Doc. 8180

2 September 1998

Honouring of obligations and commitments by Bulgaria

Information report

Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe

Co-rapporteurs: Mr David ATKINSON, United Kingdom, European Democratic Group, and

Mr Henning GJELLEROD, Denmark, Socialist

Summary

      This document is an information report on Bulgaria's respect for its obligations and commitments to the Council of Europe since its accession in 1992.

      Today, the country is headed by President Stoyanov and the government of
Mr Kostov, which enjoys absolute majority in the National Assembly since the victory of the Union of Democratic Forces (UDF) in the parliamentary elections of April 1997.

The year 1998 is for Bulgaria a crucial period in her policy of democratisation, economic stabilisation and European integration. The Council of Europe is bound to assist her in these efforts.

      Following the two fact-finding visits to Bulgaria they carried out from 18 to
22 December 1997 and from 7 to 9 June 1998, the co-rapporteurs draw the following provisional conclusions.

      Generally speaking, the new UDF government in power since June 1997 has made progress in both economic and political terms:

—Inflation which reached 310% in 1996 has been drastically reduced.—

—The World Bank has granted to Bulgaria a 100 million dollars loan and a new stabilisation programme was concluded with the IMF.—

—The European Union Luxembourg Summit decided in December 1997 that Bulgaria was a potential applicant for EU membership.—

—Participation in Nato peace-keeping operations is increasing and the pro-Nato orientation has been confirmed.—

—The Islamic Summit Conference held in Teheran in December 1997 took off its agenda the situation of the Bulgarian ethnic Turks.—

—Good relations have been established with its neighbours, in particular Turkey, Greece and Romania, as well as with Russia; some problems remain with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (language problem).—

—There is a consensus in parliament to integrate European structures.—

—The human rights record seems to be improving, according to most NGOs the rapporteurs met.Ne

New positive developments

—The Supreme Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court are now set up, but the Courts of Appeal are still not operating.—

—A new National Council on Ethnic and Demographic Issues was set up in December 1997 and it seems to have the support of ethnic communities, in particular the Roma. This Council should play an important role in analysing the interethnic relationships in the country and work out appropriate solutions in co-operation with the Council of Europe. Bulgaria signed the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities on 9
October 1997, and it is hoped that it will soon ratify it.—

—AnAlternative Service Act was adopted in 1998.—

—Freedom of religion is considered as satisfactory by most religious denominations and NGOs. However, the requirements for the registration of religious groups remain questionable.—

—Administration: the draft law assessed by Council of Europe experts is to be welcomed. However, the National Assembly should take into account the comments of Council of Europe experts, in order to make the law more democratic.Ma

Matters of concern

      Media

      The National Radio and Television Council is, according to the opposition but not to the majority, composed of six members close to the ruling party (UDF) and one close to the opposition (Democratic Left), which would be in clear contradiction with the independent character of this body (and probably contrary to the European Convention on Transfrontier Television: the case is before the Constitutional Court).

      New laws on radio and television and on telecommunications are to be adopted in 1998 and it is hoped that the National Assembly will take into account the assessments provided by the Council of Europe experts.

—Independence of the judiciary is theoretically guaranteed but the new draft amendments on the Judicial System Act are a matter of concern. The committee will have to follow developments very closely in the months to come, not only with regard to new legislation but also to its implementation.—

—Police violence (old habits die hard), in particular against members of religious communities, Roma and street children. According to some NGO reports, police brutality is increasing. The committee will have to investigate whether this trend is due to greater transparency in reporting or to an actual deterioration of police behaviour.—

—Purges in administration, diplomatic corps and local authorities. The dismissals seem to be mainly of a political nature.In

      In 1998, the National Assembly is to adopt a law on civil service; the Council of Europe should be consulted.

      Local self-government

The alleged intention of the authorities to introduce drastic changes in the legislation on local self-government with a view to appointing mayors of villages and regional governors is rather worrying. The CLRAE should closely follow the matter.

      New identity cards

      They are to be delivered by the Ministry of the Interior with a coded information content, which might be contrary to the protection of individual data.

      Children's prisons

      There are two such prisons (one for boys and one for girls) with unacceptable conditions. During their next visit the rapporteurs will check the situation on the spot.

—The relations between the majority in power and the opposition seem to be deteriorating and the lack of trust between them and between the population and the authorities might lead to a deep split in Bulgarian society.So

Some preliminary recommendations

—The Council of Europe should be asked to evaluate the main draft laws to be adopted in 1998 (for example on religion and the civil service) and the Bulgarian authorities should take into account the comments of Council of Europe experts when adopting new legislation.—

—The Bulgarian authorities in power should endeavour to associate more the opposition political forces in their reform efforts in order to avoid a deep split in the society.Co

Contents

      Page

I.Introduction6

II.Brief survey of the political content 7

III.Signature and ratification of Council of Europe conventions 9

IV.The court and legal systems 11

      A.The legislative process 11

      B.The judicial system 12

      1.Judicial reform 12

      2.Independence of the judiciary 13

V.Human rights and fundamental freedoms 14

      A.Freedom of the media 14

      B.Freedom of conscience and religion 18

      C.Minorities 21

      D.Local self-government24

      E.Other questions 25

      1.Conduct of the police forces and conditions of imprisonment 25

      2.Detention on remand 26

      3.Death penalty 26

      4.Children 26

      5.Identity cards 28

      6.Visas 28

VI.Concluding remarks 28

Appendix I:Opinion No. 161 32

Appendix II:Programme of the visit from 18 to 22 December 1997 34

Appendix III:Programme of the visit from 7 to 9 June 199836

Appendix IV:Comments of the Bulgarian Government38

Appendix V: Comments of the Democratic Left48

Appendix VI:Comments of the Alliance for National Salvation57

Appendix VII:Comments of the European Left in Bulgaria60

Appendix VIII: Conventions 66

I.Introduction

1.Bulgaria acceded to the Council of Europe on 7 May 1992, following the adoption of Opinion No. 161 by the Assembly on 5 May 1992 (see Appendix I).

2.The competent committees of the Parliamentary Assembly initiated monitoring of Bulgaria's commitments in 1994 in pursuance of Orders Nos. 488 and 508. On 25 April 1997, the Assembly set up the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States (Monitoring Committee) which took over all existing monitoring procedures.

3.At its meeting on 16 May 1997, the committee appointed MM. Atkinson and Gjellerod as rapporteurs on Bulgaria.

4.This memorandum is based on the introductory memorandum prepared by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in January 1997 [AS/Jur (1997) 2], on the exchange of views the Monitoring Committee held with the Bulgarian delegation on
5 November 1997 — unfortunately the delegation was only represented by Mrs Stoyanova — and on the rapporteurs' fact-finding visits to Bulgaria from 18 to 22 December 1997 and from
7 to 9 June 1998 (programmes in Appendix II and III). The rapporteurs would like to express their gratitude to the Bulgarian authorities as well as to Mr B. Todorov, Director of the Information and Documentation Centre on the Council of Europe in Sofia,1 for their co-operation and hospitality on the occasion of these visits.

5.As already observed in the memorandum of 14 January 1997, on its accession to the Council of Europe Bulgaria gave the undertakings to be accepted by all member states in accordance with Article 3 of the Statute, namely respect for rule of law and enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms. These are general obligations rather than specific commitments such as must be complied with by other countries which joined after the Republic of Bulgaria.

6.The Monitoring Committee approved a preliminary draft report on Bulgaria’s respect of its obligations and commitments on 29 January1998. It was forwarded to the Bulgarian delegation on 30 January 1998 and the Bulgarian Government’s comments were received on
24 April 1998 (Appendix IV). Additional comments were given to the rapporteurs by the parliamentary groups of the Democratic Left (Appendix V), the Alliance for National Salvation (Appendix VI) and the European Left in Bulgaria (Appendix VII).

      At its meeting on 23 June 1998, the Monitoring Committee decided to submit to the Assembly an information report as soon as possible.

7.A thematic approach will be adopted in this report. After a brief survey of the political context (section II), the following will be discussed: signature and ratification of Council of Europe conventions (section III), the court and legal systems (section IV); human rights and fundamental freedoms (section V). Concluding remarks will be made in Section VI.

II.Brief survey of the political context

8.Many elections have been held in Bulgaria since 1991: two presidential elections (1992 and 1996), two local government elections (1991 and 1995) and three parliamentary elections (1991, 1994 and 1997). Today the Bulgarians have thus gained considerable experience in organising elections.

9. In the election on 18 December 1994, an absolute majority was won by the Democratic Left made up of the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) and two other small parties, the
“Alexander Stambolyski” National Bulgarian Agrarian Union and the “Ecoglasnost” Political Group. Nevertheless, Zhan Videnov's government, which had an absolute majority in parliament, was very slow to implement legislative reforms and delayed the transition to a market economy.

10.The opposition candidate, Mr Petar Stoyanov, won the presidential election in November 1996 and took over from Mr Zhelio Zhelev on 22 January 1997.

11.The outcome of the presidential elections, compounded by the grave economic recession afflicting the country, prompted the opposition's call for early parliamentary elections (normally scheduled for December 1998).

12.Concerning the economic recession, it is to be noted that in 1996 Bulgaria recorded Eastern Europe's worst economic results. According to information from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the Bulgarian Statistical Institute, the 1996 GDP (gross domestic product) was down by 8% to 10%, inflation reached 310% and the value of the national currency, the lev, fell by 600% against the dollar.

13.In December 1996 the situation spurred the Bulgarian Government to accept the proposal made at the beginning of November 1996 by the International Monetary Fund to set up a currency board to supervise the central bank. This measure was viewed as the only way to bring the country through the economic and financial crisis.

14.Its aggravation also precipitated the resignation of the Prime Minister, Mr Videnov, on 21 December 1996 at a special Socialist Party congress which brought the "hard-liners" into conflict with the social reformists. The National Assembly in extraordinary session accepted
Mr Videnov's resignation on 28 December 1996. His government remained in office until a new one was formed.

