vijimi...
Caption
A temporary settlement where Roma evicted from Maroussi are housed (January 2005) © Amnesty International
During a meeting with the affected Romani families in January 2005, Amnesty International was informed that the local authorities of Maroussi had yet to comply with their obligations under the agreement, despite assurances received by the organization as late as September 2004 from the municipality that the problem would "soon" be solved. In particular, the organization was told that payments of subsidies for rent were still due, in January 2005, for the previous eight months and that the families had yet to receive news about the allocation of plots for permanent residence. In addition, the organization was told that only a quarter of the families had been able to secure temporary rented accommodation, and that because of the delayed payment of subsidies, half of these were at that time facing threats by the owners of being forced to leave the houses. As of August 2005, the Municipality of Maroussi had still not informed the Roma as to where they will be relocated.
3.5 Forced evictions of Roma in Patras
In the summers of 2004 and 2005, Amnesty International received information about a series of attempts to forcibly evict, as well as of forced evictions, perpetrated against Romani communities in Patras. The organization has also been in close contact with local NGOs, such as the Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM) and the Coordinated Organizations and Communities for Roma Human Rights in Greece (Συντονιστής Οργανώσεων και Κοινοτήτων για τα Ανθρώπινα Δικαιώματα των Ρομά στην Ελλάδα, SOKADRE), who have been following the attempted and forced evictions.
The tent-dwelling Roma of Patras are Greece’s third largest urban Romani community. They live in the three areas of Riganokampos, Akti Dimeon and Makrigianni. According to the findings of research conducted by the Municipality of Patras in October 2001, there were 15 families of Greek Roma living in Riganokampos, 29 in Akti Dimeon and eight in Makrigianni. Research carried out by the local authorities in 2001 in preparation for the IAP stated that the Roma of Riganokampos and Makrigianni had been settled there for many years, the Roma living in Akti Dimeon were transient and that another 15 to 20 families of Albanian Roma had settled in the area of Riganokampos opposite the Greek Roma settlement, at different points since 1999. An updated document stated that in the summer of 2004, there were 19 families of Greek Roma and 35 families of Albanian Roma living in Riganokampos. The plot of land where the Albanian Roma had settled belongs to the University of Patras, while the plot of land where the Greek Roma built their sheds, opposite the University plot, belongs to the state’s Real Estate Agency (Κτηματική Υπηρεσία Δημοσίου, REA). The head of the Quality Directorate, which is under the Prime Minister’s Office, spoke to local media in January 2004 about the settlement and described it as "the worst of a total of 75 [Roma settlements] scattered around the country", adding that the living conditions there "insult our humanity" and that its inhabitants would soon be resettled in new prefabricated dwellings in another location.(103)
The first recorded forced eviction of the Roma living in Riganokampos took place on 29 August 2001, when two sheds were destroyed. According to the local authorities, the demolition crew was a "cleaning crew" hired by the municipality to clear the area. The Roma residents had not been informed and were thus not able to stop the forced eviction. Soon after the forced eviction, one Romani man died of a heart attack reportedly from the shock of seeing his family’s shed destroyed.
On 17 August 2004 a second forced eviction took place at Riganokampos, targeting only the Albanian Roma settlement. (104) At the time the residents were away employed in seasonal work in other regions of the country. In correspondence with GHM, the authorities argued that this absence indicated that the Roma had resettled elsewhere and that their sheds had been torn down as part of a "cleaning operation" and that these constituted
"concerted action, in cooperation with the Police Directorate of Patras [aiming at] the ousting of Albanian-speaking gypsies who, in addition to the prolongation of the problem [of inhumane living conditions], were illegally in our country and constituted the main source of origin for the street children. 35 families of Albanian speaking gypsies were ousted, the sheds were demolished and the whole area of about 70,000m2 was cleaned up in order to be landscaped, for the benefit of the residents of the area."(105)
Caption
The bulldozing of the Riganokampos settlement on 24 June 2005 © GHM
It is to be noted that the legal owner of the land, i.e. Patras University, had not requested the eviction. According to press reports, the municipality of Patras had informed the Roma about this operation and had in fact issued them with an ultimatum. To Amnesty International’s knowledge, no alternative accommodation had been offered. The Albanian Roma, however, denied that they had been informed of the operation. No documents were provided by the authorities proving that the Roma had been served eviction orders. Eight of these Albanian Romani families proceeded to set up their tents or sheds in two neighbouring settlements (where Greek Roma had already been settled) in the Makrigianni area of Patras. It is noted that another approximately 15 Greek Romani families, permanently residing until then in Akti Dimeon, were relocated to the Makrigianni area, after an agreement with the local authorities.
In its General Comment No. 30 on "Discrimination Against Non-Citizens", the CERD has clarified that states should, "remove obstacles that prevent the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by non-citizens, notably in the areas of education, housing, employment and health" and "guarantee the equal enjoyment of the right to adequate housing for citizens and non-citizens, especially by avoiding segregation in housing and ensuring that housing agencies refrain from engaging in discriminatory practices."
Ever since the Albanian Romani families settled in these two neighbouring settlements in Makrigianni, police officers have been reportedly pressuring them, as well as the Greek Roma residents previously settled there, to leave. On 30 October 2004, a bulldozer, rented by the municipality and escorted by the police, demolished four sheds. The bulldozing crew then forced the other Romani families to dismantle their sheds. According to a municipality of Patras press release dated 4 October 2004, the operation was not aimed against the Albanian Roma as the municipality was not officially aware of their presence there; but rather was concerned the "…removal of Greek Gypsies who are not registered in the municipal rolls of Patras", who should return to the municipalities where they are registered in order to claim benefits. Despite the authorities’ claims that these evictions did not target Albanian Romani residents of Makrigianni, Amnesty International remains concerned about the statement made by the Patras Municipality, in particular that the operation was directly aimed at the forcible eviction of that area’s Greek Roma. This statement suggests that the authorities violated Article 11 of the ICESCR.(106)
In a later attempt to forcibly evict the Romani communities from the Makrigianni area on 14 January 2005 the Prefect of Achaia called upon the Appeals Prosecutor of Patras, as well as the municipality of Patras and the Western Greece Region, to facilitate the clearing of the Makrigianni area in order to address what he claimed was "uncontrolled settlement of athingani [Roma], both Greek and non-Greek". A month later the state’s REA served eviction orders to six families of Greek Roma living there. On 2 March the Prosecutor of Patras held that the Roma should not be allowed to perform any other work (e.g. building of sheds) on the plot of land they were squatting but did not order their eviction. The Roma filed injunctions against the forced eviction and the case was to be heard in September 2005. In addition, the six Romani families were called to present themselves, on 24 May 2005, to the local magistrate in connection with a preliminary investigation allegedly concerning violation of the 1983 Sanitary Regulation.
In June 2005 Amnesty International expressed its concerns after receiving information that 11 of the 20 sheds belonging to Albanian Roma had been levelled.(107) Ten of the sheds were empty at the time because their owners were temporarily employed on the island of Zakynthos, while the other one contained the family's belongings. The local authorities claimed that they had "cleaned up" deserted sheds. However, the Roma present in the area at the time denied the authorities’ allegations that they had been consulted by the "cleaning" crew about which sheds should be torn down. The authorities have not responded to date to these concerns.
The organization was further informed that on 7 June 2005, police visited the settlements of Riganokampos, Makrigianni and Petroto (a locality close to Makrigianni) and informed the residents that the municipality had requested their details (I.D. numbers and family size) in order to proceed with plans to relocate them. The police were reportedly asked and denied that this data would be used in order to bring charges against them. However, during a later contact with SOKADRE, the deputy commander of the 5th Police Station (in charge of the area) stated that 10 Romani families had been informed that charges were being brought against them under the amended 1983 Sanitary Law. These actions are contrary to the above cited ruling of the CECSR in the case of ERRC v. Greece. Two weeks later, on 25 June, representatives of the police and local electricity authority visited the Riganokampos settlement and cut the electricity connections to it. GHM, the NGO monitoring the situation, has expressed concerns that such practices of bringing charges against Romani families were also implemented by the local authorities in the Romani settlements in the Athens region, prior to the residents’ agreement to be relocated in remote locations. According to GHM’s information, the Romani residents of Patras have never been consulted on the authorities’ relocation plans.
