Author: Natalia Conea - Bușilă

QUALIFIER ‘HANDICAPPED’ EXCLUDED FROM MOLDOVAN CONSTITUTION

(picture: voceabasarabiei.md)

The qualifier ‘handicapped’ will be replaced with ‘with disabilities’ in the text of the supreme law. In this sense, the Executive approved the opinion for amending arts. 50 and 51 of the Moldovan Constitution in its today’s meeting.

With these amendments, constitutional provisions will be aligned to the international and national legislation, already aligned, which is a commitment made through the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which sets up a new disability paradigm, marking the passing from the medical model to the social one, based on inclusion.

The state has previously approved amendments and completions to many legal acts in this area, removing the discriminatory terms to comply with the international regulations that secure the protection of and full and equal exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and promote the respect for their dignity.

Source:   Unimedia.info

IDOM ORGANIZES JOINT TRAINING WORKSHOP FOR THE POLICE, PROSECUTORS AND STAFF OF COCIERI SOCIAL HOUSE

The Moldovan Institute for Human Rights (IDOM), thanks to the support provided by the Swedish Agency for International Development Cooperation (Sida), carries out a monitoring of the respect for the rights of people with mental and intellectual health in psychiatric facilities, training and strategic litigation.

The UN Committee against Torture recommended to the Republic of Moldova to train the police, prosecutors, judges and all the staff involved in providing health services in the methods of interaction with people with mental/psychosocial disabilities and efficient investigation and documentation of torture and of inhuman and degrading treatment.

During the monitoring of psychiatric/psycho-neurological facilities, IDOM flagged the gaps in the management of cases involving people with mental/intellectual disabilities in Cocieri psycho-neurological boarding (social) house. In view of capacitating the law enforcement, on 25 May 2018, IDOM organized a joint workshop for the police, prosecutors and staff of Cocieri Social House. The event took place at the Mayor’s Office of the village of Ustia, district of Dubăsari.

The head of the Torture Combating Section of the General Prosecutor’s Office Ion Caracuian, the Executive Director of IDOM Vanu Jereghi, and the Coordinator of the Monitoring and Reporting Program of IDOM Dumitru Russu were trainers in the above-mentioned training.

   

   

   

   

DUMITRU RUSSU, IDOM REPRESENTATIVE, ELECTED MEMBER OF THE TORTURE PREVENTION COUNCIL

In a press release issued today, the Ombudsman announces the appointment of Dumitru Russu, IDOM representative, as member of the Torture Prevention Committee under the Ombudsman.

On 21 May 2018, the Committee for the Selection of members of the Torture Prevention Council issued a decision on the selection of the new member for a five-year mandate, under arts.30 and 31 of the Law 52/2014 on the Ombudsman and pts.2 and 18 of the Regulation on the Organization and Operation of the Torture Prevention Council.

The Torture Prevention Council is set up in accordance with the Law 52/2014 on the Ombudsman to protect people against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments or treatments, as a national torture prevention mechanism, in accordance with the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

SECURING RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN POLICING

On 16 May 2018, the Moldovan Institute for Human Rights (IDOM) organized a round table with the generics “Securing Respect for Human Rights in Policing.” This event was possible thanks to the financial support provided through the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and to the support provided by the American people.

The event aimed to identify the means for removing the gaps identified in securing the rights of people held in police custody. In this connection, IDOM presented the findings and recommendations deriving from the report on ‘monitoring remand facilities’ in view of preventing ill-treatments.

We were honored by the presence of the distinguished Ambassador of Sweden to Moldova Ms. Signe Burgstaller who said a few greeting words at the beginning of the event, and of the Senior Counselor of the Criminal Justice Section of the US Embassy to Moldova – Mr. Edward Cronin, together with Mr. Petru Țurcan – Head of the International Cooperation Department in the Moldovan Ministry of Interior, and Mr. Joshua Visi – Senior Police Officer in Austin Police Department who presented the American good practices in policing. Ms. Barbara Fischlowitz-Leong – Expert in the Rights of Disabled Persons, M.Ed., Executive Director / CEO of Assistive Technology Resource Center spoke about securing the rights of people with disabilities in police custody, bringing clear examples and recommendations in this sense.

