În limba română:
IOHANNIS SI KOVESI LA CONSILIUL DISCRIMINARII – Cititi petitia Lumea Justitiei impotriva Presedintelui Klaus Iohannis si Laurei Kovesi pentru aplicarea etichetelor de „penali” si „inculpati” celor care au sesizat coruptia din DNA: „Jurisprudenta CNCD pentru sanctionarea unei persoane care a creat un cadru ostil, intimidant si ofensiv asupra unor persoane cu orientare homosexuala e deplin aplicabila in acest caz in care un efect similar s-a creat impotriva celor aflati in proceduri judiciare"
Duminică, 18 februarie 2018 17:27 | Scris de Razvan SAVALIUC | 
| 
| 
| | 
UPDATE - Luni 19 februarie 2018, la orele 14.00, Redactia Lumea Justitiei a depus la registratura Consiliului National pentru Combaterea Discriminarii petitia impotriva Presedintelui Romaniei si procurorului sef DNA, care a fost inregistrata sub nr. 930/19.02.2018 - (vezi foto 1)
----------
Redactia Lumea Justitiei a redactat petitia impotriva Presedintelui Romaniei Klaus Werner Iohannis si sefei DNA Laura Codruta Kovesi, pe care o vom depune luni dimineata la Consiliul National pentru Combaterea Discriminarii. Potrivit legii, in situatia in care Consiliul va retine ca cei doi au comis fapte de discriminare impotriva categoriei de persoane aflate in proceduri judiciare, prin supunerea acestora unor tratamente degradante, cu incalcarea prezumtiei de nevinovatiei, acestia pot fi sanctionati de la avertisment pana la amenda contraventionala in cuantum de 100.000 lei.
In sustinerea sesizarii de la CNCD am invocat chiar jurisprudenta Consiliului, respectiv Hotararea nr. 400 din 09.09.2015 a Consiliului care a sanctionat cu amenda contraventionala in cuantum de 3000 lei o persoana care a proferat afirmatii discriminatorii la adresa persoanelor homosexuale. Consideram ca asa cum homosexualii au dreptul sa nu fie discriminati prin etichete de natura sa ii supuna unor tratamente degradante, tot asa si persoanele aflate in diferite proceduri judiciare au dreptul la demnitate umana si la respectarea prezumtiei de nevinovatie.
Cititi in continuare sesizarea Lumea Justitiei care va fi depusa maine la Consiliul National pentru Combaterea Discriminarii:
PETITIE
privind faptele de discriminare care intra sub incidenta art. 2 si art. 15 din OUG 137/2000, republicata, privind prevenirea si sanctionarea tuturor formelor de discriminare pe care consideram ca le-au savarsit:
- KLAUS WERNER IOHANNIS - Presedintele Romaniei;
- LAURA CODRUTA KOVESI – procuror sef al Directiei Nationale Anticoruptie;
despre care nu detinem datele de identificare, intrucat acestea nu fac parte din categoria informatilor publice, dar pe care rugam sa ii citati la locul de munca, respectiv la sediile Administratiei Prezidentiale si Directiei Nationale Anticoruptie.
I - INCADRAREA FAPTELOR
Potrivit art. 2 din OUG 137/2000: “prin discriminare se intelege orice deosebire, excludere, restrictie sau preferinta, pe baza de rasa, nationalitate, etnie, limba, religie, categorie sociala... precum si orice alt criteriu care are ca scop sau efect restrangerea, inlaturarea recunoasterii, folosintei sau exercitarii, in conditii de egalitate, a drepturilor omului si a libertatilor fundamentale sau a drepturilor recunoscute de lege, in domeniul politic, economic, social si cultural sau in orice alte domenii ale vietii publice... (3) Sunt discriminatorii, potrivit prezentei ordonante, prevederile, criteriile sau practicile aparent neutre care dezavantajeaza anumite persoane, pe baza criteriilor prevazute la alin. (1), fata de alte persoane, in afara cazului in care aceste prevederi, criterii sau practici sunt justificate obiectiv de un scop legitim, iar metodele de atingere a acelui scop sunt adecvate si necesare. (4) Orice comportament activ ori pasiv care, prin efectele pe care le genereaza, favorizeaza sau defavorizeaza nejustificat ori supune unui tratament injust sau degradant o persoana, un grup de persoane sau o comunitate fata de alte persoane, grupuri de persoane sau comunitati atrage raspunderea contraventionalaconform prezentei ordonante”
Potrivit art. 15 din OUG 137/2000: “Constituie contraventie, conform prezentei ordonante, daca fapta nu intra sub incidenta legii penale, orice comportament manifestat in public, avand caracter de propaganda nationalist sovina, de instigare la ura rasiala sau nationala, ori acel comportament care are ca scop sau vizeaza atingerea demnitatii ori crearea unei atmosfere de intimidare, ostile, degradante, umilitoare sau ofensatoare, indreptat impotriva unei persoane, unui grup de persoane sau unei comunitati si legat de apartenenta acestora la o anumita rasa, nationalitate, etnie, religie, categorie sociala sau la o categorie defavorizata ori de convingerile, sexul sau orientarea sexuala a acestuia.”
Consideram ca faptele sunt savarsite sub forma discriminarii directe si indirecte, dar si prin forma hartuirii, definite de art. 2, pct. (5) din OUG 137/2000, ca fiind: “orice comportament care duce la crearea unui cadru intimidant, ostil, degradant ori ofensiv, pe criteriu de rasa, nationalitate, etnie, limba, religie, categorie sociala, convingeri, gen, orientare sexuala, apartenenta la o categorie defavorizata, varsta, handicap, statut de refugiat ori azilant sau orice alt criteriu.”
Consideram ca faptele celor doi constituie forme de discriminare savarsite in scopul:
- incalcarii demnitatii umane prin supunerea unor tratamente degradante;
- incalcarii prezumtiei de nevinovatie;
Jurisprudenta CEDO a statuat ca tratamentele degradante au in vedere incalcarea grava a demnitatii umane, de natura sa coboare statutul social al unei persoane, situatia sau reputatia ei... Potrivit jurisprudentei CEDO, tratamentul a fost calificat ca fiind "degradant" daca a cauzat victimelor sentimente de teama, de neliniste si de inferioritate, de natura a le umili si a le injosi (vezi cauza Kudla vs. Polonia - Cererea nr. 30.210/96, paragraful 92, ECHR 2000-XI);
Pentru a decide daca un anumit tratament este sau nu degradant in sensul art. 3 al Conventiei, Curtea examineaza daca scopul aplicarii lui este acela de a umili sau injosi victima si daca, prin efectele produse, a fost adusa o atingere personalitatii acesteia, intr-o maniera incompatibila cu art. 3 (vezi cauza Raninen vs. Finlanda, Decizia din 16.12.1997, Reports 1997-VIII, pag. 2.821-22, paragraful 55). Cu toate acestea, absenta unui asemenea scop nu ar putea exclude intr-o maniera definitiva constatarea unei incalcari a art. 3 (vezi cauza Peers vs. Grecia, Cererea nr. 28.524/95, paragraful 74, CEDO 2001-III). Or, in cazurile de incalcarea a demnitatii umane prin discriminare nu este relevanta existenta unei intentii si nici a unei victime in concret.