Caption
The Greek Roma settlement in Riganokampos, Patras, in January 2005 © Amnesty International
3.6 Racism and discrimination against Roma
In addition to the concerns about the manner in which the forced evictions have been enforced upon the Romani population, without guarantees of alternative accommodation being provided, Amnesty International is also concerned about the persisting pattern of excluding the Roma from consultations in the process through which authorities decide and execute evictions, as well as the process through which they implement relocation policies. In this regard, it is further worrying that residents’ associations, who express racially-biased views about these policies, appear to exert considerable influence on the ways in which such policy is shaped. This consultation process appears to be discriminatory against the Roma on two fronts: both through their exclusion from it, as well as through the authorities’ failure to address practices of non-state actors that appear to be inciting racial discrimination. This section of the report exemplifies this latter concern.
In November 2001 the local daily Peloponissos published a Letter of Protest which bore the signatures of 1200 residents of the area neighbouring the settlement of Riganokampos, from which the Albanian Roma had been forcibly evicted two months previously. The letter referred to the Roma as Athingani(108) and blamed them for breaking into the gardens, desecrating the local cemetery, swearing, and violence. The letter also made reference to "increased pollution" arising from the installation of fresh water facilities in the Roma settlement by the authorities and warned that "any postponement or delay in resolving the problem we face will lead to militant action from the residents of the areas of Eglykada, Perivola, Neo Souli – Riganokampos".(109) In March 2002, Maria Vassilari and Eleftheria Georgopoulou, two Romani women residents and representatives of the Riganokampos settlement, filed a criminal complaint against the signatories to the letter. A year later, the Prosecutor indicted the authors of the Letter and the owner and editor of the newspaper for the public expression of offensive ideas (Law 927/1973) but considered that the Letter of Protest did not constitute incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence under Article 1 of Law 927/1979 as the Romani women claimed. In June 2003 the local Three-Member Misdemeanours Court acquitted the defendants of violating Article 2 of the anti-racist law on the basis that "doubts remained regarding the… intention to offend the complainants by using the expressions referred to in the indictment".(110) During the hearing the judge reportedly made prejudiced comments about the Roma: in response to a comment made by the defence counsel that the Roma commit many crimes, she replied "it is true" and added that there were "currently many cases pending against Roma in the courts of Patras"; furthermore, when one of the complainants stated that the Letter of Protest had offended her, the judge responded "you have to admit though, you Roma do steal".
In a more recent incident, there were reports that on the night of 21 June 2005 a number of persons on motorcycles threw at least one firebomb against the Albanian Roma living in Makrigianni. A complaint was made and the police recorded the incident, but reportedly failed to initiate an investigation (including carrying out an on-site forensic examination and eye-witness interviewing). Romani residents also reported a second attack the following evening, in which firecrackers had been thrown into the settlement by motorcyclists, which the police had similarly failed to investigate. The local police had also reportedly failed to intervene in an incident on 10 January 2005, when a number of people attacked a Romani man outside a local TV station. The station’s crew filmed the incident, documenting the failure of police officers present nearby to intervene.
On 10 June 2004 owners of restaurants and cafes in the central square in Patras sent a letter to their association in which they complained of the "extreme" situation prevailing in the square whereby
"dozens of young athingani beggars … litter [the square] with rubbish… defecate in the children’s playground, in the water fountain and wherever they please. These little beggars, in addition to being exploited, also commit petty thefts at the expense of our customers and try, by blackmailing them with drum-playing, to extract money from them or whatever else they want, in an effort to ‘increase’ their earnings."
The local media later reported that in response to this letter representatives of its signatories met with municipal and police authorities and that it was decided to increase the police patrols at that square among others, which was described as "overrun in the afternoon by athingani", in light of the Olympic Games. In December 2004, GHM filed a criminal complaint on behalf of the Roma against the signatories and authorities for the violation of Law 927/1979 – the police responded that since the prosecutor’s office had ordered these actions there were no grounds for an investigation.(111) Meanwhile the shopkeepers’ organization wrote a second letter to the authorities in May 2005 urging them to clear the square of garbage and bird litter but made no mention of the Roma, who had stopped frequenting the square since the police action the previous year. To date, the authorities have failed to act on this second complaint.
Amnesty International has also received reports of ill-treatment of Romani youths by police authorities(112) and of inadequate access to education for Greek Roma.(113)
3.7 Conclusion
Amnesty International has noted a number of serious concerns regarding Greece’s failure to comply with international human rights law and standards in its practices towards the Romani communities within its territories.(114) These concerns relate to two aspects of international human rights law:
(i) violations of economic, social and cultural rights
(ii) discrimination.
In this regard, the organization was particularly concerned about reports received that the economic, social and cultural rights of particular Roma groups were being violated. In particular, the organization noted that a pattern of targeting Albanian Romani homes for demolition was emerging and in July 2005 urged the Greek authorities to extend the measures for relocating Romani families to those who are not of Greek nationality, particularly to Albanian Roma legally residing in the country.
In addition, the organization called for an investigation into the attacks against the Roma of Riganokampos, noting that through failure to carry out such an investigation, the Greek police were encouraging the attackers in their discrimination against Romani people, particularly against Albanian Roma and that the Greek authorities were further perpetuating the discrimination by failing to comply with their obligations to investigate the allegations against the police.
Based on the information presented in this chapter, Amnesty International believes that the authorities are violating the country’s obligations to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination. The organization is further concerned that the pattern of forced evictions described above are characterized by attempts to force the Roma to vacate their dwellings in the absence of alternative accommodation by charging them with offences under the Sanitary Regulation, which has been deemed discriminatory by State authorities.
4. BETWEEN EXISTENCE AND OBLITERATION:
THE (IN)VISIBILITY OF MINORITY GROUPS
"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching."
Article 18, ICCPR
"State Parties undertake… to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national of ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of… the right to nationality… the right to freedom of opinion and expression."
Article 5, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
4.1 Background
A persisting concern of human rights observers over the last three decades has been the flawed framework guiding the government’s policies on minorities. The basis of this framework is the state’s assertion that "the only officially recognized minority in Greece is the Muslim minority in Thrace", most recently stated in the country’s initial report to the UN Human Rights Committee.(115) Indeed, the "Muslim minority of Thrace" constitutes the only group of Greek citizens who are guaranteed specific rights as members of a minority – these rights were granted under the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.(116) Since then, a number of other groups of Greek citizens have claimed the right to minority protection. The most widely publicized cases have been of groups of individuals living in the region of Florina claiming their right to self-identification as "Macedonians", and members of the aforementioned officially recognized minority group claiming their right to self-identification as "Turks".(117) The Greek state has in response denied the existence of any minorities other than the "Muslim" one within its territory. This dispute has had repercussions on the state’s ability to comply with its obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of individuals adopting political positions that are not in line with the official policy on the matter, most notably the rights to freedom of expression and to freedom of association and assembly.
