Αυτός είναι ο κ. Δημητράς κ. Κοντογεώργο !

Χθες ο βουλευτής Ευρυτανίας της ΝΔ Κώστας Κοντογεώργος σχολιάζοντας τη μηνυτήρια αναφορά  25/04/2020: Mηνυτήρια αναφορά για ξενοφοβική επιστολή βουλευτή και δημάρχων Ευρυτανίας αναρωτήθηκε για τον Εκπρόσωπο του Ελληνικού Παρατηρητηρίου των Συμφωνιών του Ελσίνκι Παναγιώτη Δημητρά “Ποιός είναι ο κ. Δημητράς;” [το πλήρες κείμενο των γεμάτων με ψεύδη δηλώσεών του ακολουθεί].

Να λοιπόν ποιος είναι ο κ. Δημητράς κ. Κοντεογώργο με βάση το δημόσια προσβάσιμο βιογραφικό του:

  1. Εκπρόσωπος και ιδρυτικό μέλος (1993) του Ελληνικού Παρατηρητηρίου των Συμφωνιών του Ελσίνκι (ΕΠΣΕ)
  2. Εκπρόσωπος και ιδρυτικό μέλος (2010) της Ένωσης Ουμανιστών Ελλάδας (ΕΝΩ.ΟΥΜ.Ε.)
  3. Μέλος του Διοικητικού Συμβουλίου του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικτύου για την Εκτέλεση των Αποφάσεων του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου Δικαιωμάτων του Ανθρώπου (EIN) από το 2018,
  4. Μέλος του Εκτελεστικού Συμβουλίου της Ευρωπαϊκής Ουμανιστικής Ομοσπονδίας (EHF) από το 2014 και
  5. Μέλος της Γενικής Συνέλευσης της Παγκόσμιας Οργάνωσης Κατά των Βασανιστηρίων (OMCT) από το 2004.

Εντελώς ενδεικτικά να θυμίσουμε ποιο είναι το ΕΠΣΕ:

  1. Ο Εισηγητής της Πλειοψηφίας Λεωνίδας Γρηγοράκος στη Βουλή κατά τη “Συζήτηση επί της αρχής των άρθρων και του συνόλου του σχεδίου νόμου του Υπουργείου Δικαιοσύνης: “Καταπολέμηση της εμπορίας ανθρώπων, των εγκλημάτων κατά της γενετήσιας ελευθερίας, της πορνογραφίας ανηλίκων και γενικότερα της οικονομικής εκμετάλλευσης της γενετήσιας ζωής και αρωγή στα θύματα των πράξεων αυτών” (2 Οκτωβρίου 2002):

    “Για το νομοσχέδιο αυτό συζητήσαμε με οργανισμούς, με οργανώσεις και με μεμονωμένα άτομα και ιδρύματα όπως το ίδρυμα Μαραγκοπούλου, το Ελληνικό Παρατηρητήριο των Συμφωνιών του Ελσίνκι και με την Ευρωβουλευτή του ΠΑΣΟΚ Άννα Καραμάνου, η οποία είναι Πρόεδρος της Επιτροπής Δικαιωμάτων των Γυναικών και Ίσων Ευκαιριών. Όλα τα πρόσωπα και οι φορείς είναι ευαισθητοποιημένοι σε αυτό το θέμα.”

  2. Η Καθηγήτρια του Αριστοτέλειου Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης (ΑΠΘ) Ζωή Παπασιώπη-Πασιά το 2008, στη μελέτη της “Tο νομικό καθεστώς για τις αλλοδαπές γυναίκες – θύματα εκμετάλλευσης και παράνομης διεθνούς διακίνησης”, έγραψε:

    “Ειδικά για το ΕΠΣΕ θα πρέπει να τονισθεί το ιδιαίτερο βάρος που παίζει με την προβολή υποθέσεων trafficking μέσω της πλούσιας ιστοσελίδας του , καθώς επίσης και για την μαχητικότητα που επιδεικνύει, όσο κι αν αυτή φαίνεται σκληρή, γύρω από το φαινόμενο της εμπορίας ανθρώπων στη χώρα μας… Πρέπει να επισημανθεί και η ιστοσελίδα του Ελληνικού Παρατηρητηρίου των Συμφωνιών του Ελσίνκι στην οποία δημοσιεύονται ειδικότερα προβλήματα που άπτονται της εμπορίας ανθρώπων και τα οποία αφορούν κυρίως στην πρακτική εφαρμογή του υπάρχοντος νομοθετικού πλαισίου, όπως και σε υποθέσεις που απασχολούν τη δικαιοσύνη και τη διοίκηση και οι οποίες βρίσκονται σε εκκρεμότητα. Πρόκειται για μία μαχητική ιστοσελίδα που μέσα από πολύ αυστηρή κριτική και κάποιες φορές ίσως ακραίες θέσεις, λέει αλήθειες.”

  3. Το Ελληνικό Ίδρυμα Ευρωπαϊκής και Εξωτερικής Πολιτικής (ΕΛΙΑΜΕΠ)  στην έκθεση του 2008 για τη νομολογία των ελληνικών υποθέσεων στο ΕΔΔΑ (όπου το ΕΠΣΕ έχει μέχρι σήμερα κερδίσει δεκάδες προσφυγές κατά της Ελλάδας) “Supranational rights litigation, implementation and the domestic impact of Strasbourg Court jurisprudence: A case study of Greece” by Dia Anagnostou and Evangelia Psychogiopoulou (ELIAMEP, Report prepared for the JURISTRAS project funded by the European Commission) αναφέρει: 

    Η απουσία ή/και η περιορισμένη παρουσία σημαντικών ΜΚΟ ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων με αξιοσημείωτη και επιδραστική δραστηριότητα υπεράσπισης των ανθρώπινων δικαιωμάτων είναι χαρακτηριστική της σχετικά υπανάπτυκτης και κακο-οργανωμένης κοινωνίας των πολιτών της Ελλάδας στο σύνολό της. Ακόμη λιγότερες οργανώσεις στην Ελλάδα επικεντρώνονται στη νομική δράση ως μέσο επιδίωξης στόχων δημόσιας πολιτικής και νομικής μεταρρύθμισης. Μερική εξαίρεση από αυτή την άποψη είναι το Ελληνικό Παρατηρητήριο των Συμφωνιών του Ελσίνκι … που προωθεί τις αρχές των ανθρώπινων δικαιωμάτων στις χώρες του ΟΑΣΕ. Τα τελευταία χρόνια, προσανατολίζει όλο και περισσότερο τις προτεραιότητές του και τους πόρους του για την ανάπτυξη δραστηριοτήτων που σχετίζονται με δικαστικές προσφυγές στο ΕΔΔΑ και παρέχει υποστήριξη σε υποψήφιους διαδίκους και πιλοτικές υποθέσεις ως μέρος της ευρύτερης πολιτικής στρατηγικής του για την πίεση της ελληνικής κυβέρνησης.

