"The State foundation is laid on the unity of the Romanian people."

Consequently, in the Romanian context, the civic character of the term national should be explicitly defined in order to eliminate its various interpretations, whose negative consequences touch inter-ethnic relations. The German example provides a viable solution to this problem. With reference to Article 20 of the German Constitution, which uses the term "Volk" (people), the German Constitutional Court ruled, in its decisions dated 31 October 1991, that the term "Volk", in the sense employed in the Constitution, refers to the community of citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany.

According to the decision by which the Inter-Ministerial Committee for National Minorities was established (it was founded on August 7, 1998, by Government Decision no. 460), the national report on the enforcement of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities should have been elaborated by this institution. The co-operation of the Inter-Ministerial Committee for National Minorities and the Department for the Protection of National Minorities together with the Foreign Ministry on the elaboration of the national report was affected by hierarchical or horizontal obstacles of communication. The organisations of national minorities and those that promote human rights have not been involved, one way or another, in discussions regarding the enforcement of the Framework Convention by Romania. Nor was the public opinion informed on the answer of the Romanian state to this extremely important issue.

The enforcement of the Framework-Convention for the protection of national minorities is an issue recently raised in the case law of the Constitutional Court. As we are going to demonstrate, the decision pronounced by the Constitutional Court is in our opinion fundamentally wrong, and therefore void from a legal perspective.

The matter was raised with respect to Law no. 151/1999 on passing Governmental Emergency Order no. 36/1997 for the modification and completion of the Law on Education no. 84/1995, whose consistency with constitutional norms was examined prior to promulgation by the Constitutional Court in accordance with Art. 144 letter a of the Constitution.

86 deputies challenged the constitutionality of this law. One of the reasons is related to Art. 123 of Law 84/1995 on Education, in the form modified by means of Art. I item 48 of the law whose constitutionality was under scrutiny. The text under debate reads as follows:

"Art. 123 – (1) Groups, sections, colleges and faculties with tuition in the languages of national minorities can be established upon request, in accordance with the law, within state run higher education institutions. In this case, the teaching of specialised terminology in Romanian shall be ensured. Multicultural higher education institutions can be established upon request, in accordance with the law. The tuition languages in these higher education institutions shall be specified in the establishment law.

(2) The right of persons belonging to national minorities to establish and manage their own private higher education institutions is acknowledged in accordance with the law.

(3) Higher education institutions with multicultural structures and activities are encouraged to promote a harmonious inter-ethnic cohabitation and national and European integration.

(4) Any Romanian citizen can apply to and be trained in any form of education in Romanian or in the languages of national minorities, regardless of his/her mother tongue and the previous tuition language."

The constitutionality of this legal text was challenged on grounds that it violates the provisions of Art. 6 (right to identity) and Art. 13 (official language) of the Constitution. It was also shown that the legal provisions run counter to the recommendations of the European Charter of Regional and Minority Languages and of the Framework-Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which recommends to the states to ensure the citizens’ opportunity to be trained and educated in their mother tongue, without prejudice to education and tuition in the official language. The complainants conclude that Art. 123 exceeds both constitutional provisions and European recommendations in the field.

The President of the Senate expressed his opinion on this matter, showing, among others, that Art. 123 is consistent with the provisions of the Framework-Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, ratified by Romania by law, and of the European Charter of Regional and Minority Languages, which recommends to the states to ensure to the citizens the opportunity to be trained and educated in their mother tongue, without prejudice to education and tuition in the official language, as the establishment of groups, sections, colleges and faculties within state run institutions does not jeopardize education and tuition in the official language in the other faculties established within that institution. The point of view of the President of the Chamber of Deputies does not express an opinion on the consistency of the challenged text with the constitutional provisions interpreted from the perspective of the two international treaties. The opinion of the Ministry of National Education, requested by the Constitutional Court, specifies that if a domestic regulation exceeds the bounds of a provision or of a recommendation of the European Charter of Regional and Minority Languages it does not follow that it runs counter to the state’s compliance with that provision or recommendation.

The Constitutional Court pronounced in this matter Decision no. 114 of 20 July 1999 on the constitutionality of the Law on passing the Governmental Emergency Order no. 36/1997 for the modification and completion of the Law on Education no. 84/1995.

The issue that we are interested in is analysed under point II.2.b of the motivation of the decision, which reads as follows:

"II.2.b With regard to the consistency of Art. 123 with the ‘European regulations in the field’, the Court remarks that this matter falls under the control of constitutionality to the extent to which it falls under the incidence of Art. 20 of the Constitution, according to which: ‘(1) Constitutional provisions concerning the citizens’ rights and liberties shall be interpreted and enforced in conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with the covenants and other treaties Romania is a party to.

(2) Where any consistencies exist between the covenants and treaties on fundamental human rights Romania is a party to, and internal laws, the international regulations shall take precedence.’

