravelski
2.2. Many years of futile knocking on the doors of the public institutions – the case of Milan Velinovski, Skopje
2.3. Trial within a reasonable time, positive experience – the case of Boban Todorovski
_______________________________________________________________________________
1. PUBLIC DEVELOPMENTS AND VIOLATIONS OF DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES
1.1. Continued discrimination of the Roma children
The Helsinki Committee on several occasions in its monthly reports informed about the continued discrimination of the Roma children. This was also confirmed in the remark of the European Commission’s report against racial discrimination (ECRI) stating that – “The number of Roma children attending school is still low and the rate of those leaving school is high. There is still evident segregation of Roma students. The practice of forwarding the Roma children that have difficulties with learning to institutions for persons with special needs continues”.[1]
This remark was also confirmed by the Ombudsman who in February 2010 visited several special primary schools in Skopje and the special primary schools “D-r Zlatan Sremec” and “Idnina” that also have local classes in a number of primary schools in Skopje, the special primary school St. Kliment Ohridski in Novo Selo as well as the secondary school for education and rehabilitation: “St. Naum Ohridski” in Skopje and “Iskra” in Stip.
From the collected data the Ombudsman’s office established that in the above mentioned special primary schools in the Republic of Macedonia there are children with special needs with different ethnic background, and the number of the children from the Roma ethnic community is especially high. During the visits it was also established that the Roma children not always finished primary schools and that usually they left school after the fourth grade. This especially applied for girls.
In regard to the categorisation of the children to be enrolled in the special schools the Ombudsman’s report states that there are indications that the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy established that there are many institutions that issue findings and opinions about the type and level of development problems and based on that they proposed to the Government of the Republic of Macedonia to amend the existing Rule Book on the type and level of disability and special needs of persons with development problems, i.e. to establish four regional commissions that would be authorised to issue findings and opinions. Also this showed that the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy and the Government of the Republic of Macedonia were familiar with the given situation.
The Helsinki Committee with concern once again points out the same problems and reminds the competent institutions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child that strictly prohibits discrimination regardless of the race, the colour of the skin, the gender, the religion, the political or other convictions, national, ethnic or social origin, disability, background or other status of the child.
Consequently we publicly address the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy and the Government of the Republic of Macedonia with a request to inform us which are measures they have undertaken based on the given recommendations in order to provide proper protection of the rights and the interests of the children at these schools, primarily having in mind the best interest of every child individually!
1.2. Do the laws or the will of the rulers govern in Macedonia?
In the course of the past months the Prime Minister of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia had a meeting with the mayors coming from the ruling party at which they presented their achievements up to date.
The mayors from the ruling party formed a Council of Mayors, separate from the already existing organisation of all the municipalities, ZELS. With this Council, the mayors of the member-municipalities took on an obligation to cooperate only with the municipalities which mayors were members of the ruling party, obviously forgetting that they represent all the citizens in their municipalities and not only those who voted for them.
The mayors of 51 municipalities reported to the Prime Minister about their achievements in the previous period as well as the projects that were underway and should be realised in the future, and nobody asked where this competence of the Prime Minister came from. The laws or his own will?!
Namely, the mayor is not appointed by the prime minister but s/he is elected directly by the citizens on democratic elections, and consequently they are responsible and accountable only to the citizens. In regard to the legality of their work, the local self-government units are accountable to the administrative bodies legally founded to perform supervision.
Even Prime Minister’s request for transparency in the work of the municipalities is explicitly regulated in a Law on the Local Self-government, the Law on the Budgets and a number of other laws that the units of the local self-government should comply with.
On the other hand, no legal act in our country gives the prime minister a right for the mayors to report to him personally which means that he is the creator of that right.
In this context we would like to state that the Republic of Macedonia is a democratic state in which there should be a rule of law that will apply to all and everywhere, instead of the will of the rulers applied to the disadvantage of the others.
