BULGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTTEE
MEMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL HELSINKI FEDERATION FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS
ALTERNATIVE REPORT
TO THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
BULGARIA PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 25, PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION FOR
THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES
This alternative report of the Bulgarian
Helsinki Committee (BHC) critically evaluates the report submitted by the government of Bulgaria (hereinafter the
“government report”) pursuant to article 25, paragraph 1 of the Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. It draws on the extensive
research of the BHC on minority rights in Bulgaria for a period of more than
ten years and on information provided by other NGOs and academic institutions.
This alternative report tries to evaluate the government report objectively but
in substance underlines its deficiencies thus trying to avoid repetition. The
alternative report follows the structure of the government report and refers to
several supplements that should be considered an integral part of the
alternative report. In September 1999 the BHC published a report on the
fulfilment of the commitments of Bulgaria under the Framework Convention.[1]
The present alternative report is a follow up of the 1999 report.
The report submitted by Bulgaria pursuant to
Article 25, paragraph 1 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of
National Minorities on April 9, 2003, is marked by a major flaw, which cannot
but be pointed out, because it reflects on the overall quality of the report’s
content and analysis. The language of the report, which was prepared and
submitted with about 18-month delay, is comprised of general statements in most
of its part, i.e. legal provisions are enumerated without being supported by prima facie evidence of effective
implementation; concluded and/or underway projects and policies aimed at the
cultural, economic, and social advancement of ethnic, linguistic, and religious
minorities are simply enlisted as well, and not propped up by any account of
achieved results; the entire “Factual” component of the report is weak, because
of lack of factual evidence such as concrete examples provided, statistics /or
any data/ indicating achievements in the spheres outlined by the Framework
Convention; and, last but not least, the report is silent or cursory on
numerous important issues, which should have been addressed under the separate
headings of the report.
Information
on the status of international law in the domestic legal order
As it has been already pointed out
in the Government's report, all international treaties which are ratified
pursuant to the constitutional procedure and published officially, are
considered part of the domestic legislation and take precedence over domestic
acts, which contradict them (Art.5 § 4 of the Bulgarian Constitution).
According to Decision No. 7 of the Constitutional Court from 1992,
international treaties that are ratified and have entered into force, but have
not been published in Official Gazette
are not part of the domestic legislation, unless they had been ratified before
the entry into force of the 1991 Constitution and hence their publication had
not been necessary. Otherwise international treaties signed and ratified by
Bulgaria only acquire precedence over domestic legislation upon publication in Official Gazette.
Under the present heading the Bulgarian Government provides
insufficient (or disproportional, in comparison to other issues) or no account
of the following two most painful issues in historical aspect: the past and
present (after 1989) situation of the Pomaks (Bulgarian-speaking Muslims) and
the current status (after 1989) of Bulgarian citizens declaring Macedonian
identity.
Important past events related to the Pomak[2]
community need to be pointed out in order to shed some light on its current
status in Bulgaria. Together with the Bulgarian nationals, declaring Macedonian
identity, the Pomak Muslims are denied recognition of an ethnic minority, which
results in flagrant abuses of their rights individually and as a group.
The Pomak population has been subjected to
periodic forced Christianisation and Bulgarisation as part of the
"axiom" for their being Islamised Bulgarians, who have to be brought
back to the Bulgarian nation regardless of means. In the period 1878 - 1944
Pomaks had been exposed to two violent conversion campaigns, which deserve
special attention, as they had been launched and carried out as an official
state policy, backed up by the King, the government, and the Bulgarian Orthodox
Church. The first name-change affair took place in the heat of the 1912-1913
Balkan Wars. The violent conversion was deliberately undertaken before the
conclusion of a peace agreement for that was the “optimal time” for exercising
unpunished brutality under the cover of war situation.
Archive documents from that time reveal that
brutal force and intimidation were applied to convert the people. Active part
in the violence took the members of the extremist political formation in the
Kingdom of Bulgaria—the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation (IMRO),
whose regiments had been sent to Pomak villages in Drama region to Christianise
the Pomak Muslims with guns. Muslims were also intimidated into conversion
through promises to have their sons, husbands, fathers, and grandfathers, who
were facing death as war captives, released.
But even worse was that the Pomak population
was abandoned at the mercy of an unruly army, which had often slipped
completely out of control during the Balkan wars. Together with it, ordinary
citizens of ethnic Bulgarian background, cherishing nationalistic ideals,
participated in the unfortunate 1912-1913 conversion affair as well.
Immediately following the formal conversion,
the government and the Orthodox Church started franticly to transform every
available shack into a church or school for Pomak Muslims to be thought
Christian values. However, while the authorities were preoccupied with
Bulgarianising the Pomak population, they ignored their most essential needs—to
feed, dress, and shelter them. As a result of the plundering and burning their
homes during the Christianisation ventures, the converts were left bare,
starving and destitute. According to documented evidence, twenty to thirty
people shared a single house.[3]
In a letter-complaint to the Chairperson of
Bulgaria’s National Assembly dating from February 4, 1913, the population from
the villages Er Kyupria, Dryanovo and Bogutevo, wrote: "Mr. Chairman
Danov, … We are Bulgarian Muslims from … Stanimaka region[.] [T]he terror, the
abuses, and the sword upon us are in their peak--to make us Christians[.]
[T]his, we believe, our holy Constitution will not allow - to be humiliated,
beaten, and threatened to give up our religion … . We live in Old, free
Bulgaria[4], where order, legality and
justice reigns, but is it so these days[?] [I]f you, with angel’s power, could
only come and see [(hear)] the tears and sobs of us, the unprotected, you would
realise that the conversion in not voluntary, but [achieved] through great
violence[.] [I]t is a fact, known by the entire world, that if we did want, we
would have become Christians 35 years ago when Russia came[5], not now when we should
enjoy our freedom in Great Bulgaria. We trust you and your strong support for
us and our suffering, [and need] to feel that we--we and the entire
people--have not been betrayed by those whom we have elected … [to govern us].”[6]
The second forced Christianisation of the Pomak
population in the pre-WWII period, which occurred in 1942 - again during
wartime - was as violent as it was short-lived. The names of the converted
Pomaks were promptly restored by the Communists, which raised to power in
September 1944. However, those same Communists renewed the forced
Bulgarianisation of the Pomak Muslims in the early 1970s and the only thing
that differentiated "the revival process" from the previous two conversions
were the social and educational benefits for the Pomak population.
The state policies toward the Bulgarian citizens, declaring
Macedonian[7] identity
have been most controversial throughout the time. In the 1940s and 50s, the
Communist Party did not oppose and even encouraged the inculcation of
Macedonian self-awareness among the population in the Pirin region within
Bulgaria. However, in the mid-1950s this
policy was dramatically reversed and the authorities started refusing to
recognise Macedonian identity not only in Bulgaria, but also in the
neighbouring Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. From 169 544 Macedonians in the
1946 census their number dropped to the meagre 9 632 only 9 years later, in the
1965 census. In the 1960s and 70s there were a number of political trials of
people charged with activities related to “Macedonian nationalism”.
After 1989 many people have continued claiming Macedonian
identity as of today, but the situation with the intolerance and
non-recognition of their identity is still problematic. Neither in the 1992 nor
in the 2001 censuses were they given opportunities to express their
self-identity in conditions of freedom and non-discrimination.
The United Macedonian Organisation (UMO)
“Ilinden” – PIRIN (this stands for "Party for Economic Development and
Integration of the Population"), which consists of representatives of the
moderate wing in the movement of the Bulgarian Macedonians, had difficulties in
getting registration as a political party. Finally, on 12 February 1999, UMO
"Ilinden" had been registered by the Sofia City Court, however, later
the same year the Central Local Election Commission refused to register the
party for participation in the elections on August 25. Still that decision was
repealed five days later by the Supreme Administrative Court.
The most
drastic violation in respect to the Macedonian identity in Bulgaria has been
the decision of the Constitutional Court of 29 February 2000 whereby the United
Macedonian Organisation (UMO) "Ilinden" - PIRIN was ruled unconstitutional.
The Court held that the party threatens Bulgaria's national security with its
activities, which are separatist and in violation of Article 44, paragraph 2 of
the Constitution. The Court was approached in 1999 by a group of MPs, mainly
from the BSP, whose petition for outlawing UMO "Ilinden" was
supported by a number of state institutions, including the Interior Ministry,
the Ministry of Justice and the Chief Prosecutor's Office. They presented
"evidence" of the "separatist" activities of UMO
"Ilinden" - PIRIN, some of which had been apparently collected
illegally. The organisation appealed to the European Court of Human Rights in
Strasbourg.
On 2
October 2001, the European Court announced its decision оn the case of
Stankov and UMO-Ilinden v. Bulgaria.[8] The Court found a
violation of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ЕCHR)
on five points, in which the state violated the right of Bulgarian Macedonians
to assemble. All of them were connected with the organisation's commemorative
activities at the grave of Yane Sandanski near Rozhen Monastery and at the
Samuilova Fortress locality near Petrich on the anniversary of the Ilinden
Uprising. The Court sentenced Bulgaria to pay compensation and to reimburse the
plaintiffs for their legal expenses. The Bulgarian authorities were sharply chastised for their
prejudicial and repressive attitude towards Macedonians in Bulgaria. In spite
of the Court's decision, however, the authorities have been showing
contradictory behaviour towards public display of Macedonian identity and
during peaceful assemblies of Bulgarian Macedonians as of now.[9]
The major problem under the current section of the government report is the lack of adequate account for the current demographic status of the Pomak and Macedonian minorities in Bulgaria. It is a fact that no official census data on the number of the Pomak Muslims[10] are presented in either the 1992 and the 2001 censuses. The reasons for this are complex, and the main claim goes that due to lack of clear sense of self-identity, the Bulgarian-speaking Muslims are prone to point out either Turkish and/or Bulgarian ethic belonging. Many of them register as Turks, Bulgarians, or simply Muslims, because there is no appropriate column for them in the census papers. Failing this, not only the number of the Turks or ethnic Bulgarians artificially increases, but, what is more, one is enable to trust that the principle of free self-determination of Bulgarian nationals is properly applied to in the country—all the more that the idea of annulling the 2001 census results on grounds of “wrong ethnicity indication” among Pomak Muslims, Roma, and other communities, was rather close to implementation at the relevant time.
In the initial publications of the 1992 census results based on a 2% sample, 65,546 persons were reported to have declared “Bulgarian Muslim” identity, which number represented the sum of Muslims who registered as non-Turks, non-Bulgarians, and non-Roma. This figure, however, does not reflect even the approximate number of Pomak Muslims in Bulgaria. Thus, it should be accounted also that according to the 1992 census 70,252 persons declared “ethnic Bulgarian” identity, but Muslim religion; about 35,000 – Pomak Muslims from the Rhodopes, registered as Turkish-speaking; and about 70,000 of them declared “ethnic Turkish” identity. In addition, there was a small number of people considered by others as “Pomaks”, who in fact declared “ethnic Bulgarian” identity and “Orthodox Christianity” as their religion.[11] In any event, the number of Bulgarian-speaking Muslims remains a matter of rough approximation at best. What happens during censuses is that their number is unevenly distributed among several groups, depending on the identity criterion: ethnicity, religion and/or mother tongue. As a result they are never indicated, and hence, never recognised thus far as a distinct minority group in spite of the fact that they perceive themselves and are seen by the others as a separate community.[12]
The demographic problem with the Bulgarian
citizens with Macedonian[13]
identity is even sharper. As Macedonians continue to be unrecognised, they were
underrepresented in both the 1992 census and in the 2001 census. In the 1992
census the results of which related to Macedonians have never been officially
published counted 10 803 people who declared Macedonian identity. About 3 000
of them declared Macedonian as their mother tongue. The government’s National
Statistical Institute announced that at the 2001 census 5 071 persons declared
Macedonian identity.[14] It has
to pointed out that the government’s policy towards Macedonians and towards
declaring Macedonian identity has been very negative and oppressive during both
censuses. In 2001 several people have been even threatened and a criminal
investigation was opened against those attempting to encourage others to
declare Macedonian identity. It can be thus concluded that under conditions of
genuine free self-determination, there would be more people declaring
Macedonian identity.
PART
II
Article 1
The
protection of national minorities and of the rights and freedoms of persons
belonging to those minorities forms an integral part of the international
protection of human rights, and as such falls within the scope of international
co-operation.
(… Information
is also requested on how, pursuant to the rule of law, access to justice is
guaranteed on issues of protection of persons belonging to national minorities.)
A number of Bulgarian laws provide for equality before the
law and equal protection of the law to all Bulgarian nationals on the basis,
among other things, of race, ethnicity and religion. In reality, however, there
is a serious problem with the enforcement of these laws. One of the reasons is
the inefficient access to justice for poor people and certain minority members
in both criminal and civil proceedings. Both the Constitution and the Code for
Criminal Procedure provide for the right of access to a lawyer from the moment
of detention, but the percentage of those being unable to make use of that
provision because of either poverty or structural problems (including
discrimination) in the administration of justice, remains very high. The
primary victims of that and other malpractices such as mistreatment in places
of detention continue to be the Roma
and Turks.[15]
In January and February 1999, the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
distributed a standard questionnaire among 309 detainees and prisoners from all
prisons throughout the country, asking, among other things, about physical
abuse of detainees by police during arrest, inside detention facilities, and
during preliminary investigation. 51% of the respondents reported that physical
force had been applied against them during arrest, 53% responded that they had
suffered physical violence inside detention centres, and 37%--that physical
force had been used against them during the preliminary investigation
proceedings. The BHC survey established that the proportion of the interviewed
Turks and Roma among respondents reporting the use of physical force was much
higher than that of ethnic Bulgarians.
