Dosja antishqiptare e Greqisë, 1912-2007

[BARAT]

Votat në Himarë, festa në Athinë

Shkruan : Erl Murati
revista MAPO

Urimi i parë zyrtar për rizgjedhjen në krye të bashkisë së Himarës i erdhi nga ministria e Jashtme e Greqisë. E si për të shpërblyer ndihmën që mori në zgjedhjet e 18 shkurtit, kryebashkiaku i konfirmuar i Himarës vendosi të festojë në Athinë. Muzikë buzuqesh, flamuj bardheblu të krahinës, qindra të ftuar mes të cilëve deputetë të parlamentit grek, deputetët e parlamentit shqiptar, Vangjel Dule e Spiro Peçi dhe sportistët Pirro Dhima e Foto Strakosha. Shumë foto familjare dhe himnizimi i popullit himariot si zemra e helenizmit në Shqipëri.
Festa e madhe e organizuar në “Akrotirio Palace” kishte fare pak ose aspak “Shqipëri”.
Oratorët në fjalimet e tyre përmendnin shpesh Vorio-Epirin, helenizmin, OMONIA-n dhe triumfin mbi binomin PS-PD. Sipas raportimeve nga kjo ngjarje, “nga Himara kishte ardhur së bashku me kryetarin dhe një dërgatë e veçantë, bërthama e cila mbrojti votën me vendosmëri nga komisonerët ambiciozë”. Vetë Bollano në fjalimin e tij u kursye duke falenderuar të pranishmit për kontributin në fitoren e zgjedhjeve. “Ju falemnderit që më dhatë votën tuaj për të punuar së bashku për një katërvjeçar tjetër dhe për të arritur rezultate të tjera. Falenderoj gjithashtu dhe ata që nuk më votuan duke e konsideruar votën e tyre opozitare si një detyrë për të përmirësuar dhe ndrequr gabimet që sidoqoftë janë bërë në mënyrë të paqëllimëshme”, deklaroi Bollano. Ndërsa peshëngritësi Pirro Dhima u prit me ngrohtësi nga himariotët që përfituan nga rasti për të nxjerrë fotografi përkujtimore përkrah tij. Madje fituesi olimpik për katër herë rradhazi, theksoi se tani e tutje ai do të ishte i pranishëm, jo figurativisht por realisht pranë himarotëve. Ndërsa, po sipas raportimeve të të pranishmëve në festë, kryetari i PBDNJ-së, “Vangjel Dule falenderoi himariotët dhe i ftoi ata të jenë si gjithmonë zemra e helenizmit në Shqipëri”.
Ajo që u konsumua më 14 mars në Athinë, ishte vetëm festa zyrtare e fitores së kryebashkiakut Vasil Bollano. Menjëherë pas 18 shkurtit, në Himarë nisën festimet në gjuhën greke. Ai arriti të marë 1270 vota përkundër 750 votave të kandidatit demokrat, Dhimitër Llazari. Ndryshe nga herët e kaluara, kur fitorja e përfaqësuesve të minoritetit është shoqëruar me kontestime, këtë radhë, përkrahësit e Bollanos kanë festuar duke kënduar në gjuhën greke. Vetë Bollano ka përshëndetur greqisht duke falenderuar votuesit që i dhanë mandatin në krye të bashkisë. Madje ai nuk ka hezituar të përshëndesë në gjuhën greke edhe kryeministrin Berisha. Pas fitores, Vangjel Dule u ka kërkuar të gjithë kandidatëve për kryebashkiak në Himarë, të pinë një kafe së bashku si shenjë e bashkëpunimit të ardhshëm. Në zgjedhjet e 18 shkurtit, pjesëmarrja e himariotëve në votime ishte në nivelin e 28 përqindëshit. Procesi i votimit është ndjekur në mënyrë konstante nga mediat greke, diplomatë të Athinës në Tiranë, si dhe nga eksponentë të ndryshëm të OMONIA-s.
Megjithë monitorimin e zgjeruar, zgjedhjet në Himarë, as këtë radhë nuk kaluan pa incidente. Gjatë një mitingu elektoral të PBDNJ-së në fillim të muajit shkurt, u desh ndërhyrja e policisë që një incident të mos degjeneronte në viktima. Tre të arrestuar dhe një person që përfundoi pa ndjenja në urgjencën e Himarës ishte bilanci i këtij incidenti që riktheu dhe një herë skenat e fushatave të nxehta elektorale të viteve 2000 dhe 2003.
Gjithçka ndodhi kur 3 persona nisën të fyejnë të pranishmit në miting të cilët nga ana e tyre, brohorisnin në greqisht dhe mbanin në duar flamuj bardheblu. Pas minuta pasi nisi mitingu nga një autoveturë që u afrua pranë sheshit zbritën tre personat të cilët mbanin në dorë një megafon. Ata kanë nisur të hedhin parrulla kundër kryebashkiakut të Himarës, Bollano, madje e kanë akuzuar atë për abuzime me detyrën në kurriz të banorëve të Himarës. Personi që mbante megafonin ka hedhur dhe parrulla në mbështetje të kryeministrit Berisha. Kaq është dashur që situata të acarohet dhe pjesmarrës në miting kanë reaguar fillimisht me fyerje e më pas fizikisht ndaj personave që flisnin me megafon. Përleshja ka përfundur vetëm kur forcat e policisë mësynë në sheshin e qytetit. Në raportimet para policisë, të arrestuarit thanë se ishin prekur në sedrën kombëtare kur kishin dëgjuar thirrje për Vorio-Epirin, andaj kishin reaguar.
Në fakt, nuk është hera e parë që në Jug të vendit zhvillohet veprimtari anti-kombëtare dhe shteti shqiptar zgjedh heshtjen. Kushtetuta shqiptare i dënon veprimtaritë antishtetërore dhe antikombëtare, andaj thirrjet se Himara është Greqi, përdorimi i flamujve që nuk dihet se ç’përfaqësojnë dhe deformimi i historisë përbën vepër penale.
E ndërkohë që media nuk heziton në asnjë rast të denoncojë shkelje të tilla të rënda, politika hesht dhe luan rolin e të paditurit në emër të fqinjësisë së mirë. Ndër të paktët politikanë të cilët reagojnë sistematikisht ndaj shfaqjeve të histerisë antishqiptare në disa zona të Jugut është Sabri Godo. Ai reagoi muajin e kaluar pasi kryebashkiaku Vasil Bollano deklaroi në një emision televiziv se Himara është zonë minoritare. “Kryetari i bashkisë së Himarës, Vasil Bollano ka prekur integritetin tokësor të Shqipërisë. Kryeministri Berisha duhet ta pushojë menjëherë këtë njeri, i cili prek integritetin tokësor të vendit tonë dhe nëse një gjë të tillë nuk e bën Berisha, atëherë duhet të ndërhyjë presidenti Moisiu. Ky është një rast që nuk duhet të kalojë lehtë, pasi në të kundërt do të ketë pasoja të rënda në të ardhmen”, ka thënë Godo. Ai ka këmbëngulur se Bollano nuk duhet të shijë më duke hedhur në publik teza shoviniste që ekstremistët e përtej kufirit jugor nuk arritën t’i realizonin as njëqind vjet më parë. “Bollano edhe më parë ka mbajtur qëndrime të tilla antishqiptare duke deklaruar se Himara është zonë minoritare vetëm pse atje flitet greqisht. Deklarata të tilla të papërgjegjshme që bëhen sa herë ka zgjedhje në Himarë, çojnë në provokime dhe tensionimin e situatës, i cili më pas transferohet në marrëdhëniet mes dy vendeve tona. Bollano duhet ta dijë se edhe të vdekurit në Himarë qahen në gjuhën shqipe”, ka thënë Godo. E megjithë reagimin e Plakut të Urtë, Tirana zyrtare ka heshtur gjithnjë ndaj tezave që e paraqesin zonën e Himarës si zonë të pastër minoritare. Qeveritarët i kanë justifikuar këto qëndrime me tezën e “bashkëjetesës dhe fqinjësisë së mirë”. Ende nuk dihet nëse lidhëset e këpucëve të bëra me zorrë njerëzish mund të shërbejnë për të lidhur miqësinë mes dy vendeve.

[Zemrushja]

Tifozet greke sulmojne familjen e Alban Bushit (5 Mars 2007)

Balkanweb
Gjithcka ka ndodhur kur sulmuesi shqiptar ka shenuar golin e vetem te ndeshjes se djeshme Iraklis-Apollon Kallamaria, qe u fitua 0-1 nga kjo e fundit fale golit te Bushit ne minuten e 84.

Dhuna ne stadium nuk ka te sosur. Kete radhe incidenti ka ndodhur ne Greqi ku objektivi i tifozeve nuk ka qene Alban Bushi, por familjaret e tij, te cilet kane rene pre e dhunes dhe e sjelljeve shtazarake te ultrasve te Iraklisit. Sic citon sot nje e perditshme sportive, gjithcka ka ndodhur kur sulmuesi shqiptar ka shenuar golin e vetem te ndeshjes se djeshme Iraklis-Apollon Kallamaria, qe u fitua 0-1 nga kjo e fundit fale golit te Bushit ne minuten e 84. Kaq ka mjaftuar qe disa ultrase te Iraklisit t’i hakerrehen prinderve dhe bashkeshortes se futbollistit duke ushtruar dhune fizike mbi ta duke i gjuajtur me shkelma dhe grushte per disa minuta. “Ishte shokuese, – ka thene Bushi per ‘Panorama Sport’. – Ne vend qe te festoja, ne ato momente pashe familjaret e mi qe u goditen nga tifozet. Ky ishte kulmi, aq me teper qe forcat e Rendit thuajse nuk reaguan fare, por lejuan qe ata te goditeshin per disa minuta”. Futbollisti ka pare me syte e tij nga fusha se si prinderit dhe bashkeshortja e tij kane rene pre e dhunes se ultrasve greke dhe cdo gje i ka kaluar limitet teksa ka pare forcat e policise se Selanikut, qe kane bere “sehir” per disa minuta, nderkohe qe njerezit e afert te futbollistit keqtrajtoheshin.

Kjo nuk eshte here e pare qe Alban Bushi perballet me vandalizmin e tifozeve greke, megjithese kete radhe kane qene familjaret e tij ata qe kane vuajtur sjelljet e ultrasve te papergjegjshem. Ne shtator te vitit te kaluar sulmuesi shqiptar u sulmua nga tre tifoze te Ionikosit, te cilet kapercyen hekurat rrethuese te fushes dhe u futen ne fushen e lojes per ta qelluar lojtarin. Ne 10 shtator te vitit 2006, ishte ndeshja Ionikos-Apollon Kallamaria qe perfundoi 1-0 ne favor te vendasve. Pasi e kane ofenduar ne kor thuajse gjate gjithe ndeshjes, tre ultras nuk kane mundur te permbahen dhe disa minuta perpara perfundimit te ndeshjes, kane hyre ne fushen e lojes dhe i jane drejtuar shqiptarit per ta goditur.

Nderkaq nga incidenti i djeshem prinderit dhe bashkeshortja e Alban Bushti jane detyruar te perdorin autobusin e skuadres se Kallamariase per te dale nga stadiumi. “Duke pare turmen tejet te irrituar pergjegjesit e sigurise ne stadium vendosen qe t’i hipnin ne autobusin e skuadres time, deri sa dolem nga zona e stadiumit”, tha sulmuesi, per te perditshmen. Sipas te dhenave, gjendja shendetesore e familjareve eshte e mire dhe asnjeri prej tyre nuk eshte demtuar rende. Menjehere pas ndeshjes, media greke ka rrethuar stadiumin, ku nuk kane munguar edhe denoncimet publike te Bushit kundrejt ketyre incidenteve te shemtuara. “Media ketu me ka mbeshtetur gjithnje dhe ndryshe nga policia ata e kane denoncuar me buje te madhe kete ngjarje”, ka thene lojtari.

D.B

[Zemrushja]

• Zedhenesi i Ministrise se Jashtme greke deklaron se eshte ndjekur me vemendje zhvillimi i zgjedhjeve vendore ne Shqiperi. Ai shpreh shqetesim per veshtiresite e hasura ne Himare gjate procesit te numreimit te votave (??)

Athina zyrtare shprehet e shqetesuar per zvarritjet dhe veshtiresite qe po hasen ne perfundimin e procesit te numerimit te votave, vecanerisht ne zonen e Himares. Permes nje deklarate per shtyp, zedhenesi i ministrise se jashtme greke, Georgios Koumoutsakos ngre pikepytje mbi vonesat me te cilat po haset ky proces. (C'lidhje ka Greqia me Himaren? Pse duhet te shqetesohet?)
Ai rikutjon se zhvillimi i zgjedhjeve te lira dhe demokratike perben nje kusht baze per marredhenje me te ngushta bashkepunimi te Shqiperise me Bashkimin Europian, ndersa shprehet se shpreson qe “rezultatet do te pasqyrojne vullnetin real te votuesve”

Ballkanweb..

[BARAT]

MIRELA DURRSAKJA, GREKE?!

Si Pirroja ka plote, por harrojne se cili i vend i beri ata qe jane sot. Mirela u personifikua si hyjneshe e bukur greke ne gara, por ajo hyjneshe ishte Taulantase, nga Durresi i lashte qe fle pa folur buze detit. Mirelen e bene kampione Shqiptaret, profesoret dhe atletet shqiptare. Lindi e u rrit ne Shqiperi dhe eshte durrsake, por a e permendi ndonjehere greku si kampionen shqiptare?
Shkrimi i meposhtem pervec ketyre fenomenve jep edhe nje panorame te braktisjes se sportisteve tane.....
--------------------------------------------------
Nga: Besnik Dizdari

Dy rekordmenë të shquar të Shqipërisë në atletikën e lehtë, Ajet Toska dhe Pavllo Mihali, janë të vetmit njerëz që çdo ditë dalin në punë për të punuar për atletikën kombëtare. Vetëm këta të dy. Askush tjetër. Nuk ka shtet në Europë që për sportin e atletikës së lehtë paguan vetëm dy njerëz! Dhe megjithatë, dy rekordmenët tanë, përpiqen, punojnë, shqetësohen. Kanë një zyrë me tavan të ulët, që nuk plotëson asnjë kusht pune të sotme dhe që s'ka asgjë të përbashkët me zyrat sportive më të rëndomta, edhe në shtetin më të parëndësishëm postkomunist të Europës. Dhe ndihen të vetmuar. Mundohen përditë ta shpëtojnë atletikën shqiptare, ta nxjerrin nga skamja. Ia kanë arritur të kenë me vete jo pak atletë pasionantë megjithatë, të cilët e ushtrojnë atletikën s'dihet se ku, ngaqë Shqipëria është i vetmi vend në Europë që nuk ka një stadium atletike. Dhe prapë ne kemi atletë. Janë heronj për nga kushtet që i cfilitin.

Kështu, dy zyrtarët tanë të vetëm të atletikës së lehtë, Toska dhe Mihali, ia arrijnë të shpëtojnë diçka nga ajo që mund të shpëtohet thjesht prej një pasioni të vjetër, që këtyre dy rekordmenëve të jashtëzakonshëm të Shqipërisë, iu vlon në shpirt.

Sekretari i përgjithshëm i Federatës Shqiptare të Atletikës, Ajet Toka, është i vetmi sekretar i përgjithshëm i një Federate atletike prej 52 shteteve të Europës që është një rekordmen në fuqi, pra që nuk i është thyer rekordi, sepse ende askush nuk ka guxuar t'ia prekë atë. Ndonëse e ka thyer 17 vjet përpara, më 22 gusht 1986, kur ka qenë 25 vjeç djalë. Shifrat e tij janë edhe për sot të nivelit të lartë ndërkombëtar: 75.92 metra! Po nga ana tjetër, si një paradoks i pashembullt, rekordi i tij fenomenal për ne, sot tregon vetë prapambetjen e qartë të atletikës sonë. 20 vjet më parë, më 1983, rekordmeni Pavllo Mihali ka kërcyer me shkop 5.21 metra. Kampioni i këtij viti, 2003, në Shqipëri arriti 4.50 metra dhe askujt sot nuk mund t'i shkojë nëpër mend se mund të arrijë 5.21 metra si 20 vjet më parë. Dhe prej 59 rekordeve kombëtare të atletikës shqiptare, plot 30 rekorde i përkasin kohës së përtej viteve '80 e poshtë. Madje ka rekorde si ai i dhjetëgarëshit (Skënder Balluku) e i 50 km ecje sportive (Sadik Demiri) që datojnë më 1975 dhe 1976, gati 30 vjet të shkuara!

Ndërkaq, Kampionati i fundit Botëror që sapo përfundoi në Saint Denis të Francës, Shqipërisë i pranoi vetëm një atlet. Ky ishte Arben Maka një nga më të mirët e Shqipërisë. Ai mori pjesë në vrapimin e 100 metrave dhe për fatin e tij arriti rezultatin mëse modest 10.87, ndonëse Maka ka arritur me kronometër dore deri në 10.3. Dhe vetëm kaq.

Po ja sensacioni: Mirela Manjani, atlete e Durrësit, krijuar prej atletikës shqiptare, fiton për herë të dytë titullin e Kampiones së Botës në hedhjen e shtizës. Këto dy skaje më të fundit: shqiptare, Arben Maka 10.87 në 100 metra i eliminuar qysh me baterinë e parë dhe shqiptarja tjetër, Mirela Manjani - Kampione e Botës për herë të dytë, përfaqësojnë ndarje të mëdha larg njeri-tjetrit. Megjithatë, kanë një të përbashkët të madhe: shqiptarësinë e tyre atletike, nëse mund të përcaktoja kësisoji. Sepse të dy janë krijim i atletikës shqiptare. I pari të trondit me dështimin tonë. E dyta të trondit me arritjen fenomenale të atletikës "sonë".

Tashmë as unë nuk kam kohë të merrem as me siglat "Greece", as me flamurin kombëtar të Greqisë me të cilin u mbështoll edhe një herë tjetër Mirela, kësaj radhe në Saint Denis të Parisit, as me arritjen e madhe të Greqisë, e cila i blatoi këto përmasa botërore asaj. Po ashtu, nuk kam kohë të humb duke i fryrë përtej llogjikës, të të ashtuquajturit "nacionalizëm shqiptar të tipit të izolimit të një regjimi që shkoi", dhe madje nuk kam as forca e as mundësi për të vërtetuar saktësisht, nëse Manjani ka folë kundër Shqipërisë apo jo në Greqi. Por marr guximin të them se tradhtinë - nëse vazhdojmë të flasim për tradhtina kësisoji - e kemi më parë midis nesh dhe jo te Mirela Manjani.

Nuk ka tradhti më të madhe ndaj kombit tënd, të mjedisit sportiv, se sa kur një shtet braktis sportin e atletikës. Nuk ka tradhti më të madhe për kulturën kombëtare madje, që Shqipëria vazhdon të jetë i vetmi vend në Europë pa pistë atletike. Nuk ka tradhti më të madhe se sa të paguash vetëm dy vetë për të rimëkëmbur atletikën dhe të paguash bie fjala 20 vetë për një sektor që quhet "shkencor", që padashur bëhet edhe një "rifugium pecatorium" për t'i bërë vende pa meritë ndokujt. Nuk ka tradhti më të madhe se sa të mos subvencionosh për atletikën e lehtë, që është sporti më i parë që ka zhvilluar një kampionat kombëtar në Shqipëri (1929). Nuk ka tradhti më të madhe se sa të lësh atletët shqiptarë të stërviten në çakull e dhé, në pluhur a qymyr, kur atletika shqiptare është sporti i parë në Shqipëri që ka krijuar ekipin tonë kombëtar, fanelat kuq e zi dhe që ka përfaqësuar për herë të parë në histori Shqipërinë në një kampionat ndërkombëtar (Zagreb 1934, Lojërat Ballkanike). Nuk ka tradhti më të madhe se të djegësh tash sa vjet fondin e ndërtimit të pistës së tartanit, e për vite për kapricio të një njeriu të miqësive klanore, t'ia mbyllësh dyert e Stadiumit Kombëtar atletëve. Nuk ka tradhti më të madhe se sa ta zhdukësh atletikën nga gazetat, nga publiciteti sportiv, nga problemet, nga nxitja, nga promovimi, nga axhendat, qoftë edhe të vetë shtetit, i cili sportin e ka edhe detyrë kushtetuese. Nuk ka tradhti më të madhe se sa të kesh një ministri që ka sigël edhe "Sportin", dhe që megjithëkëtë të lejojë që të shuhet sporti nobël i atletikës. Nuk ka tradhti më të madhe se sa ta loterizosh sportin kombëtar, siç po ngjet vetëm në Shqipëri, madje deri aty sa thuajse çdo gjashtë muaj shpiket një loteri tjetër, kalamendet rinia dhe përfitimet e duhura të mos shkojnë te sporti kombëtar, veçanërisht te atletika, si kudo në Europë. Nuk ka tradhti më të madhe se sa ta harrosh, ta mallkosh, t'ia shuash emrin dy herë Kampiones së Botës dhe Kampiones së Europës pse ka "tradhtuar" Shqipërinë duke "iu shitur" flamurit helen, e nga ana tjetër, të mos shqetësohesh aspak për shkatërrimin e atletikës kombëtare. Nuk ka tradhti më të madhe se sa të lejosh që të ushtojnë televizione e gazeta me jetën, rezultate, intimitete, fate, arritje, kërshërina bajate me gjithë futbollistët e Europës, madje edhe me ato prej më të rëndomtëve që nuk i njohin mirë as në vendet e tyre dhe të zhdukësh famën e një Mirela Manjani.

Me kësisoj tradhtinash të pafund na takon të merremi, dhe jo me "tradhtinë" e një njeriu të vetëm, me emrin Mirela Manjani, që në fund të fundit, edhe në këtë çast "tradhtie" të saj me ngritjen lart të flamurit të Greqisë në olimpin e atletikës botërore, prap se prap, mua dhe askënd nuk e pengon të shkruajë fjalë për fjalë, këtë lajm:

"Rekordmenia e sotme e Shqipërisë, Mirela Manjani, u shpall më 30 gusht 2003 në Saint Denis të Parisit në Francë, Kampione e Botës për herë të dytë në hedhjen e shtizës për Greqinë, pjesëtare e ekipit kombëtar të të cilës është".

Sepse, nëse e keni harruar, megjithëse kam shkruar disa herë, shqiptarja Mirela Manjani e Greqisë, sot e kësaj dite vazhdon të jetë rekordmene kombëtare e Shqipërisë në hedhjen e shtizës. Si gazetar i vjetër, çka gjithashtu e kam thënë para një viti në faqet e kësaj gazete, në fund të fundit, bëj detyrën e fiksimit të kësaj historie dhe dihet që nuk bëj pjesë në turmën e gazetarëve të vendit tim, të rinj apo të vjetër qofshin, të cilët nuk denjojnë të botojnë thuajse asgjë për titullin më të ri të fituar nga atletja fenomenale shqiptare Mirela Manjani.

Sepse Mirela Manjani jo vetëm që është shqiptare, por është një atlete shqiptare, ka lindur si atlete shqiptare, është formuar deri në gjysmë të rrugës si një atlete shqiptare, ka fituar jo pak suksese si atlete shqiptare, është njohur në botën ndërkombëtare si atlete shqiptare.

Temë e vjetër megjithatë...

Detyrohem të përsëris: edhe pse medaljet e mëdha të Manjanit i përkasin Greqisë, historia shqiptare në gjithë këtë periudhë sensacionale të saj, është rrënja, nisma, njohja e madhe. Nuk mund të mohohet prej askujt. Do të ishte një tjetër tradhti më e madhe, madje tradhti ndaj së vërtetës. Sepse jemi edhe ne aty, brenda periudhës fenomenale shqiptaro-greke të hedhjes së shtizës për femra, pjesë e shpalljes të IAAF (Federata Botërore e Atletikës së Lehtë), atë të fillimit të vitit 2001, ku shqiptarja jonë - për fatin tonë përfaqësuese e Greqisë - ishte midis 3 atleteve më të mira të shekullit 20 në hedhjen e shtizës. Ndërkohë që e nis shekullin e 21-të me dy tituj të rinj: atë të Kampiones së Evropës dhe këtë të dytin e Kampiones së Botës. Rrënjët janë historia e saj shqiptare, të cilën ne duhet ta tregojmë e ritregojmë sa herë Mirela na jep rast. Të shtunën në mbrëmbje deri vonë jam marrë me internetin dhe kudo Mirela ishte po ajo, shqiptarja: "Lindur në Durrës të Shqipërisë". Dhe po e botoj përsëri historinë e saj shqiptare, për kujtesë kombëtare, për barazpeshë shpirtërore kombëtare, jo thjesht për "nacionalizëm", por për ndjenjë të vetëdijshme kombëtare, për të luftuar morinë e tradhtinave që përmenda më lart, çka në krahasim me "tradhtinë" e Kampiones "sonë" të Botës, për fat të keq, janë gjigante!



MIRELA MANJANI

Lindur në Durrës (Shqipëri) më 1976

Rezultatet e suksesshme me Shqipërinë:

1990: 48.30 m. Rekord kombëtar NEN 14

1991: 54.86 m. Rekord kombëtar NEN 15-16

1993: 54.86 m. Rekord kombëtar NEN 17-18

1994: 57.20 m. Kampione e Ballkanit Juniore

1994: 56.62 m. Kampione e Ballkanit të Rritura

1994: 53.40 m. Finaliste (e 8-ta) e Kampionatit Botëror Juniore

1995: 55.56 m. Finaliste (e 12-ta) e Kampionatit Botëror

1995: 59.36 m. Kampione e Ballkanit Juniore

1995: 57.28 m. Nënkampione e Evropës Juniore

1996: 59.90 m. Medalje Ari në "Bruno Zauli"

1996: 62.46 m. Rekord i Shqipërisë në Alabama



Dhe mandej historia tjetër, ajo greke e Manjanit, doemos legjendare. Pak e kishim dëgjuar gjatë vitit 2003, ndonëse në Kupën e Europës më 21 qershor 2003 kishte mbërritur në 63.13 metra. Duket se ajo punon në heshtje për muaj të tanë, për të shpërthyer në kohën e duhur në garat e mëdha. Ndonëse siç thotë komenti i IAAF, "asgjë nuk duket ta pengojë atë në një arenë të rëndësishme kampionati - një disiplinë që ndoshta buron prej profesionit të saj të oficeres detare".

Kësisoj, qysh nga hedhja e parë, në garën e Saint Denis të së shtunës që shkoi, ajo ishte shkatërruese për kundërshtaret e njohura Shikolenko, Narius, Menendez, madje "madhështore" siç përcaktoi komentatori i IAAF, duke mos iu lejuar atyre as edhe një çast kryesimi. Kjo qe psikologjia e Mirela Manjanit, 27 vjeçe më 21 dhjetor 2003, 1.65 metra shtatlartë dhe 65 kilogram peshë trupore, një fizik solid dhe shpërthyes në hudhjen elegante të një stili të formuar qysh në Durrësin e Shqipërisë nga Klubi Sportiv 'Teuta' e Durrësit dhe trajneri i saj shqiptar Petrit Kërtusha, ata që e lindën dhe formuan këtë margaritar të atletikës dhe sportit të botës së sotme moderne së cilës ajo sapo i rrëmbeu edhe një triumf tjetër, këtë të titullit botëror 2003:

1. M. MANJANI / Gre 66.52

2. T.SHIKOLENKO / Rus 63.28

3. S.NERIUS / Ger 62.70

4. M.INBERG / Fin 62.20

5. O. MENENDEZ / Cub 62.19

6. S.BISSET / Cub 60.17

Ky ishte apogjeu i Mirela Manjanit, e cila siç përcaktoi IAAF, "ka një krah hedhës të shpejtë e të fuqishëm, por edhe flokë të gjatë të verdhë dhe tipare helenike prej një perëndeshe të Olimpit, përveç vendlindjes shqiptare. Personifikim i forcës dhe bukurisë".

Dhe prej këtu ajo pasuron historinë e saj sensacionale greke që është kjo:

Titujt e mëdhenj me Greqinë

1999, Sevilje: 67.09 m. Kampione e Botës (Rekord Botëror)

2000, Sydnei: 67.51 m. Nënkampione Olimpike

2001, Edmonton: 65.78 m. Nënkampione e Botës

2002, Munich: 67.47 m. Kampione e Evropës

2003, Paris, S. Denis: 66.52 Kampione e Botës

Kjo "histori greke" përfaqëson një nga historitë më të rralla të kësaj gare të Greqisë së lashtë, e cituar deri prej një Homeri dhe Taciti.

Ndodhemi para një qëndrueshmërie të rrallë për një atlete fenomenale nga Shqipëria. Siç e kam pasë thënë me kohë, emri është gjithnjë aty, i skalitur për jetë: Mirela Manjani, lindur në Durrës më 1976 dhe rritur e formuar si atlete e nivelit botëror në Durrësin shqiptar mbi Adriatik, qyteti i Klestonit - kampionit antik të Olimpiadës. Sot e kësaj dite mbajtëse e 4 rekordve kombëtare në hedhjen e shtizës për Shqipërinë: nga mosha 14 deri te të rriturat. Ndoshta është e vetmja atlete në Botë që në të njëjtën kohë - njohur zyrtarisht edhe nga IAAF - është Rekordmene Kombëtare për dy shtete, për dy kombe: Shqipërinë dhe Greqinë!

E pra?

Vazhdojmë të heshtim kësisoj për kampionët Olimpike, Botërorë e Europianë, të cilët i kemi zbuluar, përgatitur e rritur për mjaft kohë vetë ne. Në fund të fundit, pse i bëri Shqipëria sportistë klasi shpejtoi të na i rrëmbente edhe Greqia, për t'i bërë ajo Kampionë të Botës, Olimpikë dhe të Europës! Dhe prapë më duhet të përsëris: Nëse këta sportistë shqiptarë të një fame botërore greke, kanë ra pré e një pjese të shtypit vendas duke arritur deri në deklarata të papranueshme - nëse ato nuk janë sajime - gjesti i parë i tyre do të ishte falje ndaj Shqipërisë - Nënë. Ndërsa ne, për të treguar se jemi atdhetarë, pra jo pseudoatdhetarë - ne që me të drejtë kemi një Teatër "Aleksandër Moisiu" edhe pse vetëm ngaqë aktori i madh ka thjesht një origjinë shqiptare, apo që hidhemi me të drejtë përpjetë kur Maqedonia e quan "Bijë të Maqedonisë" Nënë Terezën, ndonëse duam s'duam, aty është rritë shqiptarja e madhe së cilës shqiptarët e regjimit të Shqipërisë nuk e kanë lejuar të takojë për 40 vjet as nënën e as motrën - banore të Tiranës - nuk ka pra llogjikë që të heshtim kësisoji ndaj këtyre sportistëve të rangut botëror të formuar po prej nesh, në tokën tonë, në stadiumin tonë, me trajnerin tonë, në kampionatet tona, pa mohuar kurrë zotësinë e madhe të Greqisë për t'i ngjitur ata në majat e titujve botërorë.

Do të ishte më mirë që më parë të spastronim këndej pari tradhtinat tona.

Dhe të përkujtonim ngritjen e parë të ekipit kombëtar shqiptar, që është i ai i atletikës së kohës së Mbretërisë më 1934; t'iu japim shokë Ajet Toskës e Pavllo Mihalit për të ringritur atletikën kombëtare; t'i japim Shqipërisë pistën e atletikës; të marrim përftimet e loterive sportive për sportin kombëtar; të ndalojmë gazetat e televizionet që nuk iu kushtohen sportit kombëtar, por kryesisht atij të huaj; të rindërtojmë sektorin shkencor të sporteve dhe prej këtyre shkencëtarëve nëse qofshin të tillë, të paktën nja dy t'ia japim Federatës së Atletikës për të mbështetur edhe me shkencë rimbëkëmbjen e këtij sporti nobël - ndërsa të tjerët federatave të tjera; që fondet më të mëdha tani për tani Ministria që ka në sigël "Sportin", t'ia japë atletikës; që ne më në fund, të organizojmë një Konferencë Kombëtare për të shpëtuar atletikën kombëtare.

Më 1945 regjimi komunist më tepër me inatin kundër Mbretërisë se sa për përparimin e sportit kombëtar, lëshoi parullën: "Të thyejmë rekordet e Paraluftës!" Dhe i theu. E për këtë i lumtë. Dhe a nuk e kuptojmë vallë, se sa do t'i shërbenim sportit kombëtar, atletikës kombëtare, nëse në këtë gusht 2003 menjëherë pas titullit të dytë botëror të Mirela Manjanit, të lëshonim thirrjen: "Të thyejmë 30 rekordet kombëtare të viteve '80 e më prapa", çka për fat janë të gjithë të shekullit të shkuar?!

Atletika shqiptare kërkon ndërkaq, të hyjë në Shekullin 21. Mendja ta do që ndihet krenare për dy herë Kampionen e Botës, Mirela Manjanin "e saj". Porta për të hyrë në shekullin e ri tek është. Por pa hequr "tradhtinat" që u përmendën në këte shkrim, ne do të mbetemi edhe kushedi për sa kohë te shekulli i kaluar.

[BARAT]

O Arcas, ate corbe po e hane edhe shqiptaret (pervec politikaneve te shitur). Kur perfitojne edhe pleqte me nje kembe ne varr, llogarit se si mund ta mendoje Mirela me shok e shoqe. Ka edhe ndonje Fetije Kasa qe iken nga syte kembet dhe s'do tu shohe bojen grekeve...por ne raste te tilla perfundon drogman pa e marre vesh se ke marre doping
----------------------------------------------------------------

”Nenshtetesine ne vend te pensionit”

Shkruan : Erl Murati-revista MAPO

67-vjeçari B.G. del përditë nga shtëpia në orën 7 të mëngjesit. Ndanë rrugës e presin shokët. Buzë një trotuari, katër stola të veckël, një fletë gazete dhe mbi të, disa gurë dominoje. Sapo i afrohet grumbullit të sivëllezërve pleq, nisin hidhepritjet e fjalëve: “Hajde bre hajde se ke marrë eurot...” Buzëqeshjet dalin jashtë protezave në gojët e rreshkura dhe pason ftesa: Eja vemi ne Petrika... Këto batuta të shkëmbyera në grahmat e fundit të agimit, për ta janë pjesa më vendimtare e ditës. Ajo që mbetet është një histori province me pesë pensionistë, dy bidonë raki dhe një pjatë me turshi e kërnacka.
Janë të shumtë ata banorë të Korçës dhe fshatrave përreth që jetojnë si B.G. Shqiptarë 24 karat, të cilët kanë ndërruar kombësinë në zyrat e gjendjes civile dhe kanë aplikuar në Greqi për të përfituar pensionin e minoritetit. 219 euro është shuma që ata marrin në dorë. B.G. rrëfen për “MAPO”-n se si ka arritur të përfitojë ndihmën nga vendi fqinj.
“Në vitin ’94, një fqinji im minoritar shkoi në Athinë për të bërë dokumentat që të përfitonte pension. Ai kishte dëgjuar nga këta të OMONIA-s se qeveria greke po jepte miliarda dhrahmi për ata që jetonin këndej. Kështu që bashkë me gruan filluan dhe ata të merrnin pension. Nga fundi i vitit ’95 këta të OMONIA-s me erdhën dhe mua”, rrëfen pensionisti 67-vjeçar që dikur ka punuar në degën e Korporatës Elektroenergjetike të Korçës. Ai u kishte thënë “atyre të OMONIA-s” se nuk ishte minoritar, por “ata” e dinin ndërkohë këtë.
Duke xhiruar rrotën e korrupsionit në gjykatë dhe gjendje civile, B.G arriti të ndryshojë kombësinë nga shqiptare në greke. Nuk kishte nevojë të shkonte vetë në Athinë, sepse miqtë i sollën në shtëpi një formular. Ai e plotësoi dhe gjithçka mori fund aty. Që nga ajo kohë, nipi i tij që jeton Larisa tërheq rregullisht pensionin e “grekut” B.G. dhe ia dërgon në Korçë sa herë që mundet. Vetëm se pas 12 vitesh gjërat nuk janë më si më parë. “Një ditë më merr nipi dhe më thotë që i kishin nxjerrë probleme me tërheqjen e pensionit. I kishin thënë që ka dalë rregulli i ri dhe se po të doja në të ardhmen ta merrja pensionin duhet të paraqisja një dokument që vërteton që jam shtetas grek. Pra, më kërkuan të lë pasaportën shqiptare dhe të marr nënshtetësinë greke. Unë vajta 67, kam kohë unë për këto gjëra...”, rrëfen ai. B.G nuk duket i shqetësuar pse i kanë kërkuar të lerë nënshtetësinë në këtë moshë. Ai as nuk e percepton si shantazh këtë kërkesë që i vjen nga Greqia. Thjesht nuk do t’i futet sikleteve për t’u marrë me dokumenta.
“I sheh këta që lozin domino? Të gjithë marrin pension andej... lëri ç’thonë”, tund kryet ai. Kur e pyet “Pse”, ai përgjigjet: Me ç’të rrojmë, me 60 mijë që na jep ky toni? Aq s’më dalin për dritat e ilaçet. Kur e pyet “Pse mendon se ua jep greku pensionin”, ai hesht, përtypet një grimë e thotë: Epo tani, dihet ajo punë... e pastaj bën sikur nxehet: Po shumë mirë e bëjnë. Përderisa s’na sheh vendi ynë, grekut bravo i qoftë!

[Baptist]

Ushtria greke në ’40-’41-shin, pushtuese apo çlirimtare?

Niko Kirka

Hyrje- Ne nje interviste te publikuar ne mediat shqiptare, Sabri Godo ka trajtuar edhe ngjarje te viteve 1940-‘41 qe lidhen me ardhjen e trupave greke brenda territorit shqiptar, gjate ecurise se betejave ne luften italo-greke. Niko Kirka, i biri i njerit prej tre themeluesve te “Vatrës”, (Fan Noli, Faik Konica dhe Kristo Kirka), aktualisht personalitet i respektuar ne diasporen shqiptaro-amerikane, ka dy tre objeksione te rendesishme ndaj trajtimeve te z. Godo. Mendoj qe eshte me interes per lexuesit e “Shekulli”-t, botimi i materialit qe po te dergoj. Ato janë përcjellë në redaksinë e Shekulli-Kontakt, me shënimin shoqërues (Disa vërejtje për shkrimin e Sabri Godos “Ambasadori grek hyri në Shqipëri me këmbën e majtë”) Dërguar në kontakt@shekulli.com.al