Amnesty International believes that the existence of a minority is a question of fact to be determined on the basis of reasonable and objective criteria. Whilst there is no internationally accepted definition of a minority, arbitrary distinctions based around recognition or non-recognition are discriminatory, and so states should avoid listing the groups to whom minority rights apply, as these lists tend to be exclusive. Membership of a minority should be by choice, and the subjective element of membership should be retained in order to avoid the forcible assimilation of individuals into groups. In the absence of other criteria, the existence of a minority should be determined by self-identification.(118) In this regard, the Human Rights Committee has stated, in its General Comment 23 that "the existence of an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority in a given State party does not depend upon a decision by the State party but requires to be established by objective criteria".(119)
This part of the report outlines recent developments in this area of human rights practice in Greece. During the last two years, Amnesty International has received information on these issues from locally-based as well as international NGOs, monitoring bodies and individuals belonging to non-officially-recognized minority groups. During the visit of Amnesty International’s delegation to Greece in January 2005, delegates were also in contact with members and representatives of the "Muslim" minority group in Thrace. The organization has also been able to collect information about further violations of human rights, arising from the state’s failure to provide redress to victims of discrimination perpetrated as a result of legislation that has since been withdrawn. These findings are also included in this chapter of the report.
4.2 The non-recognition of minorities
In 1998 the European Court of Human Rights found Greece to be in violation of the right to freedom of association in the case of Sideropoulos and others v. Greece(120) on the basis that Greek courts had refused the application of the complainants to register "the Home of Macedonian Culture" as an NGO.(121) Contrary to the views of the domestic courts that the stated goals of the association threatened public order, the European Court of Human Rights had concluded that "the refusal to register the applicants’ association was disproportionate to the objectives pursued".
Following this decision, the applicants attempted to re-register their association by filing an application with the Single-Member Court of First Instance in Florina in June 2003. On 19 December 2003 the Court rejected the application because of
"the unclear wording of the articles [which] has led to confusion concerning the activities of the association. More specifically, the word ‘Macedonian’ – defining the culture to be preserved – implies that this culture is something particular and self-contained, so that it is not clear whether the word is being used in its historical sense to refer to an integral part of Greek civilisation with its local specificities, or in its geographical sense, in which case it is left undefined which part of the broader region of Macedonia is meant, as its territory took shape after the Balkan Wars. This lack of clarity is not only not removed by the name of the association, which insists on the indiscriminate use of the term, but is in fact exacerbated by the association of this culture with a non-existent language, claimed to be ‘Macedonian’, despite the fact that in the geographical area of Macedonia it is the Greek language which is spoken, except by a small portion of the population, which also speaks – in addition to Greek – an idiom which is essentially Slavic. Thus the confusion caused by the general use of the terms Macedonia and Macedonian, without distinction as to geographical or historical reference – a confusion existing in the mind of the states with which the association will be dealing, in pursuit of its objective through demarches to and collaboration with these states, and in the mind of persons interested in participating in the work of the association in pursuit of this objective – contains a direct danger to public order and provides an opportunity for exploitation by external agents who have tried from time to time, unsuccessfully, to create a historically non-existent ‘Macedonian nation’."(122)
The reasoning of this decision is similar to the reasoning presented to the European Court of Human Rights, which had found Greece to be in violation of Article 11 of the ECHR, relating to the right to freedom of association.
In this sense it would appear that the authorities have failed, through this new decision, both to uphold the provisions of Article 11 of the ECHR, as well as those of Article 53 of the same Convention stating that "the High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the decision of the Court in any case to which they are parties".
In addition to this case, Amnesty International has also been informed that on 11 May 2004, the Single-Member Aridea Criminal Court of First Instance found Archimandrite Nikodimos Tsarknias guilty of establishing and operating a house of worship without the authorization of the local religious and educational authority, as required by Law 1363/1938, and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment. The defence’s argument that Article 1 of this Law, which requires places of worship to be registered with the authorities before they are given permission to operate, contravened Article 9 of the ECHR regarding freedom of religion was rejected.
In 1997 Greece was found guilty of violating the provisions of the ECHR because of the stipulations of Law 1363/1938.(123) Thus, these recent decisions appear to similarly violate both the provisions of the ECHR regarding freedom of religion, and those regarding the treaty obligation to abide by the European Court of Human Rights’ rulings. It should be noted that the National Commission for Human Rights has also expressed the view that the provisions of this Law are contradictory to those of the ECHR.(124)
In a very similar case, on 7 February 2005 the Supreme Court banned the "Turkish Union of Xanthi" on the basis that it poses a threat to public order and national security and that its
"aim is in contradiction with the international treaties signed in Lausanne, as it is attempted openly to present that in Greece (the area of Western Thrace) there is an ethnic Turkish minority, while according to these treaties only the presence of a religious Muslim minority is recognized in the area… The reference to the Turkish identity is not used to denote some remote Turkish origin but a current quality [of the members of the Association] as members of a Turkish minority that would exist in Greece and would pursue the promotion within the Greek state of state interests of a foreign state and specifically Turkey… The appellant [association] with through its insistence in keeping the adjective ‘Turkish’ in the Union’s name, in contradiction to the international treaties mentioned above, not only fails to contribute to the peaceful coexistence amongst the citizens of the area, which is necessary for the general well-being of the two Greek communities, Christian and Muslim, but also raises a non-existent minority problem of ‘Turks’."(125)
The "Turkish Union of Xanthi" association was founded in 1946 and was initially dissolved in 1984, on the basis that it constituted a danger to national security, since which time the case has been examined by the courts.
Amnesty International considers that the failure to lift the ban on such associations’ operations violates international law and standards on the right to freedom of association, and specifically, Article 22 of the ICCPR as well as Article 11 of the ECHR. Despite the fact that the authorities maintain that "the refusal of the denomination of an association which includes the word ‘Turkish’ is not an unconditional one",(126) the fact that no such associations have as yet been given permission to operate in Greece raise further concerns about the failure of the authorities to comply with the obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of members of minorities. These concerns are raised particularly in light of the fact that these judgments concern a recognized minority group, even though the word used to identify it is disputed by the authorities.(127) Thus, there are additional concerns that the decisions are in contravention of Article 2.4 of the UN Declaration on Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, under which "persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain their own associations".(128)
4.3 The failure to address the legacy of discriminatory policies
Another area of concern in relation to the state’s obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of members of minority groups is the failure to provide redress for violations perpetrated under laws that have since been judged to fall short of international human rights law and standards as well as national legislation on non-discrimination.
In this context, the organization is concerned about the continuing denial of the authorities to re-issue citizenship documents to individuals belonging to the Muslim population of western Thrace. According to Article 19 of the Greek Citizenship Code, which was abrogated in 1998, Greek citizens who were not of ethnic Greek origin could have their citizenship withdrawn, if they were believed by the authorities to have immigrated to another country. A number of individuals belonging to the Muslim minority in western Thrace were classified as "non-citizens" (ανιθαγενείς) under the old Article 19 of the Code. They lost their citizenship because they, at some point in their lives, left the country and have to date not been able to regain it. In practice, the application of the old Article 19 of the Citizenship Code was never transparent, and thus resulted in withdrawing citizenship from individuals who had never intended to emigrate. For example, in a number of cases, individuals who had reportedly only travelled to nearby Turkey for a short holiday had their Greek citizenship withdrawn. Furthermore, in most cases, authorities did not take adequate steps to ensure that the individuals concerned were informed of the decision to withdraw their citizenship in time to appeal these decisions, and thus the right to appeal was lost. Some of the people who lost their citizenship under the old Article 19 might still be unaware of it even today. People belonging to the Muslim minority in western Thrace who have lost their citizenship in this way and who have lost their right to appeal are also denied access to state benefits and institutions that other Greek citizens enjoy (e.g. social security benefits, access to specific health care provisions, pension allowances, provision of identification documents, etc.).(129)
While Article 19 of the Citizenship Code was withdrawn in 1998 because it was considered discriminatory, Amnesty International remains concerned that the Greek authorities have to date failed in their obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of persons belonging to the Muslim minority in western Thrace, both by failing to inform those affected of their loss of citizenship in a prompt and effective manner that would secure their right of appeal and by refusing to reconsider the cases of all people who had lost their citizenship under the old Article 19 of the Citizenship Code and to recognize their claims to citizenship.