The same survey was repeated in the period December 2000 – January 2001,
among the same number of persons, who had become defendants after 1 January
2000--the date of entry into force of the amendments to the Code of Criminal
Procedure, which increased the power of the police to investigate crimes. This
time 2% less (49% compared to 51% in 1999) defendants reported that physical
force had been used against them at the time of arrest, and 9% less (44%
against 53% in 1999) respondents complained of having suffered physical abuse
during detention as compared to 1999. However, the use of violence against
minority members, particularly Roma, had not changed the least, moreover, it
had increased. Thus, 56% of Roma continued to report violence used against them
during arrest (compared to only 46% in 1999), and 48% confessed they had been
tortured while in detention (against 42% in 1999).
The same survey was examining the issue of detainees’ access to lawyer
during criminal proceedings from the moment of arrest as well, as the January
2000 amendments to the CCP provided for. The results showed that the legal
changes contributed little—if at all—to the access of indigent defendants to
free legal counsel. 55% of the respondents reported lack of access to lawyer
during preliminary investigation in 2001, and their percentage was 54% in 1999.
However, the share of those, who were not represented by a lawyer during trial
was smaller (37%) in 2001 as compared to their percentage (44%) in 1999. Still
minority representatives were again discriminated against in their access to
justice. 61% of Romani respondents in 2001 stated that they had no lawyer in pre-trial
proceedings, which was 8% higher than in 1999 (53%).
In the period August – September 2002, the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
launched its next survey on investigating physical abuse of detained and
imprisoned, but this time among inmates of only 4 Bulgarian prisons.[16] 43% of the respondents
reported that they had been tortured or abused in detention units, which is 1%
lower than in 2002. However, while the general level of detainees’ mistreatment
had decreased with the insignificant 1% in 2002, the number of members of
minority groups complaining of violence in places of detention remained
disproportionate—the number of Turkish and Romani suspects reporting abuse in
detention centres, was times higher as compared to the number of ethnic
Bulgarians in 2002 (for example, 77% of the Roma and only 27% of the ethnic
Bulgarians complained of having been mistreated while in detention).
Another study of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee published in 2003 on
access to justice concludes that “being an ethnic Bulgarian is a factor, which
increases the possibility of the defendant’s being represented by a lawyer
during first instance court’s proceedings.”[17] The study further
establishes that there is strong correlation between ethnic belonging (Roma and
Turks) on one hand, and unemployment, serious crime indictment, effective
imprisonment, and pre-trial detention—on the other hand. In other words, ethnic
minority members are over-represented among (1) the charged with serious crime
commission, (2) the sentenced to effective imprisonment, (3) and the kept in
pre-trial detention. Moreover, the unemployment condition in pre-crime
commission, which has dominated among the ethnic minority defendants, reduces
the possibility of their being represented by a legal counsel during criminal
proceedings, especially at pre-trial and first-instance-court stages.
The same study reveals that the percentage of Turks and Roma among the
awaiting trial and already sentenced persons are as follows: charged: Turks –
10.9 %, and Roma – 16.5 %; convicted: Turks – 17.2 %, and Roma – 24.8 %. This
situation demonstrates a disproportionate share of ethnic minority
representatives in criminal proceedings in comparison with their share of the
total number of Bulgarian population.
Article 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.
2
Persons belonging to national minorities may exercise the rights and enjoy the
freedoms flowing from the principles enshrined in the present framework
Convention individually as well as in community with others.
Paragraph
1 and 2
· Narrative:
The very concept of “national
minority” has an uncertain meaning in Bulgaria. The Constitution and the
existing legislation do not use this term. Instead it is only talked of
"ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious groups/minorities" in
Bulgaria. The official state policy expresses in avoidance to use the term
"national minority" both before and after the ratification of the
Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. As it is clear
form the government report and from the practice the protection of the law and
of the Framework Convention, limited as it is, apply to some, but not to all
minority groups. Pomaks and Macedonian, for example, are totally excluded from
both recognition as "ethnic, cultural, linguistic and/or religious
minorities" and as objects of reference as "national
minorities". The other minority groups enjoy protection to a different
degree.
· Legal:
Bulgarian law does not use the term
“national minority”.
· Policy
Talking about groups that are not
assigned any minority status, far less a status of “national minority”
(whatever the meaning of this as well as of similar terms is), there **should
be a special mention of at least two of them - the Pomaks and the Macedonians.
As early as the recognition of the
FYROM as a state by Bulgaria, the Bulgarian government announced that this act
could not lead to recognition of a Macedonian ethnic minority in Bulgaria. The
Bulgarian citizens identifying themselves as Macedonians have been subjected to
different forms of discrimination and official pressure in their every attempt
to demonstrate Macedonian identity, including through formation of cultural
and/or political associations. (See sections Brief review on the country’s historical development with regard to
minorities and Information on the ethnic
and demographic status of the country above as well.)
The other group whose distinct
ethnic identification is not recognised is that of the Pomaks. Despite the fact
that during the 1992 and the 2001 censuses thousands of them expressed a wish
to be considered as a distinct ethnicity in the publication of the final
results, they were coupled with Bulgarians in the publication of the final
results. There were numerous statements of state officials and it is the
predominant trend in the scholarship that they are not an ethnic, but a
religious minority composed of Bulgarians who were Islamised during the Ottoman
rule. (See sections Brief review on the
country’s historical development with regard to minorities and Information on the ethnic and demographic status
of the country above as well.).
There is a lot of evidence of
non-recognition of Macedonian and Pomak identity by Bulgarian authorities. None
of these groups is mentioned in the government report as a subject of
protection. When, in February 2000 UMO “Ilinden” – PIRIN was declared
unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, it explicitly stated that there
is no separate Macedonian identity in Bulgaria. During the 2001 census criminal
charges were filed (later dropped) against those Macedonian activists who tried
to encourage Macedonians to register as Macedonians. Pomaks and Macedonians are
not represented in the official government bodies dealing with minorities.
Article 4
1. The
Parties undertake to guarantee to persons belonging to national minorities the
right of equality before the law and of equal protection of the law. In this
respect, any discrimination based on belonging to a national minority shall be
prohibited.
2. The
Parties undertake to adopt, where necessary, adequate measures in order to
promote, in all areas of economic, social, political and cultural life, full
and effective equality between persons belonging to a national minority and
those belonging to the majority. In this respect, they shall take due account
of the specific conditions of the persons belonging to national minorities.
3. The
measures adopted in accordance with paragraph 2 shall not be considered to be
an act of discrimination.
Paragraph
1 and 2
· Factual
Discrimination of ethnic and
religious minorities is a serious problem in Bulgarian society. It takes place
in almost all spheres of social life and in a variety of contexts. Both local
and international human rights monitors have documented many cases of
discrimination against ethnic and religious communities.
Discrimination in the
exercise of the basic rights and freedoms. Article 11.4 of the Bulgarian
Constitution, restricting freedom of association on discriminatory basis in
prohibiting political parties based on ethnicity and religion, is repeatedly
used in refusing registration of Macedonian, Roma, and Pomak political
formations. The constitutionality of the Turkish-based Movement for Rights and
Freedoms (MRF) itself had been challenged twice – albeit unsuccessfully -
before the Constitutional Court by the Socialists during the initial years of
democracy. On several occasions organisations of Macedonians were denied
registration and their peaceful assemblies disbanded on discriminatory basis.
Juridical person status of several religious groups was revoked and their
peaceful assemblies disbanded. (For more details see below under Article 7).
Discrimination in
Employment: Roma continue to be the primary victims of discrimination in the labour
market because of both low qualification and prejudiced stereotypes about them.
Until September 2003, when the Anti-Discrimination Act was adopted, there had
been no comprehensive piece of legislation aimed at protection from
discrimination. However, even after the preparation and adoption of such law it
is doubtful as to whether and when effective enforcement of the
anti-discrimination provisions would take place. Roma and Muslims (Turks and
Pomaks) continue to be underrepresented in local governing administration and
law-enforcement institutions even in regions where they form an actual
majority.[18]
Discrimination in
education.
Public schools for Roma that are established in segregated neighbourhoods are
of very low educational standards and poor material conditions. The
implementation of the Framework Program for the Integration of Roma into the
Bulgarian Society, an important part of which is desegregation of education for
Roma, proves to be going clumsily and unsuccessfully. “Mother tongue” education
for minority children at school is non-existent or rudimentary at best. After
1997 the study of “mother tongue” for Romanes-speakers was practically
terminated at all schools in Bulgaria. The study of Turkish language at school,
as the “mother tongue” of the largest minority group in Bulgaria, is organised
in discriminatory manner and highly inadequate.[19]
Discrimination in social
welfare and other communal services. Since 1990 there have been a
number of well-documented cases of refusals of social welfare benefits for Roma
families. In the period 1998-1999 there had been a number of Roma riots in
several towns in Northwestern Bulgaria against municipal authorities for
refusals or delays to pay social welfare benefits. Great delays in paying the
welfare benefits to Roma, for the majority of which these are the only income,
continue to be a reality. A more recent social issue of serious concern related
to Roma was the electricity cuts in Romani neighbourhoods for unpaid bills.
This continues to be a problem in many settlements throughout Bulgaria by now.
Discrimination in the criminal justice system. Muslims (Turks and
Pomaks bearing Musim names) and Roma are over-represented as inmates in the
prisons. According to several surveys conducted between 1999 and 2002, they
were also over-represented among those who complaint of physical abuse during
arrest and preliminary investigation and among those who did not have a lawyer
at all stages of criminal proceedings. For these and for purely discriminatory
reasons Roma and Muslims (Turks and Pomaks) are also more likely to get harsher
sentences compared to Bulgarians for the same offences. (See also Article 1
above.)
For a comprehensive
account of discrimination against Roma see Supplement No. 2-I.
Article 5
1. The
Parties undertake to promote the conditions necessary for persons belonging to
national minorities to maintain and develop their culture and to preserve the
essential elements of their identity, namely their religion, language,
traditions and cultural heritage.
2.
Without prejudice to measures taken in pursuance of their general integration
policy, the Parties shall refrain from policies or practices aimed at
assimilation of persons belonging to national minorities against their will and
shall protect these persons from any action aimed at such assimilation.
Paragraph
1 and 2
· State infrastructure
There has never been a state
structure with clear and sufficiently large mandate in charge of national
minorities' issues able to ensure full and effective implementation of minority
rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Bulgarian laws.
Since 1994 there have been bodies
set up within the Council of Ministers that were supposed to help promote in
practice the conditions necessary for persons belonging to national minorities
to maintain and develop their culture, and to preserve the essential elements
of their identity. However, all these were more or less formal bodies with an
unclear mandate and little powers. The Council of Ministers Resolution 267 of
30 June 1994 established an Interdepartmental Council on Ethnic Affairs at the
Council of Ministers with the functions of an advisory body. The respective
Council, however, never convened. In 1995 the BSP government set up a National
Council on Social and Demographic Issues (Decree 123 dated 14 June 1995), which
was also limited to an advisory body. It was supposed to represent ethnic
communities, as well as organisations of women, disabled, pensioners, etc. (Official Gazette No. 57 of 23 June
1995). The very title of the body, as well as its functions and policies,
precisely reflected the traditional Bulgarian Socialists's regard to ethnic
minority issues as a sheer social rather than ethnic problem.
It was in December 1997, when the
current National Council on Ethnic and Demographic Issues (NCEDI) was set up by
the United Democratic Forces' (UtDF's) government (Decree 449 of 4 December
1997) and was charged of both ethnic minorities and Bulgarians abroad (Official Gazette No. 118 of 10 December
1997). The NCEDI's mandate as the sole state organ entrusted with ethnic
minority issues is again too limited and not concentrated enough to be
effective. According to the Council's tasks, outlined in Article 1 of its Rules
and Regulations, it has to “facilitate consultation, co-operation and
co-ordination between government bodies and non-governmental organisations with
the aim to form and realise a national policy with regard to ethnic and
demographic issues and migration”. According to Article 2 (2), the body also
“co-ordinates with the state bodies and with the non-governmental organisations
concrete measures in execution of accepted international obligations from the
Republic of Bulgaria in the sphere of the rights of Bulgarian citizens
belonging to minority groups and their integration in society” The NCEDI has
been to a certain extent instrumental in mediating between the government and
the Roma community in adopting the Framework Program for Equal Participation of
Roma in Bulgarian Society, whose effective implementation is questionable as of
the moment.
A number of NGOs, including
minority NGOs, take part in the work of the Council or actively co-operate with
it. There has been, however, no Macedonian or Pomak organisations among them.
The implementation of the Framework
Program for Equal Integration of Roma in Bulgarian Society is very poor. The
Action Plan designed by the government in October 2003 in expectation of the
next progress report of the EC is a step back from the commitments of the
Framework Program as it does not envisage funds for transportation of Roma from
the segregated to integrated schools and inadequate funds for legalisation of
the Roma neighborhoods.
For more details on the
implementation of the Framework Program for Equal Integration of Roma in
Bulgarian Society and on the recent government policy towards Roma see Supplement
No. 2-II.
While the general assimilationist
policy towards minorities ceased with the fall of the totalitarian government
in 1989, Macedonians and Pomaks continue to be targets of such efforts at
present. During the 1992 census Bulgarian citizens who declared Pomak ethnic
identity were not officially declared. The policy of treating Pomaks as
“Islamised Bulgarians” and to deny their separate ethnic identity continues and
the government report is one evidence of this. Discrimination, pressure and
denial of identity of Macedonians have, as their major aim, their assimilation.
