Homosexual rights in Romania
Doc. 7578
17 June 1996
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 367
by Mr Van der MAELEN
Mr Van der Maelen,
While thanking the Committee of Ministers for its reply of 3 April 1996 to his Written Question No. 364 on the same subject, wishes to put a supplementary question in the light of very recent information supplied by Amnesty International.
1. In point 2 of its reply, the Committee of Ministers states that "This revised bill which the Romanian Government will shortly be putting before parliament will not treat as a criminal offence homosexual acts in private between consenting adults and its definition of acts punishable as criminal offences will replace the 'public scandal' notion � to which the question alludes � by that of 'commission in public'."
According to Amnesty International this reply is incorrect and the draft Article 200, paragraph 1 actually reads: "Sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex, taking place in public, or producing a public scandal, is punishable by one to five years' imprisonment." Contrary to what is stated in the Committee of Ministers' reply, the "public scandal" notion is, therefore, maintained in the new government bill. As he explained in his Written Question No. 364, under Romanian law the "public scandal" notion means "any act known to more than two persons who disapprove thereof".
Amnesty International is, therefore, concerned that this very broad and vague notion of "public scandal" will lead to different and contradictory legal interpretations. They also fear that this notion may also make it possible for adult homosexuals to be prosecuted for homosexual acts committed in private, which would not be punishable if they had been committed in the same circumstances by heterosexuals. According to Amnesty International this would be a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 26 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which have been signed by Romania.
2. In his Written Question No. 364, he also raised the problem facing organisations such as the Bucharest Acceptance Group which, under the new legislation, may be banned. He received no reply to this part of his question.
Paragraph 5 of the new Article 200 of the Romanian Criminal Code reads: "Enticing or seducing a person to practise same-sex acts, as well as propaganda, associations or other forms of proselytising with the same aim, are punishable by one to five years' imprisonment".
Given that the international scientific world considers that homosexuality is neither an illness nor a type of behaviour to which it is possible to be seduced but that it is congenital and a variant of human sexuality, the proposed article is, therefore, devoid of any legal meaning. Furthermore, it is a flagrant discrimination against the homosexual community. This discrimination is contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Opinion No. 176 of the Parliamentary Assembly.
In addition, the vague wording of this article could lead to the prosecution of organisations defending the interests of Romanian homosexuals and actually worsen the current situation in Romania. This is contrary to Article 19 (the right to free expression), Article 21 (the right to peaceful assembly) and Article 22 (the right to freedom of association) of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 10 (the right to freedom of expression) and Article 11 (the right to assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
3. Amnesty International adds that the bill amending paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Article 200 provides for heavier prison sentences than if these "offences" were committed by heterosexuals. This too is obviously, therefore, a flagrant discrimination.
4. In part 3 of its reply to his Question No. 364, the Committee of Ministers states that "According to the information which the Romanian authorities have given the Committee of Ministers, this has entailed that in practice the provisions of the Criminal Code in the field of homosexuality are no longer applied, no one having been convicted under the above-mentioned provision since July 1994."
This allegation by the Romanian Government may be correct, but this does not mean, however, that no one has been held on remand. In June 1995 Amnesty International sought further information from the then police chief, Lieutenant General Ion Pitulescu, who, in an open letter of 24 May 1995, wrote that legal proceedings had been instigated against 113 homosexuals in 1994 and early 1995. Amnesty International has yet to receive a response to its request for more information, or to its question about the fate of Catalin Bucur and Stefan Ciocarlan, taken into custody in Focsani, in July 1995.
Mr Van der Maelen
To ask the Committee of Ministers
i. how it assesses the violations of human rights and discrimination against Romanian homosexuals contained in the government bill reforming the Criminal Code, as described above;
ii. what measures the Committee of Ministers intends to take to bring Romanian legislation into line with the international human rights texts signed by Romania;
iii. whether the Committee of Ministers can confirm the number of persons being held in Romanian prisons after being sentenced on the basis of Article 200 of the Romanian Criminal Code and the number being held on remand suspected of committing these "offences".
Signed:
Van der Maelen, Belgium, SOC