Access to justice denied: The betrayal of victims with disabilities by courts and prosecutors in Romania

Another scandal has recently broken out in Romania around accusations that Clara, a sweet 9-year-old girl with Down syndrome, was beaten up at the special school in Bucharest she was attending. Allegations of abuse against people with disabilities occur regularly to an increasingly indifferent reception from the general public and the authorities. Before Clara, we received news about children tied to beds in a hospital in Bacau. Before that, there was the scandal about a social care home in Oradea where physical and sexual abuse of young residents was rife. Before that, there were the sad on-going reports of young severely disabled youth in a social care home in Bucharest permanently tied to their beds and starved, outsiders’ access to the institution denied. Serial allegations of abuse against children and adults with disabilities institutionalised in separate schools, separate institutions and separate hospitals, stretch back as far as I can remember, certainly since the fall of communism in 1989. There is one common thread connecting all these incidents, aside from public indifference. Nothing ever happens – nobody loses their job or goes to prison, no institution closes down and nobody ever leaves the institution. This brings me to the topic of this post (the first in a series hopefully) - the complete absence of remedies in Romania for rights violations against persons with disabilities.

Romania stands out among European countries in terms of the number and range of disability cases that reached the European Court of Human Rights, a relatively recent phenomenon. We got cases on involuntary detention, on rape, on legal capacity, on ill treatment by the police, on conditions in institutions, on accessibility, on education, on people who died in institutions because of cold and hunger and lack of medical treatment. Currently, Romania has the only two disability cases pending before the Grand Chamber: Gherghina and Campeanu. The absence of remedies is a common feature in almost all these cases, apparent at different levels of inquiry: exhaustion of domestic remedies, procedural obligations under article 5, the right to an effective remedy, procedural obligations to investigate abuse, or the right to a fair trial. One of the requests that the State received from the European Court in Campeanu was to provide examples of successful prosecutions of abuse in institutions. Notwithstanding the notorious fact that abuse is rife in Romanian institutions, the State was not able to provide one example. On the other hand, we could show that no prosecutions resulted in relation to the hundreds of people who died at the Poiana Mare Hospital during consecutive winters at the beginning of the 2000s.

The European Court recognised the crisis of the court system in Romania, making some remarkably sweeping statements on the issue of domestic remedies. There is no remedy in Romania to challenge the necessity of compulsory psychiatric examination taken under Article 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court said (C.B. v Romania). In Cristian Teodorescu v Romania and B. v Romania (No.2), the Court identified gaps in the Romanian mental health law, which restricted the access to justice of persons seeking to complain against their involuntary commitment in psychiatric hospital. It was not surprising, the Court concluded, that no complaints based on this law had been introduced over a period of ten years since it has come into force on 8 August 2002. In Parascineti, the Court noted that the Government was not able to demonstrate that any complaints had been filed before domestic courts regarding living conditions in a psychiatric hospital for the period 2002 to 2010. In Stelian Tanase, the Court determined that a national court’s contempt towards a person with disabilities may render a remedy that is effective in principle, such as a torts action on the basis of Arts. 998 and 999 of the Civil Code, ineffective.

Elsewhere, in Filip v Romania, the Court found a procedural breach of Article 3 on account of the “passivity” of authorities in dealing with the applicant’s complaints related to the living conditions during his commitment in a psychiatric hospital, as well as to the alleged ill-treatment suffered during that time. An additional violation of Article 5§4 was based on the prosecutors’ refusal to decide on the merits of the complaint regarding the lawfulness of the commitment, as well as the length of the procedures in the same case. In B v Romania, Archip v Romania and M.B. v Romania, the Court found violations of the procedural arm of Article 3, on account of the authorities’ failures to conduct an effective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment against persons with mental health problems, including rape.

On more benign, but no less important rights such as social support, accessibility and education, the situation is equally problematic. One of our main claims in Gherghina, currently pending before the Grand Chamber, is that legislation on accessibility duties is so vague as to render any remedies at the national level illusory and ineffective. I am currently looking at the remedies that a child with disabilities may use to complain in relation to a breach of their right to quality inclusive education, in relation to another case pending before the Court, Stoian. Considering the sheer complexity of an ever shifting legislation, the vague and non-committal wording of these provisions, the presence of a multiplicity of state agencies with overlapping and conflicting duties, I strongly doubt victims of discrimination have any remedies to exhaust in Romania before going to Strasbourg, similarly to the cases on segregation of Roma in education against Greece.