Rastësisht lexova shkrimin e Sabri Godos, të njohurit tim të vjetër, “Ambasadori grek hyri në Shqipëri me këmbën e majtë”. Sigurisht, në pjesën më të madhe të shkrimit nuk mund të mos jesh në një mendje me ato që thotë Sabriu. Doemos, sipas stilit të tij, d.m.th., të thëna me finesë, me stërhollime. Unë e shpjegoj edhe kujdesin e madh, edhe maturinë e tepërt që tregon në çdo fjalë që thotë, sa të jep përshtypjen se Sabriu po ecën mbi një fushë të minuar, e ka frikë mos i pëlcet ndonjë minë nën këmbë. Ai është kryetar nderi i partisë që mbështet fuqimisht Kryeministrin dhe që bën pjesë në qeverinë e tij. Por Sabriu e tepron shumë, kur mundohet të përsëritë Eqrem Çabejn, i cili i shkruan Lasgushit (gjë që sot njihet botërisht) se ishte entusiazmuar aq shumë nga leximi i “Lahutës”, sa ishte gati të bëhej katolik për hir të Fishtës. Sigurisht, nuk e besoj Sabriun kur thotë se mallkon veten që pse për hir të Janullatosit nuk bëhet ortodoks! Edhe unë jam takuar me Janullatosin në Gusht ‘92, në kuadrin e delegacionit shqiptaro-amerikan për mbrojtjen e Autoqefalisë, për më shumë jam edhe vetë ortodoks, por kam arritur në një përfundim krejt të kundërt me atë të Sabriut. Pra, mbas njohjes me Janullatosin, unë kam formuar bindjen se ne ortodoksët shqiptarë, për të mbrojtur kishën tonë nga emisarët e greqizmës, që aq shumë u ndruhej Noli, për hir të interesave kombëtare, duhet të shkëputemi nga Patrikana dhe të lidhemi me Vatikanin, gjithmonë duke ruajtur ritin bizantin, ashtu si vëllezërit tanë arbëreshë të Italisë së Jugut.***Por, ajo me të cilën jam diametralisht i kundërt me atë që shkruan Sabriu, është deklarata e tij se, “Krerët tanë politikë, të djathtë e të majtë, ashtu si edhe gjithë shqiptarët, i konsiderojnë ushtarët grekë të rënë në Luftën e Dytë Botërore si dëshmorë të përbashkët të dy popujve, se së bashku ishim edhe në Luftën Antifashiste”. Unë nuk e di se ku mbështetet ai për të thënë këtë dhe se kush tjetër veç tij e ka thënë. Por një gjë e them me siguri, sepse përputhet me të vërtetën historike se ushtria greke që hyri në Shqipëri gjatë dimrit ‘40-‘41 të luftës italo-greke ishte përçuese e shovinizmit grek të megalo-idesë për pushtimin e Vorio-Epirit. Unë jam dëshmitar okular për këtë dhe po e vërtetoj.Lufta italo-greke filloi ditën e hënë, më 28 tetor 1940. Këtë e mbaj mënd mirë se isha 14 vjeç, në vitin e dytë të gjimnazit. 28 tetori ishte festa e fashistëve në përkujtim të marshimit mbi Romë, kështu që ne do të kishim pushim në shkollë dhe me gjithë të dielën na bëheshin dy ditë pushim. Kështu që ishim mprehur mirë, si do të bënin të gjithë nxënësit e botës. Por të shtunën na lajmëruan në shkollë, se të nesërmen, pra të dielën, do të vinim ne fushën e sportit, ku do të organizohej festa. Dhe ashtu u bë... Përgjigjen për këtë ndryshim date e morëm të hënën në mëngjes, kur gjëmimi i topave lajmëroi fillimin e luftës iralo-greke. Mbas pak kohe, ushtria greke filloi kundërmësymjen dhe hyri në tokën shqiptare. Atëherë kryeministri grek i asaj kohe, Metaksai, në një deklaratë tha se ata luftonin jo vetëm për mbrojtjen e Greqisë, por edhe për çlirimin e Shqipërisë. Gjithashtu, u hap lajmi se Koço Kota, ish-kryeministri shqiptar, kishte ardhur ne Selanik i dërguar nga Mbreti për të formuar një qeveri shqiptare. Këto unë i dëgjoja gjithë ditën në shtëpinë tonë, nga miqtë e shokët e shumtë të babait, që vinin vazhdimisht tek ne. Dhe kur italianët u detyruan ta lenë Korçën, këta burra që ishin të gjithë nacionalistë të formuar, vendosën të rrinë aty edhe kur te vinin grekët në qytet, me mendimin dhe shpresën se do të formohej qeveria shqiptare.***Mbasi hynë grekët në Korçë, asgjë nuk u bë dhe atmosfera mbeti e rëndë. Nacionalistët po zhgënjeheshin dhe sa vinte e më shumë po mbylleshin brenda në shtëpitë e tyre, duke komunikuar me kujdes njëri me tjetrin. Grekët si fillim u treguan të matur. Në Bashki dhe në zyrën e financës (ndonëse nuk funksiononin në fillim) lanë tabelat në gjuhën shqipe, por veç flamurit shqiptar vunë edhe flamurin grek. Unë çdo mëngjes, gjoja për të blerë cigare për babanë, vija shihja në ishin ende tabelat shqip dhe flamuri ynë. Kaloi ca kohë, duhet të ketë qenë janari i ‘41-it, një mëngjes pashë se tabelat ishin ndryshuar në greqisht, flamuri ynë ishte hequr dhe ishte vetëm ai grek. Sigurisht, harrova cigaret dhe vrapova në shtëpi. Babai u mërzit nga ajo që mësoi. Më vonë u mor vesh, se grekët kishin caktuar si kryetar bashkie, avokat Kristaq Pilikën, një grekoman i njohur, i cili do të ngrinte administratën bashkiake dhe të financës, sigurisht me njerëzit e duhur për t’u shërbyer grekëve. Mbas disa ditëve, na hynë në shtëpi një toger me nj’a dhjetë korofillakë dhe na bënë një kontroll të gjerë, duke marrë shumë dokumenta që ruante im atë në arkivin e tij. Asgjë nuk na u kthye dhe ndofta edhe sot gjenden në arkivat greke. Mbas gati një jave babai që kish vajtur të takonte disa miq, nuk u kthye në shtëpi. Shqetësimi ynë u shtua edhe më shumë, kur mësuam që edhe një fqinji ynë nuk qe kthyer në shtëpi. Shpejt mësuam se atë ditë grekët kishin arrestuar në qytetin e Korçës 21 qytetarë, midis të cilëve edhe një grua. Dhe ajo që do ta befasonte ambasadorin e sotëm grek, që na u interesoka për numrin e ortodoksëve, nga ata të 21-të vetëm njëri ishte i besimit mysliman dhe 20 të tjerët ishin ortodoksë, por që të gjithë ishin atdhetarë nacionalistë të vendosur. Mua më kujtohen vetëm katër, që ishin doemos im atë, Kristo Kirka, nëpunës; Ilo Argjendari, tregtar; Gavril Heqimi, profesor në gjimnaz dhe Zonjusha Elisaveta, mësuese gjimnastike. Jam i bindur, që në arkivat e shtetit shqiptar do të ketë dokumenta që do të vërtetojnë këto që po them dhe do të ketë edhe emrat e gjithë të tjerëve.Atëherë grekët në qytetin tonë përfaqësoheshin vetëm me ushtarakë, emrat e të cilëve më janë ngulur në kujtesë, sepse përgojoheshin nga të gjithë dhe kryesisht nga familjet tona. Ata ishin: komandantët e korofillaqisë, kolonel Binopullos dhe major Çatallos. Komandant i garnizonit të qytetit, Gjeneral Papadhopullos dhe mbi të gjithë, komandanti suprem i frontit të luftës, Gjeneral Çollakogllu. Ky bëri dorëzimin tek gjermanët dhe për ca kohë u bë edhe Kryeministër i Greqisë.Kërkesës këmbëngulëse të nënës sime për të mësuar për fatin e të shoqit, tre të parët refuzuan të përgjigjeshin. Më në fund na orientuan drejt komandantit të madh, sepse vetëm ai mund të na jepte sqarime. Mbasi brodhëm disa ditë nëpër qytet, nga një komandë greke te tjetra, mundëm të siguronim një pritje nga i madhi. Në orën e caktuar vajtëm me nënën dhe ai na priti. Si i tha nëna se kush ishte dhe përse kish vajtur, ai i kërkoi sekretarit të tij dosjen e babait. E theksoj këtë: Dosjen e babait! Pra, komandanti i frontit të luftës që duhej të merrej vetëm me çështje ushtarake, kishte dosjet e nacionalistëve shqiptarë, dosje që duhej t’i kishin shërbimet sekrete greke! Atëherë, cili ishte misioni i plotë i asaj ushtrie?***Vazhdojmë se ka edhe më. Pyetja e parë që gjenerali i bëri nënës, mbasi shfletoi dosjen, ishte kjo: “Ku ka qenë burri yt më 1922-in?”. Kjo pyetje na shtangu, sepse më 1941 pyetej për 1922-shin?! Nëna u përgjigj, se në atë kohë i shoqi ishte deputet i qytetit të Korçës në Parlamentin Shqiptar. Dhe me guximin që e karakterizonte, shtoi: “Zoti gjeneral, në se burrin tim e kini arrestuar si filoitalian, e kini gabim. Ai nuk është i tillë, se ai është filoamerikan. Atje ka jetuar për shumë kohë. Por nëse e kini arrestuar si nacionalist shqiptar, që ka luftuar kundër shovinizmit tuaj për të mbrojtur atdheun e tij, si po luftoni ju sot për të mbrojtur tuajin, po ua them unë gruaja e tij dhe mos shkoni të pyesni të tjerë. Ai i tillë ka qenë dhe i tillë do të jetë sa të ketë frymë”. Ai u ngrys në fytyrë, nuk e zgjati dhe na tha se brenda tri ditëve do të merrnim lajm se ku ndodhej babai. Dhe e mbajti premtimin. Mbas disa ditësh morëm telegram nga babai se ndodhej në një kamp internimi të quajtur Koqinja, afër Athinës.Vazhdimi i kujtimeve të mia, vuajtjet në kampin e internimit grek, peripecitë e shumta të lirimit dhe kthimit në Shqipëri, ndonëse shumë të dhimbshme, nuk janë të dorës së parë për temën kryesore të këtij shkrimi, pra ishte ushtria greke çlirimtare apo pushtuese? Nga ato që thashë më sipër dhe që kanë shumë mundësi të vërtetohen, del se ushtria greke, ndonëse për një kohë shumë të shkurtër, disa muaj, pushtoi pjesë të tokës shqiptare, pa pasur asgjë të sigurt sepse lufta vazhdonte, pa zënë vend mirë ose si i themi popullorçe, ende me brekë nëpër këmbë, nxitoi të fillojë politikën shoviniste pushtuese duke persekutuar nacionalistët shqiptarë që do të ishin pengesa kryesore në realizimin e qëllimeve pushtuese. Sepse andej nga anët tona, arrestimin dhe internimin i njohim si përndjekje, apo politikanët tanë sot i njohin si përkëdhelje dhe ledhatime?! Pra me plot gojën dhe pa asnjë hezitim, duhet thënë se ushtria greke që hyri në Shqipëri gjatë luftës italo-greke ishte pushtuese dhe duke përndjekur atdhetarët shqiptarë, nuk bëri asgjë më pak se ç’ka bërë çdo ushtri pushtuese në vendin tonë.Kështu që, ushtarët grekë të vrarë gjatë asaj lufte, duhet të trajtohen si ata të ushtrive të tjera. Ose të vijnë të vetët t’i marrin, ose le te rrinë atje ku janë dhe shteti ynë nuk ka asnjë detyrim të kujdeset dhe t’i nderojë, as të lejojë të ndërtohen në vendin tonë objekte që mund të shfrytëzohen për qëllime anti-shqiptare. Dhe në fund, për të mbështetur Sabriun në kërkesën e tij për reciprocitet me grekët, po përsëris atë që kam shkruar vite më parë, duke treguar atë që ai i internuari nga grekët më 1940 i tha në fillim të vitit 1939 nënprefektit grek të Follorinës. Me cilësinë e nënprefektit të Bilishtit, ata u takuan në kufi dhe kërkesës së grekut për bashkëpunim, ai iu përgjigj: “Jemi fqinjë dhe duhet të bashkëpunojmë, madje të jemi edhe miq, por vetëm me një kusht: Ti në Follorinë dhe unë në Bilisht”. Kjo sentencë është jo vetëm me përmbajtje thellësisht atdhetare, por duhet të jetë edhe mësimi më i mirë për politikanët tanë. Çdo lëvizje politike apo diplomatike me grekët, duhet të jetë absolutisht dhe strikt, reciproke, pa as më të voglin lëshim!

03/11/2006
KATEGORIA: Mua më ka ndodhur

[BARAT]

E VECANTE, E BUKUR, E PAKUPTUESHME, ENIGMATIKE...e tille eshte Shqiperia
Respekte per Moikomin, per kete hene te plote ne qiellin shqiptar
----------------------------------------

MOTIVE NGA EPOSI I CUDITSHEM I HIMARES...

DR MOIKOM ZEQO

Shkrimi qe botova pra disa kohesh ne faqet e gazetes
"Koha Jone" per Himaren pati nje jehone te madhe; me
dhjetra qene njerezit qe me telefonuan dhe me shkruan
letra qe nga Athina, Zvicra dhe Amerika. Nder keto
letra dua te permend ate te zonjes se nderuar,
dijetares se shquar shqiptare Safete Sofie Juka, qe ma
dergoi nga New Janko Pali Janko Pali Yorku. Nuk duhet
te me keqkuptoje askush pse une po e bej publik kete
fakt te interesimit, sepse ne thelb kjo gje nuk lidhet
me mua vete, por lidhet me Himaren dhe motivet e
cuditeshme te Eposit te saj Magjik. Guxoj te them se
ekziston nje epos i lashte dhe i ri i Himares,
perfaqesuar nga legjendat dhe mitet, nga kenget
popullore te pashtershme, nga heraldika folklorike e
gjuhes shqipe, qe perfaqeson mrekullisht shpirtin
shqiptar, te paepur ne te gjithe shekujt. Per mua si
njeri i letrave eshte i neveritshem cdo lloj
nacionalizmi romantik i semure. Ne epoken globale te
hapjes se kufijve e te respektimit te te drejtave
njerezore ne te gjitha pikepamjet cdo proces
konservativ dhe dogmatik do te ishte me nje kahje
perjashtuese, ku ne te vertete realiteti ka nje
karakter ekumenik te bashkejetesave te ndersjellta te
njerezve te ndryshem, madje qe flasin edhe gjuhe te
ndryshme, qofte edhe ne zonen e Himares. Por mungesa e
diturise, mungesa e leximit te historise ne te gjithe
pasurine e saj te skajshme dhe te pamohueshme, do te
ish ne te vertete jo vetem thjesht nje prove demoniake
e injorances, por nuk do t'i sherbente aspak te
ardhmes, e cila nuk eshte vetem nje nocion politik dhe
ekonomik, por gjithnje e me shume nje nocion kulturor.
Pa kete nocion kulturor nuk do te kishte kuptim asgje.
Nuk do ta kisha te veshtire qe te shkruaja nje liber
per Himaren pikerisht si nje monument ekumenik,
emancipues dhe dliresues per te gjithe pa perjashtim.
Cdo grindje arkaike, cdo fundementalizem fetar, cdo
keqkuptim i politizuar do te na bente nje dem te
pallogaritshem dhe do te ishte nje shembull
keqndjelles sipas nje fryme te Nemesis, qe i ka syte e
mbyllura dhe nuk di te dalloje te verteten nga
genjeshtra, humanzimin planetar por dhe allkanik nga
nacionalizmat e vjeteruar, kelthites dhe te gjemshem
ballkanike.

Eposi i Himares nis me vete jeten njerezore ne Himare.
Mrekullite natyrore te Himares kane perbere statusin e
nje mjedisi te pashembullt ndoshta ne krejt brigjet
ballkanike te Adriatikut dhe te Jonit.

Shume te verteta jane te fshehura dhe jane pjese e
kancelarive te botes, kryesisht te bregut italik, por
edhe te spanjolleve dhe anzhuineve te Evropes
Perendimore per Himaren. Keto dokumente mbushin
biblioteka te tera. Por pertej kureshtise dhe studimit
te specialisteve te thuget, te gjitheve u intereson
nje njohje sa me e sakte e se kaluares, pa te cilen do
te kishim nje te tashme te vajtueshme, apo dhe nje te
ardhme fataliste ngjyre gri. Nese politika shqiptare
do te ktheje syte drejt Himares atehere ceshtja e
shpopullimit te kesaj kryevepre natyrore, te ikjes se
banoreve ne emigracion neper bote, do te ishte kushti
i pare ekzistencial i nje ringjalljeje. Nje projekt
vizionar strukturuar per Himaren, do ta kthente ate te
pakten ne nje purgator turistik, per te mos perdorur
fjalen apologjike parajse. Ne kete kuptim populli i
Himares dot te kish nje kontakt te ri te shumfishte me
tere qytetaret e botes, stinet do te kishin karakterin
e festave te vecanta dhe masive te Diellit, te
ullinjve dhe detit, te polifonise piluriote, e cila
mbase eshte ftillezuar nga kohet babilonike, polifoni
qe tek popuj te tjere, pothuaj ka vdekur, kurse ne
Himare ka nje karakter shperthyes, te brendshem, te
pertejkohshem, te kapercimit te hapesirave dhe
marrezive idioteske te politikave te paemancipuara.

Himara mund te konsiderohet si vendi tipologjik kunder
ksenofobise. Eshte e habitshme qe keto vitet e fundit
kane mundur te depertojne ide ksenofobiste te huaja ne
Himare. Ky ksenofobizem e mbyll karakterin e hapur te
Himares. Plotfuqishmeria e Himares eshte ne karakterin
e saj te hapur. Ksenofobizmi ka nje karakter primitiv
qe nuk i takon absolutisht te ardhmes. Karakteri i
hapur i Himares perkon me konceptet e reja te
globalizmit boteror, kurse ksenofobizmi ballkanik ka
kahjen e nje te kaluare te erret. Himara nuk eshte e
hapur vetem per Jugun, nuk eshte e hapur vetem per
Veriun, por Himara eshte e hapur siodmos per Evropen
Perendimore, me brigjet italike, pa perjashtuar edhe
Lindjen. Ne shume pikepamje karakteri i hapur i
Himares, te kujton tipologjine e ishujve dhe bregdetit
dalmatin, kryesisht te Kroacise. Himara dhe brigjet
dalmate kane te perbashket detin dhe kryesisht lidhjet
me Italine, historikisht dhe kulturalisht me
Venedikun. Nje tipologji nderlidhese e brigjeve
dalmatine dhe Himares prej shume shekujsh e ka
ftillesen ne raportet shekullore te bregdetit shqiptar
me Venedikun ne antikitet, por sidomos ne mesjete. Kjo
duket ne stilin e shtepive te ashtuquajtura dalmato
venedikase, ne rikonstruktimet e keshtjellave si dhe
ne reliefet ne luanin e Shen Markut, qe eshte emblema
venedikase ne te gjithe koherat. Por kjo
karakteristike venedikase e krijuar historikisht nuk e
ka mohuar por e ka perforcuar identitetin e
shqiptareve te Himares dhe ka qene nje nga format
hapese me te plleshme dhe me te shumanshme te Himares
ne Evropen Perendimore. Pa mohuar dhe dimensionin
kulturor grek te nderthurrjeve mesjetare, kryesisht ne
lidhje me ishullin e madh te Korfuzit, i cili deri ne
kohen e Napolon Bonapartit ishte pjese perberese e
Republikes se Venedikut. Qe Napoloni, i cili shenoi
vdekjen e Republikes se Venedikut si nje entitet e
vetvete. Pra ndikimet venedikase tek shqiptaret e
Himares qene gati te njejta ne nje kuptim edhe te
greket e Korfuzit. Venediku me lidhjet e tij te
kryehershme me Kostandinopojen ka qene nje qender
shumeetnike, globale, tejet e hapur, ku ka qelluar
edhe riti i kishes lindore ortodokse madje dhe i
botimeve te ungjijve ne greqisht, apo dhe i veprave
hagjeografike per shenjtoret shqiptare, te porositura
per shembull nga tregtaret e qytetit te Elbasanit dhe
te shtypura tipografikisht ne Venedik. Kjo qe thashe
ka lidhje edhe me artin afreskor dhe ikonografik. Kjo
ka lidhje me nje teme te jashtezakonshme te historise
se artit, qe lidhet me te ashtuquajturen shkolle
ikonografike "kreto-venedikase".Une jam marre nje jete
te tere me ikonografne shqiptare dhe kam botuar libra
shkencore per Onufrin, gjeniun e shekullit XVI dhe per
ikonografe te tjere shqiptare. Mund te them qe ndikimi
ikonografik i shkolles kreto-venedikase ka qene me i
vone ne Shqiperi dhe jo aq shume zoterues. Kurse
shkolla shqiptare e ikonografise, ka qene e
madherishme dhe e vecante. Por une nuk dua te bej
ndarje me thike, sepse nuk ka kufij te mbyllur ne
qarkullimin e kulturave. Ashtu si ikonografia ka me
teper karakter ekumenik dhe jo etnik, ashtu mund te
them se dhe ritet e kishes perendimore dhe lindore nuk
mund te kene boshllek dhe humnera te frikshme, ose te
pakapercyeshme. Por nuk eshte shkencore qe ne emer te
kishes te behen percaktime etnike. Ortodoksizmi nuk i
perket vetem grekerve, por edhe shqiptareve, edhe
sllaveve, edhe italianeve, madje ky ndikim mund te
arrije deri ne Indi dhe ne Amerike. Ortodoksizmi nuk
ka qene pasaporte etnike per te gjitha keto vende dhe
popuj sepse fete ne thelb ne thelb nuk jane etnike por
nderetnike. Ngaterrimi i qellimshem i ketyre
koncepteve eshte nje marrezi dhe cdo marrezi eshte e
pakuptimte dhe pa perspektive.

* * *

Duke rilexuar nje veper memorialistike te Jul Cezarit,
te quajtur "De Bello Civili" (Lufta Civile) ne librin
e trete, kapitulli VI Cezari flet shkurtimisht per
zbritjen e trupave te tij ndane brigjeve Palaeste, qe
identifikohet me Palasen e Himares ne vitin 48 para
eres sone dhe permend ne kete rast fisin e germineve.
Eshte e merite e dekanit te arkeologjise shqiptare, te
ndjerit Hasan Ceka, i cili qe me 1965 ka botuar nje
studim per kete subjekt. Sipas Cekes emri i germineve
lidhet me toponimin e fshatit Dhermi, i cili ne kohen
e Cezarit quhej Germini. Ky fis i Kaonise ilire ka
qene ne kete zone ne shekuj. Sipas Cekes zbulimet e
shkruara historike permendin 14 fise te Kaonise. Me
deshmine e Jul Cezarit u shtohet keshtu edhe nje fis
me shume, pra fisi i 15.

Gjithashtu eshte Hasan Ceka, i cili ne nje studim te
tij, te botuar qe me 1952, duke u marre me toponimet
ne latinisht ne librin e Marin Barletit, te botuar me
1508 per Gjergj Kastriot Skenderbeun, ndalet sidomos
ne toponimin Cimere, qe lidhet me Himaren. Ne kohen e
botimit te librit te Barletit, pra ne shek.XVI,
mesojme nga vete teksti i Barletit se shqiptaret e
Himares mbas vdekjes se Skenderbeut, te mbrojtur nga
natyra malore e vendit nuk i jane neshtruar pushtuesve
turq. Barleti deshmon se himariotet "kane kerkuar
ndihmen e spanjolleve te Apulias ne Itali, kane mbi
vete nje prijes dhe dallohen per nje jete qytetare".
Po ne librin e Barletit permendet dhe toponimi Ulixee,
nje krahine e papercaktuar mire, qe permendet bashke
me Himar-n, ndoshta si pasoje e mitit te Uliksit, pra
te Odiseut, qe duhet te kete shtegtuar dhe te kete
ndalur mbas luftes se Trojes, pikerisht ne afersi te
Himares. Keto te dhena te Barletit u kane shpetuar
vemendjes se studjuesve, por latinet thone: "scripta
manent", d.m.th. "e shkruara mbetet".

* * *

Kam disa kohe qe lexoj dhe rilexoj veprat e nje
dijetari te mrekullueshem, qe ka vdekur ne Himare me 3
qershor me 1694. Eshte fjala per Nil Katalanin
(italisht : Nilo Catalano). Nil Katalani ka qene
italian. Ka lindur me 1637 ne fshatin e Sicilise, te
quajtur Terra Di Massa. Ne moshen 22 vjecare veshi
petkun e murgut bazilian ne manastirin e famshem te
Grotaferrates afer Romes. Ne kete manastir ne shekuj
meshonin arbereshe. Me 1995 une e kam vizituar
manastirin e vjecare veshi petkun e murgut bazialin ne
manastirin e famshem te Grotaferrates e kam takuar
gjithashtu prifterinj arbereshe si dhe dy studente
shqiptare nga Vlora, qe kishin ardhur ketu. Ne moshen
22 vjecare veshi petkun e murgut bazilian ne
manastirin e famshem te Grotaferrata. Me vone Katalani
u derguar ne manastirin bazilian te fshatit Munxifci,
ku jetonin arbereshe si lektor dhe mesues i
rishtarise, por dhe vikar i abatit. Ketu ky italian i
Sicilise u natyralizua mrekullisht me gjuhen shqipe.
Librat e Bogdanit, Budit dhe te Bardhit, krijuan nje
magji te pashtershme mbi personalitetin e tij. Ne
moshen 48 vjec Katalani u rikthye perseri ne
manastirin e rinise. Ai nisi te shkruaje gjuhen shqipe
me alfabetin tone te vjeter te Veriut, alfabet i tipit
latin, i ftillezuar qe nga Gjon Buzuku me 1555. Para
vitit 1677 ai dergohet nga Propoganda Fide ne brigjet
e Shqiperise dhe konkretisht ne Himare. Aftesite e tij
te medha gjuhesore, karakteri i tij erudit e bene
Katalanin drejtuesin e misionit bazilian ne Himare. Ai
i dashuroi si askush shqiptaret dhe gjuhen shqipe. Qe
vete Papa i Romes, qe morri vendimin per ta cuar
Katalanin ne Shqiperi dhe madje e emeroi si
Kryepeshkop te Durresit me 4 janar 1693 ne Kolegjin e
Propagandes ne Rome. Ne ceremonine solemne, morri
pjese dhe nje nga kardinalet me te medhenj te kohes, i
quajtur Barbarigo i Ri. Keshtu Katalani nisi misionin
e tij te pavdkshem ne Himare. Kishte me vehte nje
shqiptar, te quajtur Filothe Zasi, 16 vjet me te ri se
veten. U nisen me anije nga Lece ne Himare. Katalani u
vendos ne Dhermi "vend i shendetshem dhe plot ujera"
sic shkruhet ne relacion. Pervec Zasit shqiptar ate e
shoqeronte dhe nje italian nga Friuli afer Venedikut,
i quajtur Lorenc Mariotti. Qe te tre nisen te
predikonin ne fshatrat e bregdetit, pastaj ne Dukat,
ne Shen Vasil, ne Nivice, ne Terbac, ne Kuc, ne
Zhulat, qe benin pjese ne krahinen e quajtur te
Himares, e cila ne kete lak kohor permblidhte tere
Laberine, me gjithsej 40 qendra te banuara, sic del ne
dokumentet e shkruara te shekujve XI - XVII. Predikimi
i ketij misioni te cuditshem behej ne gjuhen shqipe.
Ai shkroi libra dhe manuale ne shqip. Ai sa zbriti ne
Dhermi "krijoi shkollen e te rinjve dhe te femijeve
duke i mesuar te gjitheve ne shqip Doktrinen e
Krishtere". Dhermiu me 1694 kishte 1850 shtepi.
Shkolla shqip e Katalanit kishte 80 nxenes, gje shume
e madhe per kohen. Shkolla e Dhermiut kish nxenes nga
Dukati dhe Terbaci, madje kishin ardhur nxenes per te
mesuar shqipen edhe nga Vithkuqi, prane Korces, 5 dite
udhe larg. Pervec shkrimeve biblike, nx`nesit mesonin
edhe arithmetiken dhe disa shkenca te tjera. Shkolle u
ngrit edhe ne Himare, drejtuar nga shqiptari Filothe
Zasi, por turqit e demtuan egersisht ne nentor 1694.
Himara ne ate kohe kishte 1430 fryme. Katalani
predikoi shqip edhe ne fshatin e Pilurit me 500 banore
dhe ne fshatin Vuno me 600 banore. Ne Vuno Katalani u
semur per vdekje. Paria shqiptare e Himares e mbronte
Katalanin nga sulmet e peshkopeve greke te Janines.
Kjo pari kish interes te ruante miqesine me italianet
e viseve te Pulias pertej detit dhe donte ta kishte
mire me Vatikanin. Eshte per tu habitur por edhe
shqiptaret myslimane te kesaj krahine ishin te afruar
ngushte rreth misionareve baziliane. Lorenci i shkuan
Propogandes ne Rome se Nil Katalanin e semure vendosen
ta dergonin ne Korfuz per mjekim. I hipen varkes ne
Porto Palermo, por jo larg, i semuri vdiq ne duart e
Zasit, pra qene te detyruar ta kthenin ne Dhermi dhe
naten ta kalonin ne plazh. Ishte 3 qershor 1694. Nje
dite me vone u ngjiten ne fshat, ku edhe e varrosen.
Me 18 qershor 1694 pleqte e Himares i shkruanin Romes
per kete fatkeqesi. Ne kete leter thuhet Katalani u
semur ne Vuno me 17 maj dhe vdiq me 3 qershor. U
varros ne kishen e Shen Thanasit brenda Sancta
Sanctorum. Mesuesi, sic e quanin pleqte e Himares u
varros me tere veshjet peshkopale dhe u bene tere
shpenzimet per pershpirtjen d.m.th me grure te zier
dhe vere, qe u shpernda si dhe ne mosha te tjera sipas
zakonit te vendit, ashtu sic i perkiste nje bariu te
tille shpirteror. Letra dergohet nga Dhermiu. Midis
atyre qe kane nenkruar eshte dhe protonoteri apostolik
Zaharia Dimuci nga Himara, Dhimitri, protopape i
Dhermiut si dhe Kristofor Nina po nga Dhermiu, i
dekoruar si kavalier nga Papa dhe kolonel i Venedikut.
Dokumenti ruhet ne Arkivin e Propogandes dhe eshte
botuar per te paren here nga Nil Borgia. Nje studjues
arberesh i shek.XVIII Pjeter Pompili Radotta, ne nje
liber te tij historik me tre vellime flet dhe per nje
portret ne pikture te Katalanit te vitit 1693, qe ka
ne fund nje "elogio" ne latinisht.

Nil Katalani eshte nje figure e madhe e kultures. Ai
ka lene vepra gjuhesore te nje rendesie te vecante. Me
1831 Krispi shkruan se ne Biblioteken e Seminarit
Shqiptar te Palermos gjenden ne doreshkrim Fjalori
shqip-italisht si dhe italisht-shqip si dhe nje Sprove
gramatikore me autor Nil Katalanin. Ne doreshkrimet e
Katalanit Skiroi me 1918 permend edhe doreshkrimin e
dy poezive me 8 vargje nga italishtja dhe doreshkrimin
e kenges popullore shqiptare mbi Pal Golemin. Katalani
eshte i pari nga folkloristet, qe ka mbledhur kenegn e
Pal Golemit, nga me te famshmet ne folklorin shqiptar.


Dhimiter Shuteriqi, por edhe Jup Kastrati i kane
studjuar doreshkrimet e Katalanit dhe i kane vleresuar
shume lart. Keta e tregojne Katalanin si nje dijetar
te nje formati te madh.

Studjuesi arberesh Nil Borgia ka thene se Katalani i
hartonte vete librat ne shqip, i botonte dhe i
shperndante falas. Nje nxenes i njohur i Katalanit, qe
dhe Dhimiter Gjileku nga Dhermiu, qe sipas Neofit
Radines, e shkruante ne menyre elegante gjuhen shqipe
sepse ishte shqiptar. Ky Dhimiter e perktheu ne shqip
Katekizmin. Ne shkollat shqipe te Himares ka punuar
dhe nje Kostandin Onufri, i cili dergoi ne Palase
Dr.Krisafidin, qe celi shkollen shqipe ne shtepine e
Kapedan Lekes. Ne Dhermi kjo shkolle mbrohej nga ana e
Kavalier Ninos. Me vone permendet ne Dhermi Kamil
Xhovani, i cili dha mesim ne Dhermi, Himare etj.
Por
keta misionarete gjuhes shqipe u pane me sy te keq nga
peshkopi grek i Janines, qe varej nga Fanari, i cili i
mallkoi shkollat shqipe. Te dhenat historike
tregojnese per tre shekuj ne fshatrat e Himares kishte
shkolla shqipe. Keto shkolla qene te njekoheshme me
ato, qe u hapen ne Shqiperine Veriore nga Bogdani dhe
Budi dhe misionare te tjere katolike. Keshtu qe pas
vdekjes se Skenderbeut dy jane qene qendrat
koncentrike, ku mesohej gjuha shqipe ne formen e nje
institucioni arsimor : Veriu i Shqiperise dhe Himara,
shume shekuj me pare se sa te celej shkolla shqipe ne
Korce, per te cilen mrekullisht kendoi Naim Frasheri.

Himara si nje qender kryesore e arsimit shqip i ka
bere keshtu nje nder kolosal arsimit shqip dhe kombit
shqiptar. Perse te mos ngrihet ne Himare Muzeu
Kombetar i arsimit shqip, qe perfshin gati tre shekuj
gjate sundimit te urryer otoman? Duhen harruar
shkollat shqipe te Himares per arsye te injorances se
sotme?

Ne revistat autoritative "Studi Orientali" dhe "Studi
Albanesi", nje dijetar si Nil Borgia ka botuar
dokumente te nxjerra nga arkivat e Vatikait shume te
rendesishme per Himaren, qe perfshijne shekujt
XII-XVIII. Por shkollat shqipe jane perndjekur
egersisht dhe mallkuar, qofte nga Patriarkana e
Stambollit, qofte nga dhespoti i Janines. Nje histori
e nxjerre nga dokumentet e jep akademiku Dhimiter
Shuteriqi "kur erdhi dhespoti i Janines dhe pa
nxenesit ne shkolle dhe degjoi meshen nga prifti
Kostandin Onufri, ju versul dhe e kapi nga mjekra
brenda ne kishe te Dhermiut". Kjo e vertete historike
duhet mohuar?

Nese nje italian si Nil Katalani u be nje misionar dhe
dijetar i shqipes, mos valle ne duhet ta perdhosim
varrin e tij ne kishen e Shen Thanasit ne Dhermi? A
nuk eshte ky varr nje monument i jashtezakonshem? A
nuk duhet nderuar pafundesisht? Mos valle duhet te
sillemi si ksenofobe ndaj ketij italiani, i cili qe me
i qyteteruar dhe me humanist se sa shume njerez, qe
jetojne sot?

* * *

Miku im, dijetari mesjetarolog, i ndjeri Theofan Popa
gjithe jeten ja kushtoi nje vepre te tij me rendesi
epokale. Ai mblodhi tere mbishkrimet e kishave te
Shqiperise duke i pajisur me shenime historike e
shkencore. Theofan Popa ka meriten e padiskutueshme te
mbledhjes se mbishkrimeve kishtare dhe ne zonen
Himare-Delvine. Cfare mesojme nga keto mbishkrime? Nje
pllake ne murin verilindor te kishes se shen Sergit
dhe Bakut ne Himare mban vitin 786, pra i perket
shek.VIII. Nje mbishkrim ne manastirin e lindjes se
Shen Merise ne Dhermi flet per nje lutje ndaj
Perendise, nga nje i quajtur Guzi ne emer te gruas dhe
femijeve te tij me 1756. Ne kishen e Shen Thanasit ne
Dhermi eshte nje mbishkrim i vitit 1671 ku permenden
emrat e banoreve : Deda, Nikolle Leka, Dhimo Theodori,
Nikolle Deda dhe bijve te tyre Gjini dhe Kokali. Duket
qarte se keta jane emra shqiptaresh. Nje tjeter
mbishkrim i vitit 1751 permend emrat e prifterinjve
Ilia Leka nga Dhermiu dhe Anton Stara Gjika, qe kane
qene ne kishen e Ipandise ne Himare. Ne kembanen e
kishes se Shen Thanasit ne Piqerras, eshte dhe nje
mbishkrim ku thuhet "Dhurate me shpenzimet e
kryeqindesit, kapedan Dhimiter Gjikes, bere ne Napoli
me 1763. Ne kishen e Shen Spiridonit ne Vuno te
Himares me 1873 pikturon nje lutje nje grua e quajtur
Lule Dhima. Vetem grate shqiptare deri me sot ne bote
jane quajtur Lule. Ne Manastirin e Shen Merise mbi
Athali te Himares me 1795 eshte bere ne afresk nje
poezi e cuditeshme, ku flitet per varrin e Aleksandrit
te Madh te Maqedonise. Kjo poezi eshte ne greqisht dhe
une e kam botuar nje here tjeter te botuar ne shqip,
por ajo qe eshte e rendesishme eshte qe jo rastesisht
sillet ne kujtese nga ana e banoreve te Himares,
figura e Aleksandrit te Madh te Maqedonise. Ne nje gur
te murosur ne porten jugore te kishes ne Qiparo te
Himares eshte gdhendur "1796 Usta Koti". Eshte emri i
kryemjeshtrit, qe e ndertoi kishen dhe viti i
ndertimit. Ne nje ikone ne Qeparo te Himares eshte nje
mbishkrim i vitit 1798, i nje te quajturi Gjike Pasi.
Por ajo me e cuditeshmja dhe me e befasishmja eshte
nje ngjarje e perjetesuar ne mbishkrimin e nje kembane
ne kete zone. Mbishkrimi ne greqisht i kembanes thote
: "Ne kujtim te ushtareve vullnetare shqiptare
(stratioton alvaniton- ne origjinal, shenimi im M.Z),
te Mbretit te dy Sicilive, qe rane ne beteje nga
katundi Lukove, Muzine, me 1813, bere prej meje
Raponci". Ky mbishkrim i shkruar me germa te perziera
latine dhe greke dokumenton faktin historik te njohur
per repartet e Himares, qe kane sherbyer ne ushtrine e
Ferdinandit te Napolit, Mbretit te dy Sicilive. Nje
tjeter mbishkrim i cuditshem eshte nje kupe prej
argjendi ne kishen e Manastirit mbi Piqerras, ku
shkruhet frengjisht "Ecole s-t Catherine", pra
"Shkolla e Shen Katerines". Ky fakt i fundit shpreh
poliglosine, shumesine e gjuheve te huaja dhe te
kulturave evropiane ne zonen e Himares. Nuk po vazhdoj
me tej.

* * *

Kur shkova per here te pare ne fshatin Pilur, nga
buron Eposi Magjik i Himares polifonike pashe kuoten
me te larte te fshatit te rrethuar nga nje pyll i
rralle lisash, qe s'di pse me kujtuan lisat e Dodones.
Nje pyll krejt i vecante, gati perrallor. Mjere ata qe
s'e kane pare kete pyll te cuditshem dhe lum ata qe e
kane pare! Deget e ketij pylli jane shekujt dhe
kenget, sinkretizmi i natyres dhe i historise. Gjate
viteve kam shume kujtime nga Himara. Kujtoj ekspeditat
arkeologjike nenujore ne Palasa dhe ne Dhermi, kujtoj
kur shkova per here te pare te Shpella e Pirateve, per
te cilen Petro Marko ka shkruar romanin e
mrekullueshem, qe eshte ekranizuar. Nuk ka ndodhur te
shkoj ne Dhermi dhe te mos ndalem e te pi nje cigare
te varri i Petros. Sipas ritit te lashte ndez dhe nje
cigare te dyte dhe e le te digjet ne heshtje mbi
pllaken e varrit. Me c'deshire titanike per jeten do
te ngrihej poetin e pavdekshem Petro Marko, per ta
thithur kete cigare! Do te kujtonte koherat, te cilat
pa kujtesa jane te zbrazta, boshe, te frikshme, te
kota.

* * *

Nuk duhet harruar per te folur per keshtjellen e
famshme te Porto Palermos te ndertuar nga Ali Pashe
Tepelena. Kjo keshtjelle katerkendeshe me kater kulla
eshte nje cudi e arkitektures ushtarake dhe e kohes.
Heren e fundit e vizitova keshtjellen bashke me Lefter
Cipen. Rreth e qark saj ka disa bime te gjelbera,
deget e te cilave po t'i kepusesh nxjerrin nje leng te
bardhe si qumesht. E pyeta Lefterin si quhen keto
bime, "Qumeshtoret e Vasiliqise" m- tha ai. Thuhet se
Vasiliqia u martua me Ali Pashe Tepelenen ne kishen
prane keshtjelles. Nuk mund te kete keshtjelle me
egzotike ne Shqiperi me nje mundesi kolosale per tu
kthyer e tera ne nje qender turistike, te famshme per
krejt Mesdheun, ku mund te vinin nga e gjithe bota.
Emri i Ali Pashe Tepelenes dhe i femres me bukuri te
madhe, Vasiliqise, perbejne emblemen magnetike te
historike se koherave. Nje projekt i shtetit shqiptar,
mundet i financuar dhe nga Banka Boterore do te
kthente Porto Palermon ndoshta ne nje Montekarlo ne
brigjet e Jonit. Kjo do ta ringjallte ekonomikisht me
shpejtesi te pabesuar Himaren.

Sa kohe duhet pritur per kete gje, qe kjo mundesi e
rralle te kthehet ne nje realitet? Pyes: A duhet
harruar kaq gjate gjiri dhe plazhi magjik i Jales,
ndoshta me i bukuri ne Evrope? Cila krahine e
Shqiperise ka pasuri kaq te pambarimta natyrore? Per
c'fatalitet paradoksal nje Himare kaq perrallore te
jete kaq e varfer? Kush do te thote Mea Culpa!?
Ndoshta qe te gjithe kemi faj, edhe une qe po i
shkruaj kaq vone keto rrjeshta, sepse duhet t'i
shkruaja shume me perpara. Si mund ta duam vendin tone
pa dituri? Cdo ringjallje e vertete eshte forma me
sublime e diturise. Kjo nuk ka asnje dyshim. S'ka
shume dite qe shkrova nje parafjale per librin e
intelektualit poliglot nga Himara Janko Pali,qe do te
betohet se shpejti per historine e Himares. Ai vdiq 97
vjecar. Qe nga Qeparoi dhe shkroi shume libra per
Himaren. Dinte shume gjuhe te huaja madje edhe
esperanton, por librat e tij postume me nje shqipe te
kulluar do te botohen tani kur ai nuk eshte me dhe nuk
do t'i shohe me syte e tij keto libra. Mbase qiejte e
Himares kane ruajtur dhe bebezat e syve te Janko Palit
per te pare pas vdekjes librat e tij te botuar dhe per
me teper Himaren e Ringjallur. Amen!
------------------------

Nderkohe Bol anot dhe mashtruesit e tjere qe marrin kocken e zakonshme per te lepire, hedhin llum e mashtrime mbi nje krahine totalisht shqiptare, mbi Himaren e paster LABE, e cila e tille do te ngelet perjetesisht
Respekte edhe nje here tjeter per Moikomin

[BARAT]

po shkuan e vane kohet qe kujton Moikomi dhe historianet e ndryshem, kohet qe kujtojne kenget e trimerise dhe burrat e fuqishm e mustaqe kacorre....tashme po lulezon (de)gjenerata moderne...mirserdhet ne epoken e pensioneve dhe te dallavereve te varferise

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Himara, parajsa e "pensionisteve"


Shkruan : Ben Andoni-MAPO

Gjëja më e jashtëzakonshme për njerëzit e moshës së tretë në Himarë është që të mos marrin pensionin e akorduar në Greqi. Kjo epidemi e "ëmbël", që filloi pas dallgëve të para të njerëzve që shkelën në vendin fqinj, tashmë i ka "molepsur" të gjithë himariotët. Që pavarësisht nëse janë apo jo banues në këtë vend, minoritarë apo shqiptarë, kanë rendur duke përgatitur të gjithë dokumentacionin e duhur për të marrë pensionin. E tashmë mund të numërohen me gishta, ata të moshuar që nuk e kanë. Por, kur i flet, që kjo është e pandershme, sepse ata janë nënshtetas shqiptarë, përgjigja është e thatë: "T'i lemë, atëhere, dhe të rrimë me 3.000 lekët e Shqipërisë"?!

Pensionet e himariotëve
Në këtë hapësirë përfitimi, bëri llogaritë e tij edhe Telo B, me kombësi shqiptare. Banor, i njërit prej fshatrave të Bregut, 46-vjeçari, vendosi që pasi të gjente një punë në Greqi nuk do ishte keq, që t'i siguronte dhe pensionin të jëmës në fshat. Me këtë shpresë kishte lënë fshatin, aty ndanë Jonit dhe bashkë me të shoqen dhe vajzën, ishin bindur se nuk ia vlente që të mbaheshin më në vendlindje me bagëtinë dhe me ullinjtë. Si ata, të tjerë para tyre, tashmë kishin ngritur shtëpitë me punën në Greqi, por shumë i kishin pajisur dhe pleqtë me pensionin e bujkut të vendit fqinj.
Por, në fillim, nuk ishte e lehtë për himariotët. Të pamësuar mirë me gjuhën, vetëm tre nga vendet e Himarës e flisnin greqishten (edhe këtë me një dialekt tepër arkaik), ndërsa të tjerët e kishin vështirë. Çuditërisht, në ndihmë, u erdhën njerëz, që duket se ishin të interesuar që pleqtë himariotë mos "të vuanin". Plaka e Telos, ashtu si gjithë të tjerët, kishte mbushur një vandak me dokumente: Emrin, fshatin, vendbanimin në Greqi, pasaportën shqiptare, kontratën e shtëpisë, vërtetimin e tatim-taksave. "Ta kisha ditur, mos të kisha ardhur fare", i kishte thënë plaka, kur shikonte sfilitjen e të birit. "E kanë marrë të gjithë. Do e marrim edhe na", i thoshte i biri. E vjetra, rendte të kërkonte vdekjen në shtëpi, paçka se edhe pensioni i pëlqente. Më pas, të dy kishin shkuar në O.G.A, një zyrë pensioni e fshatarësisë, pranë minibashkisë ku jetonin dhe, pasi kishin paraqitur dokumentet kishin pritur sa t'u dilte emri. "Plakën e pyetën ku donte që t'ia sillnin pensionin në shtëpi apo do vinte vetë". E gjora, sikur ta dinte, na e la ne ta merrnim, tregon Telo, që tash ulur para një gotë rakie, shikon valën e detit në një dimër, që e ka mbuluar me errësirë Jalin në Vuno. Në fakt, ashtu si bëri plaka e Telos, një banor duhet që të plotësojë 65 vitet dhe më vonë, pas një kërkese dhe një sërë parametrash duhet të paraqitet në O.G.A (Zyra e pensioneve të fshatarsisë). Pastaj janë ata që shqyrtojnë dhe pasi marrin dhe adresën procedojnë, nëse duhet dhënë apo jo. Autoritetet greke janë të kujdesshme, që nga koha kur është bërë kërkesa, deri në momentin që del, të paguhet, më shpjegon një pensionist, që shfaqet papritur.
Askujt nuk i bën më përshtypje, kjo në Himarë, ndërsa aspekti politik, për ta kthehet në humor, sepse për shumë kohë kanë manovruar në mes të dy vendeve, pa përfshirë këtu vetëm kohën e pas Luftës së Dytë Botërore. Tallen me grekët dhe njësoj me pensionin e Shqipërisë.
Procedura e pensioneve është e njëjtë. Bëhet një kërkesë pranë minibashkisë ku jeton i interesuari në vendbanimin e tij të Greqisë dhe pastaj plotësohen dokumentat. Nga vendlindja, dikush duhet të konfirmojë ekzistencën tënde. Kanë prioritet ata, që janë në hapësirën e ashtuquajtur Vorio-Epir. Deri më tani, këtë e kanë bërë funksionarët e OMONIA-s, ndërsa tani është vetë ambasada me strukturat e saj, që e shikon. Në Greqi, pastaj, tregohet vendi ku banon dhe njeriu përgjegjës për ty ( në rastin e pensionistëve të vjetër) dhe pastaj, në rast se aprovohet, merret pensioni...Ai është 200 Euro dhe në kohën e Krishtlindjeve merret dhe një rrogë plus. Veprimet bëhen në OGA, që është një zyrë për pensionet bujqësore dhe që në rastin e banorëve shqiptarë, në zonën e ashtuquajtur të Vorio-Epirit, akordohet si ndihmë për Diasporën.

