Monthly Report (May 2009)
1. PUBLIC EVENTS AND VIOLATIONS OF DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES
1.1. The Ministries of Interior and Justice “show off their mussels”
1.2. Prime Minister’s Letter
1.3. The Police’s Threats
1.4. Political (no) efforts for protecting the rights of the children
1.5. The Case of the Stavropigial Monastery of St. John Stoma
1.6. Is the physical violence at the schools sanctioned?
2. CASES INVOLVING THE POLICE AND THE COURTS
2.1. The case of arbitrary, inequitable and biased actions by police officers
2.2. Favouring and partiality in establishing the responsibility for torture by the authorised officers at the “Skopje” Prison -Skopje
2.3. The Case of Igor Blazev
3. VIOLATIONS OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS
3.1. The Case of Mihajlo Veljanovski
3.2. The case of Emilija Kostadinova
4. ANNEX
Conclusions from the Round Table on the topic of the “The New Law on Internal Affairs from the Aspect of the Rule-of-Law State” organised by the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights of the Republic of Macedonia on 22 May 2009 at the Arka Hotel in Skopje.
—————————————————————————————
1. PUBLIC EVENTS AND VIOLATIONS OF DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES
1.1. The Ministries of Interior and Justice “show off their mussels”
Immediately after receiving the information that the Government of the Republic of Macedonia had forwarded the Draft Law on Internal Affairs to the Assembly, the Helsinki Committee started organising a round table as the last opportunity to have a public debate at which the experts and the civil sector together with the people from the justice and the governmental institutions will discuss the draft text of the law. In that sense we sent a letter to the Ministry of Internal Affairs inviting them to be co-organisers of the round table providing the draft agenda with the list of names of the presenters from MOI as well as leaving space for changes in case the Ministry did not agree with our proposal. In the letter we asked the MOI if they did not want to participate actively, to at least send a representative at the round table. MOI refused (orally) two possibilities with explanation that the draft law is already in a parliamentary procedure.
The Committee organised the round table and the conclusions were enclosed with this monthly report. After the round table at which essential dilemmas were open, especially in reference to the solutions from the Draft Law on the MOI and the solutions that were reached during the preparations of several significant laws in the area of criminal law, the issue of (non)coordination of the governmental structures imposed itself for which the public was informed by the media. However, the effect from imposing the dilemmas at least in reference to the first reading of the law on the level of the parliamentary commissions did not happen since the ruling majority, wherever possible remained deaf to the presented remarks by the experts, the media and the NGOs.
If carefully read the conclusions from our round table it is more than clear that there is conflict of concepts – the one in the draft law on MOI and what the working groups at the Ministry of Justice have received so far in the domain of the new criminal laws regarding the place and the role of the police and especially the so-called “secret police” – now it is inside the governmental structures. And these irreconcilably opposite concepts can only be overcome by full inclination towards one of the concepts. It is more than redundant to say that all the predictions show that the most probable winner will be the far worst concept, the one of MOI where the police (both the public and the secret) will remain the dominating factor in the investigations with everything that makes it a tool in the hands of the ruling political party without having an efficient social control, and nothing will be left from the expert concept for reforms in the criminal law and eliminating the power of the police. What does this mean in reference of the rule-of-law state, the rule of law, the implementation of the European experiences and standards, democratisation… is not difficult to imagine.
1.2. Prime Minister’s Letter
The Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski sent a letter to the Constitutional Court presenting his stand points and motives regarding the external assessing, which was temporarily abolished by the Court until the final decision was reached. In the following statements the Prime Minister added that the letter does not represent pressure on the Court, but a message about his firm convictions regarding that issue saying that it would be good for the young generations and students to have proper and objective assessment of their knowledge.
At the same time with the Prime Minister’s statements the competent Ministry (for Education and Science) played “hide and seek” with the temporary decision of the Constitutional Court. They continued with the testing waiting for the Constitutional Court’s decision to be published in the Official Gazette and by that to become binding. The Constitutional Court on the other hand responded with currier delivery of the decision so the Ministry and the other bodies under its competence had no other choice but to stop the external testing.
It is highly unlikely for a Prime Minister of a country, even personally (even though in that case it is really difficult to separate the personal from the office) to address the country’s constitutional court. In normal democracies that is an issue of political behaviour.
Not that long time ago the ruling party and those close to it reacted improperly to the decision by the Constitutional Court to once again to abolish religious education from public schools. The ruling party accused the Constitutional Court of adopting decisions purposefully at time of elections, of positioning itself above all the authorities and that it is under the control of the President of the state at the time, Branko Crvenkovski… After the interpretations that this was an orchestrated hunt in order to silence the Constitutional Court, the warnings by the foreign diplomats that “those who dare question the decisions by the Constitutional Court should ask themselves what were to achieve by undermining the authority of one of the most important institutions in the state”, “spontaneous” protests were organised before the court and many NGOs “intended for specific purposes” were also protesting.
That is why one needs to say that when the prime minister in general – and even more because he is a politician of the highest state rank and a leader of the political authority that controls almost the entire power – writes even a “personal” letter to the Constitutional Court it cannot be understood in any other way except as a pressure and threatening of the institution, which everywhere in the world is tasked to protect the constitutionality and legality and its decisions are final and executive.
1.3. The Police’s Threats
The end of May was marked by the search in the home and the farm of Dusko Ilievski, the leader of the Pelagonia’s diary farmers by the police officers from the Bitola Sector for Internal Affairs.
Namely, according to the information published by the media the police with dozen police investigators for drugs and weapons and with a warrant from an investigative judge carried out a search in Ilievski’s home and farm based on suspicions that he kept weapons for which he had no licence. The search was carried out three days after the farmers’ announcement of new protests scheduled to be held in Skopje on the 2 June The police was searching for guns and small calibre weapons but they found only hunting rifles. One owned by Ilievski for which he has had a licence since 2003 and the other one inherited from his grandfather.
The explanation by the Bitola police is that the search was done after receiving operative information that he committed a crime i.e. that on the previous night he was firing guns in the stables. The result from the operative information, as the MOI informed, was that they did find an item that provided grounds for a crime, i.e. one rifle for which he had no licence, the one inherited from his grandfather, for which he was obligated to get one.