* * *
II - DESCRIEREA FAPTELOR
1 - KLAUS WERNER IOHANNIS
Conferinta de presa de la Palatul Cotroceni din data de 15.02.2018:
„Niste penali fac o incercare disperata sa atace si sa discrediteze DNA si conducerea acestei directii. Aceasta incercare este una jalnica si neconvingatoare, iar opinia mea despre munca DNA o cunoasteti, dar imi face placere sa o repet. Dupa parerea mea DNA si conducerea fac o treaba foarte buna, iar aceasta incercare de atac din partea unor penali e de natura sa-mi confirme ca DNA face o treaba buna.”
“Nu ma vad chemat sa mediez intre DNA si persoane inculpate”
“Asta cu penalii am explicat-o de suficiente ori. Nu revin” - refuzand sa explice jurnalistilor ce intelege prin termen de “penal”
2 - LAURA CODRUTA KOVESI
Conferinta de presa de la sediul DNA din data de 14.02.2018
“Acesti inculpati care fac acuzatii nereale au invocat in fata judecatorilor cereri si exceptii, care au fost respinse”
“Nu cred ca acest atac e intamplator. Asistam in ultima perioada la un festival disperat al inculpatilor, care spun neadevaruri, parti de adevar”
“Nu e vorba de Kovesi aici, e vorba de asaltul asupra justitiei, de festivalul inculpatilor care vor sa umileasca societatea, romanii.”
“Aici eu nu am iesit sa-i raspund inculpatului Vlad Cosma, ci sa va spun ca nu falsificam probe, sa raspund cetatenilor cinstiti din Romania care se intreaba daca in Romania se administreaza corect probe”
“Eu raspund oamenilor cinstiti din Romania, care cred sau nu in DNA”
“Cand vedem un festival disperat al inculpatilor care ne ataca, inregistrari trunchiate, e normal sa iesim sa dam explicatii, ce am facut sau ce nu am facut”
“Daca cineva a inteles ca am iesit sa raspund inculpatilor se insala, eu nu raspund inculpatilor”
“Daca esti condamnat azi pentru o fapta de coruptie pare ca nu e atat de grav in opinia unor inculpati”
“Daca ne uitam cine ataca vedem inculpati condamnati, trimisi in judecata”
“Aici vorbim de Justitie si de asaltul asupra Justitiei...”
“Pentru ce acest asalt? Pentru ca s-au pronuntat anumite condamnari. Cine ataca? Inculpatii disperati”
“Imi rezerva dreptul de a nu comenta declaratiile inculpatilor. Am raspuns ziaristilor, potrivit codului de procedura...”
Raspuns acordat agentiei de presa AGERPRES la data de 6.02.2018
"Nu a existat nicio discutie cu vreun procuror din DNA sau cu inculpata Mihaiela Moraru Iorga despre un dosar referitor la vreun ministru care putea sa ajunga premier. Nu am facut niciodata presiuni sau acte de imixtiune in activitatea vreunui procuror. Nu comentez afirmatiile nereale ale inculpatilor", a precizat Kovesi, intr-un raspuns catre AGERPRES.
* * *
III – CONTEXTUL GENERAL SI PARTICULAR AL FAPTELOR DE DISCRIMINARE
Presedintele Romaniei Klaus Werner Iohannis si procurorul sef al DNA Laura Codruta Kovesi au facut afirmatiile mai sus inventariate in contextul unor ample dezvaluiri, insotite de probe de netagaduit, facute in ultima perioada de diverse persoane cu statut social inalt (deputati, fosti deputati, procurori, oameni de afaceri, avocati, politicieni) cu privire la grave abuzuri savarsite in cursul anchetelor de procurori ai DNA.
Impactul deosebit al dezvaluirilor, multitudinea de probe de netagaduit (inregistrari audio care relevau comportament de interlopi si infractional al unor procurori si fosti procurori ai DNA) valul de plangeri penale si disciplinare adresate de victimele procedurilor judiciare la PICCJ si Inspectia Judiciara/ CSM, autosesizarea Inspectiei Judiciare, si a presedintelui CSM, precum si valul de reactii sociale, politice si din sistemul judiciar de condamnare a practicilor unor procurori DNA au determinat iesirea in conferinte de presa a numitilor Klaus Werner Iohannis si Laura Codruta Kovesi.
Confruntati cu oprobriul public incontestabil din partea unei parti importante a societatii, cei doi au folosit in discursurile lor - in incercarea de a minimaliza importanta si impactul dezvaluirilor, reactiile la acestea, precum si de a-i supune oprobriului public pe cei care au venit in spatiul public cu asemenea dezvaluiri - termeni de: “PENALI” sau “INCULPATI” care reprezinta un abuz verbal – o forma de violenta psihologica, care reprezinta o discriminare vadita, extrem de periculoasa ca efecte asupra celor aflati in proceduri judiciare.
Definitia termenilor potrivit Dictionarului Explicativ al Limbii Romane:
PENAL - “Referitor la infractiuni și la urmarirea și pedepsirea infractorilor/ actiune in justitie pornita impotriva unui infractor cu scopul de a obtine pedepsirea lui potrivit legilor in vigoare/ pedeapsa prevazuta de Codul penal/ Care are un caracter represiv, care se ocupa de infractiuni și prevede pedepsele care trebuie aplicate”
Se observa ca termenul de “penal” atribuit unei persoane/ grup de persoane are intelesul savarsirii unei infractiuni, care trebuie pedepsita si exclude nevinovatia. Ca atare, atribuirea lui se refera la o persoana vinovata si exclude prezumtia de nevinovatie.
INCULPAT - “Persoana acuzata de o culpa; parat, acuzat, invinuit/ Cel care este acuzat de o infractiune, de o crima etc”
Cu referire la termenul de “inculpat” trebuie precizat ca potrivit legii penale, acesta este folosit in procesul penal pentru a defini calitatea procesuala a unei persoane – acea de persoana aflata in culpa/ acuzata. Astfel, “inculpat” este persoana impotriva careia s-a pus in miscare actiunea penala, el numindu-se astfel pana la finalizarea procesului penal in instanta. Potrivit legii, un inculpat se poate afla in urmatoarele situatii procesuale: trimis in judecata/ retinut/ arestat. Potrivit perceptiei publice, un inculpat este vazut si ca o persoana careia i s-au pus catusele, au fost retinuta sau arestata printr-o hotarare judecatoreasca care l-a declarat un pericol public. In toate cazurile, un inculpat este perceput la modul general ca o persoana intr-o situatie profund negativa, cu probleme de nedorit, care a comis o fapta penala grava.
