Romania: Ombudsman Investigates Actions Taken Against Protesters
Romania’s Ombudsman launched an investigation at the end of December to decide on a ‘point of view’ with regards to recent violent events in the Pungesti area in Vaslui County following Chevron’s attempt to bring in necessary equipment for shale gas exploration on its leased land.
The Ombudsman is the main institution that protects individual and collective rights of Romanian citizens in the courts against the abuse of the state. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has the right to intervene and to propose laws to Parliament and the approval of this institution is mandatory for those laws that could impact local communities. This includes legal issues regarding new laws for land and underground exploitation currently debated in the Romanian Parliament.
Ombudsman Deputy Ionel Oprea went to Pungesti to speak with authorities regarding the December 2013 incidents.
The Ombudsman says it was notified ex officio regarding the Pungesti case and representatives from the headquarters of the Ombudsman's offiec already had preliminary talks with the General Inspectorate of the Romanian Riot Police chiefs. At the beginning of this week the representatives of the Iasi local office of the Ombudsman went to Pungesti and had meetings with the representatives of the Mayor Office.
On Sunday, around 250 citizens from Silistea, Pungesti commune, Vaslui County commemorated the 1907 Romanian Peasants’ Revolt with a religious service and protest rally near the perimeter leased to Chevron.
“Unfortunately the people were stopped by the riot police because it implied the crossing of the special security zone around the area of where Chevron has its perimeter. Under these conditions, the locals decided to cross a field towards Pungesti and when they reached the plot of Chevron, around 300 riot policemen were deployed around the surrounding fence. The villagers protested against shale gas, riot police and against the deciding factors, meaning the Government,” said Constantin Paslaru, one of the environmental activists who participated in the events.
Protests started in November of last year and reached their peak in December. Events were monitored by the Romanian branch of one of the most powerful NGOs for the protection of individual and collective rights, Association for the Defense of Human Rights in Romania-the Helsinki Committee (APADOR-CH). At the beginning of this week, APADOR-CH issued an intermediary report regarding the events of last year from Silistea and Pungesti. The conclusion was that the law enforcement committed abuses in order to end the conflict between Chevron and the community.
In chapter 5 of the report: “The law enforcement violently intervened against the protesters from Pungesti village several times. Because most of the inhabitants are afraid to complain, we asked the Prosecutor's Office from Vaslui Court House to notify ex officio and to investigate the abuses made by law enforcement (from public information we conclude that the Office is working on tens of files opened against the protesters and on several complaints against the riot police made by the protesters and the environmental activists).”
Furthermore, the report shows that: “Fundamental rights, mentioned in the Constitution, of the villagers from Pungesti (either participants in the protests or not) are being breached. The villagers have restricted rights such as: the right of motion (article 25), the right of free speech (article 30), the right to information (article 31), and the right of free gathering (article 39).
Under the pretext of maintaining public order and without official public information, villagers are living in a state of siege. APADOR-CH believes that the decision of the authorities to establish a special security zone is excessive and requests its annulment. We remind that the restriction of some fundamental rights and liberties is acceptable, according to CEDO, only when three conditions are met: to be mentioned in the law, to have a legitimate purpose and to be necessary in a democratic society. The last of the three requirements implies, among others, the need that the restrictive action to be in accordance to the desired legal aim.”
Silviu Molnar