Régmúlt bűnök felderítésének állami kötelezettsége - Katyń a strasbourgi emberi jogi bíróság előtt

A strasbourgi emberi jogi bíróság befogadta tizenöt katyńi áldozat hozzátartozójának az orosz állam elleni kérelmét. A kivégzettek rokonai azt sérelmezték beadványukban, hogy az orosz hatóságok nem folytattak le megfelelő és tényleges vizsgálatot szeretteik meggyilkolásának ügyében (Admissibility decision Janowiec and others v. Russia (application no.s 55508/07 & 29520/09). A bíróság joghatóságával kapcsolatban a következő fontos megállapítást tette:

101. The Court notes that the parties have acknowledged that it has no competence ratione temporis to examine the mass murder of Polish prisoners of war in 1940 from the standpoint of the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Court will not have to examine this issue in the instant case. It is, however, in dispute whether or not this fact precludes the Court from taking cognisance of the applicants' complaint under the procedural limb of that provision concerning the allegedly inadequate character of the investigation in so far as it was conducted after the ratification date. The Court considers that the issue of temporal jurisdiction is so closely linked to the merits of the applicants' complaint under Article 2 that a joint examination of these matters would be more appropriate in the circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, it joins the Russian Government's objection as regards the Court's competence ratione temporis to the merits and, having found no other ground for declaring this complaint inadmissible, considers, in the light of the parties' submissions, that it raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits.

Az EJEB által kiadott sajtóközlemény a következőképp foglalja össze az ügyet:

The 12 men were police and army officers, an army doctor and a primary school headmaster. They were taken to Soviet-run camps and were then killed/presumed killed without trial, along with more than 21,000 others1, in April and May 1940, in Kharkov (now Ukraine), Katyń and Tver (both in Russia).

The investigations concerning the victims’ deaths were started in 1990. The criminal proceedings concerning the 12 men in question were discontinued however, because the men’s bodies were not identified during the latest investigations, even though they were listed as prisoners in the relevant camps at the relevant times and the bodies of a number of them had been identified during an exhumation in 1943. The applicants appealed unsuccessfully.

On 26 November 2010 the Russian Duma made a statement about the “Katyń tragedy”, in which it reiterated that the “mass extermination of Polish citizens on USSR territory during the Second World War” had been on Stalin’s orders and that it was necessary to continue “verifying the lists of victims, restoring the good names of those who perished in Katyń and other places, and uncovering the circumstances of the tragedy.”

The Court has declared admissible the applicants’ complaint, under Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, that the Russian authorities failed to carry out an adequate and effective criminal investigation into the circumstances leading to and surrounding the deaths of their relatives. However, it joined to its examination of the merits of the complaint the issue of temporal jurisdiction, in other words, whether the Court could examine the adequacy of an investigation into events which had occured before Russia ratified the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court has also declared admissible the applicants’ complaint that the way the Russian authorities reacted to their requests and applications amounted to ill-treatment under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention.

Először állapítja meg holland bíróság a holland állam felelősségét egy srebrenicai ügyben

A hágai fellebbviteli bíróság (Gerechtshof ’s-Gravenhage) háromfős bírói tanácsának július 5-i ítélete először állapította meg a holland állam felelősségét a Srebrenica környékén történt eseményekben való holland részvétel miatt. Az ítélet szerint a holland békefenntartóknak (Dutchbat) nem lett volna szabad kiszolgáltatniuk három muzulmán férfit a szerb fegyvereseknek, mert tudhatták, hogy azokat így veszélynek teszik ki.

Az ítélet (LJN: BR0132) holland nyelven itt olvasható.

A bíróság angol nyelvű összefoglalójából alapján pedig a főbb megállapítások:

“Among the refugees who had sought refuge to the compound was the family (father, mother and younger brother) of the interpreter of Dutchbat and the electrician of Dutchbat (wife and children). The brother of the interpreter and the electrician were sent by Dutchbat from the compound at the end of 13 July 1995. The father of the interpreter went with them. Subsequently they were murdered by the Bosnian Serbs. In this procedure before the Court of Appeal their next of kin claim compensation from the State. The District Court had rejected their claims in the first instance.