Furthermore, during the room to room search they made mess in his home and logically Ilievski and his family with young children suffered stress. But that was not enough. The farmer was also taken to the police station for questioning where, as he states he was threatened that they would initiate a criminal procedure against him for improper keeping of the rifles.
The Helsinki Committee has information about cases where the conduct of the police was far from efficient due to which we are surprised with the speed of the police reaction in this case.
And if we take into consideration the way in which the police dealt with the diary farmers at the road barriers related to the embezzlement of millions of Euros from “Swedmilk”, out of which 4 belonged to the diary farmers, or how the authorities were dealing with the protests against the building of a church at the Skopje central square, how the educators were “disciplined” during their strike… or the way in which the police carried out some of the bigger police operations, the conclusion is undoubtedly clear – the police again is using the scaring tactics utilising all means available to them.
Hence there are two crucial questions:
– Is every citizen guaranteed the respect and protection of privacy of his/her personal and family life, of dignity and reputation?[1] and
– “Are the police actions in this case justified, realistic and necessary?“.
1.4. Political (no)efforts for protecting the rights of the children
In the course of last month the draft amendments to the Law on the protection of children was submitted by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy to the Macedonian Assembly. They were reviewed at the session of the Standing Inquiry Committee for Protection of Civil Freedoms and Rights at which numerous experts, representatives of the Ombudsman and the local civil organisations presented their opinion that the Helsinki Committee agrees with in most of the part.
Most of the remarks referred to the proposed amendments to the Law on the Protection of Children referred to its topical organisation. Namely, according to the experts opinions, the law in stead of sticking only to the narrow treatment of the rights of the children, it goes into issues in the field of working relations, organisation of kindergartens and the competences of the courts, the social sphere, non-discrimination, etc. This also creates confusion for the citizens which is contrary to the objective for which the amendments are proposed and that is a greater protection of the rights of the children in a clear and concisely determined procedure.
With these amendments a new article[2] is proposed which ensures the right of the child to express opinion in compliance with the established procedure and law, without precisely establishing a procedure, the competent institutions and applicable laws?! This solution is absolutely inapplicable in practice and it was immediately condemned to the epithet “a dead letter”, instead of contributing for the enhancement of the rights of the children.
In reference to the definition of the notion child the draft amendments[3] offer an inappropriate solution to which the experts reacted, because a person up 18 years of age is considered a child, and “a person with difficulties in the physical and mental development is considered a child until the age of 26”?! It is unclear why this kind of astonishing definition is offered when the domestic legislation recognises the procedure for depriving a person from his/her working ability for which only the court decide. It is improper to limit the vital human right with a law, in an undefined procedure without ensuring judicial revision and even more since this is in collision with other laws.
Furthermore, they offer a set of new members regarding the protection of children from discrimination. And if we put aside the dilemma why discrimination in this law is regulated individually when the Anti-Discrimination Law is in the procedure for adoption, the dominating expert opinion is that the offered amendments create more confusion than really protecting the children. Thus, the same article[4] regulates the prohibition of discrimination together with different kinds of prohibitions (religious associating, use of narcotics, military actions, etc.), so that at the end we are left with the possibility for every citizen to report any kind of discrimination before the competent body. Once again the logical question is which is the body to which the citizen needs to report it and in what kind of procedure?!
Even though the citizen can report any kind of discrimination, still the individual definitions of direct and indirect discrimination provide only a list of cases of discrimination because of racial, ethnic or other origin[5]?!
Furthermore, the proposed amendments regulate that discrimination while performing official duties could be grounds for disciplinary accountability[6], and it suggests that the protection should be sought in an administrative procedure to be immediately followed by an article which establishes the types of appeals that could be lodged in a civil court procedure?!
The vagueness also continues in reference to the right to children’s allowance. If in one section of the amendments the child appears as the bearer of the right, in the next it is the mother only to be followed by the term ‘one of the parents’?! Only as a reminder, the Helsinki Committee in its analysis regarding the introduction of the children’s allowance points out the fact that the best solution is for the child to be the bearer of the right to allowance so that it would not be deprived from it because s/he does not have parents or they do not fulfil the conditions.
For the absurdness to be even greater, the children’s allowance is linked to the regular education or to the permanent place of residence of one of the parents in the last three years before submitting the application[7]?! This creates the impression that the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which also applies for Macedonia, has not been taken into consideration since it stipulates that in all the activities the interests of the children are of primary significance and they are provided for by the member-states for each child under their jurisdiction. In practice this limitation would mean the children who need it the most will be the ones deprived from the allowance. These are children from the marginalised groups or families who because of the poverty do not send their children to school.
This inconsistence goes so far that the draftee conditions the right to parent’s allowance for a third life born child with regular medical check-ups of the mother during pregnancy[8]. In this case the draftee looks as if he has forgotten whose rights he needs to protect with the law judging by the intention for inappropriate conduct of the mother to deprive the child from the rights the other children have?!
One should mention that these provisions were matter of special concern among the majority of the experts present at the session of the Inquiry Committee for Human Rights that the Helsinki Committee fully agrees with.
Not less depressing are the proposed amendments to the misdemeanour provisions presented by one of the experts. Namely, they regulate equal or greater sanctions for an administrative offence than for psycho-physical mistreatment, punishment or other inhumane treatment or abuse of the children[9].
Still, unfortunately regardless of the clearly pointed out shortcomings in the proposed amendments by the experts, at the session of the inquiry committee the dominate the egocentrism of the political parties and their persistent opposing of each others, even when the children are in question in stead of showing concern for the good of the children and efforts to enhance their rights.
Evidently, the members of the inquiry committee failed to distance themselves from their political provenience and to put in the focus of their interests the rights of the children since they already have tools to improve them. Hence, the proposal by the Chairwoman of the Committee for the shorthand report with the stated expert remarks on the draft amendments to be forwarded to the Speaker of the Assembly for further distribution to all the MPs, regardless of the additional time to come to an agreement and the fact that it was only an information for the MPs it was refused by the majority MPs from the opposition.
However, based on the same principle the proposal by one of the ruling majority MPs for the draft amendments to the law regardless of its major shortcomings to go to the second reading at the assembly was immediately adopted.