We would like to thank all the participants who accepted the invitation and attended our event: the General Police Inspectorate; Ministry of Interior; Ministry of Health, Labor and Social Protection; Keystone Moldova; National Institute of Justice; the Ombudsman; Institute for Penal Reforms and the Council for the Prevention and Elimination of Discrimination and Assurance of Equality in Moldova; Soros Foundation Moldova; Civic Association “Home and Health”; EU Delegation; Alliance of Organizations of People with Disabilities of Moldova; and BAA Public Attorneys.

Photo from the event:

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

        

     

 

MINISTRY OF HEALTH, LABOUR AND SOCIAL PROTECTION GIVES ASSURANCES THAT RIGUROUS SURVEILLANCE SECTIONS IN PSYCHO-NEUROLOGICAL BOARDING HOUSES WILL BE CLOSED

While the Moldovan Institute for Human Rights (IDOM) conducted a monitoring of psychiatric and psycho-neurological institutions regarding the observance of the rights of persons with psychosocial and intellectual impairments as well as during its litigations, it found that psycho-neurological institutions included a significant number of residents whose freedom was limited inside ‘closed-type’ sections (rigorous surveillance sections).

The UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), in its third periodic report, recommended to the Republic of Moldova in pt. 32 letter c) “to make sure that nobody is placed involuntarily in such institution for non-medical reasons, including by securing that patients are entitled to be heard personally by the judge who orders their admission, that the judge asks the opinion of a psychiatrist, and that such decisions may be challenged.” The UN mechanism allows involuntary placement only with the observance of the safeguards mentioned supra. In the national context, it refers to the admissibility of limitation of individual freedom in psychiatric hospitals, not in psycho-neurological boarding houses.

At the same time, according to article 14 para.1 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (liberty and security of person) “1. States Parties shall ensure that persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others: (a) Enjoy the right to liberty and security of person; b) Are not deprived of their liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily, and that any deprivation of liberty is in conformity with the law, and that the existence of a disability shall in no case justify a deprivation of liberty.”

In this connection, restricting the freedom of these persons by isolating them in ‘closed-type’ sections may fall under the jurisdiction of article 166 of the Criminal Code “Illegal Deprivation of Freedom of a Person”, or if one pursues punishing a person in the sense of CAT[1], this may entail their liability in the sense of article 1661 of the Criminal Code “Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment.” Hence, IDOM finds it empirical to eliminate the practices of placing the persons kept in psycho-neurological boarding houses in ‘closed-type’ sections and, as a result, to secure the respect for their freedom.

Bearing in mind the above, IDOM sent a letter to the Ministry of Health, Labor and Social Protection (MHLSP) in April inst. and requested to be informed about the terms and actions to be taken to secure the observance of the norms set forth and for observing the provisions of articles 3 (the right to not be subject to ill-treatments) and 5 (the right to freedom and safety) of the ECHR.

MHLSP has recently examined IDOM’s approach and informed us that it would take measures to close the rigorous surveillance sections in neurological boarding houses. At the same time, the Ministry informed us that it had requested the management of psycho-neurological boarding houses to take measures in view of remedying the situation and close down rigorous surveillance sections, including to re-assess the beneficiaries placed in such sections.


[1] Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Demers IDOM catre MSMPS

Raspunsul MSMPS

 

IDOM Lawyers Participate as Trainers in “Safeguards against Abuses of Persons with Disabilities” Training

On 3 May 2018, the IDOM Lawyers Alexandru Cebanaș, Dumitru Russu and Olesea Doronceanu, together with Maria Ghervas, Judge at the Supreme Court of Justice, and Ion Caracuian, Head of the Torture Combating Section of the General Prosecutor’s Office of Moldova, trained in the training “Safeguards against Abuses of Persons with Disabilities,” organized by the resource Group for Human Rights, with the support of ABA ROLI

The participants were capacitated in the following areas:

  • Legal capacities as a safeguard against abuses of and discrimination against persons with disabilities;
  • Particularities of the evolution of the judicial practice on the recovery of legal capacity by persons declared incapacitated;
  • Measures of contractual and judicial protection of persons with disabilities;
  • Standards of efficient investigation of cases of inhuman treatment involving persons with mental health issues;
  • Particularities of securing and safeguarding the right to defense of persons with mental disabilities.

