Monthly Report (February 2009)
1. PUBLIC EVENTS AND DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES VIOLATIONS
1.1.2009 Elections: Less “Politics”- More Rule of Law
1.2. Complete Marginalization of the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption
1.3. Steps Leading to Segregation of Macedonia
1.4. The State Department Report Confirms the Relevant Conclusions of the Helsinki Committee on the Human Rights Situation in the Republic of Macedonia
2. VIOLATIONS OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS
2.1. The Case of Veterans-Pensioners and the Exercise of their Pension and Disability Insurance Rights
2.2. Urgent Revision of Enforcement Officers’ Fees
2.3. The Case of Rule of Chaos in the Education System
3. POLICE AND COURT CASES
3.1. The Leptokarija Case
3.2. The Lawyer Anita Begova Case
———————————————————————————–
1. PUBLIC EVENTS AND DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES VIOLATIONS
1.1. 2009 Elections: Less “Politics”- More Rule of Law
Despite the clear messages sent on every day basis about the need for fair and democratic presidential and local elections, as a prerequisite for Euro-Atlantic integration within any given period, the election related developments do not provide grounds for optimism. As if the distorted political logic says: Potential incidents might be fatal for the near future of the country, but they may very well bring short-term benefit for a given political option.
After the 1 June events during the early 2006 parliamentary elections it became clear that, the price for the most scandalous elections in independent Macedonia would be paid very soon. Thus, the need for organization of fair and democratic elections has become the additional ninth, now the most important benchmark, set by the EU as a condition for start of accession negotiations.
As the 2009 local and presidential elections approached, messages along these lines came from all corners. For months, the most influential diplomats in Skopje were repeating the same messages on every occasion, and in the period immediately prior to the official start of the election campaign and during its thus far course, they went back and forth to the political party headquarters, inviting the leaders to meetings, reducing thus their activities to warnings in this context. The Resolution of the European Parliament on the progress of the Republic of Macedonia, which was received with euphoria, especially emphasizes the importance of organizing impeccable elections and criticizes the pressures on the media by the Government, especially during the pre-election campaign. Speaking in Aracinovo, the US Ambassador in Skopje conveyed the message from US President Obama and State Secretary Clinton that “free and democracy elections are the conditions which Macedonia is to fulfill on 22 March, if the country wants to continue the road to the EU and NATO”. For the first time a Prime Minister of the country holding the EU Presidency paid a visit to the Republic of Macedonia – the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Mr. Topolanek. In the middle of Skopje, he sent the message that the country had not passed the exam when it came to organizing elections. Covering the visit, the Alfa TV station literally claimed that “The Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, which currently holds the EU Presidency, has personally come to Skopje to make sure that the Macedonian authorities have understood the messages regarding the organization of fair and democratic elections.”
Despite it all, the second Report of the ODIHR monitoring mission does not offer reasons for optimism. It speaks of early start of the campaign, reported cases of intimidation especially among the public administration (some of which are believed to be credible) and states that the State Election Commission lacks staff, the Municipal Election Commissions have not completed the training, the election boards are still undergoing training, while voters’ training has still not started, imbalanced media coverage is established….
After all, the State Election Commission (SEC) itself confirmed that the March elections will be thus far the most complex elections ( the voting in many places will proceed with difficulties owing to problems with sufficient room, and it will last longer- voters in Skopje have to cast five ballots, while voters in other municipalities cast three ballots, then voters will be educated only during the last week before the elections, inter alia also on topics such as that voters can appear only once at the polling station, and that for purposes of ensuring the secrecy of voting mobile phones, photo cameras and other means of recording the election materials must not be used.
In such an ambiance, incidents already seen at last year’s early parliamentary elections are not impossible. Inhabitants of Tanusevci, Brest, Malino and Blace threaten to boycott the forthcoming elections irritated that for the first time Macedonians have been appointed as heads of the election boards in the villages. The villagers claim they would not vote if they are met at the polling station by a Macedonian president of the Election Board who does not live in the village. The presidents of the Election Boards, on their part, claim they will resign, fearing that they have been assigned for the elections in villages populated by Albanians.
Areas with majority Albanian population now are not the only places where there could be possible incidents. In Strumica, according to the media there is a war despite the attempts by EU Ambassador Erwan Fuere to pacify the counter-candidates Zoran Zaev and Silvana Boneva. The demolition of the car of the brother of late President Boris Trajkovski was used for mutual fierce accusations, not only between the two parties, but also against the Minister of the Interior who appeared at a photograph with one of the persons suspected of demolishing the car of Moses Trajkovski.