Cele doua cuvinte - penal si inculpat - nu trebuie interpretate doar prin prisma definitiei din DEX sau din legislatia penala, ci si prin prisma expresiei PEIORATIVE. Etimologia cuvantului “peiorativ”: vine din limba franceza si inseamna a face rau. Potrivit DEX: PEIORATIV - (Despre cuvinte, expresii, afirmatii etc.) “Care are sens defavorabil; depreciativ, dispretuitor.”
Potrivit psihologilor, limbajul peiorativ este o forma de violenta psihologica si de abuz verbal in relatiile inter-umane/ un mijloc de mentinere a controlului si a puterii de dominare. Spre exemplu, o serie de expresii și cuvinte romanești uzuale care sunt utilizate frecvent cu sens peiorativ și considerate ofensatoare pe motive de rasa, etnie, gen, orientare sexuala, deficiente fizice sau psihice sunt: tigan, jidan, cioara, taran, homosexual. Datorita caracterului frecvent al folosirii lor in sens peiorativ, Academia Romana a dispus in urma cu mai multi ani eliminarea din DEX a cuvintelor “tigan” si “jidan” considerandu-se ca au capatat inteles ofensator.
Ca atare, in aprecierea unor fapte publice de discriminare, nu conteaza doar definitia stricto-sensu a unui cuvant afirmat, ci si daca acesta este folosit in sens peiorativ. La stabilirea sensului peiorativ se iau in calcul contextul in care a fost folosit un cuvant, frecventa utilizarii in discurs, intonatia, dar si reglementarile in vigoare care obliga un sef de stat ori un magistrat sa se adreseze in public cu privire la situatii aflate pe rolul organelor judiciare (instante, parchete).
La presedintele Klaus Werner Iohannis se poate observa nu doar tonul, dar chiar “ranjetul arogant” cum l-au numit o serie de cetateni, precum si refuzul de a explica termenul de “penali” la intrebarile presei, frecventa utilizarii (de trei ori) si contextul folosirii prin expresiile “niste penali fac o incercare disperata sa atace si sa discrediteze DNA”... “incercare de atac din partea unor penali”, care a exclus posibilitatea ca “penalii” sa fie persoane de buna credinta care sa aiba un scop protejat de lege – cel de a sesiza acte de coruptie, chiar daca acestea sunt comise de procurori ai DNA si politisti din structura acestui parchet.
Pretextul Presedintelul Romaniei: “Nu ma vad chemat sa mediez intre DNA si persoane inculpate” este de asemenea unul in care se foloseste termenul de ïnculpati” in scop depreciativ, in sensul ca el nu se deranjeaza sa medieze o situatie care a inflamat societatea romaneasca pentru ca in cauza e vorba de “inculpati”.
Potrivit art. 80 (2) din Constitutie: “Presedintele Romaniei vegheaza la respectarea Constitutiei si la buna functionare a autoritatilor publice. In acest scop, Presedintele exercita functia de mediere intre puterile statului, precum si intre stat si societate”. Afirmarea de catre Presedintele Iohannis ca el nu se vede chemat la o mediere intre o institutie a statului si “persoane inculpate”, denota scopul evident de supune autorii dezvaluirilor din ultima perioada la un tratament degradant, de natura sa coboare statutul social al unei persoane, situatia sau reputatia ei. Astfel, persoana nu mai are un nume si nici prezumtia de nevinovatie ori protectia de avertizor de integritate, el devine “inculpat”, fiind anulat ca individ.
Intentia si culpa Presedintelui Romania sunt dincolo de orice banuiala rezonabila, cata vreme cazul semnalat prin dezvaluirile publice impotriva procurorilor DNA se afla in cercetare disciplinara si penala (la nivelul Inspectiei Judiciare si PICCJ), iar presedintele trebuie sa fie un mediator si nu o persoana care se antepronunte in chestiuni de justitie, care exced atributiilor lui, cu atat mai mult cu cat Constitutia Romaniei prevede la art. 23(11): “Pana la ramanerea definitiva a hotararii judecatoresti de condamnare, persoana este considerata nevinovata.”
La procurorul sef al DNA Laura Codruta Kovesi folosirea in sens peiorativ a termenului “inculpat” este si mai evidenta (folosit de 11 ori, uneori cu ton zeflemitor) si asociat unor afirmatii care exclud orice prezumtie de nevinovatie: “asaltul asupra justitiei... festivalul inculpatilor care vor sa umileasca societatea, romanii... Daca cineva a inteles ca am iesit sa raspund inculpatilor se insala, eu nu raspund inculpatilor... Eu raspund oamenilor cinstiti din Romania... inculpatul Vlad Cosma... inculpatul Sebastian Ghita... inculpata Iorga Moraru... Daca ne uitam cine ataca vedem inculpati condamnati, trimisi in judecata”...
Tinand cont ca are calitatea de magistrat, Laura Codruta Kovesi ar fi trebuit sa se cenzureze si sa aplice prevederile contitutionale privitoare la prezumtia de nevinovatie, tinand cont ca sesizarile impotriva procurorilor din subordine se afla in solutionare la Inspectia Judiciara si pe rolul PICCJ (plangerile penale au fost publicate in presa cu nr. de inregistrare). Desi avea obligatia legala sa nu comenteze cauze penale si disciplinare aflate pe rol, procurorul sef al DNA nu doar ca le-a comentat, si a divulgat date nedestinate publicitatii, dar a respins apriori ideea ca sesizarile ar fi adevarate, vorbind de un “asalt” si un “festival al inculpatilor”, atribuind termenul de “inculpat” inclusiv procurorului Iorga Moraru pe care pana nu demult o lauda ca fiind “cel mai bun procuror” din DNA. Reiese dorinta vadita a Laurei Codruta Kovesi de a supune unor tratamente degradante grupul de persoane care a indraznit sa sesizeze potentialele abuzuri ale unor anchetatori ai DNA. Acest fapt este usor de constatat si prin prisma Legii 365/2004 privind ratificarea Conventiei Natiunilor Unite Impotriva Coruptiei, care o obliga sa acorde protectie persoanelor care au sesizat fapte de coruptie.
Art. 33 din Legea 365/2004 - Protectia persoanelor care comunica informatii: “Fiecare stat parte are in vedere incorporarea in sistemul sau juridic intern a masurilor corespunzatoare pentru a asigura protectia impotriva oricarui tratament nejustificat al oricarei persoane care semnaleaza autoritatilor competente, de buna-credinta si in baza unor presupuneri rezonabile, orice fapt privind infractiunile prevazute de prezenta conventie.”