In this context, the Constitutional Court does not consider that Art. 123 has violated any provision of the international documents Romania is a party to. These international documents represent a broad framework on the basis of which the Legislative has the opportunity to regulate the right of persons belonging to a national minority to learn and be taught in their mother tongue, as long as public interests are observed and this situation does not violate constitutional provisions.

The Court further remarks that, as the European Charter of Regional and Minority languages (adopted in Strasbourg on 22 June 1992 by the Council of Europe) and the Framework-Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (adopted in Strasbourg on 1 February 1995 by the Council of Europe), specifically invoked in the objection of unconstitutionality, have not been ratified by Romania. Consequently, the two documents exceed the bounds of constitutional control, from the perspective of Art. 21 of the Constitution. However, the Constitutional Court rules that Art. 123 (which, as previously shown, provides for ‘learning the specialized terminology in Romanian’ and does not exclude the use of the official language) is consistent with the two international documents, according to which the measures concerning the languages of national minorities must not be applied so as to be detrimental to the learning and use of the official language (Art. 6 of the Preamble to the Charter and Art. 14 of the Framework-Convention, respectively).

To conclude, the provisions of Art. 123 of the law on passing the Governmental Emergency Order no. 36/1997 on the modification and completion of the Law on Education no. 84/1995 are constitutional."

Therefore, by means of this decision, the constitutional jurisdiction stated that two international treaties, namely the European Charter of Regional and Minority Languages and the Framework-Convention for the Protection of National Minorities have not been ratified by Romania and therefore are not legally binding for the Romanian state. Consequently, they cannot be taken into account in the process of testing the constitutionality of a legal text, by means of interpreting that legal text from their perspective, according to Art. 20 paragraph 1 of the Constitution.

In our opinion, this decision of the Constitutional Court, in the sense that Romania has not ratified the Framework-Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, is fundamentally wrong and therefore legally void. Hence, the provisions of Art. 145 par. 2 of the Constitution, which provides that the decisions of the Constitutional Court are binding and effective only for the future, are not applicable. That is why all public authorities (in particular the Foreign Ministry and the courts of law) and any legal subject are under international and constitutional obligation to refuse to apply this part of the decision pronounced by the Constitutional Court and to consider that the provisions of the Framework-Convention for the Protection of National Minorities are binding for Romania. Also, we kindly suggest to the Constitutional Court to modify the case law established by means of Decision no. 114 of 20 July 1999 and to come back to the case law instituted by Decision no. 72 of 18 July 1995 as soon as the issue concerning the enforcement of the Framework-Convention is raised again and to admit that the Framework-Convention for the Protection of National Minorities is legally binding.

Moreover, the Romanian State must take an official position and acknowledge that, according to Arts. 11 and 20 of the Constitution, the Framework-Convention for the Protection of National Minorities is legally binding in Romania. The Romanian President is called to adopt this official position, by means of which to acknowledge the non-existence of the respective part of the Constitutional Court’s motivation and to reaffirm Romania’s commitment to fully observe the duties deriving from the Framework-Convention. According to Art. 80 of the Constitution, the President represents the Romanian State and guards the observance of the Constitution. In our opinion, this would be the most appropriate way to prevent Romania from losing its credibility at the international level, by coming back on its decision to respect the legal obligations freely assumed by means of international treaties ratified and which have come into force in accordance with the Constitution. This would also be the best way to continue to ensure respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to national minorities, at the national level.

Another question should be whether there are procedures for recognition of national minorities by the state. In Romania there are no procedures to grant – or deny – the status of national minority to a group that claims such recognition. At least one community needs to apply for such recognition: the Chango. (There are some villages in the Bacau county, inhabited by Csango, most of whom (more than 90%) regards themselves as Csango of Hungarian origin and speak the dialect in their daily life.) This is one of the reasons which demonstrates the necessity to complete the actual Romanian legislation by a law on the rights of national minorities.

An important threat to "the right of equality before the law and of equal protection of the law" is of an institutional nature. It is headed by the attitude of the Romanian Intelligence Service (Romanian acronym SRI) towards the issue of national minorities in Romania.

The way SRI approaches the issue of national minorities is more clearly illustrated by the Report regarding the fulfilment of the attributions of the SRI in the achievement of national minority.

The October 1993 – September 1994 report starts with the chapter "Defence of the Rule of Law", where a first threat to national security is identified in the issues related to national minorities, especially those concerning the Hungarian minority and the Romany community

The Report points out to the actions aimed at "exacerbating nationalism" and having "extremist and separatist tendencies". The SRI reports that it has identified actions of an extremist-nationalistic character that jeopardise the rule of law and that these actions belong to the minorities of some "nationalist-extremist organisations abroad". As an example of initiative of an extremist nature, the Report mentions "the campaign of signature gathering aiming at supporting a draft law regarding education for national minorities" (p. 5). Thus, for the Romanian Intelligence Service, the exercise of a constitutional right, a legislative initiative through the will of the citizens (Art. 73 par. 1) is a threat to national security, becoming a target for its actions in defence of the rule of law.