Pictures from the event:

 

 

VANU JEREGHI, IDOM: WE LIKE TESTING THE SYSTEM AND WE DO IT ALL THE TIME

The Moldovan Institute for Human Rights (IDOM) is renowned for its pro bono services in serious cases. People there, a group of enthusiastic lawyers, each time test if the system changes some of its vicious practices. The IDOM Director Vanu Jereghi says that pro bono services are not popular in Moldova due to people’s mindset. You can find out more from this interview about IDOM’s experience in this regard and about what they have managed to change along the years.

Bizlaw: Why do you provide pro bono services and, generally, what is the designation of your institute?

Vanu Jereghi: The institute was set up in 2007 by a group of human rights defenders. We were five people, with work experience of ten years in civil society at that time. Why? Everything done in the civil society, or the vast majority of activities offered by the civil society, are free of charge. We are a watchdog organization, those who fight against the state.

We are a strategic litigation organization. This means we take over several cases from the crowd, where there is a vicious practice for the people. We cannot represent everyone, so we choose the most representative cases and we go to court with them, to test and destroy the vicious practices. If there is a wall that impedes us and must be demolished, we do not break it up by taking away bricks from the top, one by one, but rather find the main pillars and destroy them. In new litigation cases, we change the practice, the law and state practices. And we have many examples in this area. For example, when we were founded as IDOM, we had experience in the nongovernmental sector and, at that time, we decided we should take those areas that were not covered by our other colleagues. We focused on such areas as HIV/AIDS because no one had worked in that area and during the years we had worked in other organizations we had not seen any complaints filed by people with HIV.

There are two reasons when no complaints are filed: either there are no problems, or there is fear to file them. In our case, it was the latter.

At present, we do not face any legislative barriers. Absolutely the entire legislation on HIV has changed in seven to eight years. And if there are any human rights violation practices they are individual and insignificant for the entire society or the HIV/AIDS area. The victim may consider it a very serious case but if speaking for the country or the system as a whole, they are insignificant cases.

We have a strategic plan. This means a document about what we will be doing in the next 3-4-5 years, where we will intervene, in which areas, using which methods, and what the outcomes will be. For example, this year we were supposed to have more strategic litigation cases for people with HIV. We have already changed the draft document because we do not have such cases. Not the figures count to us but rather having the problem solved.

BizLaw: What exactly motivated you to get involved in the provision of pro bono services, because free services are still treated with reluctance in Moldova?

Vanu Jereghi: Or there is something behind the scenes… for sure, there is something. And yet, we can speak about two big pro bono directions. All our beneficiaries think that we work pro bono, which is not always true. Most of my colleagues are attorneys who work full time for IDOM. They have fixed salaries and many cases as freelancers where they choose their own cases. My colleagues know that they will have an X amount of money each month, they are dedicated to the victims, do not look for clients who wear suits but may go to a psycho-neurological boarding school and speak with a person with disabilities who has lived their entire life there, or may sit at the same table with people having HIV. My colleagues are a team built during ten years and they enjoy what they do. They may sit in the office until the morning, which is something normal for them. We have not always had funds. We have four strategic areas: HIV/AIDS, which has been mentioned, then mental health – psychiatry, malpractice and detention sites. We work with one of the most vulnerable groups. Psychiatry in general…

I always say that if democracy has opened doors in prisons or in the police, the situation has remained the same in psychiatry. Things, of course change, but they move more slowly. Not as we would like them to, but they are changing for the better.

We have not always had money to cover all the areas. For instance, we worked from grants and from projects in the previous years. A donor, when announcing a grant, says they are interested in HIV/AIDS or psychiatry. When we take money for one area, this means that the other three areas remain uncovered, and my colleagues, receiving a salary from that project, offer their free time to the other three areas. They understood that those areas were important for the organization and for the society and they said if we had abandoned those areas, they would have died, and we would have died as an organization, too. In the past two years, we have had grants from the Swedish Government, institutional grants. They gave us money and said that it was for the implementation of our strategic plan. In such way, I can pay my colleagues proportionally. Of course, this is not 100%, they receive about 80%, and they work pro bono for the rest of 20%. For instance, we have a contract but I, as an NGO director, cannot foresee absolutely everything what an attorney should do because outside going to court we also do monitoring or write reports, different issues arise, or we are involved in various national or international fora. We constantly receive invitations to meetings or to submit reports. We do this pro bono. 