In a report published in February 2004 by the Ombudsman’s office,(130) the procedure to examine the claim for naturalization of one such "non-citizen" was found to be inadequate. The case concerned a young woman who had applied for naturalization in 1999, along with her parents and her three sisters, upon the withdrawal of the old Article 19 of the Citizenship Code. The family had all lost their citizenship in 1984, when the woman in question was two years of age. While the rest of the family was apparently granted citizenship anew, the applicant was only informed in 2003, that in order for her naturalization application to be examined further, she had to pay the fee of around €1500, levied on aliens applying for naturalization. Yet in a subsequent communication with the Ombudsman, the Ministry of Interior responsible for examining the application stated that the examination of the application had been cancelled because at the time it was filed the applicant was a minor. After examination of the case, the Ombudsman concluded that this reasoning contradicted national legislation which states that married minors (which the young woman in question was, at the time) have a right to pursue activities in order to maintain and improve their personal welfare. In addition, the report also found that the requirement of a fee in order to process the application fell foul of international law and standards as it contravened the provisions of Article 32 of the UN Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, which Greece has ratified. The article states that "the Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of stateless persons. They shall in particular make every effort to expedite naturalization proceedings and to reduce as far as possible the charges and costs of such proceedings."
4.4 Conclusion
In its third report on Greece published in 2004, ECRI encouraged the authorities "to ensure that all groups in Greece, Macedonians and Turks included, could exercise their rights to freedom of association and freedom of expression in accordance with international legal standards", further noting that:
"the Greek authorities are more ready to recognise the existence of minority groups in Greece, such as the Pomaks or the Roma, including the fact that certain members of these groups have a native language other than Greek. However, other groups still encounter difficulties, the Macedonians and Turks for example. Even today, persons wishing to express their Macedonian, Turkish or other identity incur the hostility of the population. They are targets of prejudices and stereotypes, and sometimes face discrimination, especially in the labour market."(131)
This chapter is not exhaustive of the human rights concerns around the issues of minority protection. However, Amnesty International continues to be concerned about the authorities’ failure to address these issues. The organization also continues to receive reports of the authorities’ failure to fully address issues of religious freedom pertaining to the minorities, including the well-publicized controversy over the mufti appointments.(132)
In addition, while the organization welcomes the steps taken to address past violations against minority members arising from discriminatory legislation such as the repeal of the old Article 19 of the Citizenship Code, it is seriously concerned about the violations that victims of such past policies continue to suffer at present.
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusion
Throughout this report an interconnecting thread has been the documented failure of the authorities to ensure that persons residing in Greece who are not members of the Greek majority group enjoy the human rights to which they are entitled, whether they be asylum-seekers, migrants or members of minorities. This report has documented the mechanisms that contribute to this failure. Although Amnesty International has also received reports of violations of the rights of members of the majority Greek population, it is of grave concern that such reports were vastly outnumbered by the number of similar violations of the rights of foreigners and members of minorities. There is thus an urgent need for the Greek government to meet its obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of marginalized groups and individuals. In this final chapter, Amnesty International makes recommendations to the Greek authorities, covering the four main areas of human rights violations covered in the report.
5.2 Recommendations regarding the protection of the rights of refugees
Amnesty International has been informed that the Greek government is currently in the process of revising its migration policy. Such revision could have a profound impact not only on migrants’ rights in general, but also on refugee rights in particular. In this regard, the organization recommends that this revision also includes a review of the government’s legislation regarding refugee protection to ensure that:
· Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is ratified;
· the role of experts on refugee protection, such as UNHCR and Lawyers’ Association representatives, in the assessment of asylum applications is enhanced;
· access to free, independent and competent legal advice at all stages of the asylum process is made available, including the provision of trained and independent interpreters in order to enable the lawyer to communicate effectively with the asylum-seeker;
· adequate interpretation facilities, including written information on the asylum procedure in a language which they understand, are made available to applicants throughout the asylum process as well as to detainees in border police stations and detention centres;
· the asylum determination procedure meets international standards of fairness, timeliness and impartiality. In this respect, closer scrutiny of first instance decision-making should be introduced in order to counter the current practice of blanket rejection of applications at first instance;
· the current legislation and its application do not contravene the spirit of the Dublin II Regulation. To this end, the revised legislation should explicitly state that "interruption" of the examination process does not mean rejection. In cases where there is an intent on the part of the Greek authorities to deport individuals outside the EU after readmission from an EU country on the basis of the Dublin II Regulation, this intent to deport should be communicated to the authorities of the third country and the lawyers responsible for the case abroad;
· access to an independent review of asylum applications in the event of negative decisions is available. The scope of this review should cover the substance of the claim so as to ensure effective appeal, with suspensive effect, of negative decisions;
· the legislation includes specific provisions ensuring that unaccompanied minors are offered guidance throughout the asylum determination process by child experts. The minors should be consulted throughout this process. Child welfare agencies should also be notified of impending transfers of unaccompanied minors to their countries of origin.
In addition, measures should be introduced to ensure that legislation is applied in a way that ensures that the protection of the human rights of refugees is upheld, including maintaining respect for the fundamental principle of non-refoulement. To this end:
· a statutory presumption against detention should be introduced as well as mechanisms to ensure that each decision to detain an asylum-seeker is automatically and regularly reviewed as to its lawfulness, necessity and appropriateness by means of a prompt, oral hearing by a court or similar competent independent and impartial body, accompanied by the appropriate provision of legal aid, in line with UNHCR Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers. The detention of vulnerable people who have sought asylum, including minors, torture survivors and pregnant women is prohibited;
· mechanisms should be introduced to monitor border-policing practices and to ensure that refoulement is not practised. These mechanisms should also provide access to full investigation procedures in case of allegations of such practices;
· arrested migrants are informed in a language they understand of their rights upon arrest, including the right to seek asylum. Access to refugee status determination procedures should be available in all regions where migrants are detained;
· police personnel serving in border regions and particularly on the country’s eastern and southern borders should receive thorough training in human rights standards, as well as in the principles and standards of refugee protection in order that they can adequately identify and refer people who are requesting asylum to the appropriate authorities;
· a strict division of tasks is implemented and maintained between border guards and officers involved in refugee status determination procedures;
· medical personnel in the border detention centres should be trained with regard to the specific features of the provision of health care in a detention facility and the particular needs of asylum-seekers, including psychological needs;
· training of law enforcement officials should include training on the use of force, and should be designed to address racist or discriminatory attitudes and behaviour among officers;
· a permanent, independent monitoring and inspection body should be mandated to make regular, unannounced and unrestricted visits to all facilities in which asylum-seekers are detained and to ensure that international and domestic law and standards are adhered to.
Amnesty International calls on the EU Commission responsible for reviewing the application of the Dublin II Regulation to consider the responsibilities of Greece for the refoulement of persons who may have suffered persecution upon return to their countries because they have been denied the right to have their applications re-examined in substance following a decision of "interruption".
Amnesty International also calls on the EU Commission responsible for monitoring the application of the Directive on Reception Conditions to consider the responsibilities of Greece for not providing: adequate living conditions to persons in detention; adequate access to interpreters; and adequate legal assistance.
5.3 Recommendations regarding the protection of the rights of migrants
Amnesty International urges the authorities to review their policies of detaining migrants with a view to ensuring that:
· the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is ratified;
· detention of unaccompanied children is prohibited and there is a presumption against the detention of individuals such as women with children;
· mechanisms are put into place to ensure the right of all migrants to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, including the right to appeal, and compensation is made available to those found to have been unlawfully detained;
· any allegations of racism, ill-treatment and other abuses of those held in detention should be investigated immediately in compliance with relevant international law and standards and those allegedly responsible should be dealt with appropriately by being brought to justice. To this end, mechanisms should be introduced to ensure that detainees have regular access to independent bodies able to process such complaints, including criminal courts;
· a permanent, independent monitoring and inspection body is mandated to make regular, unannounced and unrestricted visits to all facilities in which migrants are confined and to ensure that international and domestic law and standards are adhered to;
· female staff are used in centres where women are housed, in order to ensure the physical protection of women in the centres;
· officers and other staff involved in the running of detention centres "as well as possessing well-developed qualities in the field of inter-personal communication … [are] familiarised with the different cultures of the detainees and at least some of them… have relevant language skills. Further they should be taught to recognize possible symptoms of stress reactions displayed by detained persons (whether post-traumatic or induced by socio-cultural change) and to take appropriate action" (recommendations of the CPT).