  4. Πολύ πρόσφατα, στις 9 Απριλίου 2020, δημοσιοποιήθηκε η “Έκθεση προς την ελληνική κυβέρνηση σχετικά με την επίσκεψη στην Ελλάδα που πραγματοποιήθηκε από την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή για την Πρόληψη των Βασανιστηρίων και της Απάνθρωπης ή Ταπεινωτικής Μεταχείρισης ή Τιμωρίας (CPT) μεταξύ 28 Μαρτίου – 9 Απριλίου 2019” όπου η Επιτροπή αναφέρει στο τέλος:

    Κατάλογος των εθνικών αρχών, άλλων φορέων και μη κυβερνητικών και άλλων οργανώσεων με τις οποίες πραγματοποιήθηκε διαβούλευση με την αντιπροσωπεία της CPT

    Μη κυβερνητικές … οργανώσεις

    Ελληνικό Παρατηρητήριο των Συμφωνιών του Ελσίνκι
    Ελληνική Δράση για τα Ανθρώπινα Δικαιώματα
    Ελληνική Ένωση για τα Ανθρώπινα Δικαιώματα

  5. Τέλος, την ίδια ημέρα που έκανε τις δηλώσεις του ο Κώστας Κοντογεώργος δημοσιευόταν εγκύκλιος της Εισαγγελίας του Αρείου Πάγου για τη συμμόρφωση της ελληνικής δικαιοσύνης με την καταδικαστική απόφαση του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου Δικαιωμάτων του Ανθρώπου (ΕΔΔΑ) της 18 Ιουλίου 2019 μετά από προσφυγή του ΕΠΣΕ σε υπόθεση εμπορίας ανθρώπων για σεξουαλική εκμετάλλευση (Τ.Ι. και άλλες κατά Ελλάδας).

Όπως προαναφέρθηκε, οι δηλώσεις του βουλευτή βρίθουν από ψεύδη:

  1. Η μηνυτήρια αναφορά δεν έγινε (μόνο) για τη χρήση του όρου “λαθρομετανάστες” αλλά γιατί “στιγμάτιζαν τους μετανάστες και πρόσφυγες ως εν δυνάμει φορείς κορονοϊού και “λαθρομετανάστες”, όπως ρατσιστικά τους ονομάζουν, που θα είναι υπεύθυνοι για αύξηση ανεργίας και απαξίωση του νομού και του τουρισμού πλήττοντας την οικονομία και την κοινωνία του νομού.” 
  2. Ο ισχυρισμός του πως δεν υπάρχει εγκύκλιος της Εισαγγελίας του Αρείου Πάγου πως ο όρος “λαθρομετανάστης” είναι μειωτικός για τους μετανάστες διαψεύδεται από την ίδια τη μηνυτήρια αναφορά που παραπέμπει στη σχετική εγκύκλιο της 26 Ιουλίου 2018.
  3. Συκοφαντεί το ΕΠΣΕ πως είναι μόνο μια “ταμπέλα κάπου στην Αθήνα.” Ήδη αναφέρθηκε παραπάνω ποιος είναι ο Παναγιώτης Δημητράς και τι είναι το ΕΠΣΕ. Μια και του βουλευτή της ΝΔ του αρέσουν οι ταμπέλες, ας δει στις φωτογραφίες μιαν ταμπέλα του ΕΠΣΕ μπροστά από τον Παναγιώτη Δημητρά, κάπου στο Στρασβούργο όμως, όταν ενημερώνει στις 26 Νοεμβρίου 2019 την Επιτροπή Υπουργών του Συμβουλίου της Ευρώπης για την εκτέλεση από την Ελλάδα καταδικαστικών αποφάσεων του ΕΔΔΑ για τα ρατσιστικά εγκλήματα, υπόθεση για την οποία η ελληνική κυβέρνηση της ΝΔ παρουσίασε την πρόοδο που σημειώνεται χάρη σε μερικές εκατοντάδες μηνύσεις για ρατσιστικά εγκλήματα που έχουν υποβληθεί, από τις οποίες το 90% είχαν υποβληθεί από το ΕΠΣΕ
  4. Ο χαρακτηρισμός του έργου αυτού του ΕΠΣΕ ως “ταλαιπωρία της ελληνικής δικαιοσύνης με σχεδόν 3000 προσφυγές κατά πάντων” και η ερώτηση “πόσο ακόμη θα τον ανεχόμαστε να απασχολεί την ελληνική δικαιοσύνη με τις έωλες αναφορές του” δεν είναι πρωτότυπες, αφού τις έχουν διατυπώσει εκατοντάδες φορές οι εχθροί των ανθρώπινων δικαιωμάτων ή/και οι συντάκτες ρατσιστικών κειμένων ή δηλώσεων που όταν δεν μπορούν να απαντήσουν, απλώς θα συκοφαντήσουν.

Κώστας Κοντογεώργος: Ποιός είναι ο κ.Δημητράς;

“Δεν επιτρέπω σε κανέναν να μου στερεί το δικαίωμα της ελευθερίας της έκφρασης, της γνώμης και της θέσης σε σοβαρά θέματα που απασχολούν την ελληνική κοινωνία και εν τω προκειμένω τους συμπατριώτες μου Ευρυτάνες…”FM-1 ο βουλευτής Ευρυτανίας Κώστας Κοντογεώργος απαντώντας στον Εκπρόσωπο του Ελληνικού Παρατηρητηρίου των Συμφωνιών του Ελσίνκι Παναγιώτη Δημητρά.

Όπως είναι γνωστό την περασμένη εβδομάδα ο κ.Κοντογεώργος, ο αντιπεριφερειάρχης Ευρυτανίας Αρης Τασιός, ο Δήμαρχος Καρπενησίου και πρόεδρος της ΠΕΔ Στερεάς Νίκος Σουλιώτης μαζί με εκπροσώπους επαγγελματικών και άλλων φορέων του Καρπενησίου , πραγματοποίησαν συγκέντρωση διαμαρτυρίας στην σήραγγα Τυμφρηστού μετά από πληροφορίες που είχαν ότι επίκειται η μεταφορά σε ξενοδοχειακές μονάδες του Καρπενησίου 300 περίπου προσφύγων και μεταναστών.

Ο κ.Κοντογεώργος μάλιστα απέστειλε επιστολή στην κυβέρνηση όπου χαρακτήριζε τους πρόσφυγες και μετανάστες ως “λαθρομετανάστες”.

Αυτό προκάλεσε την αντίδραση του κ.Δημητρά ο οποίος απέστειλε στην Αστυνομική Διεύθυνση Ευρυτανίας μηνυτήρια αναφορά κατά του βουλευτή και των δύο αυτοδιοικητικών, επικαλούμενος απόφαση ανωτάτου δικαστηρίου της χώρας ότι η έκφραση αυτή εμπεριέχει ρατσιστικό χαρακτηρισμό.

“Καμιά τέτοια απόφαση δεν υπάρχει και ο κ.Δημητράς ας μας αποδείξει τι ακριβώς εκπροσωπεί γιατί από ότι γνωρίζω έχει μόνο μια ταμπέλα κάπου στην Αθήνα ενώ έχει ταλαιπωρήσει την ελληνική δικαιοσύνη με σχεδόν 3000 προσφυγές κατά πάντων, πόσο ακόμη θα τον ανεχόμαστε να απασχολεί την ελληνική δικαιοσύνη με τις έωλες αναφορές του.

Γνωρίζω καλά τι λέω και προσέχω τις εκφράσεις μου, γνωρίζω επίσης καλά την ελληνική γλώσσα και έχω πλήρη επίγνωση των ευνοιών της, στην Ευρυτανία δεν θα περάσει κανένας επαναλαμβάνω λαθρομετανάστης,δηλαδή άνθρωπος που εισήλθε παράνομα,λαθραία στην χώρα μας”.