Prin prisma acestui text de lege, a eticheta un grup de persoane care sesizeaza cu probe certe coruptia unor angajati din DNA, cu apelativul “inculpat” si a le acuza ca dau un “asalt asupra justitiei” releva pe deplin faptul ca in loc sa acorde protectia conferita de lege acestor persoane, si sa astepte rezultatele cercetarilor, a cautat sa le supuna in public unui tratament umilitor si intimidant, in scopul decredibilizarii si expunerii lor unor situatii de natura sa le creeze serioase temeri, avand in vedere ca unele dintre acestea se afla in proceduri judiciare aflate in curs, care pot fi astfel influentate in sensul executarii lor judiciare.
Relevant ca element disciminatoriu sta si faptul ca in timp ce persoanele care reclama abuzuri ale procurorilor DNA devin subit necredibile, “ataca justitia” si sunt etichetate “penali” si “inculpati” neacordandu-li-se din partea autoritatilor protectia conferita de Legea 365/2004, majoritatea dosarelor penale trimise in instanta de DNA sunt bazate pe denunturi ale unor persoane inculpate, arestate sau condamnate, dar denunturilor acestora li se acorda maxima importanta, pe aceste probe fiind bazate hotaririle judecatoresti de condamnare. Or, art. 1 pct. (2) din OUG 137/2010 prevede expres: “Principiul egalitatii intre cetateni, al excluderii privilegiilor si discriminarii sunt garantate in special in exercitarea urmatoarelor drepturi: a) dreptul la un tratament egal in fata instantelor judecatoresti si a oricarui alt organ jurisdictional”.
Alte texte de lege incidente in speta:
Directiva Uniunii Europene 2016/343 din 9.03.2016: “(16) Prezumtia de nevinovatie ar fi incalcata in cazul in care declaratii publice ale autoritatilor publice sau decizii judiciare, altele decat cele privind stabilirea vinovatiei, se refera la o persoana suspectata sau acuzata ca fiind vinovata, atat timp cat vinovatia persoanei respective nu a fost dovedita conform legii. Art. 3 - Prezumtia de nevinovatie Statele membre se asigura ca persoanele suspectate și acuzate beneficiaza de prezumtia de nevinovatie pana la dovedirea vinovatiei conform legii. Art. 4 Referirile publice la vinovatie (1) Statele membre iau masurile necesare pentru a garanta ca, atata vreme cat vinovatia unei persoane suspectate sau acuzate nu a fost dovedita conform legii, declaratiile publice facute de autoritatile publice și deciziile judiciare, altele decat cele referitoare la vinovatie, nu se refera la persoana respectiva ca fiind vinovata...”
Conventia EDO – Art. 14: Interzicerea discriminarii “Exercitarea drepturilor si libertatilor recunoscute de prezenta Conventie trebuie sa fie asigurata fara nicio deosebire bazata, in special, pe sex, rasa, culoare, limba, religie, opinii politice sau orice alte opinii, origine nationala sau sociala, apartenenta la o minoritate nationala, avere, nastere sau orice alta situatie.”
Protocolul 12 la Conventia EDO – Art. 1: „Interzicerea generala a discriminarii (1) Exercitarea oricarui drept prevazut de lege trebuie sa fie asigurata fara nicio discriminare bazata, in special, pe sex, pe rasa, culoare, limba, religie, opinii politice sau orice alte opinii, origine nationala sau sociala, apartenenta la o minoritate nationala, avere, nastere sau oricare alta situatie. (2) Nimeni nu va fi discriminat de o autoritate publica pe baza oricaruia dintre motivele mentionate in paragraful 1.”
* * *
Relevanta in speta este si jurisprudenta Consiliului National pentru Combaterea Discriminarii. Prin Hotararea nr. 400 din 09.09.2015 a CNCD avand ca obiect afirmatii discriminatorii la adresa persoanelor homosexuale:
„5.5. Cu toate acestea dreptul la libera exprimare nu este un drept absolut, iar legiuitorul a instituit in textul constitutional limitele exercitarii dreptului la libera exprimare, astfel, potrivit art. 30, alin. 6 si 7 din Constitutia Romaniei ”Libertatea de exprimare nu poate prejudicia demnitatea, onoarea, viata particulara a persoanei si nici dreptul la propria imagine. Sunt interzise de lege defaimarea tarii si a natiunii, indemnul la razboi de agresiune, la ura nationala, rasiala, de clasa sau religioasa, incitarea la discriminare, la separatism teritorial sau la violenta publica, precum si manifestarile obscene, contrare bunelor moravuri.” In aceste conditii,exercitarea libertatii de exprimare comporta si obligatii, si poate fi supusa unor conditii, restrictii ori sanctiuni, numai in masura in care acestea sunt prevazute expres de lege si sunt necesare intr-o societate democratica, pentru protectia demnitatii, reputatiei sau drepturilor altora.
5.6. Potrivit jurisprudentei Curtii Europene a Drepturilor Omului, pentru a fi acceptata o ingerinta in dreptul de exprimare, aceasta trebuie sa fie prevazuta de lege (care la randul ei trebuie sa indeplineasca anumite conditii: sa fie previzibila si accesibila), sa urmareasca un scop legitim, sa fie necesara intr-o societate democratica si sa fie proportionala cu scopul urmarit (Corneliu Barsan, Conventia europeana a drepturilor omului, vol. I. Ed. C.H. Beck, Bucuresti, 2005, p. 769-801).
5.7. Raportat la prima cerinta, cea a existentei unei prevederi legale, care sa reglementeze ingerinta statului in exercitarea dreptului libertatii de exprimare este indeplinita de art. 2 alin. (1) si art. 15 din O.G. 137/2000. De asemenea, Constitutia Romaniei in art. 1 alin. (3) consacra garantarea demnitatii omului ca valoare suprema a legii fundamentale si a democratiei. Apreciem ca textele normative in cauza sunt previzibile si accesibile, desi protejeaza o valoare fundamentala intr-o societate democratica si sunt notiuni care au si un caracter abstract. Scopul legitim urmarit consta in protectia demnitatii umane a persoanelor care au o alta orientare sexuala.
5.9. Pe de alta parte, in contextul dreptului de a nu fi spus discriminarii si sub acest din urma aspect, corelativ unui tratament injust, ostil, umilitor sau degradant, trebuie retinut elementul de apreciere al criteriului de la care, un comportament reprobabil are a fi calificat ca ostil, injust pana la tratament degradant, astfel cum au statuat instantele de contencios european, fosta Comisie pentru Drepturile Omului si Curtea Europeana a Drepturilor Omului. Acest element de apreciere este unul variabil, in functie de circumstantele cauzei si de efectele aplicarii lui, in raport cu sexul, varsta, starea de sanatate a victimei si alte asemenea elemente referitoare la situatia victimei.