15. A series of violent demonstrations triggered by the economic crisis began in
January 1997 with the aim of securing an early general election. This decision required the consent of all the parties represented in parliament.

16. Finally, on 5 February 1997, the Bulgarian Socialist Party agreed to the calling of an early general election. The National Assembly was dissolved on 19 February and the election date set for 19 April 1997. President Stoyanov instructed Mr Stefan Sofiansky, the mayor of Sofia, to form a provisional government. It rapidly reached positive results, in particular on the economic level.

17. Early parliamentary elections were held on 19 April 1997 in the midst of an economic crisis and a political confrontation.

18. These elections were observed by a delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly which assessed them as free, fair and democratic (see Mr Onaindia's report in Doc. 7830, Add. I). The results of the elections were as follows:

      Union of Democratic Forces:52.22% 137 seats

      Democratic Left:22.17%58 seats

      Alliance for National Salvation:7.5%19 seats

      Euroleft5.8%14 seats2

      Bulgarian Business Block4.95%12 seats

      240 seats

      The new government is led by Prime Minister Ivan Kostov (UDF).

19.During their visits to Bulgaria from 18 to 22 December 1997 and from 7 to 9 June 1998, the rapporteurs noted new signs of optimism among the country's leaders resulting in particular from:

—the EU Summit's decision in December 1997 to include Bulgaria among the eleven applicant countries for membership of the EU;—

—the Islamic Summit Conference's decision in December 1997 to take off its agenda the situation of Bulgaria's ethnic Turks;—

—the approval by the World Bank of a 100 million dollars loan to Bulgaria in October 1997 and the signature of a new stabilisation agreement with IMF;—

—the growing participation of Bulgaria in Nato peace-keeping missions, with the ultimate aim of joining the organisation;—

—the improvement and stabilisation of relations with neighbouring countries, in particular Turkey, Greece and Russia. However, as far as “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” is concerned, little progress can be noticed. Although Bulgaria was the first to recognise the state of Macedonia, it has so far failed to recognise the nation and its language. Because of the language problem, no single agreement has as yet been signed between the two countries. However, according to Mr Dimitrov, deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bulgaria is willing to sign a friendship treaty with the Republic of Macedonia;—

—inRecommendation No. 625 of 4 December 1997, the WEU Assembly recommended to the Council to “support and encourage the efforts of Bulgaria, particularly in the economic and structural fields, to achieve integration with Nato, the European Union and WEU”.20

20.Signs of optimism were also noticeable on the domestic front, with the acceleration of democratic reforms, improvement of the economic situation and a consensus in parliament to pursue the course towards European integration.

21.However, the opposition (which is represented by the Democratic Left, the Alliance for National Salvation and, as from early 1998, by Euroleft) accuses the government of ruling by dictate and of imposing its influence on the media, justice and local authorities.

22.In general, the rapporteurs noted the overall positive assessment of the government's policy in the field of human rights on the part of most NGOs and representatives of the ethnic and religious communities. However, they also perceived during their visit in June 1998, a growing climate of lack of trust between the majority and the opposition which is an unfortunate reminder of developments witnessed under Bulgaria’s former governments since 1991.

III.Signature and ratification of Council of Europe conventions

23.On acceding to the Council of Europe, Bulgaria formally undertook to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and to accept the right of individual petition (Article 25) and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (Article 46). Bulgaria honoured this undertaking as early as 7 September 1992.

24.Regarding the other Council of Europe conventions, a list of those which Bulgaria has ratified or merely signed appears in Appendix VIII. The rapporteurs note that Bulgaria has signed but not yet ratified Protocols Nos. 4 and 7 to the ECHR. As unsigned conventions or protocols are of major importance, the former rapporteurs asked the Bulgarian authorities whether it was intended to sign and ratify them and if so according to what timetable. The following position was stated by the Bulgarian parliamentary delegation:

i.Protocol No. 6 to the ECHR on abolition of the death penalty in peace time:

25.Bulgaria's intention to discuss and sign Protocol No. 6 in due course was confirmed, though without a timetable being defined. A speedy initiative is expected in this respect.

ii.Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities:

26.The Bulgarian authorities stressed the great importance they attached to this convention as a flexible instrument affording states complete latitude to determine their own measures for enforcing its provisions. Bulgaria took an active part in the preparation of the framework convention, which was moreover adopted by the Council of Europe while Bulgaria held the Chair of the Committee of Ministers. According to the Bulgarian delegation, Bulgaria applies the basic provisions of this convention in its court and administrative practice. Domestic legislation and practice recognise the presence of persons belonging to ethnic groups, but do not use the term “national minority”. The fact that the convention itself does not define this term allows it to be interpreted more freely. The concept of “minority language” is also unfamiliar in Bulgaria's municipal law, whereas in its practice the term “mother tongue” is used. Bulgaria finally signed the Framework Convention on 9 October 1997 and it is hoped that ratification will follow soon, all the more so since, in its decision of 18 February 1998, the Constitutional Court ruled that the framework convention is fully in keeping with the provisions of the Constitution.

iii.European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

27.According to the Bulgarian authorities, some provisions of the Charter do not correspond to Bulgarian legislation. One such is Article 8 concerning the obligation to teach minority (or regional) languages, deemed contrary to Article 8, paragraph 2, of the National Education Act, and Article 5, paragraph 1 of its implementing regulations, which require education in all types of schools to be conducted in the Bulgarian language. A subsidiary enactment, Council of Ministers Decree No. 232 of 29 February 1991, provides for study of one's mother tongue albeit only as an optional subject. Furthermore, under Article 9 of the Charter, it must be possible to conduct court proceedings in a minority (or regional) language; this is plainly at variance with the express provision in Article 5 of the Bulgarian Code of Civil Procedure that the court language is Bulgarian and that where a person without knowledge of Bulgarian is involved in court proceedings the court appoints an interpreter of its own motion. Similar potential conflicts arise concerning Article 10 (administrative authorities and state institutions), Article 11 (mass media) and Articles 12 and 13 of the Charter (see also the remarks below on the use of Bulgarian). The present significant differences between some charter provisions and the national legislation thus preclude its signature and ratification by Bulgaria.

28.The rapporteurs consider that the arguments put forward by the Bulgarian authorities may convincingly account for Bulgaria's failure to sign and ratify the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Yet this will be possible in the future given the necessary political resolve. It would therefore suffice to amend the national legislation in order to make it compatible with the European Charter in question. While acknowledging that Bulgaria has not made a specific undertaking to sign and ratify this charter, the rapporteurs take the view that it would be highly desirable for a state like Bulgaria, with its large minorities, to consent to be legally bound by these provisions and to amend national legislation and practice accordingly. It is worth noting that Bulgaria signed the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities on 9 October 1997.

iv.Protocols to the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (ECPT)

29.Bulgaria's ratification of the ECPT on 3 May 1994 was a positive step which enabled the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) to visit the country in April 1995, with the result that dialogue was opened between the CPT and the Bulgarian authorities (see below). The rapporteurs observe that Bulgaria finally ratified the two protocols to the ECPT on 27 October 1997.

IV.The court and legal systems

30.In the Monitoring Committee’s preliminary draft report of 28 December 1997, it was pointed out that the reform of the legal system was lagging behind all the other reforms in Bulgaria. During their last visit, the rapporteurs were able to note some progress in the legislative process and in judicial reform; however, they gained the impression that the reform process, in particular the proposed amendments to the 1994 Judicial System Act, deserves wider public discussion and consultation before being adopted.

31.With regard to the legislative process, all basic legal texts have not yet been adopted.

32.According to information received from the Bulgarian Government, the National Assembly adopted, on 15 December 1997, a law on amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, introducing appeal and cassation procedures and removing the possibility of applying for judicial review. The amendments came into force on 1 April 1998.

33.Law on the Supreme Administrative Court — for which provision is made in the 1991 Constitution — was finally enacted on 9 December 1997, but no clear reply as to the functioning of this court has been given to the rapporteurs. The same applies to the Supreme Court of Cassation.

34.Law on Administration — During their visit from 7 to 9 June 1998, the rapporteurs were given the draft law on administration and submitted it to a Council of Europe expert,
Professor Lewis (University of Sheffield), for an assessment. He considered that, while such a draft law could only be welcome as a major step in making the administration and executive more open, democratic and accountable, it hardly provides for “depoliticisation and neutrality of the civil servant”. The draft lacks a definition of the civil servant and a reference to “independence, appointment on merit, political neutrality and the like”. He also expressed his concern about the “wide discretionary powers” of the executive and the “enormous potential discretion” of regional governors, their “very broad powers” and their appointment by the Prime Minister. Furthermore, the number of bodies created by the draft are confusing, as well as the functions of the Inspectorate. The prohibition referred to in the transitional and final provisions might infringe on the spirit of human rights. Finally, the draft leaves too much room for secondary legislation and there is a clear need for wider democratic input and for setting up an independent Public Services Commission.

35.At present there are no laws governing the civil service and the diplomatic corps. The Bulgarian authorities state that the "draft law on the civil service" is under review by the Council of Ministers and due to go before parliament in 1998. This legislation is of utmost importance, especially in Bulgaria, where the new government has embarked upon an unacceptable witch-hunt policy, especially in the diplomatic corps, state-owned enterprises and even in the National Assembly. The rapporteurs deplore in particular the “forced” resignation of the Secretary of the Bulgarian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr Mitko Nikolov. According to the Democratic Left, the number of “political dismissals” is already over
35 000 people, among whom more than 3 000 high-ranking executives (see Euroleft comments). The government argues that its aim is to set up “a modern civil service meeting the strictest requirements of a European democracy: efficiency, professionalism and an optimum number of employees according to the conditions established by the Bulgarian Board of Finance”. It is to be hoped that European standards will be respected as far as financial compensation and pensions are concerned. It is to be noted in the connection that the deputy Foreign Minister, Mr Dimitrov, confirmed in writing to the rapporteurs that court decisions in favour of dismissed civil servants, such as Mrs Kovacheva and Mr Krastev, will be respected. On the other hand, Interior Minister B. Bonev read a report in parliament, in October 1997, disclosing the names of twenty-three full and part-time agents of the now disbanded State Security, who are MPs, senior government officials or judges at the moment. These revelations triggered heated debates in parliament.