Article 6
1. The
Parties shall encourage a spirit of tolerance and intercultural dialogue and
take effective measures to promote mutual respect and understanding and
co-operation among all persons living on their territory, irrespective of those
persons’ ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious identity, in particular in
the fields of education, culture and the media.
2. The
Parties undertake to take appropriate measures to protect persons who may be
subject to threats or acts of discrimination, hostility or violence as a result
of their ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious identity.
Paragraph
1
(States
are requested to provide information on all relations between different ethnic,
linguistic, cultural and religious communities, including evidence of
inter-community relations and co-operation, as well as on attitudes and the
role of civil society, including the role of the media.)
The
government promotes tolerance towards some (Turks, Armenians, Jews) but hatred
and denial to other (Macedonian) minorities. During the 2003 local elections
some local government officials instigated hatred towards Roma and their
candidates for local government offices.
With the exception of the press
owned by ethnic and religious minorities themselves, there is no mainstream
media that has factually contributed to the spirit of understanding and
intercultural dialogue. In the cases of some ethnic and religious minorities
the media are in fact main promoters of prejudice and suspicion. In particular,
targets of hate speech have been Roma, Macedonians and members of the
"non-traditional" religions. The mainstream newspapers routinely
refer to the ethnic belonging of perpetrators of crime especially if they are
Roma or members of some other unpopular minorities. (More of the role of the
media see bellow under Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 4.)
Paragraph
2
· Narrative
Bulgarian criminal legislation does
not presume aggravated circumstances either in law or as a matter of
jurisprudence in cases when ordinary crimes are perpetrated out of ethnic or
religious hatred. It however envisages criminal responsibility for offences
against persons who may be subject to threats or acts of discrimination,
hostility or violence as a result of their ethnic, cultural, linguistic or
religious identity.
· Factual
(In providing information under this heading, please
also provide statistics of reported cases and the success-rate in prosecution
of acts of discrimination, hostility or violence as a result of persons'
ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious identity.)
Bulgarian Ministry of Interior Act
allows for excessive use of firearms by law enforcement officers even for minor
offences, in violation of international standards. Roma are often subject to
shootings and physical by both law enforcement officials and mobs. For
the period 1998-2003 BHC knows of at least 18 cases of shootings by law
enforcement officers (police, prison guards and forest guards), in which people
lost their lives. Most of the victims belong to the Roma and the Turkish
minority. Hundreds of other cases of shootings resulted in seriously wounding
the victims, sometimes leaving them disabled for life. In most of these cases the
law enforcement officers were not prosecuted since the investigation found that
they have used deadly force according to the law or were acquitted by the
courts. At present there are several cases brought before the European Court of
Human Rights, which await decisions.
In addition to shootings, Roma are
sometimes victims of police and mob violence. The first well-documented pogrom
after 1989 took place in June 1992 when the Roma neighbourhood of Pazardzhik
was raided by policemen in an action of revenge, many people, including women
and sick people were beaten up, houses and property were seriously damaged. The
actions of the police were not properly investigated and nobody was brought to
justice. Since then raids by police and skinheads in Roma neighbourhoods or
against Roma have taken place as often as several times a year and have been
basically covered up by the police and prosecutors in the cases when
investigations have been undertaken at all. Almost a model case is the case
from March 12, 1999, when the Pleven Military Prosecutor’s Office terminated
the investigation into the case of police raid in the Romani neighbourhood in
Mechka in July 1998, when more than 80 policemen entered the neighbourhood and
beat up people when looking for stolen property. The cited reasons for the
terminated investigation proceedings were impossibility to identify the
perpetrators.
In two other cases of mass beatings in Romani neighbourhoods—in
Krivodol, March 1998, and in Septemvri, April 1998—preliminary investigations
were not even instituted. The Prosecutor’s Office, which was repeatedly
approached, justified its inaction by saying that the victims had lodged no
complaints. It should be noted, however, that even so, the Code of Criminal
Procedure does not necessarily require a complaint from victims in order
investigation to be initiated.[20]
Torture and other ill treatment in custody is a serious problem in Bulgaria and was noted by both local and international human rights monitors. Since 1999 the European Court of Human Rights has found two violations against Bulgaria of Art.2 (right to life) of the European Convention of Human Rights in the cases of two Roma men who lost their lives as a result of torture while in police custody. In the case of Velikova v. Bulgaria[21] the Court found a violation of Art.2, holding that there was sufficient proof to conclude that the death of Mr. Tsonchev, the applicant’s husband, had been caused during his detention in the police station in Pleven. The Court established a number of flaws in the investigation of the case, related to the inadequate medical certification of the victim and to the conscious omissions of the Prosecutor's Office to collect evidence about the way in which his death had been caused. It also established a violation of Art.13 of the Convention (failure to provide an effective remedy) because of the absence of an adequate investigation into the case by the Bulgarian authorities. The judgement of the court in Strasbourg did not serve as a ground to reopen the criminal investigation in Bulgaria. The persons who killed Mr. Tsonchev, as well as the officials who covered up for them, were not subsequently prosecuted or punished in any way. In the case of Anguelova v. Bulgaria[22] the Court found a violation of Art.2 of the Convention in a case of a murder in custody of the plaintiff’s son. Angel Zabchikov, an ethnic Rom, was killed in January 1996 after being detained in a police station in Razgrad. With this decision the Court also found that the authorities did not provide medical assistance in a timely manner, that they did not fulfill their responsibility to conduct an effective investigation into the death of the detained man, and that the police officers responsible for the crime were not brought to justice. The Court also found violations of Art.3 of the Convention because the government did not provide an acceptable explanation for the wounds inflicted on Mr. Zabchikov’s body, of Art.5, because Mr. Zabchikov was illegally detained, and of Art.13, because the state did not provide effective means of identifying and punishing those responsible for Mr. Zabchikov’s death. These judgments, clear in their findings as they were, did not serve as a basis for reopening of the criminal investigations and bringing perpetrators to justice.
The above cases were by no means the only ones resulting in deaths of detainees from ethnic minorities. Two more of the recent cases are worth mentioning. On 10 January 2001 Mehmed Myumyun, a 46-year old Turk died in the hands of the police from brutal torture in a hotel in Sofia. He was allegedly confused with a wanted criminal, and died as a result of severe beating by the police on January 10, 2001. Charges were brought up against two police officers responsible for the killing, but the Sofia City Court cleared up both in a session on 5 March 2001. On 18 February 2002, Seval Sebahtin, a Turk from the town of Kurdjali died in police custody after being caught by Border Police officer together with about 20 illegal immigrants. An investigation into the case revealed that the border guards used force and various instruments not only at the time of Sebahtin’s arrested, but also used clubs, handcuffs, fists, legs, and the butts of their rifles to beat him up in detention. In February 2002, the Plovdiv’s Military Prosecutor’s Office initiated investigation proceedings on the case, and brought charges against 7 officers. As yet, there are no convictions on this case too.
The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee systematically monitors torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment for many years and continues to receive credible allegations of torture and other ill-treatment, for the most part during police custody, from a variety of sources – letters from victims, complaints from detainees and prisoners and surveys among samples of prison population on the conditions of detention. BHC is able to verify some of the allegations in the course of its visits to police stations, by reviewing the available documentation, including medical records, and through interviews with defense lawyers, prison administrators and medical doctors.
BHC conducted several consecutive surveys of prison population on their conditions of detention. The shares of positive responses of the prisoners to the question of whether physical force was used against them during police detention and while in police custody were as follows:
|
|
1999 2001 2002 |
|
During arrest Inside the police station |
51% 49% 31% 53% 44% 43% |
The trends reveal a slight decrease in the positive responses between 1999 and 2002 but the share is nevertheless alarmingly high.
As a rule, ethnic minorities and especially Roma are in a
greater risk of being ill treated. Thus, according to the 2002 survey the share
of Bulgarians who reported ill treatment inside police station was 27% while
that of Roma was 77%.
The government report does not provide the
required statistics of
reported cases and the success-rate in prosecution of acts of discrimination,
hostility or violence as a result of persons' ethnic, cultural, linguistic or
religious identity. It provided some general statistics, which is itself
indicative, in its last report before the UN Committee Against Torture
(scheduled for review by CAT for May 2004). The statistics
provided by the Ministry of Interior indicate a sharp decline in the number of
registered complaints and a strikingly low level of investigations. It appears
that in the period 1997-2000 only 29% of the complaints had been investigated
and still less, 20% - forwarded to the Military Prosecutor’s Office. Of the 48
investigated cases 37, or 77%, had been investigated in 1997 and all the others
– subsequently. With such a low investigation and prosecution rates, it’s no
surprise that complaints also decline in number.
Religious minorities too have
become targets of both official and unofficial violence. Jehovah’s Witnesses,
Mormons, Moonies, Members of Hare Krishna and neo-Protestant evangelicals were
beaten up by police and hate gangs, had their houses and places of worship
raided and their peaceful gatherings disturbed. Since 1993 they were constantly
and repeatedly facing hate speech in the media and by public officials. In 1997
even the Patriarch of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church branded them as “traitors
of faith and nation”. Cases of police and mob brutality against religious
minorities were registered in most places where they have a significant
presence, including Sofia, Plovdiv, Varna, Burgas, Kiustendil, Russe,
Blagoevgrad, Petrich, Assenovgrad, Veliko Turnovo and Rila. All these actions
remained unchallenged by the authorities.
Both mainstream electronic media
and the press often instigate ethnic and religious hatred. Several nationalistic
newspapers representing both the right and the left fringes of the political
spectrum regularly publish hate speech. Throughout 1994-1996 the press were
actively publishing slander and thus provoking the public towards actions
against some religious minorities. Some of the grievous incidents of physical
violence were perpetrated after and as a result of the publication of
defamatory articles.
Article 7
The
Parties shall ensure respect for the right of every person belonging to a
national minority to freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association,
freedom of expression, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
(Under
this Article please only provide information on the freedom of assembly and the
freedom of association. Information on freedom of thought, conscience and
religion may be provided under Article 8 and all information on freedom of
expression may be provided under Article 9.)
· Factual
The serious restrictions in
Bulgaria on the right to freedom of association and to peaceful assembly have
primarily affected unpopular ethnic and religious groups.
A number of minority organisations
of Turks, Armenians, Roma, Tatars, Jews, Russians, Vlachs, and Karakachani in
Bulgaria were recognised through incorporation as private associations under
the Law on the Person and the Family and function freely. This, however, does
not refer to organisations based on Macedonian
identity. In 1990-1991, several courts refused registration of UMO (the United
Macedonian Organisation) "Ilinden" for
allegedly being directed against the “unity of the nation.” In 1993, the
Supreme Court invalidated a court registration of the moderate Macedonian
culture-based group, Traditional Macedonian Organisation (TMO)
"Ilinden" on procedural grounds. TMO was re-registered in 1998
without, however, making its Macedonian identity a
specific profile.
Two decisions refusing UMO “Ilinden” juridical
person status were passed during 1999. On April 28 the Sofia Appellate Court
dismissed a UMO "Ilinden" complaint against a decision of a
Blagoevgrad court from 2 November 1998, which had turned down their motion for registration. In
its motives, the Appellate Court argued that registration could not be given on
grounds that the organisation’s statute was not signed up, (without clarifying
in what manner it had to be signed up) and that a provision from the statute
was saying that “Macedonian
individuals” could be members of UMO "Ilinden". The same
provision allowed access to membership of “individuals with another national belonging” in the organisation, but
that fact was not taken into account by the Appellate Court. On 12 October 1999 the Supreme Court
of Cassation reaffirmed the
Appellate Court's decision,
entirely accepting its motives.
UMO “Ilinden” filed a complaint to the ECHR and is waiting its decision.
In 1998 a splinter group of UMO "Ilinden" was registered as a political party in Sofia under the name UMO "Ilinden" - PIRIN, but nowhere in its Statute was indicated the Macedonian character of the formation. On 29 February 2000, the Constitutional Court ruled UMO "Ilinden" - PIRIN unconstitutional. The Court held that the party is a threat to Bulgaria's national security with its "separatist" activities, in violation of Article 44, paragraph 2 of the Bulgarian Constitution. The Constitutional Court examined the UMO "Ilinden"'s case on the motion of a group of BSP MPs from 1999, which were supported by a number of state institutions, among which the Interior Ministry, the Ministry of Justice and the Chief Prosecutor's Office. Through its decision, the Constitutional Court reaffirmed the traditional denial of existence of Macedonian ethnic minority in Bulgaria. Based on that Court's decision, the Sofia City Court issued an order deleting UMO "Ilinden" from the political parties' register on 13 July 2000, thus effectively banning it.
The Constitutional Court's decision was appealed before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
On 2 October 2001, the European Court announced its decision on the case of Stankov and UMO-Ilinden v. Bulgaria finding a violation of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECNH), where the Bulgarian State was breaching the right of Bulgarian Macedonians to assemble. Bulgaria was sentenced to pay compensation and to cover all legal expenses in addition to being sharply criticised for its repressive attitude towards the Macedonian minority. In spite of the decision, however, the Bulgarian authorities continue to demonstrate intolerance - albeit not so aggressive as in previous years[23] - towards all public displays of Macedonian identity. On 21-22 April 2002, two groups of Macedonian activists were allowed to commemorate the anniversary of the death of Yane Sandanski at Rozhen Monastery. Still the second celebration faced the provocations of the police and government agents. Angel Trenchev - a participant in the festivities - was arrested and threatened with a fine. Similarly, on 12 September 2002 in Blagoevgrad UMO "Ilinden" activists were allowed access to the monument of Gotse Delchev in order to commemorate the anniversary of the massacre of 400 Macedonians by Bulgarian government agents in 1924. Meanwhile, however, the police were taking photographs, which were later used to threaten the participants in the celebration.