5.10. Dupa cum a spus fosta Comisie, expresia „tratamente degradante” are in vedere atingeri grave ale demnitatii umane, astfel ca o masura care este de natura sa coboare statutul social al unei persoane, situatia sau reputatia ei, poate fi considerata a constitui un asemenea tratament, daca ea atinge „un anumit grad de gravitate”.
5.11. Potrivit jurisprudentei Curtii Europene a Drepturilor Omului, tratamentul a fost calificat ca fiind "degradant" daca a cauzat victimelor sentimente de teama, de neliniste si de inferioritate, de natura a le umili si a le injosi (a se vedea, in acest sens, Kudla impotriva Poloniei [MC], Cererea nr. 30.210/96, paragraful 92, ECHR 2000-XI).
5.12. Pentru a decide daca un anumit tratament este sau nu degradant in sensul art. 3 al Conventiei, Curtea examineaza daca scopul aplicarii lui este acela de a umili sau injosi victima si daca, prin efectele produse, a fost adusa o atingere personalitatii acesteia, intr-o maniera incompatibila cu art. 3 (a se vedea, in acest sens, Raninen impotriva Finlandei, Decizia din 16 decembrie 1997, Reports 1997-VIII, pag. 2.821-22, paragraful 55). Cu toate acestea, absenta unui asemenea scop nu ar putea exclude intr-o maniera definitiva constatarea unei incalcari a art. 3 (a se vedea, in acest sens, Peers impotriva Greciei, Cererea nr. 28.524/95, paragraful 74, CEDO 2001-III). Or, in cazurile de incalcarea a demnitatii umane prin discriminare nu este relevanta existenta unei intentii si nici a unei victime in concret (…)
Colegiul este de opinie ca afirmatiile partii reclamate constituie un comportament care se plaseaza in stransa legatura cu orientarea sexuala, iar prin natura lor duc la crearea unui cadru ostil, intimidant si ofensiv ce se rasfrange, in mod particular, asupra unei comunitati de persoane, in speta persoanele cu o alta orientare decat cea heterosexuala. Din acest punct de vedere, Colegiul este de opinie ca afirmatiile partii reclamate, sub aspectul efectului creat, au fost de natura a conduce la atingerea dreptului la demnitate a persoanelor homosexuale, in sensul prevederilor art. 2 alin.5 din O.G. nr. 137/2000 republicata.”
Consideram ca motivatia folosita de CNCD pentru sanctionarea unei persoane care a creat un cadru ostil, intimidant si ofensiv asupra unor persoane de orientare homosexuala e pe deplin aplicabila si in acest caz in care un efect similar s-a creat si impotriva persoanelor aflate in proceduri judiare penale, avand sau nu calitatea de inculpat.
Un exemplu tipic al consecintelor negative al acestor afirmatii in societate este reactia in spatiul public pe reteaua Facebook a cunoscutului activist Malin Bot, care a transmis urmatorul mesaj pe care il atasam prezentei petitii: „Sustin Laura Codruta Kovesi. Infractorii nu pot avea dreptul sa afecteze cariera profesionistilor din sistemul judiciar”.
Este important de retinut ca niciunul dintre cei care au semnalat public abuzuri ale procurorilor DNA nu a fost condamnat definitiv, si chiar daca ar fi fost nu ar avea relevanta, insa perceptia unor cetateni poate fi de acest fel si poate degenera in ura sau desconsiderare, ca rezultat a discriminarilor savarsite de persoane cu importante functii in stat.
Nu se poate accepta, ca preluandu-se si perpetuandu-se asemenea mesaje, sa ne adresam cu totii in societate cu apelative de „penal”, „inculpat”, „infractor”, „puscarias”, care in lumea civilizata – in principal in spatiul UE - sunt considerate forme de discriminare, care pot naste pana la reactii de ura si violenta. Chiar si in situatia unor persoane condamnate cu inchisoarea – ceea ce nu e cazul in speta de fata - scopul unei pedepse trebuie sa fie de reeducare si nu de expunere oprobriului public sau excluderii din punct de vedere social.
IN CONCLUZIE: Va rugam sa constatati savarsirea faptelor discriminatorii semnalate si sa dispuneti sanctiunile prevazute de lege impotriva Presedintelui Romaniei si procurorului sef al DNA. Masura sanctionarii unui asemenea comportament este necesara intr-o societate democratica intrucat apararea dreptului la demnitatea umana a persoanelor cercetate penal si respectarea prezumtiei de nevinovatie sunt valori esentiale aparate de Conventia Europeana a Drepturilor Omului si legislatia Romaniei.
In english:
Iohannis and Kovesi at the National Council for Combating Discrimination – Read Lumea Justitiei’s petition against President Klaus Iohannis and Laura Kovesi due to using terms such as “penals” and “indictees” when talking about those who spoke against the corruption in the National Anti-Corruption Directorate: “The CNCD jurisprudence for sanctioning someone who creates a hostile, intimidating, and offensive environment for those of homosexual orientation is entirely applicable in this case"
Luni, 26 februarie 2018 15:04 | Scris de L.J. | | |
| | UPDATE: Monday, February 19 2018, at 2 p.m., Lumea Justitiei’s editorial office filed a petition at the registry of the National Council for Combating Discrimination against the President of Romania and the DNA’s Chief Prosecutor, registered with the number 930/19.02.2018 (see photo)
- - - - - - - -
Lumea Justitiei’s editorial office has written a petition against Romania’s President Klaus Werner Ionannis and the DNA’s Chief Prosecutor Laura Codruta Kovesi, and it will be filed on Monday morning at the National Council for Combating Discrimination (CNCD). According to law, if the Council decides that the two have committed an act of discrimination against people who are on trial, through giving them labels that would be considered degrading, they could be sanctioned via written warning or a fine up to 100.000 Lei.
To back up our complaint to the CNCD we’ve cited the Council’s own jurisprudence, specifically resolution no. 400 of 09.09.2015 of the Council – which sanctioned with a 3.000 Lei fine someone who made discriminating statements against homosexuals. It’s our stand that just as homosexuals have the right not to be discriminated against via labels that would be degrading, so those who are in various stages of standing trial have the right to keep their dignity as human beings and have their presumption of innocence being respected.
Read below Lumea Justitiei’s petition that will be filed tomorrow at the National Council for Combating Discrimination:
PETITION
Concerning the acts of discrimination, that go under art. 2 and art. 15 of O.G. 137/2000, revised, regarding the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination, that we claim were committed by:
- Klaus Werner Iohannis – President of Romania;
- Laura Codruta Kovesi – Chief Prosecutor of the National Anti-Corruption Directorate;
about whom we do not hold identifying details, since these are not public information, but who we ask you cite at their workplace – the headquarters of the Presidential Administration and of the National Anti-Corruption Directorate, respectively.