36.New legislation is also urgently needed on issues such as the media and religious denominations, and the rapporteurs will closely follow developments promised for 1998.

37.During their last visit to Bulgaria the rapporteurs investigated the progress made with judicial reform under the Judicial System Act of June 1994, founded moreover on constitutional provisions. The situation does not yet appear satisfactory. The system embodying three degrees of jurisdiction laid down by the law has yet to be fully implemented. According to the law, the judicial system should be based on district courts and regional courts, courts of appeal, the Supreme Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court. If both Supreme Courts have been in operation since 1997, the courts of appeal are still in the process of being set up.

38.At the present transitional stage, the role assigned to the Constitutional Court is highly important. It has ruled unconstitutional various legislative provisions infringing human rights (for example, certain provisions of the Judicial System Act of June 1994, the Land Tenure Act of 1995, and the Media Act of 1996). The court may have cases referred to it by the following: forty-eight members of parliament (1/5 of the membership); the President of the Republic; the Council of Ministers; the Chief Prosecutor; the Supreme Court of Cassation; the Supreme Administrative Court; and, in certain cases, municipal councils. Most petitions are brought by members of parliament, particularly those in opposition, and the President of the Republic.

39.The rapporteurs advocate continued discussion between the Council of Europe and the Bulgarian authorities for the completion of the judicial reform. However, while they fully appreciate the complexity of the new system with its three levels of jurisdiction, they are deeply concerned over the delay incurred so far. Discussion with the relevant Council of Europe departments ought not to cause further delays but rather hasten the process.

40.The preliminary draft report of 28 December 1997 examined the Judicial System Act of June 1994, particularly its most controversial provisions, from the angle of the independence of the judiciary:

41.Another question regarding the independence of the judiciary is its budgetary independence. Under the constitution and the 1994 Judicial System Act, the judiciary has its own budget, drawn up and apportioned by the Supreme Judicial Council which also supervises its implementation. Implementation of the budget is carried out independently by the Supreme Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court, as well as by the Minister of Justice, the National Investigation Bureau and the Chief Prosecutor's Office for the other courts
(Article 196, paragraph 1 of the act).

42.Under the act, the Council of Ministers includes the draft budget for the judiciary — drawn up by the Supreme Judicial Council — in the annual draft state budget submitted for approval to the National Assembly. The Council of Ministers can put reasoned proposals and objections concerning the budget to the National Assembly, but it alone has the power to decide as to the budget total and the earmarking of appropriations (Article 196, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the aforementioned act).

43.In a decision of 1995 on an application by the Chief Prosecutor for a finding as to the constitutionality of a provision of the State Budget Act alleged to fetter the Supreme Judicial Council's budgetary authority, the Constitutional Court set aside the provision on the ground that the independent budgetary authority of the Supreme Judicial Council was not subject to the executive's control.

44.Notwithstanding the terms of the 1994 Act and of the aforementioned Constitutional Court decision, senior members of the judiciary have expressed the opinion that in practice the budgetary independence of the judiciary is not respected. What actually happens, they say, is that the Council of Ministers presumes to alter the budget proposed by the Supreme Judicial Council, and parliament defers to the ministerial proposal.

45.Another reason for concern is the draft bill on amendments and additions to the
1994 Judicial System Act, which was submitted by the government to the National Assembly on 12 March 1998. According to Mrs Serkedjieva, deputy Minister of Justice and European Legal Integration, these amendments aim at improving the fight against corruption and organised crime as well as the independence of the judiciary. According to many other sources, however, they tend to give excessive powers to the Minister of Justice, notably in the fields of appointment, control and sanctions of judges, prosecutors and investigators, the budget of the judicial system and the reorganisation of the Prosecutor’s Office and the National Investigation Service. If this proves true, there would be a real threat to the independence of the judiciary in Bulgaria, and the rapporteurs strongly urge the Bulgarian authorities to consult the Council of Europe before the final adoption of such amendments.

46.Lastly, the low rate of judges' salaries was invoked by the representatives of the judiciary as one of the reasons for staff resignation and serious corruption problems, but this circumstance should be placed in the general context of severe nationwide economic situation.

47.Whereas some of the representatives met by the rapporteurs expressed clear doubts about the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary in Bulgaria, the Chief Prosecutor, Mr Tatarshev, pointed out in December 1997 that the judiciary was completely independent and that he was doing his utmost to keep it that way in spite of the government's attempts to influence it.

V.Human rights and fundamental freedoms

48.Since the fall of communist rule, numerous daily and weekly newspapers and radio stations have emerged in Bulgaria, thus increasing the volume and variety of the information supply. Anxieties about the freedom of the media have nevertheless been caused by a range of factors.

49.In the absence of media legislation, which was but lately passed in September 1996, state-owned radio and television operated under "provisional" regulations dating from 1990 and assigning wide powers to parliament, which used to appoint the directors of the national radio and television corporations together with the director of the Bulgarian Information Agency (BTA).

50.The Constitutional Court, in two rulings given in September and December 1995, declared unconstitutional certain parts of the “provisional” regulations. While recognising parliament's power to appoint radio and television directors, the court held that any further interference in these bodies' programming and structure would infringe the constitutional stipulation guaranteeing the independence of the media and prohibiting censorship.

51. In another judgment of June 1996, the Constitutional Court held that the state does not have the right to interfere in the activities of the media through organs set up especially for this purpose or by other means. The broadcasting of programmes which infringe the law of the state can only be stopped or banned by judicial means.

52.On 9 February 1996, the statutory provision on which a number of dismissals of journalists were founded — Article 328b of the Labour Code — was repealed by parliament.

53.Parliament's reaction was to set up a working party which, after conducting dialogue with the management of state-owned radio and television and with the dismissed journalists, concluded that no censorship was applied to the journalists concerned.

54.Some media representatives still complained about the excessively harsh implementation of Sections 147-148 of the Criminal Code regarding “insult and libel”; they also mentioned the problems encountered by private local radio stations owing to the unduly restrictive regulations on broadcast licensing. Radio broadcasting equipment is government property.

55.As to the printed press, several media representatives alleged state control over most organs. Large financial groups moreover controlled the greater part of the so-called “independent” press. While the newspapers published by the political parties and other organisations represent the full spectrum of political opinion, there is a notable degree of self-censorship among press journalists who must conform to heavily politicised editorial views of the newspapers for which they write. Moreover, the rapporteurs are concerned by a number of physical aggressions against journalists, in particular on 11 May 1998 against Ana Zarkova, a well-known journalist with the daily Trud, who has written about organised crime and corruption in Bulgaria. They urge the authorities to shed light on this case among others.

56.After a good six years of fierce debate, a law on radio and television was passed by the Bulgarian Parliament on 18 July 1996.

57.The bill underwent an expert appraisal beforehand at the request of the Bulgarian authorities, carried out by two Council of Europe experts on a special visit to Bulgaria on 23 and 24 April 1996. The experts had criticised several provisions of the bill, some of which appear unchanged in the version finally adopted.

58.By Decree No. 271 of 1 August 1996 (Official Gazette No. 68 of 9 August 1996), the President of the Republic referred the bill to the National Assembly for further examination, as he felt that the freedom and independence of Bulgarian state-owned radio and television would be threatened by the new legislation.

59.The presidential veto did not prevent the bill from being passed for the second time by the National Assembly on 5 September 1996. It was promulgated on 10 September 1996 and entered into force.

60.The new act institutes a new National Radio and Television Council controlling programmes and appointing directors of state-owned broadcasting corporations.

61.The Council had eleven members of whom seven are appointed by parliament, two by the Prime Minister and two by the President of the Republic. Consequently, the current political majority had power to appoint most of the members.

62.Under the new act, the National Radio and Television Council is empowered to discontinue programmes and suspend broadcasting licences in accordance with vaguely defined principles (“consideration of universally accepted moral values”, “protection of the Bulgarian people's national and spiritual values”, etc.). Political parties, religious groups and trade unions may not broadcast their own programmes.

63.The new act has received a number of reactions in the country itself, but also from international associations of journalists. The Committee for the Protection of Journalists, and Mr Zhelev too, described the act as a serious threat to the freedom of the media in Bulgaria.

64.The rapporteurs were informed that the Constitutional Court had declared several provisions of the new act unconstitutional on 14 November 1996.

65. Even under the new government, freedom of expression has been restricted both through political control of the state electronic media and through criminal prosecution of journalists for libel of public officials. The Chief Prosecutor, Mr Tatarchev, declared in June 1997 that the journalists must face criminal prosecution not only for their opinions but also for the questions they might ask in an interview.

66. The new government established a strict control over state electronic media by appointing a number of persons with close links to the government to influential positions in national radio and television. In July 1997, the parliament elected the directors of the national radio and television despite the fact that the Law on the National Television and Radio requires that they be appointed by the National Radio and Television Council. Both directors were closely affiliated with the governing coalition. On 6 November 1997, the Constitutional Court declared this election unconstitutional. On 25 November 1997, amendments were passed to the 1996 Act on radio and television, according to which four members of the National Radio and Television Council had to be appointed by parliament and three by the President. Finally, according to the opposition (the majority claims that the appointments were based on professional criteria), out of seven members, six are close to the ruling party (Union of Democratic Forces) and one to the opposition (Democratic Left). This clearly violates the principle of political neutrality in establishing independent bodies and enters into contradiction with the European Convention on Transfrontier Television, which has been signed by Bulgaria.

67.It should be recalled in this respect that, according to the Constitution, ratified international agreements become part of the domestic legislation and acquire priority before the domestic legislation in force. The case is now before the Constitutional Court and the rapporteurs are eager to know about its conclusions.

68.In such circumstances, broadcasting in the national radio and television cannot but be biased in favour of the government.

69.Most of the rapporteurs' interlocutors admitted that new legislation on media was necessary, including such provisions as the status of journalists, the status of public TV and radio and the status of private media. Two draft bills — one on radio and television and the other on telecommunications — are currently being discussed by the National Assembly. At the request of the rapporteurs, they have been assessed by Council of Europe experts.