Si aplikojnë
Në fillim, banorët që kishin vendqëndrimin në Himarë, duhet që të konfirmonin vendqenësinë e tyre në fshatrat e Bregdetit, falë zyrave të Omonias në Himarë. Këto të fundit dërgonin një faks në ambasadë, ku provohej qenësia e tyre. Më pas, kur u shtuan pa fund himariotët, diplomatët grekë vendosën, që pasi dokumentet të liheshin në ambasadë, të vazhdohej me vetë instancat e tyre, që të bënin kontrollin. Në fakt, lista e tyre po shtohej dhe shtohej pa fund dhe kjo i bëri autoritetet të ishin më të kujdesshëm ndaj përfituesve "të padrejtë..". Himariotët i shmangen sa munden muhabetit të pensioneve, ndërsa të gjithë kanë në gojë një justifikim të njëjtë:" pensioni që marrim andej, është ku e ku me atë që marrim ne këtu. Fshatarët marrin 2.700-3.000 lekë. E mban dot frymën me këtë", më thotë një i moshuar. Falë dokumentit në Greqi, ka shkuar deri tek e bija në Gjermani, i patrazuar nga askush, ndryshe nga shqiptarët që prisnin në radhë, më shpjegohet krenar.
Nuk duhet shumë për ta kuptuar qetësinë, por edhe boshnajën e tyre. Ato pensione shërbejnë për t'i mbajtur në vendin e tyre, që me ikjen e moshave të treta, po tretet. Ashtu si më parë, portokallet kanë marrë fushën pas bregut, ndërsa nuk ka më kush t'i mbledhë. Për çdo ditë, banorët e pakët të fshatrave të Bregut (me këtë konvencion gjeografik njihen shtatë fshatrat e Rivierës, nën Himarën) bëjnë një lloj apeli se kush është gjallë. Plakat e pakta, ndonjërën syresh që mund të hasësh rastësisht me ndonjë krah dru, mbajnë të gjitha nga një celular në qafë, ku në butonin e vetëm që dinë të përdorin-u del i biri që u kërkon nëse janë ende gjallë, apo se duhet të dalin në xhade, që të marrë evrot e pensionit."Unë e shkruajta kombësinë shqiptare. Një dreq e di se kush e vuri greke", më thotë me çapkënllëk Pavllo A., 68 vjeç. Eshtë afruar dalëngadalë, por nuk e ka ngritur zërin. Sapo ka ardhur nga peshkimi. "Nuk do më gjeje duke gjuajtur, më thotë, ndërsa me pensionin në kooperativë mezi marr 3.000 lekë", më sqaron. Janë nga të paktit në fshat, kurse bashkë me të shoqen kanë një shtëpi që po e rregullojnë pak nga pak. Gati 120-vjeçare, ajo nuk do t'ia dijë për kohën dhe vitet, ndërsa me pensionin që i lihet tek i biri në Pire, ka mbledhur një sasi lekësh. Jeton i patrazuar me të shoqen dhe që së fundi edhe i ka dhënë mundësi të fusë banjon brenda shtëpisë. "E kam ngjitur rërën nga fshati me kafshë, më thotë. E di sa lekë duhen? Shyqyr, o Zot, që na i kanë dhënë ato evro". Në fakt, nuk është se beson shumë. Ashtu si shumë fshatarë të tjerë në fshatrat e Bregut, i besojnë më shumë politikës së tyre dhe rregullsisë së dokumentacioneve. "Kartat i kemi prej kohësh dhe jemi të rregullt me to. Ndryshe, nuk gjeje këtu". Por besimi nuk i ka afruar aq me kishën, sepse atë kanë filluar që ta braktisin pak dhe nga pak. Vendin e besimit, që është liruar, tashmë e kanë zënë argumentet e pafundme për politikën dhe politikat sociale të vendit fqinj. "Për fundvitin morën një pension shtesë për Krishtlindje dhe një gjysmë për Vitin e Ri. Këto na interesojnë. Të tjerat?! Le t'i zgjidhin vetë", më shpjegon Pavllo.
"Ne këtu nuk jemi as në Shqipëri dhe as në Greqi", më tregon Taso V., 72 vjeç. Eshtë i ngeshëm dhe duket se e ruan kohën e tokës, që ta ketë mbase dhe për andej. "Në kohë të Zogut, - pauzon gjatë - letrat na vinin në adresë të Korfuzit, dhe që andej këtu". Nga Petro Marko di se Zogu shkoi dhe më tej, teksa u përpoq që emrat e fshatrave të Bregut t'i zëvendësonte më të tjera syresh. Nuk ia doli, por njerëzit e Bregut e panë se edhe me qeveritë e tyre nuk do e kishin mirë. Jo më kot vazhdoi kështu edhe me luftën. Luftuan, ndërsa të tjerë rrinin dhe shulloheshin. Ky pasivitet i ndoqi dhe pas lufte, por në këto vende dolën një sërë njerëzish të lidhur me pushtetin, që edhe pse bënë fare pak për fshatrat e tyre, i lanë atij "autonominë". Vazhdoi deri në kapërthimin e dy sistemeve, kohë kur bregdetasit duket se gjetën aleaten e tyre të vjetër, Greqinë. "Ne jemi prej më shumë se 100 vjetësh në Greqi dhe njerëzit e mi, -më thotë Petro M., 40-vjeçar, kanë bërë për Greqinë shumë më tepër se grekët që kanë jetuar dhe nuk kanë lëvizur andej. Ishin me kolonelët. I bën zap punët dhe i zbardhën faqen Greqisë". Ndaj, sipas tij, Greqia e ka mirë që jep pensionet për njerëzit e tyre, që e kanë ndihmuar. "Ore, ata i japin dhe në Aleksandri të Egjiptit. Eshtë fond për Diasporën, më shpjegon burri i ri, që kapardiset në fshat. Janë zyrat e minibashkive që japin këtë pension për njerëzit e diasporës, që paguhen shumë më pak se vendasit".
Kështu janë grekët matanë dhe shqiptarët këtej. Nostalgjikë dhe hipokritë pafund për jetën... "Kështu jetohet në këto bokërrima", e mbyll edhe Telo rrëfimin e tij, që pas një jave do jetë sërish në Athinë... në vendin e tij të ri të punës.

[BARAT]

Raportet e meposhtme jane raporte nderkombetare mbi gjendjen, trajtimin, sjelljen, kushtet dhe manaxhimin e situatave ku emigrantet dhe pakicat kombetare jane ne optiken kryesore, jane nen menyrat greke te manaxhimit te gjendjes. Si nje shtet i komunitetit evropian, Greqia po tregon perdite e me shume qe eshte larg nga qytetari te cilen pretendojne se trashegojne keta grek te rinj e te ndryshem totalisht nga ata te lashtet, te cilet edhe floket i kishin bjonde, edhe sjelljen e kishin te bardhe.
A vuajne vetem emigrantet shqiptare ne Greqi?
-JO
VUAJNE TE TERA PAKICAT
-Pse?
-SEPSE GREKET KANE MUNGESE TE THEKSUAR QYTETARIE DHE NDIHEN TE RREZIKUAR PASI KANE NDERTUAR PSEUDO MADHESHTINE E TYRE MBI RERE
Raportet japin qarte ate qe quhet, mohim i te drejtave te njeriut.
Greket, djep qyteterimi?!!??!!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!

Kjo bote po behet perdite e me shume qesharake.

ps
kerkoj falje qe s po i perkthej ne shqip, por gjithsesi besoj se kane vlere edhe ne origjinal, ashtu sic jane

BARAT

--------------------------------------------

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

5 October 2005
Greece

OUT OF THE SPOTLIGHT
The rights of foreigners and minorities are still a grey area


INTRODUCTION

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status."
Article 2, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Freedom from discrimination is the basis upon which the protection of human rights rests. The failure to guarantee freedom from discrimination is thus a fundamental failure in such protection practices. Amnesty International has documented various aspects of this failure around the globe. This report outlines the situation in Greece. It documents a consistent pattern of human rights violations across a range of fields that stem from the failure of the state to combat discrimination, in the practices of its representatives as well as of non-state actors. These practices range from the denial of protection to refugees and the ill-treatment of migrants, to the forced eviction of Roma from their settlements and the inadequate protection of minority rights.

In a previous report on Greece, published jointly with the International Helsinki Federation in 2002,(1) the persistence of human rights violations, and ill-treatment in particular, was documented. One of the major findings in that report was that "Roma and immigrants are particularly at risk of abuses at the hands of law enforcement officials" and that "the pattern is sufficiently clear to leave little room for doubt that xenophobia and racial profiling have played a part in the human rights violations suffered by members of these groups".

Since 2002, there has been little change to this pattern, despite the fact that new domestic legislation has been put in place to deal specifically with the areas of concern highlighted in that report, as well as with various other aspects of discrimination. The legislation relates to the use of firearms, access to justice, combating trafficking in human beings, and immigration control. The reports received by Amnesty International of human rights violations in the period between 2002 and 2005 show that many of the provisions of this legislation, especially those designed to protect human rights and to safeguard freedom from discrimination, are yet to be implemented.

This report contains an indicative sample of the cases of alleged human rights violations received by Amnesty International in the last three years. It is neither exhaustive, nor does it cover all aspects of human rights violations in Greece. It rather focuses on violations affecting marginalized populations in the country, such as migrants and minorities.

Discrimination comes in a variety of forms, even in this context. Its colours are often those of distinction between different types of marginality. The legalization documents used by the state to classify foreign nationals into different categories of regularity are coloured red, yellow, and green. These are the colours of a legal system with a number of provisions on human rights protection, but the implementation of which often leaves individuals in a state of prolonged irregularity and vulnerable to ill-treatment by state agents and non-state actors alike. Discrimination has also cast a dark shadow over the local authorities’ treatment of their Roma constituents whom they forcibly evicted shortly before the Summer Olympic Games of 2004, and just as the organizers extolled visitors to "catch the light" through walks in the centre of Athens, the main Olympic site. This was not the only occasion in which Greece came under the international spotlight. In 2003, it presided over the European Union. And away from the spotlight, Greece’s record of human rights protection came under the scrutiny of the UN Committee against Torture in 2004 and of the UN Human Rights Committee in 2005. As an appraisal of this period, the current report aims to shed light on this record by outlining Amnesty International’s concerns regarding the treatment of those outside of the spotlight in Greece, the members of the many marginalized groups in the country.

The report focuses specifically on the failure of the state to comply with human rights law and standards regarding access to the asylum process and non-refoulement, the detention of migrants, and the protection from discrimination and ill-treatment. The reports and allegations presented here have been brought to the attention of Amnesty International by lawyers, doctors, journalists, activists and international and locally-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as well as by migrants, detainees, and victims of human rights violations. Representatives of Amnesty International visited Greece in January 2005 and June 2005 and collected further information about these violations. Over the course of 2003, 2004 and 2005, the organization has raised its concerns in these areas of human rights protection with authorities in Greece, but in most cases has not received any reply. In addition, Amnesty International has published a number of documents outlining examples of such violations and raising its concerns publicly. Concerns have also been raised by inter-governmental bodies, such as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), the UN Committee against Torture (CAT), the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) and the European Committee on Social Rights.

1. RED, YELLOW (AND GREEN):
NAVIGATING THE MIGRATION MAZE

"No Contracting State shall expel or return ("refouler") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion."
Article 33.1, Convention relating to the Status of Refugees

"States Parties shall assure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective protection… against any acts of racial discrimination which violate his human rights and fundamental freedoms contrary to this Convention."
Article 6, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

1.1 Background

Greece’s "rapid transformation from a traditional emigration country to a pole of attraction of immigrants" over the last two decades, has brought to the surface the country’s lack of an "adequate legislative framework of migration policy".(2) This was stated in the initial report submitted by Greece to the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee, which examined the country’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in March 2005. However, despite assurances that such a framework is now in place, migrants in Greece continue to suffer human rights violations at the hands of state authorities and non-state actors. For reasons that are explained below, the system currently in place fails to guarantee adequate levels of protection to migrants, including vulnerable groups such as refugees.

In this report, "migrants" is the general term used to refer to people who are in Greece either temporarily or permanently. It includes those migrants who move voluntarily and those who feel impelled to leave because of the economic and social hardships they face in their home country as well as refugees.

Asylum is a process whereby anyone fleeing persecution seeks protection after arriving in another country.

Greece is a party to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 (known as ‘the Refugee Convention’), and the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees of 1967 (known as ‘the 1967 Protocol’), which requires states to cooperate with the UN in the protection of refugees in their territory. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has documented a sharp decrease in the rate of recognition of refugees in the last two years. According to the UNHCR, by the end of 2004, 5328 asylum applications were pending at first instance and around 2500 at the review stage, while another 100 applications were pending before the Council of State for administrative review. Of those applications, 4469 had been lodged during 2004. Another 50,000 people had expressed their wish to file an application but had not been able to lodge their applications yet. During that year, 11 people were recognised as refugees under the Refugee Convention and 22 were granted protection under humanitarian status, while two were naturalized.(3) Another 3731 applications were rejected and in 623 cases the examination was stopped before a decision was reached. In total, the refugee recognition rate for the first nine months of the year was 0.3 per cent while the granting of protection status (refugee or otherwise) was 0.9 per cent. Both of these figures were the lowest of all the 148 countries considered by UNHCR in its global overview of refugee populations in 2004.(4) At the same time, comparative research shows that Greece has some of the lowest asylum application rates in Europe.(5)

In fact, the local branch of UNHCR in Greece expressed great concern at the sharp drop in the rates of recognition in recent years, having documented a figure of 0.06 per cent recognition rate for the previous year and 0.3 per cent for 2003, a 370 per cent drop from the 11.2 per cent rate of 2001.(6) Commenting on these low rates of recognition in a position paper published in November 2004,(7) the UNHCR urged the Greek authorities to review their refugee status determination procedures and pointed to a series of problems in the current implementation of national and international legislation on this issue. These practices were also documented in January 2005, during Amnesty International’s visit to Greece. The legal framework currently in force is briefly reviewed in the next section.

Article 1 of the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees adopted in 1951 (known as ‘the Refugee Convention’) defines a "refugee" as a person who "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it." Under this Convention states have an obligation to protect people who risk being subjected to serious human rights abuses if they are forcibly returned to their country of origin, i.e. the principle of non-refoulement (under Article 33.1). In addition, General Recommendation No.30: Discrimination Against Non Citizens of 01 October 2004 of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which clarified the application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination to non-citizens, noted the obligation of states parties to "ensure that non-citizens are not returned or removed to a country or territory where they are at risk of being subject to serious human rights abuses, including torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

1.2 The legal framework

Greece has ratified both the Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. In addition, it has ratified other relevant international conventions such as:
· the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
· the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
· the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
· the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture)
· the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

At the time of writing, Greece had yet not signed or ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1990, which came into force on 1 July 2003.

Greece ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) in 1974 and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 1991. As a member of the European Union (EU), Greece is also bound by EU Directives pertaining to refugee protection.(8) As of 2000 Greece has also been part of the Schengen area.
The fundamental principle of non-refoulement, elaborated in some of these instruments and which is also recognized as a norm of customary international law, prohibits the return of anyone, regardless of their legal or other status, to a country or territory where they would be at risk of torture or other serious human rights violations. The national legal framework of Greece is also guided by this principle.

Presidential Decree 61/1999 (PD 61/99) sets out the procedures for refugee status determination in Greece. The Decree defines as an asylum-seeker, and prohibits the removal from the country of, any foreigner "who declares, orally or in writing, to any authority on the entry points or inside Greek Territory, that they request asylum in [the] country or in any way asks not to be expelled to a country out of fear of persecution on account of race, religion, ethnicity, social class or political convictions" (Article 1.1). This is in compliance with international law, whereby asylum-seekers are assumed to be refugees unless or until they are found not to be in need of international protection.(9) The Decree further stipulates that asylum applications are to be examined at Security Police Departments and Aliens Departments within three months and further stipulates that in cases where the applicants are detained in areas within ports or airports, the examination of the applications should take place on the same day. The examination of a claim includes an interview with the applicant with the help of an interpreter provided by the Ministry of Public Order. The interview aims to establish the applicant’s identification details, the precise route followed into the country (including the overall itinerary of the asylum-seeker, including transit through safe third countries or EU Member States) and the reasons for flight from the applicant’s country of residence. The Decree notes that the applicant should be given enough time before the interview to prepare their presentation and to consult a lawyer. The interview is conducted by one or two civil officers and a report is prepared, which is read, via the interpreter, back to the applicant at the end of the interview and signed by them. The opinions of the officer(s) are then added, the applicant and their families fingerprinted and photographed.(10)

Upon completion of this process the individual is issued with a document certifying that they have lodged an asylum application and that this is being examined. This document is commonly known as the "RED (or PINK) CARD". Its holder has a right to reside in the country for a period of six months and to have the card renewed, at six-monthly intervals, until a decision about their application has been made. Holders of the "red card" can then apply for a work permit, which is granted if they are "not residing in the Temporary Residence Centre(11) for foreign asylum-seekers" and on the basis that "job market research has established that there is no interest in the specific position by a national, an EU citizen, a recognised refugee, or a repatriate".(12) The same work permit is available to applicants who have not been recognized as refugees under the Refugee Convention but have been granted asylum for humanitarian reasons (PD 189/1998, Article 4.1).

Throughout the period of examination of the application, the applicant is not allowed to change residence without informing the authorities – in such cases the examination of their application is "interrupted" and the applicant appropriately informed. A request for the "interruption" decision to be revoked can be lodged within a period of three months. In the absence of such a request, at the end of this period, "interrupted" applications are automatically rejected.

Following the issuing of the "red card" (i.e. the identification of the applicant as an "asylum-seeker"), the application file is passed on to the regional Police or Aliens Authority, who provide comments on the interviewer’s recommendations and ascertain the suitability of Greece to examine the claim according to the Dublin II Regulation (i.e. that the applicant has not travelled to another EU destination prior to entering Greece).

A decision on the application is made by the General Secretary of the Ministry of Public Order and on the basis of recommendations of the Ministry’s National Security Directorate. Other authorities and organizations, including UNHCR, may be invited to provide information on the case. In cases of positive decisions, the individual is issued with a refugee identification document, commonly known as "the YELLOW CARD", on the basis of which the individual can reside in Greece for five years.(13) A work permit can also be issued for the same period of time, upon a second application on the basis of this refugee identity. These are renewable for a further five years and upon the completion of ten consecutive years of residence, an individual can apply for naturalization.

In cases where the application is rejected, the rejection must be fully justified and the applicant is informed, in a language which they can understand, of their right to appeal this first-instance rejection within 30 days. The appeal is examined by the Minister of Public Order and a decision taken within 90 days of it being lodged, upon the Minister’s consultation with the six-member Board, consisting of the Legal Adviser to the Ministry, who acts as its President, a diplomatic officer and a legal adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a high-ranking officer of the Greek Police, a representative of the Athens Bar Association, and the Legal Protection Officer of UNHCR in Greece. The Board hears the applicant’s case in their or their lawyer’s presence and a final decision is made by the Minister and conveyed to the applicant. UNHCR is informed of all the decisions taken.

A second ab initio re-examination of a rejected asylum application is only undertaken in exceptional circumstances and where an applicant has provided additional new evidence to support their claim after receiving the negative decision on review of their application by the Minister and the Consultative Board. Such re-examinations of applications are also undertaken where the process through which the final decision was reached was found to be flawed on administrative grounds. The body that undertakes this procedural review of the decision-making process is the Council of State (Συμβούλιο της Επικρατείας). In the absence of the application of the "exceptional circumstances" stipulation regarding re-examination, this is the only possibility of appeal available in practice against a final negative decision and it is an appeal on procedural grounds.

In cases where the application has been rejected at this second stage but the applicant cannot be returned to their country of origin (due to health reasons, inaccessibility or adherence to the principle of non-refoulement), they may be granted the right to remain in the country for a one-year period, renewable on application, under "humanitarian" status (ανθρωπιστικό καθεστώς).

There is a parallel process of "fast-track procedures of examination". These procedures are applied in cases where the fear of persecution is deemed "unfounded" or where the applicant has arrived from a "safe third country". People whose claims are processed through these procedures are generally held in detention in special closed facilities for "illegal entrants" in airport / port zones. The application of these designations (of an "unfounded" claim and "safe third country") is decided by the Police Superintendent upon the recommendation of the National Security Directorate of the Ministry of Public Order. In such cases, the applicant must appeal a negative first-instance decision within 10 days and a final decision must be reached within 30 days by the General Secretary of the Ministry of Public Order. If the applicant is in detention in the transit area of a port or airport, these periods are shortened to five and 15 days respectively.

Amnesty International is concerned that gaps exist in this legislative framework which lead to violations of the right to seek asylum under international refugee and human rights law. Specifically, the framework fails to adhere to international human rights law and standards in two respects: (i) at no stage of the process does it provide for an independent review of a rejected application on the substance of the claim; and (ii) it lacks provisions explicitly safeguarding against the risk of refoulement. In addition to these shortcomings, in practice, a number of the provisions outlined above are either not adhered to or implemented in a ways that put individuals at risk of refoulement. The next two sections provide a review of the major problems arising from the implementation of this framework. The first section outlines concerns relating to the lack of provisions in the legislation to guarantee that the principle of non-refoulement is adhered to. The second section outlines the authorities’ failure to apply the provisions of the legislation.

The research presented here has not covered a second area of refugee protection, which concerns the provisions of the Refugee Convention relating to the social integration and long-term assistance that state parties are required to afford recognized refugees within their territory. On this issue, academic research,(14) as well as UNHCR documents show that there are currently no legislative or policy provisions in Greece relating specifically to this area of human rights protection, although in this field research is still sketchy. In law, recognized refugees are afforded the same rights as anyone legally present on Greek territory.(15) UNHCR has researched and issued recommendations in October 2004 on the protection and integration schemes which should be provided to individuals who are especially vulnerable during the asylum examination process (single women and children who are "red card" holders).(16) Amnesty International is not aware of specific policy schemes aimed at aiding the integration of recognized refugees, as vulnerable individuals, into the wider society, however, and has data obtained from interviews with experts in Athens which suggest that "once refugees are recognized, they are lost" (i.e. not monitored by social welfare bodies).

1.3 Areas of concern regarding the legislative provisions

1.3.1 Limitation of the scope of the review process
A major source of concern is the absence of access to an independent review in substance of a rejected application. Amnesty International has noted a lack of safeguards in the national legislation to guarantee access of asylum applicants to such an independent review of their application. These arise mainly from the fact that neither of the two possibilities for review offered throughout the examination process provides for an independent review on the substance of the case. On the one hand, the review of a negative decision at first instance, which is undertaken upon appeal, does not involve a independent authority, but is directed by the Ministry of Public Order, which is the same body responsible for first instance decisions. On the other hand, the procedural review undertaken by the Council of State following a final negative decision does not cover the substance of the application, but examines only the administrative aspects of the decision-making process. The non-compliance of the Greek system with international standards was heavily discussed during the European Union (EU) negotiations on common minimum standards for asylum procedures. At the time, the Greek delegation acknowledged this problem and announced that it would look at a reform of its appeal system. The data presented in this report shows that the lack of substantial reforms in this area has led to serious violations of the human rights of applicants.

The first instance examination of applications is carried out by the Ministry of Public Order, which is also charged with guarding the country’s borders and preventing the entry of undocumented migrants. Given the fact that many of these individuals subsequently seek asylum, it is likely that of some the first instance decisions of the Ministry of Public Order could be tainted with subjective bias against the applicants, and that these decisions could be inaccurate. An independent review of the substance of rejected asylum applications would help to ensure that asylum applications are not rejected without due cause, and those asylum-seekers who would be at risk of torture or other serious human rights violations are not returned to their countries of origin. Instead, under the current provisions, the Ministry is also charged with reviewing decisions to reject an asylum claim. The intervention of UNHCR in these decisions is severely limited – at first instance, the UNHCR may provide information relevant to the case, while at the review stage an expert sits on the "Appeals Board" but effectively has no vote, since the Board is not a decision-making, but a consultative body.(17)

A re-examination ab initio of an application, which is available to applicants who have been rejected at the second stage, can be ordered by the Council of State. However, the scope of the Council of State’s review of the case is restricted by the fact that it is solely a procedural review, which examines the preceding process of examination but not the substance of the claim. Amnesty International believes that the assessment of asylum claims should include an independent review of negative decisions that would allow the application to be considered by an independent body on both points of law and facts.

Absence of such a review constitutes a violation of international refugee law because it exposes individuals to the risk of refoulement. The European Court of Human Rights has clearly stated that "the authority referred to in article 13 may not necessarily be a judicial authority but, if it is not, its powers and the guarantees that it affords are relevant in determining whether the remedy before it is effective" (ECHR, Silver and others v. United Kingdom, judgment 25 March 1983). In the case of Klaas and others v. Germany, 6 September 1988, the European Court has further developed its ruling. According to this jurisprudence, "a remedy before a national authority is considered effective when that authority is judicial; or, if it is a quasi-judicial or administrative authority, it is clearly identified and composed of members who are impartial and who enjoy safeguards of independence; […] The remedy is accessible for the rejected asylum-seeker; and the execution of the expulsion order is suspended until a [final] decision is taken." The Court further stated that the appeal authority must have competence both to decide on the existence of the conditions provided by Article 3 of the ECHR and to grant appropriate relief. This jurisprudence has been codified in the Recommendation n° R (98) 13 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the right of rejected asylum-seekers to an effective remedy against decisions on expulsion in the context of Article 3 ECHR. It should also be noted that the right to an effective remedy before a court of law or a tribunal is also embedded in article II-47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 38 of the draft EU directive on asylum procedures.(18) The present system falls short of these provisions.

1.3.2 Lack of access to professional interpreters
Another major problem faced by applicants is the inability to communicate with the authorities.(19) A key factor contributing to this is the lack of adequate interpretation provisions. On the day of Amnesty International’s visit to the Asylum Unit in Athens, one Mandarin-speaker was conducting interviews with all of the applicants, regardless of nationality, often with the help of other applicants acting as interpreters in a second or third language. The Unit’s representatives present used Greek to communicate with the applicants, interspersed with English, in which the representatives displayed minimal competence.

Furthermore, the organization is concerned that authorities, especially in border areas, may actively be impeding refugees’ access to asylum through the refugee’s inability to communicate in Greek. Detainees interviewed by the organization’s representatives claimed that upon arrival at the detention centres where they were held (and where the representatives met them), police officers asked them to sign papers which they could not read but perceived to be documents relating to the legalization of their status (see section 1.4.1). Further corroboration of this practice was provided by detainees in other centres and former detainees residing in Athens, as well as a report published in 2002 by the Nordic Organisation for Asylum-seekers, NOAS, claiming that Chechen asylum-seekers had been asked by the Greek authorities to sign documents that they were not claiming asylum in Greece.(20) These allegations of detainees being asked to sign documents they do not understand raise serious concerns about the access to the asylum process at points of entry.

This practice is in breach of the European Court of Human Rights, which has firmly held in the case of Conka v. Belgium that the communication with an asylum-seeker must take place in a language that this individual understands since the rights guaranteed under the Convention are not "theoretical or illusory, but practical and effective", (ECHR, Conka v. Belgium, 5 February 2002; see also ECHR, Matthews v. UK, case 24833/1994). Besides, Article 9(b) of the draft EU directive on asylum procedures states that asylum-seekers "must receive the services of an interpreter for submitting their case to the competent authorities whenever necessary". While this directive has not yet been enforced, it should be reminded that the right of asylum-seekers to be properly informed about their rights and obligations under the asylum procedure is already an obligation under EC law as per article 5.2 of the directive EC 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum-seekers.(21) The European Commission should closely monitor the shortcomings in the Greek system, and take any relevant legal action, given that Greece had the obligation to bring its national laws in full compliance with this directive by 6 February 2003.

1.3.3 Lack of legal aid
Legal aid is not available to applicants at any stage of the process, apart from the aid provided by the Greek Council for Refugees and which only provides legal representation for applicants whose applications have been rejected at the second stage and whose applications are to be subject to a procedural review by the Council of State. In fact, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against Greece in two cases because of the total absence of legal aid for aliens in cassation proceedings.(22) Even after the introduction of legal aid provisions for aliens through Law 3226/2004, asylum litigation is still exempt because it is an administrative procedure.

The absence of legal aid means that some lawyers take up asylum litigation cases pro bono(23) while others charge fees for their services. This latter practice creates distrust of lawyers by officials, who often claim that "lawyers are corrupt and exploit the migrants" – such comments were also made during their interviews with Amnesty International’s delegation. In turn, these claims are used as grounds to arbitrarily reject the evidence or statements provided by lawyers on behalf of their clients and to arbitrarily restrict lawyers’ access to detention centres.

Another factor further limiting the ability of applicants to communicate with authorities is due to the failure to fully comprehend the complex legal process involved in the processing of their applications. Amnesty International is not aware of any documents in any language available to the applicants, which outline the process simply and clearly.

1.3.4 "Interruption" of the examination
One of the most worrying aspects of the asylum legislation in Greece is the provision which allows the authorities to "interrupt" the examination of asylum claims. Article 2.8 of the Presidential Decree (PD) 61/99 states that "in case of arbitrary departure [of the applicant from their stated place of residence], the procedure for the examination of his asylum claim is interrupted following relevant decision issued by the Secretary General of the Ministry of Public Order, which is notified to the asylum-seeker, [henceforth] considered as a person ‘of unknown residence’." The Decree further stipulates that a period of three months is allowed for an appeal to be lodged against the decision of "interruption" and for the decision to be annulled if it is proven that the relocation was due to reasons beyond the applicant’s control. In that case, the asylum application can be examined on its substance. Furthermore, the Article also stipulates that the local representative of UNHCR is to be informed in such a case as to further developments. In the absence of an appeal within the three-month period, the application is automatically rejected. The most commonly stated reason for such "interruption" appears to be a change of residential address, including cases where asylum applicants have travelled to other European destinations and have been returned to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation.(24)

The Greek Council for Refugees (GCR) expressed concern in October 2004 over the rising number of "interruptions" to the asylum applications of individuals being "returned" to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation. According to the GCR, there has been a sharp increase of such "interruptions" since January 2004. The GCR further expressed concern that such "interruptions" could lead to unfounded decisions of rejection and put at risk individuals who upon being returned to their countries could be persecuted and tortured. Academic research has also questioned the compatibility of such practices of "interruption" with the obligations of the Greek authorities to uphold the principle of non-refoulement and has concluded that "in fact, the Greek authorities appear to subordinate [this] obligation … to procedural minutiae aiming to reduce the number of asylum applicants" and that "Greece demonstrates bad faith in the way in which it implements the provisions of the Dublin-II Regulation".(25)

With regard to these findings, Amnesty International has expressed concern about the lack of specific stipulations in this Decree that would guarantee the rights of applicants to have their application examined in full following their transfer back to Greece on the basis of the Dublin II Regulation. The organization is concerned that the provisions of Article 2.8 of PD 61/99 are applied in ways that render it impossible for the applicant to know that the examination of their application has been "interrupted" (the process through which persons of "unknown residence" are informed is not clear) and thus effectively limit their right to appeal a decision of "interruption". This then leads to a decision of rejection by the authorities after the lapse of the designated three-month period of appeal, and in such cases the authorities refuse to examine in full asylum applications upon the applicant’s return to Greece and instead issue immediate deportation orders. Thus, Amnesty International is concerned that the Greek authorities officially "interrupt" the process of examination of some asylum applications in ways that might expose persons to a risk of human rights violations. Amnesty International wrote to the authorities regarding one such individual who was at risk of being returned to the Darfur region of Sudan (see below). Amnesty International was also informed by local experts during its visit to Greece in June 2005 that on account of this practice, Norway has stopped returning asylum-seekers to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation.

1.4 Areas of concern in the application of the legal framework

1.4.1 Access to the application procedure
While the definition of asylum-seeker in Article 1.1 of PD 61/99 makes it clear that protection may by requested (i) in writing, (ii) orally, or (iii) indirectly, in practice the last two methods are not taken into account by authorities. During Amnesty International’s mission to Greece in January 2005, the organization’s delegation met with police officers at stations in regions where foreigners had been detained on charges of illegal entry.(26) In all of the four stations visited (Mytilini, Ferres, Didimoticho, Soufli), the officers claimed that all of the detainees were "economic migrants". However, interviews in the two stations, where the delegates were allowed to conduct them in private with the detainees, revealed that the provisions of this Article had not been fully adhered to.

In one case (Soufli), two male detainees, who were Turkish nationals, claimed that they had verbally requested to file an asylum application to the police officers who had arrested them upon entry into Greece a few days before Amnesty International’s visit, but had not been presented with any forms. They further claimed that they were requesting protection on account of the fact that they had been imprisoned and tortured in neighbouring Turkey because of their political beliefs and that they had communicated this persecution to the police officers at the station. While Amnesty International is not in a position to assess this specific claim for protection, it appeared that the police officers, in classifying the detainees as "economic migrants", did not take into account the oral request for asylum of the Turkish men, and thus disregarded the provisions of the Presidential Decree.

In another case (Ferres), two Somali female detainees, claimed to be "economic migrants" at the beginning of the interview. However, when asked about whether they would like to return to their country at a later date, they claimed, in tears, that they could not return on account of the fact that their houses had been burnt by Somali authorities and their fear that they would be imprisoned because of their support for opposition parties. They further claimed that they had not communicated these fears to the police officers who arrested them because they had not been asked and because they had been told by the police officers that following their sentence for illegal entry they would be given residence permits. The specific police station, which doubles as a detention centre for female migrants, is used to detain individuals before administrative expulsion papers are issued. Thus, while this case also cannot be assessed by Amnesty International, the detainees’ account of events raised concerns both about the authorities’ adherence to the provisions of PD 61/99 and about the apparent failure to inform detainees of their rights (see below).

The authorities’ failure to offer people access to the asylum process at the point of entry into the country according to PD 61/99 is also illustrated by the discrepancy in the numbers of asylum applications filed in border police stations and in Athens. During interviews with regional police administrators it has emerged that only about 0.2 per cent of the detainees accommodated at detention centres in the border regions file applications for asylum. Yet there are reports suggesting that a number of former detainees from border-region centres, often released on deportation orders, apply for asylum in Athens. This fact raises concerns about access to the asylum process provided in these areas.(27)

Further allegations received by Amnesty International suggested that officials stationed at border areas, and particularly in the area of the Greek-Turkish border, have been expelling migrants from the territory of Greece without providing those in need of international protection with the opportunity to seek asylum or providing all migrants with an opportunity to challenge their removal on other grounds, including human rights grounds. Such practices are in flagrant violation of PD 61/99, and could be in violation of the fundamental principle of non-refoulement as well as the prohibition on arbitrary and collective expulsion. These practices are very difficult to document and the problem is compounded in border areas by the fact that these expulsions allegedly take place in areas which are under military control and thus access to them is restricted. Despite this, the organization received information during its visit to the country in January from a number of individuals (expellees who have since re-entered as well as individuals who have spoken with expellees), who were in agreement about the methods by which this practice takes place. Undocumented migrants were allegedly put in military trucks, taken to the banks of the river Evros, on the land border with Turkey, and left to swim to the other side.

As fundamental human rights, including the right to life and freedom from torture of individuals may be at stake, the responsibility of decision-making must be taken by an appropriate body and adequately qualified officials. In this regard, the Greek system is confusing regarding the actual role of the border guards. In order to avoid "pre-screening" by border officials, Amnesty International recommends that the role of border authorities should be restricted to registering asylum applications and forwarding them and relevant information to competent authorities. As far as training is concerned, the organization recommends that Greece ensure its practice is in compliance with the provisions of Recommendation n° R (98) 15 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the training of officials who first come into contact with asylum-seekers, in particular at border points.

Another incident involved 106 persons, who arrived on the island of Crete on 1 April 2005. While refusing requests by representatives of local authorities, lawyers and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including members of Amnesty International’s section in Greece, to meet the people in question and offer assistance, the Deputy Minister, Christos Markoyiannakis, is alleged to have stated that they would be expelled immediately. At the same time the Chania Police Chief, Antonis Proestakis, allegedly announced the introduction of a new administrative policy of immediate expulsion of all undocumented migrants arriving on Crete, effective immediately. However, the people in question were allowed to remain on the island and on 7 April, one local authority representative, one lawyer and two NGO representatives were able to meet them. The foreigners reportedly stated to the lawyer, Demetrios Fourakis, that they were Palestinians and that they intended to seek asylum in Greece. On the evening of 10 April they were escorted by the police onto a ship bound for Athens, where they were taken to the Attica Aliens Department’s detention centre and other police stations in the area of Attica, and detained until the following day. On 12 April members of Amnesty International’s section in Greece were allowed to speak with detainees in the Attica Aliens Department. They reported that only two of the approximately 30 people held there could speak English and that no interpreter was available at the Centre. The organization’s members also reported poor conditions of detention and allegations of ill-treatment by police officers. The detainees had not been informed of their rights or of the reasons for their detention. When representatives of other NGOs and lawyers subsequently requested to meet the detainees in order to be able to provide information about their rights to them, the police officers in charge refused to allow them access to the detention area, claiming they had received orders from their superiors to block such access. It appears that all 106 detainees were instead escorted onto a ship the same afternoon and expelled to Egypt. Amnesty International wrote to the authorities expressing concerns that should this account of events be true, the rights of those detained from 1 to 12 April were systematically violated and asking for precise information about the authorities’ actions in this case, but had not received a reply by September. On 16 August, the organization received information that another 95 people were expelled to Egypt without being given access to the asylum process, after their boat was shipwrecked off the coast of Crete ten days earlier.

The secrecy surrounding the authorities’ practices throughout the different stages of the asylum determination process is a source of concern about the degree to which human rights standards are upheld during the process. During Amnesty International’s visit to the country, access to some of the detention centres on the island of Mytilini was denied, while in other detention centres and police stations (Vrysika, Didimoticho, intermittently in Amygdaleza) officers refused to remain outside hearing range throughout the interviewing process(28) and in one of these (Didimoticho) also refused to answer a number of questions including whether the police personnel at the station had received training in human rights. Following the organization’s visit to the country, Amnesty International wrote to the Ministry of Public Order in January requesting information regarding the detention of asylum-seekers, including the number and locations of currently operating detention centres and the facilities available in them but received no reply.

1.4.2 Length and complexity of the process
In practice, the major problem in the asylum determination process is the length of time taken for reviewing applications. Because of the backlog of applications, a secondary procedure exists that precedes the formal lodging of an asylum application, whereby prospective applicants are asked to visit the Athens Asylum Department often for months before their applications can be lodged.

Lawyers interviewed by Amnesty International’s representatives have stated that it takes about a year on average before asylum applicants are issued with a "red card", despite the fact that PD 61/99 sets the maximum period of first instance examination at three months (Article 2.2). During this time, they are provided with a document stating that they have handed in an application for asylum and indicating identification details. This does not mean that their application is being examined, but merely that it exists. This document allows its holder to remain in Greece while waiting for their application to be placed in the review process and is usually valid for three months (although periods may vary, as stated in a recent report published by the Ombudsman’s office). (29) The document can be extended if the application has not been forwarded for examination in this space of time and if the applicant presents the document to the Asylum Department officers for renewal. In practice, many individuals who state their intention to apply for asylum and request forms from the Athens Asylum Department are turned away many times before they can actually obtain a form and then again before their form is accepted. One lawyer interviewed by the organization claimed that one of her clients, who had entered Greece as a minor, waited for two years before his fingerprints were taken (and thus the application logged for examination and a "red card" given to him).

This secondary process is not provided for in PD 61/99 and thus its application in practice is often arbitrary. For example, because the details on the document only record the information the applicant has provided, they are subject to confirmation by the police e.g. through visits to the address the individual has provided to ensure that they reside there. If the details are found to be false, further access to the asylum process is denied. Yet the assessment of the veracity of such information is not always transparent. Applicants may reside in hostels or in temporary lodgings along with other co-nationals where the turnover of residents is high; consequently neighbours are not always able to confirm the individual’s residence there if the individual is not present at the time of the police check. Officials are aware of this problem and as a result, often refuse access to the asylum application process to individuals who provide "suspect" addresses, such as of hostels known to accommodate individuals from specific countries. On the day of the delegation’s visit to the Athens Asylum Department, the registration official refused to register all applicants who claimed residence at one of these hostels, well-known for housing Afghan migrants, rejecting it as a "false" address. The relevant Ombudsman’s report has shown that another arbitrary measure, of requiring a rental agreement as proof of residence before an application could be lodged, was also instituted at the beginning of the year. Reports of access to lawyers arbitrarily being restricted during this phase of the asylum process have also been received. Lawyers interviewed by Amnesty International have claimed that officials refused to process applications completed by them on behalf of their clients on the basis that if the personal details of the applicant had not yet been verified, their signature authorizing the lawyer to act on their behalf could not be accepted.

As stated in the introduction, rejection rates in Greece are the highest throughout Europe. As this additional pre-application procedure is not taken into account in the authorities’ figures on asylum applicants and refugee recognition rates, its existence creates an additional concern over the high rate of rejection of requests for asylum.

Following this process, the actual examination of an application can take up to two years, with an average of one year being the usual case. Officials at the Department recognize the serious backlog problem and have been working hard to reduce it. However, they have pointed out that extreme staff shortage makes this task impossible.(30) In January 2005, when Amnesty International’s delegation visited the Department, there were two officials in charge of renewing the pre-application documents and three reviewing the applicants’ files. On the same day, there were about 150 individuals waiting to be seen by the officials, the vast majority of them turned away by police outside the building before they could be seen by an officer and told to return the next day. Lawyers present on the day stated that this is a daily phenomenon, so that many individuals who want to request asylum, as well as individuals who are seeking to renew their pre-application documents before they expire, are repeatedly turned away. As a result, they run the risk of appearing as "not having presented themselves to the authorities without delay", or if they did, of having their authorization to remain in the country expire and of being at risk of arrest and detention of up to three months for overstay.

1.4.3 Blanket rejection of applications at first instance
According to a 2003 report published by the European Council for Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) "the number of first instance decisions granting Convention or humanitarian status are extremely rare and, as far as the Greek Council for Refugees is aware, they do not exceed one or two cases per year... In 2003, no refugee status was granted [at first instance]."(31) In an article in the daily Eleftherotypia in July 2004, UNHCR’s Officer for Protection in Greece noted that "almost no one has been granted asylum at first instance in the last four years".(32) This apparently blanket rejection of applications at first instance exacerbates the delay in processing the applications and effectively renders this first stage of the examination process discountable: all of the lawyers and NGO personnel interviewed referred to "examination" in reference solely to the review stage and mentioned first instance examination only when specifically asked.

1.4.4 Failure to fully explain the reasons for rejection
In fact, many of the lawyers interviewed in Athens noted that contrary to the provisions of PD 61/99 for a "full explanation" on the grounds for rejection, rejection documents often contain one of a set of uniform phrases, the most common of which is "the evidence provided does not prove being subject to persecution – left the country in search of employment" (προς εξεύρεση εργασίας). Amnesty International has received reports of cases where this explanation was provided despite the great amount of evidence provided to the contrary (see section 1.5). Academic literature has also pointed to the difficulty lawyers face in obtaining access to the files on their clients, where details of the reasoning behind the rejection are included, which in turn diminishes the applicants’ ability to defend their case on appeal following a rejection at first instance.(33)

The failure to fully explain the reasoning behind the rejection decision, which is also the case for decisions made at the review (second) stage, also raises concerns about the extent to which the recommendations of the experts of the Athens Bar Association and UNHCR on the consultative panel, who provide comments at the review stage of the examination following an appeal of the first instance decision, are taken into account. As the Minister of Public Order makes the ultimate decision in this review process, full detailed accounts of the experts’ recommendations would also require an explanation of the reasoning in case of a differing decision being made. Thus the lack of such detailed records and explanations raises concerns about the lack of accountability of the authorities in making decisions. The UNHCR’s Protection Officer’s article cited above concerns one such case, where she expressed fear of the rejected applicants being subjected to ill-treatment upon return and requested a re-examination of the case ab initio.

1.5 Cases illustrative of the above-cited concerns

The cases cited below are a small fraction of those received by the organization in the last two years. They have been chosen because they are indicative of how the problems identified above combine to create a procedural maze through which refugees are denied access to international protection and are put at risk of refoulement.

