08/12/2018: Μηνυτήρια αναφορά κατά “Ελεύθερης Ώρας” για αντισημιτική και ξενοφοβική ρητορική μίσους σε πρωτοσέλιδό της

ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟ ΤΜΗΜΑ ΑΝΤΙΜΕΤΩΠΙΣΗΣ ΡΑΤΣΙΣΤΙΚΗΣ ΒΙΑΣ

 

8 Δεκεμβρίου 2018


Κυρίες/Κύριοι

Σας υποβάλλουμε άλλη μια μηνυτήρια αναφορά, στα πλαίσια του προγράμματος του Παρατηρητηρίου Ρατσιστικών Εγκλημάτων, με αντικείμενο την αντισημιτική, συνομωσιολογική και ξενοφοβική ρητορική μίσους της εφημερίδας “Ελεύθερη Ώρα” για το πρωτοσέλιδό της, της 8ης Δεκεμβρίου 2018, που συνιστά υποκίνηση, πρόκληση, διέγερση, προτροπή σε πράξεις ή ενέργειες που μπορούν να προκαλέσουν διακρίσεις, μίσος ή βία κατά ομάδας προσώπων, που προσδιορίζονται με βάση την εθνική ή εθνοτική καταγωγή”:

elora8_12_18
Παρακαλούμε για τις ενέργειές σας καθώς και να μας ενημερώσετε για τον αριθμό πρωτοκόλλου που θα δώσετε στη μήνυση αυτή.
 
Με τιμή,

Παναγιώτης Δημητράς

Ελληνικό Παρατηρητήριο των Συμφωνιών του Ελσίνκι 
διεύθυνση: ΤΘ 60820 – 15304 Γλυκά Νερά
Advertisements

Συμβούλιο της Ευρώπης – Απόφαση Επιτροπής Υπουργών: Επίβλεψη εκτέλεσης αποφάσεων ΕΔΔΑ Μακαρατζής κτλ. κατά Ελλάδας (βία αστυνομικών – λιμενικών)

ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗ ΥΠΟΥΡΓΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟΥ ΤΗΣ ΕΥΡΩΠΗΣ

ΑΝΑΠΛΗΡΩΤΕΣ ΥΠΟΥΡΓΩΝ

Αποφάσεις

CM/Del/Δεκ(2018)1331/H46-13

6 Δεκεμβρίου 2018

1331η συνεδρίαση, 4-6 Δεκεμβρίου 2018 (ΑΔ)

H46-12 Ομάδα αποφάσεων Μακαρατζής κ.λπ. κατά Ελλάδας
(Προσφυγές υπ’ αριθ. 50385/99 κτλ.)

Επίβλεψη της εκτέλεσης των αποφάσεων του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου

Αποφάσεις

Οι Αναπληρωτές

1. υπενθυμίζοντας ότι αυτές οι υποθέσεις αφορούν τη χρήση δυνητικά θανατηφόρας βίας και κακομεταχείρισης από όργανα επιβολής του νόμου καθώς και την έλλειψη αποτελεσματικών ερευνών ικανών να οδηγήσουν σε επαρκείς πειθαρχικές και ποινικές κυρώσεις·

Όσον αφορά τα ατομικά μέτρα

2. υπενθυμίζουν με λύπη ότι, λόγω των ισχυόντων κανόνων παραγραφής, δεν είναι δυνατή η επανεξέταση υπερβολικά επιεικών καταδικαστικών αποφάσεων ή αναποτελεσματικών ποινικών ανακρίσεων (ειδικότερα της πρόσφατης υπόθεσης Andersen).

3. εκφράζουν επίσης τη λύπη τους για το γεγονός ότι στην υπόθεση Zontul, λόγω της τότε ισχύουσας ελληνικής νομοθεσίας, η επανεξέταση της ποινικής καταδίκης των λιμενικών υπεύθυνων για προσβολή της σεξουαλικής αξιοπρέπειας δεν θα επέτρεπε να ληφθεί υπόψη η διαπίστωση του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου ότι τα γεγονότα αποτελούσαν βασανιστήρια κατά την έννοια του άρθρου 3 της Σύμβασης, καθώς στην έννοια των βασανιστηρίων στην ελληνική νομοθεσία δεν περιλαμβάνονταν τα πραγματικά περιστατικά της υπόθεσης· σημείωσαν ωστόσο με ικανοποίηση την απόφαση του Συνήγορου του Πολίτη να επαναλάβει τις πειθαρχικές έρευνες σχετικά με τις συνέπειες των εν λόγω πράξεων·

4. εξέφρασαν τη λύπη τους για το γεγονός ότι σε όλες τις περιπτώσεις – εκτός από εκείνες των Σιδηρόπουλου – Παπακώστα και Andersen – η επανάληψη των πειθαρχικών ερευνών δεν ήταν δυνατή λόγω του ότι τα αδικήματα είχαν παραγραφεί·

5. κάλεσαν τις αρχές να ενημερώσουν την Επιτροπή μέχρι την 1η Σεπτεμβρίου 2019 για την επανεξέταση των πειθαρχικών ερευνών σχετικά με τις υποθέσεις Σιδηρόπουλου – Παπακώστα και Andersen·

6. επισημαίνοντας επίσης την ιδιαίτερη πολυπλοκότητα του ζητήματος παραγραφής στην υπόθεση Zontul, κάλεσαν τις αρχές να υποβάλουν στην Επιτροπή έως την 1η Σεπτεμβρίου 2019 τα πλήρη πορίσματα του Λιμενικού Σώματος σχετικά με την επανάληψη της πειθαρχικής διαδικασίας, ιδίως όσον αφορά την παραμονή στην υπηρεσία των υπευθύνων·

7. χαιρέτισαν την πρόθεση των αρχών να ζητήσουν από τους επικεφαλής των υπηρεσιών που εμπλέκονται σε βασανιστήρια και άλλες μορφές κακομεταχείρισης να ζητήσουν γραπτή συγγνώμη από τους προσφεύγοντες· κάλεσαν τις αρχές να ενημερώσουν την Επιτροπή μέχρι την 1η Σεπτεμβρίου 2019 για οποιαδήποτε περαιτέρω εξέλιξη·

Όσον αφορά τα γενικά μέτρα

8. κάλεσαν τις αρχές να εντείνουν τις συνεχιζόμενες προσπάθειές τους για την εξάλειψη όλων των μορφών κακομεταχείρισης από τα όργανα επιβολής του νόμου, λαμβάνοντας δεόντως υπόψη τις συστάσεις της CPT και τις κάλεσαν να παράσχουν στην Επιτροπή συγκεκριμένες και λεπτομερείς πληροφορίες σχετικά με τα ληφθέντα ή προβλεπόμενα μέτρα σε απάντηση στις αποφάσεις του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου στις υποθέσεις αυτές·

9. όσον αφορά την αποτελεσματικότητα των ερευνών, κάλεσαν τις αρχές να υποβάλουν έως την 1η Σεπτεμβρίου 2019 λεπτομερείς πληροφορίες σχετικά με τα ακόλουθα θέματα:

α) την αναστολή της παραγραφής για αξιόποινες πράξεις που σχετίζονται με παραβάσεις παρόμοιες με εκείνες στις υπό κρίση υποθέσεις·

β) τη γενική δυνατότητα επανέναρξης πειθαρχικών ερευνών σε περιπτώσεις όπου έχει ήδη αποφασισθεί ποινική ή πειθαρχική ευθύνη, λαμβανομένης υπόψη της αρχής ne bis in idem που κατοχυρώνεται στον νόμο 4443/2016·

γ) την αποτελεσματικότητα του νέου μηχανισμού καταγγελίας (Συνηγόρου του Πολίτη), ιδίως υπό το πρίσμα των αποτελεσμάτων των ερευνών επί των καταγγελιών που υποβλήθηκαν μετά την έναρξη λειτουργίας του μηχανισμού στις 9 Ιουνίου 2017·

δ) τον αντίκτυπο της νέας ενισχυμένης νομοθετικής προστασίας κατά του ρατσιστικού εγκλήματος και τα ενδεχόμενα νέα μέτρα που προβλέπονται για τη διασφάλιση της διερεύνησης πιθανών ρατσιστικών κινήτρων όταν παρουσιάζεται κακομεταχείριση στο πλαίσιο της επιβολής του νόμου·

ε) το κατά πόσον οι αποφάσεις για την περάτωση ποινικών ανακρίσεων λόγω παραγραφής μπορούν να υποβληθούν σε δικαστική ή άλλη ανεξάρτητη επανεξέταση·

στ) τα μέτρα που ελήφθησαν ή σχεδιάστηκαν στο πλαίσιο της τρέχουσας αναθεώρησης του Ποινικού Κώδικα, προκειμένου να ευθυγραμμιστεί πλήρως η διεξαγωγή των ποινικών ανακρίσεων σε περιπτώσεις κακομεταχείρισης και οι σχετικές κυρώσεις με τις απαιτήσεις της νομολογίας του Δικαστηρίου, ιδίως όσον αφορά τον ορισμό των βασανιστηρίων και τις δυνατότητες μετατροπής ποινών φυλάκισης που επιβάλλονται για βασανιστήρια και άλλες μορφές κακομεταχείρισης σε ποινές μη στερητικές της ελευθερίας.