70.The draft laws on radio and television and on telecommunications were assessed by
Mrs C. Morrison, Head of International Broadcasting (London), and Mr M. Wagner from the European Broadcasting Union (Geneva).

71.The experts consider that organisational and procedural safeguards to ensure the independence of the National Radio and Television Council (NRTC) are missing in the draft laws. The nomination procedure of its members, in a situation where the President belongs to a party which is part of the parliamentary majority, neither guarantees the independence of the NRTC nor does it provide for a pluralistic composition of the NRTC. Furthermore, the relationship of the NRTC to the Managing Board of Bulgarian National Radio (BNR), Bulgarian National Television (BNT) and Radio and Television Fund is too close: the fact that the NRTC determines the composition of the Managing Boards and appoints the Fund’s executive director concentrates too much power in a Council which is not independent of the government. The Boards should be elected separately.

72.Among the information duties of BNR and BNT, singling out “the official position of the state” is dangerous and misleading. As for the provision that only BNR and BNT may be the providers of news, it should be clear that any broadcaster, in the interests of freedom of speech and pluralism, may also provide and produce news.

73.As far as radio and television licences are concerned, it should be explicitly stated in the draft laws that public authorities or legal persons owned or controlled by the state cannot obtain a broadcasting licence, it being understood the BNR and BNT are of course special cases. Decisions to withdraw licences should be for the regulator (NRTC) alone, and not subject to the State Telecommunications Commission.

74.The experts also deem that the requirement that broadcasters shall not use “in an inaccurate or biased manner” official information lends itself to abuse.

75.As for the rights of the President, the Chairman of the National Assembly, the Prime Minister and other representatives from high State bodies to “address the audience of BNR and BNT”, they are seen as extremely far-reaching and could easily be used to threaten the balance of access to the media between the government and the opposition. It is therefore necessary to limit the exercise of these rights and, in certain cases, a spokesman for the opposition should have an equivalent right of response.

76.Finally, as regards funding of BNR and BNT, if decisions on disbursing the income from the broadcasting licence fee are simply put at the discretion of the Management Board of the Radio and Television Fund, this will not create the “appropriate, secure and transparent funding framework which guarantees public service broadcasting organisations the means necessary to accomplish their missions”, as required by the Council of Europe
Recommendation R (96) 10 on the guarantee of the independence of public service broadcasting.

77.Freedom of religion and separation of Church and state are established in the
1991 Constitution. The issues of religious liberties are regulated by the Constitution and the 1949 Law on Religious Confessions, amended in 1992. In Article 13,3, the Constitution proclaims the Eastern Orthodox Christianity to be the traditional — but not official — religion in Bulgaria. However, the free choice of a religious confession is not limited, with the exception of cases provided for by the Constitution in Articles 13,4 (“Religious institutions and communities, and religious beliefs shall not be used to political ends”) and 37,2 (“The freedom of conscience and religion shall not be practised to the detriment of national security, public order, public health and morals, or of the rights and freedoms of others”).

78.In February 1994 the National Assembly adopted a law amending the Law on Persons and the Family, which concerns associations and foundations representing legal entities performing non-commercial activities and disseminating religious and educational ideals.

79.Up to 1989 there were only four denominations in Bulgaria, namely Orthodox Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Armenian Christian. Since then, Protestantism has been recognised, and there are now thirty-one different congregations. Religious associations are often registered as lay associations (over 100 registered civil-law associations at present).

80.Under the 1994 amendment to the Law on Persons and the Family, a new Article 133a stipulates the registration, subject to the approval of the Council of Ministers, of associations engaging in activities of a religious nature. A number of religious associations and foundations formed after 1989 have been given three months to apply for registration. However, the amended act neither specifies which activities are of a “religious nature” nor lays down any exact criteria for granting or refusing registration.

81.Following the implementation of the amendment, thirty associations, most of them Protestant, were registered. Over thirty applications were turned down. The refusals were founded either on technicalities or on unconstitutionality of the statutes of the associations in question.

82.Where the registration procedure is concerned, two bodies are competent:

83.The entire procedure may be challenged before the courts.

84.The schism which divided the Orthodox Church in 1992 when the former metropolitan Pimen of Nevrokop was elected patriarch of an alternative synod has not healed. On
13 December 1996, the Supreme Court ruled unlawful the refusal of the Directorate of Religious Affairs to recognise the changes made in the statute of the alternative synod after a convention held in July 1996. It therefore overturned the application for registration of the synod headed by the former metropolitan Pimen but did not rule on the application for his registration as Patriarch. The nature of the action required on the court's decision remains to be seen. During their visit from 7 to 9 June 1998, the rapporteurs had the opportunity to meet with representatives of both wings of the Orthodox Church, who expressed their hope that the division would soon be overcome.

85.According to information given to the rapporteurs previously, there are three classes of residence permit: short term, long term (two years) and permanent. Unfortunately, there is no provision for extending a short or long term residence permit on expiry. Thus anyone whose residence permit has expired must leave the country and, if necessary, re-apply for another residence permit. This constitutes a gap in the legislation. Much of the procedure depends on the helpfulness of the police department responsible. In Sofia there are usually no problems, but more are observed in rural districts. In the specific case of the Mormon Church (American missionaries), the persons concerned normally invoke the right of all United States nationals to remain in Bulgaria for one month with no formalities. They then leave the territory and re-enter it immediately so that their stay is automatically extended for a month. According to the Bulgarian Government, the problem relating to all foreign missionaries staying in Bulgaria, including those of the Mormon Church, has now been resolved.

86.As regards the return of ecclesiastical and monastic property, especially the Rila monastery, no bill has yet been passed. In 1991 a law was enacted on the restoration of property owned by the Catholic Church, which by the end of 1997 had recovered some 60% of its property.

87.As regards the Muslim religious community, a rift began in September 1992 when a national Muslim conference elected Fikri Sali chief mufti, replacing Nedim Gendzhev. In November 1994 the latter convened an extraordinary Muslim conference which ousted
Fikri Sali. In February 1995 the Socialist cabinet registered the Supreme Muslim Theological Council with Nedim Gendzhev as chairman. In March 1995 Fikri Sali also convened an extraordinary national conference which re-elected him chief mufti. This conference was not recognised by the socialist cabinet. Fikri Sali filed a petition at the Supreme Court, which was rejected in August 1995. Finally, after a national unification Muslim conference held in Sofia in October 1997, the newly-elected chief mufti, Mustafa Alish Hadzhi declared that the Muslim religion in Bulgaria is now united. The conference adopted new statutes of the Bulgarian Muslims. On 22 October, the Bulgarian Government officially recognised the new leadership of the Muslim community.

88.In November 1997 the Prime Minister, Ivan Kostov, recalled that more than
100 mosques had been built in Bulgaria since 1989 and that three secondary and one higher Muslim schools were opened over the past seven years. He also declared that his government is well-disposed towards the Muslim religion. The fact that the Islamic Summit Conference held in Teheran in December 1997 took off its agenda the situation of the Muslim community in Bulgaria seems to confirm this trend.

89. In a number of cases, members of non-Orthodox religious communities such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Word of Life, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons) and the Unification Church (Moonies) have been subjected to physical violence and illegal searches and confiscations. Their meetings have been interrupted even if they have been held behind closed doors in private premises. As far as Jehovah's Witnesses are concerned, the situation seems to be improving since the promise made by the Bulgarian Government on
18 August 1997 to seek a friendly settlement with them further to their petition with the European Court of Human Rights.3

90.In an article published in January 1998, Mr E. Kohen, President of “Tolerance Foundation”, stated: “Generally, when it comes to religious freedom, one can say that in 1997 a certain progress was made in the respect for human rights in Bulgaria. In comparison with previous years the number of flagrant violations of religious freedom has fallen down. No cases of encroaching religious freedom such as job dismissals or deprivation of parental rights on grounds of membership in religious minority organisations have been observed”.

91.Furthermore, on 25 June 1998, the National Assembly approved a bill providing for alternative military service. The length of that service was set at eighteen months for university graduates and two years for other conscripts. The bill allows alternative service on grounds of conscience.

92.It thus seems that the new Bulgarian Government is fostering freedom of religion; there are a number of encouraging signs, such as the reintroduction of optional religious education in schools (although limited to the Orthodox religion for the moment) and the fact that the three assistants of President Stoyanov attending the meeting the delegation had with him on
19 December 1997 were Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim.

93.The Bulgarian Government supports materially the religious confessions. In 1997, it allocated subsidies of 180 million Leva for the maintenance and reconstruction of churches and monasteries.

94.However, it should also embark upon legislative reform in this area and replace the archaic and restrictive Law on Religious Confessions of 1949 by a new law meeting international and European standards. This is expected for 1998 and the rapporteurs invite the Bulgarian authorities to consult the Council of Europe in this respect.

95.According to the 1992 census, ethnic Turks make up 9.43% of the population
(800 052 persons) and the Roma 3.69%. Although estimates vary widely, several experts place the Roma population at about 6%. These two communities are Bulgaria's largest minorities.

96. It should be recalled that Bulgaria signed the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities on 9 October 1997 and it is expected to ratify it soon.

97.Article 11, paragraph 4, of the Bulgarian Constitution prohibits the formation of political parties on ethnic, racial or religious lines, and also parties that seek the violent usurpation of state power. There were reasons to think that some articles of the Bulgarian Constitution of 1991 should either be modified to comply with the ECHR or interpreted by the Constitutional Court in a manner compatible with the convention.

98.The Bulgarian Constitution is founded on the principle of unity of the Bulgarian nation. At the same time, however, in keeping with all international human rights instruments to which Bulgaria is party, it recognises the existence of ethnic, religious and linguistic differences. The right of all Bulgarian citizens to determine and freely express their ethnic or religious affiliation and to use their own mother tongue is secured by various provisions of the constitution, namely Article 36, paragraph 2, Article 37, paragraph 1, and Article 54, paragraph 1.