This time the members of the ruling majority failed to offer any explanation for their decision sticking only to the phrase that their parliamentary party group believed that the draft amendments should go to the second reading, evidently forgetting that those at the Inquiry Committee for Protection of Civil Freedoms and Rights do not defend the interests of their parliamentary party group but as MPs with their own opinions and convictions look after the enhancing of the fundamental rights of the citizens.
So far the proposals and the opinions of the Helsinki Committee have not been accepted, not even reviewed by the Committee with the explanation by the opposition that the Helsinki Committee was taking the side of the opposition but after the last session it seems as all the individual experts and representatives of certain institutions that have any kind of remarks to the solution proposed by a Governmental body are supporting the opposition and they, by using the majority votes have to be refused automatically.
It is unnecessary to emphasise that as long as things are done that way and as long as the MPs are playing the game of who will oppose more, in Macedonia adopted laws will cause chaos in the practice, later will be annulled by the Constitutional Court, the international community will criticise, the state will be sued and the citizens whose rights are to be protected will suffer damages and will pay taxes for the game to start all over.
1.5. The Case of the Stavropigial Monastery of St. John Stoma
In compliance with the Law on the Legal Status of Churches, Religious Communities and Religious Groups a request was submitted to the Basic Court Skopje II Skopje on 5 November 2008 for registration in the Unique Court Register of Churches, Religious Communities and Religious Groups of the “Stavropigial Monastery of St. John Stoma”- village of Nizopole near the town of Bitola.
After the court asked for the Request to be amended even though the court is obligated with the Law on the Legal Status of Churches, Religious Communities and Religious Groups to make a Decision for the registration within 8 days, after more than three months have passed the Basic Court Skopje 2 Skopje adopted a decision refusing the request for registration in the Unique Court Register of Churches, Religious Communities and Religious Groups.
Further down parts from the Decision of the Basic Court are quoted elaborating the adopted decision, for which absence of logic and confusion no additional legal expertise is necessary.
Namely, in the elaboration of the decision for refusing the registration in the Register by the applicant “Stavropigial Monastery of St. John Stoma”, the court quotes Article 1 Par. 1 from the Law on the Legal Status of Churches, Religious Communities and Religious Groups which states that it regulates the foundation and legal status of a church, religious communities and religious groups.
Furthermore, the Court quotes Article 2 from the same law which defines the church, the religious community and group as a voluntary community of natural persons who with their religious believes and the sources for their teachings will enjoy their freedom to religion united in faith and identity expressed with equitable practicing of religious services, prayers, customs and other expressions of faith.
The Court found the grounds for refusing the submitted request in Article 16 from the Law, i.e. there are no substantive conditions for registering the applicant in the Court Register.
This finding is explained with the fact that “the applicant submitted to the court a request for registration of a voluntary community of natural persons named in the request as the “Stavropigial Monastery of St. John Stoma”, i.e. he submitted a request for registration of the voluntary community of natural persons which is not envisaged in such form in the above quoted law.
The Court believes that the request submitted in such a way for registration in the court register of a voluntary community of natural persons named in the request as “Stavropigial Monastery of St. John Stoma” is contrary to Article 1 Paragraph 1 and Article 2 from the Law on the Legal Status of Churches, Religious Communities and Religious Groups i.e. the request is unfounded so the court refused it as such.
This is because according to the finding of this court the registration of “Stavropigial Monastery of St. John Stoma” in the unique register would first of all mean violation of Article 1 Paragraph 1 and Article 2 from the Law on the Legal Status of Churches, Religious Communities and Religious Groups since this law only regulates the legal position of certain legal subjects – voluntary communities of natural persons established and listed in the law as: church, religious community and religious group, and not to other religious entities – voluntary communities of natural persons and secondly it would be a violation of the freedom of religion guaranteed with the Convention on the Human Rights and the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia, of the other voluntary communities of natural persons already registered in the unique court register of churches, religious communities and religious groups and in a form, position and content envisaged in the provisions of the above quoted Law. “
For the absurd to be even greater the Court of Appeal Skopje which decides upon appeals against a court decision in stead of adopting a different decision or at least giving the applicant a different and serious explanation it repeats word by word the elaboration given in the Decision by the first instance court, concluding that it acted properly when it refused the registration request.
As it was pointed out previously, this court elaboration does not require any additional comment in order to show how unfounded it is, but it is ironical, evident from the document submitted to the Helsinki Committee, the applicant in the request for registration in the Court Register unambiguously states that it is a request for registration of a religious community in the Republic of Macedonia.
It also states that the Decision for appointing a person authorised to represent the religious community as well as a proof for the citizenship of the founders of the religious community are also enclosed.
In this sense we remind that the Law on the Religious Communities was adopted in order to resolve the dilemmas related to the registration of other religious communities, and not to use it to trick the requests for registration of individual religious communities.
The Helsinki Committee points out that this case apart from making us conclude that there is a violation of Article 19 from the Constitution, but also the European Convention for Human Rights is violated. Unfortunately this means continuation of the practice because of which Macedonia is in the reports of the international organisations for violation of the right to confession and for the same reason the state is a subject of an appeal before the European Court.
The Helsinki Committee warns that absence of serious attitude and playing with the religious feelings of the citizens are not allowed, but on the contrary the Courts are expected to implement the laws, properly since they exist to be implemented in practice and not to be used as justification that we fulfil the human rights standards.
1.6. Is the physical violence at the schools sanctioned?
In the course of last month several different cases of physical mistreatment of students by teachers were made public. The Helsinki Committee in reference to these unfortunate incidents addressed the competent bodies such as the schools’ principles where these incidents happened, the Ombudsman, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the State Inspectorate for Education.
The first case involved the Secondary School of Mosa Pijade in Tetovo where the student B.S. was beaten up by the math teacher who hit him both on the head and the body. The child was beaten by the teacher first with his fists and then he took one of the classroom chairs and broke it against the child’s back. After the child start running the teacher started running after him and through him out of the school. After the incident the student was checked at the Clinical Hospital in Tetovo where it was established that the child had bruises on his head and on the left side of the back and for that he got medical certificate.
In reference to our requests for information about this case, the Principle of the secondary school informed us that there was a decision fining the teacher with 5% from his salary for a period of 6 months and we got a copy of the decision and the proposal as well as the report by the State Inspectorate for Education.
In reference to this case the Ministry of Internal Affairs – Tetovo Sector of Internal Affairs informed us that against the teacher a request for initiating misdemeanour procedure was submitted.