Regarding the ill-treatment of migrants, Amnesty International urges the authorities to ensure that:
· thorough, prompt and impartial investigations are carried out into the human rights violations perpetrated against the individuals arrested and detained in the locations mentioned in this report (Amygdaleza, Chios, Crete, Mytilini, Peplo, Soufli and Vrysika);
· thorough, prompt and impartial investigations are carried out into the human rights violations perpetrated against Afghan migrants in December 2004; that if enough evidence is gathered the alleged perpetrators of these violations are brought to justice and that the victims are afforded full reparation, including restitution, compensation, satisfaction, rehabilitation and guarantees of non-repetition;
· thorough, prompt and impartial investigations are carried out into the human rights violations perpetrated against the Albanian migrants mentioned in this report; that, if enough evidence is gathered the alleged perpetrators of these violations are brought to justice and that the victims are afforded full reparation, including restitution, compensation, satisfaction, rehabilitation and guarantees of non-repetition.
5.4 Recommendations regarding the protection of the rights of the Roma
Amnesty International urges the Ministry of Interior to take all necessary measures in liaising with local authorities in order to ensure that:
· a moratorium on evictions is implemented until such time as adequate safeguards are put in place to ensure consistency with international law;
· Romani residents are not forcibly evicted from their dwellings. This implies, inter alia: that no such dwellings are demolished without the residents’ prior knowledge; that Roma who are evicted are resettled in accommodation which is in accordance with their right to an adequate standard of living, as provided by the provisions of the ICCPR, the ICESCR, and the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination; that agreements made with Romani individuals prior to their relocation are fully honoured; and that decision-making processes ensure the meaningful participation of Romani representatives in the search for alternatives to eviction and to their current accommodation;
· stopping places are made available for Roma who choose to be itinerant;
· programmes are set up to combat anti-Roma prejudice among the population at large and within communities neighbouring Romani settlements in particular.
Amnesty International also calls on international bodies such as the Union of European Football Associations, which are assessing Greece’s applications for hosting international events to seek assurances from the authorities that the hosting of events will not be at the expense of the human rights of the residents of areas proposed to be developed.
Amnesty International reiterates ECRI’s recommendation to the authorities to "provide training to police, public officials, Ombudsman, prosecutor and judges with an appreciation of problems of racism against Roma, and the need to verify, on each occasion, whether or not an offence has a racist character in order to take appropriate action." In this regard, the organization also urges:
· police authorities to ensure that racist attacks against Romani individuals perpetrated by non-state actors, as well as complaints of ill-treatment of Roma by police officers, are fully investigated and that if enough evidence is gathered suspected perpetrators are brought to justice;
· the relevant authorities to ensure that Roma, who are migrants from Albania, are not subjected to discriminatory treatment.
5.5 Recommendations regarding the protection of the rights of minorities
Amnesty International urges the authorities to ensure that the provisions of Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the ECHR are fully implemented by:
· ratifying the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which Greece signed in 1997;
· reviewing the legislation currently in place with regard to the operation of non-governmental organizations with a view to safeguarding, in a non-discriminatory way, the rights to freedom of religion, expression and association.
The organization strongly recommends that violations suffered by minority individuals as a result of discriminatory legislation is addressed. This includes:
· ensuring that all of the individuals who, under such legislation have had their citizenship rights withdrawn, are fully informed about the conditions under which these decisions were taken;
· facilitating the naturalization of individuals who have lost their citizenship rights in this way, including by removing relevant fees and by introducing procedures to speed up the naturalization process;
· ensuring that all individuals who have lost their citizenship rights in this way regain access to the full range of social benefits they would be entitled to as Greek citizens.
The organization also calls on the authorities to review the policies relating to the recognition of minorities, specifically with a view to:
· stopping the practice of listing recognized minorities;
· establishing mechanisms to ensure that the government complies with its obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the right to self-identification according to established clear and objective criteria.
********
(1) Greece: In the Shadow of Impunity: Ill-treatment and the Use of Firearms, Amnesty International and International Helsinki Federation joint publication (AI Index: EUR 25/022/2002)
(2) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Committee, Consideration of Reports Submitted by the State Parties Under Article 40 of the Covenant: Initial Report, Greece, 5 April 2004 CCPR/C/GRC/2004/01: 12.
(3) Εντυπωσιακή Μείωση των Αιτήσεων Ασύλου: Τι λένε οι Αριθμοί για την Ελλάδα [Impressive Reduction on Asylum Applications: What the Figures Say About Greece], UNHCR, Greece Press Release, 1 March 2005
(4) UNHCR, "2004 Global Refugee Trends: Over view of Refugee Populations, New Arrivals, Durable Solutions, Asylum-seekers, Stateless and Other persons of concern to UNHCR", 17 June 2005, Population and Geographical Data Section Division of Operational Support, UNHCR, Geneva.
(5) "Why Greece is Not a Safe Host Country for Refugees", Skordas and Sitaropoulos, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2004 (16:1), pp 27, 49.
(6) Στατιστικά Ασύλου για την Ελλάδα (1997-2004) [Asylum Statistics for Greece (1997-2004)], UNHCR, Greece 2005.
(7) UNHCR, Position on important aspects of refugee protection in Greece, November 2004: 4.
(8) The main EU directives/regulations are: (i) Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof, Official Journal n° L 212, 20 July 2001; (ii) Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum -seekers , Official Journal N° L 31, 6 February 2003 (iii) Council Regulation 343/2003/EC of 18 February 2003 Official Journal n° L 50, 25 February 2003; (iv) Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection Brussels, Official Journal n° L 304, 30 September 2004; (v) Amended proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status on 29 April 2004, 8771/04 Asile 33.
(9) UNHCR’s Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees notes in this regard that "a person is a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Convention as soon as he fulfils the criteria contained in the definition. This would necessarily occur prior to the time at which his refugee status is formally determined." UNHCR, Geneva, p. 7.
(10) As an EU member, Greece is bound by the Convention determining the State responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States of the European Communities (the Dublin Convention). This inter-governmental convention has now been replaced by the Council Regulation (EC) n° 343/2003 of 18 February 2003, the so-called "Dublin II Regulation". In order to aid the application of this Convention, member states use the "Eurodac" and the DubliNET systems. Eurodac is a common database where fingerprints of all asylum applicants and apprehended undocumented migrants are contained. DubliNET is an electronic network of transmission channels between the national authorities dealing with asylum applications. The network became operational on 1 September 2003 in the EU Member States and in Norway and Iceland. It allows the national authorities responsible for examining asylum applications to exchange data on asylum applicants in order to determine the responsible Member State.
(11) A report published in 2004 by UNHCR listed 12 such centres, also known as "Reception Centres" in the country, 10 of which were still in operation at the time of publication (Πρακτικές Υποδοχής Αιτούντων Άσυλο στην Ελλάδα με Ιδιαίτερη Έμφαση σε Μητέρες Μόνες, Γυναίκες Μόνες και Παιδιά που έχουν χωριστεί από τις Οικογένιές τους [Reception Practices for Asylum-Seekers in Greece with special emphasis on Single Mothers, Unaccompanied Women, and Children separated from their Families], Tsovili and Voutira, 2004)
(12) Article 4.1 of Law 1975/1991 regulating foreigners’ rights.