I – Nature of the Acts
According to art. 2 of O.G. 137/2000: “discrimination is defined as any difference, exclusion, restriction or preference, based on race, nationality, ethnicity, first language, religion, social status… as well as any other criteria that is meant or results in limiting, denying recognition, the use or exercising – as equals – of basic human rights and freedoms or of any lawfully acknowledged rights, as reflected in the political, economical, social, and cultural environment, or any other area of public life…
(3) According to this edict, discriminations are provisions, criteria or practices that appear to be neutral but that put at a disadvantage certain people based on criteria mentioned in art. (1), in relation to other people – except when these provisions, criteria or practices are objectively justified by a legitimate purpose and the methods of reaching such purpose are appropriate and necessary. (4) Any active or passive behavior that – through the effects it generates – favors or disfavors in an unjustified manner or submits to an unjust or degrading treatment a person, group of people or community, in relation to another person, group of people or community, attracts the responsibility of contraventionaccording to this edict.”
According to art. 15 of O.G. 137/2000: “A contravention is, according to this edict, as act that does not fall under penal law, any publicly manifested behavior that: is of a chauvinistic nationalist propaganda nature, instigates to racial or national hatred, or any behavior that aims at or attempts to affect human dignity or create an atmosphere of intimidation, hostility, degradation, humiliation or offensive in nature aimed at a person, group of people or a community and related to their race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, social or under-privileged status or their beliefs, gender, or sexual orientation.”
It is our claim that the acts have been perpetrated as direct and indirect discrimination, but also as harassment, defined by art. 2, point (5) of OUG 137/2000 as being: “any behavior that leads to the creation of an environment that is intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive, based on criteria such as race, nationality, ethnicity, first language, religion, social status, beliefs, gender, sexual orientation, under-privileged status, refugee or asylant status, or any other criteria.”
It is our belief that acts of the two constitute discrimination with the aim to:
- affect human dignity by submitting one to degrading treatments;
- affect the presumption of innocence;
CEDO jurisprudence has established that degrading treatments aim to infringe on human dignity, byaffecting the social status, situation or reputation of a person… According to CEDO jurisprudence, a treatment is considered “degrading” if it has caused its victim feelings of fear, agitation, and inferiority, that could humiliate and debase them (see the Kudla vs. Poland case – petition no. 30.210/96, paragraph 92, ECHR 2000-XI);
In order to establish if a certain treatment is or is not degrading in the sense of art. 3 of the Convention, the Court examines if the purpose of administering it is to humiliate or debase the victim and if – through its effects – it has affected one’s personality, in a way that is not compatible with art. 3 (see Ranien vs. Finland case, Edict of 16.12.1997, Reports 1997-VIII, pag. 2.821-22, paragraph 55). Even so, the lack of such a purpose would not definitely exclude the breaking of art. 3 (see the Peers vs. Greece case, Petition no. 28.524/95, paragraph 74, CEDO 2001-III). In fact, in cases when human dignity has been affected through discrimination, the presence of intent or a palpable victim is not relevant.
* * *
II – Describing the Facts
1 – Klaus Werner Iohannis
Press conference at Cotroceni Palace, 02/15/2018:
“Some penals are making a desperate attempt to attack and discredit the DNA and the head of the Directorate. This attempt is pathetic and unconvincing, and you already know my opinion of the DNA’s work, but I like to repeat it. I feel that the DNA and the head of DNA are doing a great job, and this attempt at attacking it made by some penals confirms the fact that the DNA is doing a great job.”
“I don’t feel I should mediate between the DNA and indictees.”
“I’ve explained this penals thing enough times. I won’t go over it again” – refusing to explain to journalists what he understands by “penals”
2 – Laura Codruta Kovesi
Press conference at DNA headquarters, 02/14/2018:
“These indictees that are making false accusations have invoked before the judges claims and exceptions that have been overruled”
“I don’t think that this is a random attack. As of late, we are witnessing a desperate festival of indicteesthat say things that are untrue or parts of the truth”
“This isn’t about Kovesi, it’s about the attack on justice, the festival of indictees that want to humiliate society, the Romanians”
“I haven’t come out to answer to indictee Vlad Cosma, but to tell you that we don’t forge evidence, to answer to the honest citizens of Romania who wonder if in Romania evidence is handled correctly”
“I answer to the honest people of Romania, who may or may not have faith in the DNA”
“When we see a desperate festival of indictees that attack us, edited recordings, it’s normal to come out and explain things – what we did or did not do”
“If anyone understood that I’ve come to answer to the indictees, they are wrong; I don’t answer to indictees”
“If we take a look at who’s attacking, we see convicted indictees, sent to trial”
“We’re talking about Justice and the attack on Justice…”
“And why this attack? Because certain indictments have been made. Who is attacking? Desperate indictees”
“I reserve the right to make no comment on what indictees have said. I’ve answered to journalists, according to the code of procedure…”
on Sebastian Ghita’s accusations that she’s been at his home: “I won’t comment on the false affirmations of indictees”
Answer given to AGERPRES on 02/06/2018
“There has been no discussion with any DNA prosecutor or the indictee Mihaiela Moraru Iorga about a file regarding any minister that could become Prime Minister. I have never pressured or meddled with any prosecutor’s activity. I won’t comment on the false affirmations of indictees”, Kovesi declared to AGERPRES.
* * *
III – The general and particular context of the acts of discrimination
Klaus Werner Iohannis – President of Romania – and Laura Codruta Kovesi – Chief Prosecutor of the DNA – have made the above-mentioned declarations in the context of numerous exposés, accompanied by undeniable evidence, made recently by various people with high social status (representatives, ex-representatives, prosecutors, businessmen, lawyers, politicians) in regard to the abuse made by DNA prosecutors during investigations.
The strong impact of these exposés, the multitude of irrefutable evidence (audio recordings that showed the suspect and condemnable behavior of certain prosecutors and ex-prosecutors of the DNA) and the wave of penal and disciplinary complaints made by the victims of judiciary procedures to the PICCJ and the Judicial Inspectorate/CSM, the initiative of the Judicial Inspectorate, as well as the wave of social, political, and judiciary system reactions of condemning the practices of some DNA prosecutors, have lead to the reactions of the above-mentioned Klaus Werner Iohannis and Laura Codruta Kovesi.
Faced with unquestionable public contempt from a significant part of society, the two have used in their declarations – attempting to minimize the importance and impact of the exposés, the reactions to them, as well as to direct public contempt at those who have made such exposés – terms like: “penals” or “indictees” that represent verbal abuse – a form of psychological violence that is clear discrimination, extremely dangerous in terms of the effects that it has on those who are going through trial.