The proposal and the report by the State Inspectorate for Education state that based on the investigation of the records and the documents of the school as well as the interviews with those present during the investigation it was concluded that there were evidences of corporal punishment against the student B.S. by the math teacher S.K. Even more since the teacher himself reported that he hit the student and the decision adopted by the Principle reads the following: “…the teacher S.K. during the morning classes entered the math classroom to be followed by the student B.S. who began insulting the teacher. The teacher reacted nervously to this and used a classroom chair to push the student”.
The second case refers to an incident that happened at the Primary School “Alija Avdovic” in the Skopje village of Batinci during the third class when the history teacher F.S. slapped a sixth grade student. The thirteen years old student from the blow fell on the floor and broke his arm. The teacher immediately took the child on a public bus to the Skopje City Hospital and after he was treated at the hospital he was released to go home.
In reference to this case the Ministry of Internal Affairs – the Skopje Sector for Internal Affairs informed us that a request for initiating misdemeanour procedure against the teacher for physical attack on another person on a public place was submitted. In the same document we were informed that the mother of the child decided not to file a suit against the teacher forgetting that the Ministry of Internal Affairs is not obligated with a request for criminal prosecution by the one who suffered the loss.
Do our competent enforcement agencies unintentionally or deliberately forget Article 142 from the Law on the Criminal Procedure which envisages that the state bodies, institutions that have public competences and other legal entities are obligated to report crimes prosecuted ex officio, for which they are informed or they learn from other sources.
All the international documents related to the rights if the children explicitly prohibit physical violence and they recommend to be properly sanctioned.
The Helsinki Committee announces that it will initiate a criminal procedure against the perpetrators and expects from the Public Prosecutor’s Office to have a serious approach to this case because by failing to sanction these criminal acts we send a message that they are allowed and open a possibility to be repeated.
2. CASES INVOLVING THE POLICE AND THE COURTS
2.1. The case of arbitrary, unequal and biased actions by police officers
A big group of police officers addressed the Macedonian Helsinki Committee – police officers employed at the passport control of the border crossings of Deve Bair and Kafasan. Against them criminal procedures are either initiated or finalised for a committed crime of malfeasance because they acted contrary to Article 146 and Article 155 from the Law of Traffic Safety, Articles 75 and 76 from the Law on Transport, Article 72 Paragraph 2 from the Law on Public Roads i.e. that the police officers allowed transportation vehicles with loads bigger than the maximum allowed weight of 40,000 kg to enter Macedonia.
Representatives of the Helsinki Committee carried out monitoring and a comprehensive analysis of the entire procedure led against individuals. They came to a conclusion that those are identical cases the evidences on which the accusations are based as well as the witnesses are the same for all the officers.
Even though these are identical cases there is a different, unequal and discriminating treatment in the Public Prosecutors’ actions where in certain cases the charges are dropped by the Public Prosecutor for reason that “based on the presented evidences during the main hearing it was not proved that the defendant committed the crime”. While in the other procedures it was not done and they have a completely different epilogue. It is interesting that the Public Prosecutor’s Office which is an independent public body which prosecutes the perpetrators of crimes and other, with law established punishable deeds, uses double standards in the given case, both in reference to the initiation of the procedure which is biased and not objective and in the course of the entire procedure especially since equality before the law has not been provided for all. By that it does not respect and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms and does not care about the efficient and timely functioning of the criminal-legal system.
In the course of the court procedure the independence and impartiality of the trial was questioned because the presence of the witnesses and forensic experts questioned in the course of the investigation was not provided during the main hearing. And the defendants and their defence lawyers were not present during their interviews because the investigative judge did not inform them about the time and the place of their interviews. On the other hand the witnesses also persistently failed to respond to the regular and properly delivered invitations to the main hearing, and the court kept ignoring that failing to fulfil their legal obligation. Hence, the severe violation of the Law on Criminal Procedure is evident.[10]
Neither the defence lawyers, nor the defendants themselves did get the written evidences submitted by the public prosecutor which meant that they did not get the opportunity for proper preparation of the defence.[11]
The absurd is even greater since all the defendants do not have lawyers and they complained also about the records from the main hearings. More specifically the court some times asked whether they wanted records from that as if it was matter of will, and not legal obligation of the court and at other times they did not even asked or provided copy from the records. These assertions were undoubtedly confirmed during the monitoring of the main hearings by the representatives of the Helsinki Committee[12].
Noting a statement into the records, which is completely different from what was said during the main hearing at which the representatives of the Helsinki Committee were present, and confirmed with the records provided to the Committee from the same main hearing by the defendant. Especially since these were statements that were to the benefit of the defendants[13].
For some of the police officers the first instance court decisions are already passed convicting them to 6, 7 or 8 months suspended sentence imprisonment meaning the sentences imprisonment should not be served if they do not commit another crime in the next 1 or 2 years.
The complexity and irrationality of this case is also evident from the fact that for the same thing and the same acts a procedure is also initiated against customs officers. And nobody seems to be paying attention to the fact that –“no one can be convicted again for a crime for which an effective court decision is already passed”[14]. Absurd but true!
The Helsinki Committee believes that this procedure and the way in which it is carried out is nothing else but arbitrary, unequal and biased process against these police officers. Even though one of the functions of the police officers is to protect the legal order the question is where is it now for them?; and what is the goal and the purpose of applying the law in this case?
Having in mind the fact that for the effectively finalised procedures the Helsinki Committee is preparing an Application against the Republic of Macedonia before the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg regarding the protection of the right of the police officers for equitable trial.
2.2. Favouring and partiality in establishing the responsibility for the torture by the authorised officers at the “Skopje” Prison -Skopje
The international pact for civil and political rights clearly states that – “Every individual deprived of liberty must be treated humanely and respecting the dignity which is indivisible from the human personality” and also points out that – “The implementation of the punishment incorporates the treatment of the prisoners aimed at their social rehabilitation”[15]. Even more since the Macedonian legislation in the Law on Execution of Sanctions strictly states that – “During the execution of the imprisonment sentence, the psycho-physical and moral integrity of the convicted person must be protected, and his personality and dignity must be respected”[16]. However, unfortunately very often the Macedonian Helsinki Committee points out the avoiding of these principles and obligations at the penal-rehabilitation institutions.
