On the Follow up to the Concluding

CZECH REPUBLIC

NGO PROGRESS REPORT

ON THE FOLLOW‐UP TO THE CONCLUDING

OBSERVATIONS

(CCPR/C/CZE/CO/2)

Zvule Prava

Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions

European Roma Rights Centre

Peacework Development Fund

With the support of:

Joint NGO Submission to HRC on the Czech Republic June 2008[1]

This submission comprises three sections:

Remarks of Zvůle práva, o.s. And Centre for Housing Rights and Eviction (COHRE)

The implementation of the HR Committee's Concluding Observation in paragraph 16 (on discrimination against the Roma)

Commentary on the State Party's Follow up report

Contact:

Remarks of the European Roma Rights Centre

Failure to Address Racial Segregation in Education

Recommendations to the State on Eliminating Discrimination in Education

Racist Political Campaigns Targeting Roma and Violent Attacks on Romani Settlements

Contact:

Remarks of Peacework Development Fund

The Forced Sterilization of Romani Women

Appendix 1 (Interview with Elena Gorolova)

Appendix 2 (Translation of the “informed consent” form)

Contact:

Remarks of Zvule prava and COHRE concerning discrimination against the Roma, para. 16 of the Concluding Observations

Remarks of Zvůle práva, o.s. to the report of the Czech Republic to the UN Human Rights Committee as regards its complying with the recommendations of the Committee concerning the implementation of the obligations resulting from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Report of the Czech government dated 18 Aug 2008) and remarks to the recommendations of the Committee

Below is our commentary on the individual statements of the government and its report to the Committee dated 18 Aug 2008 (CCPR/C/CZE/CO/2/Add.1), published in reaction to the final recommendations of the Committee under section III (Observations contained in paragraph 16), as regards the individual points listed by the Czech government:

Para. 15. The Czech Republic stated the ambition to ensure the protection of victims of discrimination by adopting a particular legal act. The fact that four years since its entry into the EU the country still only has the ambition to approximate its legislation to that of the EU is rather sad. A government commentary on the Committee recommendations should provide valid information on the results of its ambition, not point irrelevantly to the fact that it added the “ambition” of an anti-discrimination law into its election programme statement.

Para. 16. The Czech Republic stated that as of the date of the report, the so-called Anti-Discrimination Act has been discussed by both chambers of the parliament and approved. However, it does not mention the statements annexed to the law by some legislators or the accompanying resolution adopted by the Senate that cast complete doubt on the importance of this law. Also, without any reason, it does not mention the fact that on 16 May 2008, the Anti-Discrimination Act was vetoed by the Czech President and has not become part of the Czech legal system. As of the date of this commentary, the Czech Parliament has not repeated its vote on the adoption of this act, and it is constantly being delayed, with its chances of being adopted falling rapidly.

The approach of the Czech Republic toward anti-discrimination legislation is reliably supported by the statement of the Czech Government regarding the Proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. The entity responsible for addressing this directive was initially to be the Office of the Minister for Human Rights and Minorities, which was ready to support this proposal at the EU. However, responsibility for this directive was then shifted to the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. Its approach toward the proposal is entirely the opposite, and the Czech government as a whole takes a very reserved stance on this issue, because it believes protection against discrimination should be left to national authorities only. When this change in the responsible entity caused this radical change in the Czech Republic’s approach to the anti-discrimination directive, the Czech public received no explanation other than that it was a “change by agreement”.

We consider it highly disturbing that the level of protection of Czech citizens against such a seriously unlawful practice as discrimination is dependent on which state institution formulates the approach. It is not clear why the Office of the Minister for Human Rights accepted this “agreement”, as it must have been clear the directive would be “sunk” after being transferred to the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MLSA). The amateur, subjective statements made by a representative of the MLSA, Michal Sedláček, Vice Minister for European Affairs, at a roundtable organized by Gender Studies, o.p.s. on anti-discrimination legislation on 30 Oct 2008 allowed those NGOs present to develop a good picture of what the MLSA approach would be. It was clear from his statements that the Czech government disagreed with the European concept of legal protection against discrimination; his remarks can be summarized as “we can discriminate whomever we want” and “discrimination can be part of a national tradition”. This fact is crucial for the human rights situation in the Czech Republic in 2008 and in years to come.