For the beneficiary, this is pro bono but I can speak about 100% pro bono cases. Such cases do exist in our practice as well as in that of our attorney colleagues. For example, we were very much involved after the events of 7 April 2009, we worked with the victims. IDOM was the one to collect all the information and write reports.

Out of 108 complaints, we represented 38 victims. Back then, it was a request from the society for someone to intervene and we saw many good, young attorneys, who lacked experience but who wanted to change something.

They came to the meetings and said they did not have money but wanted to help the victims. A group of 20-30 attorneys got together and discussed which strategy to take and more experienced attorneys said we should go one way or another. It was an attorneys club where everyone was meeting everyone else, forgetting about money but wanting to do something. The pro bono work exists when the society expects something and people mobilize themselves to do it. Of course, for only 30 attorneys to come out of 2,000 was little, and yet, it was an indicator.

BizLaw: Regarding malpractice cases, how do they go in this area? There is no malpractice law in place and doctors usually get off with light sanctions. Have you had severe cases? How did it happen? Did the victim come to you or were you the ones to choose the case?

Vanu Jereghi: We have a few case selection methods. First, we go to the regions, to residential institutions, where we monitor them and take cases over from there. People have their freedom restricted. We receive phone calls, the door is open and people come here all the time. We have partner organizations that refer clients to us. It is not obligatory to have a malpractice law. We were the only ones to make a report on what was happening in the country because ten years ago we called this area “Patient’s Rights”, which is something much broader. In time, we have narrowed down within this segment in order to have better results. We have had very interesting cases, e.g. women convicted for late abortions. Convicted for murder and sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment. They were released in the end, but some had spent up to six years in detention. We take the cases from the media, each day you see what has happened, people complain on the doctors but then you do not see any continuity. The bomb exploded and that is it. I was always wondering and discussing with my press colleagues about who should follow it further.

I think we have now ten malpractice cases pending. They are the most complicated cases, and first of all for us, those who are lawyers. When such a situation occurs, you must read a lot of medical information. There is need for an expert examination and one must answer some questions. The prosecutor or investigator has no idea what questions to ask of a medical expert. There is no other profession more united than the medical one in this country. Maybe judges, too, but this is coming to an end. Doctors are the most united ones. And the problem that arises here is, whom do we approach to help us?

We have had cases when we had to translate case files. We initially decoded it, 70 pages, which lasted two months. We hired a resident doctor who decoded it between his classes. Then we had it translated to English, after which it was sent to a British expert. He reviewed the case and told us what was not correct in it and sent it back to us, we translated it to Romanian and took the document to court. The judge, however, said that the British expert, no matter how good, was not an expert in our country because he was not registered in our country. As in the Boboc case. We brought the expert who did the disinterment, he did not take any money, had come pro bono, having been invited by a civil society organization and not by a state institution. He worked for four days, gave his report to the authorities, with conclusions different from what our experts had written in the Boboc case. The death certificate written by our experts still says that he had died due to some unknown gas. The judge and the prosecutor said that the expert could not participate. The expert was an UN expert and participated in Yugoslavia had presented information at the Hague Tribunal, while here they claimed he was not registered. It was the only case when disinterment was done here with the participation of one of the best experts at global level. In our country, he was asked to show his diplomas. A pro bono case for our society. The person worked pro bono, and I think we will not get away without having to pay 20 or 30 thousand euros for his services.

BizLaw: Can Moldova now boast with a well-defined and well-established pro bono culture?

Vanu Jereghi: No. I always say that the initial upbringing is important and that school should teach us do things without waiting for remuneration. I am always surprised when people say they have received 200 hours of community service. I watched a news item yesterday about a Chinese billionaire who had been collecting the garbage on his street for 20 years because he wants it to be clean. While we expect those from the kolkhoz or from the party to give us things and do things for us. I have not seen anything happen pro bono in this country. And in the case of those 30 attorneys, I did not think they would come to work either.

BizLaw: Should such services be regulated in the law on the legal profession? Should there be some provisions in place, since many attorneys complain that tax authorities come to check on them?

Vanu Jereghi: In our case, it is easier because my attorneys sign a contract with the organization and issue mandates to their clients based on such contracts, without having to attach the legal agreement. But we have another problem – the Swedish Government tells us straight: “you are very vulnerable here, in Moldova, as an organization, and you must start making money.” We live from grants. We had periods with ten grants running in parallel, and we had periods with just one grant. This of course was at the beginning. Now we have grown up. But when you have only one grant, when it ends, it takes up to four or five months to find other money, and I cannot keep my colleagues here. They have families, a private life, must pay their bills and buy food. And until the next grant comes, in the period between them, I either lose my colleagues or do not have money to pay our rent and bills.