99.In the Bulgarian authorities' opinion, Article 11, paragraph 4 should not be interpreted as limiting the rights of political expression of persons belonging to different ethnic, religious or language communities. As Decision No. 4 of the Constitutional Court of 21 April 1992 on Constitutional Case No. 1/91 states, “its objective is not to establish a prohibition aimed at a certain category or certain categories of persons who differ in their ethnicity, race or religion. The objective is not to allow the establishment and functioning of political parties within the narrow confines which a certain ethnic, racial or religious characteristic would establish, closed for persons who do not possess that characteristic, building their programme objectives upon the cause, idea and interests of 'their own' circle of members, supporters and voters, expressing the political will only of this circle and acting in the structures of state power only in accordance with this will”. In this sense, the provisions of Article 11, paragraph 4 have a protective function both with respect to the constitutional order of the country (with the “prohibition” of forming political parties whose objective is forcible seizure of state power) and with respect to the protection of “the state and state authority from the extreme consequences which may arise from the development of a process of ethnic, racial or religious confrontation” (Constitutional Court decision of 21 April 1992 on Constitutional Case No. 1/91).

100.Since the Constitutional Court gave this detailed interpretation in the decision quoted, the Bulgarian authorities have maintained that the meaning of Article 11, paragraph 4 has been comprehensively clarified and that its amendment is therefore not imperative. The same applies to the provisions of Article 12, paragraph 2, and Articles 36 and 44.

101.The representatives of the predominantly ethnic Turkish Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF), whose legality was challenged in the light of Article 11, paragraph 4 of the constitution and finally confirmed in the aforementioned Constitutional Court decision,4 pointed out to the rapporteurs that their party had consistently supported the territorial integrity of Bulgaria. Its members are loyal Bulgarian citizens non belonging to the Bulgarian ethnic group. The MRF representatives stressed that the 1991 Constitution, unlike the 1947 one instituting the totalitarian regime, did not recognise the existence of “national minorities” (see above for the majority's position). Members of minorities are regarded as Bulgarian nationals not having Bulgarian as their mother tongue.

102.Voluntary Turkish-language classes, funded by the government, continued in areas with significant Turkish-speaking populations, although some observers complained that the government was restricting the availability of training for teachers and discouraging the optional language classes in areas with large concentrations of Bulgarian Muslims. Some ethnic Turkish leaders, mainly in the MRF, demanded that Turkish-language schooling be made compulsory in ethnic Turkish areas, but the government resisted this. This was confirmed by the parliamentary group of the Alliance for National Salvation in its comments to the preliminary draft report (see Appendix VI). The group also demanded that Bulgaria become a party to the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages.

103.Regional radio and television stations, in regions where ethnic Turks are concentrated, broadcast programmes in Turkish. Broadcasting of programmes in Turkish on national radio and television, planned for the past few years, is to commence soon.

104.In the 1992 census 3.69% of the population identified itself as Roma. The real figure is probably about twice that high, since many persons of Roma descent tend to identify themselves to the authorities as ethnic Turks or Bulgarians. Roma groups continued to be divided among themselves, although several groups had some success in forcing government attention to Roma issues.

105. Roma encounter difficulties in applying for social benefits, and rural Roma have problems in acquiring land. According to credible allegations by many Roma and other observers, the quality of education offered to Roma children is inferior to that afforded to most other Bulgarian pupils. According to the authorities, over 50% of Roma children at school age do not attend the classes or have completely left school.

106. All Roma representatives met by the rapporteurs underlined that unemployment remains to be their biggest problem. 80% to 90% of the Roma population is unemployed. Members of the Roma minority would actually need a preferential treatment (positive discrimination) to face this problem. The Bulgarian Government seems to be willing to take action in this respect.

107.Roma continue to face discrimination in almost all sectors of social life — employment, education, social welfare, health care and housing.5 According to the authorities, more than 30% of all crimes in the country are perpetrated by Roma and they are disproportionately represented as defendants in the criminal justice system, as well as detainees in prisons. It seems clear that many of those accused of crimes are victims of torture or ill-treatment. A number of police officers were disciplined for violating the rights of the detainees, but old habits die hard.

108.During compulsory military service most Muslims and Roma are posted to labour units where they often perform commercial, military construction or maintenance work rather than serve in normal military units. The MRF protested this practice, as did human rights groups and labour observers who cited it as a violation of International Labour Organisation (ILO) accords. There are very few ethnic Turkish and Roma officers in the forces.

109. Finally, as far as the Macedonians are concerned, there are allegations that their basic rights are violated and the Bulgarian Macedonian identity is not even recognised.

110. On 22 April 1997, the President of Bulgaria declared in Strasbourg that there is no Macedonian minority in Bulgaria. This is in contradiction with the comments made by the Bulgarian Government on the preliminary draft report, which state that in the 1992 census,
10 803 persons were listed as Macedonian. There is also a certain contradiction between the government’s statement that “historical figures and events commemorated by these Macedonian Bulgarians are officially celebrated as part of the Bulgarian national historical heritage, and their traditions are largely shared by the entire nation” and regular police raids on the occasion of the yearly ceremonies of commemoration of the death of Yane Sandanski, a hero who fought the Ottomans, at Rozhen Monastery.

111.On 4 December 1997 the Council of Ministers adopted Decree No. 449 on the establishment of a National Council on Ethnic and Demographic Issues. Its Secretary,
Mr P. Atanasov, explained that the functions of the new Council include working out specific measures aimed at fostering tolerance and understanding between Bulgarian citizens of different ethnic and religious groups, co-ordination of measures related to the international obligations of Bulgaria in the field of the protection of rights of persons belonging to minority groups and their integration in society, and preparation of draft laws regarding the rights of persons belonging to various ethnic and religious groups.

112.Since this new council was only set up recently, it is difficult to assess its potential. However, it already appears from discussions with Roma representatives that they have confidence in its goodwill and possibilities of action and they expressed the wish that it centralises the distribution of all humanitarian aid.

113.The rapporteurs will closely follow the activities of the new National Council.

114.In this section, the rapporteurs wish to raise an issue which was not dealt with in the preliminary draft report submitted to the Bulgarian authorities, that is local self-government. Their attention was drawn to this problem by the comments of the Euroleft. The assertions contained therein seem to be sufficiently serious to quote them in extenso:

“Local elections are due in 1999. The government obviously fears it might not get enough support to establish its control over local government as well. It, therefore, suggested drastic changes in the legislation on local government. The most important one is for mayors of places under 4 000 inhabitants to be appointed and not elected. This is the majority of villages and small towns in the country. Further on it is suggested that Bulgaria be divided in twenty-eight regions with appointed regional governors, which runs contrary to the recommendations of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe whose delegation only last March explicitly insisted on elections for both levels of local government. If these intentions of the majority are carried through, it would mean that only a thin layer of elected local officials will remain in-between the sandwich of appointed local officials.

In 1997 and 1998 the majority began to exert pressure on mayors in different ways. There have been scores of cases when mayors have been formally suspended from their duties by court decisions on alleged accusations which at a later stage have proven to be entirely unfounded. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe adopted Recommendation 45 with regard to the situation in Bulgaria which needs to be looked into and carried out.

A case in point is Kardjali, a town of mixed Bulgarian and Turkish population, whose mayor is from the Movement of Rights and Freedoms (the party of Bulgarian Turks). After relations between the UDF (resp. the government) and MRF deteriorated and MRF became an opposition to the government in parliament, the UDF launched an anti-Turkish opposition with the aim of pushing the MRF out of local government. Such acts may jeopardise the ethnic peace in the country, which has been restored and preserved with a lot of effort since 1990.”

115.As stated above, Bulgaria has ratified the ECPT and a CPT visit to the country took place in April 1995.

116.As it came to power in 1997, the new government launched a 100-day programme of fight against criminality. But it seems that no tangible results have been made. Recently a “Concept for National Security” submitted by the Minister of the Interior was unanimously approved by parliament.

117. Police brutality continues to be a very serious problem in Bulgaria. This was confirmed in particular by NGOs, such as Amnesty International, as well as by the Minister of the Interior, Mr B. Bonev. Several individuals have died in 1997 under suspicious circumstances. In
May 1998, the Chief Prosecutor and the Director of the National Investigation Service submitted to parliament a report on police brutality, but it has not been examined yet. The rapporteurs would appreciate receiving a copy.

118. For instance, on 5 June 1997, Petar Robert Karandzha was shot in the head in Sofia, allegedly while attempting to escape from a detention facility. Police were unable to provide any evidence to prove that Karandzha's action threatened anybody's life or security, or that the police officer involved in shooting had attempted to stop the alleged escape without using violence.

119. Investigations have been initiated into several cases of alleged police brutality in 1997. However up to now, little or no progress has been made to punish the perpetrators. In a number of other cases involving excessive use of force by law enforcement officials, no investigations have been initiated and officials have remained unpunished. This has created an atmosphere of impunity for all police activity. The media have reported on numerous cases of excessive use of force by the police, especially against Roma.

120.Furthermore, the conditions in certain prisons are very harsh (overcrowding, sub-standard toilet facilities and inadequate heating and ventilation equipment). Cases of brutal treatment of prisoners by warders were reported to us.

121.The procedure enabling prisoners to complain of improper prison conditions or ill-treatment does not seem to function.

122. Alarming reports have been received about two penal institutions where children are being held: Boychinovtsi prison (for boys) and Sliven prison (for women and girls). Numerous children are reportedly being held in those prisons in pre-trial detention, often for over six months, in company with convicted juveniles. During their visits from 18 to 22 December 1997 and from 7 to 9 June 1998, the rapporteurs did not have the opportunity to visit these prisons, but they intend to do so at a later stage.

123.In practice, detention on remand continues far beyond the six months prescribed by law, sometimes over four years, as the rapporteurs were told by a detainee in Sofia’s central prison.

124.In addition, responsibility for reviewing the legality of police custody or remand rests not only with the courts but also with the prosecution magistrates according to the 1994 Judicial System Act. In this respect, the rapporteurs find an inconsistency with Article 5, paragraph 3 of the ECHR.

