Destroyed houses and a lot of confused people
12 July 2015
An interview about the Hadareni Pogrom with human rights activist István Haller - 10 years from the ECHR judgment and 22 years from the pogrom.
Today we remember the European Court of Human Rights decision in the Moldovan and others case.
10 years ago, on July 12, 2005 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Romania violated multiple articles from the European Convention on Human Rights for failing to provide justice in connection with a 1993 pogrom.
During the pogrom of September 20, 1993, 2 people were brutally killed while trying to escape and a third one burned to death in the house. 14 additional houses were burnt and the property was damaged. 22 years later, the local community is still struggling with the memories.
On this occasion, we take the opportunity to ask the person who maybe has the deepest knowledge about the case and who has supported the cause of Roma rights from the beginning.
Istvan Haller was among the first ones to arrive at the scene of the events. In 2008, he decided to go on hunger strike as a form of protest against the Romanian government for not complying with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. But he had some other reasons for this form of protest as well. He felt that the Council of Europe is not monitoring the implementation of the judgment and he noticed that the NGOs have lost interest in the case and they need to be mobilized. He succeeded in both his goals. As a result of his hunger strike NGOs came together and wrote a report about the implementation of the judgment and Council of Europe started to regularly ask the Romanian government for reports on the progress of the implementation.
Back then how did human rights NGOs operate in Romania?
IH: On October 01, 1993, the Pro Europa League set up its human rights department, which later supported the Moldovan and others case, which set legal precedence for Roma rights in Europe. I was hired to lead this department. Before joining Pro Europa League, I worked as an investigative journalist analysing the causes of collective violence against Romani communities (the case of Mihail Kogalniceanu, Bolintin Deal or Upper Plaiesii (Plaiesii de sus)). The main source of funding for the Pro Europa League came from American foundations, not specifically for project work but general operational activities and to support the organisation in achieving its objectives, whether it was promoting democracy and the rule of law or human rights of vulnerable people. I gained a huge amount of insight into litigation work from Ivan Fiser, then of the International Secretariat of Amnesty International.
I studied law in unconventional ways not solely from books, but by sitting in on court cases, listening to the argumentation of lawyers and getting a sense of how the law is implemented in practice. I paid attention to the behavior of lawyers. It was a real learning curve that combined formal learning with practical elements of understanding the application of the law.
In the early 90s, the Pro Europa League was still in its infancy in terms of the development of its legal work similar to other human rights organizations such as APADOR-CH (Romanian Helsinki Committee) or LADO (The League for the Defense of Human Rights). Very few lawyers (such as Renate Weber) were dedicated to the field of human rights, but even fewer again were committed to the advancement of Roma rights.
How did you hear the news about the pogrom in Hadareni?
IH: I heard it on the news, and the following day I was in Hadareni talking to the Roma people of Hadareni but also to the local and county level authorities as a journalist, taking pictures etc.
What did you see when you arrived?
IH: Destroyed houses and a lot of confused people. Roma were being expelled from the village when I was there so I did not have the opportunity to talk to them. Local people reacted in different ways to the outcome of the pogrom, some were proud of their actions and some ashamed distancing themselves from the grim reality.
Immediately the authorities took the side of the arsonists’, justifying the pogrom by blaming the behavior of Roma rather than admitting their own prejudices. It was not unusual nor unfamiliar that the authorities’ condoned this violence against Roma, I had witnessed this on other occasions too. When I finally managed to talk to the Roma villagers, who were terrified by the open displays of violence and aggression from their neighbours, they told me that they hid their children in their houses so that they would not get hurt.
There was one exception amongst the authorities, the county police commander, who gathered 20-30 suspects from eyewitness testimonials within a few days of the progrom. However he was replaced shortly after with a successor.
How did you contact the victims and what was your first impression of them?
IH: About a week after, I returned to Hadareni with Mr. Nicolae Gheorghe, a Roma rights activist from Romania, where we managed to locate the first Roma people who had enough courage to return to Hadareni after the pogrom. We talked with the returned Roma about their future plans and how we could best support them.
There were divisions amongst the Roma in terms of their immediate focus, those with families were concentrating on the well-being of their children but the majority of others wanted justice for the violence and upheaval they experienced. Some Roma even began blaming other Roma for what had happened. Due to this blame game the Roma community was unable to recognise themselves as the victims. Those that should have been held to account appeared to have evaded justice for carrying out this racially motivated arson attack, based on prejudice against Roma, sympathies which were shared by the authorities. Mr. Nicolae Gheorghe decided not to get directly involved in Hadareni due to the level of fragmentation amongst the Roma community but moreso acknowledging the overwhelming reluctance of the authorities in holding the perpetrators to account.
What general feelings did you sense in the community?
IH: The reaction of the non-Roma people differed greatly. Some felt proud of their actions, others denied any direct involvement. I detected some pride in their voice, like 'we've shown them ’. The Romani community was finding excuses to blame one and other, hoping to be accepted back to Hadareni by some of the non-Roma villagers. The people in Hadareni held meetings where they discussed who could and who could not return to the village leading to selfishness desires amongst the expelled Roma.
As a human rights lawyer what attitudes did you experience from the Romanian authorities?
Except for the Mures county police commander, all other authorities were blaming the Roma, defending the behavior of those who killed and burned Roma houses.
Do you believe that the Romanian authorities did everything possible in order to compensate the victims?
IH: The authorities did everything possible to hinder Roma for accessing compensation they were not viewed as victims in any sense of the word.
Do you believe that the Romanian authorities did everything possible in order to create a peaceful environment in Hadareni?
IH: Up until the beginning of 1994, the authorities tried everything to expel the Roma from Hadareni, this was their notion of how to achieve peace. Once under scrutiny from abroad and in particular from EU institutions, expelling Roma stopped and the authorities started terrorising Roma to appease the non-Roma population in Hadareni. During this period, roughly up to 1998, Roma were sleeping with their shoes on, always ready to run if a pogrom started again. After the change in the political climate in 1998 and related court proceedings, the police received orders to prevent any attempt of a violent clash. For the first time the police had to protect Roma along with the majority population. Prevention of any future conflict was a priority for the police at this time. After the decision from the European Court of Human Rights in 2005 (Moldavan and Others V. Romania1), the situation improved for Roma, without any intervention from the authorities.
Do you believe that the Romanian authorities would be able to prevent such a pogrom nowadays?
IH: There have been several near-incidents in Romania in which the authorities managed to intervene and stop the escalation of violence. There were also some failures on the part of the authorities, when they intervened too late in an incident where some Roma houses were partially destroyed (2008-2009). Once again the Roma were vilified and the actions were justified, they did not receive any compensation for the damage to their properties and the perpetrators were not held accountable. Moreover, authorities accept that Roma people need to be taught 'lessons' sometimes therefore the aggressors should not be punished for their actions in their eyes. In my opinion, such attitudes, in particular from those with decision-making powers and authority, creates an environment for such violence against minorities with serious consequences for wider society. Roma who do not feel accepted in their own communities are more likely to emigrate also, which authorities are happy to see.
Endnote:
1 This case is of great importance even though there are serious shortcomings regarding the implementation of the decision in an amicable way due to government’s inaction. In the jurisprudence of ECtHR there were three relevant cases that gave hope for Roma people all over Europe in that they could now expect legal solutions to violations of their rights: the case of Nachova against Bulgaria, the case of Moldovan against Romania and DH against the Czech Republic.