First the Court of Appeal had to take a decision about the defence of the State that the Dutchbat military acted under the auspices of the UN and that the State, therefore, was not responsible for the actions of Dutchbat. The Court of Appeal has rejected this defence. The Court of Appeal judged that Dutchbat was acting under the command of the UN but that after the fall of Srebrenica an extraordinary situation had come into being in which the Dutch Government became more actively involved with Dutchbat and with the evacuation of the refugees. In view of this involvement the Court of Appeal judges that the State was responsible for the way Dutchbat treated the abovementioned Muslim men.

The Court is of the opinion that Dutchbat should not have sent the electrician and the interpreter’s brother from the compound and they had to have anticipated that the interpreter’s father would follow his son. Dutchbat had witnessed in the meanwhile more than one incident in which Bosnian Serbs had beaten up or killed male refugees outside the compound. Therefore, at the end of the afternoon of 13 July 1995, Dutchbat knew that the men would run a great risk when they would leave the compound.

The Court considered explicitly that its judgment in this case is exclusively related to the specific situation of these individuals. No judgment is given about the situation of the other refugees. The position of the other refugees, which differs in certain aspects from the case at hand, is not at issue in this procedure.”

Az ICTY volt börtönparancsnoka, Wikileaks, Milosevic, ameriaki nagykövetség

Karadžić és Šešelj hónapokkal ezelőtt eljárást kezdeményezését kérte (Criminal report against the former UN Detention Unit Commanding Officer Timothy McFadden, 27 January 2011) az ICTY volt börtönparancsnoka ellen a nemzetközi igazságszolgáltatás elleni bűncselekmény elkövetése miatt. Szerintük a Wikileaks által kiszivárogtatott egyik diplomáciai irat alapján (lásd itt) McFadden bizalmas információkat árult el az amerikai követség munkatársainak Slobodan Milošević egészségi állapotáról, a tanácsadóival való viszonyáról és a feleségével folytatott beszélgetéseiről.

Az ICTY különleges tanácsa két nappal ezelőtt meghozott döntésében kifejtette (Decision on the initiation of contempt investigation), hogy míg a súlyosabb bűncselekmény nem forog fenn, addig az indiszkréciónak munkajogi következményei lehetnek:

9. The information allegedly revealed to government officials of the United States of America by Mr McFadden concerns Slobodan Milosevi6's personal preferences, private communications with his wife, views about his advisors, and information about his health. Having consulted the relevant Rules and Regulations, the Chamber is of the view that such information is to be treated confidentially by those persons having access to it. Furthermore, as a staff member of the Tribunal, Mr McFadden was under a duty not to share confidential information with any Government, entity, person or any other source. Accordingly, the Chamber finds that the information tends to show that Mr McFadden may have breached his duty not to disclose confidential information.

12. In the present case, the information allegedly revealed concerns three main categories: personal matters, information on Milosevi6's health, and Milosevic’s alleged views about his advisors. The specific information allegedly revealed to the United States Government in relation to personal matters, for example what type of books Milosevi6 liked to read or how often he spoke to his wife, is irrelevant to the judicial proceedings of the Tribunal. The category of health-related matters or that of an accused’s views about his advisors could have an impact on the judicial proceedings. The specific information allegedly revealed to the United States Government related to these categories, for example that despite Milosevic's public disdain for the amici curiae, his legal associates often liaised with them or that Milosevi6' s medical problems worsened under stress or that he refused certain recommendations by doctors, is of such general nature however that its disclosure is not of a kind that interferes with the Tribunal's administration of justice.

13. The Chamber stresses however that even though the alleged conduct does not fall within the ambit of Rule 77 of the Rules, it has carefully considered the matter and is cognizant that the alleged conduct may bring the institution of the International Tribunal into disrepute. Considering that Mr McFadden may have breached a duty, the Chamber clarifies that the mere fact that the alleged conduct does not fall within the ambit of Rule 77 does not exclude other remedies to address the matter. The matter can be dealt with pursuant to the UN Staff Rules and Regulations, by any internal measures to prevent repetition of such conduct, and/or by any external judicial or non-judicial measures. (emphases added)

Egy titkosnak minősített bírósági határozat jogi érvelésének kiszivárogtatása az ICTY előtt - Carla del Ponte korábbi sajtófönökének ügye

Ahogy arról már beszámoltam, az ICTY különleges bírói tanácsa 7000 eurós pénzbüntetés megfizetésére kötelezte Florence Hartmann-t még 2009-ben. Carla del Ponte volt sajtófőnökét a nemzetközi igazságszolgáltatás elleni bűncselekmény elkövetésében találták bűnösnek. Hartmann fellebbezett, ám az elsőfokú döntést a fellebbviteli tanács mai határozatával helyben hagyta.