125.The Bulgarian Criminal Code defines the death penalty as an exceptional measure taken only in the event of very serious offences against the state, military crime committed in wartime or war situations, crimes against peace and humanity, and intentional murder according to the qualified formulation in Article 116 of the Criminal Code.

126.Under the amendments to the Criminal Code adopted on 18 May 1995, life imprisonment may replace the death penalty in certain cases.

127.What is more, in 1990 the National Assembly proclaimed a moratorium, still in force, on the application of the death penalty.

128.Nevertheless, the context of an exceptional increase in crime and a situation highly conducive to crime have sparked a broad public debate on the need for repeal of the moratorium. The debate has featured numerous contradictory arguments revealing that the state institutions do not agree on a single unified position in the matter. Initiatives for repeal of the moratorium have been taken by several members of parliament, but so far have not brought about a change in the legislation.

129.The rapporteurs hope that conditions will very soon favour the final abolition of the death penalty and the signature and ratification of Protocol No. 6 to the ECHR.

130. A serious problem related to the fair trial issue is constituted by the practice of sending juvenile delinquents to Labour Education Schools which virtually amount to prison conditions. The basis of this practice is the Law on the Prevention of Anti-Social Acts by Juveniles and Minors, a communist relic from 1958. It provides that local non-judicial institutions can confine in such “schools” juveniles between eight and eighteen years who have committed a crime or other “publicly dangerous acts”.

131. Children can be detained in such “schools” without having been allowed legal defence during the case hearing, or a right to appeal the ruling. Their “offences” can be as minor as vagrancy or simply being “uncontrollable”. In Labour Education Schools the children are subjected to serious hardship such as hunger and physical abuse. Boys particularly are often beaten or placed in an “isolator”, they are routinely subjected to head shaving, reduction diets, and imposition of work chores, deprived of home leave, town outings, and denied the right to receive correspondence. If they try to complain about such abuses, they risk being severely beaten.

132. Placing children and juveniles in Labour Education Schools constitutes imprisonment, regardless of the fact that the Bulgarian legislation considers it to be an “educational measure”. The whole procedure involves serious human rights concerns, including the absence of an adequate judicial procedure for investigating the charges: denying accused children the chance to call witnesses; the fact that one and the same body is responsible for bringing charges, processing the case and imposing punishment; and the lack of legal counsel for the defendants during proceedings.

133. Street children, that is, children who are perhaps not actually homeless but for whom the street more than their families has become their real homes, fall victim to violence both by police and by skinheads or other violent groups.

134. Between 12 000 and 14 000 such children were estimated to be living in cities throughout Bulgaria in 1996. Most of them (at least 85%) are Roma. They support themselves by begging, performing odd jobs for shopkeepers, gathering waste materials from dump sites for recycling, prostitution and theft. Many are addicted to glue or liquid bronze. As a result — and even more so because they are ethnic Roma — they are perceived both by police and private citizens as criminals.

135. Typically, police round up groups of street children on suspicion of theft, or ostensibly for identifying children and finding runaways. Many have been held in police lock-ups overnight or even longer with no judicial process or review. Conditions in lock-ups are grossly inadequate. They are denied the use of bathroom facilities, receive no food and are detained with adults. Moreover, street children are often subjected to physical and sometimes sexual harassment by police, both at the time of arrest on the street and particularly during interrogation at police stations.

136. Many are attacked by skinheads, but the children seldom report such attacks to the police, expecting no genuine interest from law enforcement officials who have themselves abused the children.

137.It is to be hoped that such practices will soon come to an end and the rapporteurs urge the Bulgarian Government to launch a programme for the protection of the rights of children, in co-operation with such NGOs as the Bulgarian League of Human Rights, which is particularly active in this field.

138.A new scheme for delivering identity cards has been launched recently. Draft bills on Bulgarian identity documents and on Foreigners in the Republic of Bulgaria were approved by the government on 27 April 1998 and are to be submitted to parliament, the official aim being the fight against illegal migration. According to the Democratic Left, they are to be delivered by the Ministry of the Interior and will contain coded information. Statements made by the Bulgarian Government (“the identity cards will not contain any coded information other than that required to identify citizens”) and Interpol are not sufficient to lift all fears. This does not seem to be compatible with human rights standards, in particular those relating to the protection of individual data. That is the reason why the rapporteurs would wish to receive more information from the Bulgarian authorities.

139.The Bulgarian authorities, in particular the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Mrs N. Mikhaďlova, expressed to the rapporteurs their feeling that Bulgaria was the victim of some discrimination regarding the delivery of entry visa in many Council of Europe member states, all the more so since no visa is needed for European Union citizens to enter the country. The minister is aware that this situation is linked to the fear that Bulgarian territory is used for developing organised crime and arms and drugs trafficking and she had had talks with her European counterparts to launch a co-operation programme aiming at improving the situation. It is to be hoped that this will lead to positive results, including reciprocity in the field of visas.

VI.Concluding remarks

140.The rapporteurs are grateful to the Bulgarian authorities for their co-operation in preparing this report. Any critical remarks made in it should be seen not as accusations but as advice to pursue on the way to democracy and human rights. They are also thankful to the opposition groups represented in the National Assembly for their comments on the preliminary draft report. This is an information report for consideration by the Parliamentary Assembly, before a more comprehensive report can be submitted at a later stage.

141.In the meantime, some provisional conclusions may be formulated.

142.Generally speaking, the new UDF government in power since June 1997 has made progress in both economic and political terms:

143.New positive developments

144.Matters of concern

The alleged intention of the authorities to introduce drastic changes in the legislation on local self-government with a view to appointing mayors of villages and regional governors is rather worrying. The CLRAE should closely follow the matter.

145.Some preliminary recommendations

APPENDIX I

Opinion No. 161 (1992)6

on the application

of the Republic of Bulgaria

for membership of the Council of Europe

1.The Assembly has received from the Committee of Ministers a request for an opinion on the accession of Bulgaria to the Council of Europe (Doc. 6396), in pursuance of Statutory Resolution (51) 30 A adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 May 1951.

2.It observes that democratic parliamentary elections held by universal, free and secret ballot were monitored by an ad hoc committee of the Assembly on 13 October 1991, when local elections, pronounced satisfactory by another Council of Europe delegation, were also held.

3.The Assembly welcomes the European commitment expressed before the Assembly by President Zhelev on 31 January 1991.

4.The Assembly appreciates the contribution made by Bulgaria to the work of the Council of Europe, both at parliamentary level since being granted special guest status on 3 July 1990, and at intergovernmental level since acceding to several European conventions, including the European Cultural Convention, signed on 2 September 1991.

5.It attaches great importance to the commitment expressed by the Bulgarian authorities to sign and ratify in 1992 the European Convention on Human Rights and also to recognise the right of individual application to the European Commission of Human Rights (Article 25 of the Convention) as well as the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (Article 46).

6.The Assembly considers that the Republic of Bulgaria is able and willing:

7.The Assembly therefore recommends that the Committee of Ministers, at its next meeting;

APPENDIX II

Programme of the visit of the rapporteurs

Bulgaria, 18 to 22 December 1997

Thursday 18 December 1997

—Arrival of the delegation in Sofia

—Transfer to the hotel

Friday 19 December 1997

8.30 a.m.Meeting with the Bulgarian parliamentary delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly

9 a.m.Meeting with the parliamentary groups of the Union of Democratic Forces and of the People's Union

10-Meeting with the parliamentary group of the Democratic Left

10.30 a.m.

11 a.m.Meeting with the President of the Republic, Mr Petar Stoyanov

12 noonMeeting with the parliamentary group of the Alliance for National Salvation

1.30 p.m.Meeting with the Minister of Justice and Legal Euro-integration, Mr V. Gottzev

3.30 p.m.Meeting with the Minister of the Interior, Mr B. Bonev

5 p.m.Meeting with:

6.30 p.m.Meeting with representatives of NGOs active in the field of human rights

8 p.m.Working dinner with representatives of the civil society and Mr B. Todorov, Director of the Information and Documentation Centre on the Council of Europe

Saturday 20 December 1997

8.30 a.m.Meeting with the parliamentary group of the Democratic Left

9 a.m.Meeting with the Vice-Chairman of the Central Union of Jurists, Mr S. Vozhikov

10.15 a.m.Meeting with the Chief Prosecutor, Mr I. Tatarshev

11.30 a.m. Meeting with the parliamentary group “Euroleft”

12 noonMeeting with independent MPs

1 p.m.Meeting with the Chairman of the Bulgarian parliamentary delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr L. Toshev

3 p.m.Meeting with representatives of religious communities

5 p.m.Meeting with media representatives

6.30 p.m.Meeting with representatives of the Bulgarian Diplomatic Society

8 p.m.Meeting with the Vice-President of the National Assembly of Bulgaria, Mr A. Djerov

Sunday 21 December 1997

8.30 a.m.Meeting with the Secretary to the Committee on Ethnic and Demographic Issues with the Council of Ministers, Mr P. Atanasov

9 a.m.Meeting with representatives of the Turkish community

10.30 a.m.Meeting with representatives of the Roma community

12 noonDeparture for Koprivshtitza

2 p.m.Meeting with the local authorities of Koprivshtitza

5 p.m.Return to Sofia

Monday 22 December 1997

9 a.m.Meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mrs N. Mikhaďlova

11 a.m.Meeting at the German Embassy

1 p.m.Visit to the Information and Documentation Centre on the Council of Europe

AfternoonDeparture of the delegation

APPENDIX III

Programme of the visit of the rapporteurs
Bulgaria, 7 to 9 June 1998

Sunday 7 June 1998

AfternoonArrival of the delegation

8 p.m.Working dinner with the Ambassadors of Greece, Denmark and the United Kingdom

Monday 8 June 1998

8 a.m.Bulgarian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly

9 a.m.Mr Y. Sokolov, President of the National Assembly

10.30 a.m.Mr B. Rashkov, Director of the National Investigation Service

11.30 a.m.Mr B. Bonev, Minister of the Interior

2.30 p.m.Mrs M. Serkedjieva, Deputy Minister of Justice and Legal Euro-integration