In the course of March the committee informed the public with a special public announcement about the visit to the “Skopje Prison” – Skopje and about the detected torture, inhumane and degrading treatment of over 4 (four) prisoners by a number of officers from the security sector. Regarding this case the Helsinki Committee addressed in writing the Directorate for Sanctions Executions at the Ministry of Justice in order to get data about the measures that are undertaken for the sanctioning of the perpetrators. The Sanctions Executions Directorate in its response informed us that after receiving the information about the pointed out incident they visited the Skopje Prison and talked to the officers and convicts, they checked the medical files and the other available proofs and materials to come to a conclusion that the applied force against the convicts was not only excessive but also in most of the parts unnecessary. However, regardless of the established facts the prison officials were given oral order to initiate disciplinary procedure for establishing the disciplinary accountability of all the officers involved in the incident. After getting the information from the prison the order was fully applied, a disciplinary procedure was initiated against 8 (eight) officers out of which four were suspended. Soon afterwards the Prison informed them that the disciplinary procedure was completed and all the participants were properly disciplined.
The Helsinki Committee expressed its dissatisfaction that regardless of the numerous appeals both by the domestic shareholders and the international factors and despite the frequent overstepping of the competences, the competent bodies continued to ignore the possibility, and even more the obligation for establishing the criminal accountability of the perpetrators. In stead of initiating a procedure for a committed crime of Torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment and punishment or a crime of mistreatment in office envisaged in the Criminal Code almost all the cases of established excessive and unnecessary force used by authorised officials are prejudiced and end with disciplinary sanctions for all.
The Macedonian competent bodies should be aware that these rights stem from the dignity that comes from the human, if the perpetrators are realistically protected and properly sanctioned this in the future would help in decreasing the number of cruel, inhumane and degrading way of conduct and treatment.
The Helsinki Committee appeals that – “the enforcement of justice cannot stop before the prison gates”[17].
2.3. The case of Igor Blazev, village of Sopot-Kavadarci
Mr. Igor Blazev from the village of Sopot-Kavadarci addressed the Helsinki Committee informing us that he was incarcerated at the Gevgelija Prison serving a 3 years sentence imprisonment.
The sanctions execution judge at the Basic Court Kavadarci on 11 March 2008 issued an order for sentence execution for Igor Blazev who was supposed to serve a sentence imprisonment at the Gevgelija Prison. Mr. Blazev requested twice for the execution of the sentence imprisonment to be postponed due to health problems. He got a positive response to these requests and the beginning of the sentence execution was postponed for six months (two times for three months). This obligated Mr. Blazev to report to the Gevgelija Prison on 22 October 2008 to start serving his sentence imprisonment. Mr. Blazev ignored the court order.
On 4 November 2008 the sanctions executions judge passes a court order for arresting the convict and a wanted circular was issued.
After several days, more specifically on 10 November 2008 Mr. Blazev submitted another request for postponing of the sanction that the court refuted as illegal[18]. Mr. Blazev got this decision on 24 November 2008. Mr. Blazev within the legally established appeal period of 3 days appealed to the Criminal Council of the Kavadarci Basic Court which is evident from the receipt court seal from 26 November 2008. In his appeal Mr. Blazev asked for postponing of the sanction execution with a justification that he had a scheduled surgery at the Skopje Military Hospital for which he submitted medical documentation[19].
Even though Mr. Blazev had a scheduled surgery police officers from the Karpos Police Station took him from the hospital ward for allegedly a 15 minutes interview at the police station. Mr. Blazev was detained at the Karpos Police Station until the next day from where he was taken to the Gevgelija Prison to serve his prison sentence in pain and in bad health.
The Criminal Council of the Kavadarci Basic Court on 10 December 2008 after 15 days adopted the Decision Ks. No. 49/08[20] refusing the appeal as unfounded in compliance with Article 91[21] from the Law on Execution of Sanctions.
Based on the statements by the party and the received documentation the Helsinki Committee wrote to the Kavadarci Basic Court asking for information about the reason for not respecting the three days deadline within which the criminal council is obligated to decide upon the submitted appeal with a clarification that the appeal was submitted on 26 November 2008, and the criminal council of the Kavadarci Basic Court passed the decision on 10 December 2008 which means entire 15 days after receiving the submitted appeal.
On 10 April 2009 we received a response from the Kavadarci Court with an explanation that on the stated date an appeal was submitted to the court by the convict Blazev, but it used expert terminology that was not understandable for the court so the court on 29 November 2008[22] addressed the Military Hospital in Skopje and the hospital received the request on 3 December 2008. The Military Hospital in Skopje responded to the court request in writing on 4 December 2008 and the court got the response on 9 December 2008. On the next day a session of the Criminal Council was held and then the convict’s appeal was refused as unfounded.
Simply amazing, on one hand we have a precise and crystal clear legal provision, (the Criminal Council is obligated to make a decision within three days after receiving the appeal) and on the other hand we have an excuse for disrespecting the legal provision. The uneasiness of the criminal council to decide upon the submitted appeal with an explanation that the expert terminology used was not understandable for the court in no case should be used as an excuse for disrespecting the rights of the citizens, i.e. the convicts in the specific case.
3. VIOLATIONS OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS
3.1. The Case of Mihajlo Veljanovski
Mihajlo Veljanovski is a pensioner with a decision from 1 March 1989. On 4 November 2008 he submitted to the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund of the Republic of Macedonia – Professional Service – Bitola Local Office a request for issuance of a decision for a conducted monthly pension harmonisation. Having in mind the fact that within the legally envisaged period for decision-making in an administrative procedure, Mr. Veljanovski did not get the decision, which is evident from the enclosed documentation, on 30 December 2008 he appealed to the Commission of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia because of the administration silence for second instance resolving of the case concerning the pension and disability insurance.
The second-instance commission after receiving the appeal on 2 March 2009 decided to refuse Mihajlo Veljanovski’s appeal as unfounded. Astonishing but at the same time worrying is the fact that the second instance body skipped the grounds for the submitted appeal, namely the silence of the administration without looking into it, and in their decision they underline that it was submitted against the Decision S.No. 23346 passed by the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund on 17 November 2008. And in doing so we should not forget that the party had never heard of or seen this decision otherwise he would have not submitted an appeal for absence and failure to deliver the first instance decision.
