HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONSIDERS REPORT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS SITUATION IN ROMANIA

MORNING


HR/CT/99/17
20 July 1999


The Human Rights Committee began consideration this morning of a fourth periodic report of Romania, querying a Government delegation on such matters as procedures for arrest and detention and the jurisdiction of military courts.

Introducing the report, Cristian Diaconescu, Director-General for Legal Affairs of the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said promotion and protection of human rights had acquired particular significance for Romania following the country’s transition to democracy, which had begun in 1989. He said there was a growing awareness, especially after a democratic change of power, carried out through elections in 1996, that strengthening human rights was closely related to strengthening democracy, good governance and the rule of law.

A number of Committee experts raised questions on such issues as pre-trial procedures; use of arms by security forces against teenagers; police brutality against Roma; and the whereabouts of former judges who had served during the pre-democratic regime. The Romanian delegation was to provide additional responses to the questions during the afternoon meeting.

In addition to Mr. Diaconescu, the delegation included Ioan Maxim, Permanent Representative of Romania to the United Nations Office in Geneva; Iulia Cristina Tarcea, Director of the Ministry of Justice Directorate for the Government Agent, European Integration and Human Rights; Ion Rusu, Head of the Ministry of the Interior Legal Directorate; Marko Attila, Director of the Governmental Department for Minorities Protection Legal Directorate; Mircea Moldovan, Assistant People's Advocate; Victoria Sandru, Deputy Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Directorate for Human Rights; Alexandru Farcas, Counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Romania; and Anton Pacuretu, Second Secretary of the Permanent Mission of Romania.

As one of 144 States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Romania is obligated to submit periodic reports to the Committee on efforts to implement the provisions of the treaty.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will continue consideration of the fourth periodic report of Romania.

Fourth periodic report of Romania

The report (CCPR/C/95/Add.7) describes administrative and legislative measures taken to implement the provisions of the International Covenant since the third report was presented. In addition, account has been taken of the recommendations made by the Human Rights Committee following its consideration of the third report. The second section of the report describes legislative changes made between the years 1992 and 1995 that affect the application of the Covenant.

The report states that no restriction upon or derogation from the fundamental human rights guaranteed by domestic law or by international conventions to which Romania is a party has been allowed. In the spirit of its international commitments, Romania recognizes the right of all peoples to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources, and considers that the exercise of that right entails obligations for the State.

Presentation of Report

CRISTIAN DIACONESCU, Director-General for Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania, said the promotion and protection of human rights had acquired particular significance for Romania in the context of the democratic transformations it had undergone since 1989. Romania had adhered to all major international human rights instruments and had committed itself to meeting international reporting procedures.

There was a growing awareness, especially after the democratic change of power carried out through the 1996 elections, that strengthening human rights was closely related to the strengthening of democracy, good governance and the rule of law, Mr. Diaconescu went on to say. The placing of citizens' protection at the centre of the Draft Strategy of National Security, which the President of Romania recently had presented before Parliament, was part and parcel of that comprehensive human-rights-oriented conception, he added.

Mr. Diaconescu emphasized the complexity of ongoing reforms in Romania and the multiple challenges brought about by the gigantic task of turning a State-centred society into a democratic one. He further said that while the measures already taken in his country for the implementation of the provisions of the International Covenant had created an important legal, judicial and institutional framework, there were still difficulties concerning the full exercise of those rights, due in particular to the economic and social costs of transition.


Mr. Diaconescu said protection of the rights of persons belonging to national minorities represented one of the major objectives of the Romanian Government. The specific problems of the Roma minority were being dealt with by the National Office for Roma, functioning within the Department of the Protection of National Minorities. Technical and financial assistance was provided for the creation of Roma associations so that Roma could participate in decision-making,at the national level he added.

Mr. Diaconescu emphasized that while the Romanian Government shouldered the primary responsibility for the promotion and protection of human rights, an increasing role was to be assumed by all major actors in civil society in the formation and implementation of human-rights policies and programmes.

Discussion

In response to the first cluster of written questions prepared in advance by Committee experts, members of the Romanian delegation said the status of the Covenant was above the Romanian domestic law and that its provisions could be directly invoked by courts and other bodies dealing with human rights. In the past, courts had cited the rights enshrined in the Covenant in their decisions. In addition, the Constitutional Court had the power to declare unconstitutional any decision or legal provision which contradicted the rights enshrined in the Covenant.

As regards the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, or the "Office of the Advocate of the People", the delegation said that the post was established in conformity with the country's Constitution to fulfil the functions traditionally assigned to a human-rights Ombudsman. It represented an important achievement aimed at consolidating the protection of rights recognized by the Covenant. The Ombudsman was an independent institution, comparable to those of other democratic countries, called upon to defend citizens' rights and freedoms in relation to actions taken by public authorities.

According to the delegation, the Ombudsman had received thousands of complaints each year, many questioning administrative procedures involved in the restitution of land or property; pensions and social benefits; rights of former political prisoners and victims of the totalitarian regime; police; pre-trial custody and detention of prisoners; and rights of asylum seekers and refugees, among others. More than 75 per cent of cases presented to the "Advocate of the People" were rejected, said the delegation. The Ombudsman had, however, the right to order investigations, to examine, to hear and to ask for declarations, and might address the General Prosecutor.

In order to guarantee the independence of the judiciary, the Romanian Constitution provided for the irremovability of judges appointed by the President of the country, said the delegation. The Supreme Court Act provided that judges of the Supreme Court of Justice were "dignitaries of the State and irremovable during the period of their mandate". The judges were appointed for periods of six years and could be reappointed.

On gender equality and the principle of non-discrimination, the delegation said that women made a considerable contribution to the nation-building process and played an active role in all aspects of Romanian society. In order to improve the situation of women, the Government had undertaken a series of measures since the process of democratization. Nevertheless, the problem of female unemployment still persisted, with 12 per cent of the working female population unemployed compared, to nine per cent for men. The number of professionally trained women was higher than that of men.

The delegation said that the Government of Romania was preoccupied by the growing problem of trafficking in women and transnational crimes committed in that regard. The trafficking involved an international network which needed a concerted response from all European countries touched by the problem. Romanian law prohibited acts of slavery and prostitution and the Government had increased its efforts to combat the problem by putting monitoring mechanisms in place.

On measures taken by the Government to provide remedies for domestic violence, the delegation said a prevailing "traditional and cultural mentality" had contributed to the perpetuation of domestic violence directed against women. In the past, only cases presented by victims could be dealt with by police and courts. Because of the "shame and guilt" of victims, however, many cases of domestic violence and rapes remained unreported. The Government was drafted an amendment to current legal provisions to strengthen the sanctions against violence and rape.

A question was asked why the minimum age of marriage varied for men and women -- it was 18 for men and 16 for women. The delegation said that in fixing the minimum ages for both sexes, the legislators apparently were considering traditional standards of when physical maturity was reached. The age limits did not create any social problems, the delegation said, or the Government would have taken measures to amend them.

The delegation said the duration of arrest could not exceed 30 days; when that period expired, a court could decide to extend it for at most 30 more days. Pre-trial detention could not exceeding five days, at which point the detainee had to be brought before a court.

A number of Committee experts raised questions on such issues as conditions of arrest and detention; pre-trial procedures; use of arms by security forces against teenagers; police brutality against members of the Roma minority; the whereabouts of the former judges who served during the former regime; and the jurisdiction of military courts. The Romanian delegation was asked to provided supplementary responses to the questions during the afternoon meeting.