 

 

 

 

Αστυνομική βία – αυθαιρεσία – ατιμωρησία: Ερώτηση προς Γ. Καμίνη και Κ. Γρηγοριάδη μέσω Vouliwatch

Αστυνομική βία – αυθαιρεσία – ατιμωρησία

Προς Γιώργο Καμίνη και Κλέωνα Γρηγοριάδη

Αστυνομική βία – αυθαιρεσία – ατιμωρησία

Αξιότιμοι κύριοι βουλευτές

Όπως γνωρίζετε το Ελληνικό Παρατηρητήριο των Συμφωνιών του Ελσίνκι είναι η μόνη ΜΚΟ που υποβάλει εκθέσεις στην Επιτροπή Υπουργών του Συμβουλίου της Ευρώπης που παρακολουθεί την εκτέλεση της ομάδας Μακαρατζή 15 καταδικαστικών αποφάσεων του ΕΔΔΑ για παράνομη χρήση βίας από σώματα ασφαλείας. Για το λόγο αυτό, πρόσφατα επιλέχθηκε από ΟΑΣΕ και CPT ως η μόνη ελληνική ΜΚΟ που συμμετείχε στη συνάντηση ΜΚΟ με με τους Εθνικούς Μηχανισμούς Πρόληψης των Βασανιστηρίων και της Κακομεταχείρισης, δηλαδή το Συνήγορο του Πολίτη από πλευράς Ελλάδας. Τέλος, με ικανοποίηση πληροφορηθήκαμε πως σε εκδήλωσή σας ο Πρόεδρος του Νομικού Συμβουλίου του Κράτους δήλωσε πως επιβάλλεται η πιο στενή συνεργασία με ΕΕΔΑ και ΕΠΣΕ αφού αρκετές φορές οι απόψεις τους είναι πιο κοντά στη νομολογία του ΕΔΔΑ.

Στα πλαίσια αυτά διαβάσαμε προσεκτικά τη χθεσινή συζήτηση στη Βουλή των δύο επίκαιρων ερωτήσεων που καταθέσατε (https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/a08fc2dd-61a9-4a83-b09a-09f4c564609d/20191213000912.docx ). Ακολουθούν παρατηρήσεις και προτάσεις μας.

1. Διακριτικά στελεχών σωμάτων ασφαλείας

Όπως δήλωσε σήμερα (https://left.gr/news/pottakis-synigoros-toy-politi-dimioyrgeitai-aisthisi-atimorisias-ton-astynomikon-organon) ο Συνήγορος του Πολίτη Ανδρέας Ποττάκης, “ο ΣτΠ είχε επισημάνει ότι τα όργανα ασφαλείας πρέπει να φέρουν τα διακριτικά τους και είχε τονίσει ότι συχνά δεν τα φέρουν.” Ο Υφυπουργός Προστασίας του Πολίτη Ελευθέριος Οικονόμου σας απάντησε πως “Η διαταγή στην οποία αναφέρεστε ισχύει και δεν έχει ανακληθεί. Αναμφισβήτητα θα δούμε και την πιστή τήρησή της.” Άρα κάθε όργανο που δεν τα φέρει υποπίπτει σε πειθαρχικό παράπτωμα που πρέπει να οδηγεί σε κυρώσεις.

Παρακαλούμε λοιπόν να υποβάλετε ερώτηση στον Υπουργό Προστασίας του Πολίτη ζητώντας το συστηματικό έλεγχο και την επιβολή κυρώσεων στους παραβάτες και ενδεχομένως αναφερόμενοι σε καταγγελίες και φωτογραφικό υλικό που επιβεβαιώνει αυτό που όλοι συμφωνούν ότι συμβαίνει.

2. Στατιστικά στοιχεία πειθαρχικών ερευνών και κυρώσεων

Ο Υφυπουργός Προστασίας του Πολίτη ανέφερε πως “από την 9 Ιουνίου 2017, μέχρι σήμερα, η Διεύθυνση Αστυνομικού Προσωπικού του Αρχηγείου απέστειλε σε ηλεκτρονική μορφή αλληλογραφία, Συνήγορο του Πολίτη τετρακόσιες σαράντα τρεις υποθέσεις για υπό έρευνα περιστατικά αυθαιρεσίας, που εμπίπτουν στις διατάξεις του ν. 4443/2016.” Όμως “Σε ό,τι αφορά τα αποτελέσματα από πλευράς διενέργειας ΕΔΕ, δεν έχω πρόχειρα τα στοιχεία, δεδομένου ότι για όπου έχει διαπιστωθεί υπαιτιότητα σε τέτοιου είδους περιστατικά έχουν σταλεί και στον εισαγγελέα, διότι αποτελούν και πολύ σοβαρά ποινικά αδικήματα. Ως εκ τούτου, αυτήν τη στιγμή δεν έχω την ετοιμότητα να σας απαντήσω με συγκεκριμένα στοιχεία. Είναι βέβαιο, όμως, ότι όλες αυτές οι υποθέσεις για όπου προκύπτουν ενοχές αποστέλλονται και στη δικαιοσύνη και εφαρμόζεται η ποινική διαδικασία. Να είστε απόλυτα βέβαιος περί αυτού.”Παρακαλούμε λοιπόν να υποβάλετε ερώτηση στον Υπουργό Προστασίας του Πολίτη και τον Υπουργό Δικαιοσύνης ζητώντας αναλυτικά στοιχεία για τα μέχρι σήμερα αποτελέσματα των 443 πειθαρχικών ερευνών ανά μορφή καταγγελλόμενων παραπτωμάτων/αδικημάτων και τη συνέχεια που έδωσαν οι εισαγγελίες σε όσες σχετικές δικογραφίες πειθαρχικών ερευνών έφθασαν σε αυτές. Είναι απόλυτα επείγον να δοθούν στοιχεία γιατί όπως δήλωσε σήμερα ο Συνήγορος του Πολίτη υπάρχει “μια αίσθηση ατιμωρησίας των αστυνομικών οργάνων.”

3. Έκφραση συγγνώμης προς τα θύματα

“Ο Συνήγορος του Πολίτη σάς έχει προτείνει ως Εθνικός Μηχανισμός Διερεύνησης Περιστατικών Αυθαιρεσίας από τα Σώματα Ασφαλείας τουλάχιστον σε αυτές τις περιπτώσεις ο διοικητικός προϊστάμενος, ο Αρχηγός της ΕΛΑΣ να ζητήσει συγγνώμη, από τη στιγμή που έχουν παραγραφεί πια αυτά τα αδικήματα, λόγω ακριβώς της καθυστέρησης της ελληνικής διοίκησης και της ελληνικής δικαιοσύνης.” Αγνοείτε πως η Ελλάδα αποφάνθηκε πως αυτή η διαδικασία προσκρούει στο νόμο (!!!), στην έκθεση που υπέβαλε στις 27 Σεπτεμβρίου 2019 στην Επιτροπή Υπουργών του Συμβουλίου της Ευρώπης που είχε καλοδεχθεί την υιοθέτησης αυτού του μέτρου στα πλαίσια της εκτέλεσης των αποφάσεων της ομάδας Μακαρατζή (https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=0900001680980725); Ως πανεπιστημιακός συνταγματολόγος και πρώην ΣτΠ ο Γιώργος Καμίνης πώς κρίνει αυτή τη θέση της Ελλάδας (που προφανώς αγνοούσε) που σημαίνει επίσης πως η πρόταση αυτή του ΣτΠ δεν ήταν σύννομη (αν είναι ποτέ δυνατόν αυτό!).

Παρακαλούμε λοιπόν να υποβάλετε ερώτηση στον Υπουργό Προστασίας του Πολίτη προτείνοντας την υιοθέτηση αυτού του μέτρου.