These cases reveal a systemic problem in Romania whereby courts, prosecutors and other agencies systematically defer to doctors, educators and other “professionals” to take life and death decisions on behalf of persons with disabilities. In doing so, they share the outlook of Romanian society more broadly, that would rather look away when a person with disabilities is abused. However, in doing so, judges and prosecutors swim against the tide. Sooner or later, something must change. Romania is firmly under international spotlight this year for its treatment of persons with disabilities, and for a good reason. As mentioned above, two leading disability cases against Romania are pending before the Grand Chamber of the European Court. Disability is one of the issues on the agenda for the Romania country visit of the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner at the end of March. The Committee for the Prevention of Torture will also visit Romania this year, and is likely to include psychiatric institutions and/or social care homes on its agenda. Al Jazeera has been filming a documentary slamming Romania’s failure to reform its institutions, which will probably also air in March. Finally, the European Commission is putting increased pressure on Romania to adopt its disability strategy, in order to better spend EU funds in this area. Who knows, maybe Clara’s case is the marker for a new beginning after all.   

The next article in the series on remedy will look at whether the European Court of Human Rights is a viable remedy for applicants with disabilities.

PS: All judgments mentioned in this article are available on HUDOC, the European Court's database.

Inca o sansa pierduta - raportul CNCD/IPP pe accesibilitate

A trecut mai bine de o satapmana de la lansarea raportului realizat de CNCD si IPP privind “accesibilizarea spatiului public pentru persoanele cu dizabilitati”. Raportul e parte a unei campanii prefatate de un videoclip despre care am mai scris AICI.

Una din problemele mari cu care m-am confruntat pledand in fata CEDO in cazuri pe accesibilitate a fost tocmai lipsa surselor credibile care sa demonstreze ceea ce stim cu totii – ca mediul fizic la noi in tara nu prea e accesibil. Pe cat sunt de importante analizele independente (vorba vine) pentru a acoperi aceasta lacuna, pe atat sunt de rare. Eu cunosc o singura astfel de cercetare datand din 2006. Prin urmare cred ca e oportun sa fac niste comentarii pe marginea acestui raport, pana cand nu dispare cu totul din atentia publica. Mai vreau sa stabilesc ca sunt o persoana avizata, cu precizarea ca perspectiva mea este cea unui avocat. Lucrez de ani intregi in domeniul dizabilitatii, iar pe accesibilitate in mod special am lucrat in mai multe cazuri importante la CEDO: Farcas v Romania (sedinta publica, decizie 14 septembrie 2010), Gherghina v Romania (trimis la Marea Camera, sedinta publica 12 noiembrie 2014), Elvira Popa v Romania (pe rol), Stoian v Romania (pe rol).

Metodologia raportului, constand in principal in formularea unor cereri sub Legea informatiilor de interes public, nu este de natura a oferi o imagine corecta cu privire gradul real de accesibilizare a institutiilor cu pricina. In primul rand multe institutii vor minti – o fac in mod current, si bunaoara nimic nu le-a impiedicat sa o faca in corespondenta cu CEDO. In al doilea rand este binecunoscut faptul ca institutiile nu cunosc parametrii obligatiilor care le revin prin lege. Problema rampelor construite in bataie de joc e notorie, ele sunt vizibile la tot pasul. Ei bine, cel mai probabil institutiile au raportat aceste rampe ca fiind conforme. In sfarsit, chestionarele folosite sunt simpliste – evaluand de exemplu accesibilitatea mediului fizic doar prin raportare la existenta rampelor. O metodologie mai potrivita a fost folosita in raportul FSD 2006, care a elaborat chestionare incluzand indicatori multipli de accesibilitate, care mai apoi au fost completate la fata locului de echipe de monitori. Sau metodologia raportului recent publicat in Moldova, unde au fost efectuate masuratori complexe la fata locului privind gradul de accesibilizare a unui esantion de cladiri publice. Sunt convins ca aceste monitorizari nu se pot face stand la birou, ci este indispensabil mersul la fata locului, preferabil insotit de o persoana cu dizabilitati,

Autorii raportului nu prea tin seama de natura servicului oferit in cladirea cu pricina. Una e administratia financiara unde intri si stai cinci minute, si alta e ditamai universitatea unde stai patru ani, cu o infrastructura mult mai complexa. Pe de alta parte, concentrarea pe obiective publice izolate e neproductiva, ce conteaza e un lant neintrerupt de servicii accesibilizate, cu alte cuvinte trebuie sa fii in stare sa pleci de acasa, sa urci in metrou, sa traversezi strada, si sa ajungi la universitate unde sa fii in stare sa studiezi cot la cot cu ceilalti studenti. Nu prea ma ajuta in nici un fel faptul ca intersectia x este accesibilizata daca transportul public nu e, si bordurile din zona sunt prea ridicate.