1.5.1 H.B., in his thirties, Turkish national(34)
H.B. applied for refugee protection and was given a "red card" in October 2003. His application was rejected at first instance in February 2004 on the basis that "none of the evidence provided proves that he was subject to persecution in person (ατομική δίωξη) by the authorities of his country because of his race, religion, ethnicity, social class or political convictions. It seems that he left the country in search of work and betterment of working conditions." H.B. appealed this first instance decision. In July, having received no news regarding his appeal and unable to work (due to health reasons) and to continue to live in Greece (due to lack of medical welfare provisions), he travelled to Germany clandestinely and lodged an application for protection there. His previous request for asylum in Greece was discovered, and he was returned to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation in December 2004. Upon his return, he was informed that his application had been closed and that he would be forcibly returned to Turkey. The decision to "interrupt" the examination of his application had been taken in October 2004, upon the authorities’ contact with the authorities in Germany who had requested and received assurances regarding his return to Greece. He was arrested on arrival and detained at the Athens airport detention centre for two weeks. In that period he was taken to the Turkish Embassy. Afterwards, he was told that the Turkish Republic had accepted to take him back. His expulsion was postponed after his lawyers from the Greek Council of Refugees appealed to the Council of State against the decision to "interrupt" the examination of his case.

Amnesty International representatives met with H.B. in January and received the following account of his treatment in Turkey:

H.B. is of Kurdish origin and since 1994 had been a member of a party which is banned in Turkey (DHKP/C). He was imprisoned between 1995 and 2002 in various locations around Istanbul, some of which were "F-type" prisons. Amnesty International has on numerous occasions expressed concerns about the isolation conditions in "F-type" prisons in Turkey as well as concerns related to the killings and torture of prisoners during transfers to "F-Type" prisons in the Operation "Return to Life" in December 2000.(35) H.B. said he was tortured while in prison on various occasions and had gone on hunger-strike in protest about the living conditions in the prison. During the clashes with police authorities that ensued due to the widespread protest of political prisoners in "F-type" prisons across the country that escalated in November 2002, H.B. set himself alight and suffered serious burns all over his body (65 per cent of his body surface). As a result, he was allowed to convalesce in hospital while a new arrest warrant was issued by the Turkish authorities because of his role in the protest – it was at this time that he escaped to Greece.

H.B. provided evidence to support his claims of the following nature:

· A medical report issued by the Centre for Rehabilitation of Victims of Torture in Greece,(36) which confirmed that the physical symptoms noted by the Centre’s doctors were consistent with the type of torture he had described being subjected to in prison.
· A series of news reports publicized at various points since 2001 on the prison protests, identifying H.B. as one of the protesters and detailing the events that led to his self-inflicted burning.
· A series of documents issued by Turkish prison authorities and Courts confirming H.B.’s conviction for his membership of the said party and imprisonment.

In light of this evidence, Amnesty International is concerned about the reasoning of the Board’s decision at first instance. In particular, the organization is concerned about the lack of clarity provided in the Board’s statement regarding the non-substantiation of the applicant’s claims through the evidence provided. The organization believes that the evidence provided by the applicant to the organization, and which he claims to have made available to the authorities during their examination of his application, leads to the strong presumption that should he be returned to Turkey he would be at risk of torture, and persecution. Amnesty International is aware that members of the specific organization, which played a major part in the 2001-2002 protests against detention conditions in "F-type" prisons (and in which H.B. actively took part), have in recent years successfully sought asylum in a number of EU member states.

On this basis, Amnesty International believes that the decision of the authorities to forcibly return H.B. to Turkey upon his return from Germany would be in contravention of the norm of non-refoulement and Greece’s obligations under international human rights and refugee law, including the Refugee Convention. Further, the authorities’ decision to take H.B. to the Turkish Embassy in Athens and allegedly divulge details of his asylum application in Greece has seriously compromised the applicant’s safety and has increased his risk of being tortured and imprisoned if returned to Turkey.

1.5.2 M.M., Sudanese national
In August 2004 Amnesty International expressed concern that M.M., a Sudanese national in his early 40s, was at risk of forcible return from Greece to Sudan where his rights would be at serious risk of being violated. Amnesty International considered his forcible return to Sudan would be a violation of Greece’s international obligation to uphold the principle of non-refoulement under international refugee and human rights law.

M. M. fled Darfur in 2003 because his village had been destroyed. He is married and has two daughters but has lost contact with his family. He arrived in Greece in June 2003, was detained on arrival and was released after three months. Living without social support, he decided to travel to the UK, where he claimed asylum in October 2003. In the UK, the Home Office determined that on the basis of the Dublin II Regulation Greece would be the country responsible for deciding on his asylum claim and he was returned to Greece in June 2004. He submitted a new asylum application which was rejected on the grounds that he had left Greece. A decision of administrative deportation was issued. A new application based on fresh information about the situation in Darfur was declared inadmissible. Amnesty International believes that asylum-seekers from Darfur would, if returned to Sudan, be at risk of serious human rights violations.(37) Following Amnesty International’s intervention in August 2004, M.M.’s deportation was postponed. However, he was arrested in March 2005 and detained for a further three months. His appeal against the deportation order opened in June 2005 by the Council of State and his application is to be examined by the Ministry of Public Order ab initio.

1.5.3 Former hunger strikers
Amnesty International has also been informed of five cases of Turkish nationals who have applied for asylum in Greece in the period 2002-2005. These individuals arrived in Greece at different stages and were arrested upon entry by border patrols and at the police stations where they lodged their asylum claims. All of the individuals concerned claimed membership of organizations which are banned in Turkey,(38) and imprisonment in "F-type" prisons around the country. Four of them provided documents issued by the prison authorities, confirming their imprisonment. The individuals also claimed to have been tortured in these prisons by methods including electroshock to private parts, mock executions, beating on the soles of the feet, and cold showers. They were all examined by doctors at the Centre for Rehabilitation of Torture Victims in Greece and were issued documents confirming that the scars on their bodies were consistent with the torture they had described. The individuals also claimed to have taken part in the hunger strikes at various periods, protesting against the conditions of detention in the high-security prisons in Turkey. Their medical certificates confirmed that these individuals were suffering from symptoms consistent with the Wernicke-Korsakoff condition, a condition afflicting hunger-strikers and resulting in permanent loss of memory, loss of coordination, and vision impairment.

Despite these claims, the asylum applications of all five individuals were rejected at first instance. In one case, the authorities stated that the examination of the application was "interrupted" because the applicant had changed address, in spite of the fact that in this case, the applicant had informed the authorities upon arrival at Athens of his intention to relocate there from the area where he had filed the application in order to have access to the medical treatment that his condition necessitated. In three other cases, police authorities issued administrative deportation orders while the individuals’ asylum applications were still pending. These orders were suspended on the intervention of the local judicial authorities and their applications assessed by the Ministry’s Committee. However, in these cases, as well as in the case of the fifth individual, although the majority of the members of the Consultative Committee (Appeals Board) recommended that refugee status be granted, their applications were rejected by the Ministry on the grounds that the applicants had not "provided evidence that substantiated the claims for fear of persecution" and that instead they "had left the country for economic reasons".

In light of the medical evidence made available to Amnesty International as well as interviews carried out in Greece with the individuals concerned, as well as personnel at UNHCR, GCR and the Centre for Rehabilitation of Victims of Torture who had dealt with these cases, the organization believes that the rejection of these applicants’ request for asylum puts the individuals at risk of torture and persecution if they are returned to Turkey. Amnesty International believes that the reasoning of the Committee’s decision does not indicate due examination of the substance of these applications, a failure that has jeopardized the protection to which the organization believes these individuals are entitled.

The organization is further concerned that lawyers in Greece claimed that in their contacts with authorities about clients suffering from Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, they were told that this was not recognized as a valid medical condition. Should this be the case,(39) the rejection of asylum applications of Wernicke-Korsakoff sufferers on the basis of inadmissibility of the medical evidence they provide is of great concern. Amnesty International considers such approaches to be in breach of international law and standards and to seriously endanger the lives of individuals.

1.6 Conclusion

This chapter has sought to outline some of Amnesty International’s main concerns arising from research carried out on access to refugee protection in Greece since 2002. Most of these concerns have been communicated to national authorities and international human rights bodies in the course of that time. The concerns highlight the failure of the authorities to provide effective international protection to refugees, in compliance with their obligations under international human rights and refugee law and standards.

2. DETENTION AND ILL-TREATMENT OF MIGRANTS

"Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture."
Article 11, Convention against Torture

"States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of… the right to security of person and protection by the State against violence or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual group or institution."
Article 5, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

2.1 Background
Irregular migrants - also known as "undocumented" migrants or "illegal" immigrants - are people who enter and are present in a country of which they are not nationals, without the legal authorization to enter or remain there. Some are people who are working or looking for work in that country but who do not have a valid work permit for the country; others are victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation or forced labour; some are people who once had a permit to reside in the country, but whose residence permit is no longer valid; some are rejected asylum-seekers who have not left the country, although they are legally obliged to do so.

Migrants should enjoy the full range of human rights, including the right to be free from arbitrary detention and from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as well as some specific rights outlined in some international legal instruments, including treaties of the International Labour Organization. The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Family, which entered into force on 1 July 2003, represents an important milestone in the recognition of migrants’ rights. Greece had, by September 2005, neither signed nor ratified the Convention.

The practices of the authorities outlined in the previous chapter were scrutinized in terms of their failure to adhere to the principle of non-refoulement and to protect refugees from the risk of serious human rights violations, including torture and other ill-treatment, if returned to their countries of origin. This chapter focuses particularly on human rights violations arising from the conditions under which irregular migrants are detained, the treatment of particularly vulnerable detainees such as women and minors, alleged ill-treatment of migrants by police outside detention centres, and the access to justice available to migrants who have suffered such ill-treatment. The data contained in this chapter has been obtained by Amnesty International in the last three years, through sustained contact with local NGOs and activists, as well as during the organization’s visit to Greece in January 2005 and interviews with migrants who have been victims of human rights violations, detainees at border detention centres, lawyers, and NGOs representing migrants. As in the previous chapter, the concerns outlined here are not exhaustive of the types of violations reported to Amnesty International in the last few years, nor are the cases outlined a complete list of those received by the organization. Rather, what is presented here is data that illustrates the most serious of the organization’s concerns.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, between 1950 and 1975 a total of 678,000 people emigrated from Greece to other countries, while between 1975 and 2000 a total of 935,000 immigrated into the country.(40) National authorities have argued that this shift was unexpected given the country’s tradition of exporting, not receiving, migrant labour and that it was this unexpectedness that accounted for the initial failure of the authorities to bring effective legislation into place to ensure that the rights of migrants into Greece were respected.(41) However, while the authorities argue that such legislation is now in place, reports received by Amnesty International suggest that in order for the government to comply with its obligations to respect, protect, and fulfil the human rights of migrants, further measures need to be taken. Amnesty International believes that the lack of a tradition of policy-making on immigration issues should under no circumstances undermine the implementation of international human rights law and standards with regard to the protection of vulnerable groups from persecution. The information in this report suggests that the self-confessed ineffectiveness with which authorities have responded to migrants’ needs in the last few years has had a negative impact on the way in which ‘foreigners’ are perceived in Greece. For this reason, it is suggested that the reform to the current framework guiding the authorities’ migration-related practice should be complemented by policies addressing the problems of discrimination, racism and xenophobia within the wider Greek population.

The official figures provided by the Migration Policy Institute show that in the early 1990s (figures provided for 1991) most ‘foreigners’ in Greece were nationals of Albania (12.3 per cent), Cyprus (8.8 per cent), the US (8.3 per cent), the Former Soviet Union (7.7 per cent), the UK (6.6 per cent), Turkey (6.6 per cent), and Germany (5.1 per cent). A decade later (figures for 2001) 55.6 per cent of them were nationals of Albania.(42) In absolute numbers, the official population of non-citizens in Greece grew in this decade from 167,276 to 797,091. The migration from European countries increased seven-fold during this time, while migration from Asian countries tripled. While these numbers include estimates of the numbers of irregular migrants, it is thought that the numbers of individuals in this category are underrepresented in these statistics. However, what is clear is that large sections of the migrant population in Greece are nationals of neighbouring countries (Albania, Turkey, Cyprus), while others represent migration flows under the post-1989 repatriation policies instituted by the Greek state for "ethnic Greeks" of the Former Soviet Union (FSU).(43) Reports by local NGOs as well as international bodies(44) show a rise in the number of racist incidents in recent years, but at the same time suggest that these incidents are targeted at members of specific groups of migrants (e.g. Albanian nationals) as well as Greek citizens (e.g. Roma). In this report, emphasis will be placed on the infringement of the rights of non-nationals primarily by the authorities.

2.2 Arbitrariness and conditions of detention

One of the main areas of Amnesty International’s concern over human rights violations in Greece over the last two years has been the alleged ill-treatment of individuals during arrest and detention.(45) During this period, the organization has received a number of reports regarding ill-treatment during arrest and arising out of poor conditions of detention, as well as allegations regarding the arbitrary arrest and detention particularly of foreign nationals. In 2001, the European Court of Human Rights found Greece guilty of violating Articles 3 and 5 of the ECHR, relating respectively to the conditions and lawfulness of detention of a Syrian national awaiting deportation.(46) Concerns, specifically about overcrowding and poor conditions of detention, were also expressed by the Committee against Torture (CAT) in November 2004.(47) Following the publication of these concerns an Amnesty International delegation visited a number of detention centres for aliens in January 2005 and noted poor conditions of detention that may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

The centres visited were those in the border region of Evros, namely Vrysika, Ferres (which is also a police station) and Peplo, and the Amygdaleza centre in Athens. In addition, two border police stations (συνοριακές φυλάξεις) in Evros, namely at Didimoticho and Soufli, where migrants and asylum-seekers are detained, were also visited. While access to the actual dormitory rooms where detainees are held was denied to Amnesty International delegates in all of the centres visited, interviews with some of the detained individuals were allowed, as well as a view of the exterior of the buildings. In all of the centres, interviews with staff and police officers were also conducted. Interviews were conducted with police officers at the Directorates at Alexandroupoli, Orestiada and Mytilini, as well as with representatives of the Evros prefecture, which is under the Ministry of Interior, Public Administration and Decentralization, which is responsible for the maintenance of the detention centres. Permission to visit the detention centre in the area of Pagani, on the island of Mytilini, was sought from the Ministry of Public Order and from local authorities, but was not granted. Delegates were only able to travel to the centre and view it from the outside. A number of observations made during these visits raise concerns, the most serious of which are outlined below.

2.2.1 Arbitrariness of detention
Even though none of the detention centres visited is officially classified as a prison, the conditions under which they operate are undoubtedly prison-like.(48) Detainees are not allowed access to the outside, apart from exceptional occasions (e.g. for medical emergencies, when they are transferred under police escort to the nearest hospital). Access of outsiders to the centres is severely restricted: of all the civil society organizations that Amnesty International met with during its visit to Greece, only UNHCR reported unfettered access, while the Greek Council for Refugees reported that visits of its representatives to the centres had been allowed only after prior permission had been secured by the central police authorities in Athens. No other NGO claimed to have visited the centres, despite reports (for example, from the Greek Helsinki Monitor) of repeated requests for permission. Amnesty International understands that local lawyers are generally allowed to visit detainees only if they provide the names and details of the specific detainees. This practice adheres to the regulations guiding prison visits. However, in some instances, lawyers claimed that they had been denied access to the detainees, even after having provided these details.

The organization’s primary concerns about detention at these centres relate to the grounds on which detainees are held. According to the authorities, the detainees held at the centres are detained on charges of illegal entry into the country, after they had been arrested (usually at the border or in towns and villages close to the border). The maximum period of detention is three months. The organization understands that this maximum period is applied in all but exceptional cases.(49) Officially, this is detention pending expulsion, and upon release, detainees are served deportation orders requiring them to leave the country of their own accord within 15 days. In practice, the vast majority of detainees head for Athens upon release and attempt to regularize their status there. In light of the problems highlighted in the previous chapter regarding access at border regions to the asylum process, it appears that a large number of detainees at these centres in fact file asylum applications in Athens subsequent to their release. Officers at border detention centres are aware of this trend and have stated that they sometimes help "vulnerable" detainees including by providing them with tickets to Athens.(50) This suggests that at least some of the detainees may be refugees in need of international protection, and therefore, their detention on charges of illegal entry could be in contravention of Article 31.1 of the Refugee Convention which states that "the Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened… enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence".

Amnesty International’s findings from its visits to the centres further suggest that detainees may in fact be prevented, directly or indirectly, from seeking such protection even while in detention. As exemplified above by the case of the Somali detainees who were falsely given the impression of gaining a "residence permit" upon release, it appears that a considerable number of persons detained had not been adequately informed of the reasons for their detention and about their rights while in detention, i.e. regarding their entitlement to take proceedings before a court on the lawfulness of their detention and to appeal against deportation on human rights or asylum grounds. In addition, Amnesty International is also concerned that once released and issued deportation orders, detainees may be denied the right to appeal against deportation because they are not made aware of the fact that they are required to leave the country.

One factor conducive to this failure to communicate information adequately to detainees regarding their detention appears to be the inadequate interpreting services available. During interviews with detainees and police officers at the centres, the organization’s delegation learnt that most of the interpreting needs in the centres are covered in an ad hoc manner by other detainees who may share a common language with the police officers (e.g. English) and another with the detainee. In addition, the organization is concerned that this lack of information contravenes international law and standards of fair trial, including the provisions of Article 9 of the ICCPR, which require that anyone who has been arrested, charged or detained, who does not adequately understand or speak the language used by the authorities, has the right to be notified in a language they understand what their rights are and how to exercise them, why they have been arrested or detained, and any charges against them. They are also entitled to have an interpreter to help them with the legal proceedings after the arrest, free of charge if necessary. This information is essential to allow the person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention and, if they are charged, to start the preparation of their defence.

The lack of information and communication facilities in detention centres, where irregular entrants are held pending deportation, also limits detainees’ access to lawyers, and the asylum determination procedures. With regard to this, the delegation of Amnesty International noted the absence of any information about refugee protection and ways to access it (e.g. UNHCR leaflets, phone numbers of relevant NGOs) nor any multilingual material providing information about the rights of refugees and migrants in Greece.

This practice is in breach of Article 5(2) of the ECHR that requires States to provide the applicants with information as to the reason for their detention. In a relevant case, of Amuur v. France, involving asylum-seekers held in the transit zone at Paris-Orly airport, the European Court of Human Rights concluded that there was a breach of Article 5 since the French authorities did not provide for legal, humanitarian and social assistance.(51) This practice seems also to fall short of the requirements of Article 35 paragraph 3 of the EU draft directive on asylum procedures, which state that even where border procedures apply, Member States shall ensure that asylum-seekers are immediately informed of their rights and obligations, have access to an interpreter and can consult a legal adviser.

Amnesty International is also concerned about reports regarding repeated detentions. The organization has received information that individuals who have been detained for the maximum period in border areas and have subsequently attempted to file asylum applications in Athens, but have been unable to secure a "red card" (certifying that their application has been received and is being examined), have been arrested by police authorities and placed in detention a second time and for a further three months. One such case is that of M.M. cited in the previous chapter, who was detained both upon entry into Greece in July 2003 and after being arrested in March 2005, while his claim to have his "interrupted" application reconsidered was pending.

2.2.2 Conditions of detention
During the visits to the detention facilities, Amnesty International’s delegates noted a number of concerns about the conditions of detention, which in some cases amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In all of the centres, interviews with detainees as well as local police authorities confirmed that overcrowding remains a serious problem.

As a result, authorities fail to provide living conditions in accordance with international law and standards - such as those outlined in Recommendation (2003)5 of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers to member states on the detention of asylum-seekers. Furthermore, detention under these conditions is in contravention of the general spirit of the EU Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum-seekers. Under this directive, Member States may hold asylum-seekers in detention only under limited circumstances, such as threat to their public order. In any case, they are obliged to ensure "dignified standards of living". Article 7 of the Directive ensures the right to move freely within the territory of the host Member State; Articles 14 and 15 concern the State’s obligations to ensure adequate living conditions and necessary health care respectively; Article 17 provides specific safeguards for vulnerable groups such as pregnant women, elderly and disabled persons, and victims of trauma; Article 19 spells out specific guarantees for unaccompanied minors. The Directive was due to be transposed in national legislation on 6 February 2005. The conditions of detention recorded by Amnesty International’s representatives in these centres are in contravention of all the above-mentioned articles of the Directive.

In some centres detainees reported lack of beds and mattresses. In nearly all of the centres, detainees, as well as their guards, reported health problems - especially scabies – which are exacerbated by lack of hygienic conditions. The limited hot water available for bathing, which was reported by a number of detainees, is another result of overcrowding in the centres, which restricts the ability to observe hygienic practices.

The detention centres of Vrysika, Peplo and Mytilini comprise old building complexes formerly used for other purposes (Vrysika was a former grain warehouse) and converted over the last few years. In all three cases a large building is used as the main detention area, divided into two or three large dormitory rooms, each of which may hold 50 individuals. At the time of the interviews, police directors claimed that a total of around 500 people were being detained in the Thrace area, out of which 313 were detained at Vrysika and around 200 at Peplo (another 17 detainees were reportedly held at the women’s detention centre at Ferres). Each of the dormitory rooms measures around 60m2 (although there is a degree of variability) and has one or two shower and toilet facilities – the detainees are provided with a ration of toiletries upon entry to the centre. Detainees at police stations claimed that they were detained in groups of five to seven in cells measuring 2m by 4m. The centres are staffed by armed guards, who are stationed in separate offices within the complex (e.g. Peplo) or outside the perimeter fence of the centre (e.g. Vrysika). The wards are kept locked apart from when detainees are allowed into the yard. Interviews with detainees at different centres suggest that the length of this time is extremely variable as is the size of the space of the yard. In Vrysika, as in Mytilini, this area is relatively large, while in Peplo it consists of a raised, concrete, covered veranda, fenced with iron bars, which stretches along the length of the wards and is about three to four metres wide. Such overcrowding and lack of facilities fall below international guidelines as set out in the UN’s Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

Even though detainees complained about problems relating to overcrowding, including reporting widespread depression and suicidal tendencies, by far the most urgent problem they emphasized was lack of communication, both with their families and with lawyers. Police officers in charge at the centres confirmed the lack of phone booths inside the detention areas. In some of the centres, such booths were located outside the boundaries of the centre and detainees were occasionally taken out with police escort and allowed to use nearby phone booths. In other cases, however, such booths were unavailable in the vicinity and thus detainees reported that they had been unable to contact their families and relatives since their arrest.

Y.S., an Iraqi national of 24, who had been arrested and detained upon entry into Greece stated:

"there is no phone here and I have not spoken to my parents since I came here… they do not know whether I am dead or alive… my mother has a heart problem, and I have not been able to phone and let her know… we have not died but I wish I had."

He claimed that for the first month of his detention he slept on a carton and that people in his dormitory room had "insects" on their skin. He said that they had nothing to do all day and spent a lot of time playing chess with pieces they had cut out of cardboard.

Caption
View of the detention centre in the area of Pagani, Mytilini island © Amnesty International

Concerns about overcrowding, as well as about poor conditions in detention facilities, were also expressed in November 2004 by the CAT in its conclusions and recommendations (Committee against Torture, Conclusions and Recommendations: Greece, 10 December 2004, Convention against Torture/C/CR/33/2). Similar concerns were also expressed by the CPT in its report published in 2002, regarding conditions of detention in centres for aliens in Athens (Report to the Government of Greece on the visit to Greece carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 23 September to 5 October 2001, Strasbourg, 20 November 2002). In its examination of Greece’s initial report in March 2005, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concern that "undocumented aliens are detained in overcrowded facilities with poor living and sanitary conditions, are not informed of their rights, and lack any effective means of communication with their families and their lawyers", in contravention of Article 10 of the ICCPR. In this respect, the Committee concluded that "the State party should ensure that undocumented aliens are held in facilities with adequate living and sanitary conditions, are informed of their rights, including the right to appeal and to lodge complaints, and are afforded effective means of communication with their families and counsel."

The container used to detain "illegal immigrants" on Chios island (photos taken on 19 April 2005 by protesters) © Refugee Solidarity Committee, Chios

In May 2005 the organization received further reports about conditions in which migrants were being held on the island of Chios. The reports claimed that on 19 April 2005 a number of people who had arrived on the island in previous days were being detained in a metal container in the area near Chios harbour; detention in containers would amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. On this date local human rights activists complained to the authorities about the conditions under which the detainees were being held. The organization was seriously concerned about allegations by the local activists that detention in the container had been practised by the authorities on Chios for some time. Amnesty International wrote to the authorities requesting further information about these reports and assurances that the container would no longer be used to detain people. The organization received no response from the government and instead received further reports in June that migrants had again been detained in the container.

2.2.3 Detention of children
Another main area of concern to the organization is the reported detention of minors, and the authorities’ treatment of unaccompanied minors as adult irregular migrants. In connection with this, the organization had sought to visit the centre on Mytilini to investigate, among other things, reports that in December 2004, a large number of children were found to be detained there, despite legislation that requires minors to be placed under the protection of the "Prosecutor for Minors" (Εισαγγελέας Ανηλίκων). Article 19 of the above-mentioned EU directive on the reception of asylum-seekers requires Member States to ensure the representation of unaccompanied minors by a legal guardian or an organization responsible for the care and well-being of minors, as well as to regularly assess this representation.

.......vijon

[BARAT]

.....vijimi

Since 2003, the Athens-based Greek Helsinki Monitor has reported 14 cases of unaccompanied minors who were detained with adults for three months and subsequently released without the prosecutors for minors being notified and thus without their safety having been secured. The NGO also expressed concern that many minors might have been trafficked after their release as a result of this failure to ensure their protection. In November 2004, the local branch of UNHCR issued a series of guidelines and recommendations to the authorities, which emphasized the prohibition on detaining children set out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 22 and 37). The UNHCR called "on the Greek Government to adapt its national legislation to the EU directive on reception conditions (which contains specific provisions for unaccompanied minors), in particular as regards the appointment of legal guardians". The UNHCR also called on "the Ministries of Public Order, Justice and Health and Social Solidarity, together with the Office of the Ombudsman, to adopt the draft UNHCR guidelines on the treatment of separated children seeking asylum, including the establishment of a system that will ensure their early identification and referral to competent service providers in Greece" (Recommendations 11 and 12).(52) The UNHCR further stated that:

"among 325 unaccompanied/separated children registered as asylum-seekers in 2003, only a few effectively reside and are assisted at reception centres in the country. Only twenty children can be accommodated in the Anogia Centre, operated by the National Youth Foundation, funded by the Ministry of Health and Social Solidarity and recognised as an excellent facility and model of its kind. Furthermore, an increasing number of separated children are not identified as such, are placed in detention, and when released are not referred to any protective institution. The whereabouts of most are thereafter unknown. Gaps in Greek legislation remain on the identification of newly arrived persons (accompanied or unaccompanied) below the age of 18, the appointment of a legal guardian and the search for durable solutions."

In December 2004, following a visit to the Mytilini detention centre by the Greek Council for Refugees, its representatives stated that they had found "186 unaccompanied minors-refugees [detained] in dangerous and illegal conditions, which deny their basic rights, even those relating to their basic protection".(53) Amnesty International expressed concerns about these reports. The organization recalls that such detention contravenes the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Greece has ratified.(54) In particular, Article 22 stipulates that children seeking refugee status should be afforded special protection.(55) In addition, Article 37 of the Convention specifies that the detention and imprisonment of a child should only be practised as a "last resort" and prohibits the arbitrary and unlawful detention of children. Amnesty International opposes the automatic/mandatory detention of minors on account of illegal entry or irregular migration status, and opposes the detention of unaccompanied minors under any circumstance.(56) The organization considers such detention to have detrimental effects on the physical and psychological health of the detainees, to be contrary to the principle of the best interests of the child, and therefore to seriously undermine the obligation of states to protect children within their territories.

During the organization’s visit to Greece, delegates also visited the detention centre of Amygdaleza for women and minors who are awaiting deportation. At the time of the visit, six unaccompanied male minors were detained at the centre. The detainees were held in a special dormitory room in the centre, which was separated from the women’s wing, in prison-like conditions. The dormitory room had no access to the open air and the delegates learnt that because the fenced space available for the detainees’ use could only be accessed from the women’s wing, the minors were never allowed into the open air. One of these detainees(57) showed clear signs of stress: sweaty palms, nervousness (twitching of the fingers), unwillingness to communicate, difficulty concentrating, intermittent crying. The delegation was told by both detainees and guards that the centre is visited by a doctor once in every two weeks and that medical care is available in emergencies. However, psychological support was not offered.(58) The detained minor further claimed that this was the second time he had been detained in Greece, having been detained once upon arrival and then after being arrested in Athens and failing to produce documents confirming his legal stay in Greece (he claimed that he was in fact in possession of a "red card" but had lost it and that the authorities had failed to follow up his claim with the Aliens Department). The minor had allegedly fled his conflict-ridden country, after becoming separated from his parents and had not been able to communicate with them for months. His comments during the interview indicated resignation regarding his future:

"my father told me ‘you have to become a doctor; you must not fight’ –and that’s what I wanted to do; I don’t want anything now. I want to be left alone."

2.2.4 Ill-treatment of women prisoners
In July 2004 the national daily Ta Nea reported that a 13-year-old female victim of trafficking and sexual exploitation had in fact been held in Amygdaleza under deportation orders but was released and placed in a special hostel when an adult inmate alerted the local representatives of Mèdecins sans Frontières to her pregnancy.(59) In light of Amnesty International’s opposition to the detention of unaccompanied minors, the absence of any attempts by the authorities to protect this minor, who was in a particularly vulnerable state, is doubly worrying. The organization has no information about whether an investigation into the circumstances that led to this unlawful detention has been launched.

In addition to its concerns about minors held at Amygdaleza, the organization has also received allegations that some of the male guards in that detention centre may have engaged in practices that violate rules regarding the treatment of prisoners. In particular, the organization received allegations that within the past year, male guards at the centre have entered the women’s dormitory rooms at night, offered alcohol to detainees and demanded sexual favours.(60) The organization has not been informed as to whether any investigations into these allegations were initiated.

In March 2005 a number of local human rights NGOs staged a demonstration outside the centre and called for the centre’s closure due to further allegations of detainees’ ill-treatment including overcrowding, lack of facilities, beatings by police officers and rape. The organization calls on the authorities to investigate them in a through, prompt, and impartial manner that will ensure that if the allegations are substantiated, the perpetrators will be brought to justice and the victims of these violations will be granted full reparation.

The organization is additionally concerned about the provisions available at the centre for children who are detained in the women’s dormitory rooms along with their mothers. Amnesty International considers the detention of vulnerable people, and in particular women with their children, unnecessary and should only take place as a measure of last resort.(61)

2.3 Failure to protect victims of trafficking

Some of the cases outlined above also raise concerns about another aspect of the state’s failure to protect the rights of another particularly vulnerable group of migrants: women and children who are victims of trafficking. In fact, a number of reports received in the last few years claim that a large proportion of the women detainees at Amygdaleza are victims of trafficking. In two cases, the organization has learnt that victims were detained even after they had testified against their traffickers and while judicial proceedings were underway and these were mentioned in its briefing to the UN Human Rights Committee in February 2005. Amnesty International has welcomed new legislation to combat trafficking of human beings and forced prostitution ("economic exploitation of sexual life") (Law 3064/2002), which introduced provisions for the protection of victims willing to testify during the trial. However, the organization remained concerned about the way in which such protection is ensured.

In particular, the organization made reference to four cases in which victims of trafficking and rape (Olga B., Gina M., Kamelia P., and Tatiana A.(62)) have not been accorded state protection during the trial proceedings against the traffickers, despite having received a number of threats. Instead, the organization learnt that two of these victims, Tatiana A. and Kamelia P., have had deportation orders issued against them while trial proceedings were still on-going. The organization notes that while Law 3064/2002 allows for the suspension of such deportation orders by order of the Misdemeanours Prosecutor and approval by the Appeals Prosecutor (Article 12.2), such deportations are not unequivocally prohibited. The organization also expressed concern about the time taken to try cases against persons suspected of involvement in trafficking and the compatibility of this legislation (Law 3064/2002) with legal provisions about statutory limitation. The case of the two trafficking victims mentioned above, Gina M. and Kamelia P., who were minors at the time when the offences were allegedly committed in 1998, was heard by the court in December 2004. By that time, the charges against those suspected of having committed offences of pimping and pandering had been dropped because of the five-year lapse (ruling Ref. No 2252/2203 of the Appeals Council of Athens). Keeping in mind concerns that the organization has previously raised about the length of judicial proceedings in Greece, the organization is concerned that such limitations may hinder access to justice of trafficked victims.

In the case of Olga B., the organization had expressed concerns in 2003 and 2004 about the repeated failures of the court to call the complainant to testify in the trial against a police officer she had accused of raping her in 1998, while she was working in a bar. At the initial stage of the trial, two persons were convicted for trafficking and procurement in 2003 in relation to the victim’s claims, and the police officer was given a two-year suspended sentence for breach of duty for failing to report his knowledge of the trafficking offences. He was eventually acquitted of the rape charges in 2004, in a trial that the complainant attended, on the grounds that the victim had consented to sexual intercourse.(63)

Reports were also received concerning the trafficking of children and the state’s failure to ensure their protection. In particular, Amnesty International expressed concern about the disappearance of 502 children, the vast majority of whom (i.e. at least 457) were foreign, from a state institution that had been charged with their protection. The organization received reports that despite the announcement in 1998 of a programme to protect the rights of street children, 502 children, who had been accommodated in the Aghia Varvara institution in Athens within the framework of a children’s protection programme, went missing between 1998 and 2002.(64) Most of the children were Albanian Roma, who were forced by traffickers to work by begging and selling trinkets on the street. The children had been taken to the Aghia Varvara institution by security police. In March 2004 the Greek Ombudsman issued a report that identified a number of gaps in the design and implementation of the child protection programme, which had resulted in the disappearance of the children.(65) Specifically, the report concluded that the programme had failed to reach its stated goals and thus to ensure that the street children it was targeting would not be subjected to further trafficking and forced labour, primarily because of the absence in the planning stages of regulatory provisions to ensure the success of the programme. The report noted that in the plan of the programme, there had been no provision for any form of extra funding from the state. As a result, the programme lacked from the outset necessary resources, in equipment and personnel, to deal with the specific requirements of the programme. The children were simply collected from the street by police and placed in an institution (Aghia Varvara) that had been operating as a female boarding school since 1948 and which had been under-subscribed. In addition, the authorities had not taken measures to protect the children in the institutions from abduction and had failed, in the absence of provisions in the plan for children above 12 years of age, to observe the age limit set out in the plan. In their recommendations, both the Ombudsman and ‘Terres des Hommes’ emphasized the importance of ensuring the security of minors in institutionalized care and the need for substantial revisions to the existing legislative and policy framework for combating child trafficking. Specifically, the Ombudsman’s report noted that "protection and social care for victims of child trafficking should not be provided through one-off and perhaps even opportunistic programmes, but within the framework of a unified and organized national policy".

Amnesty International has urged the Greek authorities to conduct a thorough, prompt and impartial judicial investigation in order to establish the fate and current whereabouts of the children and to ensure their safety. After a preliminary investigation, on 1 December 2004 the prosecutor pressed felony charges "against anyone involved" in the "abduction of children less than 14 years of age". An investigative judge was assigned to carry out the main investigation. In April 2005 the Greek Ombudsman met with the Albanian Ombudsman and provided him with a list of the missing children. The latter launched an effort to locate them or their families. Amnesty International has since been informed that more than a dozen children were already located in Albania. In addition, an agreement has been drafted between Greek and Albanian authorities regarding cooperation in combating child trafficking between the two countries and providing more effective mechanisms for the protection of unaccompanied children, trafficked children and children at risk of being trafficked.(66)According to information that was published in the Albanian press in August 2005,(67) the Albanian Prosecutor General’s Office addressed their Greek counterpart on five occasions about this case in the last two years, but received no reply.

2.4 Police ill-treatment

In addition to these observations, the delegation of Amnesty International also received a number of complaints about the ill-treatment of migrants by police officers. The most widely publicized incident of such ill-treatment took place in December 2004.

On 13 December 2004 a number of men in plain clothes entered a guesthouse in Athens, where a number of Afghan migrants were staying, identified themselves as police officers and showed the Afghan migrants a photograph of another man who had earlier escaped from police custody in the Agios Panteleimonas police station. The Afghan men stated they knew nothing of the man in the photograph, whereupon the policemen reportedly began to beat them. The police returned to the guesthouse that afternoon and evening, and again after midnight on 14 December and in the afternoon on 15 December. On the day of their last visit, the policemen put the Afghans into one room and allegedly began to punch, kick, and hit them with their truncheons. One policeman allegedly took out his revolver and threatened one of the victims with execution. Following this, the police took two of the men away to the local police station separately and ill-treated them there. One of them reported that the police officers at the station beat him with a piece of rubber on the soles of the feet, threw cold water on him, spat in his mouth and twisted his genitals. The other was a minor, whom the police spotted outside the building at 2pm that day and, pointing a revolver at him, dragged him along the ground and took him to the Agios Panteleimonas police station. The 17-year-old said that they transferred him to the basement and held him there for an hour; that four policemen asked him about the person they were looking for and allegedly beat him severely, threatened him with a gun, undressed him and took photographs with a mobile telephone. During this time they were all laughing and ridiculing him with insults. He said that one of the police officers was giving the orders and the other three were carrying them out. Representatives from Amnesty International and other NGOs, during their visit to the guesthouse in the afternoon of 15 December, saw injuries that the Afghan men say were inflicted by the police. A doctor from the Medical Centre for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Torture examined the Afghan men and considered that the injuries were a result of serious beating with both sharp and blunt instruments. Photographs of the beaten men were released in the press.

At the time, all the Afghan men in question were in the process of seeking asylum in Greece. Very few of them had their "red card", many having preliminary documents, while others, having come from Mytilini after three months’ detention, had not yet been allowed to submit their asylum claims. In addition some had been returned from other European countries in accordance with the Dublin II Regulation and did not have any legal documentation while others had their applications denied. In addition to this ill-treatment, the police also took documentation from three of the Afghan men and failed to return their papers to them. Because of this, and because of the absence of papers for people in the last two categories, many of the victims were in effect "persons without papers" and thus in an extremely vulnerable position. Although they complained to lawyers and activists of ill-treatment by the police officers during these incidents, they refused to file formal complaints or provide evidence of the abuse they had suffered for fear of retribution.

Caption
One of the pictures released in the press showing bruising on the leg of one of the victims © Amnesty International

An internal police investigation was subsequently launched and charges under Article 137 of the Penal Code prohibiting torture were brought against two policemen. The investigation was concluded by May 2005, but the results not made public. At that time, a criminal investigation was still underway. Amnesty International wrote to the authorities urging them to ensure that, if enough evidence was gathered, the suspected perpetrators of these human rights violations should be brought to justice. The organization had also received information that despite the allegations of ill-treatment of a number of minors, the Prosecutor for Minors had not been involved in the investigation.

In a landmark decision in October 2004, the naval court in Chania, Crete, found five Greek coastguard officers guilty of physically and sexually abusing a group of migrants in 2001, under Article 137 of the Penal Code. All the officers received suspended sentences.(68)

In another case the same year, the Judicial Council of the Misdemeanours Court of Athens (Συμβούλιο Πλημμελιοδικών) on 13 October 2004 accepted the Prosecution’s proposal not to refer to trial three police officers, who were accused of ill-treating two migrants of Pakistani origin in Athens in 2000. The incident had been recorded and shown in the news report of a private TV station in Greece in December 2000.(69) The footage showed one police officer beating, punching and swearing at one of the handcuffed migrants, while the other two police officers stood by watching and laughing. The cameraman who recorded the incident also claimed that he had seen a fourth police officer punching the second migrant inside the police car. Following this publicity, Lawyers Without Borders, an NGO, filed a complaint with the Prosecutor of the Misdemeanours Court of Athens against the police officers allegedly responsible for the ill-treatment under Article 137 (§§ 1 and 2) of the Penal Code and a criminal investigation was undertaken. The Judicial Council, in its written decision ruling that the police officers should not be referred to trial, cited evidence from the Prosecution’s proposal which referred to a police officer "beating [one of the migrants] lightly on the back while trying to usher him into the police vehicle", "kicking him without reason in front of the police station without causing damage or endangering his physical integrity", to another police officer "beating him inadvertently, once, on the back of the head, without causing damage or endangering his physical integrity" and to a third police officer "slapping him on the right cheek".

2.5 Excessive use of force and persisting ill-treatment of Albanian nationals

The organization has received a number of further allegations relating to ill-treatment of migrants detained by Greek police. Among these, an exceptionally large number of the alleged victims are Albanian migrants working or seeking work in Greece. Many were arrested by police and military forces operating in border districts as they sought to enter Greece clandestinely on foot by mountain paths. Others were migrants who had found work or seasonal labour, and who were detained in the course of routine checking of documents or in organized police round-ups of irregular migrants (colloquially referred to as "sweeps"), before being forcibly deported (summarily expelled) by the Greek authorities to Albania.(70) In February 2001 the Deputy Ombudsman criticized the summary expulsion of Albanians in the latter circumstances as illegal and humiliating: "When an immigrant has settled in a place, there is a deportation procedure that is regulated by law. Summary expulsion is illegal."(71)

In addition to its concerns about allegations of police ill-treatment, Amnesty International has also raised with the Greek authorities its concerns with regard to several incidents in which Greek law enforcement officials are alleged to have used firearms against unarmed Albanian citizens who had entered Greece clandestinely. Both the above areas of concern have previously been documented in the 2002 joint Amnesty International/ International Helsinki Federation report, Greece: In the Shadow of Impunity – Ill-treatment and the misuse of firearms.

Since the publication of that report, Amnesty International has learned of at least three incidents in which Greek border guards or other police officers allegedly resorted to the use of firearms against Albanian citizens, apparently in violation of international law and standards. Principle 9 of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials prohibits the use of firearms against persons, except "in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life."(72) The organization notes the introduction of new Greek legislation on the use of firearms (Law 3169 of July 2003), which was intended to clarify and limit the circumstances in which law enforcement officials can resort to arms, in line with international law and standards, but it remains concerned about the lack of safeguards guaranteeing the implementation of this legislation.

In the most serious of these incidents, an 18-year-old Albanian national was shot dead by a border guard. Vullnet Bytyçi, from the village of Muç-Has in the Has district of Albania, was shot on the evening of 23 September 2003 while clandestinely crossing the border into Greece together with five other Albanian citizens in search of work. According to official reports the group was observed by three border guards, who called to them to stop. Four members of the group complied, and were arrested, while Vullnet Bytyçi and another man fled. One of the guards fired after them, fatally wounding Vullnet Bytyçi, who was pronounced dead on being admitted to Kastoria hospital the same evening. On 14 October 2003 Amnesty International wrote to the Greek authorities expressing its concern that this incident indicated that border guards might be continuing to use firearms as a means to repel people seeking to enter Greece clandestinely, even in circumstances in which the latter did not present an imminent threat of death or serious injury.

Pavlos Papageorgiadis, the guard in question, was at first charged with "reckless homicide"-- a charge which was subsequently changed to the lesser offence of "manslaughter". Amnesty International wrote again to the authorities on 27 October 2004 and urged them to take all necessary steps to ensure that the proceedings comply with international law and fair trial standards, including that the statements of all witnesses should be thoroughly examined. The organization has since learnt that Vullnet Bytyçi’s parents, as well as crucial witnesses who were with Vullnet Bytyçi on the night of the incident, had not been given permission to enter Greece to attend the trial and give evidence. On 8 June 2005 the Misdemeanours Court of Kastoria found Pavlos Papageorgiadis guilty of manslaughter and sentenced him to a suspended sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment. The Court also convicted in absentia one of the young men who had crossed the border with Vullnet Bytyçi of "illegal entry" and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment suspended for three years and a fine of €1500.

After learning about the fatal shooting of Vullnet Bytyçi from the Albanian media, another Albanian, Gani Rama, a 35-year-old from Mafsheq village, Krujë district, informed the press that some months previously he too had been shot at by Greek police officers.(73) According to his account, he had crossed into Greece clandestinely on 25 May 2003 and two days later, when he was in the area of Veria (northern Greece), Greek police fired at him, wounding him in the arm, after he failed to respond to their call to stop. They then arrested him, and brought him to hospital in Edessa for treatment. He was subsequently convicted by a Greek court of "illegal entry" and given a suspended sentence before being deported to Albania. On 29 September 2003 Gani Rama was medically examined in Tirana by a physician for the Albanian Rehabilitation Centre for Torture and Trauma (ARCT) who confirmed the marks of a bullet wound on his right arm.