4. ΠΔΕ και ΕΔΕ

Ο Υφυπουργός Προστασίας του Πολίτη ανέφερε πως “Σε σχέση τώρα με τα καταγγελλόμενα περιστατικά κακοποίησης, κακομεταχείρισης και ακραίας συμπεριφοράς αστυνομικών σε βάρος πολιτών που φέρονται ότι διεπράχθησαν τη 17η Νοεμβρίου στην Αθήνα, μετά το πέρας των εκδηλώσεων και της πορείας, και προβλήθηκαν ως τέτοιες στον ηλεκτρονικό και έντυπο Τύπο, σας ενημερώνω, απαντώντας σε σχετικό ερώτημά σας, ότι ήδη έχει διαταχθεί διενέργεια αντίστοιχων προκαταρκτικών διοικητικών εξετάσεων (ΠΔΕ). Ομοίως για τα καταγγελλόμενα περιστατικά ως προς την κακομεταχείριση πολιτών και ακραία συμπεριφορά αστυνομικών που φέρονται ότι έλαβαν χώρα την 6η Δεκεμβρίου στην Αθήνα μετά το πέρας των εκδηλώσεων και της πορείας για τη μνήμη του Αλέξανδρου Γρηγορόπουλου και δημοσιοποιήθηκαν στον ηλεκτρονικό και έντυπο Τύπο, διατάχθηκε διενέργεια ένορκης διοικητικής εξέτασης (ΕΔΕ). Σε όλες τις περιπτώσεις η διενέργεια των ερευνών ανατέθηκε σε αξιωματικούς, που ουδεμία διοικητική εξάρτηση έχουν με τις ανά περίπτωση εμπλεκόμενες υπηρεσίες και τους εμπλεκόμενους αστυνομικούς. ” Γιατί μόνο ΠΔΕ για τα πρώτα και ΕΔΕ μόνο για τα δεύτερα; Και ποιοι είναι οι αξιωματικοί που τις κάνουν και φέρεται να μην έχουν διοικητική εξάρτηση, όταν εκτός απροόπτου όπως όλες οι ΠΔΕ και ΕΔΕ που είναι γνωστές στο ΕΠΣΕ γίνονται από αξιωματικούς υπηρεσιών που υπάγονται, όπως και οι εμπλεκόμενες υπηρεσίες, στη ΓΑΔΑ;

Παρακαλούμε λοιπόν να υποβάλετε ερώτηση στον Υπουργό Προστασίας του Πολίτη για ποιο λόγο διατάχθηκαν μόνο ΠΔΕ για τα πρώτα επεισόδια και σε ποιες ακριβώς υπηρεσίες ανήκουν οι ερευνώντες αστυνομικοί σε σχέση με τις υπηρεσίες των εμπλεκόμενων αστυνομικών.

5. Νομοθετική πρωτοβουλία

Ο Υφυπουργός Προστασίας του Πολίτη ανέφερε τέλος πως “Αξίζει, μάλιστα, να αναδειχθεί πως η Ελληνική Αστυνομία μετά την έκδοση της ετήσιας Έκθεσης του Συνηγόρου του Πολίτη για το 2018, ανέλαβε νομοθετική πρωτοβουλία προς εναρμόνιση με τις προτάσεις του αποσκοπώντας στη βελτίωση του τρόπου απονομής του πειθαρχικού δικαίου, όπως ορίζεται από τις διατάξεις του Προεδρικού Διατάγματος 120/2008. Επιπλέον, εισηγήθηκε και την τροποποίηση συγκεκριμένων διατάξεων προς τον σκοπό αυτό. Αυτό το αναφέρω προς επίρρωση της θέσης πως ο θεσμός της Αστυνομίας δεν παραμένει αδρανής ή αναχρονιστικός.” Γνωρίζετε σεις οι ερωτώντες βουλευτές ποιες συγκεκριμένες τροποποιήσεις διατάξεων έχουν προταθεί και πού;

Αλλιώς, παρακαλούμε να υποβάλετε ερώτηση στον Υπουργό Προστασίας του Πολίτη για να ενημερώσει σας και τον ελληνικό λαό ποιες είναι αυτές.

Περιμένουμε με ενδιαφέρον τις απαντήσεις σας και τις ενδεχόμενες κοινοβουλευτικές ερωτήσεις στον Υπουργό Προστασίας του Πολίτη.

Με εκτίμηση

Παναγιώτης Δημητράς

Εκπρόσωπος ΕΠΣΕ
Μέλος του Διοικητικού Συμβουλίου του Διοικητικού Συμβουλίου του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικτύου Εφαρμογής των Αποφάσεων του ΕΔΔΑ (EIN)
Μέλος της Γενικής Συνέλευσης της Παγκόσμιας Οργάνωσης Κατά των Βασανιστηρίων (OMCT)

04/11/2019: ΕΠΣΕ η ελληνική ΜΚΟ που προσκλήθηκε στα 30 χρόνια της CPT/GHM Greek NGO invited to CPT’s 30-year anniversary

Στις 4 και 5 Νοεμβρίου 2019, το Συμβούλιο της Ευρώπης οργάνωσε εκδήλωση για τα 30 χρόνια της Επιτροπής για την Πρόληψη των Βασανιστηρίων και της Απάνθρωπης ή Εξευτελιστικής Μεταχείρισης ή Τιμωρίας (CPT) και διάλογο μεταξύ Εθνικών Μηχανισμών Πρόληψης (συνήθως οι Συνήγοροι του Πολίτη) και μιας ΜΚΟ ανά χώρα: από τις ελληνικές ΜΚΟ επιλέχθηκε να συμμετάσχει το Ελληνικό Παρατηρητήριο των Συμφωνιών του Ελσίνκι (ΕΠΣΕ), με τον Εκπρόσωπο του ΕΠΣΕ Παναγιώτη Δημητρά.

On 4 and 5 November 2019, the Council of Europe organized the celebration of the 30th anniversary of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) and a dialogue between National Preventive Mechanisms (usually the Ombudsmen) and one NGO per country: from the Greek NGOs, it was Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM) that was selected to participate, with its Spokesperson Panayote Dimitras.

FB_IMG_1573051206728

EIiER1OXUAAeirs

EIiEStrWkAAJtv7

Η ιστοσελίδα των εκδηλώσεων – The webpage of the events:
30th anniversary of the CPT: Conference and ceremony

Related articles:

The CPT at 30: The APT and partners reflect on the implementation of safeguards in police custody in Europe

Strengthening regional co-operation to prevent torture and ill-treatment in police custody focus of OSCE/ODIHR event in Strasbourg

09/08/2019: UN Committee against Torture on Greece’s (non) implementation of Convention against Torture

Στιγμιότυπο οθόνης (7)

cat on greece 2019-01

cat on greece 2019-02cat on greece 2019-03cat on greece 2019-04cat on greece 2019-05cat on greece 2019-06cat on greece 2019-07cat on greece 2019-08cat on greece 2019-09cat on greece 2019-10cat on greece 2019-11cat on greece 2019-12

Source here
Document available also in word format here: cat on greece 2019.

24 & 25/07/2019: UN Committee against Torture consideration of report of Greece [videos]

Committee against Torture concludes its consideration of the report of Greece

24 – 25 July 2019 [videos at the bottom of this page]

25 July 2019 – The Committee against Torture this afternoon concluded its consideration of the seventh periodic report of Greece on the efforts made by the State party to implement the provisions of the Convention against Torture.

Introducing the report, Panos Alexandris, Secretary General for Justice and Human Rights, Ministry of Justice of Greece, said that it was his deepest belief and duty to ensure that, during his tenure as a political appointee in this Ministry, all policies concerned should be enhanced, aiming at further respecting, promoting and protecting human rights.  Greece attached particular importance to the fight against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  The prevention and elimination of such phenomena had been and continued to be a high priority for the Government.  He stressed that parliamentary elections had been held on 7 July, and that a new parliamentary majority had been formed.  The new Government was sworn in on 9 July; consequently, the present review of Greece’s periodic report coincided with a transitional phase concerning decision-making, the shaping of policies, and the undertaking of new legislative initiatives.  Since the second half of 2014, a policy to curb prison overcrowding, further developed in April 2015, had been implemented.  Police officers were subjected to strict disciplinary control.  Actions amounting to torture or other insults to human dignity incurred the penalty of dismissal.

