Autorităţile moldoveneşti tolerează discriminarea religioasă şi antisemitismul prin inacţiunea admisă de colaboratorii poliţiei, a declarat organizaţia de apărare a drepturilor omului Amnesty International Moldova cu referinţă la acţiunile antisemite din centrul Chişinăului desfăşurate de activiştii ortodocşi.
Pe data de 13 decembrie 2009, un grup de enoriaşi, conduşi de Anatolie Cibric, au devastat sfeşnicul Hanukkiah instalat anterior de comunitatea evreiască în scuarul Europei din Chişinău. Acţiunile şi declaraţiile protoiereului denotă caracterul premeditat şi planificat al acestor acţiuni, care au fost tolerate de către colaboratorii poliţiei aflaţi în exerciţiul funcţiei.
Amnesty International Moldova consideră acţiunile enoriaşilor ortodocşi un exemplu vădit de antisemitism şi instigare la ură faţă de minorităţile naţionale şi religioase, inclusiv de profanare a simbolurilor religioase. Autorităţile trebuie să prevină şi stopeze asemenea acţiuni, să asigure apărarea drepturilor şi libertăţilor fundamentale ale omului, inclusiv a libertăţilor religioase, prin implementarea mecanismelor prevăzute de actele internaţionale la care Republica Moldova este parte. Poliţia nu a întreprins nimic pentru a opri actul de vandalism din partea enoriaşilor creştini şi acest fapt devine o practică respândită în Republica Moldova.
În timpul marşului din 2008 în susţinerea legii antidiscriminare poliţia nu a apărat manifestanţii de contramanifestanţi. În februarie 2009, poliţia nu a fost prezentă în faţa Procuraturii Generale, atunci când un grup de persoane mascate au atacat apărătorii drepturilor omului ce au organizat un marş în susţinerea libertăţii întrunirilor.
În aprilie 2009, poliţia nu a reuşit să asigure protecţia sediilor Parlamentului şi Preşedinţiei, iar în august 2009 au declarat că nu vor putea asigura ordinea publică în cadrul întrunirii adventiştilor. Una din principalele obligaţii ale poliţiei este de curma infracţiunile. Poliţia trebuie să apere cetăţenii indiferent de situaţia lor socială, de apartenenţa naţională, de rasă, de sex şi vîrstă, de atitudinea faţă de religie, de convingerile politice şi de altă natură. Iar atunci când poliţiştii nu reuşesc să-şi îndeplinească obligaţiile, aceştia trebuie să fie traşi la răspundere. Toate cazurile de inacţiune a poliţiei trezesc îndoieli privind pregătirea profesională a poliţiştilor, inclusiv pregătirea juridică şi atitudinea acestora faţă de legislaţia în vigoare.
„Autorităţile sunt obligate să dea dovadă de fermitate în apărarea valorilor libertăţii de conştiinţă şi să garanteze comunităţilor religioase din Moldova apărarea drepturilor şi intereselor lor legitime. Amnesty International Moldova îndeamnă autorităţile să cerceteze minuţios premisele posibilelor confruntări religioase în viitor şi să condamne prompt extremismul ortodox, demonstrînd în practică apărarea de către instituţiile publice a libertăţilor de conştiinţă şi religioase în Moldova”, a declarat Victor Suruceanu, Director Executiv Interimar Amnesty International Moldova.
MOLDOVA: AUTORITĂŢILE SE ESCHIVEAZĂ DE LA PROTECŢIA ORDINII PUBLICE ŞI INTERZIC ÎNTRUNIRILE
Torture and other ill-treatment
On 14 March, the parliament passed a law which could help to prevent torture and reduce impunity for torture and other ill-treatment. Among the changes, the Criminal Procedural Code was amended so that the institution in which the alleged victim was detained had to prove that the torture and other ill-treatment did not occur. Previously, the burden of proof had lain with the victims, who had to prove that they were tortured or otherwise ill-treated.The Consultative Council within the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s office, which is intended to monitor places of detention in accordance with Moldova’s obligations under the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture, was functional by March. However, concerns remained that the Council was not adequately funded or sufficiently independent from the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s office. There were continued reports of torture and other ill-treatment in police custody.
"Perpetrators of torture and other ill-treatment continued to enjoy impunity..."