The third such incident concerned Çlirim Aliu, aged 30, from Panajë village, Vlorë district, who entered Greece clandestinely in early April 2005. According to his account, "We had nearly reached Trikala … [when] the Greek police noticed us because we had lit a fire beside the railway tracks … we tried to make a run for it, but we didn’t succeed, because the police opened fire. We stopped because they might have killed us. They began to beat us – they punched and kicked us and hit us with their pistol butts. They gave me a violent kick in the stomach and I lost consciousness. .. I don’t know what happened afterwards. When I recovered consciousness I was in [Kalambaka] hospital …and I saw I had a wound in my stomach. From the doctors and some patients in the hospital I learned that the police had brought me urgently to the operating theatre because my stomach was ruptured." When Çlirim Aliu recovered he was returned by Greek police to Albania at Kapshticë border point where on 16 April he made a statement concerning these events which was forwarded to Korçë Prosecutor’s Office. The scar from his stomach operation and some bruises were reportedly still visible.(74)

The type of allegations of police ill-treatment made by Çlirim Aliu repeatedly occur in other reports, indicating that police officers in such circumstances frequently do not restrict themselves to the minimum necessary force required for arrest, but "punish" migrants who have attempted to avoid or otherwise resist arrest by brutally beating them after they have been captured and brought under control – in other words in circumstances in which there is no longer a justification for the use of force.

The cases outlined below are only some of the incidents about which Amnesty International learned between September 2003 and April 2005, generally from reports in the Albanian press. It should be emphasized that these reports were in almost all cases based on written statements which the alleged victims gave to Albanian police and prosecuting authorities at the border after they were forcibly returned by the Greek authorities to Albania.

In the early hours of 15 September 2003 Ligor Halili (aged 43), his brother Mili Halili (41), and a friend Rrahman Pashollari (62), three men from Elbasan district, were returning on foot to Albania from Greece after working for 10 days for a farmer in the area of the Prespa lakes near the border. According to their account, near the village of Microlimni they were confronted by a Greek police patrol (six police officers wearing camouflage uniforms), who ordered them to lie on the ground and began to kick them and beat them brutally with truncheons. They also searched their pockets and confiscated the money they had earned. The three men were then taken to Pili police station where they were held for a few hours before being returned to Albania at Kapshticë border point. After travelling back by bus to Elbasan, Ligor Halili was urgently admitted to hospital complaining of severe stomach pains and nausea. The same day (15 September) he underwent an operation for the removal of a ruptured spleen. (His brother and his friend received first-aid treatment for bruising.) Unusually, the Albanian Foreign Ministry formally protested to the Greek embassy about this incident, and reportedly received assurances that the Greek authorities would identify the police officers allegedly responsible and hold them to account. The incident was also investigated by the Albanian Ombudsperson who in March 2004 reported that the Greek police officers were under investigation. However, Amnesty International has not been informed of the outcome of any such investigation.(75)

Caption
Ligor Halili after the operation he underwent for removal of his ruptured spleen © Albanian Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims

One effect of the above incident was that Albanian border police were ordered to rigorously implement instructions to take statements from any returning nationals who wished to complain about the excessive use of force or ill-treatment in Greece (or who showed clear signs of injury) and to forward these statements to Korçë Prosecutor’s Office. Where appropriate, victims are also provided by the Albanian police or prosecuting authorities with a document authorizing them to receive a medical forensic examination. However, in practice, it seems that this procedure rarely, if ever, leads to an investigation by the Greek authorities, although such cases are reportedly regularly raised by the Albanian police authorities in the border areas at meetings with their Greek counterparts.

The following allegations of ill-treatment were made by a mother, Kozeta Çopani, aged 36 from Tirana. She was arrested early on 17 November 2004 after crossing into Greece together with her two small daughters with the intention of joining relatives already living in Greece. Following her arrest she was taken to Kastoria police station. She claimed that she and her daughters were held in a cell with no heating, next to the communal toilet which was constantly blocked and emitted a suffocating stench. They slept on the floor with only blankets to cover them, and they were not given water or food. She also alleged that a senior officer struck her in the face and kicked her legs when questioning her. Several other police officers present laughed and mocked her. According to her account, the same day she was convicted of "illegal entry" at a trial which lasted some five minutes, at which she was not defended by a lawyer, although an Albanian interpreter was present. On 19 November she and her daughters were forcibly returned to Albania. There she gave a statement to police at Devoll and received a medical forensic examination, which reportedly recorded bruising on her legs.(76)

Reports have also been received of police ill-treatment of Albanian migrants in urban centres. A number of these incidents appear to have taken place following police checks of immigrants’ documents; in some cases it is alleged that the documents presented were in order.

· In November 2003, Shpëtim Shabani, aged 28 from Fier-Shegani, Lushnjë district, was drinking coffee in a bar in Agrinio when three police officers in camouflage uniforms entered, checked his papers, which he says were in order, and then asked him to follow them outside, where they allegedly assaulted him in public view. "They began to hit me with the butts of their guns and to punch and kick me; they knocked me to the ground and continued to beat me without any explanation until a police car came and took me away". He was held for three days at a police station in Oinoi before being forcibly returned to Albania, where he and two other men, Albert Prifti and Vetiak Mane (irregular migrants arrested separately) gave statements to the Albanian police about their ill-treatment in Greece.(77)

· Alfons Cenika, aged 30, a resident of Laç, was forcibly returned to Kapshticë border point on 30 March 2005, where he reported having been severely beaten and injured by Greek police officers. According to his account, he had been working on farms in the area of Larissa when he was stopped by Greek police officers on his way to work and asked for his documents. "I didn’t have a residence permit, but I was in the process of trying to obtain one." He was taken to Karditsa police station: "There I was brutally ill-treated by two Greek police officers – they punched and kicked me and beat me with rubber truncheons until I lost consciousness. When I came to myself I saw that I was in hospital. I wanted to contact my cousin, but they wouldn’t let me. The next day they brought me to Kapshticë." At Kapshticë, Albanian police officers took his statement and photographed his injuries (bruises on his back and chest, arms and legs). He was then taken to hospital in Bilisht for medical examination and treatment.(78)

Other reports received of ill-treatment of Albanian migrants by police suggest that some of these incidents may have been motivated by xenophobia and racism:

· Gurali Dikellari, a 43-year-old father of two from Pogradec, and Besnik Leka, a 19-year-old from Durrës entered Greece clandestinely via Macedonia on the evening of 11 December 2003. According to Gurali Dikellari his Greek documents were in order but his Albanian passport had expired. Not far from Evzoni they and a small group of Moroccans were arrested by Greek police, who ordered them all to lie down and then proceeded to beat and kick them. In an interview to the Albanian media Gurali Dikellari said: "They beat us savagely, telling us ‘You want Greater Albania. You want Cameria.’" Gurali Dikellari momentarily lost consciousness after a particularly sharp blow to the genitals. They were then taken to the local police station where, according to Gurali Dikellari, police checked their records on computers and confirmed that their documents were in order. By the morning Gurali Dikellari had a temperature and was suffering from severe swelling in the genital area. He was taken from the police station to hospital, where he was given tranquilizers after he confirmed that he did not have enough money to pay for an operation. He and Besnik Lika were forcibly returned on 14 December 2003 to Kapshticë border point. They were subsequently examined by a forensic doctor from Korçë who found that Besnik Leka had injuries to a rib and one of his legs. The doctor also recommended that Gurali Dikelari return to Pogradec to be operated on. A surgeon at Pogradec hospital informed the press the following day that Gurali Dikellari had undergone an operation for internal haemorrhaging, an injury resulting from being kicked in the genitals.(79)

· Artan Kaculi, aged 21, from Rushkull village, Durrës district, clandestinely crossed the border into Greece on foot, together with his brother, on the night of 30/31 October 2004. He knew the way well, having previously spent periods of up to 18 months working in Greece. Early in the morning of 31 October he was observed by a Greek police patrol: "I ran into a wood on the outskirts of Florina but the police managed to catch me. They were angry and began to beat me… They punched me, kicked me and beat me with rubber truncheons. I was lying on the ground yelling, but they struck me without mercy. I was frightened they would break my leg or hand, and I curled up into a ball and covered my head with my hands. Perhaps they would have killed me, but by good luck one of their superiors came and told them to stop beating me. They took me to the police cell, where they held me for a night and day… and from Florina police station they took me to Kapshticë [border point]". According to an interview which Artan Kaculi gave to the newspaper Shekulli, as the police officers arrested him, they shouted: "Thrown down your pistol, grenade, whatever you have on you" [he was unarmed], and then struck him, saying: ‘You damned Albanian, we’ll kill you!’. He arrived at Kapshticë on the evening of 1 November 2004, where Albanian police officers, who observed that he was bruised and injured, took a statement from him and drove him to Korçë hospital. After receiving first-aid he returned home, the last section of the journey on foot, despite his injuries, because he did not have the money to pay for transport. He later remarked to Shekulli: "Why did they have to ill-treat me? I’m not a criminal, just a poor guy forced to cross the border to earn his bread. Why did they have to insult me? I’m proud to be Albanian. If they wanted to sentence me for crossing the border illegally, that’s OK." On 5 November 2004, when Artan Kaculi was interviewed by a representative of the Albanian Helsinki Committee (AHC), bruises on his head and parts of his body were still visible, he felt pain when he stood up or sat down and could not use his left arm. He complained that he could not afford to buy medicines.(80)

· On the night of 21 March 2004 Valter Begolli, aged 43, from the village of Menkulas village (Devoll district), near the Greek frontier strayed over the border while looking for his 13-year-old son, who had disappeared some hours previously. Just inside the border he was observed by a Greek border guard patrol who called out to him to stop. He was frightened and tried to run back into Albanian territory, but the patrol set their dogs after him, who attacked and bit him. When the border guards reached him, they called off the dogs, but according to Valter Begoli, they then punched and kicked him, and allegedly forced him to say that Macedonia was Greek. He lost consciousness and was taken first to a police station and then to Kastoria hospital where he remained for two days before being returned to Albania. At home he found his son waiting for him.(81)

· Reshat Bullari, aged 27, from Cengelas village, Peqin district, left for Greece on 25 January 2005 and was reportedly ill-treated by police in Ioannina during a police check. He reported that three police officers dragged him from the car in which he was being driven, beat him, injuring one of his legs, and swore at him, saying "You take us hostage, you’re nationalists".(82) They then took him to the police station where he was held overnight. During the night his leg became very swollen but his requests to see a doctor were apparently ignored. The next day he was forcibly returned to Albania at Kakavijë border point. A driver from Gjirokastër took him to Lushnjë hospital where he received first aid, and from there he was taken by his family to Elbasan for further hospital treatment for injuries to his leg and to a rib.(83)

Other reports of racist violence by police and non-state actors against Albanians were received following a World Cup qualifying football match between the national teams of Albania and Greece on 4 September 2004 in Tirana. According to Albanian press reports, some 60 Albanians were treated for injuries at hospitals in Athens that day.

· Olsi Lako, from Tirana, was allegedly beaten by Greek police after the end of the match which he had been watching at the Albanian Immigrants’ Forum in Athens. According to his account: "the police had blocked the street and didn’t allow people to go into Omonia [Square]. Seeing that the crowd was advancing, the police began to beat those in front. I went to the front and asked the police to stop beating. They stopped. But I made a few more steps and a car suddenly drew up in front of me. Four men got out and began to beat me savagely all over my body. When they stopped, officers from the Special Forces branch arrived and began to beat me. They tore the red jacket(84) I was wearing and tied it around my throat – they nearly strangled me." Although he was injured and bleeding, he was taken to a police station. Later his friends took him to hospital where he reported seeing other Albanians with knife injuries and bruises from beatings.

· Kristo Xhibro alleged: "As soon as the match ended, I and my brother made for Omonia. I had an Albanian flag round my neck; a police officer took it away by force. Other police hit me with truncheons and kicked me. I fell to the ground. The police walked away leaving me to a group of Greeks who beat me without mercy... An ambulance at first did not want to help me, but then took me to the Laiko hospital". Kristo Xhibro reportedly suffered injuries to his face and his two front teeth were broken.

2.6 Conclusion

This chapter outlined a number of concerns raised by Amnesty International in recent years, with national and international bodies, which relate to violations of the rights to life and to physical integrity by law enforcement officials (police officers and military carrying out border duties), perpetrated against migrants. Cases of ill-treatment of Greek citizens were also received but were relatively few in number and have been addressed elsewhere.

According to the report submitted by Greece to the UN Committee against Torture in February 2004,(85) in the period between 1996 and 2000, 163 complaints of ill-treatment were made, out of which 24 (15 per cent) resulted in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions following an internal administrative investigation.

In a report published in July 2004, dealing with the internal administrative investigation of complaints against police officers, the Ombudsman listed 164 cases of complaints lodged with the Ombudsman between 2000 and 2004, 25 of which concerned ill-treatment. Of these cases, 17 (68 per cent) were dismissed after internal investigations concluded that there were no indications of misconduct. Of the rest, three cases were still being investigated while disciplinary sanctions had been imposed in five cases (20 per cent), although in one of these the accused were eventually acquitted on review.(86) The report noted that many of the complaints of ill-treatment referred to the police authorities had been rejected by them as unfounded, although the authenticity of the complaints was supported by their credibility and narrative coherence, and above all by documents and other convincing forms of proof, such as medical certificates from state hospitals, confirming recent injuries, issued shortly after the complainants’ release from police stations.

Among other problems, the report noted a lack of trust by the citizens in the willingness of police authorities to investigate complaints against police officers, which it found justified in the lack of rigour exhibited by investigating police authorities in some of the internal investigations it examined. The report also noted that "not infrequently the conduct of some of the members of the Greek Police goes beyond mere lack of professionalism and clearly enters the domain of activities that are not merely irregular but squarely illegal … e.g. involvement of police officers in ‘protection’ networks, issuing of fake documents, trafficking of foreign women … [as well as] the largely unknown number of incidents of illegal conduct which take place in the course of the daily contact of police officers with citizens – and in violation of the rights of the latter – through various police actions, especially in the form of unjustified resort to measures of physical constraint."

In light of the information presented in this chapter, Amnesty International remains concerned about the authorities’ failure to effectively address human rights violations perpetrated by police officers, by instituting prompt, effective and impartial investigations into allegations of such violations and bringing perpetrators to justice.
3. AN OLYMPIC SHADOW:
VIOLATIONS OF THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS OF THE ROMA

"The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions."
Article 11, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

"States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of… the right to housing."
Article 5, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

"The practice of forced eviction constitutes a gross violation of human rights, in particular the right to adequate housing."
Article 1, UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1993/77

3.1 Background

The previous two chapters documented a series of human rights violations perpetrated by the authorities against asylum-seekers and migrants in Greece. This chapter focuses on the authorities’ failure to respect the economic, social and cultural rights of the Roma, and most importantly the right to adequate housing.

Official documents such as the government’s Integrated Action Plan for the Social Integration of the Roma People (IAP) estimated a Roma population of around 300,000 in Greece, which represented roughly 3.5 per cent of the total population in 1996. The National Commission for Human Rights (NCHR) estimated, in 2001, that around 15 per cent of these (40,000) were tent-dwelling, although this estimate was limited to Greek citizens.(87) The vast majority of the Roma population is Christian (Orthodox), while a group of about 35,000 are members of the officially recognized "Muslim minority" group, protected by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne (see next chapter). The Christian Roma were afforded Greek citizenship in the mid-1970s, having been classified as "aliens of Gypsy descent" prior to that time.(88)

Currently, the IAP is the main policy reference document relating to the authorities’ treatment of the Roma. The plan includes specific guidelines for bettering the living conditions of the tent-dwelling Roma, including "that by the end of 2005 no Greek Roma will be living in tents or makeshift accommodation" (objective 3.c.a, IAP). Alongside concerns about a lack of emphasis in the IAP on creating stopping places for the Roma who choose to follow an itinerant lifestyle, reports received by Amnesty International in recent years concerning forced eviction practices raise further concerns about the impact on human rights of the implementation of these guidelines. Amnesty International understands that in some cases local authorities have expended great efforts in relocating the Roma in prefabricated housing in alternative locations, following their evictions. However, the organization is concerned about the authorities’ failure to adhere to procedures for ensuring evictions do not amount to forced evictions. These procedures include providing adequate warning, meaningful participation in the identification of adequate alternative accommodation, adequate remedies including respect for due process in the determination of eviction notices, and the right to a degree of security of tenure for all irrespective of the "legality" of residence. Moreover, the organization is concerned about reports received that in a number of cases, the residents in the neighbourhood of the proposed sites have exerted pressure on the local authorities to reverse the decision of settling Roma in their area, often making public statements that raised concerns about incitement to racism. Further concerns were subsequently raised about the authorities’ concessions to such pressure, which has resulted in leaving the evicted Romani communities stranded in temporary and inadequate accommodation, sometimes having to bear the financial burden of this resettlement themselves.

Under the ICESCR Greece is obliged to respect the right to adequate housing, including the prohibition on forced evictions, as guaranteed under Article 11(1). Evictions can only occur in exceptional circumstances and must conform to a strict set of criteria set out by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in General Comment No. 7. The criteria require that there must be special justification for an eviction and it should be carried out only after examination of alternatives has shown that no other alternatives are available. In such a case, the affected community should be given adequate notice and an opportunity to contest the grounds for eviction.

The guidelines further require that no one may be left homeless as a result of an eviction and that alternative accommodation must be provided as far as possible in a location near a person’s place of work or education together with reasonable access to essential services. Any eviction must be carried out humanely.

3.2 The legislative framework

In this regard, a major impediment to the authorities’ effectiveness in taking measures against such racist statements has been the lack of legislation that adheres to international standards relating to economic, social and cultural rights, including anti-discrimination legislation. Until recently, anti-discrimination legislation consisted only of Law 927/1979, amended by Laws 1419/1984 and 2910/2001, which criminalizes overtly discriminatory practices on racial, ethnic or religious grounds. The law consists of articles prohibiting incitement of racially / religiously discriminatory activities, expression of racially/religiously offensive ideas, and racial/religious discrimination in the provision of services or goods by private persons.(89) Concerns have been raised about the limitations of this legislation because it does not explicitly provide for racial and ethnic equality. Currently, incidents of discrimination on the basis of this law can be reported to the Ombudsman if the discrimination is perpetrated by state actors, or can be used to initiate criminal proceedings in the case of non-state actors.(90)

Furthermore, Greece’s failure to sign or ratify a number of relevant European treaties poses another difficulty in the protection of Roma rights. Under international law Greece is bound by the European Social Charter and the ICESCR to respect the economic, social and cultural rights of the Roma in its territory. However, a number of treaties containing detailed stipulations regarding the protection of these rights are yet to be ratified. To date, Greece has not signed:

· Protocol 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights Securing Rights and Freedoms Other than Those Already Included in the Convention and the First Protocol Thereto;
· the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages;
· the Council of Europe’s Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings.

It has signed, but not ratified:

· the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities;
· the Revised European Social Charter;
· Protocols 12 and 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights;
· the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime Concerning Criminalisation of Acts of a Racist and Xenophobic Nature Committed Through Computer Systems.

The situation created by these gaps in national legislation on specific provisions protecting the economic, social and cultural rights of minority groups in Greece has an adverse effect particularly on the Roma population. These are furthermore compounded by the authorities’ implementation of specific pieces of national legislation in ways that violate the fundamental human rights of this group. In particular, a Ministerial Decree adopted in 1983 (known as the Sanitary Regulation) concerning itinerant Roma, has been used by the authorities in a number of instances against itinerant and non-itinerant groups of Roma as a way of bringing charges against individuals, making them vulnerable to police arrest, and thus forcing them to relocate to areas outside the jurisdiction of those police departments. It should be noted that in fact this regulation had been amended in 2003 because it was considered to be a discriminatory law.(91) In relation to this representatives of the Greek state explicitly admitted, in the course of the proceedings before the European Committee of Social Rights (see below), that "Regarding the content of the sanitary provision and the obligations attaching to it, the State has never doubted the fact that certain parts of the provision in question could operate after all as a factor of social exclusion… For this reason, it proceeded to the substantial modification of the provision."(92) The reports received by Amnesty International in the last two years suggest that despite this modification, this Law continued to be applied by police authorities in ways that violated the economic, social, and cultural rights of the Roma.

Furthermore, Amnesty International has also received reports of police and judicial authorities having made racist remarks against the Roma in the process of examination of complaints filed by Romani individuals. These reports, outlined below, evidence further the need to review the legislative framework currently in force with a view to introducing new legislation that would guarantee the economic, social and cultural rights of the Roma in compliance with international law and standards, as well as combating the biases that might be held by representatives of state institutions.

3.3 Applying, interpreting, and enforcing International Law

In the last two years, a number of international organizations have expressed concern over Greece’s failure to respect the right to housing of the Roma.

On 11 June 2003, in a letter of urgent appeal, the UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing as a Component of the Right to an Adequate Standard of Living inquired about alleged forced evictions carried out by the municipal authorities against the Roma population living in Aspropygros, near Athens. In the letter, the Special Rapporteur expressed concern about such forced evictions violating international law and standards related to the enjoyment of economic, social, and cultural rights, including access to running water and other essential services.(93) The authorities responded a month later, with a letter providing general information on the housing situation of Roma people in Greece and on the IAP, a policy framework put in place in 1996 to address the serious problems that Greek Roma face regarding health, education, vocational training, social insurance and housing.

In fact, reports of the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) and the Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM) show that many of the Romani groups in Greece have been forcibly evicted from their settlements in the last ten years.(94) In a report on Roma and Sinti rights published in 2003, the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) stated that "Greece is unfortunately a bad example in this field [as one of the]… old member states of the EU, that created the Copenhagen criteria and the Helsinki Guidelines for the new member states, [that] do not comply with these standards in their own country."(95)

The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), in its December 2003 report, expressed concern "over allegations that forcible collective evictions of Roma families have taken place without any resettlement alternative being proposed". It further found "especially alarming reports to the effect that some of these evictions are unlawful and/or are followed by immediate destruction of the camps by bulldozer, despite the fact that all the personal possessions of the families remain there". ECRI recommended "that the Greek authorities maintain and increase their efforts to end all the direct or indirect discrimination suffered by the Roma". It also urged "the Greek authorities to raise the awareness of local authorities, such as municipalities or local administrative agencies, to the need to respect the rights and the culture of the Roma" and "to impose sanctions on municipal councillors who make racist remarks or do not comply with the regulations and decisions that bind them".(96)

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) in its review of Greece’s report in 2004 stated that it was "gravely concerned about numerous reports on the extrajudicial demolition of dwellings and forced evictions of Roma from their settlements by municipal authorities … frequently without payment of adequate compensation or provision of alternative housing".(97) Furthermore, the CESCR recommended that Greece "take measures towards providing for all the Roma, including itinerant and non-Greek Roma, adequate and affordable housing with legal security of tenure, access to safe drinking water, adequate sanitation, electricity and other essential services, and meeting their specific cultural needs". The CESCR also recommended that Roma representatives are included in the assessment of the IAP and requested information "on the practical effects of the implementation of the Plan, as well as its applicability to non-Greek Roma legally residing within the State party's territory".

In June 2005, the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) found, in a landmark decision on a collective complaint (ERRC v. Greece), that the Greek policies with respect to housing and accommodation of Roma violated Article 16 of the European Social Charter.(98) The ECSR had found that the numbers of dwellings of an acceptable quality to meet the needs of settled Roma, and of stopping places for Roma who choose to follow an itinerant lifestyle or who are forced to do so, were insufficient, and that there was evidence of systematic forced eviction of Roma from sites or dwellings occupied by them. The Committee of Ministers, which adopted the decision, found "that Greece has failed to take sufficient measures to improve the living conditions of the Roma and that the measures taken have not yet achieved what is required by the Charter, notably by reason of the insufficient means for constraining local authorities or sanctioning them… [and] that a significant number of Roma are living in conditions that fail to meet minimum standards and therefore the situation is in breach of the obligation to promote the right of families to adequate housing laid down in Article 16 [of the European Social Charter]" (ResChS(2005)11: § 42). The Committee of Ministers also made specific reference to the IAP, noting the authorities’ attempt to reform it in order to ensure more effective coordination between the partners involved, as well as to the Sanitary Regulation, noting that both its original version adopted in 1983 and its amendment of 2003, resulted in the Roma having "an insufficient supply of appropriate camping sites" (§ 46).

The data presented in this chapter focuses on the concerns raised by the organization about forced evictions of Roma groups from two locations near Athens and Patras in 2004 and 2005. The forced evictions appear to have been associated with the country’s preparations for hosting the Summer Olympic Games of 2004 – both locations were Olympic sites and the eviction in the Athens area had taken place prior to the building of Olympic structures on the site.(99) Patras has also been chosen as the cultural capital of Europe for 2006 and urban planning to prepare the city for hosting events around this theme has been underway since 2001. In order to investigate reports received about the forced evictions of Roma from sites in Athens and Patras, Amnesty International’s delegation visited a number of settlements in January 2005. The delegation visited the settlements of Makriyianni and Riganokampos in the area of Patras in southern Greece and the settlements in the areas of Agia Paraskevi, Maroussi, and Aspropyrgos near Athens. In this report, data collected during this research is presented, which focuses on documenting the authorities’ practices of forced eviction and the failure to protect the right to adequate housing of the Roma living in Greece. Subsequent to concerns raised about the cases outlined here, the organization has received information of further eviction orders having been served to Romani inhabitants of the Athens area of Votanikos, which has been proposed as the site for building a new stadium for the Athens football team Panathinaikos, and which will also be the central site in a bid to host the 2012 European Football Championship. According to information received by August 2005, 70 Romani families were threatened with forced eviction in Votanikos in the absence of any offers of alternative accommodation.

Caption
Romani residents of Votanikos area, Athens, threatened with eviction (above) and their dwellings (below). © GHM

3.4 Failure to honour relocation contracts

In July 2004 Amnesty International expressed concern about the failure of local authorities in the area of Athens to honour an agreement they had signed with Roma residents, on the basis of which the latter had agreed to relocate. The organization had learnt that on 1 August 2002, as part of the ongoing preparations in the Athens suburb of Maroussi for the 2004 Olympic Games, the Mayor of Maroussi, and a representative of a group of 50 Romani families, some of whom had been living close to the site for over 30 years, signed an agreement which stipulated that the families would leave their homes on condition they would receive subsidies to help them rent new accommodation. This was to be a temporary measure, as, under the terms of the agreement, the Municipality of Maroussi also undertook to find a plot of land and relocate the Roma in heavy-duty prefabricated houses, while undertaking to work towards their permanent re-housing in houses / apartments.(100) The main motive behind the agreement was the necessity to vacate the plot of land where the Roma had been living, in order for a road to be widened and for a parking lot for the adjacent Olympic stadium to be built.

The agreement, which affected a total of 137 people, guaranteed a monthly payment for each family with payments varying according to family size. Shortly afterwards the families moved into rented accommodation or into accommodation that other members of their wider family group had rented. However, there were reports that by October 2002 they had already begun making complaints that they were not receiving payments, or that the payments were erratic. Some families alleged that they faced discrimination whilst looking for new accommodation and when they did finally find a house to rent they would lose it through lack of funds, caused by the non-punctual payment of the rent subsidies by the Maroussi Municipality. This prompted the Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM), the NGO overseeing developments in the case, to file a criminal complaint report with the Athens Misdemeanours Prosecutor’s Office who ordered the launch of two preliminary inquiries into the allegations.(101) Both Roma and GHM members have been called to testify. Despite this intervention, the families’ persistence, and the interventions of the Greek Ombudsman and of the former Deputy Minister of the Interior, the public authorities had, up to July 2004, failed to honour their commitments, and the competent authorities had failed to intervene, leaving some families unable to afford rent elsewhere. Amnesty International was concerned that the Greek authorities, by forcibly evicting Roma from their settlement and failing to facilitate their move to alternative appropriate accommodation, were violating Article 11 of the ICESCR, as well as the objectives of the IAP.

An example of the effects of these failures on the daily lives of the Roma was provided by the story of Prokopis Nikolaou, one of the evictees, who brought his case to the attention of local organizations. He has two young sons and a baby daughter. To support his family, he sells seasonal fruit and vegetables, holly at Christmas time or scrap metal. Since being evicted from the settlement, he has had to find money every month to cover his share of the rent, water and electricity. He also shared his new house with his mother and father-in-law, his sister-in-law and her two small children, and other friends or relatives in need of a place to stay. Prokopis Nikolaou became a de facto representative of the group of families; with the assistance of GHM he wrote letters to newspapers about their situation, went regularly to the Mayor’s office to fight for the money owed, and has testified before the judicial officer conducting a preliminary inquiry into the issue of non-punctual payments of the subsidies. He has also given numerous interviews to Greek and foreign media, highlighting the problems the Roma face due to the non-implementation of the agreement by the Municipality of Maroussi.

The Mayor has admitted that there have been considerable delays in the payments of the monthly rent subsidies. Thus, according to Amnesty International’s sources, only 14 families had been paid by the beginning of July 2004; the remaining 36 families had not been paid since November 2003. The Municipality argued that the main reason behind these delays was the fact that the Ministry of Interior (which was not a signatory to the agreement) had not provided him with the necessary funds. The Municipality also noted that they should be in a position "soon" to inform the Roma as to the plot of land where they would be relocated. Furthermore, they stated that the Roma should proceed to file applications for a special loan scheme for Greek Roma. The Municipality would reportedly then use the money to build houses for the Roma. The Municipality also undertook to pay off the loans granted to the Roma.

Notwithstanding these commitments, the Mayor of Maroussi reportedly informed the Roma that no further subsidies would be forthcoming until all the families filed loan applications – a condition not included in the initial contract, nor yet approved by the Maroussi Municipal Council and the state Auditor’s Board.(102) The Roma were concerned that were they to shoulder a significant economic burden, the only guarantee they would receive was a document from the Mayor to the effect that the Municipality would pay the loan on their behalf.

....vijon

[BARAT]

vijimi...

Caption
A temporary settlement where Roma evicted from Maroussi are housed (January 2005) © Amnesty International

During a meeting with the affected Romani families in January 2005, Amnesty International was informed that the local authorities of Maroussi had yet to comply with their obligations under the agreement, despite assurances received by the organization as late as September 2004 from the municipality that the problem would "soon" be solved. In particular, the organization was told that payments of subsidies for rent were still due, in January 2005, for the previous eight months and that the families had yet to receive news about the allocation of plots for permanent residence. In addition, the organization was told that only a quarter of the families had been able to secure temporary rented accommodation, and that because of the delayed payment of subsidies, half of these were at that time facing threats by the owners of being forced to leave the houses. As of August 2005, the Municipality of Maroussi had still not informed the Roma as to where they will be relocated.

3.5 Forced evictions of Roma in Patras

In the summers of 2004 and 2005, Amnesty International received information about a series of attempts to forcibly evict, as well as of forced evictions, perpetrated against Romani communities in Patras. The organization has also been in close contact with local NGOs, such as the Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM) and the Coordinated Organizations and Communities for Roma Human Rights in Greece (Συντονιστής Οργανώσεων και Κοινοτήτων για τα Ανθρώπινα Δικαιώματα των Ρομά στην Ελλάδα, SOKADRE), who have been following the attempted and forced evictions.

The tent-dwelling Roma of Patras are Greece’s third largest urban Romani community. They live in the three areas of Riganokampos, Akti Dimeon and Makrigianni. According to the findings of research conducted by the Municipality of Patras in October 2001, there were 15 families of Greek Roma living in Riganokampos, 29 in Akti Dimeon and eight in Makrigianni. Research carried out by the local authorities in 2001 in preparation for the IAP stated that the Roma of Riganokampos and Makrigianni had been settled there for many years, the Roma living in Akti Dimeon were transient and that another 15 to 20 families of Albanian Roma had settled in the area of Riganokampos opposite the Greek Roma settlement, at different points since 1999. An updated document stated that in the summer of 2004, there were 19 families of Greek Roma and 35 families of Albanian Roma living in Riganokampos. The plot of land where the Albanian Roma had settled belongs to the University of Patras, while the plot of land where the Greek Roma built their sheds, opposite the University plot, belongs to the state’s Real Estate Agency (Κτηματική Υπηρεσία Δημοσίου, REA). The head of the Quality Directorate, which is under the Prime Minister’s Office, spoke to local media in January 2004 about the settlement and described it as "the worst of a total of 75 [Roma settlements] scattered around the country", adding that the living conditions there "insult our humanity" and that its inhabitants would soon be resettled in new prefabricated dwellings in another location.(103)

The first recorded forced eviction of the Roma living in Riganokampos took place on 29 August 2001, when two sheds were destroyed. According to the local authorities, the demolition crew was a "cleaning crew" hired by the municipality to clear the area. The Roma residents had not been informed and were thus not able to stop the forced eviction. Soon after the forced eviction, one Romani man died of a heart attack reportedly from the shock of seeing his family’s shed destroyed.

On 17 August 2004 a second forced eviction took place at Riganokampos, targeting only the Albanian Roma settlement. (104) At the time the residents were away employed in seasonal work in other regions of the country. In correspondence with GHM, the authorities argued that this absence indicated that the Roma had resettled elsewhere and that their sheds had been torn down as part of a "cleaning operation" and that these constituted

"concerted action, in cooperation with the Police Directorate of Patras [aiming at] the ousting of Albanian-speaking gypsies who, in addition to the prolongation of the problem [of inhumane living conditions], were illegally in our country and constituted the main source of origin for the street children. 35 families of Albanian speaking gypsies were ousted, the sheds were demolished and the whole area of about 70,000m2 was cleaned up in order to be landscaped, for the benefit of the residents of the area."(105)

Caption
The bulldozing of the Riganokampos settlement on 24 June 2005 © GHM

It is to be noted that the legal owner of the land, i.e. Patras University, had not requested the eviction. According to press reports, the municipality of Patras had informed the Roma about this operation and had in fact issued them with an ultimatum. To Amnesty International’s knowledge, no alternative accommodation had been offered. The Albanian Roma, however, denied that they had been informed of the operation. No documents were provided by the authorities proving that the Roma had been served eviction orders. Eight of these Albanian Romani families proceeded to set up their tents or sheds in two neighbouring settlements (where Greek Roma had already been settled) in the Makrigianni area of Patras. It is noted that another approximately 15 Greek Romani families, permanently residing until then in Akti Dimeon, were relocated to the Makrigianni area, after an agreement with the local authorities.

In its General Comment No. 30 on "Discrimination Against Non-Citizens", the CERD has clarified that states should, "remove obstacles that prevent the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by non-citizens, notably in the areas of education, housing, employment and health" and "guarantee the equal enjoyment of the right to adequate housing for citizens and non-citizens, especially by avoiding segregation in housing and ensuring that housing agencies refrain from engaging in discriminatory practices."

Ever since the Albanian Romani families settled in these two neighbouring settlements in Makrigianni, police officers have been reportedly pressuring them, as well as the Greek Roma residents previously settled there, to leave. On 30 October 2004, a bulldozer, rented by the municipality and escorted by the police, demolished four sheds. The bulldozing crew then forced the other Romani families to dismantle their sheds. According to a municipality of Patras press release dated 4 October 2004, the operation was not aimed against the Albanian Roma as the municipality was not officially aware of their presence there; but rather was concerned the "…removal of Greek Gypsies who are not registered in the municipal rolls of Patras", who should return to the municipalities where they are registered in order to claim benefits. Despite the authorities’ claims that these evictions did not target Albanian Romani residents of Makrigianni, Amnesty International remains concerned about the statement made by the Patras Municipality, in particular that the operation was directly aimed at the forcible eviction of that area’s Greek Roma. This statement suggests that the authorities violated Article 11 of the ICESCR.(106)

In a later attempt to forcibly evict the Romani communities from the Makrigianni area on 14 January 2005 the Prefect of Achaia called upon the Appeals Prosecutor of Patras, as well as the municipality of Patras and the Western Greece Region, to facilitate the clearing of the Makrigianni area in order to address what he claimed was "uncontrolled settlement of athingani [Roma], both Greek and non-Greek". A month later the state’s REA served eviction orders to six families of Greek Roma living there. On 2 March the Prosecutor of Patras held that the Roma should not be allowed to perform any other work (e.g. building of sheds) on the plot of land they were squatting but did not order their eviction. The Roma filed injunctions against the forced eviction and the case was to be heard in September 2005. In addition, the six Romani families were called to present themselves, on 24 May 2005, to the local magistrate in connection with a preliminary investigation allegedly concerning violation of the 1983 Sanitary Regulation.

In June 2005 Amnesty International expressed its concerns after receiving information that 11 of the 20 sheds belonging to Albanian Roma had been levelled.(107) Ten of the sheds were empty at the time because their owners were temporarily employed on the island of Zakynthos, while the other one contained the family's belongings. The local authorities claimed that they had "cleaned up" deserted sheds. However, the Roma present in the area at the time denied the authorities’ allegations that they had been consulted by the "cleaning" crew about which sheds should be torn down. The authorities have not responded to date to these concerns.

The organization was further informed that on 7 June 2005, police visited the settlements of Riganokampos, Makrigianni and Petroto (a locality close to Makrigianni) and informed the residents that the municipality had requested their details (I.D. numbers and family size) in order to proceed with plans to relocate them. The police were reportedly asked and denied that this data would be used in order to bring charges against them. However, during a later contact with SOKADRE, the deputy commander of the 5th Police Station (in charge of the area) stated that 10 Romani families had been informed that charges were being brought against them under the amended 1983 Sanitary Law. These actions are contrary to the above cited ruling of the CECSR in the case of ERRC v. Greece. Two weeks later, on 25 June, representatives of the police and local electricity authority visited the Riganokampos settlement and cut the electricity connections to it. GHM, the NGO monitoring the situation, has expressed concerns that such practices of bringing charges against Romani families were also implemented by the local authorities in the Romani settlements in the Athens region, prior to the residents’ agreement to be relocated in remote locations. According to GHM’s information, the Romani residents of Patras have never been consulted on the authorities’ relocation plans.

Caption
The Greek Roma settlement in Riganokampos, Patras, in January 2005 © Amnesty International

3.6 Racism and discrimination against Roma

In addition to the concerns about the manner in which the forced evictions have been enforced upon the Romani population, without guarantees of alternative accommodation being provided, Amnesty International is also concerned about the persisting pattern of excluding the Roma from consultations in the process through which authorities decide and execute evictions, as well as the process through which they implement relocation policies. In this regard, it is further worrying that residents’ associations, who express racially-biased views about these policies, appear to exert considerable influence on the ways in which such policy is shaped. This consultation process appears to be discriminatory against the Roma on two fronts: both through their exclusion from it, as well as through the authorities’ failure to address practices of non-state actors that appear to be inciting racial discrimination. This section of the report exemplifies this latter concern.

In November 2001 the local daily Peloponissos published a Letter of Protest which bore the signatures of 1200 residents of the area neighbouring the settlement of Riganokampos, from which the Albanian Roma had been forcibly evicted two months previously. The letter referred to the Roma as Athingani(108) and blamed them for breaking into the gardens, desecrating the local cemetery, swearing, and violence. The letter also made reference to "increased pollution" arising from the installation of fresh water facilities in the Roma settlement by the authorities and warned that "any postponement or delay in resolving the problem we face will lead to militant action from the residents of the areas of Eglykada, Perivola, Neo Souli – Riganokampos".(109) In March 2002, Maria Vassilari and Eleftheria Georgopoulou, two Romani women residents and representatives of the Riganokampos settlement, filed a criminal complaint against the signatories to the letter. A year later, the Prosecutor indicted the authors of the Letter and the owner and editor of the newspaper for the public expression of offensive ideas (Law 927/1973) but considered that the Letter of Protest did not constitute incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence under Article 1 of Law 927/1979 as the Romani women claimed. In June 2003 the local Three-Member Misdemeanours Court acquitted the defendants of violating Article 2 of the anti-racist law on the basis that "doubts remained regarding the… intention to offend the complainants by using the expressions referred to in the indictment".(110) During the hearing the judge reportedly made prejudiced comments about the Roma: in response to a comment made by the defence counsel that the Roma commit many crimes, she replied "it is true" and added that there were "currently many cases pending against Roma in the courts of Patras"; furthermore, when one of the complainants stated that the Letter of Protest had offended her, the judge responded "you have to admit though, you Roma do steal".

In a more recent incident, there were reports that on the night of 21 June 2005 a number of persons on motorcycles threw at least one firebomb against the Albanian Roma living in Makrigianni. A complaint was made and the police recorded the incident, but reportedly failed to initiate an investigation (including carrying out an on-site forensic examination and eye-witness interviewing). Romani residents also reported a second attack the following evening, in which firecrackers had been thrown into the settlement by motorcyclists, which the police had similarly failed to investigate. The local police had also reportedly failed to intervene in an incident on 10 January 2005, when a number of people attacked a Romani man outside a local TV station. The station’s crew filmed the incident, documenting the failure of police officers present nearby to intervene.

On 10 June 2004 owners of restaurants and cafes in the central square in Patras sent a letter to their association in which they complained of the "extreme" situation prevailing in the square whereby

"dozens of young athingani beggars … litter [the square] with rubbish… defecate in the children’s playground, in the water fountain and wherever they please. These little beggars, in addition to being exploited, also commit petty thefts at the expense of our customers and try, by blackmailing them with drum-playing, to extract money from them or whatever else they want, in an effort to ‘increase’ their earnings."

The local media later reported that in response to this letter representatives of its signatories met with municipal and police authorities and that it was decided to increase the police patrols at that square among others, which was described as "overrun in the afternoon by athingani", in light of the Olympic Games. In December 2004, GHM filed a criminal complaint on behalf of the Roma against the signatories and authorities for the violation of Law 927/1979 – the police responded that since the prosecutor’s office had ordered these actions there were no grounds for an investigation.(111) Meanwhile the shopkeepers’ organization wrote a second letter to the authorities in May 2005 urging them to clear the square of garbage and bird litter but made no mention of the Roma, who had stopped frequenting the square since the police action the previous year. To date, the authorities have failed to act on this second complaint.

Amnesty International has also received reports of ill-treatment of Romani youths by police authorities(112) and of inadequate access to education for Greek Roma.(113)

3.7 Conclusion

Amnesty International has noted a number of serious concerns regarding Greece’s failure to comply with international human rights law and standards in its practices towards the Romani communities within its territories.(114) These concerns relate to two aspects of international human rights law:
(i) violations of economic, social and cultural rights
(ii) discrimination.

In this regard, the organization was particularly concerned about reports received that the economic, social and cultural rights of particular Roma groups were being violated. In particular, the organization noted that a pattern of targeting Albanian Romani homes for demolition was emerging and in July 2005 urged the Greek authorities to extend the measures for relocating Romani families to those who are not of Greek nationality, particularly to Albanian Roma legally residing in the country.

In addition, the organization called for an investigation into the attacks against the Roma of Riganokampos, noting that through failure to carry out such an investigation, the Greek police were encouraging the attackers in their discrimination against Romani people, particularly against Albanian Roma and that the Greek authorities were further perpetuating the discrimination by failing to comply with their obligations to investigate the allegations against the police.

Based on the information presented in this chapter, Amnesty International believes that the authorities are violating the country’s obligations to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination. The organization is further concerned that the pattern of forced evictions described above are characterized by attempts to force the Roma to vacate their dwellings in the absence of alternative accommodation by charging them with offences under the Sanitary Regulation, which has been deemed discriminatory by State authorities.
4. BETWEEN EXISTENCE AND OBLITERATION:
THE (IN)VISIBILITY OF MINORITY GROUPS

"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching."
Article 18, ICCPR

"State Parties undertake… to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national of ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of… the right to nationality… the right to freedom of opinion and expression."
Article 5, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

4.1 Background

A persisting concern of human rights observers over the last three decades has been the flawed framework guiding the government’s policies on minorities. The basis of this framework is the state’s assertion that "the only officially recognized minority in Greece is the Muslim minority in Thrace", most recently stated in the country’s initial report to the UN Human Rights Committee.(115) Indeed, the "Muslim minority of Thrace" constitutes the only group of Greek citizens who are guaranteed specific rights as members of a minority – these rights were granted under the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.(116) Since then, a number of other groups of Greek citizens have claimed the right to minority protection. The most widely publicized cases have been of groups of individuals living in the region of Florina claiming their right to self-identification as "Macedonians", and members of the aforementioned officially recognized minority group claiming their right to self-identification as "Turks".(117) The Greek state has in response denied the existence of any minorities other than the "Muslim" one within its territory. This dispute has had repercussions on the state’s ability to comply with its obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of individuals adopting political positions that are not in line with the official policy on the matter, most notably the rights to freedom of expression and to freedom of association and assembly.