The fear from possible incidents similar to last year’s incidents are not eliminated by the announcements of the Ministry of the Interior that it makes special preparations for activities of maintenance of the peace and order at these elections. This is owed to the fact that at last year’s elections officers of the Ministry of the Interior were ab(used) as a tool for accomplishment of party goals, i.e. to gain as many votes as possible, even if this would take destruction of ballot boxes.
The legal sanctions for causing incidents during the elections, not matter how harsh they are, become undermined in light of the fact that but a few of the cases in which indictments were instituted ended with court judgments. In an interview, the Head of the ODIHR Mission underlined that he continued following the court procedures against persons indicted for incidents at year’s elections and that he would convey the remark that only a few persons have been convicted. By the way, Prime Minister Gruevski once again entangled himself and his Government in the judiciary who answering a question “At last year’s elections you threatened the perpetrators of possible incidents that they would be punished” in an interview for A1 Television said: “And indeed I did”! [1]
In the thus far course of pre-election activities, the level of public speech has been low. There have been expressions of disdain, words spoken which do not become university professors (there are as much as 4 university professors among the presidential candidates) and people who wish to lead the nation, coupled with primitivism, i.e. hardly any understanding of the basic democratic principles. The Helsinki Committee regrets that for these elections too it has not managed to find donors that by affording modest funds would have enabled reactions to and analyses of the abuse of public speech at the political stage, which would have been instructive both for the public and for the politicians.
The following are some of the phenomena, which are not immanent to democratic societies.
The autonomy of the University was subjected to outrageous intrusions. First, there were signatures gathered and given by the leading professors at the state universities for the presidential candidate of the ruling party – VMRO-DPMNE. Then the same candidate openly stated that he and his students have helped one of his opponents to gather the required number of signatures for the candidacy. Even after the fierce public reactions to eventual political abuse of his positions as a professor, the candidate apologized for his statement.
As usual during the pre-election campaign, this Government too has reduced all its activities to making efforts to help its candidate. There were public accusations that in fact the entire Government has joined the campaign, with Macedonian opposition parties blaming their “own” in the ruling coalition, while the Albanian political parties accused the Democratic Union for Democracy. In the unregulated media area, the mildest remark has been that the Government activities are equalized with the party pre-election activities, although such activities have “progressed” from opening of the traditional village fountains, use of state infrastructure (vehicles, rooms, telephones, and public administration employees…) to billions of dollars investments for the coming years.
The public has connected these events with the third “secret” reelection of the President of the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption, who is in charge of following-up on violations of the Law on Prevention of Corruption, also during elections. It will be interesting to see whether and how the “Anti -Corruptioners “(as the public labels the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption) will respond to the duty of examining the funds spent for election campaigns. Furthermore, what is the link between the evidently largest part of paid political programs in the electronic media in which it is the Government that advertizes most, and the owners of the media who are part of the ruling coalition or are close to it[2].
The problem of (non)existence of “dead souls” at the voters’ lists at almost all elections held thus far in the Republic of Macedonia is an inexplicable phenomenon, unless it is interpreted as an understanding that the manipulations with the votes of the non-existent voters is one of the “perks” of those in power, while such a perk is so profitable that even the opposition parties are silent about it. If one considers the numbers of voters in different election cycles it can be established that at the first pluralistic elections in 1990, there were 1. 371. 176 voters on the list, while at last year’s early parliamentary elections the number of voters was 1. 779. 116, which is an increase of about 400.000 people or about one quarter of the total population in the country (the estimates of the Sate Statistical Office is that on 31 December 2008 the Republic of Macedonia had 2. 049. 613 inhabitants). It would be logical that such numbers give rise to suspicions, especially if is established with certainty that about 150.000 persons are pupils in primary education, and about 350.000 are secondary school students. There are even less comprehensible oscillations in the numbers – decrease from 1. 495 288 voters at the voters’ list at the 1996 local elections to 1.106 513 voters at the parliamentary elections two years later (1998) or an increase from 1.449.355 voters at the 1999 presidential elections to 1.664.859 at the local elections only one year later (2000). The suspicions of “dead (voting) souls” are heightened with the official numbers of at least more than 130.000 Macedonian citizens with the right to vote living outside the country (or about 7.5% of voters registered on the voters’ lists of whom 38.386 persons with Macedonian citizenship who have never lived in the country). In the last several months, the ODIHR and some diplomats in the country have been asking similar questions.