Confused from the action by the second instance body which in any case should investigate the actions of the lower bodies and to correct the possible shortcomings, Mihajlo Veljanovski addressed the State Administrative Inspectorate, and at the same time submitted a request for initiating administrative suit before the Administrative Court of the Republic of Macedonia.
The Helsinki Committee addressed in writing the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund, the Second Instance Commission, as well as the State Administrative Inspectorate, and we received answers from the Fund and the State Administrative Inspectorate. Unfortunately, the Second Instance Commission did not respond with an explanation concerning its omission.
The State Administrative Inspectorate informed us that after the inspection at the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund it was concluded that after the submitted request for pension harmonisation the Fund passed a decision within the legally established period but they failed to deliver it to the applicant. Because of that the administrative inspection with a decision tasked the Local Office of the Fund to forward the decision to the applicant within the required period, after which the Fund acted accordingly. In its response the Fund informed us that the case of Mihajlo Veljanoski was looked into based on the appeal from 28 April 2009 to the Second Instance Commission without mentioning the information about the absence of the delivery which they treat as negligible.
The question is why the Commission when the appeal was submitted because of the administration silence failed to recognise the Fund’s omission by failing to delivery the decision and to close the procedure sooner, and in stead it turned a blind eye to that fact and passed a decision that confirmed a decision unknown to the party.
Even more amazing is the fact that the State Administrative Inspectorate did not say anything about the way the Commission conducted itself contributing for the prolonging of the procedure, because of what now there is a recorded administrative dispute, and Mihajlo Veljanovski had to appeal again against the decision he received almost half a year later from the day of its adoption.
Certainly the Commission is silent about this state of affairs and now they will decide on the appeal again and undoubtedly this will not require much work since they only need to change the date from the previous second instance decision.
In this case the provision from Articles 245 and 246[23] from the Law on General Administrative Procedure is already forgotten. On the other hand were the reasons established for the failure to comply with Articles 80 and 82 from the LGAP according to which the delivery is done by handing over the written document to the person for whom its is intended for, and the body is obligated within a period of 15 days from the day when the delivery requirement is established followed by two attempts for proper delivery by handing it over to the party.
Could we expect in near future accountability on the part of the state administrative body for the frequent violations of the provisions in the administrative procedure? The Helsinki Committee regrets the fact that the Fund a half a year later established the need to deliver, as well as the fact that the Commission did not have the time to establish that fact to the benefit of the rights of the party. Even more worrying is the silence of the Administrative Inspectorate regarding the responsibility of the two bodies in the procedure. Until the state bodies act contrary to the law without fearing any kind of repercussion we cannot expect efficient protection of human rights in the administrative procedure.
3.2. The Case of Emilija Kostadinova
The administrative procedure, which more or less appears as part of the everyday lives of the citizens, is defined as a procedure which incorporates the concept of providing materials and formal legality of the act adopted in this procedure and protection of the rights and the interests of the entities in this reference. However, this very definition seems like pure ideology with no special overview on the numerous examples in the real life that prove/claim the opposite. The example of the party Emilija Kostadinova is a striking example of violation of the provisions in the Law on the General Administrative Procedure and the actions undertaken by the state bodies contrary to those.
Namely, the party addressed the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in reference to the ignoring and violation of clear legal provisions by the Employment Agency – Vinica Employment Centre.
The individual Emilija Kostadinova on 7 July 2008 in compliance with the Law on Insurance in case of unemployment, submitted a request for recognition of the right to unemployment allowance to the Employment Agency – Vinica Employment Centre.
The Centre acting upon the party’s request adopted a Decision No. 0309-139 on 2 September 2008 refusing it, after which she appealed to the second instance body, the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy within the legally determiened period.
After the legally envisaged deadlines of two months[24] for deciding upon the appeal were long time passed, the party on 13 November 2008 submitted a request to the Vinica Employment Agency for information of public character regarding this case. The Centre responded to this request by the Party on 2 December stating that the case was returned by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy to be additionally reviewed[25].
Even though the party was informed that the decision of the second-instance body as a matter of fact exists and that the case was returned to be additionally reviewed and decided at the Vinica Employment Centre, it has not been delivered to the party to this very day, nor has she had an opportunity to look at it.
In order to find out the reasons for the failure to deliver the decision to the party, the Helsinki Committee on several occasions addressed the Employment Agency of the Republic of Macedonia – Vinica Employment Centre with a request for information concerning the case, however the only thing we got from the Centre was a silent treatment and ignoring of the forwarded requests!
The Helsinki Committee following this case asks the question what about the obligatory respect of the principles of the administrative procedure, the principle of protection of the parties, the efficiency and the most important one, the accountability of the bodies that (do not) act in compliance with the Law and its provisions.
This case speaks about the need of individual accountability of the state body in the specific case, the Employment Agency-Vinica Employment Centre which with its inaccessibility and disrespect of the Law violated the rights and the interests of the party.
The Helsinki Committee believes that this case will finally get is outcome which will be used as a positive example contributing for the reestablishment of the feeling of legal safety among the citizens in the public institutions.
4. ANNEX
CONCLUSIONS from The Round Table on the Topic of:
“The New Law on Internal Affairs from the aspect of the legal state”
Organised by the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights of the Republic of Macedonia
Arka Hotel in Skopje on 22 May 2009
1. Introduction. Participants at the round table on the topic of “The New Law on Internal Affairs from the Aspect of the Legal State” were representatives of the academic structures, the Ministry of Justice, judges, lawyers and public prosecutors, from the Personal Data Protection Directorate, the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia, the NGO sector and the political parties. It was assessed that the new Law on Internal Affairs (LIA) was an especially important legal project which is crucial for the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms.
2. Reforms at the Directorate for Security and Counterintelligence. Contrary to the expectations that after the adoption of the Law on the Police in 2006 (legally regulating the section of public security) the sphere of state security will finally be legally “settled” in a way that the Directorate for Security and Counterintelligence will be established as a modern service following the example of the modern European democracies (Croatia and Slovenia have adopted special laws on state security, while Slovenia has also a Law on the Security Agency), the Draft Law on Internal Affairs (LIA) sticks to the old and etatistic “secret police” models with no clear legally regulated competences, authorities and with no possibility of any real external control. Namely, even though the MOI a number of years ago prepared a solid strategy for modernising the state security service, these reforms were constantly postponed under the excuse that there have been alleged constant threats against the stability of the country due to which it was not the time to reform that department. However, today the Republic of Macedonia is a stable parliamentary democracy, a candidate country for NATO and EU membership. This fact is only an argument more for the need for this sector to be regulated according to the standards of the rule-of-law state.