Amnesty International believes that the existence of a minority is a question of fact to be determined on the basis of reasonable and objective criteria. Whilst there is no internationally accepted definition of a minority, arbitrary distinctions based around recognition or non-recognition are discriminatory, and so states should avoid listing the groups to whom minority rights apply, as these lists tend to be exclusive. Membership of a minority should be by choice, and the subjective element of membership should be retained in order to avoid the forcible assimilation of individuals into groups. In the absence of other criteria, the existence of a minority should be determined by self-identification.(118) In this regard, the Human Rights Committee has stated, in its General Comment 23 that "the existence of an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority in a given State party does not depend upon a decision by the State party but requires to be established by objective criteria".(119)

This part of the report outlines recent developments in this area of human rights practice in Greece. During the last two years, Amnesty International has received information on these issues from locally-based as well as international NGOs, monitoring bodies and individuals belonging to non-officially-recognized minority groups. During the visit of Amnesty International’s delegation to Greece in January 2005, delegates were also in contact with members and representatives of the "Muslim" minority group in Thrace. The organization has also been able to collect information about further violations of human rights, arising from the state’s failure to provide redress to victims of discrimination perpetrated as a result of legislation that has since been withdrawn. These findings are also included in this chapter of the report.

4.2 The non-recognition of minorities

In 1998 the European Court of Human Rights found Greece to be in violation of the right to freedom of association in the case of Sideropoulos and others v. Greece(120) on the basis that Greek courts had refused the application of the complainants to register "the Home of Macedonian Culture" as an NGO.(121) Contrary to the views of the domestic courts that the stated goals of the association threatened public order, the European Court of Human Rights had concluded that "the refusal to register the applicants’ association was disproportionate to the objectives pursued".

Following this decision, the applicants attempted to re-register their association by filing an application with the Single-Member Court of First Instance in Florina in June 2003. On 19 December 2003 the Court rejected the application because of

"the unclear wording of the articles [which] has led to confusion concerning the activities of the association. More specifically, the word ‘Macedonian’ – defining the culture to be preserved – implies that this culture is something particular and self-contained, so that it is not clear whether the word is being used in its historical sense to refer to an integral part of Greek civilisation with its local specificities, or in its geographical sense, in which case it is left undefined which part of the broader region of Macedonia is meant, as its territory took shape after the Balkan Wars. This lack of clarity is not only not removed by the name of the association, which insists on the indiscriminate use of the term, but is in fact exacerbated by the association of this culture with a non-existent language, claimed to be ‘Macedonian’, despite the fact that in the geographical area of Macedonia it is the Greek language which is spoken, except by a small portion of the population, which also speaks – in addition to Greek – an idiom which is essentially Slavic. Thus the confusion caused by the general use of the terms Macedonia and Macedonian, without distinction as to geographical or historical reference – a confusion existing in the mind of the states with which the association will be dealing, in pursuit of its objective through demarches to and collaboration with these states, and in the mind of persons interested in participating in the work of the association in pursuit of this objective – contains a direct danger to public order and provides an opportunity for exploitation by external agents who have tried from time to time, unsuccessfully, to create a historically non-existent ‘Macedonian nation’."(122)

The reasoning of this decision is similar to the reasoning presented to the European Court of Human Rights, which had found Greece to be in violation of Article 11 of the ECHR, relating to the right to freedom of association.

In this sense it would appear that the authorities have failed, through this new decision, both to uphold the provisions of Article 11 of the ECHR, as well as those of Article 53 of the same Convention stating that "the High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the decision of the Court in any case to which they are parties".

In addition to this case, Amnesty International has also been informed that on 11 May 2004, the Single-Member Aridea Criminal Court of First Instance found Archimandrite Nikodimos Tsarknias guilty of establishing and operating a house of worship without the authorization of the local religious and educational authority, as required by Law 1363/1938, and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment. The defence’s argument that Article 1 of this Law, which requires places of worship to be registered with the authorities before they are given permission to operate, contravened Article 9 of the ECHR regarding freedom of religion was rejected.

In 1997 Greece was found guilty of violating the provisions of the ECHR because of the stipulations of Law 1363/1938.(123) Thus, these recent decisions appear to similarly violate both the provisions of the ECHR regarding freedom of religion, and those regarding the treaty obligation to abide by the European Court of Human Rights’ rulings. It should be noted that the National Commission for Human Rights has also expressed the view that the provisions of this Law are contradictory to those of the ECHR.(124)

In a very similar case, on 7 February 2005 the Supreme Court banned the "Turkish Union of Xanthi" on the basis that it poses a threat to public order and national security and that its

"aim is in contradiction with the international treaties signed in Lausanne, as it is attempted openly to present that in Greece (the area of Western Thrace) there is an ethnic Turkish minority, while according to these treaties only the presence of a religious Muslim minority is recognized in the area… The reference to the Turkish identity is not used to denote some remote Turkish origin but a current quality [of the members of the Association] as members of a Turkish minority that would exist in Greece and would pursue the promotion within the Greek state of state interests of a foreign state and specifically Turkey… The appellant [association] with through its insistence in keeping the adjective ‘Turkish’ in the Union’s name, in contradiction to the international treaties mentioned above, not only fails to contribute to the peaceful coexistence amongst the citizens of the area, which is necessary for the general well-being of the two Greek communities, Christian and Muslim, but also raises a non-existent minority problem of ‘Turks’."(125)
The "Turkish Union of Xanthi" association was founded in 1946 and was initially dissolved in 1984, on the basis that it constituted a danger to national security, since which time the case has been examined by the courts.

Amnesty International considers that the failure to lift the ban on such associations’ operations violates international law and standards on the right to freedom of association, and specifically, Article 22 of the ICCPR as well as Article 11 of the ECHR. Despite the fact that the authorities maintain that "the refusal of the denomination of an association which includes the word ‘Turkish’ is not an unconditional one",(126) the fact that no such associations have as yet been given permission to operate in Greece raise further concerns about the failure of the authorities to comply with the obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of members of minorities. These concerns are raised particularly in light of the fact that these judgments concern a recognized minority group, even though the word used to identify it is disputed by the authorities.(127) Thus, there are additional concerns that the decisions are in contravention of Article 2.4 of the UN Declaration on Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, under which "persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain their own associations".(128)

4.3 The failure to address the legacy of discriminatory policies

Another area of concern in relation to the state’s obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of members of minority groups is the failure to provide redress for violations perpetrated under laws that have since been judged to fall short of international human rights law and standards as well as national legislation on non-discrimination.

In this context, the organization is concerned about the continuing denial of the authorities to re-issue citizenship documents to individuals belonging to the Muslim population of western Thrace. According to Article 19 of the Greek Citizenship Code, which was abrogated in 1998, Greek citizens who were not of ethnic Greek origin could have their citizenship withdrawn, if they were believed by the authorities to have immigrated to another country. A number of individuals belonging to the Muslim minority in western Thrace were classified as "non-citizens" (ανιθαγενείς) under the old Article 19 of the Code. They lost their citizenship because they, at some point in their lives, left the country and have to date not been able to regain it. In practice, the application of the old Article 19 of the Citizenship Code was never transparent, and thus resulted in withdrawing citizenship from individuals who had never intended to emigrate. For example, in a number of cases, individuals who had reportedly only travelled to nearby Turkey for a short holiday had their Greek citizenship withdrawn. Furthermore, in most cases, authorities did not take adequate steps to ensure that the individuals concerned were informed of the decision to withdraw their citizenship in time to appeal these decisions, and thus the right to appeal was lost. Some of the people who lost their citizenship under the old Article 19 might still be unaware of it even today. People belonging to the Muslim minority in western Thrace who have lost their citizenship in this way and who have lost their right to appeal are also denied access to state benefits and institutions that other Greek citizens enjoy (e.g. social security benefits, access to specific health care provisions, pension allowances, provision of identification documents, etc.).(129)

While Article 19 of the Citizenship Code was withdrawn in 1998 because it was considered discriminatory, Amnesty International remains concerned that the Greek authorities have to date failed in their obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of persons belonging to the Muslim minority in western Thrace, both by failing to inform those affected of their loss of citizenship in a prompt and effective manner that would secure their right of appeal and by refusing to reconsider the cases of all people who had lost their citizenship under the old Article 19 of the Citizenship Code and to recognize their claims to citizenship.

In a report published in February 2004 by the Ombudsman’s office,(130) the procedure to examine the claim for naturalization of one such "non-citizen" was found to be inadequate. The case concerned a young woman who had applied for naturalization in 1999, along with her parents and her three sisters, upon the withdrawal of the old Article 19 of the Citizenship Code. The family had all lost their citizenship in 1984, when the woman in question was two years of age. While the rest of the family was apparently granted citizenship anew, the applicant was only informed in 2003, that in order for her naturalization application to be examined further, she had to pay the fee of around €1500, levied on aliens applying for naturalization. Yet in a subsequent communication with the Ombudsman, the Ministry of Interior responsible for examining the application stated that the examination of the application had been cancelled because at the time it was filed the applicant was a minor. After examination of the case, the Ombudsman concluded that this reasoning contradicted national legislation which states that married minors (which the young woman in question was, at the time) have a right to pursue activities in order to maintain and improve their personal welfare. In addition, the report also found that the requirement of a fee in order to process the application fell foul of international law and standards as it contravened the provisions of Article 32 of the UN Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, which Greece has ratified. The article states that "the Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of stateless persons. They shall in particular make every effort to expedite naturalization proceedings and to reduce as far as possible the charges and costs of such proceedings."

4.4 Conclusion

In its third report on Greece published in 2004, ECRI encouraged the authorities "to ensure that all groups in Greece, Macedonians and Turks included, could exercise their rights to freedom of association and freedom of expression in accordance with international legal standards", further noting that:

"the Greek authorities are more ready to recognise the existence of minority groups in Greece, such as the Pomaks or the Roma, including the fact that certain members of these groups have a native language other than Greek. However, other groups still encounter difficulties, the Macedonians and Turks for example. Even today, persons wishing to express their Macedonian, Turkish or other identity incur the hostility of the population. They are targets of prejudices and stereotypes, and sometimes face discrimination, especially in the labour market."(131)

This chapter is not exhaustive of the human rights concerns around the issues of minority protection. However, Amnesty International continues to be concerned about the authorities’ failure to address these issues. The organization also continues to receive reports of the authorities’ failure to fully address issues of religious freedom pertaining to the minorities, including the well-publicized controversy over the mufti appointments.(132)

In addition, while the organization welcomes the steps taken to address past violations against minority members arising from discriminatory legislation such as the repeal of the old Article 19 of the Citizenship Code, it is seriously concerned about the violations that victims of such past policies continue to suffer at present.

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion

Throughout this report an interconnecting thread has been the documented failure of the authorities to ensure that persons residing in Greece who are not members of the Greek majority group enjoy the human rights to which they are entitled, whether they be asylum-seekers, migrants or members of minorities. This report has documented the mechanisms that contribute to this failure. Although Amnesty International has also received reports of violations of the rights of members of the majority Greek population, it is of grave concern that such reports were vastly outnumbered by the number of similar violations of the rights of foreigners and members of minorities. There is thus an urgent need for the Greek government to meet its obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of marginalized groups and individuals. In this final chapter, Amnesty International makes recommendations to the Greek authorities, covering the four main areas of human rights violations covered in the report.

5.2 Recommendations regarding the protection of the rights of refugees

Amnesty International has been informed that the Greek government is currently in the process of revising its migration policy. Such revision could have a profound impact not only on migrants’ rights in general, but also on refugee rights in particular. In this regard, the organization recommends that this revision also includes a review of the government’s legislation regarding refugee protection to ensure that:

· Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is ratified;

· the role of experts on refugee protection, such as UNHCR and Lawyers’ Association representatives, in the assessment of asylum applications is enhanced;

· access to free, independent and competent legal advice at all stages of the asylum process is made available, including the provision of trained and independent interpreters in order to enable the lawyer to communicate effectively with the asylum-seeker;

· adequate interpretation facilities, including written information on the asylum procedure in a language which they understand, are made available to applicants throughout the asylum process as well as to detainees in border police stations and detention centres;

· the asylum determination procedure meets international standards of fairness, timeliness and impartiality. In this respect, closer scrutiny of first instance decision-making should be introduced in order to counter the current practice of blanket rejection of applications at first instance;

· the current legislation and its application do not contravene the spirit of the Dublin II Regulation. To this end, the revised legislation should explicitly state that "interruption" of the examination process does not mean rejection. In cases where there is an intent on the part of the Greek authorities to deport individuals outside the EU after readmission from an EU country on the basis of the Dublin II Regulation, this intent to deport should be communicated to the authorities of the third country and the lawyers responsible for the case abroad;

· access to an independent review of asylum applications in the event of negative decisions is available. The scope of this review should cover the substance of the claim so as to ensure effective appeal, with suspensive effect, of negative decisions;

· the legislation includes specific provisions ensuring that unaccompanied minors are offered guidance throughout the asylum determination process by child experts. The minors should be consulted throughout this process. Child welfare agencies should also be notified of impending transfers of unaccompanied minors to their countries of origin.

In addition, measures should be introduced to ensure that legislation is applied in a way that ensures that the protection of the human rights of refugees is upheld, including maintaining respect for the fundamental principle of non-refoulement. To this end:

· a statutory presumption against detention should be introduced as well as mechanisms to ensure that each decision to detain an asylum-seeker is automatically and regularly reviewed as to its lawfulness, necessity and appropriateness by means of a prompt, oral hearing by a court or similar competent independent and impartial body, accompanied by the appropriate provision of legal aid, in line with UNHCR Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers. The detention of vulnerable people who have sought asylum, including minors, torture survivors and pregnant women is prohibited;

· mechanisms should be introduced to monitor border-policing practices and to ensure that refoulement is not practised. These mechanisms should also provide access to full investigation procedures in case of allegations of such practices;

· arrested migrants are informed in a language they understand of their rights upon arrest, including the right to seek asylum. Access to refugee status determination procedures should be available in all regions where migrants are detained;

· police personnel serving in border regions and particularly on the country’s eastern and southern borders should receive thorough training in human rights standards, as well as in the principles and standards of refugee protection in order that they can adequately identify and refer people who are requesting asylum to the appropriate authorities;

· a strict division of tasks is implemented and maintained between border guards and officers involved in refugee status determination procedures;

· medical personnel in the border detention centres should be trained with regard to the specific features of the provision of health care in a detention facility and the particular needs of asylum-seekers, including psychological needs;

· training of law enforcement officials should include training on the use of force, and should be designed to address racist or discriminatory attitudes and behaviour among officers;

· a permanent, independent monitoring and inspection body should be mandated to make regular, unannounced and unrestricted visits to all facilities in which asylum-seekers are detained and to ensure that international and domestic law and standards are adhered to.

Amnesty International calls on the EU Commission responsible for reviewing the application of the Dublin II Regulation to consider the responsibilities of Greece for the refoulement of persons who may have suffered persecution upon return to their countries because they have been denied the right to have their applications re-examined in substance following a decision of "interruption".

Amnesty International also calls on the EU Commission responsible for monitoring the application of the Directive on Reception Conditions to consider the responsibilities of Greece for not providing: adequate living conditions to persons in detention; adequate access to interpreters; and adequate legal assistance.

5.3 Recommendations regarding the protection of the rights of migrants

Amnesty International urges the authorities to review their policies of detaining migrants with a view to ensuring that:

· the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is ratified;

· detention of unaccompanied children is prohibited and there is a presumption against the detention of individuals such as women with children;

· mechanisms are put into place to ensure the right of all migrants to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, including the right to appeal, and compensation is made available to those found to have been unlawfully detained;

· any allegations of racism, ill-treatment and other abuses of those held in detention should be investigated immediately in compliance with relevant international law and standards and those allegedly responsible should be dealt with appropriately by being brought to justice. To this end, mechanisms should be introduced to ensure that detainees have regular access to independent bodies able to process such complaints, including criminal courts;

· a permanent, independent monitoring and inspection body is mandated to make regular, unannounced and unrestricted visits to all facilities in which migrants are confined and to ensure that international and domestic law and standards are adhered to;

· female staff are used in centres where women are housed, in order to ensure the physical protection of women in the centres;

· officers and other staff involved in the running of detention centres "as well as possessing well-developed qualities in the field of inter-personal communication … [are] familiarised with the different cultures of the detainees and at least some of them… have relevant language skills. Further they should be taught to recognize possible symptoms of stress reactions displayed by detained persons (whether post-traumatic or induced by socio-cultural change) and to take appropriate action" (recommendations of the CPT).

Regarding the ill-treatment of migrants, Amnesty International urges the authorities to ensure that:

· thorough, prompt and impartial investigations are carried out into the human rights violations perpetrated against the individuals arrested and detained in the locations mentioned in this report (Amygdaleza, Chios, Crete, Mytilini, Peplo, Soufli and Vrysika);

· thorough, prompt and impartial investigations are carried out into the human rights violations perpetrated against Afghan migrants in December 2004; that if enough evidence is gathered the alleged perpetrators of these violations are brought to justice and that the victims are afforded full reparation, including restitution, compensation, satisfaction, rehabilitation and guarantees of non-repetition;

· thorough, prompt and impartial investigations are carried out into the human rights violations perpetrated against the Albanian migrants mentioned in this report; that, if enough evidence is gathered the alleged perpetrators of these violations are brought to justice and that the victims are afforded full reparation, including restitution, compensation, satisfaction, rehabilitation and guarantees of non-repetition.

5.4 Recommendations regarding the protection of the rights of the Roma

Amnesty International urges the Ministry of Interior to take all necessary measures in liaising with local authorities in order to ensure that:

· a moratorium on evictions is implemented until such time as adequate safeguards are put in place to ensure consistency with international law;

· Romani residents are not forcibly evicted from their dwellings. This implies, inter alia: that no such dwellings are demolished without the residents’ prior knowledge; that Roma who are evicted are resettled in accommodation which is in accordance with their right to an adequate standard of living, as provided by the provisions of the ICCPR, the ICESCR, and the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination; that agreements made with Romani individuals prior to their relocation are fully honoured; and that decision-making processes ensure the meaningful participation of Romani representatives in the search for alternatives to eviction and to their current accommodation;

· stopping places are made available for Roma who choose to be itinerant;

· programmes are set up to combat anti-Roma prejudice among the population at large and within communities neighbouring Romani settlements in particular.

Amnesty International also calls on international bodies such as the Union of European Football Associations, which are assessing Greece’s applications for hosting international events to seek assurances from the authorities that the hosting of events will not be at the expense of the human rights of the residents of areas proposed to be developed.

Amnesty International reiterates ECRI’s recommendation to the authorities to "provide training to police, public officials, Ombudsman, prosecutor and judges with an appreciation of problems of racism against Roma, and the need to verify, on each occasion, whether or not an offence has a racist character in order to take appropriate action." In this regard, the organization also urges:

· police authorities to ensure that racist attacks against Romani individuals perpetrated by non-state actors, as well as complaints of ill-treatment of Roma by police officers, are fully investigated and that if enough evidence is gathered suspected perpetrators are brought to justice;

· the relevant authorities to ensure that Roma, who are migrants from Albania, are not subjected to discriminatory treatment.

5.5 Recommendations regarding the protection of the rights of minorities

Amnesty International urges the authorities to ensure that the provisions of Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the ECHR are fully implemented by:

· ratifying the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which Greece signed in 1997;

· reviewing the legislation currently in place with regard to the operation of non-governmental organizations with a view to safeguarding, in a non-discriminatory way, the rights to freedom of religion, expression and association.

The organization strongly recommends that violations suffered by minority individuals as a result of discriminatory legislation is addressed. This includes:

· ensuring that all of the individuals who, under such legislation have had their citizenship rights withdrawn, are fully informed about the conditions under which these decisions were taken;

· facilitating the naturalization of individuals who have lost their citizenship rights in this way, including by removing relevant fees and by introducing procedures to speed up the naturalization process;

· ensuring that all individuals who have lost their citizenship rights in this way regain access to the full range of social benefits they would be entitled to as Greek citizens.

The organization also calls on the authorities to review the policies relating to the recognition of minorities, specifically with a view to:

· stopping the practice of listing recognized minorities;

· establishing mechanisms to ensure that the government complies with its obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the right to self-identification according to established clear and objective criteria.

********

(1) Greece: In the Shadow of Impunity: Ill-treatment and the Use of Firearms, Amnesty International and International Helsinki Federation joint publication (AI Index: EUR 25/022/2002)

(2) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Committee, Consideration of Reports Submitted by the State Parties Under Article 40 of the Covenant: Initial Report, Greece, 5 April 2004 CCPR/C/GRC/2004/01: 12.

(3) Εντυπωσιακή Μείωση των Αιτήσεων Ασύλου: Τι λένε οι Αριθμοί για την Ελλάδα [Impressive Reduction on Asylum Applications: What the Figures Say About Greece], UNHCR, Greece Press Release, 1 March 2005

(4) UNHCR, "2004 Global Refugee Trends: Over view of Refugee Populations, New Arrivals, Durable Solutions, Asylum-seekers, Stateless and Other persons of concern to UNHCR", 17 June 2005, Population and Geographical Data Section Division of Operational Support, UNHCR, Geneva.

(5) "Why Greece is Not a Safe Host Country for Refugees", Skordas and Sitaropoulos, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2004 (16:1), pp 27, 49.

(6) Στατιστικά Ασύλου για την Ελλάδα (1997-2004) [Asylum Statistics for Greece (1997-2004)], UNHCR, Greece 2005.

(7) UNHCR, Position on important aspects of refugee protection in Greece, November 2004: 4.

(8) The main EU directives/regulations are: (i) Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof, Official Journal n° L 212, 20 July 2001; (ii) Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum -seekers , Official Journal N° L 31, 6 February 2003 (iii) Council Regulation 343/2003/EC of 18 February 2003 Official Journal n° L 50, 25 February 2003; (iv) Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection Brussels, Official Journal n° L 304, 30 September 2004; (v) Amended proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status on 29 April 2004, 8771/04 Asile 33.

(9) UNHCR’s Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees notes in this regard that "a person is a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Convention as soon as he fulfils the criteria contained in the definition. This would necessarily occur prior to the time at which his refugee status is formally determined." UNHCR, Geneva, p. 7.

(10) As an EU member, Greece is bound by the Convention determining the State responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States of the European Communities (the Dublin Convention). This inter-governmental convention has now been replaced by the Council Regulation (EC) n° 343/2003 of 18 February 2003, the so-called "Dublin II Regulation". In order to aid the application of this Convention, member states use the "Eurodac" and the DubliNET systems. Eurodac is a common database where fingerprints of all asylum applicants and apprehended undocumented migrants are contained. DubliNET is an electronic network of transmission channels between the national authorities dealing with asylum applications. The network became operational on 1 September 2003 in the EU Member States and in Norway and Iceland. It allows the national authorities responsible for examining asylum applications to exchange data on asylum applicants in order to determine the responsible Member State.

(11) A report published in 2004 by UNHCR listed 12 such centres, also known as "Reception Centres" in the country, 10 of which were still in operation at the time of publication (Πρακτικές Υποδοχής Αιτούντων Άσυλο στην Ελλάδα με Ιδιαίτερη Έμφαση σε Μητέρες Μόνες, Γυναίκες Μόνες και Παιδιά που έχουν χωριστεί από τις Οικογένιές τους [Reception Practices for Asylum-Seekers in Greece with special emphasis on Single Mothers, Unaccompanied Women, and Children separated from their Families], Tsovili and Voutira, 2004)

(12) Article 4.1 of Law 1975/1991 regulating foreigners’ rights.

(13) The "Green Card" is the third major document in the migrant legalization process, and is given to migrants who are not refugees and who have been granted residence and work permits.

(14) Nicholas Sitaropoulos, "Refugee Welfare in Greece: Towards a Remodelling of the Responsibility-Shifting Paradigm?" in Critical Social Policy 22(3): 436-455, 2004 and Achilleas Skordas, "The case of recognized refugee families in Greece: The ‘undesirable’ integration" in Quarterly on Refugee Problems (AWR-Bulletin) 40(49) Number 4/2002: 210-221.

(15) Eleni Spathana, Νομική Συνδρομή σε Πρόσφυγες και Αιτούντες Άσυλο στην Ελλάδα [Legal Assistance for Refugees and Asylum-Seekers in Greece], Greek Refugee Council, Athens, 2004: 135.

(16) Tsovili and Voutira, ibid.

(17) This limitation has in fact been cited as one of the contributing factors rendering Greece "an unsafe host country" (Skordas and Sitaropoulos, ibid).

(18) Amended proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status on 29 April 2004, 8771/04 Asile 33.

(19) Conclusion No. 8 (XXVIII) of UNHCR’s Executive Committee states that "the [asylum] applicant should receive the necessary guidance as to the procedure to be followed" and that he "should be given the necessary facilities, including the services of a competent interpreter, for submitting his case to the authorities concerned."

(20) http://www.noas.org/Dbase/pub/TheTra...henAsyl3.shtml

(21) Article 5 of this Directive requires states to ensure "that applicants are provided with information on organisations or group of persons that provide specific legal assistance and organisations that might be able to help or inform them concerning the available reception conditions, including health care".

(22) European Court of Human Rights, Twalib v. Greece (application number 42/1997/826/1032), Judgment, 9 June 1998 and Biba v. Greece (application number 33170/96), Judgment, 26 September 2000.

(23) All of the lawyers contacted by Amnesty International in the preparation of this report stated that they work on this basis.

(24) Article 3 of the European Union Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (Dublin II Regulation): "Member States shall examine the application of any third country national who applies at the border or in their territory to any one of them for asylum. The application shall be examined by a single Member State which shall be the one which [according to the criteria of the Regulation is deemed] to be responsible."

(25) Panayiotis N. Papadimitriou and Ioannis F. Papageorgiou, 2005, "The New ‘Dubliners’: Implementation of European Council Regulation 343/2003 (Dublin-II) by the Greek Authorities", Journal of Refugee Studies 18 (3): 312.

(26) Article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention prohibits the imposition of penalties "on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened (…), enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence".

(27) Amnesty International has raised these concerns in its briefing to the UN Human Rights Committee.

(28) In these cases, Amnesty International representatives refused to proceed with the interviews.

(29) Προβλήματα στην Παραλαβή και Εξέταση Αιτημάτων Ασύλου στο Τμήμα Αλλοδαπών Αθηνών [Problems in the Logging and Examination of Asylum Applications in the Athens Alien’s Unit] Report prepared by Andreas Takis, Calliope Stephanaki, and Chrysa Hatzi, Human Rights section, Ombudsman’s Office, June 2005.

(30) UNHCR’s reports suggest that this is in fact a chronic problem, as it was raised in reports in 2002 and 2003 (UNHCR BO for Greece Annual Report on Refugee Protection in Greece in 2001, Athens, April 2002: 4; UNHCR BO for Greece UNHCR Positions on Crucial Issues Relating to Refugee Protection in Greece, Athens, October 2003).

(31) ECRE Country Report 2003: Greece, p.68

(32) Stavropoulou, in Eleftherotypia, 26 July 2004.

(33) Skordas and Sitaropoulos, ibid: 34.

(34) His full details are known to Amnesty International but have been concealed in order to protect his identity in light of the precariousness of his current status in Greece.

(35) Turkey: Call for immediate steps against isolation in "F-Type", AI Index: EUR 44/024/2002; Turkey: "F-Type" prisons - Isolation and allegations of torture and ill-treatment, AI Index: EUR 44/025/2001.

(36) This Centre is explicitly mentioned in PD 61/99 as one of the institutions from which authorities may request information relevant to the claims under consideration.

(37) In a letter addressed to the authorities in August 2004, Amnesty International had stated: "More than one million people have fled rural areas and taken refuge in settlements around towns in Darfur in 2003 and 2004. More than 30,000 people have been killed, thousands of women have been raped, and at least 170,000 people are now living as refugees on the Chad border or inside Chad. The people in the camps in Darfur are among the most vulnerable: they receive less assistance and protection from the international community than the refugees in Chad. They still face serious human rights violations by government forces and the Janjawid militia, including armed attacks and rape. See Too many people killed for no reason (AI Index: AFR 54/008/2004) and At the mercy of Killers - destruction of villages in Darfur (AI Index: AFR 54/072/2004)".

(38) Some of these are armed groups.

(39) This disease is recognized by the World Health Organization and mentioned in its 2004 publication Vitamin and Mineral Requirements in Human Nutrition, 2nd edition. The syndrome is associated with thiamine deficiency.

(40) "Greece: Estimates of the net number of migrants by five-year intervals, 1950 – 2000", Migration Information Source, Migration Policy Institute; original information obtained from UN Population Division (2001) "World Population Prospects: The 2000 Revision" (POP/DB/WPP/Rev) 2000/1/F10 and http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm.

(41) Greece’s initial report to the UN Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/GRC/2004/1).

(42) According to a report published in October 2003 by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) "in Greece, Albanian migrants are mainly employed in low-skilled jobs in agriculture and construction, whereas Poles and Romanians work as skilled manual labourers, Filipinos as domestic workers, Pakistani, Indians, Bangladeshi as unskilled labour in small factories and Africans as small traders and street vendors" (Migrants, Minorities and Employment: Exclusion, Discrimination and Anti-discrimination in 15 Member States of the European Union :36).

(43) Voutira Effie: "Pontic Greeks today: migrants or refugees?", Journal of refugee studies, 4 (4), 1991, p. 400-420 and "Refugees: whose term is it anyway? Emic and etic constructions of ‘refugees’ in Modern Greek" in The Refugee Convention at fifty: a view from forced migration studies (2003), Joanne van Selm, Khoti Kamanga, John Morrison, Aninia Nadig, Sanja Spoljar Vrzina and Loes van Willigen (eds), Lexington Books.

(44) These include the locally-based Greek Helsinki Monitor, and Antigone, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) as well as the Council of Europe’s European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI).

(45) Europe and Central Asia: Summary of Amnesty International's Concerns in the Region January - June 2004 (AI Index: EUR 01/005/2004), Europe and Central Asia: Concerns in Europe and Central Asia: July - December 2003 (AI Index: EUR 01/001/2004), Amnesty International Reports 2004 and 2005.

(46) European Court of Human Rights, Dougoz v. Greece (application number 40907/98), Judgment of 6 March 2001.

(47) Committee against Torture, Conclusions and recommendations: Greece published on 10 December 2004,. (Convention against Torture/C/CR/33/2).

(48) In 2003, the European Economic and Social Committee stated, in its Opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a Community return policy on illegal residents (COM(2002) 564 final), that "there should be a strict prohibition on returnees being held in jails, since illegal immigrants awaiting expulsion are not criminals" (§ 3.5).

(49) In fact, only two out of a total of about 40 individuals with whom representatives of the organization met, who were detained at the time or had at some previous point been detained (in which category the two belonged), reported detention of a shorter period of time.

(50) It is understood that the criteria of such "vulnerability" are inconsistent but the statement in itself suggests that at least some of the detainees may be deemed by their guards as worthy of protection, strengthening the concerns about the lack of access to the asylum process at these locations.

(51) The Court considered that the confinement of asylum-seekers was acceptable under the undeniable sovereign right to control aliens’ entry into and residence in their territory. However, "such confinement, accompanied by suitable safeguards for the persons concerned, is acceptable only in order to enable States to prevent unlawful immigration while complying with their international obligations, particularly under the 1951 Geneva Convention and the ECHR. States’ legitimate concern to foil the increasingly frequent attempts to get round immigration restrictions must not deprive asylum-seekers of the protection afforded by these Conventions", Amuur v. France, (judgment 25 June 1996, application number 19776/92) § 43.

(52) UNHCR Position on Important Aspects of Refugee Protection in Greece, November 2004.

(53) "Και Δεύτερο Κέντρο Υποδοχής Προσφύγων; [A Second Refugee Reception Centre?]", article by Stratis Balaskas in the local daily Empros, 19 January 2005. According to the same article, the local prefect also reported that around 60 women were also being held at the same centre.

(54) Greece has also ratified the Protocol to the Children’s Convention, on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict and has signed but not yet ratified the Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.

(55) Paragraph 1 states that "States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that a child who is seeking refugee status or who is considered a refugee in accordance with applicable international or domestic law and procedures shall, whether unaccompanied or accompanied by his or her parents or by any other person, receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment of applicable rights set forth in the present Convention and in other international human rights or humanitarian instruments to which the said States are Parties" and paragraph 2 states that "for this purpose, States Parties shall provide, as they consider appropriate, co-operation in any efforts by the United Nations and other competent intergovernmental organizations or non-governmental organizations co-operating with the United Nations to protect and assist such a child and to trace the parents or other members of the family of any refugee child in order to obtain information necessary for reunification with his or her family. In cases where no parents or other members of the family can be found, the child shall be accorded the same protection as any other child permanently or temporarily deprived of his or her family environment for any reason, as set forth in the present Convention."

(56) The Working group on Arbitrary Detention has stated that unaccompanied children should never be detained. See Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Report on the Visit of the Working Group to the United Kingdom on the Issue of Immigrants and Asylum-Seekers, E/CN.4/1999/63/Add.3, 18 December 1998.

(57) Identification details have been omitted because of the small number of individuals in this group.

(58) This was also the case for Reception Centres for Asylum-Seekers, where the absence of such support for vulnerable individuals such as single women and children was a major concern in UNHCR’s 2004 report (Tsovili and Voutira, ibid: 9).

(59) Takis Kampylis, "Ενστάσεις [Objections]", Ta Nea, 10 July 2004

(60) Similar claims had been made in previous months by a former detainee in a report prepared for the national television network NET (Kouvaras, Transit, broadcast on NET on 16 November 2004).

(61) United Kingdom: Seeking Asylum is Not a Crime: Detention of People who Have Sought Asylum, AI Index: EUR 45/015/2005.

(62) These details of the victims have been widely publicized in the national press.

(63) Greece: Amnesty International calls for re-trial of police officer acquitted of alleged rape of a Ukrainian woman (AI Index: EUR 25/006/2003) and entries in Europe and Central Asia: Summary of Amnesty International's Concerns in the Region January - June 2004 (AI Index: EUR 01/005/2004), Europe and Central Asia: Concerns in Europe and Central Asia: July - December 2003 (AI Index: EUR 01/001/2004) as well as entries in Amnesty International Reports 2004 and 2005.

(64) These reports were initially publicized by the international NGO ‘Terres des Hommes’ in 2003 (The trafficking of Albanian children in Greece, January 2003). The claims made in this publication, were subsequently investigated by the Greek Ombudsman and the findings published in a report in March 2004.

(65) Υλοποίηση του Προγράμματος: ‘Προστασία και Κοινωνική Φροντίδα των Παιδιών στο Δρόμο’ [Implementation of the Programme ‘Protection and Social Care for the Street Children’] Report by George Moschos, Olga Themeli, Stamatina Poulou and Samantha Stratithaki for the Rights of the Child Department, Ombudsman’s Office, Greece, March 2004.

(66) Draft Cooperation Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Albania and the Government of the Republic of Greece on the protection of unaccompanied children, trafficked children and children at risk of being trafficked.

(67) "Athina si përgjigjet Tiranës për zhdukjen e 300 fëmijëve", Metropol, 31 August 2005.

(68) One of the officers, Stylianos Dandoulakis, was found guilty of sexually abusing a man in the toilet. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison suspended for five years. Constantine Vardakis, who was charged with abetting Dandoulakis, received a 12-month suspended prison sentence. Ioannis Florakis, Ioannis Lefakis and Athanassios Moumtzis, were charged with physically abusing many of the migrants. All three received an 18-month suspended prison sentence.

(69) ‘Alpha’ main news bulletin, 16 December 2000.

(70) This procedure is carried out on the basis of a "Re-admission clause" under a Police Cooperation Agreement beteen Greece and Albania.

(71) Eleftherotypia, 5 February 2001.

(72) UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the Eighth UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in September 1990.

(73) Gazeta Shqiptare, 29 September 2003.

(74) Reports in Gazeta Shiptare and Shekulli of 17 April 2005.

(75) Albanian press reports, interviews carried out by ARCT and by the Albanian Group for Human Rights (AHRG), and the Albanian Ombudsperson’s Annual Report for 2003 presented to parliament in March 2004.

(76) Reports in the Albanian press on 20 and 21 November 2004; interview by the Albanian Helsinki Committee (AHC) on 23 November 2004.

(77) Shekulli, 13 November 2005

(78) Shekulli, 1 April 2005

(79) Koha Jone, Shekulli and Panorama, 16 December 2003; Shekulli, 17 December 2003.

(80) Shekulli, Korrieri, Panorama, 3 November 2004.

(81) Korrieri, Shekulli, Gazeta Shqiptare, Panorama, 26 March 2004.

(82) This is presumably a reference to three incidents in recent years, in which Albanian nationals hijacked buses in Greece. On one occasion (15 December 2004) the hijackers were two Albanian nationals who requested safe passage to Russia in exchange for the travellers in the bus whom they had taken hostage. The hijackers surrendered later that day. Two similar hijackings had also occurred in 1999.

(83) Korrieri, Koha Jone, 2 February 2005

(84) Red is the dominant colour in the Albanian flag.

(85) Convention against Torture/C/61/Add.1

(86) Πειθαρχική – Διοικητική Διερεύνηση Καταγγελιών σε Βάρος Αστυνομικών Υπαλλήλων [Disciplinary – Administrative Inquiry of Complaints Against Police Personnel] Report by Andreas Takis et al, Ombudsman’s Office, July 2004.

(87) The State of Roma in Greece, 29 November 2001 (Research Rapporteur: Lena Divani)

(88) Cleaning Operations: Excluding Roma in Greece, Country Report Series No. 12, ERRC and GHM, April 2003

(89) Ioannis Ktistakis and Nicholas Sitaropoulos, report on Greece to the EU Commission’s Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities Directorate, Anti-Discrimination and Relations with Civil Society Department, Executive Summary: Greece, 22 June 2004.

(90) Ktistakis and Sitaropoulos, ibid.

(91) European Committee of Social Rights, ERRC v. Greece, decision of 8 June 2005. Observations of the Hellenic Government on the substance of the Collective Complaint 15/2003, Doc Ref. No. 70600, Athens, 14 November 2003, at p. 3.

(92) Ministry of Employment and Social Welfare document to the Secretariat of the European Social Charter, Ref. No. 70545, dated 5 November 2004, page 30.

(93) For a summary of this communication see "Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, Miloon Kothari, Addendum: Summary of information transmitted to Governments and replies received" E/CN.4/2005/48/Add.1, published on 17 January 2005.

(94) Cleaning Operations: Excluding Roma in Greece, Country Report Series No. 12, ERRC and GHM, April 2003.

(95) OSCE Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting on Roma and Sinti: Report, Vienna, 10-11 April 2003, p.51.

(96) ECRI, Third Report on Greece Adopted on 5 December 2003, Strasbourg, 8 June 2004, document reference number: CRI (2004) 24.

(97) CESCR, Concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights : Greece, 07/06/2004, E/C.12/1/Add.97.

(98) ECSR, Collective Complaint number 15/2003, ERRC v. Greece, decision adopte by the Committee of Ministers on 8 June 2005, ResChS(2005)11.

(99) Amnesty International report, Greece: Preparing for the Olympic Games: Evicting the Roma (AI Index: EUR 25/004/2004).

(100) It should also be noted that the agreement was not extended to encompass Albanian Roma legally residing in Greece, who some years ago proceeded to set up a settlement next to the one where the Greek Roma were living.

(101) Amnesty International acknowledges GHM’s assistance in providing information relevant to the concerns raised in this section.

(102) Interviews with Roma families, January 2005.

(103) Eleftherotypia, 15 January 2004.

(104) In fact, it has been reported that two Greek Roma families living on the same plot were financially encouraged to reconstruct their sheds in the opposite plot, where the rest of the Greek Roma were located.

(105) Municipality of Patras document, GHM Ref. No. 13/351, 9 September 2004

(106) Following extensive media coverage of the incidents, the Albanian Roma have been allowed to resettle in the two settlements in the Makrigianni area.

(107) Greece: Albanian Roma targeted for evictions and attacks (AI Index: EUR 25/011/2005).

(108) This is a derogatory term used in Greece to refer to the Roma, although not as offensive as γύφτοι.

(109) "Letter of Protest-Denunciation to the Dean of the University of Patras and the Rector’s Council of the University of Patras", Πελοπόνησσος newspaper, 17 January 2001.

(110) Minutes and Decision of the Three Member Misdemeanours Court of Patras, Decision No. 3080/2003.

(111) In addition, Amnesty International has also learnt that in February 2004 the Police Directorate of Achaia had issued a circular entitled "Proposed measures for shop owners in view of the forthcoming carnival festivities", which included advice to shopkeepers "not to exchange money with private citizens, especially Gypsies" (point 4). Following public outcry, the circular was withdrawn; the police apologized and imposed unspecified disciplinary penalties on the police officers involved.

(112) Concerns arising from such reports were raised with the authorities in 2004, specifically regarding the trial of police officers who had allegedly ill-treated two Romani youths in 2001 – see Greece: The alleged ill-treatment of two young Roma, Theodoros Stephanou and Nikos Theodoropoulos, by police on the island of Cephalonia (AI Index: EUR 25/005/2001) and Greece entry in Europe and Central Asia: Summary of Amnesty International's Concerns in the Region January - June 2004 (AI Index: EUR 01/005/2004). A list of 23 cases of Roma ill-treated by the police was compiled by three local organizations in coordination with the World Organization Against Torture (Organisation Mondiale Contre la Torture, OMCT) in October 2004 in a report entitled State Violence in Greece: An Alternative Report to the United Nations Committee against Torture.

(113) For Amnesty International’s concerns regarding access to education see Greece entry in Amnesty International Report 2004.

(114) Greece: Albanian Roma targeted for evictions and attacks (AI Index: EUR 25/011/2005), July 2005.

(115) UN Document CCPR/C/GRC/2004/1, p.165.

(116) This was the Treaty signed on 24 July 1923 that formally ended the first world war, signed between the Allies and Turkey and regulated territorial borders (Articles 1-45), the Ottoman public debt (Articles 46-57) and other matters, among which the compulsory exchange of Muslim and Orthodox populations between Greece and Turkey respectively (Article 142). Annexed to this Treaty was the Convention Concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations, signed earlier, on 30 January 1923, which also designated "The Greek inhabitants of Constantinople" and "The Moslem inhabitants of Western Thrace" in addition to the inhabitants of the islands of Imbros and Tenedos, as groups exempted from the exchange (Article 2 of Convention, Article 14 of Treaty). A number of articles in the Treaty stipulate that the groups exempted from the exchange are to enjoy the same civil and political rights as other citizens, as well as additional protection of their rights in the areas of language and religion (Articles 37-45).

(117) Estimates of the minority population in Thrace suggest a figure of 100,000, roughly half of which are thought to be "Turks", the other half comprising "Pomaks" and "Roma" groups (according to locals as well as official terminology), many members of which, however, classify themselves as "Turks". Estimates of the "Macedonian" population are more divergent: the authorities estimate "Slav-speakers" to be 10,000, while estimates from international Macedonian associations raise the estimate up to 200,000.

(118) The CERD has stated, in its General Recommendation 24 that "a number of states parties recognize the presence on their territory of some national or ethnic groups or indigenous peoples, while disregarding others. Certain criteria should be uniformly applied to all groups, in particular the number of persons concerned, and their being of a race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin different from the majority or from other groups within the population." On this basis, it has declared under its General Recommendation 8 that "having considered reports from states parties concerning information about the ways in which individuals are identified as being members of a particular racial or ethnic group or groups, [CERD] is of the opinion that such identification shall, if no justification exists to the contrary, be based upon self-identification by the individual concerned."