However, there is the paradoxical data that as of 1990 onwards neither the Ministry of Justice nor any of the ruling governments have found it necessary to examine more seriously the Voter’s Lists at any of the elections held thus far.
In respect of all elections, especially after the establishment of the trend according to which the next elections as a rule are worse than the previous ones, political parties sign codes of conducts (such as the one initiated and fostered by the US National Democracy Institute) and under recommendations, suggestions or threats of foreign diplomats and statesmen, hold political party leaders’ meetings, at which one could hear different promises. Yet the result has been again elections worse than the previous ones. After the June 2008 elections, it is very hard to imagine what would worse elections than those look like.
As in any normal country, the responsibility for the conduct of elections belongs to the state institutions, which are to serve all citizens (in this case) to exercise their voting right without any obstacles. The institutions are not there to fulfill at any cost the desires of political parties, their members and people who have sympathy for that party. Therefore, the sole hope that these elections would be conducted in a fairly democratic and fair atmosphere is the downsizing of party politics to the campaign of political party candidates and leaving the institutions to enable the rule of law at least to the extent of not having armed incidents, large scale destruction of ballot boxes, stealing elections materials, forgery of election documents…. injured and victims.
1.2. Complete Marginalization of the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption
The reelection of Mirjana Dimovska for President of the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption took place on 25 February 2009. At least this was the information presented to the public in the brief news published at the web site of the Commission[3]. This is the second “secret” reelection of Mrs. Dimovska to this office, since the same occurred last year, as well. The Commission, which has the custom of convening press conferences, does not find it necessary, two years in a row, to at least publish a press release informing the public about the election of its President, posting instead only brief information at the web site. Thus, Dimovska will be at least for three more years “first among the equals” in the Commission, the term of office of which is 5 years.
Last year the public labeled the reelection as an “unseen scandal” and the case was said to be the shadiest event in February 2008 at the survey “Shady-Clear” by the independent press agency Makfax and the NGO “Transparency – Zero Corruption” which covered 17 editors in chief of the Macedonian media. The justification that only Dimovska could successfully perform the office of President can hardy be accepted considering that the Commission has another 6 members ( most of them lawyers among which one former judge at the Supreme Court) and in light of the fact that Dimovska, according to the media, performs other responsible offices (“she works as a mediator and recently she has been appointed Director of the Macedonian Television”, in which context the performance of this latter office can certainly be considered as a sign of closeness to those in power).
It is now quite clear that it has been by no accident that paragraph 2 of Article 28 of the Law on Prevention of Corruption of 24 November 2006, which defines the mandate of the President of the Commission to one year, was amended by deleting the words “without right to reelection”. This took place just before the election of the second composition of members of the Commission.
Regretfully, this is another step towards complete marginalization or better said towards placing the Anti-Corruptioners, as the public calls the Commission, under the full power of the authorities. As different from the start of the work of the first composition of members of the Commission, which can be favorably assessed, the end of their mandate regretfully was overcast by the impression that several most influential members of the first composition of the Commission have made a great bargain, acquiring high positions after the establishment of the new Government. According to the Dnevnik daily newspaper, as regards the work of the second composition of members the Commission “the public has reacted on several occasions to the work and transparency of this institution, considering that none of the high profile cases of organized crime and corruption have been fully clarified to the public, and that the Commission seems to be working in a selective manner, succumbing to political pressures. The European Commission too had remarks about the work of the Commission in its last Report on Macedonia.” After all, it is rather indicative that the public has still not been informed about the report on the work of the Anti-Corruptioners last year, especially considering that such reports are usually adopted upon the (re) election of the Commission President.
1.3. Steps Leading to Segregation of Macedonia
The multicultural and multiethnic character of the Macedonian society and building mutual trust, tolerance and coexistence among various ethnic communities are the pillars upon which the modern Macedonian state rests upon. The implemented international standards, the preamble and the fundamental values of the Constitution not only are an expression of the awareness of all communities in Macedonia about building coexistence, but also carry the responsibility before future generations for their present and future and for their safeguarding and development.
The problems at the Niko Nestor Secondary School in Struga, which disturbed the Macedonian public, culminated this month with ethnic intolerance between the secondary school students this school. The School management, students’ parents, local authorities and the Ministry of Education and Science resolved the problem with “an appropriate solution” dividing the secondary school students – Macedonians and Albanians, who will now attend instruction in linguistically/ethnically divided shifts. According to the competent bodies, “these separate shifts of classes are a resolution to the long year problems and the shifts do not imply ethnic divisions, but on the contrary, they bring about conditions in which the students can compete and not fight”.