Principala cheie pentru rezolvarea problemei accesibilitatii in opinia mea (sau cel putin una dintre ele), este construirea unui sistem de remedii functional, care sa permita titularilor dreptului sa solicite executarea sa in instanta. Raportul din Moldova mai sus-amintit contine o analiza a sistemului de remedii de acolo, punand punctul pe I:

“nerespectarea normativelor în construcții privind accesibilitatea persoanelor cu dizabilități la infrastructură, chiar dacă prevede răspundere administrativă care se sancționeazăcu amendă, nu este suficientă, deoarece nu împiedică nerespectarea sistematicăa acestor normative, și nici nu obligă la compensarea costurilor legate de înlăturarea deficiențelor în aplicarea normativelor respective în documentația de proiect sau în proiectele de execuție.

Din pacate, raportul CNCD/IPP nu contine o astfel de analiza. In loc suntem serviti cu o enumerare anodina si fara sens a realizarilor CNCD in materie, egale fix cu zero. Interventia CNCD este structurata in doua parti. Prima parte include eternele tabele si scheme detaliind numarul petitiilor primite in functie de criteriul incident si deznodamantul lor. Nu este clar ce semnifica aceste tabele, care sunt copiate mecanic de la un an la altul in in rapoartele CNCD. Sugestia e ca ele ar constitui un indicator al fenomenului discriminarii in Romania. Raportat la numarul total al persoanelor cu dizabilitati din Romania, faptul ca CNCD primeste annual 20-30-40 plangeri (cu obiect neidentificat pentru ca ele nu sunt publicate), inseamna cel mult o incercare de manipulare a realitatii sau de autolegitimare frauduloasa in fata criticilor. A doua parte a analizei, traditionala si ea, este o insiruire fara cap si coada a cazurilor CNCD-ului in care este incident criteriul dizabilitatii. Doar un singur caz din cele unsprezece raportate – cel privind strada nebetonata din Busteni, si ala foarte suspect in lipsa deciziei in sine –priveste tema centrala a raportului – accesibilizarea mediului construit de catre autoritatile publice. Dupa cum am explicat pe scurt aici, CNCD-ul nu considera lipsa accesibilitatii ca fiind o forma de discriminare sanctionabila sub OG 137, din motive de competenta materiala, sau de fond. Mai mult decat atat, ce nu raporteaza CNCD-ul e mult mai interesant decat ce alege sa puna in vitrina, in conditiile in care institutia e complet netransparenta, iar jurisprudenta e haotica: un fel de in fata-i vopsit gardul si in spate leopardul. Pe langa faptul ca prestatia CNCD-ului nu este examinata critic si obiectiv, lipseste cu totul o analiza a eficientei (sau nu) a altor potentiale remedii. Slava domnului, gratie unui grup de persone cu dizabilitati si avocati hotarati, exista acum o jurispudenta relativ usor accesibila si direct relevanta (macar ca e negativa, dar cu invatamintele ei) pentru tematica raportului, atat in instantele interne, inclusiv la cel mai inalt nivel, ICCJ, cat si, iata, la CEDO. Aceasta este inca o lacuna de neinteles a raportului.

Raportul concluzioneaza totusi ca “in Romania mediul public nu este inca accesibil persoanelor cu dizabilitati in cea mai mare parte”.Avand in vedere ca premisele sale metodologice sunt suspecte, dupa cum am aratat mai sus, ma tem ca aceasta concluzie este prea optimista, si nici nu incepe macar sa surprinda dezastrul din Romania si drama personala a zecilor de mii de persone cu dizabilitati care isi rateaza viata din cauza lipsei accesibilitatii. In mod constant, raportul contine afirmatii de tipul “Universitatea din Pitesti asigura maini curente în cladirile sale, precum si un interpret”. Este insa sau nu accesibila universitatea in intregul ei? Eu stiu ca in ansamblul ei nu este, si ma judec pe chestia asta la Marea Camera a CEDO, in cazul Gherghina, si daca nu e, ce rost are sa spui numai ca are maini curente? In ipoteza in care raportul sugereaza ca CNCD-ul este un remediu eficient pentru plangerile pe discriminare, el denatureaza inca o data realitatea. Cam despre asta e vorba in acest raport. Raportul asta nu merge la ONU, dar caciula singuri, sigur ne-am furat-o. Consemnez din pacate (inca) o ocazie ratata.

As avea si alte observatii, dar ma opresc deocamdata aici.