Connect with us

Frontpage

Countries extradite individuals back to #Romania despite human rights abuses

SHARE:

Published

on

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you've consented to and to improve our understanding of you. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Despite a poor human rights record, Romania is still having their extradition requests respected under the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system.  EAW law stipulates that if a country cannot guarantee the minimum rights for the individual of concern, the extradition should not be respected. Countries which do not meet these minimum standards, such as Romania, abuse the system – writes Lea Perekrests, Deputy Director of Human Rights without Frontiers Int/l.

This raises serious concerns not only for the individuals who are being extradited, but for the integrity of the EAW system in its entirety.

Human Rights in Romania – Abysmal prisons and court-room corruption

Over the past two years, Human Rights Without Frontiers has paid particular attention to the Romanian judicial system and prison conditions.

It has become clear that there are a number of serious systemic problems throughout Romania in the judicial system; particularly the increasingly interconnectedness of the National Anti-corruption Directorate (DNA), the national intelligence service (SRI), and judges, magistrates, and other judicial authorities across the country.

Advertisement

The SRI and the DNA have been accused of being engaged in activities that inherently violate human rights. The wide use of phone-tapping, corruption, influence of judges, and faking evidence have all come to light as common practice within these institutions.

Such practices have enabled the DNA to boast conviction rates of over 90%.

These issues are well-known, as the debate in Romania is highly public. The Chief Prosecutor of the DNA is currently being investigated for corruption, and the Secretary General of the SRI is facing calls to resign after the media exposed that he had been contacting judges via Facebook about ongoing trials.

In such a context, is it implausible to assume that those who face charges in Romania will receive a fair trial.

Romania’s track record of extended and unjustified pre-trial detention contributes to concern. Furthermore, Romania’s prisons are overcrowded and facilities do not meet international standards.

In 2017, Romania remained a prolific human rights abuser with the most cases brought before the ECtHR of any EU country, and of the 47 nations of the Council of Europe – Romania fell just behind Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine.

The majority of these cases involved the prohibition of torture or inhuman treatment, a lack of effective investigation, and the right to a fair trial.

Worryingly, as of 1 January 2018, Romania even surpassed Russia and Turkey in the number of pending applications allocated to the judicial formation.

 

Image source: ‘Violations by Article and by State 2017’. European Court of Human Rights. 2018.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_violation_2017_ENG.pdf .

The European Commission’s response? Praise.

The work to improve the judicial system and abuses within the country is far from over – a point that the European Commission has denied.

In 2007, the European Commission recognized the failings in the Romanian judicial system and anti-corruption efforts and has created a mechanism, the CVM, to monitor reforms. The DNA’s conviction rates have been praised by this mechanism, which seemingly turns a blind eye to the abuses that are driving these numbers.

The European Arrest Warrant

Despite this record of abuse, Romania is still having some of their extradition requests approved.  As a mechanism that relies on mutual trust, Romania undermines the purpose and value of the EAW.

A number of reforms within the EAW system could safeguard the integrity of the system and of the European Union.

To ensure that it does not falter in the face of abuses, the EAW system should be revised so that an extradition request can only be used for the most serious of crimes, that a ‘wanted person’ alert can only be circulated after possible abuses have been examined, and that victims of abuse can have access to a complaint procedure, or redress mechanism, through a fair, open, and impartial process.

Share this article:

EU Reporter publishes articles from a variety of outside sources which express a wide range of viewpoints. The positions taken in these articles are not necessarily those of EU Reporter.

Trending