However, the problems in Struga are problems which run deeper and which are burdened with a series of other problems, which definitely lead to segregation of the society, by which it is shown that the integrated society process is escaping the agenda in the country. This can be illustrated by a series of latent divisions made following the same principle in Tetovo, Debar and Kumanovo, where students have been divided in ethnic shifts of classes for a longer period, while there are similar tendencies occurring in Skopje, as well.
What is the reason for such a solution, which definitely leads to ethnic segregation and divisions in society? It is evident that other “invisible” (political) factors are involved in the process, worsening the situation, fueling the inter-ethnic fights. Other factors such as parents who stood firmly behind the divisions and supported them are also of importance. The Parents’ Council of parents of students-Macedonians “appealed” on several occasions for respect for the decision of the Ministry of Education for instruction in ethnic shifts of classes. As different from them, parents of Albanian students dispute the decision for separate linguistic shifts, considering the decision illegitimate, and requesting that instruction be conducted in ethnically mixed shifts of classes.
It is more than obvious that in this suspicious process secondary school students are only an instrument of manipulation, being left without any choice.
The request of the relevant institutions for involvement of the OSCE Mission in the entire process in which the High Commissioner for National Minorities, Mr. Wollebaek has also shown interest, seems absurd. The justification for the involvement of the OSCE Mission was given by the Advisor for Education in Struga who stated that the OSCE is involved in order “not to politicize the situation and that impressions that something is imposed from the central or local authorities is avoided”. The relevant institutions consider the OSCE to be the savoir since it can contribute to the resolution of problems by ensuring professional mediators, by which they are sending the clear sign that there are neither ready nor powerful to resolve problems under their competences or they are skillfully taking themselves out of situations in which it is evident that several “influential” factors have meddled.
Despite the announcements of the Ministry of Science and Education that the Ministry would be committed to socialization that would enable creation of new generations that would be free of being closed within their own ethnic community, the Ministry, contrary to the declarative commitments, undertook activities leading to separation and closing the students within their ethnic boundaries.
The Helsinki Committee for Human Rights of the Republic of Macedonia expresses deep concern with the events at the Niko Nestor Secondary School in Struga and with the decision of the Ministry of Education and Science which runs contrary to the principles of building tolerance and coexistence in a multiethnic society.
1.4. The State Department Report Confirms the Relevant Conclusions of the Helsinki Committee on the Human Rights Situation in the Republic of Macedonia
On 25 February 2009, the State Department published its regular annual Report on the human rights situation in 2008, whish states that hundreds million of people worldwide have been denied or violated their basic human rights and freedoms by state bodies and institutions.
Macedonia of course is no exception from such developments, despite the initial general remarks in the said report according to which “The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in some areas.” The Report continues to point out that there are problems in many areas. The general conclusions are reduced to the fact that the human rights situation in the Republic of Macedonia has still not attained a satisfactory level.
In its regular monthly reports, throughout 2008, as well as in the separate analyses and press releases, the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights emphasized problems occurring continually in terms of respect for human rights, which are, inter alia, underscored in and completely coincide with the State Department Report.
The Report detects several problems that have subsisted for a longer period, and which could perhaps be overcome if the authorities wake up and accept the appeals and considerations of the Macedonian Helsinki Committee. Thus, this Report and the regular reports of the Committee completely coincide: disrespect for the right to presumption of innocence, guaranteed under the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia and the European Human Rights Convention; cases of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment by police officers and the special police unit Alpha and abuse and overstepping of their authorities; abuse and inappropriate application of pre-trial detention and non-application of other alternative measures of ensuring the presence of the person charged as envisaged in the Law on Criminal Procedure.
The section of the State Department Report on penitentiaries and detention facilities notes the significant problems established by international observers, i.e. the “poor” hygiene conditions and medical care, inadequate staffing, over-crowdedness, insufficient progress of Macedonia and non-fulfillment of recommendations given by the CPT after its visits. The Helsinki Committee has on several occasions underlined the above referred to remarks after completing its visits to closed institutions.
In the section of the Report related to the police, the State Department refers to “informative talks” by the police and arbitrary arrests.
As regards the court procedures and the right to fair trial, to which the Report refers briefly, in several monthly reports, the Helsinki Committee has pointed out the non-application of the right to a trial within reasonable period, excessive duration and delay of court procedures and non-application of the provisions of the Law on Criminal Procedure on individual cases, especially in terms of equality of arms in light of the privileged status of Public Prosecutors.