Along the same line, of considering issues pertaining to national minorities as threats to national security, the SRI Report also deals with the Roma ethnic group. The report considers the exercise of the right to freedom of expression as an intention to "exploit with propagandistic aims some incidents occurred in the relationships between some members of the group and other citizens, on the background of severe anti-social deeds and serious infringements of the law" (p. 7). Further on, the Report continues: "It has to be emphasised that in the respective conflicts the main actors were always the citizens and not the ethnic groups, and their unfolding had a strictly situational, local and inter-personal significance" (p. 7).

The investigations conducted in localities where conflicts between Roma and the other inhabitants took place, show that these conflicts indeed emerged on the background of severe anti-social deeds and serious infringements of the law. The Romanian Intelligence Service has no competence to qualify as threat to national security those opinions that are contrary to the ones expressed by the government, whether they refer to national minorities or to any other issue of public interest.

The SRI Report states that "… some Roma elements, by distorting the realities in our country through denigration and accusations, incited to actions of a nature to affect Romania’s image abroad…" (p. 7). The example quoted to this effect is that of Csurkuly Sandor (presented as the leader of the Targu Mures branch of the Free Democratic Union of Roma in Romania – in fact, he was the leader of the Roma Union) who "supplied biased information to certain bodies, about the conflict in Hadareni, presenting it distortedly, not as an anti-social, common law criminal offence, but as an inter-ethnic confrontation" (p. 8). The actions given as example in the SRI Report clearly fall into the category of disagreements or protests and the accusations brought by the Report infringe upon the constitutional guarantees and the law on national security.

The second SRI Report – 1994-1995 – also approaches the topic of "deeds that jeopardise, defy or challenge constitutional order and tend to evade or to oppose the sovereign authority of the Romanian state, deeds that are a threat to national security". Under this chapter, the Report makes reference to the Hungarian ethnics, incriminating "the establishment of structures that deliberately overstep the bounds of domestic legislation". Under this heading are listed: "the open, programmatic adoption of objectives counter to the rule of law", "an ample propaganda that (…) on the one hand disparages the Romanian state, discredits the policies adopted by the authorities and depicts the Hungarian minority as an alleged victim, on the other hand aims to politicise to an unprecedented extent the Hungarian minority". The means regarded as threat to national security are "programmatic decisions and documents" that "include explicit provisions related to autonomy, territorial autonomy included, as well as to political, administrative and social structures that support and lead to the achievement of autonomy on an ethnic basis (the Council of Union Representatives, the national and territorial self-government councils, etc.)". SRI is concerned that such documents "reveal the intention to establish a separate institutional system for ‘the autonomous community of Hungarians in Romania’ and in particular of a constitutional system of local administration, only for the territorial unit inhabited by a high percentage of persons belonging to the Hungarian minority (the National Self-Government Council, the Advisory Committee of the Szekels)".

SRI also accuses the intention to establish "an unauthorised network of Hungarian education in Romania", by creating, in some localities from Transylvania, "higher education and post graduate education institutions subordinated to higher education institutions or other bodies from abroad, subsidised and provided with educational materials and staff from abroad".

Surprising as this may seem, the menacing character of SRI report towards national minorities, the continuous surveillance policy of this institution, have not disappeared even after November 1996, when a party representing a minority – the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania – acceded to power. The "Report on the fulfilment of duties by the Romanian Intelligence Service, according to the law, for the achievement of national security in the period May 1997 – May 1998", the chapter on "national minority issues" includes the following:

"By means of specific means of propaganda, the domestic and international public opinion have been stubbornly intoxicated with ideas regarding the ‘legitimacy’ of changes in the status of some Romanian regions, the alleged discrimination of ethnic groups, the so-called comeback of xenophobia and anti-Semitism in Romania and others, promoted by extremist elements in the country.

In connection with the objectives mentioned above, some circles of the ethnic communities in our country have been penetrated by representatives of the entities concerned, which resulted in extremist tendencies took over by the respective circles, and even in the conveyance of ideas focused on gaining potential administrative autonomy and economic separatism for certain areas with a specific demographic profile."

Consequently, SRI continues to believe that the opinions related to the existence of xenophobia and anti-Semitism in Romania, or the opinions discussed by national minorities related to various forms of administrative autonomy, are a threat to the Romanian State. It follows that the persons belonging to national minorities – especially their leaders – or those who approach the issue of national minorities continue to be threatened to be placed under surveillance by the SRI. This is a gross violation of inter-ethnic relations in Romania, stemming not (necessarily) from the particular person appointed as Director of the Romanian Intelligence Service, but rather from an institutional behaviour.

That is why the Romanian authorities must take visible and radical measures in order to eliminate any ethnic bias in the behaviour of institutions competent in the field of national security. Until then, national minorities and the majority will continue to suspect each other, and this situation will influence the behaviour of various ethnic groups. Such situation is counter to the letter and the spirit of the Framework Convention.