The Helsinki Committee expresses its concern with the situation where we have substitution of laws and imposing voluntarism undermining the legal state and threatening the fundamental human rights of the citizens.
1.3. Where is the motion for the criminal charges? – the Brodec case
On 18 March 2010 representatives of the Helsinki Committee had a meeting at the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Tetovo regarding the filed motion for criminal charges by the Helsinki Committee regarding the Brodec case, the treatment of the detained persons in the course of the police operation.[2]
Only as a reminder the Helsinki Committee prepared a report based of the fact finding mission on the police operation[3] and after using all other available ways and means to clear up the case that it considers to be a typical example of torture, we filed criminal charges[4] as early as 2008 (30 July 2008), after the Helsinki Committee lawyers received proxy by the victims.
Unfortunately, even though couple of years have passed the Helsinki Committee has not received any answer or a prosecutor’s decision on our motion and we had to go and check personally at the Tetovo Public Prosecutor’s Office what was going on with our motion.
At the meeting we were told that they had not received such a document. This was followed by a letter to the Tetovo Public Prosecutor’s Office to which we received an answer that in regard to the events that happened in 2007 during the so-called Brodec case the criminal case documents were forwarded by the Skopje Public Prosecutor’s Office to their office to act on the motion by the Ombudsman of the Republic of Macedonia. The Tetovo Public Prosecutor’s Office having insufficient grounds to adopt a decision addressed the Internal Control and Professional Standards Sector at Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Macedonia for additional data. The Sector drafted a special report which among others establishes that the police officers did not abuse or overstep their competences, and that the use of firearms and physical force by the Police was appropriate, proportionate, founded and necessary, as well as that all the detained individuals were given the possibility to exercise all their rights in the course of the police procedure. This information was also forwarded by MOI to the Helsinki Committee only few days after the police operation and due to the contradictory content it was specially treated in our report.
The Tetovo Public Prosecutor’s Office also informed us about the next steps undertaken regarding the developments in 2007 after the motion was filed by the Ombudsman of the Republic of Macedonia. However, in the response by the Tetovo Public Prosecutor’s Office there was no mentioning of the motion for criminal charges filed by us, nor any specific answer to that.
The Tetovo Public Prosecutor’s Office in its letter also points out that all the actions for complete clarification of the given case had been undertaken, followed by a resolution in compliance with Article 42 Paragraph 3 from the Law on Criminal Procedures and Article 71 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 5 from the Rule Book on the internal functioning of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The letter states that the Public Prosecutor’s Office concluded that in compliance with Article 35 Paragraph 4 from the Law on the Public Prosecutor’s Office the use of firearms and physical force by the Police was proper, proportional, founded and necessary in order to subdue the resistance of the criminal gang that was well armed with various types of firearms and stationed in the village, and also for the purpose of protecting the lives of the local population.
Based on the abovementioned and in the absence of an answer what happened and where our motion for criminal charges got lost, on 23 April 2010 the Helsinki Committee filed again the same motion to the Tetovo Public Prosecutor’s Office.
The Helsinki Committee expects from the Tetovo Public Prosecutor’s Office to act upon it and to undertake measures and actions in compliance with the positive legal measures as well as that the party submitting the motion will be informed about the outcome, providing it with a possibility and grounds for undertaking further steps.
1.4. “Hot”/“cold” with the permits for the Helsinki Committee to visit the prisons
In February the public was shocked with the accusations and the presented cases of torture, rape and maltreatment of minors in the Tetovo Educational-Correctional Institution, as well as the case of Jovan Gjorgjiev that was suddenly released from the Penal-Correctional Institution Idrizovo allegedly due to the bad psychological state and the inability of the penal-correctional institution to take care of him. Among others, the Helsinki Committee also received written motion by a group of female convicts that expressed huge dissatisfaction with the living conditions at the female ward of the Penal-Correctional Institution Idrizovo.
The Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in compliance with its mandate to act urgently reacted to the Agency for Execution of Sanctions and with two separate written demands asked to be permitted to visit the Penal-Correctional Institution and the female ward at the Idrizovo Prison, during which they would looked into the cases and the allegations, i.e. whether the rights of the convicts at the Prison and the female convicts at the female wards are really violated.
A request for a permission to visit the Educational-Correctional Institution was sent to the Directorate on 2 March 2010 while the request to visit the Penal-Correctional Institution Idrizovo was sent on 18 March 2010. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the presented allegations, the Helsinki Committee had a number of telephone conversations with employees at the Agency who informed us that we will get the permission i.e. that they were working on it and it would be forwarded to the Agency Director for signing.
There were additional contacts with the Agency for Execution of Sanctions regarding the two requests, but, we have not had any results so far.
Regardless of the fact that the Director of the Agency for Execution of Sanctions publicly stated that they had “excellent cooperation” with the Helsinki Committee and that they were open for all the issues that were under their competence, which frankly speaking is somewhat true – because in other cases we received the permissions promptly and easily. The silence on their part and the total ignoring of our requests regarding these cases are more than evident.
The gates of the Educational-Correctional Institution and the Idrizovo Prison remain CLOSED for the representatives of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights and this time the explicit provisions from the Law on Execution of Sanctions regarding the obligation of the Agency for Execution of Sanctions to cooperate with public bodies, scientific and other institutions and associations and other legal entities for the purpose of improving the conditions for serving the sanctions were not taken into consideration.
The Helsinki Committee for Human Rights is concerned because of the unequal treatment of our demands which not only that does not support the protection of the rights of the convicts i.e. the individuals that serve their sentences, but it also leaves space for suspicion that behind the failure to permit the visits they are hiding something more serious than what we and the public have as an information. We sincerely hope that the public statements by the Agency for Execution of Sanctions Director about the excellent cooperation will be real in the future regardless of the cases for which we have asked for permission for a visit.
1.5. Initiative to start proceedings for assessing the constitutionality of the Construction Law
The Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia at a session held on 28 October 2009 adopted a Construction Law that was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia No. 130/2009 from the same day, and went into effect on 5 November 2009.
Article 138 Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8[5] from the Construction Law directly violates the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia and the European Convention on Human Rights ratified by the Republic of Macedonia. More specifically Article 8 indents 1, 3 and 6 and Article 30 from the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia and Article 1 Protocol 1 from the European Convention on Human Rights.
Setting off from the domestic positive law[6] the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights of the Republic of Macedonia submitted a motion for initiating a procedure for assessing the constitutionality of the abovementioned Article in the Construction Law and asked from the Constitutional Court to adopt a Decision for initiating a procedure for assessing the constitutionality of the above mentioned Article from the Law, and after carrying out the procedure to adopt a decision for repealing the same article due to its contradiction with Article 8 and Article 30 from the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia.
As reasons for disputing them the Helsinki Committee pointed out the following: Confiscation as a notion is regulated in the Criminal Code in Article 97 Paragraph 1, 2 and 3 where it is envisaged that “The property advantage from Paragraph 1 will be confiscated with a court decision that establishes that a crime was committed in compliance with the conditions of this Code”.
On the other hand Article 30 from the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia guarantees the right to ownership. The Constitution also envisages that nobody could be deprived or limited in regard to his/her property and the rights that emerge from it except when there is public interest established by law, and only and exclusively in a case of expropriation of ownership And for an expropriation a fair compensation is envisaged that cannot be below the market value.
The right to property is guaranteed also with Article 1 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights ratified by the Republic of Macedonia, where it is stated: “Every natural person or legal entity has a right to freely enjoy his/her property. Nobody has could be deprived of his/her property except when it is in the public interest and under conditions established by law and the general principles of the international law.”
The Helsinki Committee expects for the Initiative to be adopted by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Macedonia, and that it will annul the disputed provisions from the Law as soon as possible.