Furthermore, in the Report section on elections and participation of political parties, it is stated that the conducted elections did not meet the OSCE commitments, and the focus is on the failure of the state authorities to prevent violence during elections in predominantly Albanian areas and on the later failure to complete the criminal proceedings regarding crimes against the elections.
The State Department also points to the problem of discrimination against persons with special needs, especially in the education process and health care provision. The Report states that despite efforts of certain non-governmental organizations and members of the Parliament for the adoption of laws that would improve the conditions, the idea was not realized due the lack of greater support.
Despite the continual long year reporting and following of the human rights situation with the careful attention of a number of international organizations, among which especially the Committee for Prevention of Torture, the Council of Europe through the visits of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as of domestic non-governmental organizations working in this field, and the Office of the Ombudsman, the Helsinki Committee notes with concern that the relevant state bodies in the Republic of Macedonia still lack a strategy for promotion and advancement of human rights and still do not undertake measures to overcome problems in key areas in order to ensure elementary respect for human rights. It is even more concerning that one could not witness a public presentation of or publicly expressed will for preparation of a consistent strategy for dealing with the problems, which confirms the disregard by state authorities of criticism in this area presented by relevant domestic and international bodies and organizations.
2. VIOLATIONS OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS
2.1. The Case of Veterans-Pensioners and the Exercise of their Pension and Disability Insurance Rights
Analyzing the Macedonian legislation in respect of the administrative procedure, and especially having in mind the fact that state administration bodies work in areas which directly affect human rights, freedoms and interests, it can be concluded that the Republic of Macedonia still lacks an efficient mechanism for human rights protection. Despite continual judicial reforms and despite the numerous legislative amendments and supplements aiming at improving the human rights situation, regretfully the administrative procedure is still inefficient and long.
This is confirmed by one of the numerous examples, i.e. by the case of veterans-pensioners who have been without a pension for almost 17 years and who cannot exercise their right to disability pension of 2002, acquired in former FR Yugoslavia, owing to the “diligence” of the state administration.
After a group of veterans-pensioners had filed an application for payment of pensions acquired in FR Yugoslavia in accordance with the Law on the Ratification of the Agreement on Succession Issues among the former Yugoslav Republics, on 9 April 2002, the Fund for Pension and Disability Insurance of Macedonia-Regional Skopje Unit adopted a Conclusion rejecting the applications as lacking merits, since they had been filed prematurely. In this respect, the first instance body seems to have forgotten the provisions of Article 223 of the Law on General Administrative Procedure prescribing that under a Conclusion decisions are adopted which are related to issues of procedure, and issues which will secondarily appear in respect of the implementation of the procedure, i.e. issues which are not decided upon in a Decision.
Processing the timely submitted appeal, the Second Instance Commission working on cases of pensions and disability insurance at the Government o the Republic of Macedonia, rejected the appeal as lacking merits, issuing again a Conclusion, dated 30 Augusts 2002. Acting upon a lawsuit against the adopted act, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia adopted a Ruling on 18 May 2006 accepting the lawsuit request, and annulling the Conclusion of the Second Instance Commission.
The absurd becomes even greater since based on the Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia, on 1 February 2007 the Second Instance Commission corrected the mistake with respect to the type of document adopted and adopted a Decision rejecting the appeal as lacking merits, without due regard being given to the other instructions given by the Court.
Acting upon a lawsuit, which had been again instituted, the Administrative Court of the Republic of Macedonia adopted a Judgment on 7 February 2008, accepting the lawsuit request, annulling the contested Decision of the Second Instance Commission and returned the case for reconsideration and decision.
Afterwards, on 24 April 2008, the Commission adopted a Decision under which the appeal against the Decision of the Pension and Disability Insurance was dismissed as lacking grounds, and annulled the disputed Decision, neglecting that in fact it was a Conclusion, and returned the case for renewal of the procedure.
Considering the fact that the first instance body did not process the said Decision within the legally prescribed period, on 22 December 2008, an appeal was field to the Second Instance Commission against the silence of the administration, and of course, as things usually happen, there are still no activities in this respect within the legally prescribed period.
The quite concerning conclusion is that in this case first it was not taken into consideration that the Agreement on Issues of Succession among the former Yugoslav republics had already entered into force on 3 June 2004, after the deposition of the fifth instrument of ratification, which creates the obligation for recognition of the right to payment of pensions to all veteran-pensioners who face the same problem, a well as that the second instance body had not consistently respected the instructions given by the Supreme Court and then by the Administrative Court of the Republic of Macedonia, and there are the indeed evident violations of the substantive provisions of the Law on General Administrative procedure[4],[5] by the first and by the second instance body.