(119) HRC, General Comment No. 23: The rights of minorities (Art. 27): 8 April 94. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5: § 5.2.

(120) European Court of Human Rights, Sideropoulos and others v. Greece (Case number 57/1997/841/1047), Judgment of 10 July 1998.

(121) AI press releases, Greece: Amnesty International welcomes the acquittal of four members of ethnic Macedonian minority party, AI Index: EUR 25/045/1998, Greece: Charges against members of the "Rainbow" party should be dropped, AI Index: EUR 25/044/1998, and Greece: Amnesty International will adopt members of "Rainbow" party as prisoners of conscience in case of imprisonment, AI Index: EUR 25/010/1997.

(122) http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/bhr/engl...ilization.html

(123) European Court of Human Rights, Manoussakis and Others v. Greece [Manoussakis et autres c. Grèce], Judgment of 26 September 1996, 23 E.H.R.R. 387

(124) Sisilianos and Ktistakis, Προτάσεις για Θέματα Θρησκευτικής Ελευθερίας (Ιδίως Ζητήματα Συμμόρφωσης με τις Αποφάσεις του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων [Proposals on Issues of Freedom of Religion (especially relating to matters of alignment with the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights)], NCHR, March 2001.

(125) Motion to the Plenary Session by the Supreme Court Prosecutor Dimitris Linos, 23 September 2004, adopted by the Hellenic Supreme Court, case of "Turkish Union of Xanthi" and Others v. Xanthi Nomarch and the "Panhellenic Federation of Associations in Thrace", decision number 4/2005 of 7 February 2005, para. 9.

(126) 11th Session of the Working Group on Minorities, Statement of the Delegation of the Observer Government of Greece, Permanent Mission of Greece, Geneva, 30 May 2005.

(127) In fact, the HRC’s General Comment on Article 27 (protection of minorities) of the ICCPR states that "the existence of minorities does not depend on the state decision but is to be established by objective criteria; and that non-citizens and even non-permanent residents of state qualify for protection under Article 27".

(128) UN General Assembly resolution 47/135, 18 December 1992.

(129) It should be noted that under the CERD’s General Recommendation 30, these provisions should not be limited to citizens.

(130) Document number 7547.03.2.2

(131) ECRI, Third Report on Greece.

(132) The controversy arose when the authorities arrested and imprisoned Emin Agga, a Muslim cleric and minority member for declaring himself the "mufti of Xanthi". See previous report on this issue Greece: Freedom of religion and expression on trial - the case of Mehmet Emin Aga, Mufti of Xanthi (AI Index: EUR 25/001/2000). The European Court of Human Rights has found Greece in violation of Article 9 of the ECHR (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) – see Agga v. Greece (No. 2) (50776/99) [2002] ECHR 671 (17 October 2002).


AI Index: EUR 25/016/2005 5 October 2005

[BARAT]

Paliakret e policise e te ushtrise jane ne rregull, sepse shteti grek, edhe po te vrasin njerez te paramatosur ne kufi apo edhe nese rrahin per vdekje emigrante hallexhinj, jo vetem qe nuk i denon, por edhe i lavderon. Ne raportin e meposhtem, i cili eshte perseri i AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, jepet nje panorame mbi keta plaikare qe qellojne mbi fukarenj te pafajshem
Greqia e qytetruar?!!??!?!?!?
LOOOOOL
boll u tallet, po lexoni me poshte me mire....

BARAT
----------------------------

24 September 2002

GREECE
Ill-treatment, shootings and impunity

Issued jointly in September 2002 by Amnesty International (AI) and the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF).

In compiling this report Amnesty International (AI) and the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF) have enjoyed the collaboration of the IHF's member committee, Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM), whose reports, research and expertise have been essential to this undertaking. In matters of human rights violations against Roma (members of Romani/Gypsy communities), the work of the Minority Rights Group-Greece (MRG-G), and its reports, often produced jointly with GHM, have also been extensively drawn upon.

Anyone wishing for further details or seeking to take part in AI's campaigning should
consult AI's web-site www.amnesty.org
For GHM and MRG-G background materials (in English and Greek ) to AI/IHF's
report: "Greece: In the shadow of impunity - ill-treatment and the misuse of firearms",
September 2002, see http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/bhr/engl...ackground.html and
http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/bhr/gree...ackground.html
An extensive range of AI materials is available at www.amnesty.org
Materials issued by IHF and its member committees are available at www.ihf-hr.org

Introduction

Two young Romani men arrested at night on the streets of Mesolonghi are beaten with a truncheon and allegedly threatened with rape. After three and a half years, one police officer faces trial: he is acquitted. A 40-year-old man is stopped for a minor traffic offence in Rhodes. He is allegedly kicked till his arm is broken and threatened with a gun. He is refused access to relatives, a lawyer or a doctor. A 16-year-old Albanian boy without proper documents is allegedly beaten and kicked by police; his spleen is ruptured. These and other allegations, often documented by medical evidence, indicate a pattern of ill-treatment by Greek police officers which is sometimes so severe that it amounts to torture.

Abuses by law enforcement officials do not stop at beatings. A young Romani man was shot dead through the back of his head when he failed to stop his car for a police patrol. The police officer who killed him was released on bail after five days in custody and returned to service, provoking riots in the Romani community. An elderly Albanian farm labourer is alleged to have been beaten, then shot in the back, by border guards. He had to have a kidney removed. Other shootings by law enforcement officials indicate excessive use of force or criminal incompetence in the use of firearms.

Abuses such as torture, ill-treatment and unlawful shootings violate both Greek law and international human rights law and standards. Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are absolutely prohibited by international human rights law, which also requires governments to ensure that law enforcement officers use firearms only in situations involving imminent threat of death or serious injury, and only when less extreme measures are insufficient.

The Greek authorities have so far failed to take the necessary steps to ensure that such abuses are not repeated. Prosecutions of police officers and other law enforcement officials accused of these serious human rights violations are rare, and even when they do result in a conviction, the punishment is almost never commensurate with the crime.

This document is a summary of a detailed report: GREECE: In the Shadow of Impunity -- Ill-treatment and the Misuse of Firearms (AI Index: EUR 25/022/2002) issued jointly by Amnesty International (AI) and the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF), in September 2002. The full report documents many individual cases, analyses the concerns they raise, and examines relevant provisions of international human rights law and Greek law. In compiling this report, the reports, research and expertise of the IHF’s member committee, Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM), have been essential and the work of the Minority Rights Group-Greece (MRG-G) has also been drawn upon extensively.

The Greek authorities often claim that Greece has a particular sensitivity to human rights issues. Greece has ratified international human rights treaties, and significant constitutional and legal provisions -- designed to protect human rights -- are in place. In practice, however, Greece has not secured the consistent implementation of these safeguards.

There is a relatively widespread pattern of abuse, in which police ill-treat detainees physically and psychologically to force confessions, to obtain information or to intimidate and punish them. In some cases the ill-treatment amounts to torture. Verbal abuse to intimidate and humiliate detainees is common; at times such abuse is racist or includes sexual threats. The victims include children.

Shootings by police and border guards have sometimes flouted international human rights standards. Police officers have often claimed that their guns fired accidentally, which, if true, points to a level of incompetence that requires immediate attention. On the border with Albania, law enforcement officials are alleged to have shot at unarmed people trying to cross into Greece, in contravention of international human rights standards.

Members of ethnic minorities and immigrants are particularly at risk of human rights violations at the hands of law enforcement officials. Xenophobia and racial profiling have played a part in the abuses suffered by Roma and foreign nationals, who are often undocumented immigrants from Albania, as well as undocumented immigrants and asylum-seekers from the Middle East, Asia and Africa. The marginalized and insecure status of many members of these groups, as well as financial constraints and language obstacles, ensure that few file formal complaints.

Members of the majority Greek population are not spared. They too have alleged, often with strong medical supporting evidence, that they were tortured or otherwise ill-treated by police officers. In most cases, however, they are somewhat better placed to make their complaints known and to initiate legal action to obtain redress.

Greece is legally committed to the absolute prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in all circumstances. The fact that some of the people who have alleged ill-treatment were criminal suspects, or may have committed criminal offences, in no way justifies their ill-treatment or the excessive use of force by police.

Under international human rights law, allegations of torture or ill-treatment and of unlawful killings must be promptly, thoroughly and impartially investigated. Victims or their families must be granted reparation. Judicial and internal police inquiries have been launched into many of the cases documented. However, law enforcement officials have rarely been brought to justice. In the few cases where they have been tried and convicted, their punishment has almost always been nominal, involving a suspended prison sentence.

Official statistics relating to complaints of torture and ill-treatment point to almost total impunity for police officers in such cases. The reasons include: failure to ensure that investigations are prompt, thorough and impartial; police "solidarity" which obstructs the identification of abusers; the lack of legal aid for complainants; unduly protracted judicial proceedings and the tendency of courts to believe the testimony of police officers, even when the victim has powerful opposing evidence. Such impunity encourages the persistence of human rights violations and far outweighs the effect of any verbal exhortations or condemnations by government ministers.

There have, however, been certain encouraging developments. In particular, in the past five years an Ombudsman’s Office and a National Commission for Human Rights have been established. These bodies have taken the authorities to task on specific issues and have provided carefully researched analyses of problems. They have also presented proposals, legislative and practical, for remedying them. Although many of these have not yet been implemented, new laws on the use of firearms by police and police training are reportedly in the pipeline, and anti-racist legislation is being drafted. Draft laws on legal aid and measures to speed up legal proceedings are also reported to be under preparation.

This report contains recommendations for the measures necessary to end torture and ill-treatment, to prevent the unlawful or excessive use of firearms by law enforcement officials, and to ensure that victims obtain redress and reparation. Legislation and government directives can protect human rights only if they are enforced.

The information in this report has come from a variety of sources, primarily victims, court decisions and forensic medical reports, and the press. Other sources include intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working with refugees and immigrants, the Greek Ombudsman’s Office, the National Human Rights Commission and information provided by the Greek authorities.

Torture and ill-treatment

Physical and psychological ill-treatment of detainees by law enforcement officials, generally police officers, is relatively commonplace in Greece. The most frequent allegations are that detainees have been slapped, punched and kicked. In other incidents, truncheons, pistols or rifle butts are alleged to have been used. Some detainees have complained that while in custody they were denied water for many hours. Psychological ill-treatment, consisting of verbal, sometimes racist abuse, and sexual threats, has also been alleged. While in some cases the aim seems to have been to force confessions or other information from detainees, in others police officers appear to have indulged in unwarranted violence simply to assert their authority or to punish and intimidate.

International law

Every act of torture is a crime under international law. The right to freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is enshrined in international treaties which Greece has ratified. These include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The Convention against Torture

In 1988, when it ratified the Convention against Torture, Greece explicitly undertook:

* to prevent torture taking place under any circumstances whatsoever by taking effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures;
* to educate and train law enforcement officials regarding the prohibition of torture;
* to ensure that cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture has been committed are promptly and impartially investigated and that alleged torturers are prosecuted;
* to ensure that victims of torture, or their dependants, have the right to fair and adequate compensation;
* to ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture is not invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against an alleged torturer;
* to review systematically interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of detainees, with a view to preventing torture.



Article 1 of the Convention against Torture defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed, or intimidating him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity".

Greek law

The Greek Constitution prohibits the use of torture and ill-treatment. Since 1984 torture and ill-treatment have also been explicitly proscribed in the Greek Criminal Code. Articles 137A to 137D deal with "Torture and other offences against human dignity".

The main law prohibiting torture and ill-treatment by police is Article 137A, which states: "An official or military officer ... is punished ... if he subjects to torture, during the performance of ... duties, a person who is under his authority with the aim of a) extorting from this person or a third person a confession, testimony, information or statement, or the repudiation or acceptance of a political or other ideology; b) punishing; c) intimidating the person or third persons." The penalty is between three years’ and life imprisonment.

Article 137A is rarely used and is interpreted restrictively. Police officers prosecuted in connection with torture and ill-treatment are more likely to be charged with the lighter offences of "abuse of office", "bodily injury", "threat" or "insult".

Failure to enforce safeguards for detainees

Torture and ill-treatment most commonly take place during arrest or after a person is brought to a police station for questioning. The legal safeguards governing these procedures, and their strict observance, are therefore crucial in preventing abuse.

International human rights standards require people detained in police custody to be granted the following rights: the right to be informed of the reason for arrest and detention; the right to notify a relative or third party of arrest; the right of access to a lawyer and a doctor; and the right to be informed of their rights. These rights are also guaranteed under Greek law.

In practice, legal provisions relating to the rights of detainees, including their right to be informed about their rights, their right to contact family and legal counsel and to be seen by a doctor, are frequently denied or their fulfilment unreasonably delayed.

Photo caption: Lazaros Bekos and Eleftherios Koutropoulos, Romani youths beaten in custody [This photos has been removed for copyright reasons]

Two young Roma, 17-year-old Lazaros Bekos and 18-year-old Eleftherios Koutropoulos, were beaten by police after being arrested in Mesolonghi on 8 May 1998.

Lazaros Bekos was attempting to break into a kiosk while his friend Eleftherios Koutropoulos kept watch. According to Lazaros Bekos: "...plainclothes police officers arrived and hit me on the back of the head with the gun. One of them pushed me to the ground and stamped on me". The two youths were taken to Mesolonghi police station and interrogated separately.

They both allege that they were beaten and threatened with sexual abuse to make them confess to other crimes or to provide information about drug-dealing. Lazaros Bekos said that several police officers beat him with truncheons on his legs, shoulders and neck and that one officer "took an iron bar from under his desk (the one I had used to force the kiosk) and held it to my throat saying he would choke me if I did not tell the truth". He further alleged that a police officer said "‘If you don’t pull your trousers down for me to **** you, you’ll die here’... He pulled at the button and undid it. I buttoned it back up and then [they] beat me ...".

Eleftherios Koutropoulos made similar allegations: "When they beat me I yelled and cried. I also heard Bekos shouting and crying." He further alleged that a police officer had threatened to rape him with a truncheon.

The two say that they were refused permission to call their parents when they arrived at the police station and were not allowed to contact a lawyer. No lawyer was present during their interrogation by police officers.

On 9 May the two were brought before a local public prosecutor, who charged Lazaros Bekos with attempted theft and Eleftherios Koutropoulos as his accomplice, set a date for their trial and ordered their release. (In November 1999 Lazaros Bekos and Eleftherios Koutropoulos were sentenced to 30 and 20 days’ imprisonment respectively, suspended for three years.) They did not complain to the prosecutor about their ill-treatment. According to Lazaros Bekos they had been warned by police "not to say anything or they would send us to prison in Ioannina".

Representatives of GHM and MRG-G took the two youths for a hospital examination and to a forensic medical specialist in Patras. The certificate issued by this specialist recorded injuries inflicted by a "heavy blunt instrument". In the case of Lazaros Bekos these injuries consisted of: "Two 10cm parallel ‘double bruises’ on his skin, dark red (almost black) in colour, on his left shoulder ... extending to the area of his right shoulder." Eleftherios Koutropoulos’ injuries included: "multiple 12cm parallel ‘double bruises’ on his skin, dark red (almost black) in colour on his left shoulder..."

Police officers accused of torture or ill-treatment may be subject to an internal police inquiry, known as the Sworn Administrative Inquiry, as well as to a judicial investigation. Although the two procedures are independent, facts established by a court are taken into account in disciplinary proceedings. Correspondingly, if the administrative inquiry establishes that a criminal offence has been committed, the prosecuting authorities must be duly informed and the findings and conclusions of the administrative inquiry are taken into account during criminal proceedings.

The case was publicized by GHM/MRG-G on 11 May 1998. An internal police inquiry (Sworn Administrative Inquiry) was opened, and completed one year later, on 18 May 1999. It concluded that two police officers, Commander Apostolos Tsikrikas and
Deputy Commander B., had "behaved with exceptional brutality" and should be temporarily suspended from service.

This apparently unambiguous finding was not accepted by the Chief of the Greek Police. On 14 July 1999 an order was issued stating that it had been established that Apostolos Tsikrikas "did not prevent inadmissible and brutal conduct, on the part of his subordinates, against the two detainees". Apostolos Tsikrikas was fined 20,000 drachmas (at the time approximately US$60) and demoted. It appears that no disciplinary measures were taken against the second officer, and the subordinates allegedly responsible for beating the two youths were not identified.

Under Greek law, victims of abuse or their families may file a complaint with the public prosecutor. Public prosecutors are required to institute criminal proceedings (by referring the complaint for investigation) when they receive information concerning an abuse, even if no criminal complaint has been filed. They may first order a preliminary examination (by police) to establish whether a criminal offence has been committed. When the investigation is concluded, the public prosecutor forwards the case to a Judicial Council, a pre-trial panel of judges which rules whether to refer the defendant for trial.
On 13 May 1998 the prosecuting authorities in Patras ordered a preliminary examination into the allegations of ill-treatment made by Lazaros Bekos and Eleftherios Koutropoulos. The two youths were initially apprehensive about filing a criminal complaint against police officers who were still in active service in the area where they lived, but did so in July 1998. On 9 September 1998 they identified Apostolos Tsikrikas and two other officers as their assailants. However, Deputy Commander B. was on attachment to another unit at the time. On 31 August 2000, more than two years after the incident, the public prosecutor sent the case to a Judicial Council, asking for three police officers (Apostolos Tsikrikas and two colleagues) to be sent for trial. In September 2000 the Judicial Council ruled that only Apostolos Tsikrikas should be tried.

On 8 October 2001 Apostolos Tsikrikas was tried by a court in Patras on charges under Article 137A (3) of the Criminal Code, which provides for a prison sentence of three to five years’ imprisonment for offences against human dignity. At the trial Lazaros Bekos’ and Eleftherios Koutropoulos’ lawyer argued that they had been consistent in identifying the defendant as one of the police officers who had beaten them, and that medical evidence and photographs confirmed their injuries. Five police officers testified that Apostolos Tsikrikas had not ill-treated the two youths, and the prosecutor called for Apostolos Tsikrikas to be acquitted. The court found that it had not been proved that the defendant had injured the two youths, and he was acquitted on 9 October 2001.

The case is now being pursued before the European Court of Human Rights.

[BARAT]

vijimi.....

Ilias Hatzidiakos, a 40-year-old (Greek) man, was stopped and booked for a minor traffic offence by two police officers on 6 July 2001 on the island of Rhodes. One of the officers asked to see his vehicle papers. When he failed to produce these documents quickly enough, the police officer started to book him for this offence too. Ilias Hatzidiakos put his hand on the officer’s notebook and asked him to stop.

According to Ilias Hatzidiakos, the officer immobilized, then handcuffed him.

"As soon as they had handcuffed me, they knocked me to the ground and struck my head on the asphalt road. I was injured and bleeding, and they struck my head, but because I was stunned and in pain I was not able to discern whether they were punching me or kicking me."


The police officers took him to Afantos police station, where he says his requests to make a telephone call to his relatives were refused, as were his requests for water. He was put in a cell, and one of the police officers allegedly threatened him with a gun and kicked him.

"I begged him to be careful of my arm because of an earlier operation for a double fracture, but he kicked me in the stomach and then the left arm, resulting in a further fracture. When I realized [what had happened] I told him: ‘You’ve broken my arm, please call a doctor’. While I was writhing in pain, he tried to kick my genitals and bending to avoid the blow I received the kick in my right ribs. Then I thought my end had come ..."


Ilias Hatzidiakos’ sister looked for him at the police station but neither she, nor his lawyer, was allowed to speak to him. Despite their entreaties, the police reportedly refused to let him go to hospital for three hours, until late that night. A medical certificate issued by the hospital records bruises on his forehead, a broken left arm, and abrasions on his chest and stomach.

The police authorities ordered an administrative inquiry and the two police officers concerned were reportedly transferred temporarily. Meanwhile, the Rhodes prosecuting authorities opened a preliminary investigation. On 18 July 2001 Ilias Hatzidiakos filed a criminal complaint against the two police officers on charges of abuse of office, threat, insult and dangerous bodily injury. By the end of June 2002 the judicial investigation had still not been completed.

In August 2001 the administrative inquiry concluded that the two police officers had engaged in a struggle with Ilias Hatzidiakos and by their "inappropriate behaviour" had brought upon themselves, and the Greek Police Force more generally, "unfavourable comments". It recommended that they be punished with a fine, but left the possibility open that if they were subsequently convicted of having caused bodily injuries they might be punished with suspension from service. The final outcome of these disciplinary proceedings is not known to AI/IHF.

Refat Tafili, an Albanian youth with grave internal injuries

Refat Tafili, an undocumented Albanian immigrant aged 16, came to Greece in December 2000, and with the help of a relative found employment. According to his account, at 9.30pm on the evening of 8 February 2001 three plainclothes police officers raided the house in the Aghios Stefanos quarter of Athens where he and some other Albanians were staying.

"I ... was preparing to go to sleep, when the police came. They opened the door and came in. They caught hold of me and took me outside. They pushed me to the ground and began to kick my stomach and legs. They dazzled my eyes with an electric torch and spoke to me in Greek, but I didn’t understand."

Refat Tafili and another Albanian were taken to the police station in Aghios Stefanos and put in a cell. Refat Tafili fell ill, but instead of summoning medical aid, police turned him out onto the street. They did not record the detention and release, or the names of the arresting officers.

Early the next morning his relatives took Refat Tafili to hospital, where he was found to have suffered a double rupture of the spleen, and underwent an emergency operation for its removal. He remained in hospital for just over a week. At 8.30am on 17 February 2001, while his relatives were waiting to collect him, armed police officers arrested Refat Tafili at the hospital and took him to Papagos police station, Athens, to be detained pending expulsion. A relative who protested was also taken to the police station, where he reported the beating which Refat Tafili had suffered on 8 February.

Refat Tafili and his relative were next sent to Police Headquarters in Athens, where they filed a complaint against the three officers who had beaten Refat. The relative was released and Refat Tafili was transferred to Aghia Paraskevi police station, where he identified one of the three officers who had beaten him. Criminal proceedings were initiated against the officer and other unknown police officers. An administrative inquiry was also opened.

Refat Tafili was still weak and in pain; his hospital medical notes had recommended that following his operation particular care be taken to prevent infections. However, he was held in a cramped and allegedly unhygienic cell, together with five adult immigrants. It is alleged that for two days he was denied food, was not permitted visits from a relative, and was allowed to leave the cell to go to the toilet only twice a day. Only after two days was he given the medication he had been prescribed, although not at the prescribed hour.

On 22 February 2001 Refat Tafili was ordered by the Ministry of Public Order to leave the country within 15 days, although his medical notes recommended that he remain under medical supervision for at least two months. However, shortly before his release his health deteriorated. He was taken handcuffed from the police station, with a high fever and internal bleeding, to the Sismanoglio Hospital, where he remained until 5 March. His lawyer filed an appeal against his expulsion, and after an intervention by the Ombudsman, Refat Tafili was granted leave to remain in the country, on exceptional grounds, for a further six months. This leave has since been extended.

Proceedings in this case have been delayed by difficulties in identifying the police officers involved. Refat Tafili was frightened and unwilling to attend an identity parade at Aghios Stefanos police station. This was reportedly because the police officer in charge of the investigation refused to allow him to be accompanied by his lawyer and an interpreter, despite the fact that he was under age, had no parents in Greece, did not speak Greek and was traumatized.

However, by the end of 2001 the administrative inquiry had reportedly concluded that two police officers had committed serious breaches of discipline, and referred them to a Disciplinary Board with the recommendation that one be permanently dismissed and the other suspended from service. In June 2002, however, a press report indicated that one or both might be exonerated.

Criminal proceedings have made less progress. Two police officers are reported to have been charged with grievous bodily injury, and efforts to identify a third police officer continue. Refat Tafili’s family have filed a civil claim on his behalf for damages.

Immigrants and asylum-seekers ill-treated on Crete

On 30 May 2001 a Turkish fishing boat was towed into a harbour in Crete by the Coastal Rescue Service. On board were 164 foreign nationals, mostly Kurds from Turkey, Iraq and Iran, as well as some Turks, Afghans, Pakistanis, Eritreans and Ethiopians. After they disembarked, four Turks were arrested on charges of people-smuggling.

The group of undocumented migrants and asylum-seekers, which included 20 women and 25 children, was held for several days in the old Academy of the Merchant Navy at Souda, Hania. Here, it is alleged, coastguards assaulted and beat many of the men. One member of the group later testified to an investigating judge that a coastguard had raped him with a truncheon.

On 6 June local doctors examined members of the group who alleged that they had been beaten. The doctors observed injuries on at least 16 of them, including bruising, swellings and a ruptured ear drum. Five were referred to hospital for further investigation and treatment.

On 7 June the Greek section of Médecins du Monde (MDM) publicized its concerns about the treatment and conditions of these asylum-seekers and immigrants. The following day the Chief of the Port Authority ordered an administrative inquiry.

The group was shortly afterwards moved to the old airport of Hania. On 10 June they were visited there by two MDM doctors, who examined the injured men and took photographs of their injuries. MDM reported that the group of 164 people was being detained behind bars in a room of 100 to150 square metres, with only three toilets, and no possibility of exercise in the open. Women and children were held together with men. Conditions were further aggravated by the high summer temperatures. MDM offered to provide accommodation for the women and children and by mid-June all members of the group were reported to have been transferred to Athens.

An administrative inquiry concluded that one officer had used violence "in a non-preventative manner" and had concealed the incident, and that five coastguards were guilty of physical or emotional abuse, homophobic denigration, and inflicting a "military-style punishment" (forcing one of the detainees to hop like a rabbit). In November 2001 it was reported that the officer and one coastguard had each been punished with 20 days’ confinement to barracks, and the other coastguards with 30 to 50 days’ imprisonment.

In October 2001 the prosecutor for the Naval Court of Hania ordered criminal proceedings to be started against the five coastguards on charges of offences against human dignity, but no investigation activities were undertaken until May 2002 when an investigating judge summoned three men, who alleged they had been ill-treated, to testify as witnesses. In July 2002 they testified to an investigating judge of the Naval Court of Piraeus.

Shootings by Law Enforcement Officials

Towards the end of 2001 two young men, a Rom and an Albanian immigrant, were shot dead (in separate incidents) by police officers who said that their guns had fired accidentally. These were by no means the first cases in which this explanation had been used by the Greek police. In other incidents, border guards and soldiers on border duties are alleged to have fired at and wounded, in at least one case fatally, unarmed Albanians trying to enter the country illegally. In addition, coastguards are reported to have shot at boats transporting undocumented immigrants to Greece.

Law enforcement officials are at times obliged to make split-second decisions in complex and dangerous circumstances. However, the Greek police and other law enforcement officials appear to have used firearms in contravention of international standards on a number of occasions. According to the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, firearms should be used with restraint as a last resort and only in situations involving imminent threat of death or serious injury, and when less extreme measures are insufficient. They can be used with intent to kill only when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.

The lethal use of force in contravention of these Principles amounts to arbitrary deprivation of life, while the non-lethal use may amount to torture or cruel or degrading treatment or punishment. The rights to life, to freedom from torture and ill-treatment and to security of the person are enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a legally binding treaty which Greece has ratified.

Greek law on the use of firearms

The use of firearms by law enforcement officials in Greece is primarily regulated by a law dating back to 1943, when Greece was under German occupation. Article 1 of Law 29/1943 lists a wide range of circumstances in which a police officer may use firearms "... to enforce the laws, decrees and decisions of the competent Authorities or to disperse public gatherings or suppress mutinies ... without [bearing] any responsibility for the consequences".

Law 29/1943 has rightly been criticized as defective by the Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, senior Greek police officers, trade unions representing Greek police employees and the National Commission for Human Rights. In February 2002 the Minister of Public Order announced that a new law would shortly be enacted, which would "safeguard citizens against the thoughtless use of police weapons, but would also safeguard police officers who will know better when they can use them". In April 2002 two draft laws -- on the use of firearms by police and on police training -- were reported to have been prepared by a committee of experts, but by the end of June these laws had not yet been published or adopted.

Marinos Christopoulos, a Rom shot dead in his car

A police officer shot and killed Marinos Christopoulos, a 21-year-old Rom, with a single bullet through the back of his head on 24 October 2001 in Zefyri, Attica. He had failed to stop the car he was driving when a police patrol signalled to him to pull over. The police officer was arrested and charged with reckless homicide and unlawful use of weapons. He was released on bail five days later and was returned to service, although transferred to another department. His release provoked protest and rioting in the Romani quarter of Zefyri.

The police officer told the investigating judge that Marinos Christopoulos had attempted to run him down and that while trying to avoid the vehicle he accidentally pulled the trigger after he lost his balance and stumbled.

However, in March 2002 an administrative inquiry concluded that the police officer "acting instinctively, placed his right hand on his pistol, which he wore on his belt, took it out, pointed it towards the car which was driving away, and fired once in that direction, in order to halt its advance". The inquiry referred the police officer to a Disciplinary Board. It recommended his dismissal from service, on the grounds that he had fired a shot at the car to immobilize it, while being aware of, and accepting, the possibility that this action might kill the driver, thereby committing reckless homicide. At the end of January 2002 the judicial investigation had been completed, but by the end of June 2002 the case had not been forwarded to a Judicial Council for a decision as to whether the police officer should stand trial.


Ferhat Çeka, an elderly Albanian shot near the border

Since 1991 Ferhat Çeka, aged 67, has supplemented his meagre pension and supported his family in Tirana, the Albanian capital, by spending several months each year working on farms in Greece. In March 2002 he set out once again. According to his account, on the evening of 8 March he crossed clandestinely into Greece, where, alone and unarmed, he was apprehended by soldiers close to the military outpost of Aghia Ioanna. According to his account, he was first beaten and then shot at close range.


"At about 6.30pm, I ... began to climb the mountainside ... When I reached the top I took a path through the forest. I had not gone more than 300 metres when I heard a dog; the dog sprang at me and caught me by the sleeve of my jacket. Then I heard soldiers shout: ‘Halt!’ I answered: ‘Yes!’ I did not try to flee and did nothing to suggest to the soldiers that I wished to run away. On the contrary, I obeyed their orders.

"The soldiers called to me from a distance and I replied that I was alone. They came and searched me, called off the dog, and took away everything I had on me ... They [then] told me to lie face down on the ground. When I did this, they began to kick me and beat me with their rifle-butts on my side, back and shoulders. I said: ‘Please, I’m an old man, please don’t hit me’. They yelled: ‘Don’t say a word unless we ask you questions’.

"After they had well and truly beaten me, two soldiers (there was a third soldier who stood at a distance of some 12 to 15 metres and did not approach) told me

to get up. With difficulty I got to my feet. The two soldiers who had beaten me withdrew some five metres and said something to each other in a low voice. I did not understand or hear what they were saying. But after this conversation, one of them approached me from behind with a pistol in his hand and said: ‘Walk on ahead’, and as I raised my right foot to take the first step, he shot me with the pistol, and again told me to walk on. But I told him to shoot me in the head and finish me off. ... As I lay wounded on the ground, they said to me: ‘Now run off to Albania’."


Ferhat Çeka was taken to hospital in Kastoria, where he underwent an operation which removed his right kidney and part of his liver.

"On my ninth day in hospital I was questioned by an officer ... They gave me to sign what they had written without reading or translating it. I signed it because I was still in their hands and very frightened. I know Greek a bit, but only spoken Greek. I can’t read or write in Greek."


Ferhat Çeka was discharged on 21 March 2002 and returned to Albania, where he had further medical treatment. A medical report issued in Tirana confirmed his injuries and noted that he was suffering from anxiety and depression. "He recalls these events in detail ... he has nightmares, and cries out in his sleep."

In March 2002 the Greek military authorities initiated an administrative inquiry into this incident. The results of this inquiry, which had concluded in early May, were not made public but were forwarded to higher military authorities. The case was subsequently referred to the Military Prosecutor of Thessaloniki, but by mid-July the latter had not yet decided whether to initiate criminal proceedings.

Impunity: a systems failure

One of the main factors behind the persistence of human rights abuses is impunity: the failure of the authorities to bring those responsible to justice. In Greece, prosecutions for torture and ill-treatment are rare, time-consuming and almost invariably unsuccessful or end in derisory penalties.

According to official figures issued in May 2001, in the period from 1996 to 2000 not a single police officer was convicted of torture or ill-treatment. During this period, 163 administrative inquiries were opened in response to complaints of ill-treatment. The outcome of these inquiries was that 121 complaints were dismissed, 24 police officers received (unspecified) disciplinary sanctions and 18 cases were pending. In 52 cases criminal investigations were started, 18 of which ended in the officer being acquitted or the case dismissed; the remaining 34 cases were pending.

During 2001, there were two trials of police officers charged with torture and ill-treatment, or causing bodily injury (offences committed while on duty). In the first a court acquitted a police officer of ill-treating Lazaros Bekos and Eleftherios Koutropoulos (see above). In the second an appeal court confirmed the conviction of a police officer on charges of causing dangerous bodily injury to Melpo Koronaiou (see below), but reduced his 30-month prison sentence to a suspended 15-month prison sentence.

There appear to be no official statistics on the prosecution of law enforcement officials in connection with deaths or injuries arising out of the unlawful use of firearms. Of some five cases in which police officers were referred to judicial councils or to trial in the period from the beginning of 2000 to the end of the first half of June 2002, three police officers were convicted of manslaughter. Two of them received suspended prison sentences, while the third has appealed against a sentence of four and a half years’ imprisonment; two other cases never got as far as a trial. In the same period no border guards or soldiers are known to have been indicted in connection with shootings on the border.

There are many factors that lie behind the failure to bring to justice law enforcement officials who are suspected of committing human rights abuses. Investigations, even when formally launched with due promptness, are rarely carried out promptly. Some are less than thorough. Thoroughness and impartiality are also undermined when investigations fail to ensure that victims or witnesses are provided, where necessary, with professional interpreters.

Under the Convention against Torture, Greece is obliged to ensure that "...its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction", and that "... any individual ... has the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities".

Similar requirements are set out in the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, which apply also to situations where death results from "excessive or illegal use of force by a public official..."(Principle 1). They also require "... a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation ..." (Principle 9).

In Greece, police officers accused of serious human rights violations may be subject to an internal police inquiry, known as the Sworn Administrative Inquiry, as well as to a judicial investigation. Although the two procedures are independent, their results may influence each other.

The Sworn Administrative Inquiry is carried out by a single police officer, and its proceedings are confidential. Although its findings are subject to review by higher police authorities, the alleged victim cannot appeal against its findings. This procedure does not guarantee impartiality, independence and thoroughness. Moreover, even when such an inquiry has concluded that the allegations made against a police officer were founded and that he should be dismissed from service, this recommendation can be set aside on review. In practice the sanctions finally imposed on police officers are rarely more than a fine, temporary suspension from service or demotion. In addition, the authorities have often failed to suspend police officers from duty pending an investigation.

Although prosecutors are required by law to start proceedings if they receive information concerning the commission of a "punishable act", victims of torture or ill-treatment have complained that they do not always do so or that they are slow to order an investigation or request a forensic medical examination. Delays of this kind can result in the loss of key evidence, for under Greek law a victim of torture or ill-treatment does not have direct access to examination by forensic services.

For example, Arnesto Nesto, an undocumented Albanian immigrant arrested on 15 April 2002 after a police pursuit, alleged that police punched, kicked and beat him during his arrest and later in Megara Police Station while interrogating him.

On 18 April 2002 he was brought before a prosecutor in Athens to whom he allegedly showed his injuries and complained of the ill-treatment he had suffered. The prosecutor did not order an investigation into these allegations or request a court order for his forensic examination.

The same day Arnesto Nesto was also brought before an investigating judge. According to his lawyer, Arnesto Nesto’s injuries were plainly visible: he had bruises on his face, his hands and his feet, and his clothes were blood-stained. He told the judge: "At Megara police station, they beat me, they beat me, they beat me and I didn’t open my mouth. They beat me before I gave a statement and when I gave it. When I say that I didn’t open my mouth I mean that the police officers were forcing me to say things which I hadn’t done."

In a written submission he asked to be examined by a competent forensic medical expert. The investigating judge reportedly did not respond to this request. Arnesto Nesto was remanded in custody for investigation on charges which include attempted murder, robbery and unlawful possession and use of arms.

Justice deferred

The Greek judicial system suffers from a chronic lack of personnel and poor conditions. The courts are overburdened and it can take several years or more to bring a case to trial, and even longer to reach an irreversible court decision. Even in the very few cases where police officers are convicted of abuses, extremely protracted judicial proceedings (and the nominal sentences generally imposed) deprive the trials and convictions of much of their exemplary or deterrent effect.

The case of Melpo Koronaiou

Torture and ill-treatment often taken place in isolation, and victims may find it difficult or impossible to support their complaints with convincing evidence. However, even in a rare case such as the following, where medical evidence is backed up by photographs of the incident and the testimony of two lawyers who saw it happen, the system can fail to deliver prompt and impartial justice.

On 14 April 1995, left-wing groups in Athens held a demonstration protesting against a knife attack by an alleged far-right extremist a few days earlier. Two young men had been wounded, one of them almost fatally, in the incident. The protest ended in clashes between demonstrators and anti-riot police; at least eight demonstrators later required hospital treatment. Several police officers were also reported to have been injured.

Melpo Koronaiou, a worker and trade unionist, who was at the rear of the demonstration, was surrounded in Patission Street by several uniformed riot police officers and one plainclothes police officer. She stated:

"Despite the fact that I was alone, unarmed and that my back was turned towards them, the police officers ... attacked me violently without any reason. They surrounded me and started to kick me and beat me with truncheons all over my body until I collapsed on the pavement. Even then they did not stop - on the contrary, [the plainclothes officer] continued with even greater violence to kick my head and face despite the fact that I was completely defenceless and overpowered."


Melpo Koronaiou alleged that the other police officers did nothing to stop their colleague, who left her only when he saw her blood seeping onto the pavement. She remained there, unconscious and bleeding, for about 40 minutes until an ambulance arrived.

Unusually, this incident was recorded by a photographer, and two lawyers observed the incident from the balcony of their office. Photographs were published in the newspaper Eleftherotypia on 18 and 19 April 1995. These, together with the testimony of the two lawyers, led to criminal proceedings being started against the plainclothes police officer, Vasilis Athanasopoulos.

The doctors who examined Melpo Koronaiou recorded bruises on her face and various parts of her body and a triple fracture of the jawbones and chin. As a result of these injuries Melpo Koronaiou was unable to speak for two weeks, and for almost a year she experienced difficulties in eating and speaking.

On 20 April the Minister of Public Order ordered an administrative inquiry and Vasilis Athanasopoulos was temporarily suspended from service. In the course of the inquiry, 40 people testified, all but two of them police officers. The two were Melpo Koronaiou herself, while still in hospital, and one of the lawyers who had seen the incident, whose repeated telephone calls eventually persuaded the officer in charge of the inquiry to take her statement. Her colleague was reportedly not called to testify, nor, it appears, were any of the numerous other witnesses - demonstrators and journalists - present at the scene.

The administrative inquiry was completed on 3 May 1995. Melpo Koronaiou’s lawyers asked for access to the case file and the inquiry’s findings. Neither the statements of those questioned, nor the forensic medical report, were ever made available to her lawyers.

It was only in February 1998 that her lawyers received, via the Prosecutor’s Office, the conclusion of the officer in charge of the inquiry. This document listed only the witnesses and documents examined and concluded: "The police officer is pictured attempting, or having attempted, to kick the injured party, without proving, however, that he did so." In view of the fact that Vasilis Athanasopoulos’ actions had "given rise to unfavourable comments against him, the Service and the Police Force generally" the officer recommended his suspension from service for three months. (It is not clear whether this recommendation was accepted or indeed whether Vasilis Athanasopoulos was ever given a disciplinary punishment.)

Later, at his trial, Vasilis Athanasopoulos reportedly stated: "The deputy commander, who carried out the inquiry, said that he had to give me a punishment or there would be a public outcry." Vasilis Athanasopoulos is said to have subsequently been promoted.

Melpo Koronaiou lodged a criminal complaint on 1 June 1995 against Vasilis Athanasopoulos, whom she accused of causing her dangerous bodily injury, and against other, unnamed, officers who had also assaulted her. The prosecuting authorities were slow to act: the preliminary investigation was opened only in January 1996; it was completed in May that year. It did not succeed in identifying any other police officer involved.

The first pre-trial hearing was delayed until 13 March 1997, to be followed by numerous further delays and postponements. The case finally came to trial before a court in Athens on 25 October 1999. Vasilis Athanasopoulos denied the charges against him and reportedly claimed that on the day in question he had been passing by chance. He argued that the photograph had been misinterpreted: his foot was raised because he was "trying to pass in front of her and fell on her". The court, however, convicted him of having, together with (unknown) other persons, caused dangerous bodily injury to Melpo Koronaiou. He was sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment, but remained at liberty pending appeal. The photographs and the testimony of the two lawyers who had witnessed the incident were crucial in securing this conviction.

Two years later, on 10 October 2001, an appeals’ court in Athens heard Vasilis Athanasopoulos’ appeal. The court confirmed his conviction, but reduced his sentence to15 months’ imprisonment, suspended for three years, on the grounds of previous good behaviour. Melpo Koronaiou has filed a civil suit for compensation which is reportedly due to be heard in September 2002, more than seven years after her injuries were inflicted.

Obstacles to reparation

International human rights standards require states to ensure that victims of abuses such as torture or ill-treatment, or their families -- in cases of arbitrary killings -- receive reparations, including fair and adequate compensation.

In theory, Greek law accords the internationally guaranteed right to compensation. However, a number of obstacles limit this right in practice. To sue for damages victims in practice (though not always in law) need the services of a lawyer. However, they do not have the right to free legal aid, so they must be able to afford a lawyer or seek the assistance of a small number of NGOs or individual lawyers willing to offer free legal representation.

The costs of engaging a lawyer and the long delays in judicial proceedings are compounded by the lack of information and insecure status common to many victims of state-inflicted human rights violations. Add to this an understandable scepticism as to the efficacy of seeking redress, and it is not surprising that relatively few victims take their complaints to court.

Recommendations

Amnesty International and the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights call on the Greek authorities to implement the following measures to prevent torture and ill-treatment by police and law enforcement officials, to end repeated breaches of international human rights standards in their use of firearms, and to ensure that the cycle of impunity for human rights abuses is decisively broken.

1. Steps to prevent human rights violations

* Greek law and human rights standards on the use of force by law enforcement officials should be strictly enforced;
* All detainees should be immediately informed of their rights in a language that they understand. Detainees should be guaranteed prompt and regular access to lawyers and doctors and given the right to notify their families. Detainees should be informed that free legal aid is available to defendants who cannot afford a lawyer. They should be given information about complaints procedures;
* Training programs for police officers should provide practical training in how to implement national law and international human rights standards in daily duties and in emergency situations, with particular emphasis on non-violent measures of law enforcement. Training programs should reinforce measures to combat racist or xenophobic attitudes amongst police officers;
* Legislation and regulations relating to the use of firearms by police, coastguards and soldiers on border duty should conform to international standards, including the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials;
* The Greek authorities should ensure the implementation of the recommendations of international and regional human rights treaty bodies.


2. Steps to prevent impunity

* All allegations of torture, ill-treatment or the unlawful use of firearms by law enforcement officials should be subject to prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigation; officials under investigation should be removed from their posts pending the outcome of the investigation;
* Any law enforcement official reasonably suspected of responsibility for human rights violations should be brought to justice and sentences should be imposed which are commensurate with the gravity of the crime;
* Victims of human rights violations should be informed, in a language they understand, of their rights, of available remedies and how to gain access to those remedies. They should have direct access to forensic medical examination and free legal aid as necessary. Victims or their families should receive reparations, including fair and adequate compensation, and the means for as full rehabilitation as possible.