2. CASES INVOLVING THE POLICE AND THE COURTS
2.1. The right to equality of remedies, the right to defence as well as the right to fair trial – the case of Dragan Daravelski
The Public Prosecutor’s Office – Skopje after carrying out an investigation on 18 April 2005 brought charges against Dragan Daravelski from Kumanovo and the individual K.D. also from Kumanovo for committing a crime of malfeasance in compliance with Article 353 Paragraph 3, Paragraph 1, Article 22 and Article 45, and the second defendant also for a crime of “forging official IDs” in compliance with Article 361 Paragraph 1 and Article 45 from the Criminal Code.
The charges are divided in two parts: actions that according to the Public Prosecutor’s Office were committed in 2001 and actions committed in the course of 2002. Namely, the Prosecutor’s Office states that the defendants in collusion and based on no legal grounds made available certain vehicles to certain companies with limited responsibility, to a public enterprise for managing sport facilities as well as to 24 municipalities around the country; they paid out natural persons who did not perform any jobs for the Customs Administration; with telegrams illegally ordered the customs offices around the Republic of Macedonia instead of paying the collected fees to the account of the Budget of the Republic of Macedonia to deposit them on accounts of the Customs Administration and after he had inflow of money he adopted decisions authorising himself to allocate sponsorships and financial assistance; and he also overstepped the limitations of his official position and signed payment orders to the disadvantage of the Budget of the Republic of Macedonia.
Mr. Daravelski is charged for the actions he committed as an official of the Customs Administration together with the second defendant based on previous agreement thus damaging the Budget of the Republic of Macedonia.
With the Court Decision by the Basic Court Skopje 1 – Skopje adopted and declared on 17 May 2007 the first defendant Daravelski was found guilty for a crime of malfeasance in compliance with Article 353 Paragraph 3, Paragraph 2 Article 22 and Article 45. He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment followed by a security measure prohibition to hold an office, to perform an activity or a job for a period of 5 years. With the same verdict a property in a total amount of MKD 103,575,167.00 was seized from the defendants.
The court’s elaboration is that the first defendant Daravelski and the second defendant based on a previous agreement as officials they abused their official position and authorities and overstepped the limitations of their authorities when they procured 75 vehicles without a decision of the Customs Administration about the need to procure vehicles without a public tender as well as in the absence of direct contracts about the quantity, the type and the price of the vehicles and from the same supplier without ensuring funds from the Ministry of Finance of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia; furthermore, 27 of the procured vehicles without a decision by the Government of the Republic of Macedonia were given away; funds were transferred a number of natural persons for which no contracts were signed and for alleged temporary odd jobs done for the Customs Administration, and all that to the detriment of the Budget of the Republic of Macedonia and in the course of 2001 and 2002 they acquired a property in a total amount of MKD 103,575,167.00.
Dissatisfied with the court decision the defendants[7] appealed but the second instance court refused their appeal as unfounded and the first instance verdict was confirmed. The defendant applied an extraordinary legal remedy – extraordinary review of an effective verdict which even though was filed in 2008, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia has not adopted any decision, yet.