Para. 19The statement of the Czech government that victims of discrimination have a “number of means” how and where to seek protection or to receive free or partially subsidized legal assistance is absolutely inappropriate. Given the current legal situation in the Czech Republic, legal means to protect against discrimination are complicated and in most cases, truly effective protection requires seeking court protection, which implies the need for erudite legal assistance. Although other complaint procedures are accessible (through the Czech Business Inspectorate, Labour Office, Labour Inspectorate etc.), they are very weak in relation to the discrimination victim (the complainant is not part of the proceedings and the person who committed discrimination can at the most be fined, which does not imply any redress in relation to the particular victim). In many areas (housing, education, health care) it is necessary to use the institute of protection of personal rights and undergo a comprehensive legal proceeding in order to ensure protection against discrimination. This is why the number of victims of discrimination who defend their rights by legal means is very low.

Due to the frequent monitoring of housing issues that Zvůle práva, o.s. conducts in socially excluded localities in the Czech Republic, we have comprehensive information on municipalities abusing thelack of legal awareness among groups who are discriminated orin any other way deprived, mainly the Roma.

Although Czech procedural rules (the Civil Court Code, the Criminal Code) stipulate the possibility to request free or partially subsidized legal assistance, it is mainly not provided until a particular court proceeding is underway. Most discrimination victims do not get that far. The government does not carry out any awareness campaigns regarding this possibility among potential discrimination victims.

Based on the Act on Advocacy, it is possible to obtain free legal assistance even before the proceedings itself. However, the approval procedure for this is quite complicated, the victims are not aware of it, and in some cases, the legal counseling provided under this option does not serve the purpose. (Quite understandably, attorneys feel that the state has shifted a part of its responsibility to them to provide legal assistance to marginalized groups of people, and they often approach such cases with this attitude).

As an NGO that provides legal assistance to Czech Roma citizens, based on our experience, we can state that most Roma who have experienced discrimination do not access legal aid in practice. Even after a number of years of great efforts by the NGOs, the idea of legislation on free legal assistance is still at the negotiating state (the commenting procedure took place in mid May 2009 at the Czech Ministry of Justice) and that material still contains a large number of deficiencies.

At the end of 2008, Zvůle práva, o.s. published its own legislative proposal concerning the government Agency for Social Inclusion, advocating that in addition to its “soft” powers (such as building local partnerships, consulting and instructing municipalities on methodology, etc.), this agency should have the power of providing free legal assistance to victims of discrimination and other serious unlawful activities, because without this competence, the sad situation where local authorities systematically violate the rights of the socially vulnerable and excluded citizens without any state intervention will not improve in any significant way. Although we consider it a natural component of the Agency’s activities that it provide or mediate legal assistance to the victims of discriminatory housing practices of municipalities, during the commenting procedure the individual Czech ministries viewed this unanimouslynegatively, as did the Office of the Czech Government. Therefore, it can be stated that the government of the Czech Republic is actively blocking the provision of systematic legal support to victims of discrimination.

Ad 20. As concerns the complex situation around legal protection against discrimination, the Czech government inadequately states that the general courts exist to provide it (through action for the protection of personal rights in civil court proceedings). This absurdly simplified statement does not in any way address the existing serious deficiencies of the entire system, as per the above-mentioned un-adopted act on anti-discrimination or the unavailability of legal assistance. If the Czech government decides to mention the relevant criminal law provisions in force to combat racially-motivated hatred or ethnically motivated intolerance, it should also mention the success rate of the criminal proceedings institutions in uncovering this type of criminal activity. It can unequivocally be stated that thesuccess rate of the Czech Republic in combating the category of extremist, discrimination-motivated crime is highly insufficient. In the time since the report of the Czech Republic to the Committee, this type of criminal activity has been on the rise, as have dangerous activities by extremist groups proclaiming ethnic and race-based hatred, one of which resulted in the largest police action (more than 1 000 officers deployed) since the anti-IMF and World Bank riots of 2000. Despite its claims concerning the systematic fight against extremist groups and its documentation of their activities, the Czech Republic fully failed in December 2008, when it provided such a highly inadequate proposal for the dismissal of the neo-Nazi Czech Workers’ Party that the Supreme Administrative Court had no choice but to reject it. This political party, whose members openly proclaim hatred toward the Roma and other minorities and continually commit crimes, remains part of the Czech political scene. The government proposal filed at the Supreme Administrative Court was of such an alarmingly poor quality that it was destined to be unsuccessful.The government did not handle the burden of proof well because it did not write the proposal thoroughly enough. A entire range of publically available information, from public speeches to the website statements of the Workers’ Party functionaries, was not submitted as part of the proceedings, because they had not been analyzed. Intelligence information was not used, nor did the government ask for expert assessments.