[Μετάφραση στα ελληνικά από το Ελληνικό Παρατηρητήριο των Συμφωνιών του Ελσίνκι (ΕΠΣΕ) από το αγγλικό πρωτότυπο διαθέσιμο εδώ

Council of Europe – Commitee of Ministers’ Decision: Makaratzis group v. Greece

COECM

1331st meeting, 4-6 December 2018 (DH)

 

H46-13 Makaratzis group v. Greece (Application No. 50385/99)

Supervision of the execution of the European Court’s judgments

Reference document

CM/Notes/1331/H46-13

 

Decisions

The Deputies

  1. recalling that these cases concern the use of potentially lethal force and ill-treatment by law enforcement agents as well as the lack of effective investigations capable of leading to adequate disciplinary and criminal sanctions;

As regards individual measures

  1. recalled with regret that as a result of the prescription rules in force the reopening of excessively lenient convictions or of ineffective criminal investigations (notably the recent Andersen case) is not possible;
  2. expressed also regret that in the Zontul case, due to the state of Greek law at the time, a reopening of the criminal conviction of the responsible coast guard for infringement of sexual dignity would not allow to take into account the European Court’s finding that the facts constituted torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention, as the notion of torture in Greek law did not extend to the facts of the case; noted, however, with satisfaction the Ombudsman’s decision to reopen the disciplinary investigations into the consequences of the acts at issue;
  3. expressed regret that in all the cases – apart from Sidiropoulos and Papakostas and Andersen – the reopening of the disciplinary investigations was not possible due to the fact that the offences were subject to prescription;
  4. invited the authorities to inform the Committee by 1 September 2019 about the reopened disciplinary investigations concerning the Sidiropoulos and Papakostas and Andersen cases;
  5. noting also the particular complexity of the prescription question in the Zontul case, invited the authorities to provide the Committee by 1 September 2019  with the full conclusions of the Hellenic Coast Guard concerning the reopening of the disciplinary proceedings, notably as regards the continued employment of those responsible;
  6. welcomed the authorities’ intention to request the heads of the services involved in torture and other forms of ill-treatment to issue written apologies to the applicants; invited the authorities to inform the Committee by 1 September 2019 of any further development;

As regards general measures

  1. called upon the authorities to intensify their ongoing efforts to eradicate all forms of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials, taking due account of the CPT’s recommendations, and invited them to provide the Committee with concrete and detailed information on the measures taken or envisaged in response to the European Court’s judgments in these cases;
  1. invited, as regards the effectiveness of investigations, the authorities to provide by 1 September 2019 detailed information on the following issues:
  2. a) the suspension of the limitation period for offences related to violations similar to those in the present cases;
  3. b) the overall possibility to reopen disciplinary investigations in cases where criminal or disciplinary liability has already been decided, taking into account the ne bis in idem principle enshrined in Law 4443/2016;
  4. c) the effectiveness of the new complaint Mechanism (the Ombudsman), notably in the light of the outcome of the investigations into the complaints submitted since the Mechanism started to function on 9 June 2017;
  5. d) the impact of the new reinforced legislative protection against racist crime and possible new measures envisaged to ensure the investigation of possible racist motives when ill-treatment occurs in the context of law enforcement;
  6. e) the extent to which decisions to close criminal investigations on the basis of prescription can be subjected to judicial or other independent review;
  7. f) the measures taken or envisaged in the context of the ongoing revision of the Criminal Code in order to fully align the conduct of criminal investigations into ill-treatment and the relevant sanctions with the requirements of the Court’s case-law, in particular as regards the definition of torture and the possibilities to convert terms of imprisonment imposed for torture and other ill-treatment into non-custodial sentences.

1331st meeting, 4-6 December 2018 (DH)

Human rights

 

H46-13 Makaratzis group v. Greece (Application No. 50385/99)

Supervision of the execution of the European Court’s judgments

Reference document

CM/Del/Dec(2017)1302/H46-11

 

Application Case Judgment of Final on Indicator for the classification
50385/99 MAKARATZIS 20/12/2004 Grand Chamber Complex problem
15250/02 BEKOS AND KOUTROPOULOS 13/12/2005 13/03/2006
25771/03 ALSAYED ALLAHAM 18/01/2007 23/05/2007
17060/03 ZELILOF 24/05/2007 24/08/2007
27850/03 KARAGIANNOPOULOS 21/06/2007 21/09/2007
21449/04 CELNIKU 05/07/2007 05/10/2007
44803/04 PETROPOULOU-TSAKIRIS 06/12/2007 06/03/2008
43326/05 LEONIDIS 08/01/2009 05/06/2009
2945/07 GALOTSKIN 14/01/2010 14/04/2010
2954/07 STEFANOU 22/04/2010 04/10/2010
12294/07 ZONTUL 17/01/2012 17/04/2012
33349/10 SIDIROPOULOS AND PAPAKOSTAS 25/01/2018 25/04/2018
42660/11 ANDERSEN 26/04/2018 26/07/2018

Case description

These cases concern the use of potentially lethal force by the police in the absence of an adequate legislative and administrative framework governing the use of firearms (violation of positive obligation pursuant to Article 2 to protect life in the cases Makaratzis, Celniku, Karagiannopoulos and Leonidis); ill-treatment by police (violation of Article 3 in the cases of Bekos and Koutropoulos, Alsayed Allaham, Petropoulou-Tsakyri, Zelilof, Galotskin and Stefanou); ill-treatment by coastguards amounting to torture (violation of Article 3 in the case of Zontul); absence of effective administrative and criminal investigations and inadequate criminal proceedings and penalties (procedural violations of Article 2 in the cases of Makaratzis, Celniku, Karagiannopoulos and of Article 3 in the cases of Bekos-Koutropoulos, Petropoulou-Tsakiris, Zelilof, Galotskin, Zontul, Sidiropoulos and Papakostas and Andersen); failure to investigate whether racist motives on the part of the police may have played a role in some cases (violation of Article 14 combined with Article 3 in the cases of Bekos-Koutropoulos and Petropoulou-Tsakiris).

The Galotskin, Stefanou and Sidiropoulos and Papakostas cases also concern the excessive length of criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6 § 1); in the latter a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 was also found[1].

Status of execution

Individual measures

As regards all cases apart from Sidiropoulos and Papakostas and Andersen

At the 1157th meeting (December 2012) (DH), the authorities indicated that it was not possible under domestic law to reopen criminal proceedings on the sole basis of the deficiencies identified by the Court in the cases of the group where the perpetrators had been convicted or acquitted. As regards the cases where criminal charges had not been brought, these would be re-examined. Following re-examination of those cases it was found that the offences had become time-barred. As for disciplinary proceedings, the authorities indicated at that time that their reopening following a judgment by the European Court could be requested by the executive committee of “the Office for addressing arbitrary incidents” (“the Office”), established by Law No. 3938/2011, in respect of judgments of the Court delivered after 31 March 2011 (that date on which this law entered into force). Also, the statutory limitation period for disciplinary offences would not run between the termination of the disciplinary proceedings and the delivery of the Court’s judgment to the Office. In a communication received on 8 July 2015, the Greek authorities informed the Committee that the reopening of the administrative investigation in Zontul in the light of the Court’s findings would be considered as soon as the committee established by Law 3938/2011 became operational.

On 27 September 2017, the Greek authorities informed the Committee that Law 4443/2016 (in force as from 6 December 2016) had replaced the Office with the national mechanism for the investigation of incidents of abuse by law enforcement agents and by employees of state penitentiary establishments (Mechanism for the Investigation of Arbitrary Behaviour – “the Mechanism”), which was integrated into the Ombudsman’s Office. Furthermore, the authorities informed the Committee that the Zontul judgment was transmitted to the Mechanism on 27 July 2017, and that on 11 August 2017 the Mechanism requested the reopening of the administrative investigation in this case in the light of the European Court’s findings.

At its 1302nd meeting (December 2017) (DH), the Committee invited the Greek authorities to provide information on further developments and on the outcome of the reopened procedure. It also requested information regarding the examination by the Mechanism of the possibility of reopening administrative proceedings in the other cases of the group concerning ill-treatment by law enforcement agents.

In their communication of 8 October 2018, the Greek authorities informed the Committee that as regards Zontul, the Mechanism initially decided that there was no question of violation of the ne bis in idem principle since the offences to be investigated in the reopened proceedings were different from those investigated initially, and requested the reopening of the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the European Court’s findings. The authorities added that the disciplinary proceedings were reopened by the Hellenic Coast Guard and concluded by a report issued on 13 April 2018. Subsequently, the Mechanism issued its conclusions concurring with the Hellenic Coast Guard that, although the disciplinary offences investigated were different from those investigated initially, they had become time-barred because they had not been classified by domestic courts as criminal offences subject to longer statutory limitations.

According to the Mechanism, under Article 56 § 6 of Law 4443/2016 the suspension of the offences’ prescription between the termination of disciplinary proceedings and the delivery of the Court’s judgment to the Mechanism is possible only for those cases in which the prescription period had not expired by the date on which the Mechanism became operational (9 June 2017). As regards the other cases of the group, the Mechanism held that reopening of disciplinary proceedings was not possible because the offences had become prescribed long before the Mechanism became operational.

For all of these cases, the Mechanism proposed as the only possible individual measures a written apology from the heads of the services concerned to each of the victims of the impugned acts. In this way, moral satisfaction could be provided to these persons; at the same time there would be a commitment on the part of the relevant services that future disciplinary proceedings will be carried out in conformity with the Court’s case law. The Government Agent indicated that he agrees with this proposal and that he would pursue it before the services concerned.

As regards the cases of Sidiropoulos and Papakostas and Andersen

The above judgments became final on 24 April 2018 (Sidiropoulos and Papakostas) and on 26 July 2018 (Andersen). On 30 July 2018 the judgments were transmitted by the Government Agent to the Mechanism to examine the possibility of reopening administrative investigations, and on 20 August 2018 to the competent judicial authorities to examine the possibility of reopening criminal investigations. As regards Andersen, the First Instance Court Prosecutor of Thessaloniki examined the file and decided in September 2018 that the reopening of the case was not possible due to the fact that the offences were subject to prescription.

General measures

As regards administrative investigations of complaints against law enforcement agents

At its 1157th meeting (December 2012) (DH), the Committee of Ministers welcomed the repeal of Law No. 29/1943 on the use of firearms, which had been criticised by the European Court, noted that the new national legislation introduced a modern and comprehensive legislative framework for the use of firearms by the police and decided to close the supervision of the general measures taken by Greece to prevent similar violations of Article 2.

Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers welcomed the establishment by Law No. 3938/2011 of the three-member executive committee to head the aforementioned Office.

According to information provided by the authorities in September 2017, the Office did not become operational. Instead, as mentioned above, the Mechanism was established by Law No. 4443/2016, as part of the Ombudsman’s Office. The Mechanism is mandated to collect, record, assess and transmit to the competent bodies complaints about the actions of law enforcement agents and employees of detention establishments regarding: a) torture and other violations to human dignity within the meaning of Article 137A of the Criminal Code; b) illegal, intentional attacks against life, health, physical integrity, personal or sexual freedom; c) illegal use of firearms; or d) illegal behaviour for which there is evidence of racist motivation or discriminatory treatment on the grounds of colour, race, national or ethnic origin, descent, religion, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity. More specifically, the Ombudsman, acting as the Mechanism, evaluates all submitted complaints which fall within his specific competence and decides either to investigate them himself or to refer them to the competent disciplinary body.

If the Ombudsman decides to investigate the complaint himself, the competent disciplinary body is not prevented from continuing its investigation but is obliged to suspend its decision on the case pending receipt of the Ombudsman’s findings. If the Ombudsman decides to refer the case to the competent disciplinary body, the latter is obliged to investigate it as a priority, and inform the Ombudsman of the outcome. The Ombudsman evaluates the findings of the disciplinary proceedings and may send the case back to the disciplinary body for further investigation if specific shortcomings are identified. The Ombudsman’s findings are not legally binding, but the disciplinary body concerned is obliged to provide detailed reasoning in case of any divergence from them.

The Ombudsman is also empowered to request the reopening of an administrative investigation in cases where the European Court has found the initial investigation ineffective. When the Ombudsman decides to reopen the case, based on the findings of the European Court, he communicates this decision to the disciplinary body concerned.

During the investigation, the Ombudsman may request public services to provide any information, documents or other evidence related to the case under investigation, unless they have been classified as secret on grounds of national defence, state security or the country’s international relations. Furthermore, the Ombudsman may take statements from witnesses, conduct on-site investigations and order expert reports.

According to the authorities’ communication of 8 October 2018, the Ombudsman indicated in his annual report submitted to Parliament on 26 March 2018 that, since 6 June 2017, 117 complaints had been submitted to the Mechanism. 11 complaints were submitted by individuals and 112 by state services responsible for investigating disciplinary offences. The Mechanism found that four complaints were not within the scope of the Ombudsman’s competence, whilst the remaining complaints were followed up. In seven cases the investigations were concluded by the respective services and their reports were under examination by the Ombudsman. In two cases the Ombudsman held that the investigations were insufficient and referred them back to the competent services. In four cases investigations were being carried out by the Ombudsman himself.

As regards the offences investigated, 15 concerned torture, 15 the use of firearms, 14 concerned affronts to sexual dignity, 53 concerned attacks against life or physical integrity and, lastly, 11 concerned racially motivated offences. According to information provided by the police, between June 2017 and March 2018 223 complaints were transmitted to the Ombudsman. 31 of these were found not to be within the scope of the Ombudsman’s competence. Administrative inquiries were ordered in 136 cases. Of these, 71 were completed and the relevant conclusions transmitted to the Ombudsman. In 17 cases the police were ordered to carry out further investigations; in nine of them, further investigations were carried out and they were referred back to the Ombudsman. In order to enhance co-operation between the police and the Ombudsman, a circular was issued by the head of the Greek police in June 2017.

As regards other general measures aiming at combatting ill-treatment by law enforcement officers and racially motivated crimes

At its 1302nd meeting (December 2017) (DH), the Committee noted that a law-making committee had been established, tasked with examining whether the definition of torture in Greek law is compatible with the definition in Article 1 of the UN Convention against Torture. It also noted that the authorities had undertaken to examine the matter of conversion of custodial sentences imposed for torture with a view to ensuring that perpetrators of torture or other ill-treatment are proportionately and effectively punished. Lastly, the Committee invited the authorities to provide information about further relevant developments.

On 8 October 2018 the authorities informed the Committee that the above committee had concluded its work and submitted a draft criminal code to the Ministry of Justice which would be soon sent to Parliament for adoption. The authorities noted that the review of the definition of torture in the Criminal Code is beyond the necessary measures for the execution of the present judgments, because the Court did not indicate that the violations found were linked to the criminal law provisions criminalising torture or affront to life and bodily harm. According to the authorities, it was rather the lenient application by domestic courts of these provisions that led to procedural violations of Article 3.

The Greek Helsinki Monitor in its communication submitted in September 2018 mentioned notably that since June 2017 it had submitted to the Ombudsman 18 complaints of ill-treatment (including of migrants and Roma[2]) by law enforcement agents, but had not received any information on the progress of these cases.

Lastly, it is noted that as of October 2018 five new cases concerning ill-treatment by law enforcement agents have been communicated to the Greek Government.

Analysis by the Secretariat

As regards individual measures

Criminal proceedings

It is recalled that in relation to 10 cases of the group, criminal charges were brought against the law enforcement agents involved, who were either acquitted or sentenced. In relation to three cases (Zelilof, Petropoulou-Tsakiris and Andersen), where criminal proceedings had not been brought, the files were re-examined and it was found that the offences had become time-barred.

Administrative proceedings

As regards the Zontul case, the reopening of the criminal investigations into torture (as the facts were characterised by the Court) instead of mere infringement of sexual dignity (as the events were characterised in the domestic proceedings) is claimed by the authorities to be objectively impossible since the perpetrator had already been convicted at the time of the Court’s judgment for the acts at issue. In the circumstances of the case, this objection – based on the principles of legal certainty and ne bis in idem – appears justified as no new facts or other evidence emerged in the procedure before the European Court. The violations were be solely related to the legal characterisation of these acts and to shortcomings in the investigation procedure.

In view of this situation, and of the importance of effectively preventing impunity in cases of torture, the possibility of disciplinary proceedings has been explored.

It is recalled that this has been considered, in the special circumstances of the present case, to be another avenue of redress to give a measure of effect to the Court’s findings. It is further recalled that the established case law provides that, when an agent of the State is accused of crimes that violate Article 3, criminal proceedings and sentencing must not be time-barred.[3] It is also recalled that where state agents have been charged with offences involving ill‑treatment, they should be suspended from duty while being investigated or tried, and should be dismissed if convicted.[4]

It is thus to be welcomed that the disciplinary investigations have continued. However, the conduct of these proceedings raises questions as to how the conclusions of the Court were taken into account both as regards the possibility of reopening the administrative investigations and the application of the relevant prescription rules when determining disciplinary liability.

As mentioned earlier the Mechanism (Ombudsman) requested the Hellenic Coast Guard to reopen the disciplinary proceedings, considering that there was no question of infringement of the ne bis in idem principle, since the new investigation would presumably focus on the offence of torture and not on the offences actually investigated in the context of the criminal proceedings. However, following the conclusion of the reopened investigation by the Hellenic Coast Guard, the Ombudsman concluded that the offences established were indeed time-barred because of the application of the general prescription period of five years that applies to the offence of infringement of sexual dignity. This change of position as to the scope of the disciplinary proceedings requires further explanation.

Even assuming that the disciplinary proceedings could only relate to the offence of infringement of sexual dignity, questions remain as to the application of prescription periods in the context of disciplinary action.

The Greek authorities have previously informed the Committee (see documents CM/Inf/DH(2012)40,
DH-DD(2015)757 and DH-DD(2018)971) that: a) for disciplinary offences the limitation period would not run during criminal proceedings; and b) according to Article 1 § 6 of Law No. 3938/2011, the limitation period for disciplinary offences giving rise to violations found by the Court would not run between the termination of disciplinary proceedings by the Hellenic Coast Guard (August 2001, § 16 Zontul) and the delivery of the Court’s judgment to the Office. However, the Office never became operational and was replaced only in 2017 by the Mechanism. The provision on the suspension of prescription remained unchanged. From the information provided, it appears that the Mechanism did not take into account the suspension of prescription in accordance with Article 1 § 6 of Law 3938/11. In view of the above, clarifications are necessary on how the statutory prescription periods for disciplinary offences were calculated and implemented by the Ombudsman.

It would be also useful to the Committee for the authorities to provide the full text of the conclusions issued by the Hellenic Coast Guard in Zontul. In this way, the Committee could acquire a detailed and comprehensive overview of these proceedings concerning torture.

As regards the Mechanism’s proposal that the heads of the services involved issue written apologies to the victims, it should be welcomed. The Committee might wish to encourage the authorities to consider it as a measure of moral compensation, and invite the authorities to provide more information on the effect given to this proposal.

General measures

As regards the problem of ill-treatment of persons in detention, it is noted that this issue has been the subject of several CPT reports. Its latest report on Greece (CPT/Inf (2017)25 §§ 62-66) states, inter alia, that as regards the treatment of criminal suspects detained by law enforcement officials, and despite overwhelming indications to the contrary, the authorities have to date consistently refused to consider that ill-treatment is a serious problem there, and have not taken the required action to implement the CPT’s recommendations and to combat this phenomenon effectively.

The CPT has notably underlined that in order to back up any message of zero tolerance and to reinforce training, effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment must be undertaken to demonstrate that criminal acts by the police will be punished, and to counter the current culture of impunity that pervades parts of the police force.

In view of the above, and of the fact that as of October 2018 five new applications against Greece lodged between 2013 and 2016 involving, inter alia, alleged violations of Article 3 due to ill-treatment in law enforcement have been communicated to the government, the Committee might visit to invite the authorities to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to give effect to the conclusions of the Court in the present group of cases, taking into account the CPT’s recommendations.

