On December 2-3, the most serious violations of Roma rights were committed in Vilnius' Kirtimai settlement. Both the Equal Opportunities Ombudswoman and the Parliamentary Ombudsmen office concluded that the officers of Vilnius Municipality seriously violated the housing rights of a few Roma families by destroying their houses. The Municipality subsequently classified the process of property destruction as the “demounting of illegal structures”, later as the “removal of ownerless property”, implying that the Roma housing was “ownerless property”.
The officers of Vilnius City Municipality still refuse to admit that they have committed a serious infringement of human rights by tearing down Roma housing. Their actions further demonstrate disrespect to both the rule of law and human rights.
After being subject to the cruelty of the officers of Vilnius City Municipality, the Roma looked to the Ombudsman institutions. Ms Šalaševičiūtė, then Parliamentary Ombudswoman, not only stopped the illegal actions of the Municipality but also stated that the structures had been pulled down without court decision, which violated the Civil Code, the Law on Construction and other legal instruments of the Republic of Lithuania. The present Parliamentary Ombudswoman, Ms Pilipavičienė, conducted comprehensive and detailed investigation to arrive at the conclusion that Mr Šaluga, then Division Head of the Vilnius Municipality, had committed illegal actions that exceeded his powers and discriminated against the Roma as well as violated their human rights. The Parliamentary Ombudsman Office qualified these actions as the abuse of the official position.
Henrikas Mickevičius
Executive Director
Žilvinas Mišeikis
Project Manager
The statement was titled Lithuanian Parliament Awaits Urgent Evaluation. The statement expresses doubts concerning the legality of a decision adopted by Judge A.Cicinas of Vilnius Second Circuit Court to bring V. Tomkus, the publisher of RESPUBLIKA Daily, by force to the court hearing. Apart from that, the statement also conveys the belief that both the institutions of court autonomy and the Chairman of the Supreme Court “will immediately consider and evaluate the circumstances of the decision adoption in case the publicized information is confirmed”.
RESPUBLIKA Daily and VAKARO ŽINIOS Daily informed the readers that similar statements were produced by other political figures and officials, as well. On 18 June 2005, RESPUBLIKA Daily reported that Artūras Paulauskas, Parliament Chairman, “insisted that court authorities would evaluate the actions of A.Cicinas as soon as possible”, while VAKARO ŽINIOS Daily reported that Gintaras Furmanavičius, Minister of the Interior, “stressed that everyone, even the judges, have to comply with laws whereas the police do not carry out illegal instructions”.
Provided these statements were published by the newspapers correctly, they cannot be tolerated in a democratic state since they fail to comply with the principles of separation of powers, court autonomy and rule of law. The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania consolidates these principles, which apart from all other things mean that the officers of political powers may not require the institutions of court autonomy to perform actions when they have doubts as to the legality of the proceedings.
The legality issue of the judge’s ruling (verdict, decision, judgement) can only be settled by a court of higher power. This right is vested with neither the politicians and officers nor the Judicial Court of Honour, the Council of Courts or the Chairman of the Supreme Court. The statement of the members of the Seimas Committee on Human Rights, containing arguments which are null in respect to law and human rights, resembles a public relations campaign aimed at achieving obscure objectives unknown to public.
The doubts publicly declared by Lithuanian politicians concerning the legality of the judge’s procedural action, and their demands that the institutions of court autonomy evaluate his actions in a case for which no final decision has been made is seen as an attempt to affect the autonomy and impartiality of the judge. This is treated as a grave violation of the right to fair trial.
The words of the Minister of the Interior are especially harmful in this respect because they undermine the authority of the court and encourage legal nihilism. Naturally, the Minister’s statement was soon followed by the statement of Sigitas Mecelica, acting head of Vilnius Police, who “stressed that the police had no intentions of carrying out the illegal instructions of the judge” (RESPUBLIKA Daily, 18 June 2005).
Court systems face a number of problems and the Human Rights Monitoring Institute has repeatedly informed the society about them. However, these problems must be solved by measures appropriate for a democratic state. We would like to believe that court institutions should feel responsible to the public and the state and, therefore, will not be easily manipulated, while the instigations to abstain from complying with ca ourt decision will receive political and legal evaluation.