In the ensuing discussion, Committee Experts welcomed the participation of various State and other entities in the preparation of the report.  Starting with the definition of torture, they said multiple sources had told the Committee that Parliament had voted on the complete text of the new penal code in June 2019 which would render it incompatible with the Convention.   The Committee was particularly concerned about the requirement that suffering be inflicted in a “planned manner,” which excessively reduced the scope of the crime of torture and seemed to limit its applicability to situations where the practice was systematic, thus excluding isolated cases of torture.  This contravened the provisions of the Convention.  On legal safeguards, they said that it seemed that they were not implemented sufficiently.  There was no system of regular medical visits to examine patients in police stations.  They asked what measures, legislative or otherwise, had the State party adopted to implement the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture regarding legal safeguards.  Were all detained persons registered from the outset of the detention?

In his concluding remarks, Mr. Alexandris thanked the Committee.  The dialogue had been frank, open and constructive.  The delegation was looking forward to receiving the Committee’s concluding observations, which would be carefully examined and taken into consideration in the development of human rights policies.

Jens Modvig, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation for the replies and the diligent manner in which they had been provided.  Three of the most urgent recommendations would be identified by the Committee for follow-up within a year, he added.

The delegation of Greece consisted of representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Citizen Protection, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Shipping and Island Policy, and the Permanent Mission of Greece to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will next meet in public on Friday, 26 July, at 10 a.m. when it will start its consideration of the initial report of Togo (CAT/C/TGO/3).

Report

The Committee has before it the seventh periodic report of Greece (CAT/C/GRC/7)

Presentation of the Report

PANOS ALEXANDRIS, Secretary General for Justice and Human Rights, Ministry of Justice of Greece, said that it was his deepest belief and duty to ensure that, during his tenure as a political appointee in this Ministry, all policies concerned should be enhanced, aiming at further respecting, promoting and protecting human rights.  The periodic report was based on the Committee’s list of issues.  Greece attached particular importance to the fight against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  The prevention and elimination of such phenomena had been and continued to be a high priority for the Government.  Parliamentary elections had been held on 7 July, and a new parliamentary majority had been formed.  The new Government was sworn in on 9 July; consequently, the present review of Greece’s periodic report coincided with a transitional phase concerning decision-making, the shaping of policies, and the undertaking of new legislative initiatives.

Since the second half of 2014, a policy to curb prison overcrowding, further developed in April 2015, had been implemented.  Thanks to the overall reduction of the prison population by 20 per cent within two years, and the subsequent stand-still policy, the number of prisoners had been stabilized, and stood between 10,000 and 10,500 — an affordable and manageable population for the current size and capacity of the Greek prison system.  Further, police officers were subjected to strict disciplinary control.  Actions amounting to torture or other insults to human dignity incurred the penalty of dismissal.  The Greek Ombudsman, an independent authority, had been designated as the national mechanism for the investigation of arbitrary incidents allegedly committed by law enforcement personnel.  All persons deprived of liberty were treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person: they were informed of their rights and allowed to establish contact with their legal representatives and family members; particular attention was given to the situation of vulnerable persons.

Police officers were given specific instructions and orders regarding the protection of the fundamental rights of migrants and refugees, paying special attention to vulnerable groups.  All the procedures that fell under the responsibility of the Hellenic Police were implemented in accordance with national and international law. Within this framework, officials of the Hellenic Police were constantly monitored and evaluated by the chain of command.

Greece remained under a disproportionate migratory pressure, despite the significant decrease of flows following the European Union-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016.  The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs had enacted the framework for the institution of guardianship of unaccompanied and separated minors.  Other necessary legislative regulations were being forwarded to facilitate the full implementation of the guardianship of unaccompanied minors.  The Hellenic Coast Guard deployed enormous efforts during emergency situations at sea, with a focus on the protection of vulnerable individuals or groups.  A new curriculum included a specific module for the protection of fundamental rights and a chapter on the prevention of torture.  Greece pursued a comprehensive and victim-centred action plan to combat trafficking in persons.  On gender issues, there had been significant steps taken by the Government, such as the emphasis on support for women belonging to vulnerable social groups, including refugees.  As far as the fight against racism was concerned, a robust legislative framework had been created.

Questions by the Country Co-Rapporteurs

DIEGO RODRÍGUEZ-PINZÓN, Committee Member and Country Co-Rapporteur for Greece, started by welcoming the representatives of the State party.  He welcomed the participation of various State and other entities in the preparation of the report.  Starting with the definition of torture, he said multiple sources had told the Committee that Parliament had voted on the complete text of the new penal code in June 2019 which would render it incompatible with the Convention.  The Committee was particularly concerned about the requirement that suffering be inflicted in a “planned manner,” which excessively reduced the scope of the crime of torture and seemed to limit its applicability to situations and instances where the practice was systematic, thus excluding isolated cases of torture.  This contravened the provisions of the Convention.

On legal safeguards, he said that it seemed that they were not implemented sufficiently.  A number of foreign detained persons were not informed of their rights or the reasons of their detention in a language that they could understand, according to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture.  There were situations in which lawyers advised their clients not to report abuse.  There was no system of regular medical visits to examine patients in police stations.  Detainees failed to receive adequate information on existing complaint mechanisms to which they had access.  The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture said that several foreign persons that it had interviewed had not been able to contact a lawyer or family members, and had not been entitled to access to a doctor throughout the detention period.  Access to a lawyer was dependent on the defendant having the financial means to hire one, leaving those who did not without judicial support.  Mr. Rodríguez-Pinzón asked what measures, legislative or otherwise, had the State party adopted to implement the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture regarding legal safeguards.

Were all detained persons registered from the outset of the detention?  He asked how the right to be brought before a judge without delay was implemented.  He sought clarification on the status of the Criminal Procedure Code.  What had led the committee responsible for drafting it to refrain from modifying the maximum length of pre-trial detention, notably that of minors?  What measures was the Government implementing to address the scarcity of penitentiary centres, which was preventing it from complying with rules regarding the separation of different types of prisoners?

The Committee had received information on the excessive use of force, notably against unaccompanied minors.  He asked the delegation to comment on the persistence of such instances of excessive violence and indicate what measures were being adopted to ensure this would not continue.  Could the delegation provide updated information on the criminal proceedings against the perpetrators of the assassination of 15-year-old Alexis Gregoropoulos?  He also asked if the victim’s family had received compensation and reparation.

Turning to gender-based violence, Mr. Rodríguez-Pinzón requested information on steps undertaken by the State party to address this issue, notably to combat sexual and domestic violence; establish evaluation mechanisms; ensure that victims could fully exercise their right to denounce such violence before courts and receive abortion services and post-exposure prophylaxis, amongst others; and put in place additional security measures in the islands, or hotspots, to prevent gender-based and sexual violence.  The Committee would also need information on human trafficking, including up-to-date statistical information on this practice, including on the number of prosecutions related to sexual exploitation and forced labour.

What measures had been adopted to prevent the pushback of individuals who may wish to seek asylum, asked Mr. Rodríguez-Pinzón.  Had the monitoring of officials exercising control over the borders in the Evros region been strengthened in light of reports of informal forced returns?  He asked the delegation to indicate the reasons why administrative investigations did not include alleged victims or complainants.  It was preoccupying that the applicable asylum system in the hotspots differed from the one that was in place on the continent.  The Committee had received information to the effect that, in the context of the European Union-Turkey agreement, individuals from certain countries were automatically detained to be deported because they came from “pre-determined countries” that were deemed to produce “economic migrants” rather than refugees.  Such “pre-determination” amounted to presumption against the asylum request.  The Committee wanted to know if this was indeed how the State party proceeded.  Mr. Rodríguez-Pinzón also requested information on diplomatic assurances.