Administrative investigations of complaints against law enforcement agents concerning violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention 

It is recalled that the supervision of the execution of the judgments of this group focuses on the implementation of measures taken to prevent ill-treatment by law enforcement officers and to guarantee proper and effective investigations into acts giving rise to a risk to life or of ill-treatment by law enforcement officers.

It appears that a key element in the execution of the Court’s judgments is the effective operation of the Ombudsman as the Mechanism. 15 of the complaints referred to by the authorities, submitted to the Ombudsman after the judgments in the present group, led to administrative investigations for torture, whilst 53 complaints concerned attacks against life or bodily harm. However, no information was provided about the scope and effectiveness of the investigations undertaken or about their outcome as regards disciplinary or criminal responsibility of the alleged perpetrators. The authorities should provide the Committee with more information in these and other relevant respects, to permit an evaluation of the effectiveness and independence of the investigations carried under the supervision of the Mechanism.

As regards reopening of administrative investigations

The special problems raised in the Zontul case require additional attention. Given that, according to the above law, reopening of disciplinary proceedings, to the extent they impose sanctions, should not infringe the ne bis in idem principle, and given the problems identified above in this respect, as well as regards the application of prescription periods, it would be useful for the Committee to receive information about the implementation of the legislation by the Ombudsman in the cases at issue in this group and possibly others so that conclusions can be drawn about how Law 4443/2016 might be applied in possible future cases. More specifically, information would be useful about: a) the suspension of statutory limitation periods for the offences that gave rise to the violations found by the Court; and b) in view of the ne bis in idem principle, the overall possibility to reopen disciplinary investigations in cases where criminal or disciplinary liability has already been decided upon.

Some of the present cases also concern the authorities’ failure to investigate whether racist motives on the part of the police may have played a role in the applicants’ ill-treatment. Given that the authorities have not provided updated information on the impact of measures taken or measures envisaged to prevent similar violations, the Committee might wish to call on the authorities to do so.

Adequacy of criminal proceedings and sanctioning by domestic courts

It is recalled that in a number of the present judgments the Court’s findings of procedural violations of Article 3 stemmed from inadequacies in criminal proceedings, concerning notably: inadequate access for the applicant as a civil party to the criminal proceedings (Zontul § 111); inadequate witness-related proceedings indicating a lack of effort by the competent authorities to discover what really happened (Alsayed Allaham § 28-29, Galotskin § 49, Zelilof § 62); and the handling (and closing) of the relevant complaints by the prosecutor (Andersen §65).[5] In addition, procedural violations of Article 3 in some of these cases stemmed, inter alia, from the leniency and disproportionate sentences imposed by domestic courts on law enforcement agents, even in cases where (aggravated) torture occurred (Zontul §§ 106-108, Sidiropoulos and Papakostas §§ 90-96). In view of this, the Committee might wish to call on the authorities to provide information on measures taken or envisaged in order to redress these shortcomings and to fully align criminal law and practice with the Court’s case law.

Definition of torture in the Criminal Code

This issue was raised by the Court in Zontul (§§ 87-93), in which it noted that the court of appeal had not characterised the applicant’s rape by truncheon as torture because Article 137A § 2 of the Criminal Code provides that, in order for an act to be characterised as torture, the infliction of severe pain must be “planned”. The Court found that under its established case law a detainee’s rape by a state agent constitutes torture under the Convention.

The information provided concerning the review of the definition of torture in the Criminal Code in order to align it with Article 1 of the UN Convention against Torture is positive, as the requirements of this Article are the same as those under the Convention. However, no detailed information was provided about the outcome of this review, notably about when the authorities intend to propose the amendments to the Criminal Code needed to bring it into line with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee might wish to invite the authorities to provide more information on the progress of the present legislative work.

Financing assured: YES

[1] The issues of excessively lengthy criminal proceedings and effective remedies were examined in the Michelioudakis / Diamantides No.2 group of cases,  closed by Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2015)231.

[2] The term “Roma and Travellers” is used at the Council of Europe to encompass the wide diversity of the groups covered by the work of the Council of Europe in this field: on the one hand a) Roma, Sinti/Manush, Calé, Kaale, Romanichals, Boyash/Rudari; b) Balkan Egyptians (Egyptians and Ashkali); c) Eastern groups (Dom, Lom and Abdal); and, on the other hand, groups such as Travellers, Yenish, and the populations designated under the administrative term “Gens du voyage”, as well as persons who identify themselves as Gypsies. The present is an explanatory footnote, not a definition of Roma and/or Travellers.

[3] See, inter alia, Yeter v. Turkey, judgment of 13 January 2017 §70, Mocanu v. Romania, GC judgment. of 17 September 2014, §326.

[4] See, inter alia, Gäfgen v. Germany, GC judgment of 1 June 2010 §125.

[5] See also CPT report on Greece of 1 March 2016 (CPT/Inf (2016) 4 §24) stating that “ the current system is characterised by systemic failings by the police and judicial authorities to conduct prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigations, aimed at bringing the perpetrators of ill-treatment to justice”.

Greece, EU: Move Asylum Seekers to Safety – End Containment Policy, Organize Transfers Now

Greece, EU: Move Asylum Seekers to Safety

End Containment Policy, Organize Transfers Now

03/12/2018: Διαγραφή μητέρας ως “άθεης” από Δ.Σ. Συλλόγου Γονέων στο 6ο Δημοτικό Σχολείο Συκεών στη Θεσσαλονίκη

Ατέχνως

Θεσσαλονίκη: Διέγραψαν μητέρα-εκλεγμένο μέλος Συλλόγου Γονέων ως «άθεη εθνομηδενίστρια»!

Την διαγραφή αγωνίστριας μητέρας, εκλεγμένο μέλος Συλλόγου Γονέων και Κηδεμόνων, καταγγέλλει με ανακοίνωση της η «Δημοκρατική Ενότητα Γονέων Νεάπολης Συκεών». Πρόκειται για περιστατικό που έλαβε χώρα στο 6ο Δημοτικό Σχολείο Συκεών στη Θεσσαλονίκη.

Σύμφωνα με την καταγγελία η μητέρα διεγράφη από το  Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο Συλλόγου Γονέων και Κηδεμόνων εξαιτίας του γεγονότος ότι τα προηγούμενα χρόνια πρωτοστάτησε σε αγώνες του Συλλόγου με τους οποίους πέντε από τα μέλη του ΔΣ δεν συμφωνούν! Η διαγραφή της συγκεκριμένης γονέα συνοδεύτηκε από χρυσαυγίτικου τύπου ύβρεις όπως «άθεοι εθνομηδενιστές» και «άπλυτοι κομμουνιστές».

Ολόκληρη η ανακοίνωση – καταγγελία της «Δημοκρατικής Ενότητας Γονέων Νεάπολης Συκεών» έχει ως εξής:

«Τη Δευτέρα 3 Δεκεμβρίου και χωρίς καμία προειδοποίηση, μεθοδευμένα, 5 από τα 7 μέλη του ΔΣ του Συλλόγου Γονέων 6ου Δημοτικού Σχολείου Συκεών, αποφάσισαν εντελώς παράνομα και αντικαταστατικά, ότι μπορούν να διαγράψουν από μέλος του Δ.Σ. γονέα εκλεγμένο από τη Γενική Συνέλευση του Συλλόγου. Η πρόφαση είναι ότι πριν 3-7 χρόνια η “διαγραφείσα” γονέας πρωτοστάτησε σε δράσεις του Συλλόγου με τις οποίες αυτοί οι 5 διαφωνούν. Οποιαδήποτε δραστηριότητα που αφορά προηγούμενο Δ.Σ. (που μάλιστα είναι απαλλαγμένο από την Γ.Σ.) δεν υπόκειται μεταγενέστερα σε έλεγχο για το τι αποφάσεις πάρθηκαν με νόμιμες διαδικασίες σε παλιότερα έτη!!!

Είναι αντιδημοκρατικό κι ανήκουστο να θέλεις να διαγράψεις μέλος του ΔΣ μόνο κ μόνο επειδή έχει άλλη άποψη και μάλιστα χωρίς νόμιμες διαδικασίες. Πώς θα μπορούσε να χαρακτηριστεί η συμπεριφορά εκείνη που δεν μπορεί να αποδεχτεί τη διαφορετική άποψη μέσα στο  Δ.Σ., η προσπάθεια να καταλύσεις κάθε έννοια δημοκρατίας και συλλογικότητας και να πιστεύεις ότι μπορείς να διαγράψεις τη μειοψηφία σε ένα ΔΣ  με το έτσι θέλω, με επιστολές γεμάτες ανακρίβειες, λάσπη και προσωπικές εμπάθειες. Με χαρακτηρισμούς “άθεοι εθνομηδενιστές”, “άπλυτοι κομμουνιστές” κ.α. που δεν έχουν θέση στο γονεϊκό κίνημα.

Το σημερινό λοιπόν ΔΣ του Συλλόγου Γονέων του 6ου Δημοτικού Σχολείου Συκεών θα έπρεπε να νιώθει περήφανο για την έως τώρα δράση του συλλόγου και να προσπαθεί να οργανώσει ακόμη περισσότερες και καλύτερες εκδηλώσεις, να σκύψει πάνω στα μεγάλα και υπαρκτά προβλήματα της παιδείας και του σχολείου, αντί να προσβάλει και να επιτίθεται σε μέλη του Δ.Σ., προσπαθώντας να τα απομακρύνει από την θέση που τα ανέδειξαν οι ίδιοι οι γονείς.

Τους δηλώνουμε πως δεν πρόκειται να υποκύψουμε σε εκβιασμούς που ξεκινούν καθαρά από ακροδεξιές αντιλήψεις και πως αν δεν σταματήσει η στοχοποίηση μελών του ΔΣ και η κατασυκοφάντησή τους επιφυλασσόμεθα για κάθε νόμιμη ενέργεια. Εμείς θα συνεχίσουμε να εκπροσωπούμε ΝΟΜΙΜΑ τους γονείς που μας εξέλεξαν στο ΔΣ του Συλλόγου ως το τέλος της θητείας και να παλεύουμε για μια καλύτερη Παιδεία για όλα τα παιδιά.