The Helsinki Committee for Human Rights has sent written communications to the Fund for Pension and Disability Insurance, as well as to the Second Instance Commission at the Government of the Republic of Macedonia inquiring about the reasons for such a treatment. Expecting the answer, yet regardless of the contents of the answer, it can inevitably be concluded that the latest amendments to the Law on General Administrative Procedure of September 2008 will not contribute to overcoming the lack of diligence of the state administration, and that on the contrary they will even more deepen the administrative procedure problem, especially owing to the fact that the Law does not envisage responsibility for disrespect of large number of its provisions.
2.2. Urgent Revision of Enforcement Officers’ Fees
In the context of an application submitted to the Helsinki Committee, the Committee was informed that based on an unpaid water supply bill in the amount of 643.00 MKD, the person N.N. had been issued an enforcement order in the amount of 9.911,00 MKD, in which the enforcement officer made a cost estimate for enforcement in the amount of, believe it or not, 9.268,00 MKD.
Thinking that there must be some mistake, and not being able to see the logic of calculation of 9.268,00 MKD enforcement costs for a principal debt of 643,00 MKD, the Helsinki Committee contacted the Chamber of Enforcement Officers and the Enforcement Officer who prepared the enforcement order, asking for information based on which items the enforcement costs had been calculated.
The Enforcement Officer responded that in accordance with the Fee Tariff published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia No. 134, dated 25 December 2006, for each amount of the principal debt of up to 200 EURO an amount of 10 EURO plus VAT in MKD counter value is charged for the administration of the case. An amount of 20 EURO plus VAT in MKD counter value is charged for the preparation of the enforcement order, then 30 EURO plus VAT is charged for delivery of the enforcement order to the debtor and for delivery to the employer 10 EURO plus VAT in MKD counter value.
Furthermore, the Committee was informed that the costs for enforcement also include costs which the proxy of the creditor has the right to request in accordance with the law, and are related to proxy costs in the amount of 1.300 MKD and costs for preparation of the request for enforcement which is determined according to the principal, which in this case is 650, 00 MKD. In respect of each implemented enforcement order, the enforcement officer has the right to reward depending on the principal debt, and in this case the Enforcement Officer has the right to reward of 30 EURO plus VAT in MKD counter value.
Taking into consideration the irrationality of the case, i.e. that the debtor pays an amount of 9.268,00 MKD for enforcement costs for a principal debt of 643,00 MKD, the Helsinki Committee appeals to the relevant bodies for URGENT revision of the Tariff of rewards and other operative costs of Enforcement Officers.
2.3. The Case of Rule of Chaos in the Education System
As early as the start of the new 2009, in a matter of only two months, the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights of the Republic of Macedonia has received a large number of applications concerning he situation in the area of education. The inspection of documents submitted by the applicants raises the issue that perhaps chaos rules in the education system at the cost of the most sensitive part of the population – children. After careful consideration of the applications, there have been communications sent to the relevant bodies regarding the veracity of the allegations and measures that would be undertaken to overcome the problem. Waiting for answers from the Ministry of Education, the State Education Inspector’s Office and the local authorities, at this point the Committee can only announce and warn about some of the problems encountered in the education area.
Recently, the Committee has received an application regarding the non-application of the legal provisions of Article 7 and Article 9 of the Law on Primary Education for organization of instruction in the mother tongue of persons belonging to communities speaking a language different from the Macedonian language.
In the case of S.I and other indignant teachers in Kocani, the Committee has been informed that after the expiration of the duration of the temporary employment contract, and after the contract has not been renewed, the Principal of the Rade Kratovce Primary School in Kocani employed another person under a temporary employment contract without a public advertisement. It is even more concerning that the person employed has not fulfilled the specific conditions envisaged under the Law on Primary Education, i.e. the person had not passed the professional exam.
In answer to a report to the Authorized municipal education inspector in the Kocani Municipality, the Inspector in the reply sent to Sonja Ivanova informed that after the conducted inspection at the Rade Kratovce Primary School on 10 September 2008 the above-described situation was confirmed. The School Principal was ordered to employ a person for the job of I-V grade teacher, respecting the Law on Primary Education.
Such a situation was confirmed by the State Education Inspector’s Office – acting upon the report the State Inspector supervised the school on 19 September 2008, obliging the Principal to engage a person in accordance with the Law on Primary Education.
Furthermore, despite the publication of a public job competition, the Principal of the Rade Kratovce School again did not respect the provisions on specific conditions for employment of I-V grade teachers prescribed by the Law on Primary Education, nor did he act in accordance with the tasks given by the Authorized municipal inspector and the Sate Education Inspector’s Office.
