ALBANIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE CONDEMNS APPEALS AGAINST FRIENDLY COEXISTENCE WITH MINORITIES

GREEK HELSINKI MONITOR

(Greek National Committee of the International Helsinki Federation)

& MINORITY RIGHTS GROUP - GREECE

(Greek Affiliate of Minority Rights Group International)

P.O. Box 51393, GR-14510 Kifisia, Greece; tel. 30-1-620.01.20; fax: 30-1-807.57.67;

e-mail: office@greekhelsinki.gr      http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/

 

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

26/2/1998

 

TOPIC: ALBANIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE CONDEMNS APPEALS AGAINST FRIENDLY COEXISTENCE WITH MINORITIES

 

We distribute the following statement by the Albanian Helsinki Committee

 

The AHC has taken knowledge of some illegal doings likely to instigate national hatred. In the southern town of Saranda, at the end of past December, unknown persons have distributed leaflets containing appeals to take rid of those called "Greeks and their tools". In a typical hate speech towards all those who are of a different ethnic origin, direct menaces are formulated saying that "our revenge will not be late, it will be a mortal blow". It is not at all by case that Saranda has been chosen for the distribution of this kind of publication. It follows quite clearly that these irresponsible appeals are directed against the minority population there.

 

The AHC strongly condemns any manifestation of ethnic hatred. We consider this as a ugly going contrary both to internal legislation and to the commitment of the Albanian State to abide to the international instruments in regard to the treatment of minorities.

 

It is our firm belief that these are isolated attempts by some extremis groups, which by no means will be able to violate the overall picture of the situation of minorities in this country. Albania has got a very positive record as far as the regime of minorities is concerned and this make all the more necessary to condemn any attempt aiming at undermining our friendly coexistence with minorities January 8, 1998

 

The Albanian Helsinki Committee

 

Amnesty may adopt a mufti in Greece as prisoner of conscience

GREEK HELSINKI MONITOR

(Greek National Committee of the International Helsinki Federation)

& MINORITY RIGHTS GROUP - GREECE

(Greek Affiliate of Minority Rights Group International)

P.O. Box 51393, GR-14510 Kifisia, Greece; tel. 30-1-620.01.20; fax: 30-1-807.57.67;

e-mail: office@greekhelsinki.gr      http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/

 

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

24/2/1998

 

TOPIC: Amnesty may adopt a mufti in Greece as prisoner of conscience

 

We distribute the latest release of Amnesty International

 

Amnesty International - News Release - EUR 25/14/98

 

AI INDEX: EUR 25/14/98

24 February 1998

PUBLIC STATEMENT

 

Greece

 

Possible adoption of Mehmet Emin Aga as prisoner of conscience Amnesty International will adopt Mehmet Emin Aga as a prisoner of conscience and will call for his immediate and unconditional release should he be imprisoned after his appeal hearing on two separate convictions for "usurpation of the function of a Minister of a known religion in Greece", the human rights organization said in a letter to the Greek Government today.

 

Mehmet Emin Aga was brought to trial in Lamia on 3 April 1997 charged with "Usurping [the function] of a religious minister , an offence under Article 175, paragraph 2 of the Greek Penal Code, for which he received the maximum sentence prescribed by law: one year's imprisonment. In the second case, he was found guilty of "persisting in the act of usurpation" and sentenced to a further 12 months in prison, which were converted into a fine.

 

These convictions are just two of several imposed upon him by Greek courts in the past few years, all for the offence of "Usurpation2. Following three separate trials in May 1996, November 1997 and December 1997 he was sentenced to a total of 50 months' imprisonment. Appeals are also pending in these three cases.

 

According to the written judgment by Lamia Court when sending out to the Muslims of Xanthi written messages of a religious content to mark five religious festivals in May, November and December 1995 and in January 1996, Mehmet Emin Aga "presented himself as Mufti" by writing "Mufti s office of Xanthi" at the beginning of the messages and by signing them as "Mufti of Xanthi, Mehmet Emin Aga" and thus "deliberately carried out duties which by their nature apply exclusively to the legitimate Mufti, E. Sinikoglou".

 

Amnesty International takes no position on the procedures to be followed for choosing religious leaders and has no view on who is, or who should be, the legitimate Mufti of Xanthi. The organization's concern in this case is based solely on its belief that by sending leaflets with religious messages to the Muslim inhabitants of Xanthi, which he signed as the Mufti of Xanthi, Mehmet Emin Aga was exercising his right to freedom of expression.