ABDELWAHAB HANI, Committee Member and Country Co-Rapporteur for Greece, noted that the report had been submitted with a slight delay.  The Committee would like Greece to make up for that delay in the presentation of future reports.  He asked for information about the training programmes put in place so that all individuals who were involved in the implementation of the law understood their responsibilities with regard to the prevention of torture and ill-treatment.  Had an evaluation of this training been conducted?  Regarding the memorandum of understanding that the Government had signed with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe on the training of prosecutors, could the delegation provide the Committee with updated information?  The Committee echoed concerns expressed by non-governmental organizations regarding the implementation of the Istanbul Protocol, notably in hotspots.  Could the delegation provide information on the training programmes for law-enforcement officials that dealt with the Mandela Rules and the Istanbul Protocol?

Had there been an evaluation of the implementation of the European Union-Turkey agreement in light of the State party’s obligations under international law?  The national prevention mechanismdid not seem to have enough resources to fully implement the Optional Protocol.  How did the Government intend to overcome this lack of human and financial resources?  Within the Ombudsman’s office, were there staff members working on prevention issues and carrying out preventive work?

Mr. Hani asked how the Government ensured the cooperation and coordination of the three mechanisms working on the deprivation of liberty.  How did the Government ensure that their interlinked work met its obligations under international law?  He requested information about the involvement of civil society organizations in monitoring practices as well as on the announced and unannounced visits conducted in detention centres, including those where migrants were held.  Turning to overcrowding issues, he asked for information on transfers to rural prisons and the way in which the efficiency of this measure had been evaluated.

Could the delegation provide statistics on the detention of minorities and additional information on the detention of foreigners and asylum seekers, in light of allegations that the latter were systematically detained?  According to some figures, the reception and identification centres for asylum seekers held twice as many persons as they had been designed to.  Could the delegation comment on these numbers and give the Committee an idea of the average duration of detention in these centres?  The deplorable living conditions of migrants amounted to a form of unacceptable treatment.  How was the State party addressing this issue?

Citing the principle of the “right to hope” put forth in the European Court of Human Rights decision, Mr. Hani asked about the number of people who had been condemned to life sentences.  Turning to mental health, he requested information on the transfer of patients to community-based centres, which had been enacted following the adoption of a circular in November 2018.  Had the Government examined other similar policies implemented in other countries, such as South Africa?  It was important that such practices did not lead the State party to shirk its responsibility.  Could civil society organizations visit psychiatric institutions?  How did the State ensure that non-governmental organizations with which it had partnered had the scientific and technical expertise to provide adequate mental care?  It was important to avoid the mistakes that had been made in South Africa.

The frequent use of certain interrogation techniques had been criticized by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture.  How was the State party addressing this situation?  Mr. Hani sought clarifications on the efficacy of the complaint system, and asked for statistics on the number of complaints filed and their outcome.  He also enquired about the assistance offered to victims of torture.  Did the State party intend to contribute to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture?  Were victims of torture or ill-treatment able to seek reparation in the country?  Odious crimes should not fall under statutes of limitations.  Given that a high percentage of migrants and asylum seekers had been victims of torture (up to 35 per cent of the global migrant population according to Doctors without Borders), had the State party taken steps to provide this segment of the population with rehabilitation services?

Mr. Hani noted that there was no criminalization of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.  He asked for statistics or information on instances where judges had discarded information that had been obtained through torture.  Were there adequately trained doctors who acted as experts in judicial proceedings in the context of which allegations of torture were made?

He asked if training on the Convention was provided to personnel interacting with persons with disabilities and if the national prevention mechanism conducted visits to institutions where they stayed.  Pointing that there was a trend of criminalization of solidarity, he requested information on steps taken by the State party to address the intimidation of humanitarian workers.  He also expressed concern about discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons and Roma persons.

Questions by Other Committee Members

Other Committee Members asked information on torture and abuse by police officers, notably during demonstrations, and practices targeting minorities held in detention; the detention of adults alongside juveniles; the way in which body cavity searches were conducted and the use of electronic tools in that context; as well as on violence against Roma and refugees, the increase in such attacks involving law enforcement officials, and the way in which they were prosecuted.

Replies by the Delegation

The delegation, addressing the issue of legal safeguards, explained that all detained persons, as soon as they were taken to the police station, were fully informed of the reasons of their detention, as well as of the rights they could exercise during their detention.  If the detained person was a foreign national who did not understand the Greek language, care was taken to explain their rights to them in the most appropriate way.  The Hellenic Police ensured that detained persons could establish telephone and personal communications with their lawyer.  Regarding the issue of registration of detainees, it must be understood that all persons who were detained were fully registered as per internal regulations, the implementation of which was constantly monitored by heads of services.  With regard to allegations of excessive use of force,the police undertook investigations into complaints made by foreign citizens, whether they were detained or not, if they alleged ill-treatment, affront to their personality, or physical abuse by police officers.  Turning to the use of chemical products by the police during demonstrations, the delegation said that it should be noted that the decision had been made to use tear gas rationally and not abusively, in full respect of the principle of necessity.  It was only used in open spaces when it was considered absolutely necessary.

When foreigners were in police custody, they were required to be escorted by the police when circulating outside of places of detention.  Any allegations of breach of the non-refoulement principle were thoroughly investigated.  Body searches were sometimes necessary, such as when electronic detectors were not available.  The role of the police was to preserve peace and bring before justice any person who behaved in an unlawful manner.  On ethnic profiling, the delegation explained that, in Greece, there was only one recognized religious minority, people of Muslim faith.

Moving on to the definition of torture, the delegation said that for there to be torture as per the Greek law, it must be proved that the crime had been committed for specific purposes such as obtaining a confession, a testimony, information or punishing the victim or intimidating them or any other third parties.  The Greek legislation’s requirement for the acts to be carried out in a methodical manner could correspond to the term “with intent” used in article 1 of the Convention.  Regarding penalties, the delegation said that the crime of torture continued to be punished with the same degree of severity even though the overall length of imprisonment had changed — it was now 5 to 15 years as opposed to 5 to 20 years in the previous version of the Penal Code.  Under Greek law, the crime of torture was subject to a statute of limitations of 15 years, except for cases where the acts of torture led to the death of the victim, in which case it was 20 years.  As in many other countries, the main reason for this provision was the principle of legal certainty.  A special provision of the Penal Code stipulated that the victim of acts of torture and ill-treatment was entitled to seek from the irrevocably convicted person, as well as from the State, compensation for the damages suffered, the mental suffering incurred and property damage.  The penal case of Alexis Grigoropoulos was on its way to completion.  After using the available remedies, his family had finally reached a settlement with the State — approximately 1 million euros.

Pre-trial detention was only imposed as a measure of last resort.  Its duration or extension was obligatorily re-examined by judicial authorities every six months or upon the prisoner’s request.  It could never exceed 18 months.  For children aged 15 to 18 years, the time-limit was 6 months.  Rules on the separation and categorization of prisoners according to their legal status were still not implemented due to insufficiency of the prison system structure.  Further, other separation needs had been prioritized, namely sex, age, ethnicity, health and religion.  Prison and probation officer training included human rights issues, in line with the United Nations and the Council of Europe’s rules and recommendations.  For the prison staff, particular attention was given to the Nelson Mandela rules.  On overcrowding, it was common knowledge that the number of prisoners had been reduced by 20 per cent over the 2014-2017 period, and then stabilized at approximately 10,000 persons.  The reduced number of prisoners had contributed to the improvement of everyday living conditions, in combination with the implementation of various educational, vocational, therapeutic, athletic, cultural and other constructive activities for prisoners.  In addition, measures improving prisoners’ social contacts (conjugal visits, children’s visits, teleconferencing, etc.) were gradually being implemented.