Besides Bulgarian Macedonians, members of unpopular religious groups, generally stigmatised in Bulgarian society as “sects”, have also been restricted in their right to association and peaceful assembly. The peak of state's intolerance for the "non-traditional" faiths was in 1995 marked by police beatings, harassment and arrests of believers, raids in private places of gatherings, dismissals from work for membership in them, and others.
The amendments to the Law on
Persons and the Family from 1994, designed to attain some of the new religious movements, envisaged re-registration of all religious associations with the
permission of the government. Only 23 out of 62 registration- and
re-registration applications under Article 133A[24] were
approved; the remaining 39 - mainly Protestant-, two Muslim and one
Christian-Orthodox organisation - were denied registration. In 1998, Jehovah’s
Witnesses - who were among those, denied registration - received official
recognition as a result of an amicable agreement with government. The amicable
agreement ended the suit, which Jehovah's Witnesses pursued against Bulgaria
before the European Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg in the period
1995-97.
Municipal authorities and the
police have prohibited and disbanded tens of
meetings of religious groups. On several occasions local authorities have fined Jehovah’s Witnesses for
assembling and preaching inside their own homes. Even groups officially
recognised as religious denominations have had serious problems with some local
authorities when deciding to hold open-air meetings. The Society for
Krishna Consciousness has been hindered from holding open-air celebrations as
well, with the motivation that there was “accumulated negative attitude”
towards the society. Similar cases have occurred with the Church of Seventh-Day
Adventists. A number of municipalities adopted local ordinances restricting the
activities unpopular religious groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Moonies,
Evangelicals, and members of the White Brotherhood.
On many occasions the so-called
“non-traditional” denominations were denied use of premises, which they had
rented from the municipal councils. The police and other authorities' harassment against the activities of some
recognised, but unpopular religious communities, especially on local level, is a problem as of the moment.
It was the intimidating
1949 Denominations Act—which had been changed substantially except for some
repealed provisions by two Constitutional Court’s decisions in 1992 and
1998—that had governed the religious affairs in Bulgaria up until December 29,
2002, when the new Law on Religious Denominations entered into force. The new Law solved some of the problems occurring
under the 1949 one, but it contained a number of restrictive and discriminatory
provisions as well. (Details for the Law see under Article 8 bellow).
Article 8
The
Parties undertake to recognise that every person belonging to a national
minority has the right to manifest his or her religion or belief and to
establish religious institutions, organisations and associations.
Interference in the internal affairs of the religious
communities is an old and persistent problem in Bulgaria that had already
resulted into several decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. The case
of Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria from 26 October 2000 concerns a refusal
of the BSP government in February 1995 to register the leadership of Muslim
believers led by Mr. Fikri Hasan as Chief Mufti. The Court found Bulgaria in
violation of Art.9 of the Convention for the state authorities’ failure to
remain neutral in the exercise of their powers while dealing with the
registration of the Muslim religious denomination. This was treated by the
Court as arbitrary interference by the government in the Muslim community's
religious affairs. The Court additionally ruled that the legally established
procedure for the registration of denominations and their leadership did not
include guarantees against arbitrary interference by public authorities, and
had not met the required standards for clarity and foreseeability.
Hasan and Chaush case is just one and probably not the most dramatic
event in the Bulgarian government’s history of abuse of religious communities.
BHC encloses a detailed account of this history in Supplement
3-1.
What needs to be added to this supplement is the recent practice of expulsion
of Muslim preachers from the country as “threats to national security”.
One such case is that of Daruish al-Nashif, a
32-year-old stateless person and a father of two children, born in Bulgaria and
Bulgarian citizens. On 5 July 1999 he was expelled from Bulgaria for
"having endangered the security or the interests of the Bulgarian State
with his actions." The said actions expressed in his organising the
teaching of Islam to underage children in the town of Smolyan; taking part in
an "illegal" Islamic seminar in Narechenski Bani
(August, 1997) - brutally dispersed by the police; and trying to organise an
Islamic teaching centre in Smolyan in 1995. Daruish al-Nashif was
expelled on the grounds of
Art.40(1) in conjunction with Art.10 (11.1) of the Act for residence of aliens
in Republic of Bulgaria. The respective provisions precluded judicial review of
expulsion orders motivated by national security considerations. His case was
submitted to the European Court of Human Rights, which announced its decision
on June 20, 2002. The Court found Bulgaria in violation of Art.13 of the
European Convention for not providing for judicial control over expulsion of
aliens under the Foreigners Act. In addition, the Court found that Mr. Al
Nashif’s expulsion from Bulgaria had been based on a legal regime that did not
contain guarantees against arbitrariness, and therefore, that legal regime was
found to be “illegal”. More than a year after the European Court’s ruling in Al Nashif v. Bulgaria, Bulgaria’s government has not yet brought up
the Foreigners Act in conformity with the respective decision.
In the same year another Muslim preacher -
Abdullah Mohammed - was
expelled from Bulgaria, again, under the formal pretext of endangering national
security as well. In fact, Mr. Mohammed’s expulsion was intended to restrict
the teaching—even a completely conventional and peaceful one—of Islam in
Bulgaria. His Foundation, Taiba, had been in the focus of the
police’s and media’s attention for nearly two years, and finally was
conveniently dissolved on allegations of serving as a cover of "Islamic
fundamentalism".
The libel “Islamic fundamentalism” has been attached to a wide range of Muslim
beliefs and practices - which are in fact inseparable part of the standard
profession of Islam and have nothing in common with any fundamentalism - and
broadly disseminated by media in a way as to result in strong anti-Muslim prejudice in
Bulgaria.
In January 2000, a group of six Islamic preachers - Ahmadis - branded "sectarians", were caught in the region of Shoumen and expulsed from Bulgaria on the grounds that they preached without permission by either Turkey’s or Bulgaria’s Directorates of Religious Affairs. The Bulgarian authorities claimed that the absence of such permit violated Articles 22 and 23 of the 1949 Denomination Act, which paradoxically turned to have been already repealed by virtue of the Constitutional Court's Decision No.5 of June 5, 1992. Thus, the act of expulsion of the six Muslim preachers on the basis of provisions already deprived of legal force constituted a gross abuse of power and a show of open religious discrimination.
In May and June 2000, a new group of three
Muslims were forced out of the country. One of them was Ahmad Mussa, a
Palestinian living in Bulgaria for over 15 years, married to a Bulgarian, and a
father of three children born in Bulgarian and Bulgarian citizens. Mr. Mussa
and the other two were again expelled on the grounds of threatening the national
security, which is not liable to appeal under the Bulgarian law. Mussa’s case is currently pending
decision before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The
pressure on Muslim preachers eased somewhat after the ECHR judgment on Al
Nashif v. Bulgaria. The problems with religious freedom however were not
given a bgek. In December 2002 the Bulgarian Parliament passed a new Religious
Denominations Law. Since the time before
its adoption, the law has been subject to severe criticism by both the political
opposition and public interest groups because
of the number of restrictive clauses in it. The law was hastily
passed on voting by MPs only from the National Movement of Simeon II (NMSS) and
the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), and, thus, any chance for the opposition
and the civil society to publicly debate over the law
was obstructed. In spite of the Article 4’s assurance that faiths
are equal in status; separated from the state; and fully free of state
interference in their inner organisation, the Orthodox Christianity was
established as “the traditional religion” in Bulgaria (Preamble and Art.10
(1)), and was granted a status of legal entity with the force of law (Art.10
(2)). By virtue of Articles 14 and 15, all other religious denominations are
treated discriminatorily vis-à-vis
the Bulgarian Orthodox Church through being obligated to undertake a judicial
procedure in order to acquire legal personality. Moreover, they must register
with the Sofia Municipal Court, empowered by law to grant legal personality,
including upon “an expert opinion” by the Council of Minister’s Directorate of
Religious Affairs, which may be requested by the Court (Art.16). This clause
severely breaches the discrimination prohibition in both the Bulgarian
Constitution and international law. Because the Court--which is in a position
to grant and revoke a registration of any other religious denomination--cannot
revoke the registration of the Orthodox Church that is registered
by the authority of law itself.
Furthermore, in spite of declaring
"infeasible" any “state intervention in the religious denominations' inner organisation” (Art.4
(2)), the state preserves its powers through the law to interfere precisely in
the denominations’ internal structure by virtue of
Article 15 (2). The respective Article proclaims
“inadmissible” the existence of “more than one” religious denomination with the
same “name and quarters.” This way, the state
authorities leave open the door for intervention in any given denomination’s affairs any time an undesirable schism is threatening the denomination.
Such was the case with the two biggest religious communities in the country—the
Orthodox and Muslim ones. The respective provision was included in the new
Religious Denominations Law in spite of its contravention to the established
standards in the case Hasan and Chaush v.
Bulgaria. The law establishes a special system of sanctions, applicable
only towards religious denominations. It also establishes a special government
office – Directorate of Religious Affairs, which has almost as broad powers
under the new law as it had under the totalitarian 1949 Act. First of all, the Directorate has the function of
overseeing the limitations imposed by the law. Second, it is empowered to
request courts to initiate proceedings against a religious denomination for the
purposes of depriving it of legal personality. Third, the Directorate may also
“advice” the Sofia Municipal Court to register or not to register a particular
religious community. Forth, the Directorate can exercise “policing functions”
through its authority to: allow or prohibit foreign religious activists from
entering Bulgaria; to check citizens’ or entities’ signals of their rights
being violated by the acts of third persons or entities in exercise of their
religious right. Thus, “the result is that the role of the Directorate seems to
have taken the form of a type of religious police force, ever vigilant to the
activities of potentially dangerous people”.[25]
The Law creates conditions for official exercise of witch-hunting of undesired
faiths, legal exercise of discrimination against religious denominations vis-à-vis Orthodoxy, and possibility of
state control over communities’ religious affairs. In fact the new law leaves unresolved some of the
basic defects of the earlier law, namely, the opportunity for broad
government’s interference into the affairs of the religious denominations and
conditions for discrimination against smaller and unpopular denominations. It also has
numerous other restrictive and discriminatory provisions, some of which (but
not all) were criticised by the experts of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe in their spring 2003 opinion. BHC encloses a supplement with
its own analysis of the law, as well as an English-language translation of the Religious Denominations Law itself (See Supplement No.3-II).
Article 9
1. The
Parties undertake to recognise that the right to freedom of expression of every
person belonging to a national minority includes freedom to hold opinions and
to receive and impart information and ideas in the minority language, without
interference by public authorities and regardless of frontiers. The Parties
shall ensure, within the framework of their legal systems, that persons
belonging to a national minority are not discriminated against in their access
to the media.
2.
Paragraph 1 shall not prevent Parties from requiring the licensing, without
discrimination and based on objective criteria, of sound radio and television
broadcasting, or cinema enterprises.
3. The
Parties shall not hinder the creation and the use of printed media by persons
belonging to national minorities. In the legal framework of sound radio and
television broadcasting, they shall ensure, as far as possible, and taking into
account the provisions of paragraph 1, that persons belonging to national
minorities are granted the possibility of creating and using their own media.
4. In
the framework of their legal systems, the Parties shall adopt adequate measures
in order to facilitate access to the media for persons belonging to national
minorities and in order to promote tolerance and permit cultural pluralism.
Paragraphs
1 and 4
· Factual
Historically Bulgarian media have contributed little to the promotion of "a spirit of tolerance and intercultural dialogue" and to the fostering of "mutual respect and understanding and co-operation among all persons living" in Bulgaria.[26] Some of them have frequently served as sources of prejudice and as means of dissemination and affirmation of prejudice against certain minority communities. Of all ethnic minorities in Bulgaria, Roma, Nacedonians and Muslims (Turks and Pomaks) have been the least adequately and the most negatively represented by media.
Media coverage of Muslim- and
Roma-related issues[27]: According to a
research conducted by the BHC in 2002, only 0.95% (Monitor newspaper) to 1.62% (Trud
and 24 Chasa newspapers) of the space of the central (national) press is
devoted to minority-related issues, which constitute a very “miserable”
quantity in fact.[28] The summary conclusion of
the study as to the press coverage of
the two biggest minorities in Bulgaria - the Turks and Roma
- turns to be the following: the
newspapers’ attention in respect to the first, is concentrated on political
events (i.e. the Turkish minority participation in the political process in
Bulgaria through the MRF, which is a serious political force in the country),
and in respect to the later—on their criminal records and social destitution. Both matters of media concentration are
mostly negative and bias-burdened. Another deformation in the media coverage of minority issues is the fact that the
print media - within the limited space
devoted to this - focus exclusively on the two dominant minorities, Turks and
Roma, as well as on some other, smaller minorities such as Jews, Armenians, and
Macedonians, almost totally excluding others, such as the Pomak Muslims. The
Pomak Muslims are effectively called “the
invisible community”[29], which perfectly well
reflects their status in media coverage, as well as their place in the public discourse at all. The Pomak
Muslims’ existence is touchily reminded about only when/if someone ventures to
challenge their “established” ethnic-Bulgarian origin, calling them Turks or
else.[30] Last, but not least
“defect” of both central and regional
press coverage of minority matters, is the tendency to politicise or sensationalise all that is related to minorities (example: Gypsy crimes), which often results in lack of deep reflection and analysis of the minority conditions.