This organization started out on a pro bono basis, we were five people who got together and said, “let us make an organization.” They said, “Vanu, you will be the direct,” and then they were gone. In the following nine months, I rented an office, on a pro bono basis, and spent my personal money. We had just the name and we were left like that, with a bylaws and the name. The first grant that came and enabled us to develop was for nine months. I could not afford working from home for nine months because it only seems to you that you are working when you are home. When the first grant came, I already afforded hiring someone to help me.

BizLaw: What has been the most complicated case you have managed?

Vanu Jereghi: We like testing the system and we do it all the time. We have had a few examples. I tried earlier to talk about that girl who was convicted. Some American women came to us and said they had talked with many Moldovan lawyers but they did not want to take up that case. They reasoned that it was impossible to do it in the Moldovan realities or that they had other prejudices regarding abortions. They had met with super famous attorneys and offered money to them but they did not want to accept. Some did accept but did not do a good job. This was the Reproductive Rights Center from the USA. They said there was a case and they had found out about it from the media, about a girl who had been convicted for abortion. We worked on that case for about four years. The US people worked on it, two persons from Romania worked on it, and so did we. We went to the president. The person was sentenced to imprisonment in Rusca Prison. She was a person without any sexual or even general education. Her entire family were drinking and were working in the field by the day. The landowner for which the entire family worked raped her in the field. She found out she was pregnant in the fourth or fifth month. She had no idea she was pregnant and physiologically she was a bit different from the vast majority. She made an abortion, and I always wondered what would have happened if a woman who lived in Chișinău had made a late abortion. 

In this girl’s case, who was from the countryside, she was in the garden killing the weeds when she had an abortion and two babies were born. Our experts called them babies while the experts did not call them babies. We review how our state assessed whether they had been alive or not. Our state takes their lungs out and puts them on water. If they sit on the water it means they had breathed and this is enough. But international practice says differently i.e. one must first see if they were viable.

We brought Andreea Marin from Romania, those were huge investments; UN Moldova got involved. People from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said they had never received so many petitions on such cases. Our ambassadors to the UN and to the Council of Europe said they knew the case better than any Moldovan prosecutor did because representatives of other countries were approaching them on that case. Our authorities said no. The General Prosecutor’s Office saw there were super many pressures put on them, we brought the UN recommendation saying that the girl had to be released, we came with the recommendation to the political leaders and they said the situation was as it was. I went to the Prosecutor’s Office, they said, go to the Ministry of Justice, I went to the Minister of Justice and he said, go to the Prosecutor’s Office.

BizLaw: To how many years had she initially been convicted?

Vanu Jereghi: To 20 years. She meanwhile said she wanted to study English and the UN staff helped her learn English right in the prison. She was then pardoned and released; we finally convinced the president to pardon her. That was the only solution in her case, to be pardoned.

The abortion happened when she was killing the weeds in her garden and she saw that they (the babies) were not breathing and buried them in the garden. She was bleeding and went to the hospital and the first thing the doctor wrote in her record was that a late abortion had taken place. There is another little interesting thing here: our doctors are required to announce the law enforcement about anything. And they announced them about a girl having come with late abortion. The police from Glodeni came and asked her, “Where is your child?” She said, “Buried in the garden.’”

BizLaw: So she was honest with them?

Vanu Jereghi: Yes, she was honest and the prosecutors said, sign here if you want to go home. She signed the paper without reading it. But for a prosecutor from the remote region of Glodeni is a super thing to have a murder case discovered, so she was convicted. She did not even have a lawyer. She was bleeding and they arrested her in that condition. There is nothing more severe than infanticide or murdering orphan children for women’s prisons. Therefore, she was persecuted by those she was sharing the cell with. She finally was released and is ok. She has even learned a profession. The head of the prison tells me, “I would like all my female convicts to be like her.” She is super decent.

BizLaw: Nonetheless, she did serve a few years, didn’t she?

Vanu Jereghi: About six years, as long as we worked on her case. But there was no other solution. This is one case.