The Helsinki Committee after receiving the necessary documents realised that Mr. Daravelski’s right to fair proceedings and fair trial was not respected having in mind the practical application and interpretation of Article 6 from the European Convention for Human Rights. Unfortunately, the first instance court committed serious violations in the course of the trial, such as:
– violation of the right to defence in the course of the investigation when the authorised defence (Article 63 Paragraph 3[8] from the LCP) was not allowed to be present during the interview of the second defendant in the course of the investigation because the defendant was at large, and he could not express his will who he would like to have as a defence lawyer and whether they would be hired;
– not allowing the first defendant to present a defence i.e. to be heard in the course of the investigation even though he informed the court that due to health reasons he was receiving a treatment abroad and because of the nature of the illness he could not appear in court and present his defence, but as soon as it improved he was going to appear in court. Even though he sent an information to the court informing the judge about his residence address in Serbia as its citizen and where he has been legally residing since 2002 which meant that the first defendant was not at large and he was reachable on the same address but the court ignored all these attempts;
– treating the defendant as unreachable even though on several occasions he properly informed the court where he could be reached and what was his address of residence;
– preventing the defendant to look into the case documents thus depriving the defence lawyers from the right to do their job and the investigative judge did not take into consideration their motions (contrary to Article 69[9] from the LCP, Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia No. 15/97)
– continuation of the pre-trial detention with a decision dated 13 January 2006 (a measure that was imposed only once with a decision dated 29 May 2003), and it was not prolonged even after the criminal charges were brought on 18 April 2005 upon a request by the Public Prosecutor’s Office-Skopje, which means whole 2 years and 7 months after the first time it was imposed and 9 months after the criminal charges were brought, meaning after the end of the legal period of 30 days (contrary to Article 189 Paragraph 3[10] and Article 257 from the LCP);
– the court did not forward the criminal charges to the defendant (even though on several occasions he informed the court about his address in the Republic of Serbia), after which the main hearing followed, i.e. before the criminal charges became legally effective a court procedure was initiated;
– the trial in absence of the first defendant because of the statute of limitations (contrary to Article 107 Paragraph 1 indent 3[11] from the Criminal Code – a statute of limitation for this kind of crime happens 10 years after the crime was committed);
– the violation is established based on how the funds were spent and from which accounts, but no information is provided who was damaged, what was the amount i.e. to whose benefit the damages were made;
These violations were only repeated by the second instance court without taking into consideration the right to equality of arms, the rights of the defence as well as the right to a fair trial that are some of the fundamental principles of Article 6 paragraph 1 from the Convention.
The Helsinki Committee expects from the European Court of Human Rights to see the violation and the defendant to have a chance to repeat the proceedings before the national judicial instances once again.
The Helsinki Committee also would like to point out that the waiting of more than two years for the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia to decide in regard to the extraordinary legal remedy is also a violation of the right to a fair trial and a trial within a reasonable time due to which it advises the party to appeal for a trial within a reasonable time to the same court.
2.2. Many years of futile knocking on the doors of the public institutions – the case of Milan Velinovski, Skopje
The Helsinki Committee was informed by Mr. Milan Velinovski from Skopje that on 5 November 2004 he filed a report to the Minister of Interior at the time, Mr. Siljan Avramovski against the individual S.S. from Bitola employed by MOI of the Republic of Macedonia, at the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia as part of the security of the Republic of Macedonia. A similar report was filed also to Mr. Ljubomir Mihajlovski – Minister of Interior (filed on 1 June 2005) and personally to Ms. Gordana Jankulovska on 24 April 2007.
With the filed report MOI was informed that the individual S.S. committed a fraud (he took money from him that he did not returned later) that he reported to the Police Station Gjorce Petrove, where he was instructed to go to the Centar Police Station explaining that the incident happened on the territory of the Municipality of Centar. From there he was instructed to address the Minister personally since the case involved a colleague of theirs i.e. an employee of the MOI, and the Ministry was competent to act on such reports.
In the motion the party states that even though he reported the incident in 2004 (to Mr. Avramovski), in 2005 (to Mr. Mihajlovski) and in 2007 (to Ms. Jankulovska) until 2009/2010 he has not received any feedback from them about any undertaken action, i.e. whether criminal charges were filed against the individual S.S. at the Public Prosecutor’s Office – Skopje.
The Helsinki Committee, after reviewing the provided documents addressed in writing the Centar Police Station requesting to inform us what kind of measures and actions had been undertaken in regard to the reported incident. After the telephone conversation they informed us that they had no report against the individual S.S. and they instructed us to address the Ministry of Interior.
We addressed the Ministry of Interior – Skopje in writing and asked to be informed about the case. The Sector asked for additional information and for the report that the party filed in 2007 to be sent to them. With an accompanying letter the Sector was informed in details about the case and on 12 April 2010 we received an answer that the report that the party filed was forwarded to the Sector for Internal Affairs-Bitola informing them about the case and instructing them to act accordingly.