Although
several
provisions of the Law on Radio and Television provide for the right of ethnic
communities to disseminate information on their mother tongues (Articles 6 (3);
12 (2); 49 (1), etc.), this opportunity in fact is very limited. This is apparent from the Government's Report on the
Framework Convention itself. For example, Channel I of the Bulgarian National
Television broadcasts a news emission in Turkish language only 10 minutes per
day since 2000, and there is no such at all in Romanes. The private Darik Radio has a program in Turkish,
which is, however, disseminated only in the Kurdjali reion, where is the
highest concentration of ethnic Turkish population. The private cable TV - 7
Dni (Seven Days) has a weakly
broadcast in Turkish called “Belyat Gulub” (“White Pigeon”). There are also two
private cable TVs situated in Vidin and Razgrad,
which broadcast in Romanes and Turkish respectively.
The number of mass
media, which conduct programs in Bulgarian language about Roma and Muslims is not big either. The Bulgarian National Radio emits
informational-musical programs only for the
regions
with compact Turkish population; the cable TV 7 Dni has two 30-minutes broadcasts per month for Roma; as well as
the yearly greetings addressed to minorities
via
the radio or TV on special religious holidays
occasions. This could hardly be called sufficient in quantity regarding the fact that, according to the State Report, there
are more than 180 private radio stations and about 80 cable and air TVs
operating on the territory of Bulgaria. Neither of them has any significant contribution to bettering of the media –
minorities interaction.
As far as print media are concerned, the situation in terms of quantity and adequacy of ethnic minorities'
reflection is slightly better in them, as the greater part of these editions
are minority-owned.
Another study conducted by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee in 2000
on the Ethnic Press in Bulgaria[31]
shows that the best integrated ethnic minorities in the country are the smallest ones such as Armenians and Jews. On
the contrary, the biggest minorities such as Turks, Pomak Muslims, and Roma are
the least integrated. A number
of
factors contribute to this, but most of all
the inadequate amount and quality of media coverage of matters concerning Roma, Turks and Pomaks. The study
reveals the following paradox: there is one Jewish newspaper for two Jews per month,
while there is one Romani newspaper for ten Roma per year. The situation with the Turkish minority is nearly the
same as with Roma and that with the Pomak Muslims is incomparably worse.
The same study
shows that minorities' press issues are primarily
sponsored
by Bulgaria-based NGOs and/or foreign
donors. More than half of the
financial resources for the ethnic Turkish press in Bulgaria come from abroad, primarily from Turkey and almost 100% of the
financial support of the Romani printing media comes from Bulgarian non-governmental organisations. State subsidies for minority press are either insignificant or completely lacking. The
technical equipment of the ethnic Turkish printing media is very poor. For example, Kaynak
magazine - with circulation of 2,000 - and Rights and Freedoms newspaper - with circulation 7,000 - dispose(d)[32] of one typing machine and
one computer, respectively. This becomes particularly conspicuous on the font
of the Jewish newspaper Evreyski Vesti (Jewish News) (with
circulation of 1,500 copies) and the Armenian newspaper Erevan (circulating
1,100 copies)
dispose of 1 computer/5 typing machines and 2 computers/2 Xerox machines/2
typing machines respectively. In addition, both surveyed Turkish press organs Kaynak magazine and Rights
and Freedoms newspaper are written and issued by persons working on voluntary
basis, i.e. without being paid at all (a total of 40 people for the magazine
and one person for the newspaper), while there are 3 paid editors and 4 paid
authors working for the Evreyski Vesti newspaper (no unpaid staff at
all), for example.
A sample of 10 persons from
each of the Turkish, Roma and Macedonian minorities were surveyed as well on a
number of questions related to discrimination of ethnic minorities in the
press. Although such a limited number of people cannot provide a fully objective
reflection of the situation, it still registers the predominant opinion
of the
above minority communities. To the question,
which media most impartially and amicably cover minority issues,
50% of the Macedonians responded - none - and the majority of Turks and Roma pointed at their own editions - the Rights and
Freedoms (for the Turks) and Drom Dromendar (for the Roma) newspapers - to be most trustworthy. The state-owned
national TV Channel I was
defined as the least objective print media by the representatives of the three ethnic
groups - Turks, Roma and Macedonians.
The image of Muslim
(Turks and Pomaks) and Roma in the press: Turks, Roma and
Pomaks are the most unfavourable represented minorities by the media. According to a study conducted by the Centre for
Social Practices (CSP)[33], the prevalent emotions in the attitude towards the Turks are fear from and suspicion to
their (political) intentions, although
they are
simultaneously respected for their
"diligence, unity and determination.”[34] Theories about Turkey’s
ambitions for Bulgarian territories are still broadly shared among ethnic
Bulgarians, and accordingly covered by media. Thus, not only negativism towards
the Turkish minority increases, but also the possibility for building
substantive equality among Bulgarian citizens reduces, as the nationalism grows
high. There is hardly a day, in which
some Bulgarian newspaper or a mass media does not refer to "Turkish yoke", "Ottoman bestiality" (and now "Islamic
fundamentalism" and/or "Muslim
terrorism" added to them), etc. Moreover, these terms continued to be used
in literature and history textbooks used by ethnic Turkish and Pomak children,
but the state education institutions does not appear to be bothered by the
question of how such myths influence children’s psychic. In
spite of all, however, the Turks consider themselves well-integrated (or at
least, better integrated than the Pomaks and Roma) into the Bulgarian society.
According to the SCP's study Roma are the most rejected
community in the country and the media have particularly important contribution
to that. The “traditional” epithets used by both media and majority population
in Bulgaria as a name of reference to Roma remain “dirty, ignorant,
bad-mannered, impudent, thievish, lazy, liars”, etc. The only positive
characteristic seemed to be associated with Roma is that they are musical, gay and carefree people.[35] Due to this, Roma sink to occupy the lowest and most marginal
strata of society. However, they
paradoxically turn to be the most tolerant, amicable, and receptive ethnic
community in Bulgaria, but the fact that they have no adequate opportunity to
talk for themselves through media, only deteriorates the situation.
The Pomak Muslims--“the invisible
community”--are a third group in Bulgaria, whose media coverage is far from
flattering, and what is more, media are very often a (voluntarily) tribune from
which they are “informed” about who they are, and/or who they must be. However,
they are denied the opportunity to voice who they think to be through media. The lack of stable
and shared sense of self-identity among that population is broadly exploited as
a means to effectively impose an identity upon it, which is a serious curtailment of the Pomaks' basic human rights. Thus, they “must” be either Turks
or ethnic Bulgarians, “Turkicised” during the years of “the Ottoman yoke.” Many
of the Pomak Muslims, in fact, are more comfortable to identify themselves as
Turks, because, first, they feel culturally-related to the Turks, and
second—because they do not feel compelled to accept “the fact” that they are
Turks. At the same time, the trend in the Bulgarian public discourse maintained
by media as of today dominates the view that the Pomak Muslims are “Turkicised
Bulgarians”, and what is more, it is considered “an established fact”, which they have to accept. This “fact”, however, has one very
frustrating consequence grossly belittled by media - being “Turkicised
Bulgarians”, Pomaks are stigmatised as "apostates" and
"traitors of the faith", who have waved their right
to respect.[36]
Thus, most of the Pomak Muslims reject the theory of being Bulgarians, and
instead identify themselves as either Turks, or “others”—again, particularly
due to the unfavourable public discourse conducted by the media about them. There is a particular part of Pomaks that identify
themselves as ethnic Bulgarians, but that does not mean that this way they feel
sheltered from negative attitudes meditated by the media.
Both
the press and the electronic media are usually hostile to any expression of Macedonian
ethnic identity. Macedonians usually receive negative coverage in the media.
There is a privately published newspaper produced in Macedonian and Bulgarian
but there has never been any question of Macedonian language broadcasts in the
electronic media.
Article 10
1. The
Parties undertake to recognise that every person belonging to a national
minority has the right to use freely and without interference his or her
minority language, in private and in public, orally and in writing.
2. In
areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities traditionally or in
substantial numbers, if those persons so request and where such a request
corresponds to a real need, the Parties shall endeavour to ensure, as far as
possible, the conditions which would make it possible to use the minority
language in relations between those persons and the administrative authorities.
3. The
Parties undertake to guarantee the right of every person belonging to a
national minority to be informed promptly, in a language which he or she
understands, of the reasons for his or her arrest, and of the nature and cause
of any accusation against him or her, and to defend himself or herself in this
language, if necessary with the free assistance of an interpreter.
Paragraph
1 and 2
·
Narrative
There is no legal
provision prohibiting the use of minority languages before the administrative
authorities. In the oral communication Turkish is often used between
administrative authorities and members of the Turkish minority where
municipalities have ethnic Turkish officials. All written documents, however,
are produced in Bulgarian as a matter of custom and because the subsequent
court procedures must be carried on in Bulgarian.
·
Legal
No legal provisions regulate the use of minority
language before administrative authorities.
·
State infrastructure
No special governmental bodies exist to deal with the
use of minority language before administrative authorities.
·
Policy
There is a nationalistic
cultural pressure resulting in anxiety among minorities to use their language
before administrative authorities. Apart from this, however, there has not been
any governmental action, statement or other trace of policy to that effect.
·
Factual
The communication between minority members and
local authorities, (courts, municipal/district authorities, including police)
in settlements with predominantly minority (Turkish) population is normally
enabled by representatives of that minority community who work in the said
institutions. Such persons unofficially act as “interpreters” in case of
necessity to ease the communication between minority persons who do not have
sufficient command in Bulgarian language and the administration. What is
bothering is not the fact that the above is an established practice, but that
people are not aware of their right to have free interpreter provided in case
there is no one to help them in the communication with local authorities. Thus,
legal provisions protecting the right to free use of minority language remain
unknown and unimplemented.
The issue is particularly acute when it comes
to the relationship police - minority members, because the old, totalitarian
image of the policeman as an officer to be feared from/avoided rather than to
be trusted, still persists among minority members. Considering the fact that
very few minority representatives are employed within the law-enforcement
institutions, the negative image of the police officer persists and
strengthens. Police – minorities relation continues to be thus problematic and
one of the reasons for this is the lack of adequate communication, because of
the unavailability of interpreter for those not having sufficient knowledge in
the official language.
Paragraph
3
·
Factual
There is no legal
obligation of law enforcement officials to inform a person belonging to a
national minority of the reasons for his or her arrest and of the nature and
cause of any accusation against him or her in a language, which he or she
understands. Thus, this provision of the Framework Convention and the similar
provision of Art.5.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights are not
enforced. A significant number of people belonging to some minorities (mostly
Turks and Roma) have a very poor command of the Bulgarian language or do not
know it altogether. Some of these people become defendants. Because of the
presumption of authorities that every Bulgarian citizen must know Bulgarian and
because of the budgetary restraints for the judiciary, interpreters for these
people are appointed in only very rare cases. It should be added, that many of
these people participate in the criminal proceedings also without a lawyer.
Thus, often they are questioned, asked to sign protocols and take part in the
court proceedings with a very poor understanding of the reasons for their
arrest, and of the nature and cause of any accusation against them.
Article 11
1. The
Parties undertake to recognise that every person belonging to a national
minority has the right to use his or her surname (patronym) and first names in
the minority language and the right to official recognition of them, according
to modalities provided for in their legal system.
2. The
Parties undertake to recognise that every person belonging to a national
minority has the right to display in his or her minority language signs,
inscriptions and other information of a private nature visible to the public.
3. In
areas traditionally inhabited by substantial numbers of persons belonging to a
national minority, the Parties shall endeavour, in the framework of their legal
system, including, where appropriate, agreements with other States, and taking
into account their specific conditions, to display traditional local names,
street names and other topographical indications intended for the public also
in the minority language when there is a sufficient demand for such
indications.
Displaying traditional local names,
street names and other topographical indications intended for the public in the
minority languages has been a problem in Bulgaria for the Turkish minority, but
potentially also for other groups. The procedure and requirements for naming
and renaming of objects is established by Decree 1315 from 1975, which is still
in force. According to this procedure the names of objects with a national
significance (mountains, rivers, forests, lakes, islands, national parks, big
dams, etc.) are given by the President of the Republic and the names of objects
with a “local significance” (streets, gardens, schools, neighbourhoods, etc.)
are given by the Municipal Councils. Both groups of objects however must meet
certain requirements one of which is that their names must “reflect the wealth
and beauty of the Bulgarian language” as provided for by Article 4 of Decree
1315. This provision has been used on a number of occasions to block municipal
decisions for renaming of local objects in the regions populated by ethnic
Turks (see bellow).
One of the main motives - albeit unofficial -
of the Videnov’s cabinet (1994-1996) to refuse to sign up the Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities was finding it infeasible
to provide for the use of minority language (notably Turkish) in contacts with
the state administration, and/or to admit names of streets, places and other
spots in a language other than Bulgarian.