 

This right is guaranteed by international instruments which Greece has ratified and is therefore bound to observe. These include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 19) and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), Article 10 (1) of which states that : "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

 

In sentencing Mehmet Emin Aga to terms of imprisonment solely for the peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of expression, Amnesty International considers that Greece is acting in violation of international legislation which safeguards the right to freedom of expression.

Greece condemned again for violation of religious freedom by European Court of Human Rights

GREEK HELSINKI MONITOR

(Greek National Committee of the International Helsinki Federation)

& MINORITY RIGHTS GROUP - GREECE

(Greek Affiliate of Minority Rights Group International)

P.O. Box 51393, GR-14510 Kifisia, Greece; tel. 30-1-620.01.20; fax: 30-1-807.57.67;

e-mail: office@greekhelsinki.gr      http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/

 

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

24/2/1998

 

TOPIC: Greece condemned again for violation of religious freedom by European Court of Human Rights

 

We distribute the latest press release issued by the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights

 

JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF LARISSIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

 

In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 24 February 1998 in the case of Larissis and Others v. Greece, the European Court of Human Rights held inter alia that there had been no violation of Article 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights (eight votes to one), that there had been no violation of Article 9 of the Convention in respect of measures taken against the applicants for the proselytising of airmen (eight votes to one and seven votes to two) and that there had been a violation of Article 9 in respect of measures taken against them for proselytising civilians (seven votes to two). Under Article 50 of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants specified sums for non-pecuniary damages and legal costs and expenses.

 

The judgment was read out in open court by Mr Feyyaz Gölcüklü, the President of the Chamber.

 

The complete text of the judgment is available in:

 

http://www.dhcour.coe.fr/eng/LARISSIS%20ENG.html

 

I.

 

BACKGROUND TO THE CASE

 

A. Principal facts

 

The three applicants are Greek citizens. Mr Dimitrios Larissis was born in 1949 and lives in Tanagra Viotias. Mr Savvas Mandalarides was born in 1948 and lives in Agria Volou. Mr Ioannis Sarandis was born in 1951 and lives in Kamatero Attikis. At all material times they were officers in the Greek Air Force and followers of the Pentecostal Church.

 

Between 1986 and 1989 all three applicants allegedly approached various airmen serving under them, all of whom were Orthodox Christians, and spoke to them about the teachings of the Pentecostal Church. In addition, two of the applicants attempted to convert a number of civilians.

 

They were charged with offences of proselytism under section 4 of Law no. 1363/1938 ("section 4"), which provides that it is a criminal offence to engage in proselytism, by which is meant, "in particular, any direct or indirect attempt to intrude on the religious beliefs of a person of a different religious persuasion, with the aim of undermining those beliefs, either by any kind of inducement or promise of an inducement or moral support or material assistance, or by fraudulent means or by taking advantage of the other person’s inexperience, trust, need, low intellect or naïvety."

 

On 18 May 1992 the applicants stood trial before the Permanent Air Force Court of Athens, which dismissed their objection that section 4 was unconstitutional and convicted them of various offences of proselytism against airmen and civilians. They were sentenced to twelve, thirteen and fourteen months’ imprisonment respectively, convertible into pecuniary penalties; but these penalties were not to be enforced provided that they did not commit new offences in the following three years.

 

The applicants appealed, and on 7 October 1992 the Court-Martial Appeal Court upheld the judgment of the Athens Permanent Air Force Court, but reduced the prison sentences by two months.

 

The applicants lodged with the Court of Cassation an appeal on points of law which was dismissed on 30 July 1993. The Court of Cassation held that section 4 did not contravene either the provisions of the Greek Constitution, which enshrine the principle of nullum crimen sine lege certa and the right to religious freedom, or Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

B. Proceedings before the European Commission of Human Rights

 

The applications to the Commission, lodged on 28 January 1994, were declared admissible on 27 November 1995.