Καλούμε τους γονείς να αντιδράσουν και να καταδικάσουν τέτοιες συμπεριφορές, απομονώνοντάς τους.»

02/12/2018: Μηνυτήρια αναφορά κατά Αλέξη Κούγια για ακραία ρατσιστικά σχόλια κατά Αλβανών οπαδών της ΑΕΛ

ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟ ΤΜΗΜΑ ΑΝΤΙΜΕΤΩΠΙΣΗΣ ΡΑΤΣΙΣΤΙΚΗΣ ΒΙΑΣ


2 Δεκεμβρίου 2018


Κυρίες/Κύριοι

Σας υποβάλλουμε άλλη μια μηνυτήρια αναφορά, στα πλαίσια του προγράμματος του Παρατηρητηρίου Ρατσιστικών Εγκλημάτων, με αντικείμενο τα ακραία προσβλητικά και ρατσιστικά σχόλια του κατά Αλβανών οπαδών της ΑΕΛ την 1η Δεκεμβρίου 2018, που συνιστούν “υποκίνηση, πρόκληση, διέγερση, προτροπή σε πράξεις ή ενέργειες που μπορούν να προκαλέσουν διακρίσεις, μίσος ή βία κατά ομάδας προσώπων, που προσδιορίζονται με βάση την εθνική ή εθνοτική καταγωγή” αλλά και μπορούν να διαταράξουν τις διεθνείς σχέσεις της χώρας:

sport-fm.gr

Απίστευτη δήλωση Κούγια: «Όσο νυχτώνει…»

Σε ακραίο σημείο έχουν φτάσει οι σχέσεις του Αλέξη Κούγια με μερίδα οπαδών της ΑΕΛ, με τον ιδιοκτήτη των «βυσσινί» να κάνει δήλωση με απίστευτες εκφράσεις.

 
01/12/2018

Ακόμη ένα επεισόδιο στις σχέσεις του Αλέξη Κούγια με μερίδα οπαδών της ΑΕΛ.

Οι μεν έβριζαν εν χορώ τον ισχυρό άνδρα του συλλόγου στο νικηφόρο ματς με τον Πανιώνιο, ακόμη και αμέσως μετά τα γκολ της ομάδας του και ο δε έκανε δήλωση με απίστευτους χαρακτηρισμούς.

Η ανακοίνωση

Προς τους 5 απέναντι εμπόρους ναρκωτικών και τα 25 μπασταρδάκια αλβανάκια τους, την κυρία Τούρτα και τον κύριο Τούρτα, που σε λίγο φυλακίζονται μαζί με τον Ελβίρ:

Όσο βρίζετε εμένα οι παίκτες μας θα βάζουν γκολ και θα το ευχαριστιόμαστε και όσο νυχτώνει η πο..τσ@ μεγαλώνει και σαν κι εσάς έχω γ@..σει πολλούς!

Ώρα 19:30:

Καληνύχτα αλβανάκια και περαστικά σας!

Σήμερα όπως είδα, ήρθατε ντυμένοι με τα χρώματα της ομάδος σας, το μαύρο χρώμα της Παρτιζάν Τιράνων.

Σε λίγο καιρό θα είσαστε μόνιμα στα Τίρανα.

Οι Έλληνες Δικαστές όταν σε καταδικάζουν για ναρκωτικά και είσαι Αλβανός, την άλλη μέρα σε στέλνουν πίσω στη βρώμικη γεμάτη ναρκωτικά χώρα σου.

Σας έχω για πρωινό και να θυμάστε, ακόμη δεν σας έχω πάρει στα σοβαρά, ακόμη σας έχω για πλάκα.

Τον Ελβίρ, τον Ράγια, τον Μπέτσι, τον Τούρτα και τη χοντρή γυναίκα του θα τους τακτοποιήσω όπως πρέπει και πάντα με τον Νόμο.

Στη συνέχεια έκανε συμπληρωματική δήλωση:

Συγχαρητήρια σε όλα τα παιδιά, συγχαρητήρια σε όλους τους προπονητές, σιγά σιγά θα φτιάξουμε μεγάλη ομάδα.

Όταν μπορείς να νικάς τόσο εύκολα τον Παναιτωλικό, τον ΠΑΣ Γιάννινα και τον ιστορικό Πανιώνιο, μπορείς να τους νικήσεις όλους.

Αν δεν είχαμε πληρώσει τη βρωμιά του Λάμπρου στην Ξάνθη και το γεγονός ότι με τη Λαμία παίξαμε χωρίς άμυνα λόγω των αποβολών της Ξάνθης, θα είχαμε τώρα 20 πόντους.

Τα καλύτερα έρχονται!

Είμαι καψούρης με την ομάδα μου.

Ευχαριστώ τους χιλιάδες οπαδούς μας που ξεφτίλισαν αυτά τα χαρτζιλικωμένα με τυρί Τρικάλων αλβανάκια.

Παρακαλούμε για τις ενέργειές σας καθώς και να μας ενημερώσετε για τον αριθμό πρωτοκόλλου που θα δώσετε στη μήνυση αυτή.
 
Με τιμή,

Παναγιώτης Δημητράς

Ελληνικό Παρατηρητήριο των Συμφωνιών του Ελσίνκι 
διεύθυνση: ΤΘ 60820 – 15304 Γλυκά Νερά

01/12/2018: Μηνυτήρια αναφορά κατά “Ελεύθερης Ώρας” για ακραία αντισημιτική ρητορική μίσους σε πρωτοσέλιδό της


ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟ ΤΜΗΜΑ ΑΝΤΙΜΕΤΩΠΙΣΗΣ ΡΑΤΣΙΣΤΙΚΗΣ ΒΙΑΣ

 

1 Δεκεμβρίου 2018


Κυρίες/Κύριοι

Σας υποβάλλουμε άλλη μια μηνυτήρια αναφορά, στα πλαίσια του προγράμματος του Παρατηρητηρίου Ρατσιστικών Εγκλημάτων, με αντικείμενο την αντισημιτική ρητορική μίσους της εφημερίδας “Ελέυθερη Ώρα” για το πρωτοσέλιδό της, της 1ης Δεκεμβρίου 2018, που συνιστά υποκίνηση, πρόκληση, διέγερση, προτροπή σε πράξεις ή ενέργειες που μπορούν να προκαλέσουν διακρίσεις, μίσος ή βία κατά ομάδας προσώπων, που προσδιορίζονται με βάση την εθνική ή εθνοτική καταγωγή”:

elora1_12_18.jpg
Παρακαλούμε για τις ενέργειές σας καθώς και να μας ενημερώσετε για τον αριθμό πρωτοκόλλου που θα δώσετε στη μήνυση αυτή.
Με τιμή,

Παναγιώτης Δημητράς

Ελληνικό Παρατηρητήριο των Συμφωνιών του Ελσίνκι
διεύθυνση: ΤΘ 60820 – 15304 Γλυκά Νερά
—————————————————————————————————-
Επικαιροποίηση 8 Δεκεμβρίου 2018:
Σας επισυνάπτουμε και το πλήρες αντισημιτικό άρθρο της Ελεύθερης Ώρας
elora 1-12-2018 plires antisimitiko-page-001elora 1-12-2018 plires antisimitiko-page-002elora 1-12-2018 plires antisimitiko-page-003

OMCT: Greece: Smear Campaigns and new threats against Advocates Abroad and its Executive Director Ariel Ricker

κατάλογος

omct_logo_text_en

Human rights defenders/Urgent Interventions/Greece/2018/November

Greece: Smear Campaigns and new threats against Advocates Abroad and its Executive Director Ariel Ricker

CASE GRE 220518.1

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS

Death and rape threats / Smear Campaign

November 29, 2018

The International Secretariat of the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) requests your urgent intervention in the following situation in Greece.

New information:

The International Secretariat of OMCT has been informed by the Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM) about new threats against the volunteers of Advocates Abroad and particularly against its Executive Director, Ms. Ariel Ricker, in the context of a smear campaign against the organisation. Advocates Abroad is a legal aid civil society organisation which aims to inform refugees of their rights in Greece.

According to the information received, Ms. Ricker and the volunteers of Advocates Abroad have received more than 37,000 death and rape threats, particularly over social media channels following a smear campaign initiated with the publication of a video distributed by a far-right group. The video distorted the work of Advocates Abroad upholding migrants’ rights by presenting out of context excerpts of a conversation held with Ms. Ariel Ricker recorded with a hidden camera. The video misrepresented the work of the organisation and tried to make it appear as if Advocates Abroad were instructing asylum-seekers to lie and misrepresent their stories so as to be granted refugee statute in Europe.

OMCT recalls that this is not the first attack against Ms. Ariel Ricker and Advocates Abroad and highlights that the situation of human rights defenders and solidarity actors in Greece has been critical for years. Human rights defenders working on migrants’ and minority rights are consistently targeted for their legitimate work and face different types of attacks, including surveillance, arbitrary arrests, detentions, ill-treatment, entry bans and expulsion[1]. Moreover, several complaints related to racism and minority’s rights have not been investigated and/or have been sent to the “archive of unknown perpetrators”[2]. OMCT is particularly concerned by the continued increasing of violent attacks and threats against minority rights defenders in Greece[3].

OMCT condemns the smear and threats campaign against Advocates Abroad and recalls the essential role that organisations like Advocates Abroad are carrying out to defend the human rights of people in the move in a context of systematic violations of international human rights standards by the European Union and its member states. We urge the Greek authorities to ensure the physical and psychological integrity of Ms. Ricker and all the members of Advocates Abroad and to establish guarantees for the right to defend human rights in Greece.