All prisons services used electronic metal detectors and drug urine tests to search prisoners, staff and visitors, as alternatives to invasive body searches.  When indications existed that illicit substances or objects were hidden in a prisoner’s body, the concerned prisoner was transferred to a public hospital to undergo the necessary examinations.

Prisoners with disabilities were eligible for early conditional release on the basis of their disability.  Those of them with serious mobility problems and incapacities were treated at the Korydallos prison hospital while in detention.  Prisoners were transferred to agricultural prisons exclusively upon their request and for work purposes only.  The treatment in such semi-open conditions had not been evaluated yet.

Since 2011, Greece had proceeded to overhauling the country’s asylum system, as reflected in its national legislation and operational capacity.  Over 1 million refugees had crossed through Greece.  The flows had significantly decreased following the European Union-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016.  However, it was worth noting that Greece remained under disproportionate migratory pressure. The Asylum Service had registered approximately 235,000 applications for international protection as of 30 June 2019.  The average recognition rate for refugee status and subsidiary status stood at almost 44 per cent.  Third country nationals or stateless persons held in detention facilities or present at border crossing points — including transit zones and external borders — received information on the possibility to submit an application for international protection.  There, interpretation services were provided as it was necessary to facilitate access to the asylum procedure.

The safe third country concept corresponded to specific articles of the Asylum Procedure Directive as they had been transposed into Greek legislation.  It did not lead to automatic detention.  Fair and impartial treatment was guaranteed for all asylum seekers, on the basis of specific criteria and timeframes.

On gender-based violence, the delegation said that women suffering from multiple discrimination, in particular refugee women, benefitted from first line services, including psycho-social support, legal counselling and accommodation.  As of July 2019, 612 refugee women had benefited from the services of the counselling centres; and 44 migrant women and 54 children had found safe accommodation in the Network Shelters.  The General Secretariat had established a bilateral partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Greece, which had led to, inter alia, a memorandum of understanding for joint actions to protect refugee women and children at risk, and the translation of the shelters’ documents in Arabic, Farsi, French, Urdu and Sorani.  Furthermore, following Greece’s ratification of the Istanbul Convention in 2017, the law on domestic violence had been amended to improve its implementation.

Unaccompanied minors were moved to special accommodation facilities either on the islands or on the mainland, based on the availability of places.  Given the urgency of their protection needs, Greece was currently in the process of creating many more accommodation centres, especially for minors.  Various recreational and educational activities were organized with a view to offer them opportunities to learn and grow.  Regarding reports of doctors refusing to perform abortions on the islands, the delegation stated that no specific provisions applied on the islands; the general Greek law was applied throughout the country.  While some doctors had refused to carry out abortions on grounds of conscience, it was not the general practice and there was no discriminatory approach to migrant and refugee women.

Regarding involuntary hospitalization, a Ministry of Health Circular from November 2018 stipulated that all injuries suffered by the patients must be registered in each patient’s medical record as well as in a specific record; the doctor examining the patient had to describe the injury mentioning if, in their view, it was indicative of possible ill-treatment or inter-patient violence; and the director of the hospital must bring to the attention of the relevant prosecutor all aforementioned medical reports.

Hellenic Coast Guard officers received training which included a specific module on the protection of human rights and a chapter about the prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  This training also included a presentation and analysis of the Convention, focusing on methods that could be used to recognize victims of torture through the observation of behavioural and physical indicators.  The Hellenic Coast Guard was also actively participating in the Train of Trainers initiative, which was coordinated by Frontex, and aimed to enhance human rights capacities through the development of a pool of accredited experts that delivered training to other staff members.

Follow-up Questions by Country Co-Rapporteurs

DIEGO RODRÍGUEZ-PINZÓN, Committee Member and Country Co-Rapporteur for Greece, said the definition of torture had been targeted by recent reform efforts in Greece.  The notion of “planning” torture was problematic.  It may result in limiting the application of the relevant legal provisions.  He asked the delegation to clarify under which conditions rape could amount to torture under Greek law, and the meaning of “methods” or “methodical” in the Penal Code.  Turning to the registration of detainees, he asked if there was a control system in place to ensure the law was applied.  Was there a central database?

It was important to see the State as a whole, and avoid laying blame at the feet of one entity or the other.  How was the State ensuring that the privacy of detainees was respected in hospitals?  Noting that various agencies were involved in border control activities in Greece, he asked what was the specific role of Frontex.  On extraditions, he requested figures and information on the countries involved.  He reiterated that the situation in the hotspots was of great concern and required urgent action to prevent people who were already vulnerable from suffering from gender-based violence.

ABDELWAHAB HANI, Committee Member and Country Co-Rapporteur for Greece, noting that the delegation had said that the situation in the hotspot tents was under control, asked which standards had been used to reach such a conclusion.  What methods were used for calculating tents’ capacity?  He asked about measures, such as guarantees of non-repetition, that had been taken following the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights to address the harassment of humanitarian workers.  Highlighting the difficult detention conditions faced by children, he requested the delegation to comment and provide more information on that matter.  Regarding the 18 March 2016 European Union-Turkey Statement, he asked for information about safeguards against refoulement, and collective refoulement.  What methods were used to calculate the capacity for hosting on islands?  He requested information on plans to improve data collection concerning compensation and reparations.

How did the State party approach article 3 of the Convention?  Did it take this article and the Committee’s case law in consideration when deciding on extraditions?  He asked to what extent the State party’s “special procedure” met the Convention’s requirements and if the State party intended to include the Committee’s case law in the training provided to civil servants?

Follow-up Questions by Other Committee Members

Other Committee Members asked for information about allegations of police violence, notably against children.

Replies by the Delegation

The delegation recalled that the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights were legally binding.  With regard to individual cases, the Government was following the situation closely.  The Government had appointed the Ombudsperson to review cases of allegations of abuse by policemen; it was a very effective body to prevent such abuse.  The authors of the complaints filed with the Human Rights Committee could benefit from settlements outside of the courts, a remedy which had not been used by the individuals mentioned by the Committee Members.  There had been few recent similar cases.

Registration at the hotspots and registration at police stations were two different things, the delegation underscored.  The registration of migrants was only amended when it was absolutely necessary.  There was no reason to amend registration records at police stations in principle; when it was done, the chain of command had to be informed.  Regarding police violence, to provide security, additional staff had been sent to the hotspots.  These additional deployments were a burden for the national budget.  On pushbacks, the national authorities enjoyed full powers at the borders, notably exclusive power on return operations.  European authorities sought to enhance the Greek authorities’ capacities.  Frontex had an internal complaint mechanism, to monitor the implementation of fundamental rights in the context of border operations.

The delegation stressed that the bilateral readmission protocol that Greece had signed with Turkey was separate and different from the 2016 European Union-Turkey Statement.  On non-refoulement, the delegation said that, when it came to readmissions and returns, decisions were made on a case-by-case basis.  On police violence against minors, from the Hellenic police’s perspective, there had been no intention to act in an improper manner.  If there had been cases of minors who had been beaten up with batons, the delegation said it was important to understand that when faced with rioters covering their faces, it was not possible for the police to know precisely with whom they were dealing before apprehending them.