3.30 p.m.National Council on Radio and TV

4.30 p.m.Macedonian community:

5.30 p.m.Bulgarian Diplomatic Society

6.30 p.m.Mr K. Dimitrov, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs

8 p.m.Mr B. Todorov, Director of the Information and Documentation Centre on the Council of Europe, and representatives of human rights protection organisations

Tuesday 9 June 1998

8 a.m.Alliance for National Salvation

8.30 a.m.United Democratic Forces

9 a.m.Bulgarian Orthodox Church

10 a.m.Visit of a prison for juvenile delinquents

11.30 a.m.European Left in Bulgaria

12.15 p.m.Mr N. Nikolov, former Secretary to the Bulgarian delegation

1.30 p.m.Visit of Sofia central prison

2.30 p.m.Mr H. Karamolla, Chairman of the High Spiritual Council of Muslims

3.30 p.m.Bulgarian Business Block

4 p.m.Democratic Left

4.30 p.m.Press

APPENDIX IV

Strasbourg, 4 May 1998

Confidential

AS/Mon (1998) 29

Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States

Bulgaria

Comments by the Bulgarian Government on the preliminary draft report on Bulgaria

Co-rapporteurs: MM. ATKINSON and GJELLEROD

Comments

by the Bulgarian Government on the report by Mr H. Gjellerod and Mr D. Atkinson, presented under the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly's monitoring programme, concerning the honouring of commitments entered into by the Republic of Bulgaria in its capacity as a member state of the Council of Europe

The notes follow the structure of the report (section by section)

III.Signature and ratification of Council of Europe conventions

IV.The court and legal systems

—On 9 December 1997, the law on the Supreme Administrative Court was adopted, governing judicial proceedings in administrative cases on which the Court is required to give a ruling (published in the Official Gazette No. 122 of 19.12.1997);

—On 15 December 1997, the National Assembly adopted the law on amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, introducing appeal and cassation procedures and removing the possibility of applying for judicial review (published in Official Gazette No. 124 of 13.12.1997). Declaring void judgments that have already come into force remains the sole means of exercising some form of control, but only over aberrant judgments and with substantial alterations to the rules governing its operation. For example, a new point j has been added to Article 231, paragraph 1, stipulating that the party concerned may demand that a judgment which has already been delivered and has come into force be declared void when the European Court of Human Rights rules that a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms has occurred;

—On 5 February 1998, the law on amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure was adopted (published in Official Gazette No. 21 of 20.02.1998) establishing the traditional system of appeal and cassation procedures in criminal cases.

V.Human rights and fundamental freedoms

—Conduct of the police forces and conditions of imprisonment

—increasing the possibilities for prisoners who have demonstrated good behaviour to move to semi-open hostels for prisoners;

—improving and extending the internal facilities (in material terms) of high-security prisons.

—Detention on remand

—Children

—Identity cards

APPENDIX V

National Assembly, Republic of Bulgaria

Parliamentary group of the Democratic Left/PGDL/

Urgent

From: Georgi Parvanov, President of the PGDL

Phone: 35 82 9810501

To Mr Guy Dufour, Monitoring Committee, PACE

Fax No.: (0033) 3 88 41 27 02

Total Pages: 12

Date: 3 June 1998

Dear Mr Dufour,

Comments on the draft report of MM. Atkinson and Gjellerod

A.The situation under the present media legislature

B.Probable situation after the forthcoming passing of the new Media Act

Human rights

—Universal Declaration on Human Rights

—International Pact for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

—International Pact for Human and Civil Rights

—European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

—Convention No. 111 regarding discrimination in the field of labour and occupation (of the International Labour Organisation).

Encroachment of judiciary independence and human rights

Parliamentary Group of the Democratic Left

Comments

on the letter from the Bulgarian Diplomatic Society

1.As a former Head of the Personnel Department of the Foreign Ministry, Mr Yonov from the BDS, has sufficient knowledge of the personnel management of the Diplomatic Service. We believe that he has a strong point in his letter and that there is enough reason to be seriously concerned about the continuing purges.

2.Some examples might cast a light on the people who are directly involved in conducting the policy of purges. The Chief Secretary of the ministry is a political appointee, not a diplomat. The Head of the Personnel Department comes from the Human Resources Department of the UDF newspaper Democracia. Likewise, she has never been a diplomat. The Deputy Head of the Personnel Department is also not a diplomat. She is a former teacher on scientific communism in the police college in the town of Pasardjik and later a political activist of UDF. We do not believe that such people could present trustworthy information about the events in the Foreign Ministry. The Foreign Minister stays behind her assistants who carry out the purges.

3.The Foreign Minister is usually not available for parliamentary control. She is either absent or is, on purpose, the minister placed last to answer, and there is never enough question time for her. As a rule, the majority votes against proposals to prolong this time, fearing inconvenient questions she could not answer.

4.There were no political dismissals in the Foreign Ministry by the government of the Democratic Left. A policy was followed to amalgamate the staff on a professional basis and regardless of political views. In 1995-96 the ministry was left only by a number of servants appointed directly abroad on short-term contracts by the previous UDF government. Some of them did not return home after their mandates abroad were over. Obviously, their intention had not been to learn the diplomatic profession or work on lower salaries at home, but rather spend only some time in our missions abroad. On the contrary, the career diplomatic staff entered a process of consolidation. Unfortunately, this process was stopped and reversed by the present administration.

APPENDIX VI

Standpoint of the Parliamentary Group of the Alliance for National Salvation

Sofia, 4 June 1998

Ahmed Dogan

Chairman of the Parliamentary Group of the Alliance for National Salvation

APPENDIX VII

Comments

of the Parliamentary Group of the European Left in Bulgaria with reference to the report on Bulgaria drafted by the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe

I.The European Left in Bulgaria — presentation

1.The European Left in Bulgaria came to life in February 1997 as a reaction to the crisis in the country and the failure of Jean Videnov's government. The goal of the people who set up the European Left was to vindicate left-wing governance on the basis of pluralistic democracy, civil society, socially motivated market economy and the respect of fundamental human rights and freedoms, in the pursuance of Bulgaria's integration in the European Union and Nato.

2.The European Left in Bulgaria is an organisation which functions in compliance with the principles of modern European social democracy. It submitted an official application for membership in the Socialist International and the Party of European Socialists.

3.In the last elections of April 1997 the European Left gained 5.8% of the vote and fourteen seats in the National Assembly. At a later stage, three MPs from the Bulgarian Business Block joined its parliamentary group and now it numbers seventeen parliamentarians.

4.At the beginning of the current legislature, the European Left supported the efforts of the newly elected majority to stabilise the country and to speed up the economic reform, which no government after 1989 had done. The parliamentary group joined the Declaration of National Consensus proposed by the government majority and voted in May 1997 which outlined the national priorities in emerging from the crisis. It supported the UDF government's "Programme 2001" and voted the main economic laws proposed by the majority to strengthen the budget and to stabilise the economic situation. It was with the support of the European Left, that the National Security Concept was adopted by parliament in April 1998. Moreover, only at the end of last May, the European Left also supported a decision, proposed by the majority, on the need for radical measures in the fight against crime and corruption. We insisted, though, on an amendment in the text which says that these measures should respect the division of powers, the interaction and the balance among the institutions, and be in compliance with European standards. This amendment was prompted by our concern that the majority intends to establish government control over the judiciary.

5.A number of actions of the government provoked rising concerns in the European Left, a result of which in early 1998, it declared itself an opposition party.

II.Motives for the following comments

6.The efforts of the Bulgarian Government during the past year can be positively assessed, especially against the background of the poor performance of the series of governments that ran the country after 1989. A considerable success was the stabilisation of the financial system, the rise in people's confidence in government, the beginning of the structural reform in the economy, the reaching of agreements with the IMF and the World Bank, the determination to fight crime and corruption, and the improved image of Bulgaria abroad. Positive assessment should also be given to the initial efforts of the government to look for an expansion of the political base of governance and for broader public support.

7.The European Left has been seriously alarmed, though, by certain tendencies that have occurred as of late. They are related to a growing refusal by the majority to look for agreement on major issues of national importance, such as the general state of society and its civil structures, the freedom of speech, the media, the role and the independence of the judiciary, the administrative reform, the democratic functioning of local government, crime and corruption.

8.If these tendencies continue to develop in the same manner, in our judgment Bulgaria risks becoming a country of limited and formal democracy orchestrated politically and economically by a party oligarchy, with a doubtful freedom of speech and fictitiously independent means of information, with a dependant judiciary and local governments appointed by the central government.

9.The European Left upholds a programme of reform of Bulgaria in accordance with the European political, economic, social and humanitarian standards. It cannot, therefore, remain passive to these developments.

III.Civil society

10.A major problem of the current government is its presumption that it can be successful only if it entirely dominates public life. This philosophy leaves no room for alternative or contrasting views which, if they appear, are automatically labelled by the majority as anti-reformist or motivated by self-interest. According to this theory, it is only the government and those associated with it that are selfless, non-corrupt, reform-minded and fighting crime while all the rest support it. It goes on to sustain that this government has no alternative because anything else would mean failure of reform, crime and corruption.

11.This approach precludes the development of or attributes a marginal role to civil structures outside the sphere of influence of the governing majority. During the last year only the NGOs which are directly associated with the governing majority were given an extremely high public profile.

12.A typical example of the ambition to dominate all structures is the draft law for amendments to the Law on Co-operatives which aims at dismantling the Central Co-operative Union — the organisation which brings together 2 800 consumers' and producers' co-operatives. If voted, this law will liquidate all of them. This act equals the manner in which agricultural co-operatives were liquidated in 1992. Its tragic consequences for agriculture have not been overcome yet. No reasonable explanation can be found for such acts, besides the desire to control the structures of the co-operative movement where the majority does not enjoy much support.