There are no indigenous people in Romania; therefore the issues related to national minorities have no connection with the property over the territory. Still, there are issues related to the property that some national minorities – the Hungarians, the Armenians and the Jews – have raised, namely those related to the properties their traditional churches used to own. Except for the Jews religious identity is not equated with national identity in Romania; still, certain Hungarian reformed and Roman-Catholic churches and the Armenian Orthodox Church are closely related to the live of these minorities. Consequently, the requests of their churches, which have applied for the restitution of properties seized by the communist regime, are also promoted by their cultural organisations. In my opinion, this issue falls in Romania under the mechanism instituted by the European Convention for Human Rights.

A serious reason for such interpretation is the fact that the properties of some churches belonging to the majority population were also confiscated; such is the case of the Greek-Catholic Church in Romania. It would be a negative discrimination to request the restitution of properties belonging to churches connected to national minorities pursuant to the guarantees provided by the Framework Convention and not to be able to do so with regard to the properties of the Greek-Catholic church. Obviously, the European Convention for Human Rights provides general guarantee.

There is the specific case of the tartars. In this case one can assess the responsibility of the Romanian state to not "protect these persons from any action aimed at such assimilation". The following analysis clarifies the facts:

THE NAME OF THE "DEMOCRATIC UNION OF TURKISH-MUSLIM TARTARS IN ROMANIA"

1. The census and the Tartar minority

According to the 1992 census, in Romania were registered 16 minorities and other 2 communities – the Csangos and the Carashovenians. One of them is the Turkish minority (29,533 members – approximately 0.1% of Romania’s population) and the Tartar minority (24,649 members, about 0.07%). National identity was recorded on the basis of the freely expressed declaration of the persons that were questioned. The 1992 census was criticized for the lack of strictness of the recordings and even for its purposeful distortion of information. Some investigations – those conducted by APADOR-CH included – have confirmed these allegations for a number of communities (the Roma, the Csango, etc.).

The Romanian legal system recognizes the existence of national minorities, but does not establish the procedure to be followed by a community in order to be acknowledged as a national minority by the state. That is why the 1992 census represents a sui generis act of official recognition of a number of national minorities in Romania. The establishment of a Council for National Minorities in 1993, of a Council of National Minorities in 1997 and the inclusion of representative minority organization in this council have strengthened the "official" recognition of the 16 minorities.

The 1992 census and the institution established after 1993 represent, therefore, the foundation for the official recognition of the Tartar community as a national minority. The existence of a Tartar community for several hundreds of years, documented in historical and cultural studies and in a number of official documents entitles the Tartars to regard themselves as a separate community that enjoys the constitutional provisions related to the protection of national minorities.

 

2. Representation of the Tartar minority and special legal measures in favor of the Tartar minority

The recognition of a community as a "national minority" places it under the protection of the international system for the protection of national minorities. The members of any national minority also enjoy the provisions of the domestic legislation related to the protection of national minorities. Actually, in the Romanian constitutional system, international conventions on the protection of national minorities ratified by Romania become part of the domestic law.

The protection of national minorities is based on two kinds of provisions. The first type refer to the non-discrimination of the members of national minorities; the second, to special measures aiming to protect and advance the development of minorities. Art. 6 of the Romanian Constitution provides a broad interpretation of the system for the protection of national minorities, as the right "to preserve, develop and express … their ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity".

A special protection measure that national minorities in Romania enjoy is the right to have a representative in the Parliament, even if their representative organizations do not obtain the appropriate number of votes in the elections. This situation is regulated by Art. 59 (2) of the Constitution, by Law no. 68/1992 on General Elections and by Law 70/1991, amended and completed by Law 25/1996 on Local Elections.

Another special measure consists in the national minorities’ opportunity to be subsidized from the state budget, in accordance with Art. 2(d) of Governmental Decision no. 17/1997and with Law 72/1996. Although in principle there are various ways of obtaining such subsidies from the state budget – such as the public auction of projects – it has been legislated and enforced by the Romanian authorities as an annual grant for the representative organization of a national minority, member of the Council for National Minorities or, after 1997, of the Council of National Minorities (lei 647.5 million in 1998 for the Democratic Union of Turkish-Muslim Tartars in Romania).

 

3. The relation between the minority members and the community. Relations within the Democratic Union of Turkish-Muslim Tartars in Romania

As shown above, the representative organization of a national minority holds a privileged status within the community. Indeed, by means of this organization, the national minority enjoys two special measures of great importance for the community: (a) a seat in the Parliament (only one organization is entitled to represent a national minority in the Parliament); (b) access to state funds meant to ensure the protection and development of the national minority.

 

Consequently, the status and practice of the representative organizations of national minorities must ensure the internal democracy. Indeed, the system for the protection of national minorities is based on a number of principles that ensure to the persons belonging to national minorities the right to non-discrimination, freedom and independence within the minority. Thus, the Framework-Convention for the Protection of National Minorities states:

Art. 3 (1): Every person belonging to a national minority shall have the right freely to choose to be treated or not to be treated as such and no disadvantage shall result from this choice or from the exercise of the rights which are connected to that choice.