Background information:

On April 22, 2018, at around midnight, Ms. Ariel Ricker was attacked and hit by a brick thrown at her head while she was standing guard in a solidarity circle to protect women and children refuges gathered for several days in Sappho Square, Lesvos, to protest against the conditions in Moria camp, from a group of rioters. The brick broke the safety helmet Ms. Ariel Ricker was wearing and was concussed and felt to the ground. Another solidarity actor was roughly hit with a brick 20 minutes later. Hours later, after being able to reach the hospital, Ms. Ricker was examined briefly by one nurse, then given one X-Ray and one MRI, and sent home without medication or prescription for medication.

These attacks took place in the context of a broader assault against the refugees gathered in Sappho Square, that began around 20:00, by a group of rioters. Firecrackers, bottles of water, stunners, flares, glasses from the cafes, and bricks were continuously thrown all night by the rioters at the refugees and the solidarity circle.

The police had formed four lines but failed to adequately defend the refugees and the solidarity actors and human rights defenders who were accompanying them. They even threatened multiple times to beat refugees and solidarity actors, including Ms. Ricker if they did not stay within the solidarity circle and put away their cameras. Additionally, although the attacks happened before their eyes, the police did not arrest the perpetrators of the attacks against Ms. Ricker and other defenders, while they arrested over 100 protesting refugees for illegal camping[4].

Actions requested:

Please write to the authorities in Greece, urging them to:

  1. Put in place all necessary measures to guarantee the security and the physical and psychological integrity of Ms. Ariel Ricker and all other members of Advocates Abroad, as well as of all minority rights defenders in Greece;
  1. Put an end to all acts of harassment against Ms. Ariel Ricker, as well as all minority rights defenders in Greece, so that they are able to carry out their work without hindrance or fear of reprisals;

iii.             Comply with all the provisions of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1998, in particular with its Articles 1, 5(b), and 12.2;

  1. Ensure in all circumstances the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and with international human rights instruments ratified by Greece.

Addresses:

 

  • Prime Minister of Greece, Mr. Alexis Tsipras, Email: mail@primeminister.gr
  • Minister of Justice Mr. Stavros Kontonis Email: grammateia@justice.gov.gr
  • Alternate Minister for Citizens Protection of Greece, Mr. Nikolaos Toskas, Fax: +30 210 692 9764, Email: minister@mopocp.gov.gr
  • General Secretary for Transparency and Human Rights, Ms. Maria Yannakaki, Fax: Email: ggdad@justice.gov.gr
  • Deputy Permanent Representative of Greece, Mr. Ioannis Tsaousis, First Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Greece to the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, Fax: +41 22 732 21 50; Email: grdel.gva@mfa.gr
  • Ambassador of Greece, H.E. Eleftheria Galathianaki, Embassy of Greece in Brussels, Belgium, Fax: (+32) 2 545 5585, Email: gremb.bru@mfa.gr
  • Permanent Representative of Greece, H.E. Papastavrou Andreas, Permanent Representation to the European Union (EU), Fax: +32 2 5515651, 5127912 Email: mea.bruxelles@rp-greece.be

Please also write to the diplomatic representations of Greece in your respective countries.

***

Geneva-Brussels, November 29, 2018

Kindly inform us of any action undertaken quoting the code of this appeal in your reply.

Created in 1985, the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) works for, with and through an international coalition of over 200 non-governmental organisations – the SOS-Torture Network – fighting torture, summary executions, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, and all other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the world. OMCT and its SOS-Torture Network are today one of the leading networks working for the protection of human rights defenders at the international level.

[1]           See OMCT’s Written Submission to the 35th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council on the
against minority human rights defenders”, issued on February 21, 2018.

[2]           See OMCT’s Urgent appeal “Greece: Impunity regarding the attacks perpetrated in December 2016 against minority rights defenders“, issued on February 21, 2018

[3]           See the Observatory (OMCT-FIDH), Urgent Appeal on the break-in and arson attack of the Afghan Community Centre’spremises in Athens and the threats targeting the Hellenic League for Human Rights (HLHR), GRE 001 / 0318 / OBS 036, published on March 30, 2018.

[4]           See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-23/greece-police-disperse-migrant-protest-on-lesbos-island)

European Implementation Network civil society briefing focuses on Georgia, Greece and the Russian Federation

https://racistcrimeswatch.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/c5813-1543239141801.png?w=307&h=307

EIN civil society briefing focuses on Georgia, Greece and the Russian Federation

On 23 November 2018, EIN held its quarterly civil society briefing, ahead of the 1331st CM-DH meeting.

Presentations were given on the following cases:

1- Alekseyev v Russia (Application No 4916/07) and Bayev v Russia (Application No 67667/09) – Repeated bans on the holding of LGTBI marches and pickets; fines imposed for displaying banners considered to promote homosexuality among minors (against laws prohibiting such “propaganda”).

2- Makaratzis v Greece (Application No 50385/99) – Ill-treatment by coastguards and other state agents and a lack of effective investigations.

3- Merabishvili v Georgia (Application 72508/13) – Failure by the domestic courts to give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify continuation of detention on remand; continued detention on remand with the predominant purpose of obtaining information from the applicant about third persons.

4- Bekir Ousta v Greece (Application 35151/05) – Refusal of domestic courts to register the applicants’ associations.

 

 Participants in the briefing. Photo: EIN

Participants in the briefing. Photo: EIN

 

Over 35 participants attended the briefing, including participants from the Permanent Representations to the Council of Europe, the office of the Commissioner for Human Rights, and other CoE staff members. The main recommendations from the briefing are available here.

1- Alekseyev v Russian Federation (Application No 4916/07) and Bayev v Russia (Application No 67667/09)

The Alekseyev v. Russia case addresses repeated bans on demonstrations promoting tolerance and respect for the human rights of LGBTI persons in 2005, 2006 and 2007, and the absence of an effective remedy to challenge those bans. The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) found violations of Convention Articles 11 (right to freedom of assembly), 13 (right to an effective remedy), and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 11.

 

 Nigel Warner from ILGA Europe reporting about the Alekseyev and Bayev v RF cases. Photo: EIN
Nigel Warner from ILGA Europe reporting about the Alekseyev and Bayev v RF cases. Photo: EIN

 

The Bayev v. Russia case addresses violations of the right to freedom of expression and discrimination on account of fines imposed on the applicants for displaying banners considered to promote homosexuality among minors. The banners were held by the Russian courts to be against the regional laws prohibiting such “propaganda”, adopted in several regions since 2006, and followed by a nation-wide law of 2013 similar to that effect (violations of Article 10 and of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 10).

The main argument advanced by the RF in support of these laws – that they are necessary to protect minors from information about homosexuality – was dismissed by the ECtHR as “lacking any evidentiary basis”.

The execution of judgments process in the Alekseyev case has now been proceeding for 7 ½ years. Over that time, in numerous Decisions, the CM has repeatedly expressed concern that the competent authorities have refused the majority of requests to hold public events similar to those in the Alekseyev judgment. It has also made numerous warnings against the introduction of regional and federal laws prohibiting so-called “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships” (the “propaganda” laws). These were ignored, and despite assurances by the Russian government to the contrary, these laws have been used on many occasions to refuse authorisation of public events in support of the rights of LGBTI persons. As far as the Bayev case is concerned, the judgment is relatively recent (June 2017).

In his presentation, Nigel Warner focused on the main recommendations listed in the Rule 9.2 communication submitted on those cases by Coming Out, a St Petersburg-based NGO, and ILGA Europe, in October 2018. According to Mr Warner, the latest Action Plan of the Russian Federation on those cases offers no evidence of any improvement or prospect of improvement in the situation. Furthermore, it appears to repudiate the Bayev judgment, citing a ruling of the RF Constitutional Court to the effect that the “propaganda laws” are consistent with the constitution. The “propaganda laws” continue to be used to the detriment of LGTB youth.

In view of this situation, Mr Warner therefore invited the CM to:

  • repeat its request to the Russian authorities to adopt a comprehensive action plan to ensure execution of the Alekseyev and Bayev judgments. This request should, as a minimum, include the repeal of legislation prohibiting so-called “propaganda of homosexual relations”; and
  • continue requesting information on the treatment of notifications to hold public events similar to those in the Alekseyev case.

The memo of Mr Warner is available here. His power point presentation is here. The October 2018 rule 9.2 submission form ILGA Europe and Coming Out is here. You can access the October 2018 Action Plan from the Russian Federation here.

2- Makaratzis and others group of cases v Greece (Application No 50385/99)

These cases concern ill-treatment and the unauthorized and disproportionate use of force by law enforcement officials.

An update on the group was delivered by Panayote Dimitras from the Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM), which represents the victims in nine of thirteen cases of the group.

Mr Dimitras first underlined the positive points included in Greece’s communication dated 4/10/2018 on the Makaratzis group of cases, i.e. the beginning of the functioning of the National Mechanism for the Investigation of Arbitrary Behaviour (hereafter “the Mechanism”) within the framework of the Greek Ombudsman; and the agreement of the Government with the Mechanism recommendation that letters of apology be sent to victims of the incriminating acts.

 

 Panayote Dimitras from the Greek Helsinki Monitor on the Makaratzis group of cases. Photo: EIN

Panayote Dimitras from the Greek Helsinki Monitor on the Makaratzis group of cases. Photo: EIN

 

He further highlighted the historical decision of the Supreme Court Prosecutor, in the Chowdury and others v Greece case, to file an appeal for the cassation of a domestic court judgment for the benefit of the law, to comply with the ECtHR judgment ruling that this domestic judgment was violating the ECHR. He reminded that GHM had recommended as a fundamental remedy to execute ECtHR judgments the filing of such appeals for cassation by the Supreme Court Prosecutor in case where the violations ruled by the ECtHR resulted from domestic court judgments.

