Rights Violated

C. Possible rights violated

1. SoJust takes into account the fact that the Mures Tribunal is judging, at the date of drawing up this material, the appeal regarding the enforcement appeals, so as to avoid ruling on the merits of this case until the decision remains irrevocable.

But it cannot fail to take into account the long duration of the trial. deadlines for solving the case.

As reported by the media, the reasons for postponing the case were those related either to the publication of the ECHR decision [24] , in which the violation by the Romanian state of the rights provided by art. 8 of the Convention, art. 3 of the Convention, art. 6 para. 1 of the Convention regarding the duration of the procedure (paragraph 131), as well as art. 14 of the Convention, reported to art. 6 and 8 of the Convention, or the communication by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of this decision to the court.

Or, in Decision no. 1420/2005 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice shows that the appellate court correctly provided that the aid granted to victims by the Romanian state must not diminish the material and moral liability of the defendants who remain obliged to pay in full the damages [25] .

Moreover, in Decisions 1 and 2/2005 of the ECHR have as parties the Romanian state and the plaintiffs (Roma civil parties) and do not consider the defendants-convicts.

In fact, the latter were convicted of various crimes (aggravated murder, aggravated destruction, etc.) in relation to which moral and material damages were established.

Instead, for example, in Decision no. 1/2005 ECHR, the Romanian state assumes its guilt not for the actual crimes for which the 12 persons were convicted, for which the forced execution was initiated, but for the context that led to the 1993 events in Hadareni, but also to judicial procedures completed very late, which is why it is required to remedy these situations (we quote in extenso for better clarification: – improving educational programs to prevent and combat discrimination against Roma in the school curriculum in the community of Hadareni, Mures County;

– elaboration of public information programs and elimination of stereotypes, prejudices and practices that affect the Roma community in the public institutions from Mures competent for the community from Hadareni;

– initiating legal education programs in cooperation with members of Roma communities;

– supporting positive changes among the public opinion in the Hadareni community regarding the Roma, based on tolerance and the principle of social solidarity;

– stimulating Roma participation in the economic, social, educational, cultural and political life of the local community in Mures County, by promoting mutual assistance and community development programs;

– implementation of housing and environmental rehabilitation programs in the community;

– identification, prevention and active resolution of conflicts that can generate domestic, community or interethnic violence.) .

From this perspective, it is more than clear that we have two different situations: one related to the two ECHR decisions, the compensations granted relating to human rights violations by the authorities, and Decision no. 1420/2005 of the HCCJ refers to the material and moral compensations strictly related to the guilt established in the charge of the convicts by the Romanian internal courts. And the execution procedures concern only the internal decisions, related to the culprits of some individual persons and not regarding the Romanian authorities.

We can appreciate, from this point of view, that the successive postponements did not take into account this real situation, so that, regardless of the solution given to the enforcement appeals, there is doubt that the parties benefited from a judgment within a reasonable time.

2. Another issue that arises regarding the trial of enforcement appeals concerns the unjustified interference of another power in the state, namely the executive, which, through the above-mentioned communiqué, intervened in the act of justice without having this right, infringing on the independence and impartiality of the person invested with the judgment of the enforcement appeals.

Thus, it is very clear from the communiqué of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that it foresaw or guided or influenced the court to give a certain solution (we remind you that this communiqué was given on August 18, 2005, after seizures were instituted on August 10, 2005). on the property of the convicts, and immediately the convicts filed appeals against the execution, knowing that even the ECHR ruled several times that the forced execution phase is part of the civil process, and the court that judges such appeals is an independent court and impartial in accordance with Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention).

In other words, SoJust considers that there are strong suspicions that the Romanian state violated the independence and impartiality provided by art. 6 par. 1 of the Convention by its interference with the act of justice.