Concluding Remarks

PANOS ALEXANDRIS, Secretary General for Justice and Human Rights, Ministry of Justice of Greece, thanked the Committee.  The dialogue had been frank, open and constructive.  The delegation was looking forward to receiving the Committee’s concluding observations, which would be carefully examined and taken into consideration in the development of human rights policies.

JENS MODVIG, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation for the replies and the diligent manner in which they had been provided.  Three of the most urgent recommendations would be identified by the Committee for follow-up within a year, he added.

 



Related videos

Consideration of Greece – 1761st Meeting, 67th Session of Committee Against Torture (24 July 2019)
http://webtv.un.org/search/consideration-of-greece-1761st-meeting-67th-session-of-committee-against-torture/6063463574001/?term=Greece&sort=date

Consideration of Greece (Cont’d) – 1764th Meeting, 67th Session of Committee Against Torture (25 July 2019)  
http://webtv.un.org/search/consideration-of-greece-contd-1764th-meeting-67th-session-of-committee-against-torture/6064207964001/?term=Greece&sort=date

Oral statement to UN CAT on Greece’s compliance with the Convention against Torture

IMG_20190723_181211NGOs after today’s briefing of the UN Committee against Torture

 

GREEK HELSINKI MONITOR (GHM)
Address: P.O. Box 60820 GR-15304 Glyka Nera
Tel: (+30) 2103472259 Fax: (+30) 2106018760
 e-mail: panayotedimitras@gmail.com website: https://greekhelsinki.wordpress.com



Oral statement to UN CAT
on Greece’s compliance with the Convention against Torture

 23 July 2019

From the reports submitted to your Committee it is obvious that this year’s conclusions of CAT on Greece should be identical with the 2012 observations: “The Committee expresses its serious concern at persistent allegations of torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement officials during arrest or detention, including in the premises of the Criminal Investigation Departments (CID). The Committee is also concerned at the limited number of such cases that have been prosecuted, the very limited number of final convictions, and the lack of sanctions in cases with convictions due to mitigating circumstances etc. The Committee notes that this does not correspond to recent decisions and rulings from international bodies, including the Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights, as well as persistent allegations and extensive documentation received from other sources. The Committee also reiterates its concern at the continued reluctance of prosecutors to institute criminal proceedings under article 137A of the criminal code and that only one case has resulted in a conviction under this article.”

Things have only deteriorated since then. We have submitted to you well-documented evidence from a very large number of, mainly international, NGOs, corroborated by CPT, of more than 1,000 individual or group claims of ill-treatment and/or illegal destruction of documents and/or deportation in unprecedented systematic police violence and illegal deportation of asylum seekers in the Evros border area with Turkey in recent years. Until now the Greek Ombudsman, Hellenic Police and Prosecutors have persisted in rejecting all such claims after non-transparent internal investigations that have never involved the victims and/or the NGOs involved.

We have also provided you with details of a specific case that both the Human Rights Committee and the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights have included in letters to Greek authorities. It concerns the torture in October 2016 of three Roma who have been denied a forensic examination even though both they and GHM have repeatedly requested it from all competent authorities. They have also not testified in the criminal investigation that has been pending since, while the administrative investigation by the Greek Ombudsman requested by GHM was summarily archived as the file was lost, without promptly informing GHM.

Additionally, we have provided the Committee with documentation on the continuing failure of Greek authorities to implement first the Makaratzis group of 13 ECtHR judgments holding Greece responsible for “the use of potentially lethal force by the police in the absence of an adequate legislative and administrative framework governing the use of firearms, torture and ill-treatment by police and coastguards and absence of adequate investigation, prosecution and remedy.” Greece has moreover failed to offer adequate remedies to the Roma vindicated by three HRCttee Views. Likewise, Greece continues to fail in its obligations, including answering a question by your Committee, related to the 502 missing Albanian Roma children.

Finally, we have reported to the Committee that Greece has failed to adapt the definition of torture to that of the Convention and to include rape therein, while the ensuing penalties for torture have been reduced, from 5-20 years to 5-10 years in new Penal code. Whereas there is grave concern about the widespread practice of police officers and prosecutors turning away women who seek to report alleged gender violence; frequently, subsequently, the perpetrators engaged in more violent if not fatal such actions against the same or other women.

Στο μικροσκόπιο του ΟΗΕ η Ελλάδα για τα βασανιστήρια (Επιτροπή κατά των Βασανιστηρίων – 23-25 Ιουλίου)

Στη σύνοδο της Επιτροπής του ΟΗΕ κατά των Βασανιστηρίων (CAT) που αρχίζει αύριο 22 Ιουλίου, εξετάζεται η Ελλάδα για τη (μη) εφαρμογή της αντίστοιχης Σύμβασης στις 23 Ιουλίου (ενημέρωση από ΜΚΟ μεταξύ των οποίων και το Ελληνικό Παρατηρητήριο των Συμφωνιών του Ελσίνκι – ΕΠΣΕ), 24 Ιουλίου (παρουσίαση από την Ελλάδα και ερωτήσεις από την Επιτροπή) και 25 Ιουλίου (απαντήσεις από την Ελλάδα και ενδεχόμενα νέες ερωτήσεις από την Επιτροπή). Οι καταληκτικές παρατηρήσεις και συστάσεις της CAT θα δημοσιοποιηθούν στις 9 Αυγούστου.

Στην ιστοσελίδα της CAT υπάρχουν οι ακόλουθες εκθέσεις από ΜΚΟ και (στο τέλος) την ΕΕΔΑ:

Greek Council for Refugees View document

Greek Helsinki Monitor; Minority Rights Group – Greece; Refugee Rights Europe; Coordinated Organizations and Communities for Roma Human Rights in Greece (SOKADRE); World Organization Against Torture (OMCT) View document View Appendix

Greek Helsinki Monitor; Minority Rights Group – Greece; Refugee Rights Europe; Coordinated Organizations and Communities for Roma Human Rights in Greece (SOKADRE); World Organization Against Torture (OMCT) – update View document

Human Rights Watch View document

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) View document

Office for the Defense of Rights and Intersectionality (ODRI) View document

REDRESS View document

Survivosr2 Group View document



Greek National Commission for Human Rights
(NHRI) View document


Η Έκθεση της Ελλάδας:

State party report under LoIPR View document 

Annex to State party report View document

(Common) Core Document View document


Για τις προηγούμενες εξετάσεις της Ελλάδας από την CAT βλπ. εδώ και εδώ.


 

Greece: Who is responsible for the suicide of the prisoner?

Greece: Who is responsible for the suicide of the prisoner?

Efimerida Syntakton 6-7-2019 by Anta Psarra
[translated by GHM from the original in https://www.efsyn.gr/node/202611]

The young woman who had murdered her father in June in Agia Paraskevi hung in her cell.

The woman, who, with the agreement of a prosecutor and investigator, was temporarily detained and transferred to the women’s prisons of Korydallos, attempted to commit suicide immediately after her action, while in the past she had attempted to kill her father and had very serious mental problems .

Unfortunately, extremely worrying in this case is not only that she eventually ended her life in the cell. The extremely worrying fact that the investigators are directly responsible for is how and especially why, while this woman had been transported from prison and hospitalized in Dromokaitio Psychiatric Hospital because of her serious psychiatric problem, the prosecutor ordered her return to prison a totally inexplicable decision.

According to information, this was done without prior consultation with the psychiatrists of the department where she was hospitalized.

Would it be too much to note here that without even having a trial, a young woman was almost condemned to death sentence?

Certainly, clear answers and thorough investigation are needed because no one’s life can be expendable in a supposed rule of law.