The second case comes from the times when our state was constantly claiming that all those kept in psychiatry were insane, absolutely all of them. This is how our society treats it. If I have been once to the psychiatrist, then I have something permanently, which is not true. We started visiting psycho-neurological boarding houses or psychiatric hospitals. We first entered such institutions in 2000. None of the human rights defenders had visited such institutions before then. I got scared of the things I saw there. When opening people’s files, I, as a lawyer realized very well that one may not have their rights limited if one has not been deprived by legal capacity by the court. Even if the approaches have completely changed, but this is something else. And I asked them, how do you qualify these people as insane if they have not been tried by a court? Who qualified them as such? The doctors told me that judges understood nothing. I looked at it in legal terms and, de jure, they are like you and me.

“Let us monitor the elections in these institutions,” to which many told me we were more insane than they were. How could one monitor the elections in psychiatry? We were the first ones in the region to say, “let us see how they are voting.” The then minister of health, from the communist government of that time, called all the institutions and asked, “How could your crazy people vote?” We had meetings with them before the elections and told them about the voting procedure and what the doctors were supposed to do. In fact, it is the same procedure as in the emergency hospital. The doctors told me that they would not provide for the voting procedure because they had received phone calls/letters from the minister telling them those people were not voting. We then opened the Criminal Code and said that if they opposed, they would be held liable. And the people voted. About 260 people voted in the first year. Even the media covered the fact that the crazy people voted, that the crazy people supported the communists. This did not matter to us. What mattered to us was to secure their rights. About 60% of all the institutionalized persons votes in the past elections.

We are now having cases in court. The Non-Discrimination Council has already issued decisions and the cases are now in court. If a person is in psychiatry, the Central Election Commission does not enter them in the database. When they go to vote and show their ID, a red sign comes up indicating the person is not entitled to vote. We are having such cases in court right now. So now, we do not have any problems with the psychiatry, none whatsoever. They vote there now as they do it in the Emergency Hospital or in “Sfânta Treime” one.

And the third case is also a very interesting one among those we have had. We are all patients when we take a sick leave and are absent from work. What do we do in such case? We bring a medical certificate to back to work, so that our manager and the accountant know how to calculate those days. It is a sheet of paper saying for how many days I am incapable to work. In the past, the medical certificate issued always mentioned the person’s illness. So, if I brought such a certificate to work, the accountant or anyone else could see what I had been ill with. Why would this be needed? It is a secret.

Certificates now do not mention the illness anymore. We went to court with the Ministry of Health for three years and have changed the system. This work was done on a pro bono basis; we did not have any projects. It was our initiative and we said, let’s change it. We have a colleague who is attorney and was absent from the court hearing, and then reasoned her absence by a medical certificate. The judge attached it to the file. And the certificate said that the person had had an abortion. Why is this necessary? I, as a manager of an organization, need to know that my employee was unable to work for five days, for instance. That is all, nothing else is needed. But in big institutions, try and bring a certificate to a factory or to the trade unions, and every one finds out. It is an even more serious situation for people with HIV, their certificates used to say the same. We went to court, took with us a person who had been recently ill, and claimed that eight legal acts were being breached, including the Moldovan Constitution. This is confidential information, between me and my doctor, and that is it. No one else should know.

The Ministry, the one that makes policies in this area, was saying that we could not do something like that. Then they said that they had printed one million sick leave certificates and we said, ok, then simply change the internal order so that doctors do not write anything in that section. They did not want to do it. Meanwhile, they found a way out and said, let us take the standards of the World Health Organization. Let the illness’ code be indicated instead of its name. So that it is clear for everyone. If I go to a different country, using the same certificate, doctors should understand. We said it was not enough. They came to court and said they had changed it and that they now indicated codes rather that the diagnosis. We said, “honorable court, please open your computer and search for the WHO codes and you will immediately find the person’s illness, why do this at all then?” We won in the end and no such information is indicated now any longer.

BizLaw: And the last question, which are the organization’s plans for the future? Will you choose other areas? What other problematic areas exist in Moldova?

Vanu Jereghi:  We are right now working on our strategic plan, because the current one is expiring soon. Our donors asked us to tell them what we are planning to do in the next three years, from 2019 to 2022. I think we will keep our current areas, and we may even narrow them down. It is impossible to cover all the areas. An organization may surely exist in each area, one that either defends only people with HIV, or only people with mental health issues. While we are the ones who change the major things. We will only change our activities and will focus more on changing policies and not just on individual cases. However, it remains to be decided with our colleagues together.