Since then nothing has changed in the policy regarding the display of inscriptions in a minority language - notably Turkish – even in areas compactly inhabited by minority population. Any attempt to do so in the best case has been sharply criticised and has been immediately counter-reacted. The judiciary has been frequently affirming the reality of political intolerance for the public display (in the minority language) traditional local names, street names and other topographical indications by its verdicts since the democratic changes in Bulgaria. Thus, the constitutionally guaranteed right to use one’s minority language not only has not enforced by courts as it should have been, but, on the contrary, was denied in many of its aspects. Thus, in the summer of 1993, the MRF-dominated Momchilgrad Municipal Council, acting completely within its jurisdiction under the law, undertook to give other, Turkish language- and culture-related names to several streets in the town. The counter-reaction of the Haskovo District Governor was immediate in challenging the Council’s decision in court, apparently certain in his victory. In September 1993, the Kurdjali District Court did invalidate the Municipal Council’s decision relying on a 1975 Decree No.1315, which required that names “reflect the richness and beauty of the Bulgarian language.”[37] The same was done a year later (in July 1994) by the Haskovo District Court, which invalidated the decision of the Kirkovo Municipal Council. The Council had given Turkish names to 16 quarters in the Fotinovo region earlier in the year.[38]
As of today, even in settlements with almost
100% ethnic Turkish population (the village of Samuil, Razgrad District, for
example) not a single street, or whatever other spot within the settlement’s
borders bears Turkish-related name, let alone have a name-plate, direction
plate, or any other inscription in Turkish (not to mention Romanes) put on a
public place. Only sites located outside settlements and historically known
with Turkish-related names, had been registered by the same name in the process
of land-denationalisation that started after the 1989 in Bulgaria.[39]
Regional and municipal authorities in mixed
district claim that there is no sufficient demand by people to display
inscriptions in Turkish language or to rename streets and/or sites in the
minority language. However, there is still strong political intolerance for
such acts.
Article 12
1. The
Parties shall, where appropriate, take measures in the fields of education and
research to foster knowledge of the culture, history, language and religion of
their national minorities and of the majority.
2. In
this context the Parties shall inter alia provide adequate opportunities for
teacher training and access to textbooks, and facilitate contacts among
students and teachers of different communities.
3. The
Parties undertake to promote equal opportunities for access to education at all
levels for persons belonging to national minorities.
Paragraph 1,
2 and 3
· Narrative
There is no tradition and no
practice of fostering knowledge of the culture, history, language and religion
of the national minorities in Bulgaria. The academic scholarship is focused on
the Bulgarian history and culture, which is very much centred around the
culture, values and political history of the ethnic Bulgarians. History and
culture of the European nations is studied and known much more than history and
culture of the ethnic and religious minorities of Bulgaria. While with very few
exceptions all minority members know the Bulgarian language and history, there
are almost no Bulgarians who speak minority languages, including those of them
that are living in areas with predominant minority population. Courses on
minorities' culture, history, language and religion are taught at some
universities in Bulgaria and at several research institutions some research on
the matter has been done, however, all remains rudimentary and highly
inadequate in both quality and quantity. For the most part these initiatives
developed with the support of international donors and non-governmental
organisations.
There is also a problem
with the content of history and/or literature textbooks, which are still at use
in schools, particularly as regards the Turkish minority. In the introductory
text of a media-related minority study of the Centre for Social Practices in
Sofia from 2002 it is noted that “there is hardly a day, in which some
Bulgarian newspaper does not refer to the five-hundred year Turkish yoke, the
Turkish bestiality or their barbarian [Islamic] customs.” However, “the
officials – goes on the quotation - from the Ministry of Education have never
been bothered by the question how myths like these are projected on children’s
psychic of Turkish and Bulgarian-Muslim background, who are obligated to use
text-books [with such content at school].”[40]
Many textbooks have been produced
in Bulgaria for all levels of education. The Ministry of Education is in charge
of approving those that are suitable for use in the educational system up to
and including secondary school level, but not university/college level. Some of
the textbooks, (prepared and/or funded by non-governmental organisations),
which include adequate knowledge of the culture, history, language and religion
of minorities, are approved by the Ministry, but none of them is mandatory for
use. Most of the time such textbooks are only used as supplementary materials
in classes, and whether and how to use them is left to the teacher's
discretion.[41]
The Framework Program for Equal
Integration of Roma in Bulgarian Society provides for desegregation of the Roma
neighbourhood schools as a way to promote equal opportunities for access to education of Roma children.
The Ministry of Education has recently spoken in favor and adopted several
documents endorsing desegregation, no concrete measures to implement this
policy have been undertaken so far. The Action Plan for the implementation of
the Framework Program does not envisage funds for transportation of the Roma
children to the integrated schools.
See Supplement No.4 for a detailed account of the history of segregated
Roma education and an evaluation of the recent desegregation efforts.
Article 14
1. The
Parties undertake to recognise that every person belonging to a national
minority has the right to learn his or her minority language.
2. In
areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities traditionally or in
substantial numbers, if there is sufficient demand, the Parties shall endeavour
to ensure, as far as possible and within the framework of their education
systems, that persons belonging to those minorities have adequate opportunities
for being taught the minority language or for receiving instruction in this
language.
3.
Paragraph 2 of this article shall be implemented without prejudice to the
learning of the official language or the teaching in this language.
Paragraphs
1 and 2[42]
Since the start of democratic changes in
Bulgaria there have always been certain problems related to the study and use
of a mother tongue, particularly as concerns the larger minorities in Bulgaria,
the Turks and Roma. However, while the Turkish as a mother tongue has been
studied at school – to a large extent due to the ethnic Turks' wish to do that
– the Romanes is absent from the school curricula. Absent are also several
other minority languages and for some of them, like the Macedonian, there has
never been even a question of inclusion into the public school curricula.
The problems with the study of Turkish language
as a mother tongue in the initial years of democracy did not stem so much from
state reluctance to provide such training, but from the practical lack of
qualified cadres. Thus, in May 1993, Kyasim Memish—an expert in the Ministry of
Education, Science and Culture—reported that about 17,000 out of 92,166
students in total, who had submitted applications to study Turkish as a mother
tongue for the 1992/1993 school year, could not be enrolled in Turkish language
classes. That was so, because of lack of enough and qualified teachers, on one
hand, and on the other--because of lack of enough children to meet the required
number to form a class.
To the expressed wish by Turkish minority
members, in 1996, to have the teaching of Turkish at school improved and
included in the regular school curricula[43], as well as to have some
of the school courses offered in Turkish, the Education Minister responded with
threats. The old “revival process” activist, Ilcho Dimitrov, openly declared:
“Turkish schools will not be allowed to exist in Bulgaria, this should be clear
to them ([the Turks]). If they want Turkish schools, they are free to go to
Turkey.”
In 1997 the serious problems in respect to
minorities’ study and use of mother tongue continued to exist and even
deepened. For example, the request of Turkish community leaders to incorporate
the study of Turkish language in the regular school curricula, as well as to
permit the instruction of some school subjects in Turkish for the upcoming
1997/1998 school year, was thoroughly ignored.
Legal framework for
the study of
minority (Turkish) language as a mother tongue[44]:
The study of minority language as a mother tongue in Bulgaria is
provided for by law. After the fall of Communist regime in November 1989, a new
Constitution was adopted in 1991 to correspond to the reality of emerging
democracy in the country. Paragraph 2 of Art.36 of the Constitution stipulates:
“Citizens whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian shall have the right to study
and use their own language alongside the compulsory study of the Bulgarian
language.” By virtue of this provision, the use of a mother tongue by minority
groups is protected by the Supreme Law of the Nation--the Constitution.
Decree No.183 of the CM of September 5, 1994,
cancelled the application of the previous decree, but preserved the study of
Turkish language up to 4 hours per week on a “freely selectable” basis.[45] The document established
that a student wishing to study a mother tongue has to submit a written request
to the school’s principal, signed by the student or a parent/guardian if the
student is under-age (Art.2 (2)). The decree stipulated that the funding of mother
tongue classes was to be secured by the municipal budget (Art.5). Art.3 of the
decree ordered the organisation of pre-school Bulgarian language courses for
minority children who did not speak the official language.
By virtue of Instruction No.4 of the Ministry
of Education and Science (MES) of October 27, 1994, the study of Turkish as a
mother tongue for grades 1st to 8th became based on model
curricula, approved by the Ministry in question.
With the adoption of the Law on Educational
Degree, Educational Minimum, and Educational Plan in July 1999[46], as amended in 2002[47], the instruction of
mother tongue and Religion in municipal schools, was made “obligatory
selectable”, i.e. part of the ordinary school curriculum, and included in the
students’ records (Art.15 § 3). This positive legal development was a direct
result from Bulgaria’s ratification of the Framework Convention on the
Protection of National Minorities in February 1998, which bound Bulgaria to
respect a number of minority rights, the right to study and use one’s mother
tongue among which. This provision was enforced in practice in 2002/2003 school
year, when the instruction of Turkish as a mother tongue in municipal schools
were made “obligatory selectable”, but not the study of Religion as Art.15 (3)
stipulated.
With the law in discussion, the right to use
and develop ones’ mother tongue—as part of the minorities’ right to maintain
their own culture (additionally protected by Art.27 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Bulgaria ratified on
December 10, 1991) entered into a new, more advanced stage of minority rights
protection—at least formally. The law established more centralised system of
state funding of Turkish language classes (the previous funding being
channelled through the municipal governments created conditions for abuse of
power on local level), whereby the state became directly responsible for
appointing more qualified teaching staff, as well as exerted direct supervision
over the proper use of funds. For the first time through this law, the study of
mother tongue was extended to cover high school education level as well, not
only on primary and secondary school level (i.e. from 1st to 8th
grade). The law envisaged gradual introduction of Turkish language study
for students on high school level for the academic 2002-2003.
The study of Turkish language as a mother
tongue on “obligatory selectable” basis in both primary/secondary and high
school is regulated by Ordinance No.6 of May 28, 2001 of the MES.[48] The study of Turkish
language on a “obligatory selectable” basis since the 2002/2003 school year, is
organised as follows: 1st grade—3 classes per week; 2nd,
3rd, and 4th grades—2 classes per week; 5th to
8th grades—3 classes per week. Whether the number of mother tongue
classes is adequate or not, is disputable. On the basis of this, the fact that
the “obligatory selectable” time per week in the school curricula must be
shared by mother tongue, foreign languages and choreography (Art.6. (2)), further
degenerates the status of mother tongue classes. Thus, the above number of
mother tongue classes per week remains unstable, and could be reduced to a
vanishing point if a minority child wants to study a foreign language and/or
choreography in addition to his/her mother tongue. A minority student wishing
to study English, French, Spanish or German, for example, or wishing to take
choreography classes, can do this at the expense of his/her mother tongue
classes, which will decrease proportionately to the number of foreign language
and/or choreography classes added. Thus, for example, a child that wants to
study English language twice a week (for the sake of adequacy), will have only
one mother tongue class weekly in 1st grade; none—in 2nd
to 4th grades; and one—in 5th to 8th grades
(the chart attached). In such situation, the minority student faces the
ridiculous dilemma of whether to study his/her mother tongue, or English—both
necessary, important and equally desired. The thus established normative status
of Turkish as-a-mother-tongue instructions by virtue of Art.6 (2) of Ordinance
No.6 turns to be discriminatory in effect.
The status of mother tongue classes as an
“obligatory selectable” subject on high school level is even lower as compared
to that on primary and secondary school level. The allocated weekly time for
“obligatory selectable” classes is shared between mother tongue and 8 other
“educational areas”[49] (Art.12 of Ordinance
No.6). The “obligatory selectable” weekly time on high school level is distributed
as follows: 5 classes—9th grade; 12 classes—10th grade;
22 classes—11th grade; and 26 classes—12th grade (table
supplement). Thus, in the best case, i.e. with the highest number of mother
tongue classes per week—26, in 12th grade, mother tongue classes
will be no more than 2 per week, provided that a student takes at most 2
classes from each of the other 8 “educational areas” per week. However, if the
student intends to apply to university, and because of that wishes to have more
classes in the subject of interest (i.e. history, foreign language,
mathematics, Bulgarian language and literature, etc.), that would be at the
expense of the mother tongue classes, or a course from any other “educational
area”. Still, it must be noted that two mother tongue classes per week are
possible under the optimal time of 26 hours in 12th grade.
However, what happens when the total number of
“obligatory selectable” classes per week is 22, 12 and/or 5 per week? The lower
the time allocation is the minimal the number of mother tongue classes per week
for minority students are. The chances
for studying Turkish or Romanes as a mother tongue in 9th grade of
high school is almost non-existent, unless the student is resolved to ignore
all other areas of interest in order to have an adequate number of mother
tongue classes in any of the grades on high school level. This seems infeasible
against the background of the claim that there is a wide-spread propaganda
among minority students and parents not to study their mother tongue as it
would undermine students’ abilities to learn the official language, and hence
would obstacle their successful integration into society.[50] Thus, both parents and
children are influenced, and students end up enrolling in some other courses in
spite of feeling the need/wish to study the mother tongue, which is quite
obviously an effective natural catalyst in the process of children’s[51] successful absorbing of
the official language and all other subjects, which are taught in Bulgarian.
Other problems related to the study
of minority (Turkish)language at school[52]: According to official statistics of
the Ministry of Education, Turkish as a mother tongue has been studied in 20
districts the 2000/2001-school year and onward, primarily in the districts of
Southeastern and Northeastern Bulgaria, where the Turkish minority is
concentrated. In 2001/2002 the instruction in Turkish had been organised in 520
municipal schools in the country, with 34,860 minority students enrolled in
them. The total number of Turkish language teachers had been 703, more than 95
% of which were qualified to teach Turkish, i.e. were holders of a Bachelor’s
or a Master’s degree in Turkish philology, (or Turkish/Bulgarian,
Russian/Turkish philology, see bellow), and were competent to teach in high
schools.
By 2002/2003 school year, Turkish is still
taught in 20 districts, but the number of schools, whose curricula include
study of Turkish has dropped to 420, with a total of 31,349 students enrolled,
and 1,761 out of them are 1st-grade children, which study Turkish on
an “obligatory selectable” basis. Correspondingly, the total number of Turkish
language teachers decreased from 703 to 588, of whom 162-not qualified to
teach.
There is no shortage of qualified teaching
staff, and what is more, many holders of Bachelor’s and/or Master’s degree in
Turkish philology are unemployed or work outside the field.