Henrikas Mickevičius
Executive Director of the Human Rights Monitoring Institute
At 11 am, following the Press Conference, a round table discussion, 2004 Human Rights in Lithuania: Issues and Potential Solutions, arranged on the initiative of His Excellency President Valdas Adamkus and the HRMI, will be held in the White Hall of the Palace. President Valdas Adamkus and the HRMI invited the Administration of Lithuanian Seimas, the Heads of a few Seimas Committees, a group of Ministers, State Officials, Judges and the representatives of the NGOs to take part in the discussion.
The year 2004 brought forth a number of challenges in regard to human rights. The presidential crisis coupled with the bribery scandal of the parliamentarians clearly disclosed the tendency to sacrifice human rights for political aims in Lithuania. People should feel that the state functions following the principle Tua res agitus (this is all about You). In other words, the purpose of the state is to serve people, take care of their security and welfare, as well as to hear the voice of its citizens. Democratic values and standards embodied in the catalogue of human rights are to be followed for the development of such state.
Legitimizing the democratic system and its accession to the unions of Western countries alone does not safeguard the realization of human rights. Although the stability of the institutions guaranteeing human rights constitutes one of the key criteria of the membership in the European Union, the year 2004 revealed that the accession to the EU failed to protect Lithuanian citizens from the impairment of human rights protection standards. Therefore, there exists a crucial need for incessant civic monitoring of state institution performance in regard of human rights protection and their adherence to the related policy.
Seeking to realize the traditions of civic control over authorities in Lithuania, the Human Rights Monitoring Institute has provided a second overview of human rights. The Introductory Overview of Human Rights, which has provided a basis for periodical overviews, was introduced to the public in June 2004. This first periodical overview covers the most notable violations of human rights in 2004 including both new and persisting breaches.
The greatest concerns are related to the control of information transmitted by electronic communications and the use of this collected information. The publicizing of private telephone conversations violated the right to privacy especially gravely. Ungrounded and public usage of an ID number identifying a person has also become standard. The cases of violating the presumption of innocence were widely covered by mass media when high ranking law enforcement officials publicly declared the guilt of suspects before the trial. The bailiff business single-sidedly favors only bailiffs and, therefore, is unacceptable in regard of human rights.
A number of issues concerning the implementation of the right to political participation has emerged in 2004. This especially refers to the safeguarding of the right to open and fair elections where vote purchasing, misleading of the electorate and the existence of defective voting procedures pose great problems. Hastily ratifying a Treaty, Lithuanian Parliament showed distrust in Lithuanian citizens by depriving them of the opportunity to express their will concerning this document of particular importance.
Children continue to be one of the most vulnerable social groups in 2004. Violence against children is widespread at home and at school and the problem of street children has not been addressed adequately. The scopes of sexual abuse and exploitation of children are also very worrisome. Another vulnerable group, the Roma minority, has also experienced harsh violations of their rights to adequate housing. Anti-Semitic and homophobic attacks in mass media failed to cause sufficient repercussion from the legal bodies.
You are kindly invited to take part in the Press Conference.
Judging by the results of the December 2004 New Europe barometer research, conducted by VILMORUS, Market and Opinion Research Centre, as many as 81 percent of Lithuanian residents believe that the majority or almost all civil servants and officials are corrupt. Meanwhile, every third respondent believes that the transparency of the Parliament and the Government functions as well as higher moral requirements might help in restoring the public trust in the authorities. 29 percent of the respondents maintain that the struggle against corruption should be a main priority of the government.
The public disappointment with policy-makers and politics has been even further aggravated by both the recent political corruption scandals initiated by the Special Investigation Service (SIS), and the inappropriate conduct of concerned politicians during these scandals.
Some of the politicians still blame the SIS for politicking and unprofessionalism. In the meantime, the SIS officers continue to be involved in public discussions, thus, further discrediting their service.