 

Having attempted unsuccessfully to secure a friendly settlement, the Commission adopted a report on on 12 September 1996 in which it established the facts and expressed the following opinions:

 

(a) there had been a violation of Article 9 in so far as the second applicant was convicted for the proselytism of some of the civilians (unanimously);

 

(b) there had been a violation of Article 9 in so far as the second and third applicants were convicted for the proselytism of one of the civilians (24 votes to 5);

 

(c) there had been no violation of Article 9 in so far as the first and second applicants were convicted for the proselytism of one airman and the first and third applicants were convicted for the proselytism of another airman (28 votes to 1);

 

(d) there had been no violation of Article 9 in so far as the first and third applicants were convicted for the proselytism of a third airman (23 votes to 6);

 

(e) there had been no violation of Article 7 (28 votes to 1);

 

(f) no separate issue arose under Article 10 (unanimously);

 

(g) no separate issue arose under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 9 in so far as the second applicant was convicted for the proselytism of the civilians and the second and third applicants were convicted for the proselytism of one of the civilians (unanimously);

 

(h) there had been no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 9 in so far as the first and second applicants were convicted for the proselytism of one airman and the first and third applicants were convicted for the proselytism of the other two airmen (unanimously).

 

It referred the case to the Court on 28 October 1996.

 

II.

 

SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENT

 

The applicants complained principally that the Greek law against proselytism was not sufficiently clearly defined and that its application to them constituted an unjustified interference with their right to exercise their religious freedom.

 

A. Article 7 of the Convention

 

The Court recalled its finding in the Kokkinakis v. Greece judgment of 25 May 1993 that the definition of the offence of proselytism contained in section 4, together with the settled body of national case-law interpreting and applying it, satisfied the conditions of certainty and foreseeability prescribed by Article 7 of the Convention.

 

It was not persuaded that the position in Greek law had become any less clear in the period of under five years since that evaluation. Bearing in mind that the need to avoid excessive rigidity and to keep pace with changing circumstances meant that many laws were inevitably couched in terms which were, to a greater or lesser extent, vague, it saw no reason to reverse its previous decision.

 

It therefore found no violation of Article 7 of the Convention.

 

[See paragraphs 32-35 of the judgment and point 1 of the operative provisions]

 

B. Article 9 of the Convention

 

1. Interference

 

It was not disputed before the Court that the prosecution, conviction and punishment of the applicants for offences of proselytism amounted to interferences with the exercise of their rights to freedom to manifest their religion or belief.

 

2. "Prescribed by law"

 

The expression "prescribed by law" in Article 9 § 2 required inter alia that the law in question should be both adequately accessible to the individual and formulated with sufficient precision to enable him to regulate his conduct.

 

On the same grounds on which it had found no violation of Article 7, the Court found that the measures in question were "prescribed by law".

 

3. Legitimate aim

 

The Court considered that the measures taken against the applicants pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others.

 

4. "Necessary in a democratic society"

 

The Court emphasised that while religious freedom was primarily a matter of individual conscience, it also implied, inter alia, freedom to manifest one’s religion, including the right to try to convince one’s neighbour. Article 9 did not, however, protect every act motivated or inspired by a religion or belief, for example, improper proselytism, such as the offering of material or social advantage or the application of improper pressure with a view to gaining new members for a Church.

 

The Court had to determine whether the measures taken against the applicants were justified in principle and proportionate. Since different factors came into the balance in relation to the proselytising of the airmen and that of the civilians, it assessed the two matters separately.

 

(a) The proselytising of the airmen

 

States might, in certain circumstances, be justified in taking special measures to protect subordinate members of the armed forces from harrassment or abuse of power, since, due to the influence of military hierarchical structures, subordinates could find it difficult to rebuff the approaches of an individual of superior rank or to withdraw from a conversation initiated by him.

 

Referring to the evidence adduced in the domestic proceedings, the Court found that the three airmen with whom the applicants had discussed religion appeared to have felt themselves constrained and subject to a certain degree of pressure owing to the applicants’ status as officers. It noted that the measures taken against the latter were not particularly severe and were more preventative than punitive in nature. In all the circumstances of the case, therefore, it did not find that these measures were disproportionate or that there had been a violation of Article 9 in relation to the conviction of the applicants for proselytising the airmen.

 

(b) The proselytising of the civilians

 

The Court found it of decisive significance that the civilians whom two of the applicants had attempted to convert were not subject to pressures and constraints of the same kind as the airmen. It did not find that they required any special protection or that the applicants had acted improperly towards them. It followed that the measures taken against the two applicants for proselytism in respect of the civilians were unjustified, and amounted to a violation of Article 9.