The documents enclosed with the application clearly show that upon the extraordinary supervisions that the Authorized municipal inspector conducted on 9 January 2009, instead of undertaking measures the Inspector again established the same violations, not undertaking measures to sanction the responsible person, although the Law provides for such legal possibilities and competences. The Inspector only obliged for the second time the Principal to employ a person for the job of I-V grade teacher, respecting the Law on Primary Education.
Consequently, the question is raised as to why the Authorized municipal education inspector and the State Education Inspector’s Office considered that the School Principal, having ignored once the given instructions would now express readiness to respect the Law on Primary Education and what are the reasons owing to which specific measures envisaged as sanctions for violations of legal provisions have not been applied. The Committee hopes to receive a prompt and substantiated answer to its communication to the relevant bodies in this respect, as well as in respect of all other problematic issues, that would prevent the Committee from concluding that there is an alarming need for change in the education system.
3. POLICE AND COURT CASES
3.1. The Leptokarija Case
The Helsinki Committee for Human Rights of the Republic of Macedonia and the public at large learned from the printed and electronic media about the event that took place on 6 October 2008 when at the Leptokarija Shopping Center in Skopje, traffic police officers hit and pushed a young man. This instance of ill-treatment had been recorded by a passer-by who forwarded the recordings to the media.
Immediately after the event the Sector for Internal Control, informed the public that an internal investigation would be conducted against the traffic police officers regarding eventual excessive use of force.
The Helsinki Committee addressed in writing the Sector for Internal Control and Professional Standards and asked for information whether the Sector had conducted an internal investigation, what were the findings, i.e. whether proceedings had been instituted against the traffic police officers, since the recordings broadcasted were rather self-explanatory and clear in terms of the treatment by the traffic police officers.
On 13 February 2009, the Helsinki Committee was informed by the Internal Control Sector about the following:
Acting upon a prior report, two police officers (hereinafter referred to as PO’s) from the Skopje Police Station went for security purposes to the Partizanski Odredi Boulevard, near the Leptokarija Shopping Center. At the given place, there was a traffic incident in which the person I.D. from Skopje was involved. The person I.D. hit with his car a stationary flowerpot set as a physical obstacle at the parking space. I.D was visibly intoxicated according to the PO’s. Considering the verbal argument between the citizen and his co-passenger, the PO’s came closer in order to warn them. Then the citizen without any provocation (most probably only because he saw police officers- Committee remark) started offending and debasing the PO’s, swearing them and then tried to get into his car. He was prevented by one of the police officers who took the car keys, and when the citizen attempted to leave the place of the event and did not answer the calls of the PO’s, one of the PO’s grabbed him by the hand and prevented him in his intention. However, the citizen, who was intoxicated lost balance and fell on the ground, due to which the PO grabbed him by the clothes and helped him get up. The citizen did not calm down and continued to disrupt the public peace and order, after which an intervention from the Karpos Police Station was requested wherefrom four colleagues of the PO’s came, tied the citizen and took him to the police station.
At the police station, the citizen was informed about the reason for the apprehension, he was advised of his rights in accordance with the Constitution, laws and bylaws. He was also tested for alcohol (it turned out that the alcohol level in the person’s blood was 2.1. promille). The citizen refused to sign the alcohol test minutes, after which in accordance with the Law on Security of Road Traffic he was taken to the medical facility in Kisela Voda where blood and urine samples were taken for analysis.
Several days after the event, the citizen I.D. in an interview at the premises of the Gorce Petrov Police station clarified that he was surprised by the information in the media related to his specific case, and that the PO’s did not use physical force against him, confirming that he had a verbal argument, but he did not remember all the details, stating as well that he had a minor injury on the left upper arm- redness of the skin, however he did not remember how he got the injury.
Several issues remain unclear in the above referred to answer:
How is it possible that the citizen was advised of his rights in accordance with constitutional and legal norms when the PO’s themselves concluded that the person was intoxicated?
How did the citizen I.D. acquire the minor injury on the left upper arm in the form of skin redness (for which the citizen himself does not remember how he got the injury- at least this is the answer presented).
The Helsinki Committee is not surprised with the adopted decision according to which in accordance with the competences, the police officers undertook relevant legal measures and with the fact that the allegations of unlawful treatment are rejected as lacking grounds. Such decisions are a practice of protection of police officers by their colleagues at the Sector.