Resolute political decisions need to be made today to restore both the dialogue between the public and the authorities and the trust of Lithuanian citizens in their state. Therefore, we hereby propose three solutions for the policy-makers that could at least partially help them to break the deadlock:
1. Ethical supervision of politicians and civil servants should be fundamentally expanded.
2. Decisive measures should be taken for the development of a modern state service accountable to the public.
3. The required conditions should also be enforced for the professional operation of the Special Investigation Service and other law enforcement institutions.
1. Fundamental expansion of ethical supervision of politicians and civil servants
First, politicians should apply more stringent ethical requirements for themselves in order to begin the restoration of trust between the policy-makers and the public. Corruption of politicians and officials today could most effectively be curbed by actual enactment of the Governmental Code of Ethics and State Servants’ Code of Ethics. Existing draft codes have to be made public immediately, to be discussed with the public, to be improved, to be drafted anew and to be adopted as soon as possible. Actual sanctions should be provided for the breaches of the Codes of Ethics ranging from dismissal from work or reduction of state servant’s retirement pension. Our country will not be fully civilized as long as our policy-makers and officials fail to adhere to the principle “innocent until proven otherwise”.
The possibility of subjecting state servants to “integrity tests” used throughout Western world must also be considered. By giving notice beforehand about an intended check, special services could test the honesty of civil servants. The knowledge of the potential tests alone could act as a deterrent. Those who fail to pass an “integrity test” should be dismissed from their posts.
Officers of state and municipalities should be obliged to declare not only their income but also expenditures. They should also be regularly inspected to see whether their living corresponds to the expenses declared.
2. Employment of decisive measures for the development of modern state service accountable to the public
Lithuania is not going to become a real European state until it develops a Western style of responding to civic needs. The bureaucratic programs that have been forgotten should be initiated again and consistently implemented.
This would prove to be the most effective measure for the fight against corruption. It would also be cheaper and more forceful than penal measures. Further, today's deregulation policy (removal of unnecessary restrictions) and bureaucracy reduction initiatives should be continued, while the “one contact” principle should actually be introduced to the relationships between institutions and the citizenry.
The genuine publicity, transparency and honesty of recruitment procedures for the state service positions should be ensured, thus, providing the employment opportunities for competent people with contemporary education degrees.
The possibility for authorities to adopt decisions and initiate actions discreetly should be limited. The authorities should make decision-making more transparent by engaging public figures into this process more actively. All information that is not deemed sensitive should be copied to electronic media, managed in an integrated manner and made fully accessible to the public.
3. Security of required conditions for the professional operation of the Special Investigation Service and other law enforcement institutions
The public relations war between the SIS and politicians must be terminated today. These two bodies must cooperate in order to create a united front and facilitate trust between the public and the law enforcement officers. Politicians should stop criticizing the SIS in public, while the officers of the SIS should abstain from public discussions about the quality of their work and from disseminating any rumors about the corruption of politicians. The SIS must ensure the legality of its actions and improve the professional qualifications of its officers.
Intentions of certain policy-makers to vest other law enforcement institutions with the duty to fight against corruption pursuant to the Law may justify a reduction of the funding allocation to the SIS and even further weaken this institution as a penal persecution measure against corruption. Double subordination of the Special Investigation Service to the President and the Parliament makes this institution sufficiently independent. International experts note that the best results in curbing corruption are attained by independent law enforcement institutions. It would be erroneous to change the current independent status of this service just because of the mistakes it has committed.
Politicians should also ensure appropriate funding for the SIS today, since from 1999 to 2002 the funding allocations for this service gradually diminished, while it has stayed the same during the recent years. This department cannot be expected to function properly without the proper funds.
To avoid accusations of politicking, the SIS should forward the collected evidence to the Public Prosecutor’s Office right away and the case should reach the court as soon as possible so that the judges can evaluate the evidence. The officers should abstain from public comments on the case before trial.
Criminal Code should be amended so that one of the two persons who have committed an offense of a corruption-like nature would not be deemed as an offender nor prosecuted provided he/she confesses to the officers.
The Law on the Protection of Offense Reporters has to be adopted for the protection of persons who report criminal offenses and observed cases of corruption in their institutions. The persecution of the offense reporter should be prosecuted by law, while the state should assist in securing the reporter’s work place for him/her. It is because of the lack of cooperation with the citizenry that the anti-corruption investigations are doomed to failure.