(13) The "Green Card" is the third major document in the migrant legalization process, and is given to migrants who are not refugees and who have been granted residence and work permits.
(14) Nicholas Sitaropoulos, "Refugee Welfare in Greece: Towards a Remodelling of the Responsibility-Shifting Paradigm?" in Critical Social Policy 22(3): 436-455, 2004 and Achilleas Skordas, "The case of recognized refugee families in Greece: The ‘undesirable’ integration" in Quarterly on Refugee Problems (AWR-Bulletin) 40(49) Number 4/2002: 210-221.
(15) Eleni Spathana, Νομική Συνδρομή σε Πρόσφυγες και Αιτούντες Άσυλο στην Ελλάδα [Legal Assistance for Refugees and Asylum-Seekers in Greece], Greek Refugee Council, Athens, 2004: 135.
(16) Tsovili and Voutira, ibid.
(17) This limitation has in fact been cited as one of the contributing factors rendering Greece "an unsafe host country" (Skordas and Sitaropoulos, ibid).
(18) Amended proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status on 29 April 2004, 8771/04 Asile 33.
(19) Conclusion No. 8 (XXVIII) of UNHCR’s Executive Committee states that "the [asylum] applicant should receive the necessary guidance as to the procedure to be followed" and that he "should be given the necessary facilities, including the services of a competent interpreter, for submitting his case to the authorities concerned."
(20) http://www.noas.org/Dbase/pub/TheTra...henAsyl3.shtml
(21) Article 5 of this Directive requires states to ensure "that applicants are provided with information on organisations or group of persons that provide specific legal assistance and organisations that might be able to help or inform them concerning the available reception conditions, including health care".
(22) European Court of Human Rights, Twalib v. Greece (application number 42/1997/826/1032), Judgment, 9 June 1998 and Biba v. Greece (application number 33170/96), Judgment, 26 September 2000.
(23) All of the lawyers contacted by Amnesty International in the preparation of this report stated that they work on this basis.
(24) Article 3 of the European Union Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (Dublin II Regulation): "Member States shall examine the application of any third country national who applies at the border or in their territory to any one of them for asylum. The application shall be examined by a single Member State which shall be the one which [according to the criteria of the Regulation is deemed] to be responsible."
(25) Panayiotis N. Papadimitriou and Ioannis F. Papageorgiou, 2005, "The New ‘Dubliners’: Implementation of European Council Regulation 343/2003 (Dublin-II) by the Greek Authorities", Journal of Refugee Studies 18 (3): 312.
(26) Article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention prohibits the imposition of penalties "on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened (…), enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence".
(27) Amnesty International has raised these concerns in its briefing to the UN Human Rights Committee.
(28) In these cases, Amnesty International representatives refused to proceed with the interviews.
(29) Προβλήματα στην Παραλαβή και Εξέταση Αιτημάτων Ασύλου στο Τμήμα Αλλοδαπών Αθηνών [Problems in the Logging and Examination of Asylum Applications in the Athens Alien’s Unit] Report prepared by Andreas Takis, Calliope Stephanaki, and Chrysa Hatzi, Human Rights section, Ombudsman’s Office, June 2005.
(30) UNHCR’s reports suggest that this is in fact a chronic problem, as it was raised in reports in 2002 and 2003 (UNHCR BO for Greece Annual Report on Refugee Protection in Greece in 2001, Athens, April 2002: 4; UNHCR BO for Greece UNHCR Positions on Crucial Issues Relating to Refugee Protection in Greece, Athens, October 2003).
(31) ECRE Country Report 2003: Greece, p.68
(32) Stavropoulou, in Eleftherotypia, 26 July 2004.
(33) Skordas and Sitaropoulos, ibid: 34.
(34) His full details are known to Amnesty International but have been concealed in order to protect his identity in light of the precariousness of his current status in Greece.
(35) Turkey: Call for immediate steps against isolation in "F-Type", AI Index: EUR 44/024/2002; Turkey: "F-Type" prisons - Isolation and allegations of torture and ill-treatment, AI Index: EUR 44/025/2001.
(36) This Centre is explicitly mentioned in PD 61/99 as one of the institutions from which authorities may request information relevant to the claims under consideration.
(37) In a letter addressed to the authorities in August 2004, Amnesty International had stated: "More than one million people have fled rural areas and taken refuge in settlements around towns in Darfur in 2003 and 2004. More than 30,000 people have been killed, thousands of women have been raped, and at least 170,000 people are now living as refugees on the Chad border or inside Chad. The people in the camps in Darfur are among the most vulnerable: they receive less assistance and protection from the international community than the refugees in Chad. They still face serious human rights violations by government forces and the Janjawid militia, including armed attacks and rape. See Too many people killed for no reason (AI Index: AFR 54/008/2004) and At the mercy of Killers - destruction of villages in Darfur (AI Index: AFR 54/072/2004)".
(38) Some of these are armed groups.
(39) This disease is recognized by the World Health Organization and mentioned in its 2004 publication Vitamin and Mineral Requirements in Human Nutrition, 2nd edition. The syndrome is associated with thiamine deficiency.
(40) "Greece: Estimates of the net number of migrants by five-year intervals, 1950 – 2000", Migration Information Source, Migration Policy Institute; original information obtained from UN Population Division (2001) "World Population Prospects: The 2000 Revision" (POP/DB/WPP/Rev) 2000/1/F10 and http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm.
(41) Greece’s initial report to the UN Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/GRC/2004/1).
(42) According to a report published in October 2003 by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) "in Greece, Albanian migrants are mainly employed in low-skilled jobs in agriculture and construction, whereas Poles and Romanians work as skilled manual labourers, Filipinos as domestic workers, Pakistani, Indians, Bangladeshi as unskilled labour in small factories and Africans as small traders and street vendors" (Migrants, Minorities and Employment: Exclusion, Discrimination and Anti-discrimination in 15 Member States of the European Union :36).
(43) Voutira Effie: "Pontic Greeks today: migrants or refugees?", Journal of refugee studies, 4 (4), 1991, p. 400-420 and "Refugees: whose term is it anyway? Emic and etic constructions of ‘refugees’ in Modern Greek" in The Refugee Convention at fifty: a view from forced migration studies (2003), Joanne van Selm, Khoti Kamanga, John Morrison, Aninia Nadig, Sanja Spoljar Vrzina and Loes van Willigen (eds), Lexington Books.
(44) These include the locally-based Greek Helsinki Monitor, and Antigone, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) as well as the Council of Europe’s European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI).
(45) Europe and Central Asia: Summary of Amnesty International's Concerns in the Region January - June 2004 (AI Index: EUR 01/005/2004), Europe and Central Asia: Concerns in Europe and Central Asia: July - December 2003 (AI Index: EUR 01/001/2004), Amnesty International Reports 2004 and 2005.
(46) European Court of Human Rights, Dougoz v. Greece (application number 40907/98), Judgment of 6 March 2001.
(47) Committee against Torture, Conclusions and recommendations: Greece published on 10 December 2004,. (Convention against Torture/C/CR/33/2).
(48) In 2003, the European Economic and Social Committee stated, in its Opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a Community return policy on illegal residents (COM(2002) 564 final), that "there should be a strict prohibition on returnees being held in jails, since illegal immigrants awaiting expulsion are not criminals" (§ 3.5).
(49) In fact, only two out of a total of about 40 individuals with whom representatives of the organization met, who were detained at the time or had at some previous point been detained (in which category the two belonged), reported detention of a shorter period of time.
(50) It is understood that the criteria of such "vulnerability" are inconsistent but the statement in itself suggests that at least some of the detainees may be deemed by their guards as worthy of protection, strengthening the concerns about the lack of access to the asylum process at these locations.
