Comments
PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMEN GAINING CITIZENS’ GROWING POPULARITY
Infotag’s interview with Raisa Apolschi, Director of the Center for Human Rights in Moldova.
Question: Mrs. Apolschi, this year will soon mark the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the national institution of parliamentary ombudsmen – the Center for Human Rights in Moldova. How has the Center manifested itself as an institution called to promote and protect human rights?
Answer: The institution of parliamentary ombudsmen has successfully manifested itself as an institution of not only European but of the world level, for we efficiently cooperate with a whole number of international organizations. Even a simple analysis of our work since 1998 shows that the number of petitions citizens send to us has grown, and their quality has improved. A considerable part of the Moldovan society is aware of the Center’s existence as well as of the problems that can be raised with the ombudsmen’s assistance. Moldovans increasingly use this mechanism of extra-juridical protection of the person’s rights.
Q: How widely has the institution been presented outside Chisinau? As is known, the greatest part of violations takes place not in the capital city but in the localities.
A: To facilitate the citizens’ access to ombudsmen’s services, we have created 3 major branches – in Balti, Cahul and Comrat. I can’t say we are fully satisfied with their work, for there exist objective problems. But on the whole the branches cope with their functions to provide citizens’ access to information and free legal assistance.
Q: Has the Center’s work become optimum, or there is still much room for improvement?
A: There is no limit to perfection. Recently, the Moldovan Parliament introduced – on our proposal – a package of amendments to the legislation in force. In particular, the amendments stipulated the establishment of a 4th position of a parliamentary ombudsman to specialize in the protection of child’s rights, in addition to the already existing 3 positions. Heretofore, we used to focus mainly on monitoring and researches. Now we want to work more outside Chisinau, in provincial areas.
Q: Including Transnistria?
A: Unfortunately, we have no access to the eastern region, so we cannot protect the people residing on the left Dniester bank. The only thing we can do is open our offices in those localities on the eastern bank which are under the Moldovan authorities’ jurisdiction, for these localities are the closest to the Transnistrian region. We could thus collect objective information about the real situation in Transnistria. Certainly, this will not resolve the problem as a whole but at least we will try to inspire in the Transnistrians some brevity and confidence that at least some of their problems are soluble. Indeed we cannot count on revolutionary changes or results.
Q: How high is the level of your cooperation with state institutions?
A: Here, progress is obvious. The situation began changing two years ago. The changes can be seen in the Government’s and even the Parliament’s attitude to us. They have become showing a healthier reaction to our recommendations. Until very recently, ombudsmen’s inquiries used to be considered very formally, and sometimes they even remained unanswered. Moldovan state institutions were simply unprepared to dialog with parliamentary ombudsmen. Our recommendations should be perceived as a means of informing about the real situation in the human rights field, for it is much easier for citizens to come to us then to gain access to a minister or another high official. I cannot say yet that we have attained a desired level in our relationship with the authorities, but the situation has on the whole improved, though occasionally we receive formal replies to some inquiries, but their proportion is smaller than before.
Q: How many petitions do you receive annually, and how many of them are met?
A: We receive up to 2 thousand written petitions, and welcome over 3 thousand visitors a year. These are quite impressive figures, but I would like to say that not all addresses appear to be within our scope of competence. Occasionally, petitions come even from parliamentarians and representatives of the central authorities, but parliamentary ombudsmen may not meet these, as such addresses are not in our competence. But I guess that the ombudsman’s work should be assessed not in figures. Perhaps, the question should be considered from a different point of view, for instance: which problems were raised in petitions or were revealed in our researches? I guess this is by far more important.
Q: Which rights are violated in Moldova the most?
A: Unfortunately, a really unyielding problem is that of citizens’ free access to justice and their right for a fair trial. A considerable part of petitions sent to us pertain to non-fulfillment of court judgments, and the European Court of Human Rights statistics are an extra proof to this.
Another problem is the detention conditions practiced at Moldovan penitentiary institutions. Certainly, there exist objective reasons, and we understand all problems cannot be solved over one night, but all the same these cannot remain unnoticed.
Many complaints pertain to the social protection, and lately numerous problems have arisen related to the protection of private property, especially after Moldova has passed a legislation on the rehabilitation of the rights of the Stalinist deportations’ victims.
Q: Could you please name the main bottlenecks in the Center’s work? How do you think these can be eliminated?
A: I presume an essential problem is the society’s greater attention to the Center with the mass media’s help. I would say there is much room for improvement in the field of the Center’s inter-relation with the press in the sphere of covering the parliamentary ombudsmen’s activities. I don’t feel like mentioning concrete names of the persons who are to blame for this, but I must remark here that journalists often write about our work in a way we cannot indeed like. May be, the problem is that Moldova does not have journalists experienced enough to ensure a professional coverage of the human rights problems. More often than not, our journalists are hunters for sensations, nor serious diggers into problems. I guess many newspaper readers, radio listeners and television viewers would like to learn more about much deeper problems, because every person may come across human right problems at any moment.
Infotag: Thank you very much for your interview, Mrs. Apolschi.