We kindly invite politicians to refrain from procrastinating the adoption of decisions required by the Lithuanian state and its public today.
Darius Kuolys
Director of the Civil Society Institute
Rytis Juozapavičius
Director of Transparency International - Lithuania
Henrikas Mickevičius
Director of the Human Rights Monitoring Institute
Ugnius Trumpa
President of the Lithuania Free Market Institute
You may also read the Statement text here.
Summary
Such actions show a lack of respect to human rights and disrupt public order. This use of violence should be evaluated under Art. 284 of the Criminal Code. Criminal proceedings can be initiated even if there is no complaint by the victim since the violent act was performed publicly and showed disrespect for human dignity and physical integrity.
HRMI requests that the Prosecutor General initiates a criminal investigation to determine whether the TV station and perpetrator have committed a criminal act.
Chair of the Board
Kęstutis Čilinskas
Executive Director
Henrikas Mickevičius
You can find the ful text of the public appeal here (in Lith.)
Summary
In June 2004, HRMI published an overview of human rights in Lithuania that indicate serious violations of human rights – lack of control over the activities of secret service, excessive wire-tapping, unjustifiable public use of sensitive personal data, fair trial-related violations, and a lack of knowledge among professionals and the general public about national and international human rights instruments acts (including European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Liberties). HRMI has called presidential candidates to include the topic of human rights in their electoral agenda. The absence of human rights in the political agenda contributes to further deterioration of professional standards during current high profile investigations involving politicians.
Officials of the Special Investigation Service (SIS) continue the excessive use of wiretapping as evidence. However, tapes can be easily falsified. Today, in cooperation with experts in electronic technologies, HRMI has publicly conducted an experiment that shows how simple it is to falsify the contents of taped telephone conversations and electronic documents. At the same time, the procedure to verify the authenticity of the content of electronic communications is quite complex and cannnot guarantee absolute accuracy on whether certain material is falsified. SIS should concentrate on gathering more reliable evidentiary materials.
It is, moreover, unacceptable that after discontinuation of a criminal investigation, law enforcement officials have encouraged public disclosure of wire-tapped conversations. This is against the Code on Criminal Procedure, seriously violates the human right to privacy and discredits the tapes as evidence since under procedural law the case can still be reopened. Most importantly, it demonstrates political engangement of law enforcement officials.
HRMI will closely follow further developments and react when human rights are taken hostage by politics.
Executive Director Henrikas Mickevicius
Summary
This statement is released a day after special agents searched the premises of four political parties supporting the second round frontrunner, Valdas Adamkus. Numerous doubts have been raised on whether these actions are a necessary part of ongoing investigations. HRMI recalls earlier warnings, in particular in its Human Rights Overview of June 2004, related to abuses of power by SIS. HRMI stresses the necessity to impose strict legal rules ensuring proper operations of this agency.
The President of Lithuania is entitled and has instruments to guarantee the legitimacy of actions by secret services. The duty of the President is also to safeguard constitutional rights. For these reasons, it is expected that during the campaign, presidental candidates should pay close attention to issues relevant to human rights. Regretfully, however, the current campaign is silent on this topic. Discussions concentrate on socioeconomic problems - problems that do not fall in the President's constitutional powers and thus mislead the electorate.
HRMI reminds us that under the Constitution, responsibility for socioeconomic issues lies with the Government. To a certain extent, the President may contribute to solving social and economic problems by monitoring legitimate use of governmental powers and ensuring that government agencies do not violate human rights. More importantly, the President is responsible for the proper functioning of the judicial system - the main protector of human rights.
Priorities of presidential candidates during the election campaign are factors that influence the evolution of public policies. HRMI hopes that candidates are not indifferent to the main constitutional values, among them human rights. We invite presidential candidates to include the topic of human rights in the electoral campaign and express their opinion on issues such as independence and quality of judicial system, legal status and discretionary powers of secret service agencies, the right to poltical participation, the rights of vulnerable groups, human trafficking, and domestic violence.
Chair of the Board Kęstutis Čilinskas
Executive Director Henrikas Mickevičius
© 2012 Human Rights Monitoring Institute