Art. 15: The Parties shall create the conditions necessary for the effective participation of persons belonging to national minorities in cultural, social and economic life and in public affairs, in particular those affecting them.

Art. 22: Nothing in the present framework Convention shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which may be ensured under the laws of any Contracting Party or under any other agreement to which it is a Party.

A similar provision of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National, Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities states:

Art. 3: (1) Persons belonging to minorities may exercise their rights, including those set forth in the Declaration, individually as well as in community with other members of their group, without any discrimination.

(2) No disadvantage shall result for any person belonging to a minority as the consequence of the exercise or non-exercise of rights set forth in this Declaration.

In the spirit of all international documents on the protection of national minorities – only two of which are quoted above – and in the spirit of the domestic legislation, any pressure – whether deliberate or not – exerted on the members of a community, meant to make them present themselves in a certain way from the perspective of their identity is illegal. The state is bound to protect the members of national minorities against any potential pressures exerted by the national community, eventually through the organization that represents that national minority.

4. The name of the "Democratic Union of Turkish-Muslim Tartars in Romania"

The Tartar community in Romania is represented by an organization called "Democratic Union of Turkish-Muslim Tartars in Romania". It was the one that enjoyed the right to send a representative in the Romanian Parliament and which is part of the Council of National Minorities and was funded from the state budget. Taking into consideration the role of this organization in the community, it represents a privileged way or a framework through which the members of the Tartar minority participate in advancing the destiny of this community (particularly in defining the parliamentary strategy through which the interests of this community are promoted; the way the financial resources of the state are used towards the protection and development of the minority, etc.). This organization is an instrument by means of which the Tartars in Romania gain access to the special protection measures meant for them.

The name of the community, however, suggests that the members of the organization are part of a special category: that of the Turkish-Muslim Tartars. Consequently, in order to enjoy the special measures meant to protect them, the Tartars in Romania are pressured to join an organization of "Turkish-Muslim" Tartars. Even if the statute of this organization does not explicitly require those who wish to join it to assume the features of "Turkish" and "Muslim", in practice the name of this organization grant a superior position to those who take them upon themselves. This superiority exerts pressure on the members of the Tartar community who regard themselves as Tartars but do not accept the epithet of "Turk" or "Muslim" to "join the ranks" of this form of identity. This fact violates the spirit of the domestic and international system of rights of national minorities, which protects the members of national minorities against any potential coercion exerted upon them by the majority.

Consequently, the name of the organization "Democratic Union of Turkish-Muslim Tartars in Romania" is inconsistent with the fundamental rights and freedoms of the members of the Tartar community. Obviously, the right to association involves the right of the persons who wish to associate to choose a name of their liking for their organization. But if this organization is representative for a national minority, enjoying the special status provided by the legislation, the choice of names is restricted by a condition, namely not to coerce in any way the members of this minority.

Given the above arguments above and the complaints submitted to APADOR-CH by some members of the Tartar minority in Romania who are dissatisfied with the name of their representative organization, APADOR-CH suggested to the leaders of the "Democratic Union of Turkish-Muslim Tartars in Romania" to take measures in order to eliminate the phrase "Turkish-Muslim" from the title. The Department for the Protection of National Minorities, whose competencies include the correct functioning of the national protection system for national minorities has the responsibility to discuss with the members of the community and especially with the Union's leaders about the need to eliminate the epithets "Turkish" and "Muslim" from the title. Taking into consideration the legal framework, the Department has the duty and the opportunity to solve jointly with the Tartar minority in Romania the issues related to the protection of the members of this minority in relation with the Romanian state as well as with their own national community.

The examples are much too numerous and widely spread in order to give a comprehensive image of this type of discourse. It has been constantly used immediately after the December 1989 revolution up to now.

We have enclosed below several "classical" examples that have been previously invoked in various case studies, because they have created a specific style of the hate speech discourse.