Another basic problems along with the legal
inadequacy of the study of mother tongue at school is the utter shortage of
textbooks, not to mention textbooks with outdated content. It was the
introduction of Turkish language study in schools in 1992 that generated the
need of textbooks and other school materials for the wishing to study Turkish
as a mother tongue students. For these purposes a primar (ABC book) for grades
1st to 4th and a chrestomathy for grades 4th
to 8th were hastily prepared in 1991 to put the start of Turkish
language training with. During the next two years--1992 and 1993, some new
supplementary materials were prepared and issued with the financial assistance
of the Turkish embassy in Bulgaria, namely a grammar book and a reader for
grades 1st to 8th of primary and secondary school. Since
then neither new textbooks have been prepared and issued as has been repeatedly
promised by the MES, nor have been the initial textbooks—although with already
inadequate content—re-published in spite of the numerous complaints by Turkish
language teachers and experts on mother tongue for the scarcity of textbooks,
and the poor condition of the remaining in use.[53]
With the introduction of Turkish language as
one of the “obligatory selectable” courses (i.e. a course that is part of the
regular school curriculum, and counts towards students’ GPA) in primary and
secondary school for the 2002/2003 school year, the Ministry of Education had
planned to form a working group of experts, whose task would be to prepare
textbook(s) “with a new content”. Yet, no such new textbook(s) and related
materials are available as of today.
Turkish language instructions at school are
based on curricula prepared by the Turkish language teachers themselves, which
curricula are subject to approval by the MES. A unified program on the study of
minority (Turkish) language as mother tongue is missing, which is considered as
disadvantage by the Turkish language teachers and experts. Moreover, it is
deemed that a unified program is essential for the effectiveness of the process
of minority (Turkish) language teaching and learning at school and the
responsibility for its preparation lies with the Ministry of Education and
Science.
In summary, there is a lack of comprehensive
government’s support for organising an effective study of mother tongue by
minority children at school, which renders all normative guarantees—which are
in all events inadequate—for the study and use of mother tongue meaningless. In
addition, the combination of mother tongue with other basic courses[54] as possible options among
which a student can choose to fill up the number of classes assigned to the section:
“obligatory selectable”, undermines the position of the mother tongue classes
as their number per week is contingent upon the number of other classes taken.
Thus, minority students on all education levels are effectively barred from the
opportunity to enrol in necessary/desired courses, and still have sufficient
number of classes per week in their mother tongue.
In addition, one of the most frequent reason
accounted for by Turkish minority members and language experts for the
decreasing number of Turkish language classes - especially in the initial stage
of school level (primary school) - is the broad propaganda among minority
students and parents to limit to minimum the number of mother tongue classes,
because it would drug back students’ development and their ability to use the
official language. The reality shows that in most cases that propaganda works.
Article 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.
(In
providing information please address the areas of cultural life, social and
economic life and public affairs separately. Particularly information on
institutional arrangements for participation in decision-making processes
should be included (as the case may be, consultative councils, parliamentary
arrangements and territorial or cultural autonomy). Please also indicate
whether under certain conditions non-citizens have voting rights, and, if so,
under which conditions.)
● Participation in public affairs
Minorities' participation in public and
political life in Bulgaria is limitted and in some cases obstructed (e.g.
Pomaks, Roma, Macedonians). The U.S. State Department in points out in its
latest annual reports on the human rights practices in Bulgaria that ethnic
minorities in the country, and particularly the largest ones (Turks, Pomaks,
and Roma) are uderepresented in both central and local state governments.[55]
The involvement of the Turks - as the biggest
minority in Bulgaria - in the central and and local government in Bulgaria is
the most active, but still not always adequate, including in the regions where
they constitute a majority. The Turkish-Muslim participation in Bulgaria's
public life has become possible through the Movement for Rights and Freedoms
(MRF), which, although with fast-growing ethnic Bulgarian membership, remains
ethnically-dominated. With the 24 parliamentary seats won in the 1991 election,
the MRF managed to secure its, more or less, active participation in the
country’s political life, as a result of which Bulgaria’s human rights records
markedly improved, especially as regards the rights of the biggest ethnic and
religious minority in Bulgaria—the Turks. A significant number of the MRF
members were elected in the local administrative bodies as well--more than
1,000 municipal counsellors, 27 municipal mayors, and 650 town and village
mayors. Kurdjali, the main city in the District most densely populated by
ethnic Turks, elected a Turkish minority mayor in 1991/92.[56] This was a great success
for MRF considering the fact that the party had just survived two challenges of
its constitutionality before the Constitutional Court initiated by BSP Members
of Parliament.
The current government is a coalition between
the National Movement for Simeon the Second (NMSII, a political party led by
the former Bulgarian monarch Simeon Sax-Coburg-Gotha) and the MRF after the
June 2001 Parliamentary elections. Thus, through the Movement for Rights and
Freedoms (MRF), the Bulgarian Turks, along with other Muslims (Pomaks and
Muslim Roma) were able to partake more actively in the Bulgarian political life
once more.
Participation in local
government[57]: As constituting the biggest
percentage of the MRF’s electorate, the Turkish minority takes an active part
in both state’s central and regional government through its representatives
elected with the mandate of MRF. However, even in districts such as Shumen,
Razgrad and Kurdjali, where Turks are a majority, there is great
disproportionality between the share of minority's participation in local
government and their share in the total population of these districts. Of
course, no rule on proportionality exists that requires to be applied (at least
not a formal one), but in regions where more than 50% (or close to 50%) of the
population is from the ethnic minority, it should be expected that the
percentage of minority’s participation in public life of the respective region
has to be - at least - close to proportional. As a rule, however, the
minority's population is underrepresented in both local state administrative-
(either regional or municipal) and law-enforcement institutions (courts of law,
police, etc.).
Thus, for example, the 40%-minority population
in Shoumen District[58] is represented by only 4
persons working in the Shoumen district administration - 3 ethnic Turks and one
Rom (an expert on Romani issues). This constitutes 12.5% of the total district
administrative staff – 32 persons, which is far bellow the figure of 40%
minority population and 35% Turkish-Muslim population living on the territory
of Shoumen District.
Of the 100 persons working in the Shoumen
municipal administration, only one is ethnic Turk, (a member of MRF, who is
Director of Administrative Department), although that more than 13% (about
13,000 people) of the Municipality’s total population – 104,000 people – are
ethnic Turks.
One of the municipalities in Shoumen District
with most prevalent ethnic Turkish population is Gara Hitrino. The Municipality
consists of 21 settlements, where more than 85% of the population is ethnic
Turkish, 3% ethnic Bulgarians, and 12% others, including Roma. The 21
settlements are managed by 4 mayoralties, all of whom are ethnic Turkish. Of
the 23-member municipal personnel in Gara Hitrino, 15 are ethnic Turks and 8
are ethnic Bulgarians. Together with the staff of the 4 mayor’s offices, the
total number of personnel grows to 73, of which 50 are ethnic Turks and 23 –
ethnic Bulgarians. Thus, the juxtaposition of the ratio of 68% ethnic Turkish-
and 31% ethnic Bulgarian staff-representation and the ratio of 85% ethnic
Turkish- and 3% ethnic Bulgarian population in the Municipality constructs a
reality of very disproportional minority participation in the government of a
municipality where more than 85% of the population is a minority one.
Constituting only 3% of the total Municipality’s population, ethnic Bulgarians
occupy 31% of the local state administrative posts, completely excluding of
participation other smaller minorities such as Roma, or others, which form the
remaining 12%.
The above tendency of disproportional
representation of Turkish Muslims in local state administrative government is
even more expressed in Razgrad and Kurdjali districts, where the majority of
population is Turkish and other minority. 47% of Razgrad District’s population
is Turkish and 44% - is ethnic Bulgarian. The total number of Muslim population
(according to the 2001 census) living on the territory of the District is
higher – 54%, due to Roma and other Muslims settled there.[59] Only 9 out of 37 persons
working in the district administration in Razgrad are ethnic Turks, including
the District Governor and only 9 are the persons representing minorities in the
Razgrad municipal personnel, enumerating 98 officials, among which Deputy
Mayor, Secretary, 3 Department Directors, and Experts.
Thus, 47% and 54% respectively of the total
population in Razgrad District are ethnic Turkish and Muslims, but only 9% of
the Razgrad municipal staff and roughly 25% of the 20 mayoralties' personnel
(there are 20 mayoralties in Razgrad District) in the District belong to ethnic
minorities (Roma or other Muslims). Thus, in a district with a majority of
Turkish-Muslim population, only about 25% of the local government's personnel
is ethnic-minority represented (excluding law-enforcement organs), which hardly
constitutes a real opportunity for minorities (Muslim minorities) to adequately
participate in local public affairs, even in areas where they form an actual
majority.
Kurdjali District is the most
densely populated with ethnic Turks in Bulgaria. 61% its population is ethnic
Turkish, 34% ethnic Bulgarian, and 0.8% Romani population.[60] However, the total Muslim
population in the District - Turks, Pomaks and Roma - is 69.63%.[61] In spite of this high
percentage, however, only 9 officials out of 39 working in the District
administration of Kurdjali, are of ethnic minority background (basically
Turkish), including Deputy District Governor, Director of Directorate, and 7
Experts.
Involvement in law-enforcement institutions’ work[62]: If
minorities' (notably the Turks, Pomaks and Roma) participation in local governments is inadequate, their involvement in the state law-enforcement
institutions, is almost non-existent.
The Turkish-Muslim-Roma representation in law-enforcement institution in
Shoumen, Razgrad, and Kurdjali Districts is insignificant as concerns both the
number of persons involved in working there and the rank they occupy.
Of about 800 persons working in the
Shoumen District Directorate of Internal Affairs (RDIA) - half of which
operating in RDIA’s police department - only 33 are ethnic Turks (31 sergeants
and 2 higher-ranked officers); 4 are Pomak Muslims (3 sergeants and 1
higher-ranked officer); and 4 are Roma (all sergeants). This constitutes a
total of 41 minority members working in RDIA-Shoumen, which barely forms 5% of
the total personnel. Thus, the approximate 5% minority representation in
RDIA-Shoumen (including those working on the police department) should be
juxtaposed to the 40% minority (35% ethnic Turkish) population in the District
to factually confirm the thesis of minorities' underrepresentation in the
law-enforcement institutions - notably police - in Bulgaria.
Of the 5 police officers appointed
to serve the needs of Gara Hitrino Municipality (Shoumen District) - where 85%
of the population is ethnic Turkish and 3%-ethnic Bulgarian - only one is
ethnic Turk (the sole representative of minority groups at all), sergeant in
rank.
The other important law-enforcement
institution in Bulgaria, where the minority participation is very weak, is the
court of law. Of about the 40 persons working in the Shoumen District Court,
there is only one investigator of ethnic Turkish origin and two lawyers –
ethnic Turks, working with (with, not
in) the Court, which constitutes only
2.5% (without the two lawyers) of the total Court’s personnel.
Of the 40 to 50 police officers in the town of
Razgrad[63], hardly 4 are minority
members (ethnic Turks) – 3 sergeants and one higher-ranked officer (position
not specified). Based on these highly non-representative data (a BHC researcher
received no access to more specific information), the estimate is that about
8-10% of the active police personnel in Razgrad is from ethnic minorities. This
percentage, however, could not be extended to reflect the situation in Razgrad
District on the whole. Not knowing the total number of RDIA’s personnel (which
should number at least several hundreds), it is not possible to come up with a
truly representative percentage of Muslims’ (and minorities’ at all)
involvement in the Razgrad police. In the best case the percentage estimated in
regional scale would be equal to 8-10 %, however, the real figure should be
expected to lie well bellow 8-10 %. This thesis is indirectly implicated even
by the fact that only a single ethnic minority member is a part of the regular
staff of the Razgrad District Court – a recently appointed Prosecutor (an ethnic
Turk), as well as one lawyer (also Turk), working with the Court. The above
calculations and assumptions refer to a district, where 54% of the population
is Turkish-Muslim, and even admitting the 8 –10 % participation for realistic,
it is far from high enough to constitute an adequate minority participation in
the Bulgarian law-enforcement institutions.
The reality of minorities'
underrepresention (particularly of big minorities) in the work of the vitally
important law-enforcement institutions of the state is further emphasised by
the situation in Samuil Municipality, where more than 80% of the population is
ethnic Turkish. Only 3 of the 20 police officers acting on the territory of the
Municipality are ethnic Turks (or minority representatives at all), which forms
the strikingly discrepant ratio of 15% participation/representation to over 80%
minority population share.
Opportunely, the thus far delineated tendency
of Muslim minorities’ underrepresentation in law-enforcement organs shifts to
more optimistic direction as regards the situation in RDIA- Kurdjali (Kurdjali
being the region with the largest concentration of ethnic Turkish population in
Bulgaria). RDIA-Kurdjali appears to be the only institution of this kind, where
an ethnic Turk has been appointed Head of District Police Department, Major
Raif Mustafa. As of 26 June 26 2003, RDIA-Kardjali disposed of 63 ethnic
minority officers, 4 of whom were Roma (1 higher-rank officer and 3 sergeants)
and 59 – Muslims (Turks and Pomaks, 13 higher-rank officers and 49 sergeants).
For the first time, officers of ethnic minority background had been appointed
to the Economic Police Department (one ethnic Turk), to the Traffic Police
Department (one ethnic Turk), and to the Criminal Police Department (one Rom, a
higher-rank officer). The percentage of Turkish-Muslim participation in
RDIA-Kurdjali reached 13% (for all: Turks, Pomaks, and Roma) against 61% ethnic
Turkish- and 69% Muslim (Turks, Pomaks, and Roma) population living in the
District. 22% of the minority RDIA's personnel were higher-rank officers.