(51) The Court considered that the confinement of asylum-seekers was acceptable under the undeniable sovereign right to control aliens’ entry into and residence in their territory. However, "such confinement, accompanied by suitable safeguards for the persons concerned, is acceptable only in order to enable States to prevent unlawful immigration while complying with their international obligations, particularly under the 1951 Geneva Convention and the ECHR. States’ legitimate concern to foil the increasingly frequent attempts to get round immigration restrictions must not deprive asylum-seekers of the protection afforded by these Conventions", Amuur v. France, (judgment 25 June 1996, application number 19776/92) § 43.
(52) UNHCR Position on Important Aspects of Refugee Protection in Greece, November 2004.
(53) "Και Δεύτερο Κέντρο Υποδοχής Προσφύγων; [A Second Refugee Reception Centre?]", article by Stratis Balaskas in the local daily Empros, 19 January 2005. According to the same article, the local prefect also reported that around 60 women were also being held at the same centre.
(54) Greece has also ratified the Protocol to the Children’s Convention, on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict and has signed but not yet ratified the Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.
(55) Paragraph 1 states that "States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that a child who is seeking refugee status or who is considered a refugee in accordance with applicable international or domestic law and procedures shall, whether unaccompanied or accompanied by his or her parents or by any other person, receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment of applicable rights set forth in the present Convention and in other international human rights or humanitarian instruments to which the said States are Parties" and paragraph 2 states that "for this purpose, States Parties shall provide, as they consider appropriate, co-operation in any efforts by the United Nations and other competent intergovernmental organizations or non-governmental organizations co-operating with the United Nations to protect and assist such a child and to trace the parents or other members of the family of any refugee child in order to obtain information necessary for reunification with his or her family. In cases where no parents or other members of the family can be found, the child shall be accorded the same protection as any other child permanently or temporarily deprived of his or her family environment for any reason, as set forth in the present Convention."
(56) The Working group on Arbitrary Detention has stated that unaccompanied children should never be detained. See Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Report on the Visit of the Working Group to the United Kingdom on the Issue of Immigrants and Asylum-Seekers, E/CN.4/1999/63/Add.3, 18 December 1998.
(57) Identification details have been omitted because of the small number of individuals in this group.
(58) This was also the case for Reception Centres for Asylum-Seekers, where the absence of such support for vulnerable individuals such as single women and children was a major concern in UNHCR’s 2004 report (Tsovili and Voutira, ibid: 9).
(59) Takis Kampylis, "Ενστάσεις [Objections]", Ta Nea, 10 July 2004
(60) Similar claims had been made in previous months by a former detainee in a report prepared for the national television network NET (Kouvaras, Transit, broadcast on NET on 16 November 2004).
(61) United Kingdom: Seeking Asylum is Not a Crime: Detention of People who Have Sought Asylum, AI Index: EUR 45/015/2005.
(62) These details of the victims have been widely publicized in the national press.
(63) Greece: Amnesty International calls for re-trial of police officer acquitted of alleged rape of a Ukrainian woman (AI Index: EUR 25/006/2003) and entries in Europe and Central Asia: Summary of Amnesty International's Concerns in the Region January - June 2004 (AI Index: EUR 01/005/2004), Europe and Central Asia: Concerns in Europe and Central Asia: July - December 2003 (AI Index: EUR 01/001/2004) as well as entries in Amnesty International Reports 2004 and 2005.
(64) These reports were initially publicized by the international NGO ‘Terres des Hommes’ in 2003 (The trafficking of Albanian children in Greece, January 2003). The claims made in this publication, were subsequently investigated by the Greek Ombudsman and the findings published in a report in March 2004.
(65) Υλοποίηση του Προγράμματος: ‘Προστασία και Κοινωνική Φροντίδα των Παιδιών στο Δρόμο’ [Implementation of the Programme ‘Protection and Social Care for the Street Children’] Report by George Moschos, Olga Themeli, Stamatina Poulou and Samantha Stratithaki for the Rights of the Child Department, Ombudsman’s Office, Greece, March 2004.
(66) Draft Cooperation Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Albania and the Government of the Republic of Greece on the protection of unaccompanied children, trafficked children and children at risk of being trafficked.
(67) "Athina si pėrgjigjet Tiranės pėr zhdukjen e 300 fėmijėve", Metropol, 31 August 2005.
(68) One of the officers, Stylianos Dandoulakis, was found guilty of sexually abusing a man in the toilet. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison suspended for five years. Constantine Vardakis, who was charged with abetting Dandoulakis, received a 12-month suspended prison sentence. Ioannis Florakis, Ioannis Lefakis and Athanassios Moumtzis, were charged with physically abusing many of the migrants. All three received an 18-month suspended prison sentence.
(69) ‘Alpha’ main news bulletin, 16 December 2000.
(70) This procedure is carried out on the basis of a "Re-admission clause" under a Police Cooperation Agreement beteen Greece and Albania.
(71) Eleftherotypia, 5 February 2001.
(72) UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the Eighth UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in September 1990.
(73) Gazeta Shqiptare, 29 September 2003.
(74) Reports in Gazeta Shiptare and Shekulli of 17 April 2005.
(75) Albanian press reports, interviews carried out by ARCT and by the Albanian Group for Human Rights (AHRG), and the Albanian Ombudsperson’s Annual Report for 2003 presented to parliament in March 2004.
(76) Reports in the Albanian press on 20 and 21 November 2004; interview by the Albanian Helsinki Committee (AHC) on 23 November 2004.
(77) Shekulli, 13 November 2005
(78) Shekulli, 1 April 2005
(79) Koha Jone, Shekulli and Panorama, 16 December 2003; Shekulli, 17 December 2003.
(80) Shekulli, Korrieri, Panorama, 3 November 2004.
(81) Korrieri, Shekulli, Gazeta Shqiptare, Panorama, 26 March 2004.
(82) This is presumably a reference to three incidents in recent years, in which Albanian nationals hijacked buses in Greece. On one occasion (15 December 2004) the hijackers were two Albanian nationals who requested safe passage to Russia in exchange for the travellers in the bus whom they had taken hostage. The hijackers surrendered later that day. Two similar hijackings had also occurred in 1999.
(83) Korrieri, Koha Jone, 2 February 2005
(84) Red is the dominant colour in the Albanian flag.
(85) Convention against Torture/C/61/Add.1
(86) Πειθαρχική – Διοικητική Διερεύνηση Καταγγελιών σε Βάρος Αστυνομικών Υπαλλήλων [Disciplinary – Administrative Inquiry of Complaints Against Police Personnel] Report by Andreas Takis et al, Ombudsman’s Office, July 2004.
(87) The State of Roma in Greece, 29 November 2001 (Research Rapporteur: Lena Divani)
(88) Cleaning Operations: Excluding Roma in Greece, Country Report Series No. 12, ERRC and GHM, April 2003
(89) Ioannis Ktistakis and Nicholas Sitaropoulos, report on Greece to the EU Commission’s Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities Directorate, Anti-Discrimination and Relations with Civil Society Department, Executive Summary: Greece, 22 June 2004.
(90) Ktistakis and Sitaropoulos, ibid.
(91) European Committee of Social Rights, ERRC v. Greece, decision of 8 June 2005. Observations of the Hellenic Government on the substance of the Collective Complaint 15/2003, Doc Ref. No. 70600, Athens, 14 November 2003, at p. 3.
(92) Ministry of Employment and Social Welfare document to the Secretariat of the European Social Charter, Ref. No. 70545, dated 5 November 2004, page 30.
(93) For a summary of this communication see "Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, Miloon Kothari, Addendum: Summary of information transmitted to Governments and replies received" E/CN.4/2005/48/Add.1, published on 17 January 2005.
(94) Cleaning Operations: Excluding Roma in Greece, Country Report Series No. 12, ERRC and GHM, April 2003.
(95) OSCE Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting on Roma and Sinti: Report, Vienna, 10-11 April 2003, p.51.