1. "I very much fear that, at this rate, if they keep rubbing it in for ever, we shall again run a healthy race to that wonderful town of the czardas and available women and there we shall stay for a while, to ensure peace in that zone, at least till the year 2000 - we do not wish things to get that far, nobody likes military campaigns, but faced with the alternative Hungarians in Bucharest or Romanians in Budapest you can imagine what variant we will choose and which music we like..." - Corneliu Vadim Tudor, "Beware of Hungary (4)", in Romania Mare, No. 17, Year I, 28 September 1990.
2. "And a parallel between our care about the Romanians in Bessarabia and Budapest's care about the Magyars in Transylvania cannot be drawn, for the simple reason that we have historic rights upon the land between the Prut and the Dniester, while the Hungarians have no rights either upon Transylvania, or upon the Pannonian Plain, because it was inhabited by our forefathers, the Geto-Dacians. Tolerated in Europe, these noble representatives of the most primitive Asiatic tribes came to chase people out of their homes, to police the area, to threaten and to bully populations much older and more civilized than they are" - Corneliu Vadim Tudor, "Beware of Hungary (5)", in Romania Mare, No. 18, Year I, 5 October 1990.
3. "On top of that all, we have the beastly attacks in the trains by the Asiatic hordes besotted by alcohol and sanguineous hatred who thrash and club the poor Romanians just for the mere fact that they speak Romanian!" - Corneliu Vadim Tudor, "Beware of Hungary! (5)", in Romania Mare, No. 18, Year I, 5 October 1990.
4. "And now what! The Hungarians, who are Asiatic, hinder us, who are Latin and European on our way to re-enter the concert of values of our continent!" - Corneliu Vadim Tudor, "Transylvania, Transylvania calls us" (Open letter addressed to Mr Ion Iliescu), in Romania Mare, No. 27, Year I, 7 December 1990.
5. "Recently, several itinerant criminals operating on the trains, have been arrested; of course, all of them are of Magyar nationality - Corneliu Vadim Tudor, "Beware of Hungary! (6)", in Romania Mare, No. 19, Year I, 12 October 1990.
6. "No trespassing, dear Magyar irredentists and highly cherished Romanian traitors, we do not believe in your variant of the Common European Home. That's how we are, more boorish, more primitive, we do not like being other people's servants and grooms, we want to be our own masters in our souls' home, you can make no headway, think better of it and rather colonize that steppe of yours or rent some lands in Siberia and Asia, but get used to the idea that Transylvania will be for ever Romanian." - Corneliu Vadim Tudor, "Beware of Hungary (3)", in Romania Mare, No. 16, Year I, 21 September 1990.
7. "We do not wish to make anyone angry, but if this people [Hungarians] will continue to be scoffed at and provoked on purpose, the time will come when the healthy forces of this country will demand a National Referendum to establish whether the confirmed country traitors may or may not stay here anymore, and if not - they should then be expelled for good! For the peace of 20 million Romanians, it is worth doing without some scum, no matter what the Western occult circles might say" - Corneliu Vadim Tudor, "Country Betrayal", Romania Mare, No. 9, Year I, 3 August 1990.
8. "For Romania's peace and welfare, it is imperative that a NATIONAL REFERENDUM be organized through which the people of this country should decide the immediate expulsion of all those [Hungarians] that are guilty of being injurious to national dignity of plotting against the Romanian state, of betraying Romania's vital interests! It is the only way to get rid of the bandits and to protect them at the same time - because otherwise, the population will lynch them!" - Corneliu Vadim Tudor, "Abolition of borders?", Romania Mare, No. 20, Year I, 19 October 1990.

The use of hate speech and negative stereotypes continued even after the nationalistic-extremist political parties entered the opposition. A study dated 1998 provided as examples of hate speech against the Roma community the following excerpts: "the Roma, who steal, rob and attack Romanians’" (TVR1); "People have a right to know their rights, but also their duties. It seems that Roma ethnic group still has much to learn in this respect" (Vocea României). Sometimes, the speech against Roma is mixed with the speech against Jews: "Those who have set the to lay hands – by means of administrative positions – on these resources are Gypsies and Jews. Gypsies and Jews (including those recently arrived in Romania) stand out amongst the other ethnic groups that populate our country and that have become integrated alongside Romanians in the Romanian society. [It seems] they have schemed to subdue the Romanians by making use of various plans and means; but with the same goal: to enslave Romanians economically speaking, to annihilate their freedom in their own country" (Romania Mare)

From July 1997 to November 1998, Minister Gyorgy Tokay (UDMR), who was in charge of the Department for the Protection of National Minorities, informed the General Prosecutor’s Office on the use of statements (made by Senator Corneliu Vadim Tudor), banners (the Steaua-Miercurea Ciuc and Dinamo-Rapid footbal games), chauvinistic articles (published by Ion Dragusanu in the newspaper Bucovina). The Prosecutor’s Office turned down the request to start proceedings on the basis of Art. 317 of the Romanian Penal Code, with the following contents: "Any nationalist chauvinistic propaganda or incitment to racial or national hatred which does not constitute an offence under the Article 166 shall be punishable by a term in prison of 6 months to 5 years".

Consequently, we can state that although some public institutions have attempted to restrict racist, chauvinistic, anti-Semite manifestations (either used as political propaganda or consisting of dissemination of negative stereotypes), the Romanian state has not succeeded in complying with the duties following from Art. 6 of the Framework Convention. Hate speech is widely spread and very vocal. Only one person was sentenced in Romania on the basis of Art. 317 of the Penal Code, to a two-year suspended sentence, for an anti-Semite article, despite the virulence and expansion of this kind of language.

Through its offending, menacing character, the chauvinistic and anti-Semite language continuously jeopardises inter-ethnic relations in Romania. Although the Romanian Penal Code sanctions such deeds, the respective provision is not enforced. Few other things are as important and imperative as a policy meant to bring hate speech to an end.. Some of the measures to be taken are:

In Romania, the Roma are the most common target of discrimination. The Hungarians are also discriminated, especially with regard to the opportunity to be appointed in high positions in the army, the police and the intelligence services. Except for the small numbers (under the percentage of the Hungarian population in Romania), it is hard to demonstrate that their ethnic identity is the reason for which the Hungarians are seldom appointed in leading positions in the military structures.