 

[paragraphs 36-61 of the judgment and points 2-4 of the operative provisions]

 

C. Article 10 of the Convention

 

The Court found that no separate issue arose under this provision.

 

[paragraph 64 of the judgment and point 5 of the operative provisions]

 

D. Articles 14 and 9 of the Convention taken together

 

The Court did not find it established that the measures taken against the applicants for proselytising the airmen were discriminatory, or gave rise to a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 9. Having found a violation of Article 9 in relation to the measures taken against them for proselytising the civilians, it found that no separate issue arose under Article 14 in this context.

 

[paragraphs 65-69 of the judgment and points 6-7 of the operative provisions.]

 

E. Article 50 of the Convention

 

The Court awarded, by way of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, GRD 500,000 to each of the two applicants in respect of whom it had found a violation of Article 9.

 

It also awarded to them legal costs and expenses totalling GBP 6,000.

 

[paragraphs 71-77 of the judgment and point 8 of the operative provisions.]

 

Judgment was given by a Chamber composed of nine judges, namely Mr F. Gölcüklü (Turkish), President, Mr R. Macdonald (Canadian), Mr J. De Meyer (Belgian), Mr N. Valticos (Greek), Mr R. Pekkanen (Finnish), Mr J.M. Morenilla (Spanish), Mr B. Repik (Slovakian), Mr P. Kuris (Lithuanian) and Mr P. van Dijk (Dutch), and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar, and Mr P.J. Mahoney, Deputy Registrar.

 

Judges De Meyer, Valticos, Morenilla, Repik and van Dijk expressed separate opinions and these are annexed to the judgment.

 

The judgment will be published shortly in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 (available from Carl Heymanns Verlag KG, Luxemburger Straße 449, D-50939 Köln). Judgments are available on the day of delivery on the Court’s Internet site (www.dhcour.coe.fr)

 

Subject to his duty of discretion, the Registrar is responsible under the Rules of Court for replying to requests for information concerning the work of the Court, and in particular to enquiries from the press.

 

Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contact: Mr Roderick LIDDELL Telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92; fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91

 

A P P E N D I X

 

Convention Articles referred to in the release

 

Article 7

 

"1.  No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

 

2.  This article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations."

 

Article 9

 

"1.  Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

 

2.  Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

 

Article 50

 

"If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising from the ... Convention, and if the internal law of the said Party allows only partial reparation to be made for the consequences of this decision or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

 

HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS CRITICIZE MACEDONIAN COURT

GREEK HELSINKI MONITOR

(Greek National Committee of the International Helsinki Federation)

& MINORITY RIGHTS GROUP - GREECE

(Greek Affiliate of Minority Rights Group International)

P.O. Box 51393, GR-14510 Kifisia, Greece; tel. 30-1-620.01.20; fax: 30-1-807.57.67;

e-mail: office@greekhelsinki.gr      http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

24/2/1998

 

TOPIC: HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS CRITICIZE MACEDONIAN COURT

 

Human Rights Watch, the Greek Helsinki Monitor, and the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in the Republic of Macedonia express their common concern regarding the recent decision of the Skopje Court of Appeals in the cases of Rufi Osmani, Mayor of Gostivar, and Refik Dauti, president of the Gostivar city council. The court's decision on February 19 to reduce their sentences by six years, eight months and one year, respectively, ignored the fundamental violations of due process that took place in their original trial, such as poor access to the case files, restricted lawyer consultations, and the court's refusal to accept witnesses on behalf of the defense. Osmani was sentenced  to 13 years, 8 months in prison last September for inciting national, racial and religious hatred, organizing armed resistance, and disobeying an order of the constitutional court, while Dauti was sentenced to three years in prison for disobeying an order of the constitutional court. Rather than sentence reductions, Osmani and Dauti should be granted new trials, in which they are allowed to defend themselves in accordance with Macedonian and international law.

 

Human Rights Watch, the Greek Helsinki Monitor and the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in the Republic of Macedonia understand that the two defendants plan to challenge the decision in Macedonia's supreme court. We call on that body to consider the numerous procedural violations in their first trial, portions of which were monitored by members of the Greek Helsinki Monitor and the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in the Republic of Macedonia. If Mr. Osmani or Mr. Dauti are guilty of the charges brought against them, the court should prove it in a fair and open atmosphere, in which the defendants are guaranteed the constitutional right to a proper defense.