The Definition of these terms as explained by the Dictionary of the Romanian Language:
PENAL – “Referring to infractions and the investigation and punishment of criminals / Action in a court of law started against a criminal with the purpose of obtaining their conviction according to law / Sentence as specified in the Penal Code / Of a repressive nature, that deals with crimes and /static the sentences that need to be applied”
One can notice that the term of “penal” attributed to a person/group of people conveys the meaning of a crime committed that needs to be sanctioned, and excludes innocence. As such, using it means a person is guilty and it excludes the presumption of innocence.
INDICTEE – “Person accused of wrong-doing; culprit, accused, defendant / One accused of having committed an infraction, a crime, and so on”
Regarding the “indictee” term, it must be said that according to penal law, it is used during the process in order to define the status of someone who is on trial – the person who is indicted / the accused. So, “indictee” is the one against whom the penal action is taken, and they are called as such until the trial is over. According to law, an indictee can be in one of these trial stages: sent to trial / held in custody / arrested. According to public perception, an indictee is seen as someone who has been handcuffed, has been detained or arrested through a court decision that has declared them a danger to society. In all cases, an indictee is perceived by and large as someone who is in a profoundly negative situation, with unwanted issues, who has committed a serious penal offense.
The two words – penal and indictee – shouldn’t be understood only via their dictionary or legislative definitions, but also as derogatory expressions. According to the Dictionary: Derogatory (about words, expressions, affirmations, and so on) “Detracting from the character or standing of something; disparaging, depreciative”.
According to psychologists, derogatory language is a form of psychological violence and verbal abuse in human relations, a means of keeping control and the power to dominate. For instance, there are a series of regular Romanian expressions and words that are used often with a derogatory meaning and are considered offensive on account of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, physical or psychological deficiencies: gyppo, kike, crow, redneck, homosexual. As a result of their frequent use with a derogatory meaning, the Romanian Academy has disposed many years ago to eliminate from the Dictionary of the Romanian Language words like “gyppo” and “kike”, considering the fact that they had gained offensive meaning.
As such, when considering public acts of discrimination, the by-the-book definition of a directed word is not the only thing to consider, but also if it is used in a derogatory way. When establishing the derogatory nature of a word one must take into account things like the context in which it was used, the frequency of using it in a speech, intonation, but also rules in effect that establish how a President in office or a magistrate publicly approach matters regarding cases that are being processed by judiciary institutions (in a court of law).
In the case of President Klaus Werner Iohannis, one can notice not just the tone, but also even the “arrogant grin” – as some citizens have called it –, as well as the refusal to explain the “penals” term when asked to by the press; the frequency of use (three times), and the context in which it was used: “some penals are making a desperate attempt to attack and discredit the DNA”…”the attempt to attack it made by some penals”, that has excluded the possibility that the “penals” would be people of good faith that could have a purpose that is supported by the law – that of reporting acts of corruption, even if these are committed by DNA prosecutors and police officers in service of this institution.
The pretext that the President of Romania used: “I don’t feel I should mediate between the DNA and indictees.” is also one where the “indictee” term is used with a derogatory purpose, meaning that he won’t bother to mediate in a situation that has irritated the Romanian society because in this case it’s about “indictees”.
According to art. 80 (2) of the Constitution: “The President of Romania observes that the Constitution is followed and that public authorities function well. To that end, the President exercises the role of mediator between state powers, as well between the state and society”. President Iohannis claiming that he doesn’t feel that he should mediate between public institutions and “indictees” proves the existence of the obvious purpose of submitting the authors of the recent exposés to a degrading treatment, that can affect a person’s social status, situation or reputation. As a result, that person no longer has a name or the presumption of innocence or the protection of being seen as a reporter of sound character, but becomes an “indictee” and is destroyed as an individual.
The President of Romania’s intent and guilt are beyond any reasonable doubt as long as the case pointed out by public exposés against DNA prosecutors is still under disciplinary and penal scrutiny (by the Judiciary Inspectorate and PICCJ), and the President has to be a mediator and not someone who makes pronouncements on matters of justice before the courts have made a pronouncement – pronouncements that exceed his attributions, all the more since the Constitution of Romania states at art. 23 (11): “Until a final verdict of guilt is pronounced by a court of law, a person is considered innocent.”
In the case of DNA’s Chief Prosecutor Laura Codruta Kovesi using the term “indictee” in a derogatory manner is even more obvious (used eleven times, some times in a ridiculing tone) and associated with declarations that exclude any presumption of innocence: “the attack on justice…the festival of indictees that want to humiliate society, the Romanians… If anyone understood that I’ve come to answer to indictees, they are wrong; I don’t answer to indictees… I answer to the honest people of Romania… the indictee Vlad Cosma…the indictee Sebastian Ghita…the indictee Iorga Moraru…If we take a look at who’s attacking we see convicted indictees, sent to trial”…
Since she is a magistrate, Laura Codruta Kovesi should have censored herself and applied the constitutional provisions regarding the presumption of innocence, considering the fact that the complaints against the prosecutors that are her subordinates are being processed by the Judiciary Inspection and the PICCJ (the penal complaints have been published in the press with registration numbers). Although she was legally obligated not to comment on penal and disciplinary cases that are ongoing, DNA’s Chief Prosecutor has not just commented on them and divulged details that were not meant for the media, but has also rejected the idea that the complaints might be well-founded, talking about an “attack” and a “festival of indictees”, using the term of “indictee” also for prosecutor Iorga Moraru about who not long ago she commended on being “the best DNA prosecutor”. So Laura Codruta Kovesi’s obvious desire to submit to certain degrading treatments the group of people who dared to point out potential abuse of some DNA investigators becomes clear. This is also easy to identify through the 365/2004 Law regarding the ratification of the Convention of the United Nations against Corruption, that forces her to offer protection to people who have alerted to acts of corruption.
Art. 33 of the 365/2004 Law – The protection of people who offer information: “Each state aims to incorporate into its juridical system appropriate measures of assuring the protection against any unjustified treatments of any person that notifies the competent authorities, in good conscience and based on reasonable presumptions, of any act regarding the crimes mentioned in this convention.”
Considering this law, to label a group of people – that has pointed out with clear evidence the corruption of some DNA employees – with the “indictee” appellative and to accuse them of “attacking justice” fully proves the fact that instead of giving these people the protection due by law, and waiting for the results of the inquests, she sought to submit them publicly to a humiliating and intimidating treatment in order to discredit and expose them to situations that would create serious concerns, considering the fact that some of these people have ongoing court cases that can be thereby influenced to fault them judicially.