Para. 20 – 22. In this significant document, the Czech Republic refers to government advisory bodies with significantly limited powers, and without mentioning their particularly successful activities in combating discrimination. As concerns the Czech Business Inspectorate and Labour Offices, the report only provides a general definition of their positions but does not provide any relevant data concerning their activities (such as what types of discrimination they have dealt with over the years).

Para. 23 We perceive as absolutely inappropriate that when reporting on its international legal liabilities, the Czech Republic repeatedly presents the activities of Czech NGOs as its own.Given the nature of things, NGOS should only complement and support the activities of the state in fighting discrimination, not substitute for them, which is what in fact happens. NGOs providing legal help to discrimination victims are obviously not able to cover the demand of all discrimination victims, while it is also difficult for them to obtain financial support from the Czech state for these activities. In 2009, Zvůle práva, o.s. received funding from the Czech Interior Ministry for an anti-discrimination call center for Roma victims of discrimination; it is too early in this process to estimate the level of interest of the Ministry in effectively addressing the issue of ethnically motivated discrimination. Under point 23, the Czech Republic states as sign of its will to solve discrimination the fact that particular procedural norms allow NGOs to enter into proceedings and represent discrimination victims, while omitting to mention any of its own effective or positive measures. This clearly shows the extent to which the state relies on NGOs who, according to the state, should perhaps “cover” the entire issue of discrimination.

Para. 24 – 30. As concerns the equal access of Roma children to education, the Czech Republic provides general, inaccurate and misleading information. The current situation is that more than a year and a half since the ECHR verdict in the case of D.H. and Others vs. the Czech Republic, very little has changed in the reality of Czech primary education and no conceptual material, strategies or intentions of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) have brought any real results to the Roma pupils in question. When conducting field monitoring, we continuously come across cases of unlawful transfers of Roma children into schools with “special needs” curricula that lack either the informed consent of the parents or a diagnostic examination of the child. The Czech educational system is still unable to work with the currently established term of a “socially disadvantaged child” and systematically, wrongfully and excessively continue to identify Roma children with children needing “special education”. Roma ethnicity is the primary determinant for assigning a child into “special curricula”. The MEYS considers it appropriate to amend the Act on Schools once again, but they only see that as possible in 2010, while they have fully failed to adopt any truly effective interim measures to ensure that Roma children will not continue to be unlawfully placed in schools outside the educational mainstream during the 2009/20010 school year. Roma children in the Czech Republic continue to be transferred into “special schools” with lower educational standards (according to current official data, the probability of a Roma child being transferred is between 20 - 24, times higher than a non-Roma child) intended for children with light mental retardation. In fact, the main reason for this high rate of Roma children attending the “special schools” (formerly the “zvláštní školy”) is the discriminatory practice of the educational system and the prejudice of the majority society. The factual racial segregation of the Czech educational system not only stigmatizes Roma children as less intelligent and capable, it also directly, conclusively prevents them from being useful for society (further education, job placement, etc.). Besides the fact that this segregation seriously questions the ability of the Czech Republic to fulfill a number of binding international Pacts and Conventions, among them the Convention on the Rights of a Child (especially Articles 28 and 30), segregation in education also means Roma and non-Roma children are deprived of the possibility to get to know each other and learn to live as equal, full-fledged citizens. This strengthens prejudices in majority society and their animosity toward the Roma minority. Due to these reasons, the educational system is a significant producer of social exclusion and contributes to the escalation of social tensions in the entire society. Although the Czech government partially agrees that there is a problem with Roma children being discriminated in their right to equal access to education (as mentioned in the government’s answer to the ECHR verdict in the case of D.H. and Others vs. the Czech Republic), we seriously fear that the measures currently being drafted by the MEYS will not lead to real redress.We believe that the MEYS could and should have taken drastic steps to send a signal to schools and psychological counseling centers that placing disadvantaged but otherwise healthy Roma children into “special schools” is not in conformity with the law. This has not happened to date. Also, the issue of desegregation of the educational system is not among the priorities of the MEYS declared for the future. Zvůle práva, o.s. is the coordinator of a coalition of Czech NGOs entitled “Jekhetane andre škola (Together to School)” that has been calling for rapid and drastic measures to change the unacceptable practice of the educational system. Some of the measures it calls for are reducing the number of “special (or practical) schools” and classrooms, efficient supervision sochildren are not transferred due to their ethnicity (necessary enhancement of control mechanisms to ensure vigorous respect for the law) and an extensive media campaign targeting the prejudice of the majority society.