AI Index: EUR 25/020/2002 24 September 2002

[BARAT]

AI Index: EUR 25/024/2002 24 September 2002

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
INTERNATIONAL HELSINKI FEDERATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Media Briefing

Greece: Human rights violations in figures

The report "Greece: In the shadow of impunity -- Ill-treatment and the misuse of firearms" cites allegations concerning human rights violations committed by law enforcement officials against 66 individuals. Amnesty International and the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights believe that this figure does not reveal the full extent of such violations, which are undoubtedly under-reported.

The report includes information on:

o eight fatal shootings by police officers (of these three of the victims were Roma, one a Pontic Greek, two Albanians, one a 17-year-old Serbian high-school student and one a member of the majority Greek population);
o nine cases of minors;
o six boys and men subjected to sexual threats and humiliation, one of them publicly.


Although this report is based on a limited number of cases, official figures confirm the effective impunity enjoyed by Greek law enforcement officials alleged to have committed serious human rights violations.

According to information made available to Amnesty International/International Helsinki Federation:

o Not a single police officer was convicted of torture or ill-treatment between 1996 and 2000, according to official figures.
o In 2000 and 2001, only three police officers charged with offences relating to torture and ill-treatment were tried in court. Two cases resulted in acquittals and the third reduced a 30-month prison sentence to a suspended 15-month prison sentence.
o No police officers have been tried for such offences in the first eight months of 2002.
o Between the beginning of 2000 and June 2002, judicial councils or courts issued decisions in five cases connected with fatal shootings by police officers. In two cases the defendants were not indicted and were accordingly not referred for trial, in two others the police officers concerned were convicted of manslaughter and received suspended prison sentences, and in the fifth case, a police officer convicted of manslaughter was sentenced to four and a half years' imprisonment, subject to appeal.
o By the end of June 2002 no border guards or soldiers had been indicted in connection with any of the border incidents cited in the report.


The ethnic background of the victims includes:

o 17 Albanians;
o 15 Roma;
o 10 majority Greek;
o 1 Pontic Greek (ethnic Greek from the former Soviet Union);
o 22 others, including 18 unauthorized immigrants, among them asylum-seekers, from the Middle East, Africa and Asia (predominantly Kurds from Turkey, Iran and Iraq);
o 1 Serb.




Public Document
****************************************
For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566
Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW. web: http://www.amnesty.org

For latest human rights news view http://news.amnesty.org


AI Index: EUR 25/024/2002 24 September 2002

[BARAT]

Deshmi nga te keqtrajtuarit.
Deshmi keqtrajtimi nga organet ligjruajtese greke

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
INTERNATIONAL HELSINKI FEDERATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS


Media Briefing

Greece: Quotes from victims of human rights violations

This document contains extracts of quotations from a number of individuals who have alleged that they were victims of human rights violations and whose cases are presented in the report "Greece: In the shadow of impunity -Ill-treatment and the misuse of firearms".

"[One officer] took an iron bar from under his desk... and held it to my throat saying he would choke me if I did not tell the truth... [A police officer] told me: 'Pull your trousers down. If you don't pull your trousers down for me to **** you, you'll die here. I said I wouldn’t... He pulled at the button and undid it. I buttoned it back up and then [they] beat me..." Lazaros Bekos, 17, Rom.

"I begged him to be careful of my arm because of an earlier operation for a double fracture, but he kicked me in the stomach and then the left arm, resulting in a further fracture. When I realized [what had happened] I told him: 'You've broken my arm, please call a doctor'. While I was writhing in pain, he tried to kick my genitals and bending to avoid the blow I received the kick in my right ribs. Then I thought my end had come..." Ilias Hatzidiakos, 40, Greek.

"After arresting me, the officers dragged me to the police patrol van, where they pulled me over the bonnet and began to beat me. I think they also used truncheons. Their blows made me fall to the ground and then they began to kick me. At one point they put me in the van, where they again began to beat me. For some reason they took me out of the van, beat me again, and then put me back into the van, where I was once again beaten. In the meantime my children had come to the door, and when they saw the officers beat me they began to cry." Andreas Kalamiotis, 21, Rom.

"At about 6.30pm, I crossed over a stream which runs along the border and began to climb the mountainside ... When I reached the top I took a path through the forest. I had not gone more than 300 metres when I heard a dog; the dog sprang at me and caught me by the sleeve of my jacket. Then I heard soldiers shout: 'Halt!' I answered: 'Yes!'...The soldiers called to me from a distance and I replied that I was alone. They came and searched me, called off the dog, and took away everything I had on me ... They [then] told me to lie face down on the ground. When I did this, they began to kick me and beat me with their rifle-butts on my side, back and shoulders. I said: 'Please, I'm an old man, please don't hit me'. They yelled: 'Don't say a word unless we ask you questions'. After they had well and truly beaten me, two soldiers (there was a third soldier who stood at a distance of some 12 to 15 metres and did not approach) told me to get up. With difficulty I got to my feet. The two soldiers who had beaten me withdrew some five metres and said something to each other in a low voice. I did not understand or hear what they were saying. But after this conversation, one of them approached me from behind with a pistol in his hand and said: 'Walk on ahead', and as I raised my right foot to take the first step, he shot me with the pistol, and again told me to walk on. But I told him to shoot me in the head and finish me off. Then that soldier said to me: 'Why did you go back? -- although I had only taken one step forward. As I lay wounded on the ground, they said to me: 'Now run off to Albania' ... After about an hour a military doctor came. He tried to staunch the bleeding; he tore off a piece of my shirt and placed it on the right side of my stomach where the bullet had come out and told me to press it [against the wound]. He took two belts from the soldiers, and fastened them tightly around the wounds where the bullet had entered and come out." Ferhat Ceka, 67, Albanian.

"At the frontier, men of the Greek border forces came towards us. They ordered us to lie down; three of my friends ran away, but they caught me and began to kick me and beat me with rifle butts about my head and body. Afterwards they took me to the barracks, and took the money I had on me ... they held me for about an hour. At 1am on 14 June 2001 they brought me to the Albanian customs post and we immediately went to the [Albanian] police and told them what had happened. The police took the necessary measures and brought me to hospital." Kastriot Rrapi, Albanian.

"[Police officers at Hellenikon New Holding Centre] grabbed me and started to kick me, pulling me and beating me with a large black rectangular object that had two extensions like claws. Every time they touched me it was as if electricity was piercing my body." Joseph Emeka Okeke, Nigerian immigrant detained pending deportation.

"Despite the fact that I was alone, unarmed and that my back was turned towards them, the police officers ... attacked me violently without any reason. They surrounded me and started to kick me and beat me with truncheons all over my body until I collapsed on the pavement. Even then they did not stop -- on the contrary, [the plainclothes officer] continued with even greater violence to kick my head and face despite the fact that I was completely defenceless and overpowered." Melpo Koronaiou, Greek.


Public Document
****************************************
For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566
Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW. web: http://www.amnesty.org

For latest human rights news view http://news.amnesty.org


AI Index: EUR 25/025/2002 24 September 2002

[BARAT]

AI Index: EUR 25/003/2002 1 February 2002
GREECE

The alleged ill-treatment of Albanian citizen Arjan Hodi by police in Mytilene

On 24 March 2001 a group of local Greek students and young Albanian immigrant workers held a demonstration in the main square of Mytilene, the capital of Lesbos island, at which they denounced certain local bars and night-clubs for ''racism'', and for discriminating against students and conscripts. They reportedly referred to an incident in which six Greek students were said to have been beaten by ''bouncers''/doorkeepers of a bar while police looked on without intervening. They also cited a bar which had allegedly for a time displayed a sign prohibiting entry to ''Albanians and conscripts''. They further protested about the case of a young Albanian who had allegedly been beaten up outside a bar in November 2000 for having dared to enter it.(1)

Three days later, on 27 March, two police officers, A and B(2) arrested Arjan Hodi, aged 24, an Albanian working legally at a petrol station in Mytilene, who had previously reported to police that he and some of his compatriots had been denied entry to a night-club because of their nationality. The two officers who arrested him took him to Police Headquarters in Mytilene, where police officer allegedly punched him and beat him with a truncheon. Police officer A allegedly told Arjan Hodi that he was a cousin of the bouncer at a certain bar and threatened to jail Arjan Hodi and have him sent back to Albania if he continued to protest or demonstrate. Arjan Hodi was released an hour later, but was so severely injured that on his way home he lost consciousness, and had to be admitted to hospital.

On 29 March criminal proceedings on charges of ''torture and other offences against human dignity'' under Article 137A of the Greek Penal Code were started against police officer A. Similar charges were brought against other, unnamed, police officers who according to the Ministry of Public Order were present at the police station while Arjan Hodi was being beaten.(3) Arjan Hodi subsequently withdrew a criminal complaint he had filed against police officer A, after the latter apologised and paid for his hospital fees. However, the withdrawal of the complaint has not halted criminal proceedings in this case. In October 2001 the prosecuting authorities in Mytilene reportedly stated that police officer A had been sent a summons to testify to an investigating judge, but that due to many other pending cases, he would probably not be called to testify until early 2002.

An internal police inquiry (known as a Sworn Administrative Investigation) was also opened into the incident. In November 2001 it was reported that this inquiry had concluded that police officer A, in the presence of other police officers, had beaten and threatened Arjan Hodi. The case had been sent to the First Instance Police Disciplinary Council with the recommendation that A be dismissed from service, and that the other police officers receive lesser sanctions. The same press report noted that police officer A had admitted in a letter to the Public Prosecutor that he had ill-treated Arjan Hodi. Additionally, it was alleged that police officer A had previously been repeatedly reported for violent behaviour, both while serving at Mytilene police station and elsewhere, and that his superiors in the Greek Police were aware of his links with members of an extreme right-wing organization.(4) An article in a local on-line newspaper, however, expressed outrage at the proposed dismissal of A, who ''did what any police officer would have done in his place. He used his service truncheon in response to the resistance of the Albanian. However, he made an error which an experienced`officer would have avoided. He allowed Hodi to leave without recording the incident and keeping him 'inside' as he should have.''(5) The article described Arjan Hodi as a dangerous ''mafioso'', without, however, substantiating this accusation.

Amnesty International's concern

Amnesty International is concerned at the allegations of ill-treatment of Arjan Hodi and is calling on the Greek authorities to conduct a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation into them, and, if they are well founded, to bring to justice the persons responsible, as well as to ensure that Arjan Hodi receives fair and adequate compensation, as required by international standards.

Other related events

Following the end of communist rule in 1991, and the break-down of law and order in 1997 arising out of the collapse of financial pyramid schemes, poverty, unemployment and insecurity have driven hundreds of thousands of Albanians abroad, and many have turned to neighbouring Greece. Although their work is needed to meet shortages - particularly in agriculture and the building industry - in Greece, they are often regarded with hostility and suspected of being responsible for a rise in crime, although this is reportedly not borne out by statistics.(6) The case of Arjan Hodi illustrates how racial tensions in a small community can escalate into a chain-reaction of threats, lawlessness and violence.

In the early hours of 30 July 2001 a fight broke out at a bar in Mytilene, involving Arjan Hodi and a group of Albanian friends and the owner and employees of a bar, in which five or six Greek men were wounded, one of them seriously. According to the owner of the bar, Arjan Hodi and his companions had tried to force their way into the bar, while the Albanians claimed that the dispute had started because they had been refused entry because of their nationality.(7) Only three days later, on 2 August, Arjan Hodi and three other Albanians were tried in Mytilene on the serious charges of being members of a gang, possession and use of weapons, threat and causing dangerous bodily injuries. Three of them were reportedly tried without a defence lawyer since they were unable to provide documented proof that they lacked sufficient funds to hire a lawyer and therefore were not eligible for legal aid. The four defendants were convicted, and sentenced to a suspended sentence of 37 months' imprisonment each, and their immediate expulsion from Greece.(8)

Furious crowds reportedly tried to mob the four defendants on their way to and from the court room and the trial took place under strict security measures. Television broadcasts reportedly showed angry local citizens with guns making threatening statements about Albanians and other immigrant workers. In the meantime a ''popular meeting'' held in the nearby village of Loutra (where most of the Greek victims, but only one of the accused Albanians, lived,) issued an ultimatum that all Albanian inhabitants in the village, many employed in agriculture, should leave the village by 5 August. By that date some 150 Albanians, including families and children who had been born in the village, had fled. Senior Greek politicians and sections of the national and local press variously criticized the inhabitants of Loutro for xenophobia or defended their actions. There was also criticism of local authorities for failing to take measures to protect the Albanians, or to institute criminal proceedings against those who had threatened to use violence against them.
It is clear that racial grievances on the island have not been resolved: in the early hours of 17 November 2001 a group of Greeks attacked five Albanian migrant workers who were leaving from a club in Gera village on Lesbos, stabbing one of them with a knife, and seriously wounding him. Two of the Albanians were taken to hospital for treatment. Four Greeks were arrested; they reportedly claimed that the Albanians had initiated the fight. However, witnesses reportedly claimed that the Greeks had attacked the Albanians for having ''dared'' to enter a club where Greeks were enjoying themselves''.(9)

The Greek Constitution and national law specifically prohibit the use of ill-treatment or torture.

Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Greek Constitution states that: ''[T]orture, any bodily maltreatment, impairment of health or the use of psychological violence, as well as any other offence against human dignity, are prohibited and punished as provided by law''.

Under national legislation, Article 137A-D of the Penal Code, dealing with ''Torture and other attacks on human dignity'' defines torture as ''... any systematic infliction of acute physical pain, or of physical exhaustion endangering the health of a person, or of mental suffering capable of leading to severe psychological damage, as well as any illegal use of chemicals, drugs or other natural or artificial means with the aim of bending the victim's will" (Art. 137A paragraph 2) - when perpetrated by a ''an official or military whose duties include the prosecution, interrogation or investigation of criminal offences or breaches of discipline or the execution of punishments or the guarding or the custody of detainees...[on] a person who is in his power with the aim of a) extorting from this person or a third person a confession, testimony, information or statement, repudiation or acceptance of a political or other ideology; b) punishing c) intimidating the person or a third person'' (Art.137A paragraph 1).

The prescribed penalty, in principle, for someone found guilty of torture is from three years' to life imprisonment. The penalty is of at least 10 years in the most serious cases (such as for example the use of the falanga or electric-shock equipment - Art. 137B paragraph 1a) and life imprisonment if the victim dies (Art. 137B paragraph 3). Less serious cases involving ''Physical injury, injury to the health, the use of illegal physical or psychological force and any other serious attack on human dignity, which is committed by persons under the conditions and for the purposes defined in paragraph 1", are punished by three to five years' imprisonment (Art.137A paragraph 3). Additionally, persons convicted of torture are automatically deprived of their political rights and dismissed from their jobs (137C ). Under Article 137D paragraph 4 "the victim of the offences [defined] in articles 137A and 137B has a right to demand from the individual and the state which are entirely responsible compensation for damages done to him/her and pecuniary satisfaction for psychological and moral damage"

International Standards

Greece ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 1988. In doing so, it expressly undertook to prevent torture taking place within its territory by undertaking to educate and train law enforcement officers, to ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation of cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture has been committed, to ensure that victims of torture have the right to compensation or, where a death had occurred as a result of an act of torture, that the victim's dependants are entitled to compensation, and that those responsible for the torture are punished by appropriate penalties.

Article 2, Paragraph 1, of this Convention states that: '' Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction''.

Greece also ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) in November 1974. Article 3 of the Convention states that: ''No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment''. In 1991 Greece ratified the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which provides for a system of regular inspections of places of detention by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT). Greece is legally bound to observe the provisions of this treaty.

Amnesty International unconditionally opposes torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Amnesty International is calling on the Greek authorities

* to undertake a thorough and impartial investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment made by Arjan Hodi

* to ensure that any police officers found responsible for ill-treatment be brought to justice, and adequate compensation be awarded to the victim.


****

(1) See Eleftherotypia of 02/03/01. Arjan Hodi’s name is not mentioned in this article, but he may have been the Albanian referred to.
(2) Names known to Amnesty International
(3) Eleftherotypia 30/03/01
(4) Eleftherotypia, 21 November 2001
(5) Aegean Times, 20 November 2001
(6) See Athens News of 27 July 2001
(7) Eleftherotypia, 31 July 2001
(8) Eleftherotypia, 3 August 2001
(9) Eleftherotypia, 21 November 2001


AI Index: EUR 25/003/2002 1 February 2002

[BARAT]

Cases 15-17. ASTRIT LLESHI/KASTRIOT RRAPI/DASHAMIR TROSHKU, Krystallopigi, 13/6/2001


1. Excerpt from the September 2002 AI-IHF Report: “Greece: In the shadow of impunity – Ill-treatment and the misuse of firearms.”
The ill-treatment of Albanians
Every year thousands of Albanian citizens who have entered Greece clandestinely are arrested and forcibly returned (summarily expelled) to Albania on the basis of a “Re-admission clause” under a Police Cooperation Agreement between Greece and Albania. According to a press report, at one border-point in one week in June 2001, some 2,500 unauthorized Albanian immigrants were forcibly returned to Albania, and according to police headquarters in Korça over 30,000 were returned in the first six months of 2001. More recently, as a result of increased patrolling by Greek and Albanian border forces, the numbers have reportedly significantly diminished.
In the past decade there have been repeated complaints that Albanians detained by Greek police and military forces operating in border districts have been beaten and otherwise ill-treated. In August 2001 it was reported that at a meeting between police chiefs from Devolli (Albania) and Florina (Greece) the Albanian side had again raised this issue, and that the Greek police had agreed to take appropriate measures against police officers responsible for ill-treatment. However, complaints continued. In November 2001, for example, six Albanians from Durrës and Elbasan districts who had been arrested near Florina after clandestinely crossing the border alleged that Greek police officers had beaten them and taken their money.
Similar complaints of ill-treatment have been made by Albanians who have succeeded in entering Greece and finding employment, although without the required work and residence permits, and who have subsequently been arrested and forcibly returned to Albania in the course of what are commonly referred to as “sweep” operations. In February 2001 the Deputy Ombudsman for Human Rights criticized the summary expulsion of Albanians in these circumstances as illegal and humiliating, commenting that: “When an immigrant has settled in a place, there is a deportation procedure that is regulated by law [a procedure which provides for detention in custody and the right of appeal]. Summary expulsion is illegal.”
Other incidents of police ill-treatment during arrest and in custody have been alleged by Albanians living and working legally in Greece.
An encouraging development, however, was reported in April 2002, when the Greek Ombudsman informed his visiting Albanian counterpart that the Ombudsman’s Office had prepared a form in Albanian for distribution to Albanian immigrants in Greece so that those with complaints could address themselves to the Ombudsman.

AT THE BORDER

The following is an example of an incident in which Albanians seeking to enter Greece clandestinely are alleged to have been ill-treated by Greek border guards.
Late at night on 13 June 2001 Greek border guards reportedly arrested some 30 Albanian men who were attempting to cross into Greece, and forcibly returned them within hours to Albania via the Krystallopigi/Kapshticë border-point. On their return the Albanians complained that they had been severely beaten by the border guards, and four of them were urgently admitted with severe bruising to hospital in Bilisht (Albania). They also complained that the border guards had taken their money as well as other valuables. Albanian and Greek officials subsequently held meetings, which reportedly resulted in the return of the money and an undertaking by Greek officials to start criminal proceedings against two (possibly three) border guards.
One of those who made a written deposition at Korça Prosecutor’s Office was Astrit Lleshi, from Rukaj village, Burrel district. In this statement he alleged that following his arrest, border guards took his money and “began to kick us and beat us with rifle butts; they took the food we had brought with us and threw it to dogs”. Another was Kastriot Rrapi, from Arëz village, Mirdita district. In his complaint he wrote: “At the frontier, some Greek border guards came towards us. They ordered us to lie down; three of my friends ran away, but they caught me and began to kick me and beat me with rifle butts about my head and body. Afterwards they took me to the barracks, and took the money I had on me ... they held me for about an hour. At 1am on 14 June 2001 they brought me to the Albanian customs post and we immediately went to the [Albanian] police and told them what had happened. The police took the necessary measures and brought me to hospital.”
A third, Dashamir Troshku, from Fier district, wrote that after arrest, he and three friends were taken by border guards to barracks where they were held with others who had been arrested -- some 30 men in all. “They collected all our bags of food and took away our money ...Then they began to beat us with rifle butts and kick us. They beat us from midnight [of 13 June] to 1am on 14 June, when they brought us to the customs post.” A forensic medical report recorded that Dashamir Troshku was examined in Bilisht on 14 June 2001. The report noted that he complained of stomach pains and had bruising on his stomach, back and shoulders, and concluded that these injuries had been caused by beating with a hard instrument.

2. Excerpt from the Ministry of Public Order’s September 2002 Information Note on the AI-IHF Report

“6. Case of Albanian citizens ASTRIT LIESHI, KASTRIOT RRAPI and DASHAMIV TROSHKU

On 1/08/2002, Greek Helsinki Monitor complained that the aforementioned Albanian citizens, along with 27 others, were ill-treated at Krystallopigi border-point by Greek border guards who confiscated their money. The event took place on 13/6/2001.

Following the inquiry held, no involvement of any policeman or border guard was established.

The total sum of 45,000 Greek drachmas, Albanian bills and a mobile phone were handed over to Albanian Officials by Army Officers who undertook the case, without the involvement of any police officers. The above Monitor was also informed.”

3. Additional Information and Update

Hellenic Police (EL.AS.) sent the 6004/15/1668-ε/16 August 2002 letter to GHM with substantially the same yet more detailed information as in the Ministry’s Note above. The letter reached GHM in early September 2002. It is indicative that the answer confirms at least the illegal seizure of valuables, for which yet no one seemed to have been punished.

[BARAT]

CASES REPORTED IN PART B: TORTURE AND CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT

B.1. A case history - failure of the system
Cases 1-2. Lazaros Bekos and Eleftherios Koutropoulos, Mesolonghi, 8/5/1998

B.2.1. Intergovernmental organizations on Greece's compliance with international standards
Cases 3-8. The Six CPT Cases, Hania, Igoumenitsa, Greek-Albanian Border, Piraeus, September - October 2001

B.3. Violations of the rights of detainees which facilitate torture and ill-treatment
Case 9. Ilias Hatzidiakos, Rhodes, 6/7/2001

B.4. Roma and Immigrants
B.4.1. Roma
Case 10. Andreas Kalamiotis, Aghia Paraskevi, Greater Athens, 15/6/2001
Cases 11-14. Yannoula Tsakiri/Pavlos Christodoulopoulos/Michalis Aristopoulos/ Athanasios Sainis, Aspropyrgos, &nbspAttica, 8/1/2002
B.4.2. Immigrants
B.4.2.1.The ill-treatment of Albanians
Cases 15-17. Astrit Lleshi/Kastriot Rrapi/Dashamir Troshku, Krystallopigi, 13/6/2001
Cases 18-19. Blerina Mece/Luftim Krosi, Kakavia, 10/2/2001
Case 20. Arjan Hodi, Mytilene - Lesbos, 24/3/2001
B.4. 2. 2. The ill-treatment of other immigrants and asylum-seekers
Cases 21-22. Joseph Emeka Okeke, Greater Athens, 25/6/2002 and Yannis Papakostas, Aspropyrgos 14/8/2002
Cases 23-44. Rangasamy Nadaraja and 21 others, 'El. Venizelos' Airport - Athens, 12/6/2001
Cases 45-55. 11 Asylum-seekers, Souda/Hania - Crete, 30/5/2001

B.5. The ill-treatment of children in custody
Cases 56-57. Paraskevas Tranteros and Dimosthenes Argyroudis, Kassandria - Halkidiki, 19/8/1994
Case 58. Refat Tafili, Aghios Stephanos - Athens, 8/2/2001
Cases 59-63. Theodoros Stephanou et al., Argostoli - Cephalonia, 5/8/2001

B.6. Psychological ill-treatment - the sexual humiliation of detainees
Cases 64-65. 'R' and his brother, Athens, 8/5/2001

CASES REPORTED IN PART C: SHOOTINGS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS RESULTING IN DEATH AND INJURY

C.1. Fatal shootings by police
Case 66. Marinos Christopoulos, Zefyri - Greater Athens, 24/10/2001
Case 67. Gentjan Celniku, Athens, 21/11/2001

C.3. The prosecution of police officers in connection with fatal shootings - five cases
Case 68. Nikos Leonidis, Thessaloniki, 25/3/2000
Case 69. Stephanos Sapounas, Ano Liosia - Athens, 3/11/1996
Case 70. Anastasios Mouratis, Livadia - Beotia, 20/11/1996
Case 71. Marko Bulatovic, Thessaloniki, 23/10/1998
Case 72. Angelos Celal, Halkidona - Thessaloniki, 1/4/1998

C.4. Border policing -- the use of firearms in disputed circumstances resulting in injuries and a death
Case 73. Ferhat Ceka, Aghia Ioanna, 8/3/2002
Case 74. Afrim Salla, Kastoria, 4/6/2001
Case 75. Kreshnik Shenaj, Kakavia, 16/11/2000
Case 76. Bledar Quoshku, Kastoria, 1/11/2000

CASES REPORTED IN PART D: OBSTACLES TO JUSTICE

D.1. Failure to ensure prompt, thorough and impartial investigations
D.1.2. Failure to institute judicial investigations into complaints of ill-treatment
Case 77. Arnesto Nesto, Megara, 15/4/2002
D.1.4. Police "solidarity"
Case 78. Andreas Mermingousis, Chios, 30/4-1/5/2001
Case 79. Yannis Christakis, Thessaloniki, 31/1/2001

D.2. Unduly protracted legal proceedings
Case 80. Melpo Koronaiou, Athens, 14/4/1995

[BARAT]

AI Index: EUR 25/010/2001 1 December 2001
GREECE

Sweep Operation: the alleged ill-treatment and torture
of 16-year-old Refat Tafili, an Albanian citizen(1)

Amnesty International continues to receive complaints that Greek police officers have beaten and otherwise ill-treated Albanian unauthorized migrant workers while arresting and/or forcibly returning them to Albania in periodic round-ups often referred to as "sweep operations". One such case is that of 16-year-old Refat Tafili. Amnesty International is concerned that investigations into his allegations of ill-treatment have been neither prompt nor thorough. The organization calls for any police officers identified as responsible for his ill-treatment and injuries to be brought to justice and for Refat Tafili to be granted compensation.

Refat Tafili, aged 16, an unauthorized migrant from Gegë village, Kuçova district, Albania, came to Greece in December 2000. With the help of a relative, who had been legally working in Greece since 1997, he found work at a printworks in the town of Krioneri in Attica. According to his account, at 9.30pm on the evening of 8 February 2001 three plainclothes police officers carried out a raid at a house in the Aghios Stephanos quarter of Athens where he and some other Albanians were staying. He describes his experiences as follows:

"[w]hen I came back from work, I ate and was preparing to go to sleep, when the police came. They opened the door and came in. They caught hold of me and took me outside. They pushed me to the ground and began to kick my stomach and legs. They dazzled my eyes with an electric torch and spoke to me in Greek, but I didn't understand. [Then][t]hey brought me back inside and began to search all the belongings that were there. After that they took me away in a jeep. They drove off, and some 100 metres on, two other Albanians were walking by, one of them was A. and the other B(2). The police stopped them and checked their documents; they let A. go, but they put B. [whose documents were reportedly in order] in the jeep. They took us to the police station at Aghios Stephanos. There they took us out of the jeep and put us in a cell. In the cell I felt faint and lost consciousness. B. called the police and told them I was ill. They told B. to take me to the bathroom and to throw water on my face. While B. was taking me to the bathroom I began to feel nauseous. One of the police officers took me and put me out of the police station; as I came out I vomited. Then they released me and said something to me in Greek, but I didn't understand. I had walked about 100 metres when B. caught up with me and took me by the arm. I told him to take me to the hotel where my cousin worked...'' The police reportedly failed to record the detention and release of the two men, and the names of the police officers concerned.


Copyrights: Eleftherotypia


Early the next morning his relatives took Refat Tafili to the ''G. Gennimatas'' General State Hospital of Athens, where he was admitted to the intensive care unit. He was found to have suffered a double rupture of the spleen, and underwent an emergency operation for the removal of his spleen. The surgeon who carried out the operation was reportedly told by a relative that Refat Tafili had been beaten by police. He remained in hospital for just over a week and his relatives were informed that he would be discharged on 17 February. However, regulations were then in force which required hospitals to report and hand over unauthorized migrants to the police for expulsion(3).

Accordingly, at 8.30 am on 17 February, while his relatives were waiting to collect him, seven armed police officers arrested Refat Tafili at the hospital and took him to Papagos police station, Athens. A relative who protested was also taken by the police to Papagos police station where he related the ill-treatment which Refat Tafili had suffered on 8 February. Throughout his description he was reportedly frequently interrupted by police who threatened to arrest him if he did not tell the truth. He and Refat Tafili were then sent to police headquarters in Athens, where they filed a complaint against the officers who had beaten Refat. The relative was then released and Refat Tafili was transferred to Aghia Paraskevi police station, where he identified one of the three officers who had beaten him on the night of 8 February 2001. Criminal proceedings were initiated ex officio by the police department against the officer and other unknown police officers. An internal administrative investigation (Enorki Diikitiki Exetasi or Sworn Administrative Investigation) was also opened.

Refat Tafili was still weak and in pain; his hospital medical notes had recommended that following his operation particular care be taken to prevent ''infections since without the spleen the body's defences against certain germs are weakened''. In this weakened state he was nonetheless held in a cell, in what are reported to have been extremely cramped and unhygienic conditions, together with five adult foreign nationals. It is alleged that for two days he was denied food, was not permitted visits from a relative, and was allowed to leave the cell to go to the toilet only twice a day, in the morning and evening. It was only on the insistence of a relative that after two days he was given the medication he had been prescribed, though not at the prescribed hour.

On 22 February 2001, and while still detained, Refat Tafili was ordered by the Ministry of Public Order to leave the country within 15 days, although his medical notes recommended that he remain under the medical supervision for at least two months(4). However, shortly before his release that day his health seriously deteriorated; he was taken, in handcuffs, from the police station to the Sismanoglio hospital (where he remained until 5 March 2001) with a high fever and internal bleeding. It was during his stay in this hospital that his case came to the notice of the press and was publicized.(5)

On 26 February 2001 Refat Tafili's lawyer filed an appeal against his expulsion; on 8 March the Greek Ombudsperson recommended he be granted leave to stay in Greece (in the public interest and on humanitarian grounds) and he was subsequently granted leave, on exceptional grounds, to remain in the country for a further six months (until 8 September 2001). This leave has since been extended to 8 March 2002.

According to Refat Tafili's lawyer, attempts to identify the other police officers who allegedly ill-treated him have been hindered because the police officer in charge of the investigation refused to allow Refat Tafili to be accompanied by his lawyer and an interpreter at an identity parade at Aghios Stephanos Police Station. This was despite the fact that, as his lawyer pointed out, he was under age, had no parents in Greece, did not speak Greek and was traumatized. Refat Tafili was frightened to attend the identity parade alone, and so it did not take place.

The outcome of the administrative investigation, which ended in September 2001, was that the only police officer identified as having ill-treated Refat Tafili was the officer Refat Tafili had himself originally identified(6). Refat Tafili's lawyer has observed that the Aghios Stephanos Police Station has a small staff of only a few police officers, and that it should not be difficult to identify who was on duty on the day in question, and which officers accompanied the officer identified by Refat Tafili.

Refat Tafili's complaint is also under judicial investigation by the Public Prosecutor's Office of Athens (Case file: B 2001/631), and criminal proceedings have been started against the officer identified by Refat Tafili. On 27 July the public prosecutor in charge of the case ordered a supplementary investigation, which ended on 7 September. This investigation also failed to identify the two other police officers alleged to be involved in the ill-treatment of Refat Tafili. The case has been returned to the public prosecutor.

Amnesty International is concerned that the investigation of Refat Tafili's complaint appears to have been neither prompt nor thorough. Each of the following rights recognized under national and international law and standards were violated in this case:

The Greek Constitution and national law

A) Both specifically prohibit the use of ill-treatment or torture.

Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Greek Constitution states that: ''[T]orture, any bodily maltreatment, impairment of health or the use of psychological violence, as well as any other offence against human dignity, are prohibited and punished as provided by law''.

Under national legislation, Article 137A-D of the Penal Code, dealing with ''Torture and other attacks on human dignity'' defines torture as:

''... any systematic infliction of acute physical pain, or of physical exhaustion endangering the health of a person, or of mental suffering capable of leading to severe psychological damage, as well as any illegal use of chemicals, drugs or other natural or artificial means with the aim of bending the victim's will" (Art. 137A paragraph 2) - when perpetrated by a ''an official or military whose duties include the prosecution, interrogation or investigation of criminal offences or breaches of discipline or the execution of punishments or the guarding or the custody of detainees...[on] a person who is in his power with the aim of a) extorting from this person or a third person a confession, testimony, information or statement, repudiation or acceptance of a political or other ideology; b) punishing c) intimidating the person or a third person'' (Art.137A paragraph 1).


The prescribed penalty, in principle, for someone found guilty of torture is from three years' to life imprisonment. The penalty is of at least 10 years in the most serious cases (such as for example the use of the falanga(7) or electric-shock equipment - Art. 137B paragraph 1a), and is life imprisonment if the victim dies (Art. 137B paragraph 3).

Less serious cases involving ''Physical injury, injury to the health, the use of illegal physical or psychological force and any other serious attack on human dignity, which is committed by persons under the conditions and for the purposes defined in paragraph 1", are punished by three to five years' imprisonment (Art.137A paragraph 3). Additionally, persons convicted of torture are automatically deprived of their political rights and dismissed from their jobs (Art. 137C).

Under Article 137D paragraph 4 "the victim of the offences [defined] in articles 137A and 137B has a right to demand from the individual and the state which are entirely responsible compensation for damages done to him/her and pecuniary satisfaction for psychological and moral damage".


B) The obligation to inform the detainee about his or her rights and charges against him or her

The right of a person arrested or detained to be assisted by a lawyer, to consult and communicate with him, is guaranteed under Articles 96 -108 of the Code of Penal Procedure. Moreover, Article 44 (3) of Law 2910/2001 (adopted by the Greek Parliament on 2 May 2001)(8) clearly states that a foreigner should be informed about the reasons of his detention in a language he or she understands.

The right of access to a lawyer is safeguarded by Presidential Decree 141/1991 (Section 60, para xiii) and Order No 4803/22/14-a. According to the Ministry of Public Order [in response to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) President's letter of 14 May 1997], detainees' communication with a lawyer of their choice:

"is exercised immediately after their being brought before the relevant police authority. This means that as soon as the detainees or aliens arrested with a view to expulsion are brought to the police station (i.e. a few minutes after their arrest) they are given the opportunity to exercise the right described above."


In November 1995 the Ministry of Public Order issued a circular (Order no.4803/22/14-a of 3 November 1995) providing for the publication of two information sheets setting out the rights of detainees, and for the translation of such material at present reportedly carried out into 13 foreign languages(9). The first information sheet deals with the rights of all detainees; the second is designed for foreign nationals detained pending deportation, and has been expanded to include an explanation of the deportation procedure. Non-governmental organizations working with foreigners detained pending deportation report that with very few exceptions detainees are not given these information sheets, although these are reportedly posted up in a few police stations or holding centres for aliens, nor were the detainees informed orally of their rights(10). According to information provided to the CPT by the Ministry of Public Order (response of 18 October 1998), paragraph 12 of this Order states:

"all persons arrested by police should be given these information sheets immediately after they are brought to a police station. Police are also required to explain orally their rights to detainees and to draw up a report recording that the information sheet and the oral explanation have been duly provided. Where necessary, the services of an interpreter or consular authority should be used to explain the detainee's rights to him or her".


The same circular explicitly mentions that:

"[s]pecial sensitivity and care must be shown in case of the detention of minors or persons with special needs under legal restriction or assistance. In each case, the persons responsible for them or their relatives should be informed".


Amnesty International is concerned that the police officers at Aghios Stephanos Police Station denied Refat Tafili the assistance of a lawyer and an interpreter despite the fact that he was under age and could not speak Greek when he was requested to attend the identity parade at the police station. The organization is also concerned that he was allegedly denied visits from a relative for two days while in detention in Aghia Paraskevi police station.


C) Conditions of detention

Amnesty International is concerned that Refat Tafili, a minor, was kept in detention with adult prisoners although according to Greece's Initial Report to the United Nations Committee for the Rights of the Child (CRC/C/28/Add.17, published on 25 June 2001), minor offenders are "detained in a separate part of the police premises, and then, if detention on remand is required, they are detained in Juvenile Institutions of Correction".

Moreover, in its report(11), the CPT "feels compelled to point out that at the police establishments visited, a large number of foreign nationals were subjected for prolonged periods of time to a combination of negative factors - overcrowding, appalling material conditions and levels of hygiene, lack of outdoor exercise, absence of any activities - which could easily be described as inhuman and degrading treatment". The circular Order no. 4803/22/a referred to above from the Ministry of Public Order also specifically requires the police to provide for a doctor if the detainee is ill, and to transfer the detainee to hospital immediately if he or she requires medical care of a kind which is not available at the police station or place of detention.

Amnesty International is concerned about allegations that not only was Refat Tafili put out onto the street without any assistance from the authorities after he was taken ill at Aghios Stephanos police station, but also that, when he was re-arrested at the hospital after his operation a few days later, he was held in cramped and unsanitary conditions, with restricted access to toilet facilities, and for two days allegedly denied food and prescribed medication.

International Standards

A) Prohibitions on torture and ill-treatment

Greece ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 1988. In doing so, it expressly undertook to prevent torture taking place within its territory by, among other things, undertaking to educate and train law enforcement officers; to ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation of complaints of torture and of cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture has been committed even if no complaint has been made; to ensure that victims of torture have the right to compensation or, where a death had occurred as a result of an act of torture, that the victim's dependants are entitled to compensation; and that the penalties for those responsible for the torture are appropriate.

Article 2, Paragraph 1, of this Convention states that: '' Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction''.

Article 37, Paragraph a, of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC), which Greece ratified in May 1993 and is therefore bound to observe, states that: "[N]o child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (...)".

Greece also ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) in November 1974. Article 3 of this Convention states that: ''No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment''. In 1991 Greece ratified the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which not only prohibits the practice of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, but also sets up a system of regular inspections of places of detention by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. Greece is legally bound to observe the provisions of this treaty.


B) The right of access to a lawyer is recognized by international law and standards and recommendations such as the United Nations Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (Body of Principles) and the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. In the case of minors, Article 37 (d) of the CRC states that:

"[E]very child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action".

Internationally recognized standards also require that anyone who has been arrested should be informed at the time of the arrest of the reasons for his or her arrest and be promptly informed of any criminal charges against him or her in a language he or she can understand.

According to Article 40 (2 b ii) of the CRC:

"[E]very child alleged as or accused of having infringed the penal law has at least the following guarantees (...): [t]o be informed promptly and directly of the charges against him or her, and, if appropriate, through his or her parents or legal guardians, and to have legal or other appropriate assistance in the preparation and presentation of his or her defence".


Paragraph 2 (vi) of the same article recognizes the right for the child "[t]o have free assistance of an interpreter if the child cannot understand or speak the language used".


C) Access to relatives

International human rights standards require that immediate notice of detention be given and that prompt access to the detainee be granted to families of detainees. Rule 92 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Standard Minimum Rules) states:

''An untried prisoner shall be allowed to inform immediately his family of his detention and shall be given all reasonable facilities for communicating with his family and friends, and for receiving visits from them, subject only to restrictions and supervision as are necessary in the interests of the administration of justice and of the security and good order of the institution''.


Similarly, Principle 16 (1) of the Body of Principles provides that detainees are entitled to notify members of their families about their detention promptly after they are placed in custody.


D) Treatment of prisoners and conditions of imprisonment

Article 37 (c), of the CRC provides that:

"[e]very child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances".

Rule 8 (d) of the Standard Minimum Rules clearly state that:

"[t]he different categories of prisoners shall be kept in separate institutions or parts of institutions taking account of their sex, age, criminal record, the legal reason for their detention and the necessities of their treatment (...). [In particular], [y]oung prisoners shall be kept separate from adults".


Rules 10 to 26 of the same Standard Minimum Rules define and provide for good conditions of detention, including clothing, food and access to medical services. In particular,

"[a]ll accommodation provided for the use of prisoners and in particular all sleeping accommodation shall meet all requirements of health, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and particularly to cubic content of air, minimum floor space, lighting, heating and ventilation" (Rule 10).


Moreover, access to facilities and toilets should never be denied nor restricted.

"The sanitary installations shall be adequate to enable every prisoner to comply with the need of nature when necessary and in a clean and decent manner" (Rule 12).

"Every prisoner shall be provided by the administration at the usual hours with food of nutritional value adequate for health and strength, of wholesome quality and well prepared and served. Drinking water shall be available to every prisoner whenever he needs it" (Rule 20).

"Sick prisoners who require specialist treatment shall be transferred to specialized institutions or to civil hospitals. Where hospital facilities are provided in an institution, their equipment, furnishings and pharmaceutical supplies shall be proper for the medical care and treatment of sick prisoners, and there shall be a staff of suitable trained officers" (Rule 22 (2)).


Recommendations

Amnesty International is calling on the Greek authorities

* to conduct a prompt, thorough, impartial and independent investigation into the alleged ill-treatment of Refat Tafili

* to bring to justice any police officers identified as responsible whether directly or on the basis of superior responsibility

* to ensure that Refat Tafili receives fair and adequate compensation if the allegations are found proven


as required by international law and standards and recommendations.

Moreover, the organization urges the Greek authorities to:

* take immediate steps to ensure that police are not only informed of the dispositions contained in circular Order no.4803/22/14a (of 3 November 1995) providing for the publication of two information sheets setting out the rights of detainees and their translation, but are required to implement them.

* ensure that competent interpreters are on call to assist when foreigners are detained

* ensure that detainees are immediately seen by an [independent] doctor after arrest, that they get prompt and effective medical attention and that medical records are kept in accordance with good medical practices and made available to the detainees

* take all measures to ensure that detainees are allowed access to their families and visits from relatives

* ensure that all detainees are given prompt access to legal counsel and that counsel is able to be present at all stages of proceedings including identity parades and to communicate in confidence with detainees

* take all measures to ensure that minor detainees are not held with adult detainees

* take all steps to improve conditions of detention in Greece, in line with international law and standards and CPT recommendations.



(1) This report is based on press statements, a report by the non-governmental organization Greek Helsinki Monitor, a written statement by Refat Tafili and information provided by his lawyer.
(2) Their names are known to Amnesty International.
(3) In July 2001 the National Data Protection Committee, whose decisions are binding, formally requested the Greek authorities to repeal this law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.
(4) In its report, dated 12 March 2001, the Ombudsperson specifically recommended that Refat Tafili should remain in Greece on humanitarian grounds as he needed immediate post-operation medical supervision from the Gennimatas hospital which, should he be expelled from the country, would not be available to him and would consequently put his health in serious danger.
(5) The newspaper Eleftherotypia of 28 February 2001.
(6) His name is known to Amnesty International.
(7) Beatings on the soles of the feet.
(8) Law 2910/2001 legislates about the entrance into and sojourn of foreigners on the Greek territory, and the acquisition of the Greek citizenship through naturalization and other dispositions.
(9) See appendix.
(10) Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM), "Greece: Unfair Treatment of Migrants and Minorities", Statement to the 2001 OSCE Implementation Meeting, Warsaw, 18 September 2001.
(11) CPT/Inf (2001) 18 part 2, published on 13 September 2001.


AI Index: EUR 25/010/2001 1 December 2001

[BARAT]

Mesuesi dhe trajneri Enver Mysja duke stervitur Mirela Manjanin.
Ja kush e beri kampione ate qe quhet sot nderi i Greqise. Po se mos vetem ate...
Po a di ti kthje nderet kjo Greqia?!

Ja se si stervitej ajo qe u quajt ne boteror bukuria greke...nje bukuri greke, per te cilen popoli vlai greki thote se s ka asnje lidhje me Skiperia dhe se babi i Mirelas eshte italian
Nga nje ane vidhen varre, intelektualet ikin, sportistet ikin, nga ana tjeter ama ngrihen kisha dhe hapen varre te reja me ushtare greke...
Sa me fat qe jane ca...ne nuk bejme pjese te ta