 

Meto Jovanovski

Chairman

Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in the Republic of Macedonia

 

Panayote Dimitras

Spokesperson

Greek Helsinki Monitor

 

Holly Cartner

Executive Director

Europe and Central Asia Division, Human Rights Watch

 

For further information, contact:

Fred Abrahams, Human Rights Watch, tel: (1-212) 216-1270

Panayote Dimitras, Greek Helsinki Monitor, tel: (30-1) 620-0120

Meto Jovanovski, Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in the Republic of Macedonia,  tel : (38-111) 119073

 

BACKGROUND

 

On January 27, 1997, the city councils in Tetovo and Gostivar, two predominantly ethnic Albanian towns in western Macedonia, voted to raise the Albanian and Turkish state flags next to the Macedonian state flag outside of the cities' town halls. The Macedonian Ministry of Interior informed the Tetovo and Gostivar governments that their decision was illegal, but the city councils refused to take the flags down.

 

On May 21, the Macedonian constitutional court ruled that the city councils in Tetovo and Gostivar did not have the right to fly the Albanian or Turkish flags in front of their town halls. Both local governments refused to recognize the court's decision.

 

Then, on July 8, around 11 p.m., parliament approved a new Law  on the Use of Foreign Flags, which allowed state flags other than the Macedonian to be flown at any time on private property and in front of town halls on state holidays. Approximately four hours later, special police forces moved into Tetovo and Gostivar without warning, illegally detained some key members of the ruling ethnic Albanian party, including Mayor Osmani, took down the Albanian and Turkish flags, and ransacked parts of the Tetovo and Gostivar town halls. In violent clashes between the police and demonstrators later that day, more than 200 people, including seven policemen, were injured and three people died. The police used excessive force against individuals who were not offering any resistance, or who had ceased to resist, and illegally detained many people who had not participated in the demonstration.

 

That same day, four ethnic Albanian officials from Gostivar and Tetovo were arrested. Alajdin Demiri, Mayor of Tetovo, Vehbi Bexheti, president of the Tetovo city council, and Refik Dauti, President of the Gostivar city council, were charged with disobeying a decision of the constitutional court, according to Article 377 of the penal code. Mayor Osmani, faced the same charge, plus organizing an armed resistance (Article 387 of the penal code) and inciting national, racial and religious hatred (Article 319 of the penal code). Osmani, who was the main organizer of the movement to raise the Albanian and Turkish flags, was held in pre-trial detention for sixty-three days. The court rejected the defendant's request to be released from custody, ignoring the defense's argument that, since Osmani had a family and substantial property, he was not likely to abscond. Dauti was released after thirty days in detention, while Demiri and Bexheti, who went on trial separately, were not detained at all.

 

Originally scheduled to begin on September 1, the court granted Osmani and Dauti a nine-day postponement because they had not been provided all of the case material. The trial resumed on September 10, and was observed by the OSCE, the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in the Republic of Macedonia, and the Greek Helsinki Monitor. The Gostivar court allowed numerous irregularities, denying the defendants their right to a fair trial. Most serious was the judge's repeated refusal to allow defense witnesses to testify. During the six-day trial, the prosecution was allowed to present six witnesses on its behalf, while the defense could not present any of its seven witnesses.

Moreover, the judge limited consultations between the defendants and their lawyers. According to a report on the trial by the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in the Republic of Macedonia, "the `partnership' between the prosecution and the court against the defense left a bad impression of the impartiality of the court."

 

On September 16, after the court refused to postpone the trial for one day, Osmani's legal team, Savo Kocarev, Nexhat Mehmeti and Machmut Jusufi, resigned in protest, stating that "the court jeopardizes the defense's rights and does not allow us to prepare a proper defense."  The court appointed a lawyer, but Osmani refused to have him to speak on his behalf.

 

Regarding the accusation of inciting ethnic and racial hatred, the prosecution's case was based on statements Osmani made during a demonstration held in Gostivar on May 26, 1997. Based on video material shot secretly by the police, Osmani shouted slogans such as: "We will give our lives, not our flag!" "We will return a slap with a slap!" and "Gostivar is an Albanian city!"  Regarding the charge of organizing resistance, the prosecution presented a document called a "Crisis Plan," which police allegedly found in Osmani's office. The typed and unsigned document contained a written plan to defend the flags with armed groups in the event of police intervention. Osmani claimed that the document was not his, but the court refused the defense's request to have the document submitted for an expert analysis to help determine its authenticity.