The main forms of discrimination against the Roma are as follows:

• discrimination in economy, in terms of employment and profession;
• discrimination with regard to access to public administrative and legal services, health, other services, goods and facilities;
• discrimination in terms of access to education;
• discrimination related to access to public places;

Adds as the ones below are hard proof of such discrimination:

• "we employ…/no gypsies";
• "no gypsies allowed in this restaurant";
• "we sell apartment/no gypsies in the building".

None of the companies or journals that have placed/printed such adds has been sanctioned so far; neither have those who employ discrimination in terms of employment or the sale of goods, services, etc. In 1998, the Department for the Protection of National Minorities urged the Prosecutor’s Office to institute proceedings against the companies that have placed ads such as: "S.C. GRIZZLY GUARD hires… bodyguards. No Roma should apply", or "We select [S.C. MGD STYLE SRL] 500 security guards from sector 2, 3 and 4 Bucharest. Age: 21 to 45. The Roma are excluded." The Prosecutor’s Office turned down the request to institute proceedings.

In Romania, the principle of non-discrimination is enshrined in the Romanian Constitution and in the international documents in the field, which are part of the internal legislation. But no piece of legislation incriminates discrimination as such, and the use of arts. 317 or 247 of the Penal Code in the field of discrimination is difficult, disputable and insufficient. In the fall of 1999, the Department for the Protection of national Minorities submitted to the Government a draft bill on the elimination of all forms of discrimination, that lists all possible forms of discrimination and introduces means – fines included – to dissuade those who practice discrimination. Once turned into law, the current draft bill would be the first effective instrument against discrimination in Romania.

Another issue raised in connection with Art. 12 is that of quotas for minority students/ the enforcement of affirmative action. Affirmative action has already been applied in more universities – especially, for Roma.

In connection with public debates on this topic, I consider that Romania must act in the spirit of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the UN in 1996 and ratified by Romania in 1974. Art. 27 of the Covenant reads: "In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language". In accordance with the interpretation of the Geneva Committee for Human Rights which examines violations of the Covenant, art. 27 enshrines a right of persons belonging to national minorities and the state that is a party in the Covenant has the obligation to take motivated and realistic steps to meet with their aspirations.

It should be mentioned that the Hungarians in Romania are the most numerous minority in Europe (apart from former CIS countries). The urge to establish their own higher education institutions was expressed following a broad consultation and through the DAHR programs (DAHR stands for the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania), a political party that has been voted by the vast majority of the Hungarian population. It should also be noted that higher education in Hungarian has a historical tradition in Transylvania. Consequently, I considers that the stands taken against the possibility to establish, in principle, a state university in Hungarian represents a violation of the very spirit of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

It is significant the manner in which political leaders governing the country, the Ministry of National Education and a significant part of the press have responded to the claims of the Hungarian minority .Certain political figures and state officials presented a false image of education institutions in the mother tongues of minorities, prone to confuse and manipulate public opinion. One of the most significant documents of this kind was published in August 1998 by the State Secretariat for Higher Education, titled "Ethnic segregation of higher education in Romania is untimely". The document states that "the State Secretariat for Higher Education has been constantly faced with urgent requests for ethnic segregation, under various institutional forms which, if categorised, range from establishing self-managed sections and faculties on ethnic criteria to establishing state universities with tuition in Hungarian". (The wording used by the Ministry of National Education add up to others of this kind, such as "federalization of education", "enclavzsation of education", "development of education on ethnic bases".) The document asserts: "frankly, one should admit that the scope and quality of mother tongue higher education, as it is organised nowadays in Romania, are beyond comparison with the situation in Europe or indeed any other part of the world".

One of the subjects invoked to turn down the establishment of a university in Hungarian is the absence of international standards in the field. Indeed, none of the international documents Romania has joined, adopted by important inter-governmental structures, include as a standard the establishment of state universities in the mother tongue. Actually, the notion of "international standard" applicable to higher education is devoid of content. International standards represent minimal measures states have to comply with in order to ensure the protection of national minorities (in this case). As the issue of higher education is posed exclusively in the case of well-represented minorities, with a well-developed culture, therefore in exceptional cases, no international standards are applicable - as long as they apply "in general". That is why in the field of higher education the spirit rather than the rules of international law could be invoked. A significant role is played by the models by means of which certain states have solved similar issues under analogous circumstances. National models are not part of international law, but somehow play the role of customary law.