Despite these positive developments, there is still need for further progress. With regard to the work of the Ombudsman as the Mechanism for the investigation of arbitrary behaviour, in particular, Mr Dimitras regretted the lack of transparency and information on the Mechanism. GHM, which represents the victims in nine out of thirteen cases has never received any communication from the Mechanism. Most importantly, Mr Dimitras expressed his concern over the decision by the Ombudsman on almost all new cases not to carry out his own investigations but only to supervise them, and entrust the disciplinary investigations to what GHM considers as objectively partial investigation bodies. He also recalled that, in its Report on Greece of 2 November 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee evaluated the answers from Greece related to the work of the Ombudsman and the effectiveness of the Mechanism as either partially satisfactory or not satisfactory.

With regard to the Makaratzis group of cases, GHM therefore urged the CM to ask the Greek government to:

  • reopen all disciplinary investigations in the 13 cases of the Makaratzis group;
  • request the Supreme Court Prosecutor to file appeals for cassation for the benefit of law of ten domestic judgments in the Makaratzis group of cases found by the ECtHR to be in violation of the ECHR;
  • provide detailed information on the punishment of law enforcement officials for misconduct, ill-treatment or disproportionate use of force;
  • make sure that the Ombudsman investigates himself the torture or ill-treatment allegations;
  • empower the Ombudsman to impose sanctions. To do so, the law should be amended so that the Mechanism can impose penalties; concretely, a solution would be to remove the Mechanism from the Ombudsman and make it independent.
  • introduce the necessary amendments so that the definition of torture is compatible with Article 1 of UN CAT

The memo of Mr Dimitras on this group of cases is available here. The latest communication from the Greek government (September 2017) is here. You can also download the Rules 9.2. September and October submissions by the Greek Helsinki Monitor.

 

3. Merabishvili v Georgia (Application 72508/13)

 

 Georgian MP Otar Kakhidze and another Georgian MP updating on the Merabishvili case. Photo: EIN.

Georgian MP Otar Kakhidze and another Georgian MP updating on the Merabishvili case. Photo: EIN.

 

The case concerns violations suffered by the applicant, a former Prime Minister of Georgia, in the context of the criminal proceedings instituted against him in December 2012 and January 2013, for alleged embezzlement and the abuse of official authority (violations of Article 5 § 3 and Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention).

The presentation on this case was given by Mr Kakhidze, MP of Georgia, on the basis of the Rule 9 submission filed on this case by EHRAC in September 2018.

Mr Kakhidze noted that, following the release of Ilgar Mammadov on 13 August 2018, Mr Merabishvili was the only convicted individual against whom a violation of Article 18 of the Convention had been found who remained in detention.

In its Action Plan, the Government proposes to undertake further investigative measures taking full account of the Grand Chamber’s findings. “The only potential investigative mechanism in which Mr Merabishvili has confidence”, stated by Mr Kakhidze, “is an investigation by the Parliamentary Commission (a Temporary Investigative Commission, set up pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Georgia, Chapter 6, Articles 55-70”). Mr Kakhidze reminded that in September 2017 he requested that such a Parliamentary Commission be established to investigate Mr Merabishvili’s covert removal. Despite the fact that this request remains pending before Parliament, the Government rejected this proposal in its Action Plan (para. 33).

Mr. Kakhidze stated that without Mr. Merabishvili’s early release another investigation was not an answer to the established breach of Article 18/5. He emphasized that even the judges dissenting on violation of Article 18 agreed that Mr. Merabishvili was removed from his cell. Mr Kakhidze also reminded that an official internal inquiry of Merabishvili’s covert removal was conducted in 2014, and another formal investigation was launched in 2016 by the “reformed” prosecution service with a “newly appointed chief prosecutor”. However, the outcome which they published in 2017 clearly contradicted the ECtHR findings, both in the chamber and GC.

The Georgian Government indicated that the current domestic law prevented mobile telephone records and cell tower data from being examined as part of any further investigation, as the offence being investigated in relation to Mr Merabishvili’s removal fell within the category of less grave crimes (Action Plan, paras 34-36). It therefore proposed to amend the domestic legislation in order to permit such investigative steps to be carried out (Action Plan, para. 37). However, as Mr Kakhidze underlined, the Government failed to provide any further information as to what specific amendments it proposed to make, within what time period, whether such amendments would be retrospective (i.e. could be applied in Mr Merabishvili’s case) or whether practically this would have any effect (i.e. whether the relevant records in this case continue to exist almost 5 years after the event in question).

The Government also indicated that it has already undertaken a number of General Measures, in light of the Grand Chamber’s judgment, including:

a. Extending the period of time for storing video surveillance footage from 24 to 120 hours (Action Plan, para. 66; Order N35 amended by Order N19 (20 March 2017)); and

b. Creation of State Inspector’s Service SIS (Action Plan, paras 74-5).

Mr Kakhidze underlined that, in reality, video surveillance footage in detention facilities are stored for 30 days, but the Government tries to make the impression that “the system change” will be seen by the CM as an effective general measure. He noted that the proposed SIS was entirely irrelevant to Mr Merabishvili’s case as the crimes that it is empowered to investigate does not include any crimes related to Mr Merabishvili’s covert removal.

Mr. Kakhidze submitted that the Government intends to take the Committee of Ministers’ attention from individual measures to general legislative measures which, in his opinion, aims at delaying Mr. Merabishvili’s early release. According to him, the applicant’s continuous detention still has ulterior purposes disclosed by the Court when establishing violation of Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5.

As previously submitted (see letter to the Committee of Ministers dated 26 January 2018), in order to effectively implement the Grand Chamber judgment in his case, the Georgian authorities should therefore:

  • Re-open the criminal proceedings against him;
  • Pending the outcome of the re-opening of the criminal proceedings, order Mr Merabishvili’s release; and
  • Ensure rigorous investigation of his covert removal by an independent body.

You can download the text of the EHRAC rule 9 submission on this case, as well as all attachments: annexe 1, 2, 3 , 4 and 5. The power point presentation of Mr Kakhidze is here. The October 2018 Action Plan from the Georgian government can be downloaded here. The November 2018 Rule 9.2. submission by the Public Defender of Georgia can be downloaded here.

Other documents presented by Mr Kakhidze:

Nov 2018 letter from Georgian MPs to the CM-DH.

October statement from Georgian NGOs on the crisis of institutions in Georgia

Excerpt from the Georgian Public Defender Report 2018

4. Bekir Ousta and others group of cases v Greece (Application No 35151/05)

These cases concern violations of the right to freedom of association (Article 11) due to the refusal to register Turkish minority associations (Bekir-Ousta and Others and Emin and Others; final domestic decisions in 2006 and 2005 respectively).

 

 Photo: EIN

Photo: EIN

 

Mr Dimitras, from the Greek Helsinki Monitor, gave a summary of the developments since the last examination of the case by the CM, in December 2017. In February 2018, the Cultural Association of Turkish Women of the Prefecture of Xanthi was refused registration on similar grounds as in the present group of cases. In its 2018 communications, mentioned Mr Dimitras, Greece has refused to address the CM December 2017 concerns on these developments. More importantly, the Supreme Court Judgment dissolving the Turkish Union of Xanthi (which was the first of the three Turkish minority associations of the group of cases that filed an application for the reopening of the domestic proceedings), was considered by the Greek government as irrevocable. This means, Mr Dimitras explained, “that any similar applications for the reopening of the proceedings on the basis of Articles 29 and 30 of Law 4491/2017 by ethnic Turkish and ethnic Macedonian minority associations vindicated by the ECtHR will have no chance to become admissible by domestic courts”.

Bearing in mind these developments, Mr Dimitras called on the CM to ask the Greek government to:

  • provide explanations for the two domestic court decisions not to register the new Cultural Association of Turkish Women in the Prefecture of Xhanti, and to reject as inadmissible the Turkish Union of Xhanti’s application to have its dissolution annulled;
  • promptly introduce a legislative amendment that will change the procedure so as to introduce a simple registration of associations, along the line of (for instance) the French model;
  • request that the Supreme Court Prosecutor to file appeals for cassation against all domestic judgments that were found by the ECtHR to violate the ECHR, including the four judgments related to the Bekir -Ousta associations.

The memo of Mr Dimitras and his recommendations are available here. The Rule 9.2. submission of the Greek Helsinki Monitor published in September and October 2018 are there. The December 2017 CM decision on this case is here.

25/11/2018: Ρατσιστική δολοφονία 63χρονου Αλβανού στην Κέρκυρα από χρυσαυγίτη γιατί του “αντιμίλησε” για τη Μακεδονία

 

Δολοφονία Αλβανού εργάτη γης στην Κέρκυρα: «Μέλος της Χρυσής Αυγής ο δράστης» - Media

 

Προφυλακιστέος κρίθηκε, μετά την απολογία του στον ανακριτή, ο 44χρονος δράστης της δολοφονίας 63χρονου Αλβανού στα Δραγωτινά της νότιας Κέρκυρας, την προηγούμενη Κυριακή.

Στο μεταξύ, η «Πρωτοβουλία Αγώνα και Αλληλεγγύης για τη Λευκίμμη», κίνηση κατοίκων της περιοχής ενάντια στον ΧΥΤΑ νότιας Κέρκυρας, καταγγέλλει ότι ο δράστης είναι μέλος της Χρυσής Αυγής, κάνοντας λόγο για «φασιστική δολοφονία».

Σε σχετική καταγγελία αναφέρεται μεταξύ άλλων ότι «ο δράστης είναι γνωστός στους κύκλους της Χρυσής Αυγής, μιας και υπήρξε εκλογικός αντιπρόσωπός της στις τελευταίες εκλογές στη Λευκίμμη και πολλές φορές μέλος της ‘’συνοδείας’’ και του ‘’κλιμακίου’’ της ΧΑ στη Λευκίμμη».