 

On September 17, the Gostivar court, with judge Jelena Kemeri presiding, found Refik Dauti guilty of disobeying a decision of the constitution court and sentenced him to the maximum punishment of three years in prison. Osmani was found guilty on all three charges, and was sentenced to 13 years, eight months in prison.

 

Human rights groups and a number of political parties, including the ethnic Macedonian opposition party VMRO-DPMNE, condemned the verdict for its unusual harshness. Of particular concern was the eight-year sentence for violating Article 319 of the penal code, inciting ethnic and racial hatred. Osmani's conviction made apparent the arbitrary application of justice in Macedonia, since some highly xenophobic and anti-Albanian demonstrations held by ethnic Macedonians students in 1997 were never prosecuted.

 

Human Rights Watch, the Greek Helsinki Monitor, and the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in the Republic of Macedonia are mainly concerned that Osmani and Dauti were denied their due process rights guaranteed under Macedonian and international law.

 

Specifically, poor access to the case material, restricted lawyer consultations, and the court's refusal to accept witnesses on the behalf of the defense prohibited the defendants from obtaining a fair trial.

 

On October 14, 1997, the Tetovo court found Alajdin Demiri and Vehbi Bexheti, the two ethnic Albanian officials from Tetovo, guilty of disobeying a decision of the constitutional court, and sentenced them each to two and a half years in prison. On January 14, 1998, a Skopje appeals court overturned the guilty verdict and returned the case back to the district court for review. On February 19, 1998, the Appellate Court in Skopje reduced Osmani's sentence from 13 years, 8 months to seven years. Dauti's sentence was reduced from three years to two years.

Possible adoption of Eva Androutsopoulou as prisoner of conscience

GREEK HELSINKI MONITOR

(Greek National Committee of the International Helsinki Federation)

& MINORITY RIGHTS GROUP - GREECE

(Greek Affiliate of Minority Rights Group International)

P.O. Box 51393, GR-14510 Kifisia, Greece; tel. 30-1-620.01.20; fax: 30-1-807.57.67;

e-mail: office@greekhelsinki.gr      http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

18/2/1998

 

TOPIC: Possible adoption of Eva Androutsopoulou as prisoner of conscience

 

We distribute the latest release of Amnesty International on an issue that GHM previously issued a similar statement.

 

* News Release Issued by the International Secretariat of Amnesty International * News Service 27/98

AI INDEX: EUR 25/13/98

18 FEBRUARY 1998

 

PUBLIC STATEMENT

 

Greece

 

Possible adoption of Eva Androutsopoulou as prisoner of conscience Amnesty International will adopt Eva Androutsopoulou as a prisoner of conscience and will call for her immediate and unconditional release should she be imprisoned after her trial tomorrow, the human rights organization said in a letter to the Greek Government today.

 

Eva Androutsopoulou is accused of "making frequent references.to Buddhism and to the religious beliefs of the Orient" during a German language class she gave at a private school in Komotini, northern Greece, in May 1995.

 

The charges against Eva Androutsopoulou have been brought under Article 4 of Law 1363/1938, which makes it is an offence to "attempt directly or indirectly to intrude on the religious beliefs of a person of a different religious persuasion.with the aim of undermining those beliefs". If found guilty, Eva Androutsopoulou, who is not herself a Buddhist, faces a term of imprisonment of between 10 days and five years, and a fine of between 1,000 and 50,000 drachmas.

 

Amnesty International believes that the prosecution of Eva Androutsopoulou on charges of proselytism represents a violation of Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention) and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which guarantee the right to "freedom of thought, conscience and religion".

 

The trial of Eva Androutsopoulou is the first trial for proselytism since the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment on the Kokkinakis case in May 1993. The European Court ruled that the conviction of Jehovah's Witness Minos Kokkinakis for attempting to convert an Orthodox Christian woman during a visit to her home violated Article 9 of the European Convention.