After such an answer, the Helsinki Committee is amazed and asks how is it possible that the police officer acted in accordance with the relevant legal norms and rules, and on the other hand, the entire public was shocked with their treatment of the person, a treatment which reminds of the “Wild West”.
3.2. The Lawyer Anita Begova Case
On 15 January 2009, Anita Begova, performing the public profession – lawyer received a Ruling of the Skopje II First Instance Court in which she was ordered to convene an assembly of shareholders upon proposal by Dimitar Miladinov from Struga, shareholder at the Goce Delcev Stock Holding Company. The Ruling orders that the agenda for the Assembly covers consideration of the situation at the Goce Delcev Stock Holding Company and adoption of a relevant decision, the blockades to the company operations and the reasons for such a situation, undertaking specific measures to overcome the situation, dismissal of the old and election of new management bodies, as well as adoption of a plan and program for further normal work of the Stock holding company and payment of obligations towards the state and obligations towards the employees and business partners.
On 23 September 2008, the Investigative Judge at the Skopje I First Instance Court adopted a Ruling for the institution of an investigation against Anita Begova and others for the crime of abuse of official duties and authorizations under Article 353, paragraph 3, referring to paragraph 1 related to Article 23 of the Criminal Code because on 15 February 2008, as an official person, Chairperson of the Assembly, although she knew that in accordance with Article 421, paragraph 4 of the Company Law and Article 25, paragraph 1 of the Statute of the Goce Delcev Stock Holding Company there was not a two third majority of voting shareholders at the Assembly she accepted the item of increasing the capital funds is placed on the agenda, and voted in favor of the adoption of the decision for increase of the capital funds by which she abused an official authorization granted in accordance with the Company Law to the Chairperson of the Shareholders Assembly and caused a significant damage of more than 1.000.000,00 EURO..……
The Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Macedonia proposed pre-trial detention for Anita Begova, which was later replaced with preventive measures, without informing previously the Bar Association of the Republic of Macedonia. Regretfully, the public learned about the violations of the honor and renown and about the deprivation of freedom of Anita Begova from the media, which again violated the presumption of innocence principle.
In this case, although the proceedings are pending, the Helsinki Committee considers that Anita Begova who performs the public office of a lawyer, was deprived from freedom contrary to Article 21, paragraph 3 of the Law on the Lawyer’s Profession and was called upon responsibility, while providing legal assistance and performing public authorization in accordance with paragraph 1 of the same Article, referring to Article 4, paragraph 1 of the same Law.
——————————————————————————-
[1] “That’s what I did afterwards, so many are in prison, many are in courts, so my threat was realized.” In answer to the question “Does the same apply to these elections?” the Prime Minister said “Yes it applies to these elections too; anyone breaking the law, regardless who is behind that person will have serious problems.”
[2] Articles 10 to 15 of the Law on Prevention of Corruption which relate to budget funds and public funds assets, ban on funds from illegal sources, bribing voters and granting privileges or discriminating against at the elections.
[3] “In accordance with Article 48 of the Law on Prevention of Corruption (Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia No. 28/02, 46/04, 126/06 and 10/08) at its session held on 25 February 2009, the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption unanimously elected from its ranks Mirjana Dimovska for President of the State Election Commission for Prevention of Corruption. The members of the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption consider that the she has successfully performed the duties of a President of the State Commission and therefore consider that the same President is to continue managing the State Commission.”
[4]Article 242, paragraphs 2 and 3: “(2) In case the second instance body establishes that the deficiencies of the first instance procedure shall be more promptly and more cost effectively eliminated by the first instance body, the second instance body shall adopt a decision annulling the first instance decision and the case shall be returned to the first instance body for a new procedure. In such a case the second instance body shall be obliged to instruct the first instance body which parts of the procedure need to be corrected and the first instance body shall be obliged to implement the second instance decision and without delay, within 30 days from the day of receipt of the case to adopt a new decision. The party to the case has the right to appeal the new decision. (3) In case the second instance body acts upon a filed appeal against a decision that has already been annulled once, and returned for a repetition of the procedure, acting upon the appeal, the second instance body shall itself adopt a decision in the case.”
[5]Article 52 Law on Administrative Disputes: “In case the Court annuls an act against which an administrative dispute has been instituted the case is restituted to the conditions in which it has been before the adoption of the annulled act. If according to the nature of the matter subject of the dispute, instead of the annulled act another act is to be adopted, the relevant body shall be obliged to adopt such an act without a delay, within 30 days of the day of delivery of the judgment. The relevant body shall be bound by the legal opinion of the court and the remarks of the court regarding the procedure.”