BizLaw: Thank you!

This interview was produced under the project “Strengthening Paralegals Network,” implemented by the Associate Lawyers Office “Efrim, Roșca and Associates” and cofounded by the Justice and Human Rights Department of the Soros Foundation Moldova. This item does not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation.

Author: Dumitrița Ciuvaga. The item was taken over in full from www.bizlaw.md

 

 

 

CONVICTED TO FREEDOM IN MALPRACTICE CASE LITIGATED BY IDOM OR HOW THE LAW ON AMNESTY ‘WORKS’

Criminal conviction for medical malpractice. IDOM lawyers succeed in proving a medical malpractice incident within a criminal case.

In March 2018, the Supreme Court of Justice issued a final judgment in a medical malpractice case. Although a doctor was criminally convicted for a medical error that led to a patient’s death, the amnesty act applied by the highest court removed the consequences of the conviction. The amnesty served as a wall for the formal recognition of the guilt and was exclusively used to avoid the consequences of the conviction. This conclusion was later reconfirmed when the doctor denied her guilt in a civil case for the repair of damages for her criminal act.

Details of the case

In June 2013, a young patient died in a medical facility of Chișinău in just a few hours after being admitted. She was 24, had recently married and had been delivered of a baby girl two weeks before that.

The lawyers of IDOM’s Litigation and Advocacy Program took over the case and filed a criminal complaint in the interests of the husband of the deceased patient in July 2013. In our complaint, we requested a criminal case to be started on grounds of commission of the crimes set out in art.162 para.2) letter b) of the Criminal Case “Withholding Help from a Sick Person” and art.213 p.b) of the Criminal Code “Violation by Negligence of Medical Assistance Rules and Methods” by the medical staff of four medical facilities, who had provided assistance to the deceased patient at different stages.

The Râșcani District Prosecutor’s Office started a criminal case and pressed charges against an intensive care doctor from a Chișinău medical facility. The doctor was blamed that while she was acting as an intensive care doctor she ignored the rules and methods for providing medical assistance and while she was performing a surgery, viz. catheterizing patient’s central subclavian vein, on the left side by negligence injured the subclavian vein and the apex of the left lung, which caused severe bleeding in the pleural cavity and total collapsing of the left lung (the rib cage contained 3 litres of haemorrhagic liquid and 1.0 kg of coagulated blood mix), which caused the patient’s death.

The forensic report, in addition to the direct cause of the death, also found that the patient had received full, adequate, but late treatment at all stages of her hospitalization and so, the serious general condition of the patient was one of the contraindications for transferring her to another medical facility.

The commission set up by the Ministry of Health at the request of IDOM’s lawyer for examining the quality and quantity of the medical assistance provided to the patient, although flagging numerous gaps in the medical assistance provided to the patient, yet concluded that the medical assistance was suboptimal and that another tactics would have not changed the result and that the case had to considered unavoidable at the hospital level.

The conclusion was based on the fact that the patient was correctly diagnosed with a malign tumour only post mortem. Hence, while alive, although permanently in the sight of medical facilities, she had not been correctly diagnosed or received specific treatment for the disease she was suffering from.

The criminal investigation and trial of the case lasted for three years, during which the accused doctor never admitted her guilt in committing the crime, never atoned, and always pleaded innocent.

In 2016, the Rîșcani District Court of Chișinău ruled to find X guilty of committing the crime provided in art.213 letter b) Criminal Code and sentenced her to 1 year of imprisonment. According to art.90 of the Criminal Code, the enforcement of the punishment was conditionally suspended for a probation period of 2 years. Based on art.78 para.2) of the Criminal Code, the complementary punishment of deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or to carry out certain activities was removed.

The conviction sentence was appealed by the prosecutor and the successor of the injured party via the IDOM lawyer, on grounds of the mild punishment imposed. During the examination of the criminal case and in his verbal statements, the husband of the deceased patient never pleaded for a conviction with a real execution of the punishment by the doctor and let it to the court to establish the punishment. The only successor’s request was to deprive the doctor of the right to perform her doctor’s profession for three years and to reserve his right to file later a civil action for the recovery of his moral damages.

The defendant X also challenged the sentence of the Rîșcani District Court and in her appeal requested to be acquitted.

