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