The party was instructed to address SIA-Bitola and to ask them about the measures and actions they had undertaken in resolving the case.
The Helsinki Committee is astonished how long they had to wait for an answer, but the question is still open, why Mr. Velinovski during this whole period since 2004 did not receive any feedback about the measures and steps undertaken by MOI or SIA-Bitola. It does not matter which body acted, what is important is to have somebody working on that, and for the party to be informed about that. Or maybe the problem is much deeper. The only thing that remains is to prejudice that the entire thing was intentionally covered up since it was a report against a fellow police officer!
Even though the case was properly and timely reported to the state competent institutions, Mr. Velinovski was instructed to go from one to another institution with no effect for 6 years. Mr. Velinovski does not know what has been undertaken and what legal remedies he could use when all possible deadlines for any legal actions are subject to limitations. This looks a lot like the folk saying “You are right, but I am not giving it to you”, since the access was prevented (in this specific case) by the state agency that was supposed to provide protection.
2.3. Trial within a reasonable time, positive experience – the case of Boban Todorovski
The Helsinki Committee was informed by Mr. Todorovski that on 5 April 1996 submitted an application for a status of peace-time disabled veteran to be recognised by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy – the Republic Directorate for Issues related to the Fighters and Disabled Veterans. On 14 June 1996 the first instance body adopted a Decision refusing the application as unfounded with an explanation that the party had a health problem, but the Commission considered that there were no grounds to establish veteran’s disability i.e. to recognise the party as a disabled veteran. It was also pointed out that the condition from Article 10 from the Law on the Rights of the Disabled Veterans, their Family Members and the Members of the Families of the Killed Fighters was not fulfilled according to which the person’s disability should be at least 60%.
The party appealed, and the second instance body[12] adopted a Decision refusing the appeal as unfounded. The party filed a motion for administrative legal suit before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia, which accepted it, revoked the disputed decision and gave specific instructions to be undertaken by the second instance body.
Ever since the party appealed the decisions adopted by the second instance body[13] several times, and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia with its decisions[14] revoked them and the case was returned for re-deliberation, with the same explanation and instructions that there should be full analysis of the treatment and the date when it started.
Still dissatisfied with the second instance Decision No. 12-609/2 from 29 September 2006 adopted by the Ministry, he filed a motion for administrative legal suit to the Administrative Court of the Republic of Macedonia, which at the session held on 2 June 2009 with the Verdict U. No. 2235/2007 refused this legal suit as unfounded with an elaboration that the legal conditions were not fulfilled for peace-time veteran disability to be recognised, i.e. the deadline for submitting the motion by the party was not respected.
The Helsinki Committee after receiving and looking into the necessary documents concluded that the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia decided five times on the legal suit filed by the party, and four times accepted it and revoked the decisions, and the case was returned for re-deliberation and decision. The Administrative Court of the Republic of Macedonia deciding for the fifth time, and not taking into consideration the statements and instructions made in the course of the previous procedure before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia and in accordance with the completely same evidences and facts decided to the disadvantage of the party, i.e. refused the motion as unfounded. If the legal suit was unfounded the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia during the first deliberation would have refused it, preventing further damages to the party, and at the same time the proceedings would not have lasted for 13 years that resulted into unnecessary long duration of the proceedings.
Mr. Todorovski was instructed to file an application for protection of the right to a trial within a reasonable time to the Supreme Court in compliance with Article 36 of the Law on the Courts and Article 4 from the Law on Amending the Law on the Courts that helped him draft his application. At the same time he was helped fill in the Application on violation of Article 6 Paragraph 1 related to Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights submitted to the European Court of Human Rights, for an unreasonable duration of the proceedings.
On 19 April 2010 Mr. Todorovski informed us that the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia adopted a decision accepting his application, and violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time was accepted for which the applicant was allocated a fair compensation.