Az ICTY sajtóközleményéből idézve:

"On 14 September 2009, the Trial Chamber found Hartmann guilty of disclosing the contents, purported effect, and confidential nature of two Appeals Chamber Decisions from the Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević case in a book and an article authored by her in 2007 and 2008, respectively. She was sentenced to pay a fine of 7,000 Euros, in two installments of 3,500 Euros each.

In dismissing Hartmann’s appeal, the Appeals Chamber held that “the confidential issuance of a decision by a Chamber constitutes an order for the non-disclosure of the information contained therein, and it is not for a party to decide which aspects of a confidential decision may be disclosed. This principle equally applies to third parties.” The Appeals Chamber emphasised, “The discretion as to whether the confidential status of a decision may be lifted in whole or in part belongs exclusively to a competent Chamber of the Tribunal with its intimate knowledge of all the facts, information, and circumstances surrounding the relevant case.”The Appeals Chamber concluded that “[a] court order remains in force until a Chamber decides otherwise” and that, in this specific case, “the content of both Decisions remained subject to an order of non-disclosure.”

The Appeals Chamber dismissed Hartmann’s appeal that the Tribunal had already made public the information which she was convicted for revealing to the public, holding that the confidential legal reasoning of the two decisions were never disclosed, nor any related confidential information. The Appeals Chamber stated, “The fact that the Milošević Trial Chamber had granted protective measures to the SDC materials was a matter of public record as early as 23 September 2004; however, Hartmann was not convicted for revealing this fact, the existence of the Appeal Decisions, or the law contained within them (which had been revealed by the President and the Appeals Chamber), but rather for revealing the confidential legal reasoning contained within those decisions.”

With respect to the alleged infringement of Hartmann’s right to freedom of expression as a journalist, the Appeals Chamber held that the restrictions contained in the two Appeals Decisions were within the ambit of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), according to which the restriction must be provided by law and proportionately necessary to protect against the dissemination of confidential information. The Appeals Chamber held that the restrictions of the freedom of expression were provided by law because they were filed confidentially under protective measures pursuant to the Rules of the Tribunal. The Appeals Chamber further held that “restricting Hartmann’s freedom of expression in this manner was both proportionate and necessary because it protected the ‘public order’ by guarding against the dissemination of confidential information”.

A Nemzetközi Bíróság (ICJ) demilitarizált zóna létrehozására kötelezi Thaiföldet és Kambodzsát a Preah Vihear templom térségében

A Nemzetközi Bíróság egy kuriózumnak számító döntésében (provisional order) tegnap mindkét országot arra kötelezte (öt különvélemény, két nyilatkozat és egy párhuzamos indokolás mellett), hogy egy átmeneti demilitarizált zónát alakítsanak ki a vitatott területen. A határozat főbb megállapítása szerint:

61. Whereas the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear has been the scene of armed clashes between the Parties and whereas the Court has already found that such clashes may reoccur; whereas it is for the Court to ensure, in the context of these proceedings, that no irreparable damage is caused to persons or property in that area pending the delivery of its Judgment on the request for interpretation; whereas, moreover, in order to prevent irreparable damage from occurring, all armed forces should be provisionally excluded from a zone around the area of the Temple, without prejudice to the judgment which the Court will render on the request for interpretation submitted by Cambodia; and whereas, therefore, the Court considers it necessary, in order to protect the rights which are at issue in these proceedings, to define a zone which shall be kept provisionally free of all military personnel, without prejudice to normal administration, including the presence of non-military personnel necessary to ensure the security of persons and property;

63. Whereas both Parties, in order to comply with this Order, shall withdraw all military personnel currently present in the zone as thus defined; whereas both Parties shall refrain not only from any military presence within that provisional demilitarized zone, but also from any armed activity directed at the said zone.