 

Open letter to Yugoslav authorities protesting efforts to restrict independent media

GREEK HELSINKI MONITOR

(Greek National Committee of the International Helsinki Federation)

& MINORITY RIGHTS GROUP - GREECE

(Greek Affiliate of Minority Rights Group International)

P.O. Box 51393, GR-14510 Kifisia, Greece; tel. 30-1-620.01.20; fax: 30-1-807.57.67;

e-mail: office@greekhelsinki.gr      http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/

 

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

16/2/1998

 

TOPIC: Open letter to Yugoslav authorities protesting efforts to restrict independent media

 

We distribute the latest release of Human Rights Watch

 

OPEN LETTER

 

For Release on February 16, 1998

 

To:

Yugoslav President Slobodon Milosevic fax 38111-3111668

Serbian President Milan Milutinovic fax 38111-684679

Yugoslav Minister of Foreign Affairs Zivadin Jovanovic fax  38111-681572

Yugoslav Min. of Transport and Telecommun. Dojcilo Radojevic fax 38111-3244414

Serbian Minister of Information Radmila Milentijevic fax 38111-685937

Yugoslav Secretary for Information Goran Matic fax 38111-600446

 

February 16, 1998

 

Dear Sirs:

 

Human Rights Watch, the largest U.S.-based human rights organization, condemns your government's ongoing attempts to restrict the independent media in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). Your consistent unwillingness to establish a clear and democratic set of laws to regulate the electronic media violates your government's obligations under Serbian, Yugoslav, and international law to guarantee freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

 

The open bid for temporary radio and television frequencies, announced on February 6, only complicates the matter. Like the laws regulating the electronic media, the legal procedures for the open bid are confusing, inconsistent, and in contradiction with other Serbian and Yugoslav laws. For example, only companies that are registered with the Ministry of Information and the Commercial Court may submit a bid. But this requirement contradicts Serbian law since, according to the Law on Radio Television, a company first needs a frequency in order to register with these bodies. The cost of participating in the bid, the technical conditions required, and the documents needed from other government-run agencies are insurmountable barriers for the private radio and television stations that exist in FRY.

 

Human Rights Watch views the most recent open bid as a continuation of the government's policy to deny, through complicated and unduly burdensome legal procedures, frequencies to those radio and television stations that do not conform to the state's narrow definition of "acceptable information."  These stations are allowed to operate, thereby demonstrating to the international community an apparent respect for free speech.

 

But, as the past has demonstrated, the government may close down a private radio or television station without a licence at any time. An estimated 300 private radio stations and 100 private television stations in FRY are currently in this precarious position. In contrast, government-run stations or commercial stations with close ties to the government, like Radio Kosava or BKTV, have consistently obtained licences and are free to broadcast without interference.

 

In mid-1997, for example, the government closed seventy-seven independent, opposition-run or commercial television and radio stations on the basis that they were "illegal."  Many of the stations did not posses the proper licenses, in fact because the government consistently refused to grant licenses to stations that broadcast critical views of the state.

 

Human Rights Watch therefore calls on the FRY government to:

 

·      To prepare new media laws and regulations, in full consultation with the independent media in Yugoslavia, that guarantee freedom of expression in television and radio. Concrete changes in the Serbian Law on Radio Television, the Serbian Law on Communication Systems, the Serbian Laws on Public Information, the Federal Law on Communication Systems, and the Federal Law on Public Information should guarantee that broadcast licenses are distributed and regulated by an independent body without regard to political considerations.

 

·      Until a new series of federal and republican laws are introduced, permit all currently licensed, and all unlicensed but currently operating, radio and television stations to broadcast without interference. No regulation of the airwaves should take place until Yugoslavia has a new set of media laws and regulations that guarantee free expression in accordance with international standards.

 

·      Consult with the independent media and its organizations, such as the Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM), on a regular basis about ways to protect and promote the independent media.

 

Human Rights Watch will continue to monitor the development of FRY's media legislation and its application. We note that freedom of the media is a fundamental requirement for lifting the outer wall of sanctions currently in place against FRY and reintegrating the country into the international community.