3. Reviewing the competences and the authorities of the Directorate for Security and Counterintelligence (UBK). UBK is an independent body within the MOI that should function in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of the Republic of Macedonia as well as the ratified international agreements. In the legal regulating of UBK’s competences and authorities they need also to bear in mind the Law on the Public Prosecutor’s Office (LPPO), the Law on Criminal Procedure (LCP), the National Concept on Security and Defence and especially the Recommendation No. 1402 of the Council of Europe, as well as the legal standards and rules for supervising the security and counterintelligence services adopted by the UN, OSCE and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
In order to prevent arbitrary and political abuse of the service for the needs of the ruling political elites, and to ensure rule of law and respect of human rights, it is especially important to clearly regulate the competences of the service and the authorities of its members.
UBK needs to be focused on planning and implementing counterintelligence, information-analytical and predicting activities, control and coordination on the territory of the Republic of Macedonia. In that context just like the other similar services in the western democracies, UBK should collect, analyse and assess the data and the information about actions performed by individuals, groups, organisations or foreign services on the territory of the Republic of Macedonia aimed against the national security, in stead of acting as some kind of etatistc type of secret police typical for the former eastern-European countries. In that sense it is necessary to fully legally regulate the security matters with a new and special Law on National Security. And by that with the new law the system of the national security as a whole will be legally regulated, as well all the segments of the system will be legally regulated, and all these in correspondence with the overall political system
3.1. Competences concerning organised crime. There is no either legal or real basis for UBK to act as a secret criminal police for the more serious acts of organised crime. (By the way, no body so far has defined which organised crime is serious, since there is no less serious organised crime). Namely, from a conceptual and organisational aspect, LPPO and the LCP do not envisage for the UBK to be part of the police which under the leadership of the public prosecutor will work on the criminal investigations. The concept of the Judicial Police encompasses close cooperation of the heads of the organisational units within the MOI, the Financial Police and the Customs Administration which work on the detection and reporting of crimes together with the competent public prosecutor, and as we know we cannot expect that from the UBK. On the other hand the Sector for Organised Crime is the most powerful sector at the MOI, which as a matter of fact for a long time has had good cooperation with UBK and the Public Prosecutor’s Office due to which there is no reason for this service to interfere in the arresting of criminals, etc.
Which serious forms of organised crime does the MOI consider as ones that “originate from the democratic institutions”, is something that the drafter will have to explain.
The competences of the MOI to work on detecting and prosecuting criminals (the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia reserves the prosecuting of perpetrators of crimes for the public prosecutor’s office!) creates also problems in ensuring cooperation between the police and the prosecutor’s office within the Europol and Eurojust. The reason for this is the fact that the state security services are not obligated by the standards for the personal data protection, which on the other hand represent an important element in the international police cooperation.
3.2. UBK’s police competences . Because of all of these there is no real reason for UBK to have police competences. Apart from that the legal construction from Article 34 according to which the authorised UBK officials “can use police officers’ authorities in a way and under the conditions established with the Law on the Police”, and “under conditions and within the range necessary for performing the competences of the Directorate” is neither legally nor logically founded. Namely, the Law on the Police gives the police competence for activities and situations completely different from those UBK deals with, such as protections of the peace and order.
Furthermore, the Law does not say which are those “special measures and methods for secret collecting of data” and which other law will regulate them?! (Article 23). As we know since the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia all the bylaws of the MOI that regulate the state security officers’ authorities (secret searches, etc.) have been left with no legal power and -as far as we know- since then the UBK has been acting with no specially legally regulated methods. Hence, when performing their competences established with this law UBK can collect data by using public sources or by using special measures in compliance with the LCP and the Law on Communication Surveillance. The use of measures for secret data collection that temporarily limits certain rights and freedoms of the citizens can be done only for legitimate goals and based on the Law on Criminal Procedure and only if the data cannot be collected in any other way or their collection involves disproportional difficulties. In any individual case if there is a possibility to use the measures for secret data collection, one should use the measure that penetrates the constitutionally protected rights and freedoms of the citizens the least. If the data collected with secret measures contain elements for suspicions of planning, preparing or committing a crime prosecuted ex officio, UBK is obligated to inform the public prosecutor’s office directly or via the Organised Crime Sector.
The data that do not refer to national security, and which are collected while performing the legal competences should be immediately destroyed, and when doing so records are made signed by the persons present at the document destruction.
The Government of the Republic of Macedonia should adopt Book of Regulations on UBK’s activities that will regulate in more details the procedures, measures and means for operating; ways of planning, performing, registering and reporting concerning the activities under the competence of the UBK; the employment’s rights and other issues of importance for the activities of this service, which are not regulated with this law.
Let us repeat: UBK must be librated from the police and ideological component in the course of its functioning and to concentrate on the counterintelligence source function: identification and effective and timely prevention of state security threats undertaken by foreign intelligence services or organisations or individuals involved in espionage activities, sabotages, subversive activities or terrorism without braking the elementary human rights.
One should emphasise the fact that the Public Security Bureau (the Police) does not only perform police activities in compliance with the Law on the Police, but also in compliance with the provisions from the LCP and the LPPO.
4. LIA does not offer a definition of the authorised officials, and the criteria about the complexity of the activities and the conditions as well as the way of performing the work are if nothing else worn-out. Defining of the special competences and authorities is of special significance since the Law on the Police refers to it as well. The idea is that “authorised official” is the broadest notion and thus this law has to establish the special competences and authorities.
On the other hand every job bears its own complexity and conditions. In stead of simple listing of the positions with special competences and authorities, the LIA should define what an authorised official is and what the special competences and authorities encompass. The position of the Minister is an exclusively political function and s/he should not have a status of authorised official. The other perspective is de-stimulation of the police officers for professional performance of their tasks because of they have the same status with the other officers who are practically civil servants par excellence. This process has existed within the MOI for some time now, and now it will be finally made official with a law.