Hozzáférés a fogvatartás alapjául szolgáló iratanyaghoz a szabadlábra helyezést követően - libanoni törvényszék fellebbviteli tanácsának döntése

A Libanoni Különleges Törvényszék fellebbviteli tanácsa mai határozatában több érdekes kérdésben döntött:

“The issues on appeal are:

(1) What is the nature of the right of access claimed by Mr. El Sayed to some or all of the investigatory materials in the three categories?

(2) Did the Pre-Trial Judge err in categorically excluding these three sets of documents from

disclosure to Mr. El Sayed?

(3) What relief if any should be ordered?

68. We conclude that the fact of detention for nearly four years, together with the acknowledgement made by the Prosecutor at the end of the period, demonstrate a real possibility that access to information is required to avoid an injustice, and that the interests in allowing the claim outweigh the costs of that course. But it should be permitted only to the extent required to enable Mr. El Sayed to make the claim he states in his application to the President, subject to appropriate conditions set by the Pre-Trial Judge Use for any other purpose would not be justified and would be improper.

87. We do not agree with the conclusions of the Trial Chamber of the ICC that „investigator's interview notes that are reflected in the witness statements,” and „screening notes ... [or] pre-interview assessments [that] are a stage precedent to an interview when a formal statement is taken,” constitute internal work product that need not be disclosed by the Prosecutor unless it includes exculpatory evidence not otherwise contained in material provided to the defence. This runs the risk that an investigator may sanitize the original account of the witness. That kind of conduct can be a major reason for miscarriage of justice. Both the Trial Chamber and the opposing party are entitled to know how the witness’s version has evolved.

88. We therefore disagree with the ICC Trial Chamber's conclusion in Lubanga that „all preliminary examination reports”, „investigator’s interview notes that are reflected in the witness statements or audio-video recording of the statement,” and “investigator’s subjective opinions or conclusions that are recorded in the investigator’s notes" may be exempted from disclosure.”

Láthatási jog kikényszeríthetősége a gyámhatóság útján - 5 millió forintos kártérítés Strasbourgban

Még júniusban 50 millió forintos kártérítést ítélt meg egy magyar apának a strasbourgi bíróság. Az ítélet szerint a magyar hatóságok tétlensége (inaction) hozzájárult ahhoz, hogy az apa legalább hét éven keresztül nem tudott élni gyermekének láthatási jogával. Az ügy részletei (Zoltán Németh v. Hungary, No. 29436/05 14 June 2011) alább:

5. On 23 June 1998, following the pronouncement of the divorce of the applicant and his wife, the Budapest IV/XV District Court placed the applicant’s child – born in July 1993 – with the mother.

7. The parents managed to reach a settlement about the father’s access rights concerning visits until the summer of 1999, which was approved by the Budapest Regional Court on 8 January 1999. According to the arrangement, the applicant was allowed to see his son every second Saturday from 9 am until 6 pm, the day after Easter at the same hours and during the summer holidays from 7 until 14 July and from 1 until 14 August.

8. Until 26 May 2000 the applicant managed to see his son only rarely, since the mother refused to comply with the arrangement on most occasions. From this date onwards he was fully denied access to the child by his former wife.

23. It appears that the applicant has been unable to have any contact with his son since then.

31. The applicant alleged that the steps taken by the national authorities had not been effective and had contributed to the current situation. The domestic authorities continued to tolerate the unacceptable behaviour of the mother, who tried to do everything possible to prevent contact and obstruct the development of a loving relationship between him and his son.

32. He also pointed out that the guardianship authorities had made use of only two measures at their disposal, namely warning the mother and the imposition of fines. They therefore had not availed themselves of the possibility of temporarily placing the child with the applicant, initiating mediation proceedings or even providing police assistance to ensure the visits. With the ministerial decision, the authorities had even annulled the minimal achievements made.

33. He contended that the annulment of the fines by the Ministry would not have been necessary on the ground that the liability for the failure of the visits could not be established unambiguously, had the authorities complied with their obligation to respect the deadlines.

