National Action Plan on Human Rights: a quick job of it…

Press Release

A few weeks ago, the government submitted for consultation the ‘National Action Plan on Human Rights’, an action plan for the upgrading of the protection of human rights in the country. At least this should be the aim of such an ambitious endeavour. Τhe document arrives with great delay in order to catch up with years of deficiencies, as rights were recently included in the government agenda as a particular topic of policy exercise through the relevant rhetoric and semantics. The way in which the document was given to the public overshadowed any positive thought regarding the reception of the Plan: it was presented by the Minister of Justice and submitted for public consultation; however, this move seems to be ostensible (besides, it has already been printed by the National Printing House, while it is being submitted for consultation) as no previous debate has taken place with human rights and other organizations in Greece, neither is it based, as it should, on the numerous documented reports that highlight a wide range of problems on the individual fields of rights. 

In its biggest part, the document is a compilation of the existing law and European programs under implementation by various ministries. They provisions are presented in a fragmented way without any correlation among them and without a common goal. Τhe plan is characterized by the logic of program stock-taking and not by that of a policy strategy aiming at something particularly substantial and crucial today: the protection of rights, by taking into account deficiencies already indicated by international and Greek organizations, as well as the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (even when this happens, e.g., on the subject of the conditions of detention, it is instrumental). 

Τhe Plan is characterized by unevenness regarding the different categories of rights. Thus, while for Justice there are detailed programs with specific budgets (even though without time-schedules), for immigration, prisons, etc., the Plan dwells upon generalities. For instance, while, in order to deal with the issue of overpopulation in prisons, the ‘most effective absorption of EU funds’ is mentioned as a goal, no mention is made regarding the structural weaknesses obstructing this absorption. Similarly, the planning for the establishment of the right to health seems to be out of time and place, at a moment when a big part of the Greek population remains uninsured and without access to health structures: the only thing examined by the Plan is the ‘free movement of patients’. Also, in matters regarding foreigners, even though it recognizes that various violations of rights have taken place in relation to the conditions of detention (see ECHR judgments), the actions it suggests for the management of informal immigration (mainly the operation of detention centers) not only do not improve the issue but are in fact those which create it (inhuman detention conditions, long time of detention, etc.) Regarding citizenship of children of immigrants, today’s legal vacuum is considered to be serving the ‘smoothest social integration of immigrants and their children’, while the anticipated amendment of Laws 3838 and 3386 is estimated to ‘eliminate racism and social stereotypes towards immigration populations’. Moreover, the amendment of the institutional framework for granting citizenship is described as ‘a work in progress’, while in reality it is a ‘work in the drawer’. Finally, the Plan mentions that ‘hunger, lack of housing, long-term poverty are an insult to humanity and are a substantial violation of human rights’, without suggesting any measures or policies whatsoever on the fundamental issue of respect of human dignity on matters of social and economic rights. 

A significant absence of individual topics is also noticed. For instance, no mention is made: 

• To the substantial strengthening of the role and the resolution of problems observed in the function of the institutions that promote equality (see also reports of the Greek Ombudsman or the National Commission for Human Rights).
• To religious freedom and all individual topics (mosque and cemetery where Muslims live, cremation of the dead, sharia in Thrace, waqfs in Thrace and the Dodecanese, etc.). 
• To issues of domestic violence.
• To the expansion of the civil union to same-sex couples too, especially after the recent judgment of the ECHR.
• To issues of rights connected with mental health and HIV-positive persons.
• To the issue of guardianship of unaccompanied minors.
• To the ambitious ‘National Integration Strategy’, which seems to be forgotten.
• To labourtrafficking, especially after the incidents in Manolada and elsewhere.
• To the issues of returns-deportations of foreign nationals and related problems.
• To racism and racist violence.

One could notice a lot more specific deficiencies or inaccuracies. Some of them are:

• Page39: Conditions of detention, not only in police detention centers but also inside penitentiary institutions, are subject to the field of application of prohibition of torture and prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. 
• Page41: No distinction is made between Centers of Identification of Nationality and First Reception Centers. The General Regulation of Operation of Regional Services of First Reception concerns only the First Reception Service and does not cover the rest of the above-mentioned detention grounds. It is also noted that, given the lack of staff in the First Reception Service, the operational needs of First Detention Centers and their mobile units are covered mainly by NGOs and police staff.
• Page42: It is not mentioned how the operation of the Greek Ombudsman as a national prevention mechanism will be secured. The relevant references in page 47 are judged insufficient.
• Page42 – Management of Incidents of Arbitrariness Office: the Office has not operated yet, while the legislative context itself does not comply with the international standards now in force in all European states regarding the independence and impartiality of such control mechanisms.
• Page 50: Regarding the penitentiary system, no mention is made to the kind of improvements the new Penitentiary Code is about to bring.In addition, no mention is made to the issue of those awaiting trial, which contributes to overpopulation and bad conditions of detention.Building new detention facilities is not enough by itself to solve the problems. There is no mention to the issue of rehabilitation of ex-prisoners.
• Page 55: Regarding the Administration complying with the national judicial judgments, there are still many problems; see relevant decisions of the National Commission for Human Rights. 
• Page83: The term ‘sexual orientation’ should be used instead of ‘genital orientation’.
• Page 144 et seq. –Asylum-refugees: Reference to the transitional stage of the asylum procedure is not clear. There is no reference to the Ministerial Decision ‘Program of medical control, psychosocial diagnosis, support and referencing of incoming undocumented third-country nationals to first reception structures’, which, while it lays certain correct foundations on these issues, its field of application is limited to First Reception Service structures. References to issues relevant to the Asylum Service need updating. There is confusion regarding First Reception, Asylum (old and new procedure) and reception of seekers’ issues regarding what has been achieved, problems and solutions.
• Page155: Insufficient reference to asylum issues in the legislative context.
• Page187 – Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: there is no commitment to the operation of a national control body, as dictated by the Convention.

In short, the Plan is neither national, as it was drafted in a completely one-sided way, nor comes to actually serve the rights. It is a superficial account of actions that, instead of examining problems and aiming at solving them, it circumvents them beforehand, by projecting a reply to the lurking allegations. In this way, it takes the form of an administrative memorandum with the obvious intention to carry through an obligation and to present an embellished state of things. We would have expected quite the opposite logic: to examine the needs and realities in the field, the existing law, the suggestions and claims, in order to propose improvements, solutions, and adjustment to national and international standards. Unfortunately, these things are mere trifles to all those who have already declared that they are not interested in human rights.