Not less significant aspect are the financial implications on the budget from the so big inflow of authorised officials. 30% higher wages for a significant number of employees, 100% wages during sick leave and benefits at retirement. It seems that the only rational explanation of the drafter refers to the benefits that are not always justified.
Which civil matters that remain under the competence of MOI need to be precisely clarified having in mind the EU trend of transferring the civil matters to the Ministry of Justice (Article 2).
5. The external control on the Ministry’s performance is done by the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia. Where is the control from the Government, Judiciary, public prosecution, NGOs, citizens, local community? With the LCP it is established that the court assesses the legality of the undertaken police activities, isn’t that control of the MOI?
The law does not provide any real control of UBK by the Assembly. The draft envisages for the UBK to submit to the parliamentary committee a programme and a report of its activities and the committee obviously has no influence on them (Article 41)! Apart from that the real scandal is the fact that the MOI in the LIA regulates relations between the Committee and the Assembly!?
6. Even though the Draft Law on Internal Affairs is already in a parliamentary procedure we are demanding for the draft law to be subjected to a debate involving experts and the civil society between the two readings at the Parliament.
Even more since there are several new laws that are in their final drafting phase and which propose new changes in the legislation in this field, such as the Law on Criminal Procedure and allegedly a new law on security matters which has been indicated in a number of occasions. This only makes the problem of (non)coordination of the reforms in the fields of justice and internal affairs even more serious, which is very significant for the country’s obligations in its Euro-integration process.
——————————————————————————–
[1] CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA Article 25
[2] Article 3b from the draft amendments to the Law on the Protection of Children.
[3] Id. Article 5
[4] Id. Article 6
[5] Article 9-b from the draft amendments to the Law on the Protection of Children
[6] Article 9-c from the draft amendments to the Law on the Protection of Children
[7] Id. Article 12
[8] Id. Article 26
[9] Article 87 from the draft amendments to the Law on the Protection of Children
[10] Article 171 Paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 regarding the investigative actions and Article 250 Paragraph 1 from the Law on Criminal Procedure:
-(2) The Plaintiff, the victim, the defendant and the defence lawyer have the right to be present during the investigation and interviewing of the forensic experts. (4) While interviewing a witness the plaintiff, the defendant and the defence lawyer have a right to be present when it is probable that the witness will not be present at the main hearing, when the investigative judge decides that it is purposeful or when one of the parties asks to be present at the interview. The victim could be present at the witness interview only when the witness most probably will not be present at the main hearing. (5) The investigative judge is obligated in a proper way to inform the plaintiff, the defence lawyer, the victim and the defendant about the time and the place where the investigative actions to which they can be present at will take place, with the exception of cases when there is a possibility of postponing. If the defendant has a defence lawyer the investigative judge as a rule informs the lawyer (Article 171)”;
– “If the Witness who is properly invited does not come and fails to justify his/her absence or without approval or justified reason leaves the place of the interview, an order for his/her bringing in could be issued and s/he could be fined in compliance with Article 75 Paragraph 1 of this law (Article 250)”
[11] Article 74 from the Law on Criminal Procedure:
– “(1) The motions which according to this law are forwarded to the opposite party are handed over to the court in a sufficient number of copies for both the court and the other party. (2) If these motions are not presented to the court in a sufficient number of copies the court will invite the applicant to present sufficient number of copies within a given period of time. If the applicant fails to act in compliance with the court order, the court will make the necessary number of copies and charge them to the applicant”.
[12] Article 326 Paragraphs 1 and 2 from the LCP:
– “(1) The Records need to be finalised with the session conclusion. The Records are signed by the Council’s President and the secretary. (2) The party has to receive a copy from the records and they can make remarks regarding the content and to ask for corrections”.
[13] Article 325 Paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 as well as Article 327 Paragraphs 3 and 4 from the LCP:
– “(1) During the main hearing records are kept which should incorporate essentially everything that is going on during the main hearing. (4) The President of the Council can based on a proposal by a party or ex officio to order to have the statements they consider as especially important entered in the records. (5) If necessary and especially if the statement of a person is entered in the records word by word, the President of the Council could order the specific part of the records to be immediately read out, and it will be read out every time the party, the defence lawyer or the person whose statement is entered in the records ask for that” (Article 325);
– “(3) Statements by the defendant, the witnesses and the forensic experts are entered in the records in a way that will show their essential content. These statements are entered in the records only if they contain deviations or additions to their initial statements. Based on a demand by the party the President of the Council will order for the record of her initial statement to be read out fully or partially. (4) Based on the party’s demand also the question and the answer the Council refused as inappropriate will be entered into the records (Article 327)”.
[14] CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA Article 14
[15] Article 10 from the International Pact Concerning Civil ad Political Rights (19 December 1966).
[16] Principle established in Article 38 from the Law on Executing Sanctions
[17] ECHR, Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, Appl. No.7819/77 and 7878/77, Judgment from 28 June 1984
[18] Decision No. 11/08 from 12 November 2008
[19] Diagnosis of cholecystitis chr. Calculoza steatosis hepatic with a recommendation for urgent surgery
[20] The party received the Decision on 17 December 2008
[21] Article 91 from the Law on Execution of Sanctions
The convict and the case public prosecutor have a right to appeal against the decision concerning the request for the postponing of the beginning of the imprisonment sanction execution to the Court’s Criminal Council competent for executing the sanction within a three day period from the day of receiving the first instance decision. The appeal postpones the sanction execution. The Criminal Council is obligated to adopt a decision upon the appeal within a three day period after receiving the appeal.
[22] That is the deadline when the criminal council is obligated to decide upon the submitted appeal.
[23] “The elaboration of the second-instance decision needs to assess all the assertions made in the appeal”.
“If a party complained that the first-instance body did not decide, the second-instance body will demand from the first-instance body to present the reasons for not passing the decision within the required period”.
[24] The Law on General Administrative Procedure Article 247 Paragraph 1 “The Decision upon the appeal has to be passed and delivered to the party as soon as possible, and within two months at the latest counting from the day of submitting the appeal, unless a shorter period is established with another regulation”
[25] The Law on General Administrative Procedure Article 248: “The body that decides in the second instance sends its decision with the case files to the first-instance body to have them delivered to the parties within an eight day period from the day of receiving the decision with the case files”.