 

Yours,

 

[signed]

 

Holly Cartner

Executive Director

Europe and Central Asia Division

 

cc: Richard Miles, United States Embassy in Belgrade

Robert Gelbard, U.S. Special Envoy to the Balkans

Bronislav Geremek, OSCE Chairman-in-Office

Robin Cook, E.U. Council of Ministers

U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the former Yugoslavia

 

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH BACKGROUND

The Electronic Media in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

 

The broadcast media in Serbia is regulated by five laws: the Serbian Law on Radio and Television, the Laws on Connection Systems (Serbian and federal), and the Laws on Public Information (Serbian and federal). In addition, a number of state bodies are involved in regulation, including the Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications, the Ministry of Information and the commercial courts. Many of the relevant laws and regulations are contradictory and allow the government to grant or deny licenses to those stations it desires. For example, under current regulations, the Yugoslav Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications requires applicants for a broadcast license to provide proof that the station has been registered as a public media outlet at the Ministry of Information and at the appropriate commercial court. But these documents cannot be obtained without first having a license from the Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications. Even taken individually, Serbia's broadcast laws do not guarantee that licenses will be allocated on a non-discriminatory basis.  Article 5 of Serbia's

Law on Radio and Television gives the government a very broad discretional right to grant licenses, while article 10 (6) of the same law allows the government to revoke licenses under vague terms.  Article 7 of the law obliges the government to hold an open auction for frequencies once a year, but the last auction was held in 1994.

 

As a result, since 1989 independent radio and television stations (like Radio B-92 or Radio Boom 93) have been repeatedly denied a license without an explanation even though they apparently met all of the criteria, while stations that were either blatantly pro-Milosevic or, at least, commercial and wholly uncritical (like RTV Pink or BK TV) easily obtained licenses for large parts of Serbia. The most extreme example was Radio Kosava, run by Milosevic's daughter, Marija, which obtained a frequency by government decree without even submitting an application.

 

The independent broadcast media was, therefore, severely limited in its effectiveness, leaving the state controlled television and radio to disseminate government propaganda unchallenged, as in the past. Many people in Serbia and abroad blame the state media for encouraging the war in former Yugoslavia by distorting facts and promoting xenophobic, extreme nationalist views.

 

Despite these barriers, Serbia's independent radio and television stations played an important role during the 1996-97 demonstrations by disseminating information, often directly from the streets, that offered an alternative to government propaganda. Unlike during the war, which was never fought inside Serbia, audiences could contrast the state media's coverage with their daily experiences at home. The daily audience of the larger stations, specifically Radio B-92 and Radio Index in Belgrade, rose to over one million. Smaller stations throughout Serbia rebroadcast B-92's transmission, thus providing many people in the countryside with an alternative to the state-run media, which was misrepresenting the purpose and scale of the demonstrations. In acknowledgment of their effectiveness, the government attempted to ban or close a large number of radio stations, including Radio B-92 itself, which responded by sending daily news over the Internet.

 

Most often, the state justified the closures by claiming that the station in question did not have the proper license to broadcast. In most cases, this was true, a consequence in large part of the government's persistent refusal to grant such licenses to independent radio or television stations. Many of the stations that were closed following the November 1996 elections, all of them either independent or oppositional, had been operating without interference for the past three or more years, suggesting that they were closed strictly for political reasons.

 

In May 1997, the Serbian Minister of Information, Radmila Milentijevic, promised that there would be democratic reform in the electronic media and that no private television or radio station would be shut down before the September 21 elections.

Despite this, on June 2, the Yugoslav Minister for Transport and Telecommunications, Dojcilo Radojevic, announced the need to "establish order in the broadcast media." All "pirate" radio and television stations, he declared, would be permanently banned if they failed to apply for a temporary broadcast license by June 30, 1997. However, the ministry did not clarify which documents were required to apply for a temporary license or on what criteria applications would be considered. According to journalists and the Association of Independent Broadcast Media, a local network of independent radio and television stations, the procedure at that time for submitting the application was confusing and contradictory.

 

Shortly after the June 30 deadline, and in some cases before the deadline, the government initiated a coordinated campaign among the Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications, the criminal police, the financial police and various government agencies to shut down more than seventy-five radio and television stations across Serbia and confiscate some of their equipment without warning, even though some of the stations had submitted all of the necessary documentation. All of the closed stations were either independent, run by the opposition or commercial and unconnected to the government.

 

On February 6, the government announced another open bid for temporary radio and television frequencies, even though it had never replied to the bids submitted in June 1997. To apply for a bid, stations must meet a number of criteria, such as be registered at the Ministry of Information and Commercial Court, have the proper licences for electronics and construction, and provide an as-yet undisclosed fee.