It’s also a relevant discriminatory element that while the people who point out the abuse made by DNA prosecutors become immediately non-credible, they “attack justice” and are labeled “penals” and “indictees”, not getting from authorities the protection they’re due via the 365/2004 Law; most of the penal cases sent to trial by the DNA are based on claims made by indicted, arrested or sentenced people, but these denunciators are given maximum attention, the decisions of sentencing emitted by courts being based on their evidence. But art. 1 point (2) of OUG 137/2000 clearly states that: “The principle of equality between citizens, of excluding privileges and discriminations are guaranteed particularly when exercising the following rights: a) the right to equal treatment when facing courts of law and any jurisdictional institution.”
From other texts that pertain to the matter:
European Union’s Directive 2016/343 of 9.03.2016: “(16) The presumption of innocence would be violated if public statements made by public authorities, or judicial decisions other than those on guilt, referred to a suspect or an accused person as being guilty, for as long as that person has not been proved guilty according to law. Art. 3 – Presumption of innocence: Member States shall ensure that suspects and accused persons are presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Art. 4 Public references to guilt (1) Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, for as long as a suspect or an accused person has not been proved guilty according to law, public statements made by public authorities, and judicial decisions, other than those on guilt, do not refer to that person as being guilty...”
EDO Convention – Art. 14: Prohibition of Discrimination: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
EDO Convention – Protocol 12 – Art. 1: “General prohibition of discrimination
(1) The enjoyment of any right set forth by law shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. (2) No one shall be discriminated against by any public authority on any ground such as those mentioned in paragraph 1.”
* * *
Also relevant in the matter is the National Council for Combating Discrimination (CNCD) jurisprudence, through the Resolution no. 400 of 09/09/2015 of the CNCD regarding discriminatory statements aimed at homosexuals:
“5.5. Despite all that, the right to free expression is not an absolute right, and the legislator has established in the constitutional text the limits of exercising the right at free expression, so, according to art. 30, alin. 6 and 7 of the Constitution of Romania ‘Freedom of expression cannot affect the dignity, honor, private life of a person or the right to one’s own image. It’s forbidden by law to defame the country and nation, to suggest war of aggression, national, racial, social status or religious hatred, to incite discrimination, territorial separatism or public violence, as well as obscene manifestations that are contrary to morality.’ Under such circumstances, exercising freedom of expression also /static obligations, and can be subject to conditions, restrictions or sanctions, in so far as these are expressly stated by law and are necessary in a democratic society in order to protect the dignity, reputation or rights of others.
5.6. According to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Right, in order to accept an intromission into the right of self-expression, it must be established by law (that in turn must fulfill certain conditions: to be predictable and accessible), to have a legitimate purpose, to be necessary in a democratic society, and to be in proportion with its purpose (Corneliu Barsan, The European Convention of Human Rights, vol. I, Ed. C.H.Beck, Bucharest, 2005, p.769-801).
5.7. Regarding the first criteria, that of existence of a law that would regulate the intromission of the state in the exercising of the right at freedom of expression, it is fulfilled by art. 2 alin. (1) and art. 15 of O.G. 137/2000. Also, in art. 1 alin. (3) the Constitution of Romania states that guaranteeing a person’s dignity is the supreme value of the fundamental law and of democracy. We consider the normative texts in question to be predictable and accessible, although they protect a fundamental value in a democratic society and are notions that also have an abstract nature. The legitimate purpose is that of protecting human dignity of people that have a different sexual orientation.
5.9. On the other hand, considering the right not to be subject of discrimination and regarding this last aspect, related to an unjust, hostile, humiliating or degrading treatment, one must keep in mind the element of appreciating a treatment as reprehensible to hostile, hostile to degrading, such as the European Courts have decided: the former Commission for Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. This element of appreciation is variable in nature, depending on the circumstances of the case and its effects, dependant on the gender, age, health of the victim and other such elements regarding the victim’s situation.
5.10. Like the former Commission has stated, the phrase ‘degrading treatments’ refers to grave attacks on human dignity, so that measures that would affect social status, the situation or reputation of a person, can be considered such a treatment if they amount to a ‘certain degree of severity’.
5.11. According to the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, a treatment is qualified as degrading if it causes the victim feelings of fear, agitation, and inferiority, meant to humiliate and debase them (see Kudla vs. Poland [MC], Petition no. 30.210/96, paragraph 92, ECHR 2000-XI).
5.12. In order to establish if a treatment is or is not degrading in regard to art. 3. of the Convention, the Court will examine if the purpose of inflicting it is that of humiliating or debasing the victim and if, through its effects, it has harmed their personality in a way that is incompatible with art. 3 (see Raninen vs. Finland, Edict of December 16 1997, Reports 1997-VIII, pag. 2.821-22, paragraph 55). Despite all that, the absence of such a purpose wouldn’t definitively exclude the pronunciation of a breach of art. 3 (see Peers vs. Greece, Petition no. 28.524/95, paragraph 74, CEDO 2001-III). But in cases of affecting human dignity through discrimination the existence of intent or a palpable victim is not necessary (…)
The Council feels that the defendant’s statements constitute behavior that is closely related to sexual orientation, and through their nature they lead to the creation of a hostile, intimidating, and offensive environment that affects particularly a community of people, in this case people of another sexual orientation than heterosexual. As such, the Council feels that the defendant’s statements, via the effect they produced, have affected the right to dignity of homosexual people, as described by art. 2. alin. 5 of O.G. no. 137/2000 revised.”
We feel that the motivation used by CNCD in order to sanction a person who has created a hostile, intimidating, and offensive environment for people of homosexual orientation is fully applicable in this case as well, where a similar effect has been created on people who are on trial in a court of law, as defendants or not.
A typical example of the negative consequences of these statements on society is the public reaction on Facebook of well-known activist Malin Bot, who wrote the following message that we attach to our petition:
“I support Laura Codruta Kovesi. Criminals can’t have the right to affect the careers of professionals in the judicial system.”
It’s important to keep in mind that none of those who has publicly reported abuses made by DNA prosecutors have been convicted of a crime, and even if they had been that would have no relevance on the matter; but the way that some citizens perceive things can be as stated and can degenerate into hatred and contempt as a result of discrimination committed by people with important state roles.
It is unacceptable that by accepting and sharing such messages, we end up addressing each other in society as “penal”, “indictee”, “criminal”, “convict”, words that in the civilized world – mainly in the EU – are considered forms of discrimination that could generate reactions of hatred and violence. Even when the concerned parties are people who have been sentenced to jail – which is not the case here – the purpose of a sentence must be that of re-educating, not of attracting public hatred or social exclusion.
In conclusion: We ask that you observe the acts of discrimination pointed out and dispose the sanctions required by law against the President of Romania the Chief Prosecutor of the DNA. Disposing sanctions for such behavior is necessary in a democratic society because protecting the right at human dignity of those under penal scrutiny and respecting the presumption of innocence are essential values guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights and Romania’s legislation.