The spirit of international documents in the field stems from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. There are, on the other hand, recommendations on "specialized" fields, endorsed by inter-governmental organisations not through a validation procedure as such but rather through positions expressed by groups of experts under their aegis. Such are for instance "The Hague Recommendations on the Rights to Education of National Minorities" (elaborated under the aegis of the Foundations of Inter-Ethnic Relations with the High Commissioner on National Minorities/OSCE, 1996). Art. 17 of the document stipulates: "Persons belonging to national minorities have the right to access to higher education in their own language if a genuine demand has been demonstrated and if there is a numerical justification. ... Persons belonging to national minorities can also pursue ways and means to establish their own higher education institutions". Art. 18 is particularly significant: "In the situations when a national minority has maintained and controlled, in its recent history, its own higher education institutions, this fact shall be recognized in determining the models to be followed." Actually, the right to institutions with an identity value represents a requirement of all international conventions on the protection of minorities which are legally binding for Romania.

We would also remind that Recommendation 1353 of the Council of Europe on access of minorities to higher education, adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly on January 27, 1998 asserts in art. 6 (iv): "governments should recognize the fundamental liberty to engage in higher education activities and to establish institutions for that purpose; such institutions should be officially supported once their satisfactory quality has been established - on a non-discriminatory and fair basis - and a genuine demand has been demonstrated; language should not be a criteria for recognising institutions or qualifications".

Taking into consideration the numbers and cultural development of the Hungarian minority in Romania, one could state that if the documents quoted above do not apply to it, they would not apply to any other community in Europe.

The new RIS Reports prove that this approach is not entirely rejected. More than that, recent investigations against people expressing their support for a more comprehensive system of decentralisation (particularly, their support for a federal system: Sorin Gherman case, Cluj/1999) represent a threat for those members of national minorities thinking to a specific understanding of the evolution of the country.

A similar case but which has a clearer answer that the one above is the attempt to intimidate some minority members who communicate with foreign persons and organisations, the topic of such communication being their situation in Romania.

In 1999, a meeting of the UDMR-leaders with more officials from Hungary (among them, the representative of the Hungarians from the World) held in Odorheiu Secuiesc was closely monitored by the Romanian Intelligence Service. RIS let its car in front of the building where the conference was taking place. When his officers using cameras were discovered by the inhabitants from Odorheiu Secuiesc, SRI representatives expressed their irritation against those who interfere with their work.

This is another examples which proves the negative impact of the activities of the Romanian Intelligence Service on the status of the national minorities in the country. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is entitled to ask for a report on the violation of the national minority rights by the Romanian intelligence services.

The treaty on the Relations of Neighbourliness and Cooperation between Romania and the Ukraine was signed in Constanta, on June 1, 1997. The Art. 13 on national minorities protection is the most extended one of the treaty.

The evolution of Romania’s mutual treaties demonstrates the increased importance attached to the issue of minorities. The policy in this field changed from exhibiting no interest in minorities (the treaty with Bulgaria) to minimising the subject (the treaty with the Federative Republic of Yugoslavia), to accepting the importance attached by the other party to the issue of minorities (the treaty with Hungary) and even to promoting a substantial chapter on the protection of national minorities (the treaty with Ukraine). The latest mutual treaties have turned the CSCE, UN and Council of Europe norms with a binding character for Romania.

Initiatives such as the following were blocked:

- the association to the Assembly of European regions, by a decision of the Valcea County Council (of February 24, 1994).

It is significant that in the trials that took place on such occasions, hierarchically inferior instances were reluctant to the idea of local autonomy under its international dimension, while the Romanian Supreme Court of Justice has evolved from a rigid conception of denial to a liberal one, undergoing to protect the external dimension of local autonomy in accordance with international legal acts.

After 1996, trans-border co-operation initiatives have intensified and centralized control was eliminated from all local initiatives. But the fact that important political forces in Romania – who might still have a major part to play in the future – have contested the right of local authorities to enter collaborations at the international level must be taken into consideration. Consequently, firmer regulations on the international competencies of local authorities should be introduced in the new law on local administration that is now under debate in the Parliament. A recommendation in this sense will be welcome.

Roma community. The most discriminated Roma group is obviously the group of Roma girls and women. In Romania, at least, one of the most serious issues is that Roma girls are prevented from attending school; Roma girls (in some places: Roma boys) are sold and Roma girls and boys are married at 13 or 14,ages way below the age of consent; another issue is the pressure exerted over Roma women not to use contraceptives and not to take part in family planning projects.

As a rule, the state is bound to watch over how the fundamental rights and liberties of persons under its jurisdiction are observed and to step in, in order to prevent any violations hereof, whether they are perpetrated by individuals or private institutions.

It is true that we are faced with a delicate topic: the above mentioned human rights violations are consistent with Roma traditions, with their cultural realities. However, a well-established fact, accepted by the international agreements on minority rights – particularly, stipulated by Art. 22 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of Human Rights - is that group and cultural rights should not prevail. On the contrary, fundamental individual rights should be pre-eminent. This idea represents, actually, the famous thesis of the universality of human rights.

If Roma girls and women are granted the dignity each human being is entitled to, it is not just them who are going to benefit from it, but the whole community. Due to their marginal status, Roma encounter problems not just with protecting their identity, but also with emancipating themselves. It is a fact that demographic growth, education and quality of life and inter-related and form a vicious circle. In order to break the circle, education and family planning policies should be attached utmost importance.