Although the estimated percentages in this case cannot claim proportionality as
well, it is at least the more adequate as compared to the situation
country-wide.
As of June 2003, in the police department, serving
the needs of Momchilgrad and Djebel municipalities (Kurdjali District), work 60
persons, 10 of which are ethnic Turks (1 higher-rank officer and 9 sergeants).
Again, considering the fact that about 80% and 98% respectively of the
population in Momchilgrad and Djebel municipalities is ethnic (Turkish and
Pomak), the figure of 16.6% ethnic minority representation in the regional
police is not high enough, but it is significantly higher than the percentage
estimated for both Shoumen and Razgrad districts as investigated areas.
SUPPLEMENTS:
-
I – Monitoring the EU Accession
Process: Minority Protection in Bulgaria, OSI, Budapest, 2001.
-
II – Monitoring the EU Accession
Process: Minority Protection, Vol. I: An Assessment of Selected Policies in
Candidate States: Minority Protection in Bulgaria, OSI, Budapest, 2002.
-
I – Emil Cohen, Krassimir Kanev, Religious Freedom in Bulgaria, Journal of Ecumenical Studies,
36:1-2, Winter-Spring 1999.
-
II – Krassimir Kanev, The New Bulgarian Religious Law: Restrictive and
Discriminatory,
ECMI Yearbook, 2003.
[1] Alternative report submitted pursuant to Art.25. (1) of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, prepared by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee in September 1999, available at: www.bghelsinki.org.
[2] More on the Pomak minority see in Supplement No.1 (Bulgarian Helsinki
Committee, The Human Rights of Muslims in
Bulgaria in Law and Politics since 1878, under subsection "Immigration
and assimilation problems".)
[3] Ibid.
[4] The Bulgarian Principality. Eastern Romelia, which was annexed to the Principality at the time in discussion was called “New Bulgaria.”
[5] The word is of the Russian-Turkish war in 1878, when separate short-lived forced conversions of Muslims took place.
[6] Ibid.
[7] For more on the Macedonians in Bulgaria see Bulgarian
Helsinki Committee, Annual Reports on the
Human Rights in Bulgaria in 1999, 2000 and 2001, available at: www.bghelsinki.org,
esp. under the sections on Freedom of Assembly and Association); Report
of the Centre of Documentation and Information on Minorities in Europe -
Southeast Europe (CEDIME-SE) for the Macedonians
in Bulgaria, December 1999, at: http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/english/reports/CEDIME-Reports-Minorities-in-Bulgaria.html);
U.S. State Department, 2001 and 2002
Annual Reports on Human Rights Practices: Bulgaria, under sections on
Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association, available at: www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt.
[8] See Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, Appl. Nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, Decision from 2 October 2001, available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/hudoc.
[9] For details on the problems of the Macedonians in Bulgaria see the BCH annual reports, available at: www.bghelsinki.org, and the reports on CEDIME-SE on the Macedonians and Pomaks in Bulgaria (at: http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/pdf/cedime-se-bulgaria-macedonians.PDF), as well as the BHC report on The Human Rights of Muslims in Bulgaria in Law and Politics since 1878 in Supplement 1.
[10] More on the issue see in Supplement No.1 (Bulgarian
Helsinki Committee, The Human Rights of
Muslims in Bulgaria in Law and Politics since 1878), under subsection "Demographic
data" in the Introductory Chapter.
[11] Alternative report submitted
pursuant to Art.25. (1) of the Framework Convention for the Protection of
National Minorities, prepared by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, September
1999 (p.5).
[12] Recall the fact that more than 65,000 Bulgarian-speaking Muslims wished to have been referred to as “Pomaks”, “Pomak Muslims” in the 1992 census.
[13] See Alternative report submitted pursuant to Art.25. (1)
of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, prepared
by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee in September 1999, under section "Demographic
situation in the country".
[14] Results available at: www.nsi.bg.
[15] For more details on the issue refer to Supplement No.1 (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, The Human Rights of Muslims in Bulgaria in Law and Politics since 1878, under subsection "Access to Justice"). See also Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, Annual Reports on the Human Rights in Bulgaria in 1999, 2000 and 2001, available at: www.bghelsinki.org; Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, Access to Justice: International Standards and the Situation in Bulgaria (Достъпът до Правосъдие: Международни Стандарти и Положението в България) BHC, Sofia, 2003 (in Bulgarian).
[16] With the entrance into force of the
new Sentence Enforcement Act in 2002, it became impossible for BHC researchers
to meet with suspects and accused persons, as well as to take interviews from
them.
[17] Access to Justice: International Standards and the Situation in
Bulgaria (Достъпът
до
Правосъдие:
Международни
Стандарти и
Положението
в България), p.88.
[18]For
details refer to Article 15 bellow, as well as Supplement No.1 (Bulgarian Helsinki
Committee, The Human Rights of Muslims in Bulgaria in Law
and Politics since 1878, under subsections
"Participation in Public Life"and “Access to Employment”.).
[19]For details refer to Article 14 bellow, as well as Supplement No.1 (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, The Human Rights of Muslims in Bulgaria in Law and Politics since 1878, under subsection "Education and mother tongue". The fact-finding missions took place in the period May-June, 2003).
[20] See id. Human Rights in Bulgaria in 1998, BHC Annual Report, p.2.
[21] Appl. No.41488/98, Decision from 18 May 2000.
[22] Appl. No.38361/97, Decision from 13 June 2002.
[23] The period 1991-1993 was characterised by mass police
beatings of participants in commemorations organised by the UMO “Ilinden” at
the grave of Yane Sandanski - one of the legendary Macedonian heroes -and in
the Samuilova Krepost locality, near Petrich. This practice subsided after
1994, although the annual UMO “Ilinden”-organised gatherings have been banned
every year since 1991 (with a single exception in 1995), with police called to
disperse the gatherings by force. Peaceful gatherings
organised by the UMO “Ilinden” have been also regularly banned by either mayors or district prosecutor’s offices.
[24]
Article 133A of the Law on the Persons and the Family
(now repealed) stated that "non-profit legal entities which perform
activities connected with religious faith or dealing with religion and
religious education, should be registered according to the conditions here
mentioned, after the approval of the Council of Ministers."
[25] Human Rights in Bulgaria in 2002, BHC
Annual Report, p.11 (at: http://www.bghelsinki.org/frames-reports.htm).
[26]
Article 6 (1) of the Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
[27] See also: The Human Rights of Muslims in Bulgaria in Law and Politics since 1878, under subsection "Access to Media", Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, Sofia: 2003 (Supplement No.1). The fact-finding missions for the report took place in the period May-June, 2003.
[28] Ethnic Minorities in the Press (Етническите
Малцинства в
Печата), Bulgarian Helsinki Committee,
Sofia: 2002, p.8-9.
[29] Their Voices (Техните
Гласове), Centre for Social Practices, Sofia: 2002,
p.25.
[30] There was a case with the Deputy
Regional Governor of Pazardjik, Molla Ahmed, who spoke on a meeting in village
of Kornitsa on 29 March 2003, calling upon the Pomak Muslim population to
insist on studying the Turkish as their mother tongue. That transformed into a
great political scandal, which brought into light old nationalistic fears of
Turkey’s anti-Bulgarian propaganda and “planned” cessation of the Western
Rhodopes – settled by Pomak Muslims - from Bulgaria.
[31]Ethnic Press in Bulgaria (Етническа Преса в България), Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, Sofia: 2000.
[32] The Rights and Freedoms newspaper no longer exists.
[33] Centre for Social Practices, Their Voices
(Техните
Гласове), Sofia: 2002.
[34] Ibid, p.19.
[35] Ibid, p.22.
[36] Ibid, p.26.
[37] See Human Rights in Bulgaria in 1993, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee's
Annual Report, p.2.
[38] See Human Rights in Bulgaria in 1994, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee's Annual Report, p.2.
[39] See Supplement No.1 (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, The Human Rights of Muslims in Bulgaria in Law and Politics since 1878, under subsection "Right to use one’s minority language before administrative authorities". The fact-finding missions took place in the period May-June, 2003).
[40] Their Voices
(Техните
Гласове), Centre for Social
Practices ed., Sofia: 2002, p.6. Refer also to Articles 9 and 14.
[41] For further details see Supplement No.1 (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, The Human Rights of Muslims in Bulgaria in Law and Politics since 1878, under subsection "Education and mother tongue". The fact-finding missions took place in the period May-June, 2003).
[42] Based on the report The Human Rights of Muslims in Bulgaria in Law and Politics since 1878, under subsection “Education and mother tongue”, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, Sofia: 2003 (Supplement No.1). The fact-finding missions for the report took place in the period May-June, 2003.
[43] At that time, and until recently,
Turkish language was studied only as an extra-curricular subject, and was
taught by low-qualified teachers.
[44] For further details refer to Supplement No.1 (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, The Human Rights of Muslims in Bulgaria in Law and Politics since 1878, under subsection "Education and mother tongue". The fact-finding missions took place in the period May-June, 2003).
[45] Official Gazette No.73 of 9 September
1994.
[46] Official Gazette No.67 of 27 July 1999.
[47] Official Gazette No.95 of 2002.
[48] Official Gazette No.57 of 15 June 2001.
[49] As defined by Art.10 of the Law on
Educational Degree, Educational Minimum, and Educational Plan of July 1999 (in
the main text) these “educational areas” are: Bulgarian language and
literature; foreign languages; mathematics, computer science, and information
technologies; social sciences, civic education, and religion (amendment added
in 2002); natural sciences and ecology; arts; lifestyle and technologies; and
sports.
[50] This claim was generally made
equally by Turkish language teachers, parents, children, experts, and other ordinary people before
BHC monitors during visits to regions with compact Turkish population in
May-June 2003.
[51] Particularly of primary school
children living in villages who very often cannot speak proper Bulgarian at the
time they start to go to school, simply because they have spoken only Turkish
at home. As one of the teachers at the Kaolinovo’s open lesson said (see
bellow), Turkish language classes appear as an excellent mediator between
minority children and the school, in which they use Bulgarian—a language which
they often do not know well in pre-school age.
[52] For further details refer to Supplement No.1 (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, The Human Rights of Muslims in Bulgaria in Law and Politics since 1878, under subsection "Education and mother tongue". The fact-finding missions took place in the period May-June, 2003).
[53] On an open lesson on May 14, 2003,
in the municipal village of Kaolinovo (North-East Bulgaria) for Turkish
language teachers from the region--visited by the BHC monitors--the teaches
shared that the only textbook of Turkish language, which they dispose of for
use is a one issued in 1992. The
respective edition was meant for maximum three-year use, but it continues to be
used for over 10 years now. According to all the present on the lesson
teachers, there are hardly three textbooks on average per class, and even these
are in destitute conditions—without covers, missing pages, pages torn on many
places, outdated content, etc. One of the teachers (of ethnic Bulgarian
background, and a school principal) stated: “There is no point to teach Turkish
to a child that has no textbook”, and concluded that similar situation is as
desperate as working “on the verge of an
abyss”.
[54] Recall Ordinance No.6’s provisions
uniting mother tongue, foreign languages, and choreography as possible options
assigned to the “obligatory selectable” weekly time in the school curricula in
primary and secondary school, and mother tongue and 8 other “education
areas”—in high school, again, on an “obligatory selectable” basis.
[55] See also U.S. State Department, 2001 and 2002 Annual Reports on Human Rights Practices: Bulgaria, under sections on National/Racial/Ethnic Minorities).
[56] Human Rights in Bulgaria after the October 1991 Elections, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, Annual Report, p.1.
[57] For further details refer to Supplement
No.1 (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, The Human Rights of Muslims in Bulgaria in
Law and Politics since 1878, under subsection "Participation in
public life". The fact-finding
missions took place in the period
May-June, 2003. The text therefore does not take into account the
results of the October-November, 2003 local elections.
[58] 204,378 total population in Shoumen
Region: 123,084 of them – ethnic Bulgarians (or 60%); 59,551 – ethnic Turks (or
29%); 16,457 – Roma (8%): and a total of 72,544 – Muslims (35%). Note that the
calculations are made on the basis of the last 2001 census’ data (at:
http://www.nsi.bg/Census/Census-i.htm).
[59] According to the 2001 census, the total population in
Razgrad Region is 152,417, of which 67,069 ethnic Bulgarians (or 44%); 71,963 –
ethnic Turks (or 47%); 8,733 – Roma (or 7%); and a total of 81,835 – Muslims
(or 54%).
[60] The 2001 census data account
for 164,019 total population in Kurdjali Region: 55,939 of them ethnic
Bulgarians (34%); 101,116 – ethnic Turks (61%); 1,264 – Roma (0.8%); and
114,217 – Muslims (69%)
[61] The 5 percent difference between
69% Muslims and 34% ethnic Bulgarians explains with the fact that the Pomak
Muslims in Kurdjali Region are registered as ethnic Bulgarians professing Islam.
[62] For further details refer to Supplement
No.1 (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, The Human Rights of Muslims in Bulgaria in
Law and Politics since 1878, under subsection "Participation in
public life". The fact-finding
missions took place in the period May-June, 2003).
[63] Note that that this information
concerns neither the RDIA-Razgrad’s total staff, nor the staff of the RDIA’s
police department, which together should enumerate at least several hundreds.
The given figures obviously concern only the approximate number of policemen
that are active on the territory of the town of Razgrad. Note also that top
officials from RDIA-Razgrad, interviewed by a researcher of the Bulgarian
Helsinki Committee, refused to provide any information about the number of RDIA’s
total personnel or the number of minority members from the personnel.