Όσον αφορά το τι διαδραματίστηκε πριν τη δολοφονία, αναφέρεται ότι «όπως όλα δείχνουν, το απόγευμα της Κυριακής 25 Νοέμβρη σε καφενείο στα Δραγωτινά Λευκίμμης, ο δράστης παρεμβαίνει σε μια κουβέντα των θαμώνων για τη Μακεδονία βρίζοντας και προσβάλλοντας όλους τους μη Έλληνες. Ο Zifle, που επίσης βρίσκεται στο καφενείο, ανταπάντησε με αποτέλεσμα να ξεκινήσει διαπληκτισμός μεταξύ τους. Οι θαμώνες τους χωρίζουν και ο δράστης αποχωρεί απειλώντας το θύμα. Αργότερα ο δράστης στήνει καρτέρι και δολοφονεί εν ψυχρώ με κυνηγετική καραμπίνα τον 63χρονο Αλβανό και στη συνέχεια τον πετάει σε ένα χαντάκι όπου και βρέθηκε το πρωί της Δευτέρας από διερχόμενο κάτοικο της περιοχής.»

Αναλυτικά η καταγγελία της «Πρωτοβουλίας Αγώνα και Αλληλεγγύης για τη Λευκίμμη»:

«Η Λευκίμμη της Κέρκυρας βρίσκεται για άλλη μια φορά στο επίκεντρο της δημοσιότητας, αυτή τη φορά όχι για το μακρόχρονο αγώνα των κατοίκων ενάντια στον Παράνομο ΧΥΤΑ Λευκίμμης ή για τη θαρραλέα αντι-εθνικιστική στάση που κράτησαν οι μαθητές του Λυκείου Λευκίμμης ενάντια στο φασιστικό περιεχόμενο των καταλήψεων που υποκινούσε η νεοναζιστική ΧΑ στα σχολεία.

Δυστυχώς, η Λευκίμμη βρίσκεται στη δημοσιότητα των ΜΜΕ μετά την εν ψυχρώ δολοφονία του 63χρονου συγχωριανού μας αλβανικής καταγωγής, εργάτη γης, ονόματι Petrit Zifle. Για τη δολοφονία του κυρίου Πέτρου, όπως τον γνώριζαν οι περισσότεροι, η αστυνομία έχει κάνει ήδη μια σύλληψη ντόπιου από το ακριβώς δίπλα χωριό, ο οποίος και ομολόγησε ότι τον σκότωσε.

Όπως όλα δείχνουν, το απόγευμα της Κυριακής 25 Νοέμβρη σε καφενείο στα Δραγωτινά Λευκίμμης, ο δράστης παρεμβαίνει σε μια κουβέντα των θαμώνων για τη Μακεδονία βρίζοντας και προσβάλλοντας όλους τους μη Έλληνες. Ο Zifle, που επίσης βρίσκεται στο καφενείο, ανταπάντησε με αποτέλεσμα να ξεκινήσει διαπληκτισμός μεταξύ τους. Οι θαμώνες τους χωρίζουν και ο δράστης αποχωρεί απειλώντας το θύμα. Αργότερα ο δράστης στήνει καρτέρι και δολοφονεί εν ψυχρώ με κυνηγετική καραμπίνα τον 63χρονο Αλβανό και στη συνέχεια τον πετάει σε ένα χαντάκι όπου και βρέθηκε το πρωί της Δευτέρας από διερχόμενο κάτοικο της περιοχής.

Ο δράστης είναι γνωστός στους κύκλους της Χρυσής Αυγής, μιας και υπήρξε εκλογικός αντιπρόσωπός της στις τελευταίες εκλογές στη Λευκίμμη και πολλές φορές μέλος της «συνοδείας» και του «κλιμακίου» της ΧΑ στη Λευκίμμη.

Παρά ταύτα, όλα ανεξαιρέτως τα ΜΜΕ της Κέρκυρας δεν έχουν κάνει την παραμικρή αναφορά για τη σχέση του δράστη με μια εγκληματική οργάνωση που διαπράττει και καλεί σε εν ψυχρώ δολοφονίες μεταναστών και αντιφασιστών, σαν και αυτή που συνέβη στη Λευκίμμη.

Η δολοφονία του Αλβανού συγχωριανού μας είναι αποτέλεσμα της κλιμάκωσης της παρουσίας της ΧΑ στη Λευκίμμη τα τελευταία χρόνια, μέσω της εμπλοκής της στο κίνημα ενάντια στο ΧΥΤΑ. Η κλιμάκωση αυτή συνοδεύεται με την ταυτόχρονη έξαρση των φασιστικών συμπεριφορών, των απειλών και της στοχοποίησης συγχωριανών μας με δημοκρατικές, αριστερές και αντιφασιστικές πεποιθήσεις.

Γι αυτό και θεωρούμε ΣΥΝΕΝΟΧΟΥΣ σε αυτή τη δολοφονία όσους Λευκιμμιώτες έδειξαν και επιμένουν να δείχνουν εγκληματική ανοχή απέναντι στη ΧΑ, αποδεχόμενοι την παρουσία της στα πλαίσια του αγώνα ενάντια στον παράνομο ΧΥΤΑ, στη λογική του «κανείς δε μας μυρίζει και κανείς δεν περισσεύει από τον αγώνα», θέτοντας τον ίδιο τον αγώνα σε κίνδυνο και προσφέροντας στην Κυβέρνηση την ευκαιρία να μιλά για χωριό ακροδεξιών εγκληματιών.

Η εν ψυχρώ δολοφονία του συγχωριανού μας έρχεται να καταδείξει με τον πιο τραγικό τρόπο πως η ανοχή και συνενοχή μερίδας κατοίκων της Λευκίμμης στην παρουσία της ΧΑ «χάριν της ενότητας του αγώνα» και παράλληλα η στοχοποίηση και συκοφάντηση δημοκρατικών και αντιφασιστών κατοίκων οι οποίοι από καιρό προειδοποιούν και καταγγέλλουν την παρουσία της νεοναζιστικής οργάνωσης στη Λευκίμμη και στο κίνημα, είναι που έφερε τα πράγματα ως εδώ. Αν δεν δράσουμε όπως οφείλουμε μπορεί τα πράγματα να εξελιχθούν ακόμα χειρότερα.

Η Κυβέρνηση και ο ΣΥΡΙΖΑ έχουν βαρύτατες πολιτικές ευθύνες και είναι επίσης ΣΥΝΕΝΟΧΟΙ, γιατί επέλεξαν σαν κοινωνικό αντίπαλο τη ΧΑ στην προσπάθεια τους να επιβάλουν με την πεντάμηνη κατοχή του χωριού μας από τα ΜΑΤ μια παντελώς άδικη, παράνομη και προκλητικά ετεροβαρή μεταφορά όλων των σκουπιδιών της Κέρκυρας στη Λευκίμμη.

Βαρύτατες είναι και οι ευθύνες των δημοτικών και περιφερειακών παρατάξεων του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ που υποστηρίζουν μια εγκληματική για τη Λευκίμμη λύση στο θέμα της διαχείρισης των απορριμμάτων και μάλιστα στο όνομα της Αριστεράς. Δεν έχουν απολύτως καμιά σχέση με την Αριστερά και με τις επιλογές τους σε οικονομικό και κοινωνικό επίπεδο την έχουν απαξιώσει συλλήβδην στο σύνολο της. Αυτή την κοινωνική δυσαρέσκεια εκμεταλλεύονται οι φασίστες με ακροδεξιάς και εθνικιστικής κοπής επιχειρήματα όπως «ξεπουλάνε τη Μακεδονία μας».

Ενδεικτικό του κινδύνου της φασιστικοποίησης που επιχειρείται στην περιοχή, σε συνδυασμό με τη γενικότερη άνοδο των ακροδεξιών δυνάμεων σε πανελλαδικό και ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο είναι ότι φασιστικές, φιλοχουντικές και νεοναζιστικές απόψεις όχι μόνο είναι διάχυτες σε μερίδα κατοίκων της περιοχής, αλλά και εκφράζονται χωρίς κανένα ίχνος ντροπής ακόμα και όταν ΥΠΑΡΧΕΙ ΦΑΣΙΣΤΙΚΗ ΔΟΛΟΦΟΝΙΑ μπροστά στα μάτια τους.

Εμείς από τη μεριά μας, αντιλαμβανόμενοι πλήρως τον κίνδυνο που εδώ και καιρό διατρέχει το χωριό μας, οι συγχωριανοί μας και ειδικά η Νεολαία της Λευκίμμης, καλούμε τους Λευκιμμιώτες και τις Λευκιμμιώτισσες να σταθούν απέναντι στο φασισμό και τις νεοναζιστικές ιδέες , να σταθούν απέναντι στον εθνικισμό και το ρατσισμό που σπέρνουν το μίσος μεταξύ των συγχωριανών μας και οπλίζουν τα χέρια επίδοξων δολοφόνων. Να μιλήσουμε ανοιχτά, να καταγγείλουμε, να απομονώσουμε, να τσακίσουμε και να εξαφανίσουμε από προσώπου γης τη ΧΑ και τις απάνθρωπες ιδέες που πρεσβεύει.

Η ΣΙΩΠΗ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΣΥΝΕΝΟΧΗ.

Οι ιδεολογικοί απόγονοι των ναζί και του Χίτλερ, του φασίστα Μεταξά και της Χούντας πρέπει να απομονωθούν κοινωνικά και πολιτικά και να καταλήξουν εκεί που ανήκουν, στα σκοτάδια της Ιστορίας.

Ο φασισμός φυτρώνει στη δυστυχία, καλλιεργείται από την αμάθεια και ποτίζεται με το νερό της ιστορικής λήθης.

Ούτε στη Λευκίμμη ούτε πουθενά, τσακίστε τους φασίστες σε πόλεις και χωριά.»