(96) ECRI, Third Report on Greece Adopted on 5 December 2003, Strasbourg, 8 June 2004, document reference number: CRI (2004) 24.
(97) CESCR, Concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights : Greece, 07/06/2004, E/C.12/1/Add.97.
(98) ECSR, Collective Complaint number 15/2003, ERRC v. Greece, decision adopte by the Committee of Ministers on 8 June 2005, ResChS(2005)11.
(99) Amnesty International report, Greece: Preparing for the Olympic Games: Evicting the Roma (AI Index: EUR 25/004/2004).
(100) It should also be noted that the agreement was not extended to encompass Albanian Roma legally residing in Greece, who some years ago proceeded to set up a settlement next to the one where the Greek Roma were living.
(101) Amnesty International acknowledges GHM’s assistance in providing information relevant to the concerns raised in this section.
(102) Interviews with Roma families, January 2005.
(103) Eleftherotypia, 15 January 2004.
(104) In fact, it has been reported that two Greek Roma families living on the same plot were financially encouraged to reconstruct their sheds in the opposite plot, where the rest of the Greek Roma were located.
(105) Municipality of Patras document, GHM Ref. No. 13/351, 9 September 2004
(106) Following extensive media coverage of the incidents, the Albanian Roma have been allowed to resettle in the two settlements in the Makrigianni area.
(107) Greece: Albanian Roma targeted for evictions and attacks (AI Index: EUR 25/011/2005).
(108) This is a derogatory term used in Greece to refer to the Roma, although not as offensive as γύφτοι.
(109) "Letter of Protest-Denunciation to the Dean of the University of Patras and the Rector’s Council of the University of Patras", Πελοπόνησσος newspaper, 17 January 2001.
(110) Minutes and Decision of the Three Member Misdemeanours Court of Patras, Decision No. 3080/2003.
(111) In addition, Amnesty International has also learnt that in February 2004 the Police Directorate of Achaia had issued a circular entitled "Proposed measures for shop owners in view of the forthcoming carnival festivities", which included advice to shopkeepers "not to exchange money with private citizens, especially Gypsies" (point 4). Following public outcry, the circular was withdrawn; the police apologized and imposed unspecified disciplinary penalties on the police officers involved.
(112) Concerns arising from such reports were raised with the authorities in 2004, specifically regarding the trial of police officers who had allegedly ill-treated two Romani youths in 2001 – see Greece: The alleged ill-treatment of two young Roma, Theodoros Stephanou and Nikos Theodoropoulos, by police on the island of Cephalonia (AI Index: EUR 25/005/2001) and Greece entry in Europe and Central Asia: Summary of Amnesty International's Concerns in the Region January - June 2004 (AI Index: EUR 01/005/2004). A list of 23 cases of Roma ill-treated by the police was compiled by three local organizations in coordination with the World Organization Against Torture (Organisation Mondiale Contre la Torture, OMCT) in October 2004 in a report entitled State Violence in Greece: An Alternative Report to the United Nations Committee against Torture.
(113) For Amnesty International’s concerns regarding access to education see Greece entry in Amnesty International Report 2004.
(114) Greece: Albanian Roma targeted for evictions and attacks (AI Index: EUR 25/011/2005), July 2005.
(115) UN Document CCPR/C/GRC/2004/1, p.165.
(116) This was the Treaty signed on 24 July 1923 that formally ended the first world war, signed between the Allies and Turkey and regulated territorial borders (Articles 1-45), the Ottoman public debt (Articles 46-57) and other matters, among which the compulsory exchange of Muslim and Orthodox populations between Greece and Turkey respectively (Article 142). Annexed to this Treaty was the Convention Concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations, signed earlier, on 30 January 1923, which also designated "The Greek inhabitants of Constantinople" and "The Moslem inhabitants of Western Thrace" in addition to the inhabitants of the islands of Imbros and Tenedos, as groups exempted from the exchange (Article 2 of Convention, Article 14 of Treaty). A number of articles in the Treaty stipulate that the groups exempted from the exchange are to enjoy the same civil and political rights as other citizens, as well as additional protection of their rights in the areas of language and religion (Articles 37-45).
(117) Estimates of the minority population in Thrace suggest a figure of 100,000, roughly half of which are thought to be "Turks", the other half comprising "Pomaks" and "Roma" groups (according to locals as well as official terminology), many members of which, however, classify themselves as "Turks". Estimates of the "Macedonian" population are more divergent: the authorities estimate "Slav-speakers" to be 10,000, while estimates from international Macedonian associations raise the estimate up to 200,000.
(118) The CERD has stated, in its General Recommendation 24 that "a number of states parties recognize the presence on their territory of some national or ethnic groups or indigenous peoples, while disregarding others. Certain criteria should be uniformly applied to all groups, in particular the number of persons concerned, and their being of a race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin different from the majority or from other groups within the population." On this basis, it has declared under its General Recommendation 8 that "having considered reports from states parties concerning information about the ways in which individuals are identified as being members of a particular racial or ethnic group or groups, [CERD] is of the opinion that such identification shall, if no justification exists to the contrary, be based upon self-identification by the individual concerned."
(119) HRC, General Comment No. 23: The rights of minorities (Art. 27): 8 April 94. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5: § 5.2.
(120) European Court of Human Rights, Sideropoulos and others v. Greece (Case number 57/1997/841/1047), Judgment of 10 July 1998.
(121) AI press releases, Greece: Amnesty International welcomes the acquittal of four members of ethnic Macedonian minority party, AI Index: EUR 25/045/1998, Greece: Charges against members of the "Rainbow" party should be dropped, AI Index: EUR 25/044/1998, and Greece: Amnesty International will adopt members of "Rainbow" party as prisoners of conscience in case of imprisonment, AI Index: EUR 25/010/1997.
(122) http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/bhr/engl...ilization.html
(123) European Court of Human Rights, Manoussakis and Others v. Greece [Manoussakis et autres c. Grčce], Judgment of 26 September 1996, 23 E.H.R.R. 387
(124) Sisilianos and Ktistakis, Προτάσεις για Θέματα Θρησκευτικής Ελευθερίας (Ιδίως Ζητήματα Συμμόρφωσης με τις Αποφάσεις του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων [Proposals on Issues of Freedom of Religion (especially relating to matters of alignment with the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights)], NCHR, March 2001.
(125) Motion to the Plenary Session by the Supreme Court Prosecutor Dimitris Linos, 23 September 2004, adopted by the Hellenic Supreme Court, case of "Turkish Union of Xanthi" and Others v. Xanthi Nomarch and the "Panhellenic Federation of Associations in Thrace", decision number 4/2005 of 7 February 2005, para. 9.
(126) 11th Session of the Working Group on Minorities, Statement of the Delegation of the Observer Government of Greece, Permanent Mission of Greece, Geneva, 30 May 2005.
(127) In fact, the HRC’s General Comment on Article 27 (protection of minorities) of the ICCPR states that "the existence of minorities does not depend on the state decision but is to be established by objective criteria; and that non-citizens and even non-permanent residents of state qualify for protection under Article 27".
(128) UN General Assembly resolution 47/135, 18 December 1992.
(129) It should be noted that under the CERD’s General Recommendation 30, these provisions should not be limited to citizens.
(130) Document number 7547.03.2.2
(131) ECRI, Third Report on Greece.
(132) The controversy arose when the authorities arrested and imprisoned Emin Agga, a Muslim cleric and minority member for declaring himself the "mufti of Xanthi". See previous report on this issue Greece: Freedom of religion and expression on trial - the case of Mehmet Emin Aga, Mufti of Xanthi (AI Index: EUR 25/001/2000). The European Court of Human Rights has found Greece in violation of Article 9 of the ECHR (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) – see Agga v. Greece (No. 2) (50776/99) [2002] ECHR 671 (17 October 2002).
AI Index: EUR 25/016/2005 5 October 2005
Krijoni Kontakt