34. In the applicant’s view, the lack of any coercive measure had legalised the mother’s unlawful conduct. He also argued that the child upbringing counsellor and the foundation proposed by the authorities had been of no help, as they did not have any power to compel the mother to cooperate.

35. The applicant further emphasised that he had taken all possible legal steps to enforce his visiting rights. He finally highlighted the fact that his son had not opposed the meetings, which were hindered only by the mother.

55. From the foregoing the Court cannot but conclude, bearing in mind the interests involved, that the competent authorities did not act sufficiently promptly or make reasonable efforts to facilitate reunion. On the contrary, the inaction of the authorities placed the burden on the applicant to have constant recourse to a succession of time-consuming and ultimately ineffective remedies to enforce his rights. Over the years, they tolerated the mother’s unlawful actions which they were under a duty to prevent.

56. Accordingly, the Court concludes that, notwithstanding the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the competent authorities, the non-enforcement of the applicant’s right of access constituted a breach of his right to respect for his family life under Article 8 of the Convention.

Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

Egymillió forintos becsületsértési ügy Strasbourgban

3580 euróba került a magyar államnak, hogy egy becsületsértési ügyben a Fővárosi Bíróság megrovásban részesítette a Népszabadság egyik cikkíróját, Új Pétert a következő cikk-részlet miatt:

„Tízből kilencszer a Tokaj Kereskedőház valamely ezer forint alatti palackáron hozzáférhető terméke reprezentálja a világ legjobb borvidékét, a Magyar Nemzeti Büszkeséget és Kincset a mi teljesen átlagosnak tűnő családi körünkben, minden borkulturális elvilágosító erőfeszítésem ellenére, és ettől sírni tudnék.

Nem csak az íz miatt, pedig az is elég volna, simán, egy kiadós zokogáshoz: savanyú, buta, eloxidált izék, rossz minőségű, mindenféle resztlikből összehordott alapanyag, szürkerothadás plusz egy kis szerencsi cukor, dohos hordók, hanem hogy itt tartunk még mindig, tizennyolc évvel a kommerszek után, magyarok százezrei isszák büszkén, sőt, áhítattal a szart; ez van megetetve (itatva) a sokat szenvedett néppel, és legalább kétszer (vö.: állami vállalat) meg kifizettetve vele, be van magyarázva a legsuttyóbb demagógiával, jobbról és balról is, bőven, hogy ez a nemzeti kincs, ezt így kell csinálni, mindannyiunk pénzéből, és ez nekünk jó, nagyon jó, és végül még jó pofát is kell vágni hozzá, ünnepélyeset. Így alázza meg az ország lakóit (alattvalóit) a görénykurzus fél liter alkoholtartalmú italon keresztül”.

A strasbourgi bíróság szerint (Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954/10, 19 July 2011):

23. The Court notes that the expression used by the applicant is offensive. Nevertheless, the subject matter of the case is not a defamatory statement of fact but a value judgment or opinion, as was admitted by the domestic courts. The publication in question constituted a satirical denouncement of the company within the context of governmental economic policies and consumer attitudes (see paragraph 6 above). Taking the above facts into account, the Court finds that the applicant's primary aim was to raise awareness about the disadvantages of State ownership rather than to denigrate the quality of the products of the company in the minds of the readers. The opinion was expressed with reference to government policies concerning the protection of national values and the role of private enterprise and foreign investment. It dealt therefore with a matter of public interest.

24. The Court considers that the domestic courts failed to have regard to the fact that the press had a duty to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest and in so doing to have possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration or even provocation, or in other words to make somewhat immoderate statements (see Mamère v. France, no. 12697/03, § 25, ECHR 2006–XIII, and Dąbrowski v. Poland, no. 18235/02, § 35, 19 December 2006). For the Court, the wording employed by the applicant was exaggerated but made in a public context; the expression used is, regrettably, a commonly used one in regard of low-quality wine and its vulgarity thus constituted a forceful part of the form of expression.

25. The Court finds that the above considerations are important in assessing the proportionality of criminal-law based interference with Article 10 of the Convention, but were not examined by the domestic courts. It finds that, in the absence of considering the above factors which are preponderant in the present case, the domestic authorities could not establish that the restriction was proportionate.