The Helsinki Committee welcomes this Decision and encourages the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia to continue with the positive decisions in this kind of explicit cases of violation of the right to a trial in a reasonable time.
——————————————————————————–
[1] http://www.sobranie.mk
[2] On the morning of 7 November 2007 the Ministry of Interior carried out an operation called “Mountain Storm”. In the operation six people were killed, and thirteen individuals were arrested/detained. According to the information provided by the relatives, these people were arrested at around 3 p.m. and according to the official MOI information after these people were arrested they were taken to the “Gazi Baba” police station around 6 p.m. At 6.30 p.m. ambulance was called to perform medical check and five individuals were taken to the Clinical Urgent Centre in order to receive the necessary medical treatment, since there were injuries of such a character whose treatment could not have been treated by the paramedics. All the individuals that were treated as outpatients at the Clinical Urgent Centre had evidences of body injuries. In the days that followed first photos emerged and then video clips recorded with mobile phones of some of the arrested individuals on which it is more than evident that force was used – the head injuries were so bad that it was hard to identify the detainees.
[3] http://www.mhc.org.mk/default-mk.asp?ItemID=E39D1C7DCF6988449832BA16DAC1D8BC&arc=1
[4] The criminal charges for “torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment” and “maltreatment while performing official duties” against the police officers involved in the operation “Mountain Storm”.
[5] Article 138 Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 from the Construction Law read:
4) By registering the mortgage right and imposing penalties the carrying out of the forced execution of the decision in a period longer than three years from the day when the decision was adopted is postponed.
5) If the party fails to perform the obligation to remove or adapt the building to the building permit within the period established with the decision and/or fails to pay the penalties for three months in a row, the competent agency will initiate forced execution by acquiring ownership of the land and the building – the portion that was built with a building permit, if that was gained in a way and with a procedure in compliance with this law.
6) The transfer of the right to ownership of land and a building with a mortgage – the section that is built with a building permit is done by registering the change in the public registers based on a special conclusion to be executed by the competent inspector. The execution conclusion represents grounds for changing the investor in the construction permit and the use permit for the section of the building that is constructed with a building permit and that was establishes as a state at execution.
7) The conclusion from Paragraph 6 of this Article could be appealed but it does not postpone the effective execution.
8) If the party fulfils the obligation to remove it as established with a decision and pays the penalties, the mortgage right is revoked and the competent inspector adopts a conclusion that is the basis for erasing the mortgage right in the Public Real Estate Registry.
[6] Article 12 from the Rules of Regulations of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Macedonia.
[7] Filed by the defendants’ defence, by the defendant’s relatives
[8] (3) A defence lawyer to the defendant could also be provided by his/her legal representative, spouse or extramarital partner, by straight line blood relatives, an adoptee and an adopter, a sibling or a guardian.
[9] After the motion is filed by the authorised plaintiff for initiating criminal proceeding, and after the investigative judge, before adopting a decision for an investigation, will undertake the necessary investigative actions, the defence lawyer has a right to look into all the documents and collected items that serve as evidence.
[10] (3) The pre-trial detention based on a decision by the chamber (Article 22 Paragraph 6) could be prolonged for 60 days at the most. The decision of the chamber could be appealed but it does not postpone the application of the decision.
[11] Statute of limitation for criminal charges –Article 107
(1) Unless this Code regulates it differently, the criminal charges cannot be brought after:
(3) ten years pass from the time when a crime is committed for which the law prescribes a sentence imprisonment of more than five years,
[12] The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy
[13] Decision No. 12-961/3 from 27.10.1998; Decision No. 12-847/2 from 17.11.2000 and Decision No. 12-546/6 from 01.07.2003
[14] Verdict U. No. 3100/98 from 10.05.2000; Verdict U. No. 2199/2000 from 11.12.2002 and Verdict U. No. 2110/03 from 16.03.2006.