- In February, brothers Vasiliu and Petru Livadari were allegedly beaten by staff in Cricova prison because of their complaints about their treatment and conditions in prison. After they complained to the Ombudsman they were reportedly threatened that they would be beaten to death. On the insistence of the Ombudsman, the two prisoners were moved, but the prosecutors who arrived at Cricova prison to investigate the allegations tried to dissuade the brothers from making a complaint. On 6 March, the Ministry of Justice, which has jurisdiction over the prison service in Moldova, stated that Vasiliu and Petru Livadari had been transferred to a prison hospital where they were receiving medical treatment, but that there was no evidence that they had been ill-treated. However, the Prosecutor General’s office announced on 4 April that two prison officers had been charged with torture under Article 309/1 of the Criminal Code. The case was ongoing at the end of the year.
Impunity
Perpetrators of torture and other ill-treatment continued to enjoy impunity because of a flawed and ineffective system of investigations, and a lack of political will to prosecute the perpetrators.- In February, Viorica Plate informed Amnesty International that she and her lawyer had been harassed by police. Viorica Plate had been tortured by police officers in Chişinău in May 2007, and on 1 November 2007 two of the officers were sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and one was given a suspended sentence. She accused the police officers who had been convicted of torturing her of harassment, and said that two of the officers had not been detained. On 6 March, the Prosecutor General’s Office said that the officers in question had not been detained because they were appealing against their sentence, and that it was not considered necessary to take protective measures on behalf of Viorica Plate.
- On 23 June, the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office again refused a request to open a criminal case concerning the allegations of torture made by Sergei Gurgurov. Sergei Gurgurov allegedly sustained head and spinal injuries at the hands of the police in Chişinău in October 2005 and had been left permanently disabled.
Freedom of expression
On 22 February, the Moldovan parliament passed a new law on assembly which came into force on 22 April. The new law, drafted after extensive consultation with civil society, was a significant step towards greater freedom of expression in Moldova. Organizers of public events have to inform local authorities of the event, but are no longer required to seek permission, and assemblies of fewer than 50 individuals can meet spontaneously without notification. The law also stipulates that assemblies can only be prohibited by a court. However, despite these progressive provisions, police and local authorities continued to restrict freedom of expression. According to monitoring carried out by a local NGO, the Resource Centre for Human Rights, police presence at demonstrations, the number of detentions and the use of force by police had increased since the new law came into force. People were prevented from demonstrating peacefully or detained for short periods if they did, although most prosecutions brought by the police were not upheld by the courts.
Several participants in a peaceful demonstration were injured by masked attackers in the capital, Chisinau.
© Amnesty International
- On 8 May, the Chişinău Mayor’s Office banned a demonstration by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) activists. The NGO GenderDoc-M had informed the Mayor’s office about its intention to demonstrate outside the Building of the Government in favour of the new anti-discrimination law. In a written notification the Mayor’s Office stated that religious organizations, school students and residents of the capital had reacted negatively to the planned demonstration and “accused sexual minorities of aggressiveness and violation of spiritual and moral values”. Therefore, to “avoid any tension in society”, it was necessary to prohibit the planned public meeting for the protection of the demonstrators. When the activists arrived close to the Building of the Government by bus on 11 May, they were surrounded by approximately 300 aggressive counter-demonstrators, who prevented them from leaving the bus. Onlookers reported that there were very few police officers present at the scene, and despite the rising tension they took no action to protect the LGBT activists, who were forced to leave the area. Nobody was injured.
- On 30 April, Oleg Brega of the freedom of expression organization Hyde Park was detained by police for protesting peacefully and alone in the centre of Chişinău on the anniversary of the founding of the state broadcasting company. Police tried to prevent him protesting and charged him with hooliganism. On 8 May, the court sentenced him to three days’ detention for swearing in public. His brother Ghenadie Brega was fined for protesting in public against Oleg Brega’s detention. Oleg Brega was acquitted by the Court of Appeal on 27 May.
Discrimination
On 29 April, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance published its third report on Moldova, and on 16 May the UN Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination published its concluding observations on the fifth to seventh periodic reports of Moldova. Both bodies expressed concern that existing legislation banning the incitement of racial, national and religious hatred was not being implemented, that Muslim ethnic minority organizations were being denied registration, and that acts of discrimination including racial discrimination by the police were not being prosecuted effectively.
In June, the Ministry of Justice circulated a draft Law on Preventing and Combating Discrimination for comment by civil society. The new law was based on international standards and was progressive in its inclusion of civil society in the drafting of the law. However, it concentrated on the negative obligation not to discriminate and did not include the positive duty to promote equality.
