Pandemic measures further complicate human rights issues in the Western Balkans

A state of emergency has been imposed in all Western Balkan countries except Montenegro to combat the outbreak. In Serbia, its leaders are accused of authoritarian tendencies and attacks on media freedom. Montenegro has published the identities (names and addresses) of citizens subject to mandatory self-isolation, with a similar attempt in Bosnia and Herzegovina, thereby violating the right to privacy. The Albanian Parliament approved the government’s proposal to make changes to the Criminal Code by introducing heavy prison sentences for violators of COVID-19 measures, up to 15 years. It is therefore necessary to determine whether the governments of Western Balkan countries respect human rights when introducing measures to combat the pandemic.

Advisor for the Western Balkans of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Justice George Stawa said that, taking into account the general situation and circumstances, the governments of the Western Balkans respect human rights, but looking at some frightening details, this is not the case.

“Let’s be frank: the pandemic is an emergency. To save lives, “extraordinary dangers may require special measures.” By definition, effective measures to combat a pandemic interfere with and limit individual rights. But they must always be proportionate, adequate, limited in time and respect constitutional guarantees and individual rights as much as possible. In the Western Balkans, we have notably witnessed the publication of patients’ personal data, the use of pandemic instruments for “political momentum”, the possible tracking of individuals without legal means or the implementation of measures not in conformity with the constitution. It will be interesting to see how these issues will be handled by the courts,” says Stawa while emphasizing that political accountability could follow.

For Goran Mileticdirector for Europe at Civil Rights Defenders, it appears that many Western Balkan leaders have gone too far in the measures they have introduced or are considering introducing.

“This does not apply to measures that genuinely aim to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and are justified and proportionate, such as social distancing or restricting freedom of assembly. These include measures like in Albania and Montenegro, or the attempt to organize press conferences without journalists in Serbia, where journalists are invited to write about the problems facing the country. It is very easy to identify areas where the authorities in the region have gone too far in limiting human rights,” says Miletić explaining that furthermore, even when the measures are proportionate and justified in a democratic society (Council of Europe standard), their implementation has no effect. appear adequate, including sanctions in the event of violation of certain measures.

Previously, the Council of Europe published a toolkit for all 47 member states, namely Information documents on respect for democracy, the rule of law and human rights in the context of the COVID-19 health crisis, in which it is specified that any derogation must have a clear basis in domestic law in order to to protect against arbitrariness and must be strictly necessary to combat the state of emergency. States must bear in mind that all measures taken must aim to protect the democratic order from threats to it, and that all efforts must be made to safeguard the values ​​of a democratic society, such as pluralism , tolerance and open-mindedness.

Miletić points out that it is well known that the three most threatened human rights in the Western Balkans are freedom of expression (media freedom), the right to a fair trial and the right to non-discrimination.

“Nothing seems to have changed during the pandemic, but the measures introduced have only further complicated the situation in all three areas. BM6 countries have problems in these areas which are well recognized by the EU and have been highlighting them and the solutions they are proposing for years. Progress in these areas is now almost impossible, although more than necessary,” says Miletić.

What will be the consequences ?

Moments like this will leave their mark once the crisis has passed. Since the state of emergency gives authorities the right to limit certain human rights, the question is how quickly the reduced level of human rights will return to normal. However, in countries like WB6, where the rule of law, separation of powers and media freedom are being questioned, can we expect to see human rights consequences once the pandemic ends?

For Miletić, it doesn’t seem like much will change at first glance.

“The measures currently in force will simply be abolished. However, it seems that there will certainly be short- and medium-term consequences, as many citizens have had their human rights violated in one way or another. I suspect that there will be many appeal procedures in certain situations and that the democratic transition in some countries will be slowed down. As for the long-term consequences, they depend on the strategic determination of each country,” says Miletić adding that unfortunately, it seems that the pandemic in the region has actually strengthened authoritarian forces and ideas.

Stawa gives the example of the fact that everywhere in Europe, the measures applied can, will and should be challenged before the constitutional courts (in Vienna alone, two weeks ago, 20 complaints were already pending) or before the European Court human rights.

“It is the normal way to balance the powers of the state through an independent judiciary and to prevent abuse of legislative or executive powers. (Mis)use of power can always be tempting, but voters and courts will teach political and legal limits,” Stawa says.

He explains that political power must always be administered with dignity and respect for the people and the constitution.

“The state of emergency concentrates more power on executives, allowing them to respond quickly and accordingly. All the more so since it is necessary to rebalance it through democratic debate, media freedom and control of the judiciary. But my biggest concern is not that a certain politician is abusing their position during the crisis by posting lots of favorable photos on Instagram. This is a question of political responsibility that Democratic voters must answer.
My concern is: if and when the crisis and emergency measures end: if the last patient is healthy? In a single country? In Europe? Worldwide, because someone could bring back the virus? “No, the second (third, fourth,…) wave can still happen, we must prepare and protect ourselves” or “the effects of the crises are still to be fought” are sentences more dangerous than any detail on the covers -fires or respirators delivered,” he said. Stawa.

He concludes that beyond that, people themselves could “give up their freedom to politically all-powerful tracking apps, deliberately trading the rights we have fought for over the past 300 years: for the allowance for going out for ice cream or traveling to the seaside “healthy and safe”. “, people can accept many dangerous system changes that would otherwise be unthinkable. And these changes could persist in our society.