Human rights news: March 2001
Blagoevgrad, 05 March 2001 - The Blagoevgrad district prosecution has started an investigation against an unidentified perpetrator in connection with leaflets distributed in Blagoevgrad belonging to the United Macedonian Organisation (UMO) "Ilinden - PIRIN" [Bulgarian abbreviation for 'Party for Economic Development and Integration of the Population'], reports the Trud daily. The leaflets allegedly called on the inhabitants of the Pirin region to identify themselves as Macedonians. The charges have been brought in under art. 162 of the Penal Code for propagating or inciting of racial or national hostility or hatred, punishable with up to six years imprisonment. The police have been ordered to discover those behind the campaign, the people who distributed the leaflets and the printing house which printed them.
Ivan Singartiiski, UMO "Ilinden - PIRIN" president, claims that the leaflets are not anonymous and bear the signature of the party's Central Committee, which took the decision for the printing and distribution of the leaflets."If the issue goes to court, we will file a new complaint with the European Court in Strasbourg," he stated.
Approximately 80,000 leaflets were distributed in larger populated areas a day before the national census was scheduled to begin on March 1. The Blagoevgrad branch of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation party (IMRO) voiced concerns that the materials could falsify the census results in the Pirin region and pose a threat to the country's national secutiry. These claims were dismissed by Ventsislav Kozhuharov, regional census coordinator.
According to the census questionnaires, information on religious belonging, ethnic identity and mother tongue is not compulsory. The question on ethnic group and mother tongue does not have an entry "Macedonian", specifically listing only Bulgarian, Turkish and Roma. This forces people who identify themselves as Macedonians to identify under "Other". UMO "Ilinden - PIRIN" members claim that the leaflets were distributed in order to "better inform the population in the Pirin area ... regarding everybody's right to freely declare their ethnic and linguistic identity." "Our aim is that all those who feel Macedonian express their will without fear," said Ivan Singartiiski.
UMO "Ilinden
- PIRIN" was outlawed on February 28, 2000 by the Bulgarian Constitutional
Court which found it a threat to national security; it is presently banned from
participating in political activities. top
Sofia, 3 March 2001- On March 2 the Bulgarian Constitutional Court issued a ruling on the compatibility of art. 47, para. 1 of the Aliens Act with the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria and the European Convention on Human Rights. By six votes to six, the Court overruled the petition of a group of MPs to declare the provision unconstitutional.
Article 47 of the Aliens Act provides that orders which impose administrative measures of coercion based on considerations of national security shall not be subject to appeal. Such measures can include withdrawal of a residence permit; forceful eviction of a foreign citizen to the border; expulsion; prohibition for leaving the country; forceful placement in specialised establishments.
The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee and the Bulgarian Lawyers for Human Rights were constituted as parties to the constitutional case and filed amicus curia briefs. Both organisations held that article 47 is incompatible with the Constitution and the European Convention, inasmuch as it violates the right of citizens to court defence in case of restriction of rights protected and guaranteed by the Constitution and the Convention.
The judges who ruled in favour of the provision's constitutionality held that national security is a constitutional value of a higher order than human rights and, as such, stands above them. The other magistrates underscored the need for application of the principle of proportionality in cases of restriction of human rights. According to this principle, an independent body should decide upon the reasonableness of a measure of coercion in every specific case, in order to guarantee a fair balance between the public needs and fundamental human rights. top