13.Another example is the attempt of the government to establish control over state-owned industries which still prevail in the national economy and to have them privatised by people who are close to the majority. The scheme is simple. The current management of the companies are dismissed to be replaced by loyal ones who immediately appoint a certain number of supporters and then together apply for the so-called “workers' and managers' buy-out”.

IV.State administration

14.The UDF government carried out a massive purge in the state administration and state-owned industries. Thousands of civil servants, managers and employees in state companies were sacked. According to information coming from the local structures of the European Left, only the number of dismissed high-ranking executives goes beyond 3 000. What the rapporteurs have correctly noted in their report about the dismissals in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is multiplied in a much broader scope throughout the country.

15.As a rule, the new appointees who replace the dismissed are people of inadequate experience or qualification but who have the advantage of being politically loyal to the governing majority. There are numerous cases of nepotism in the appointments. A number of them were quoted by the opposition in parliament and were not denied by the Prime Minister.

16.The administration reform has been long overdue. No majority, though, had an interest in creating a politically neutral, professional and autonomous administration. This majority makes no exception to the rule. It was as a result of the formal requirements of the European Commission and the Council of Europe that at long last work has begun on two pieces of legislation — the Law on the Administration and the Civil Service Law. Only the first one has come to parliament so far. From the information that has reached us, in their present version they do not guarantee the stability, the objective selection and promotion of the civil servants.

V.The judiciary and the fight against crime

17.The relations between the government and the judiciary are extremely complicated. There is a public debate going on between them about who is responsible for the high level of crime in the country. The intention of the government is to induce the General Prosecutor, who was nominated in 1992 by the UDF, to resign.

18.The government submitted a draft law which allows for the interference of the executive in the work of the independent judiciary by attributing controlling functions to the Minister of Justice and Legal Euro-integration over the administrative work of the magistrates, the budget of the courts, the appointment and dismissal of magistrates. The majority introduced in parliament a supplementary draft law to the government, one which directly provides for the elimination of the General Prosecutor's Office and the National Investigation Agency.

19.In response, the General Prosecutor and the Director of the National Investigation Agency submitted to the Prime Minister and to parliament a report on police violence and police brutality.

20.It is true that the judicial system in Bulgaria reveals a series of imperfections. A number of trials are delayed, many crimes remain unpunished. There are also claims for corruption among the magistrates which, however, have not been publicly proven so far. Society expects far more from the judiciary.

21.These circumstances and the feeling of an unacceptably high level of crime make it possible for the government to wage a public campaign against the prosecution and the investigation. This campaign, however, has never referred to the division of powers and to the independence of the judiciary.

22.The European Left is of the view that the problems of the judiciary cannot be resolved at the expense of its autonomy. We believe that the independence of the judiciary is a fundamental principle of democracy and free society. Any encroachment on its independence will have extremely serious negative consequences for Bulgaria's future development as a democratic country. We therefore, insist that all changes and improvements in the system take place in consultations, in line with the principle of division of powers and in harmony with European standards.

VI.Local government

23.Local elections are due in 1999. The government obviously fears it might not get enough support to establish its control over local government as well. It, therefore, suggested drastic changes in the legislation on local government. The most important one is for mayors of places under 4 000 inhabitants to be appointed and not elected. This is the majority of villages and small towns in the country. Further on it is suggested that Bulgaria be divided into twenty-eight regions with appointed regional governors, which runs contrary to the recommendations of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe whose delegation only last March explicitly insisted on elections for both levels of local government. If these intentions of the majority are carried through, it would mean that only a thin layer of elected local officials will remain in between the sandwich of appointed local officials.

24.In 1997 and 1998 the majority began to exert pressure on mayors in different ways. There have been scores of cases when mayors have been formally suspended from their duties by court decisions on alleged accusations which at a later stage have proved to be entirely unfounded. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe adopted Recommendation 45 with regard to the situation in Bulgaria which needs to be looked into and carried out.

25.A case in point is Kardjali, a town of mixed Bulgarian and Turkish population, whose mayor is from the Movement of Rights and Freedoms (the party of Bulgarian Turks). After relations between the UDF (resp. the government) and MRF deteriorated and MRF became an opposition to the government in parliament, the UDF launched an anti-Turkish opposition with the aim of pushing the MRF out of local government. Such acts may jeopardise the ethnic peace in the country, which has been restored and preserved with a lot of effort since 1990.

VII.Mass media

26.The question arises why there is no strong public reaction to the dangerous tendencies in government outlined above. In our view, this is largely due to the influence exerted by the majority over the mass media. This influence is exerted in different ways and is not always overt, but it is an indisputable fact.

27.State-owned media are directly influenced through legislation, while the private ones through economic instruments. No other explanation can be given to the fact that the critical views of the opposition are either not aired at all or misinterpreted, while the Prime Minister's and the President's spouses get more television time than opposition parties.

28.The Convention on Transborder Television, although signed more than half a year ago has not been published in the Official Gazette, nor submitted for ratification by parliament.

29.With changes in the existing legislation, a National Council of Radio and Television was established. When it was composed in parliament not even an attempt was made to simulate impartiality. Six of its members are close to and proposed by the majority, while just one to the opposition. Several political and satirical programmes were stopped on the national television and radio.

30.Two draft laws were submitted in parliament by the government — on radio and television and on telecommunications. The draft law on radio and television does not regulate the licensing of radio and television programmes. These functions are attributed to a body which is to be set up under the law on telecommunications in which broadcasting is represented as a telecommunications service. It also prescribes the setting up of a State Committee on Telecommunications whose functions do not comply with CE directives according to which the regulating body in the field of radio and television should be entirely free from political and economic pressure. An artificial division is made between the frequency of broadcasting and the broadcasting of radio and television programmes. The European practice envisages just one broadcasting licence. While in our case, the licence is subordinate to the frequency concession which is granted by the State Committee, without any competition or tender. This is done with the sole purpose of establishing control of the executive over the licensing of radio and television organisations, which makes the role of the National Council of Radio and Television null and void.

VIII.Conclusions

31.The above described tendencies have nothing to do with the European standards of democracy and civil society. The European Left cannot remain passive because if they continue to develop they may cause a backslide of the country and hamper the process of Bulgaria's integration in the European structures and discredit it as a member of the Council of Europe. We believe that there are good reasons for the Council of Europe to look more closely into the processes taking place in Bulgaria.

32.We would urge the Council of Europe to scrutinise and give an opinion on the following pieces of legislation:

APPENDIX VIII

Conventions

Treaties of the Council of Europe

signed but not ratified by Bulgaria

Update: 22 July 1998

ETS No.Treaty, date of signature

022Second Protocol to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, 11 May 1995

036Fourth Protocol to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, 11 May 1995

046Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, securing certain rights and freedoms other than those included in the Convention and in Protocol No. 1, 3 November 1993

067European Agreement relating to Persons Participating in Proceedings of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights, 3 October 1994

106European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities, 2 June 1998

108Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, 2 June 1998

117Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 3 November 1993

132European Convention on Transfrontier Television, 20 May 1997

157Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities,
9 October 1997

165Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region, 11 April 1997

166European Convention on Nationality, 15 January 1998

Treaties of the Council of Europe

ratified by Bulgaria

Update: 1 April 1998

ETS No.Treaty, date of ratification

001Statute of the Council of Europe, 7 May 1992

002General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe,
7 May 1992

005Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
7 September 1992

009Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 7 September 1992

010Protocol to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, 7 May 1992

018European Cultural Convention, 2 September 1991

024European Convention on Extradition, 17 June 1994

030European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, 17 June 1994

044Protocol No. 2 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, conferring upon the European Court of Human Rights competence to give advisory opinions, 7 September 1992

045Protocol No. 3 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending Articles 29, 30 and 34 of the Convention,
7 September 1992

055Protocol No. 5 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending Articles 22 and 40 of the Convention, 7 September 1992

062European Convention on Information on Foreign Law, 31 January 1991

066European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, 31 January 1991

086Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, 17 June 1994

090European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, 17 February 1998

092European Agreement on the Transmission of Applications for Legal Aid, 31 May 1996

097Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Information on Foreign Law, 31 January 1991

098Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, 17 June 1994

099Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, 17 June 1994

104Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, 31 January 1991

112Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, 17 June 1994

118Protocol No. 8 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 7 September 1992

120European Convention on Spectator Violence and Misbehaviour at Sports Events and in particular, at Football Matches, 16 October 1996

121Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, 31 January 1991

122European Charter of Local Self-Government, 10 May 1995

126European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 3 May 1994

135Anti-doping Convention, 1 June 1992

141Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime, 2 June 1993

143European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (revised), 2 June 1993

151Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 27 October 1997

152Protocol No. 2 to the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 27 October 1997

155Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, restructuring the control machinery established thereby, 3 November 1994

1 In this connection, the rapporteurs wish to underline the importance of Information and Documentation Centres on the Council of Europe already established in fourteen countries of central and eastern Europe. Given the practical problems they have to face in their everyday activities (for example lack of legal personality, problems in financial operations, staff, salary, fiscal and customs regulations), the rapporteurs recommend to the competent authorities of the Council of Europe to transform these centres into Council of Europe institutions under the auspices of the Committee of Ministers.

2 Three MPs from the Bulgarian Business Block lately joined the Euroleft parliamentary group, which now numbers seventeen parliamentarians.

3 On 3 July 1997 the European Commission of Human Rights declared their application admissible.

4 On 19 December 1996, the Constitutional Court rejected as inadmissible a request of ninety-four MPs — most of whom belonged to the Socialist Party — to declare the MRF as anticonstitutional, in accordance with Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Constitution. The Court referred to its earlier decision of 1992 to conclude that it could not return to an issue it had already decided upon.

5 In October 1996 a loan from the Social Development Fund of the Council of Europe amounting to 1.4 million dollars was agreed for construction of houses for Roma families in the municipality of Radnevo.

6 Assembly debate on 5 May 1992 (2nd Sitting) (see Doc. 6591, report of the Political Affairs Committee, Rapporteur: Mr Martínez; Doc. 6598, opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Rapporteur: Mr Columberg; and Doc. 6597, opinion of the Committee on Relations with Non-Member Countries, Rapporteur: Mr Rathbone).