In February 2017, on the day set for the examination of the appeals, at the beginning of the meeting, the defendant filed a request for terminating the criminal case under the Law on Amnesty no.210 of 29 July 2016, invoking that she pleaded guilty and was feeling sorry. The defendant’s request to have the Law on Amnesty applied contravened her requests from her appeal in which she had not pleaded guilty and requested to be acquitted.

The Criminal Chamber of the Chişinău Court of Appeal decided to reject the appeals filed by the prosecutor of Rîșcani District Prosecutor’s Office, the successor of the injured party and the lawyer  Olesea Doronceanu against the sentence issued by the Rîșcani District Court as being groundless; to accept the appeal filed by the defendant X; to dismiss the sentence of the Rîșcani District Court; to terminate the criminal case against X and to have her release from criminal liability based on the amnesty act.

IDOM lawyers think that the Chișinău Court of Appeal in its judgment committed a serious violation of the rights of the successor of the injured party, and especially of the right to an efficient second appeal (failed to examine his appeal); his right to a fair and controversial proceeding; interpreted the law in an abusive, illegal and extinctive manner; violated the procedural norms for examining the appeal; and indicated findings that were not true and that had not taken place.

Thus, a legal proceeding that required over three years to prove a case of medical malpractice ended in several minutes in a Court of Appeals hearing by exempting the defendant from criminal liability. The doctor pleaded guilty, and not because she admitted she had erred, but rather in order to avoid criminal liability.

The IDOM lawyer filed a second appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice and requested that the judgment of the Chișinău Court of Appeal be quashed. In March 2018, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled to reject the second appeal. Although the court rejected the second appeal, one of the judges of the examining panel issued a split opinion thus pleading for a another solution than the one adopted by majority of votes.

In reasoning his separate opinion, the judge expressed most of the arguments of the defence on which the second appeal was based: i.e. in trying the appeal, the court completely vitiated the trial; it violated a number of procedural norms that generated a violation of the victims right to a fair trial and to an effective recourse (art,6,13 ECHR); the reasoning of the solution contravened the dispositional part of the judgement; the fact that the participants de facto had not attended the examination of the appeals; they did not express their opinions on the appeal etc.

In the opinion of IDOM’s lawyers, the amnesty act could not remove a criminal conviction but could serve as a reason for removing the consequences of the conviction i.e. it removes the criminal liability.

Although requesting the application of the amnesty act and its application is a defendant’s right, this right may not affect the rights of the victim who, in this case, was denied the right to a fair trial by a miming of the trial of the appeal and application of amnesty based on the defendant’s pleading guilty in a formal and insincere manner that was imposed by the circumstances.

Based on this case, we will file a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights invoking violations of the articles 2, 6, and 13 of the ECHR.

Continuity of the case at the national level

In 2017, the IDOM lawyer filed a complaint in the interests of the husband of the deceased patient against the medical facility in which the doctor was working for the compensation of the moral damages caused through the medical malpractice. In our civil action, we requested the court to find a violation of Arts.2 and 8 of the ECHR and collection of an X amount from the defendant for the plaintiff as compensation for the moral damages caused by the defendant’s illicit actions.

The representatives of the medical facility in which the medical malpractice took place do not acknowledge the action or the responsibility of the medical facility for their staff’s acts. The doctor who was convicted and then was pardoned in the criminal case attended all the court hearings and again pleaded innocent, although she had pleaded guilty during the criminal proceedings in order to avoid the consequences of her conviction.

The civil action is pending before the district court.

You may access the sentence and judgement of the Court of Appeal, the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, and the split opinion of the Supreme Court of Justice here:

SENTINTA

Curtea Suprema de Justitie_DECIZIE

Curtea Suprema de Justitie_Opinie separata

DECIZIE_Colegiul Penal al Curtii de Apel Chisinau

 

DESIGNATE 2% OF YOUR PAID INCOME FOR THE PROTECTION OF VULNERABLE PERSONS’ RIGHTS

Dear friends,

Established on 27 June 2007, the Moldovan Institute for Human Rights (IDOM) is a non-profit institution, made up of professionals who promote and defend human rights through monitoring and reporting, awareness-raising, strategic litigation and promotion of human right standards in policies and legislation.

IDOM is the only non-governmental organization that monitors the observance of the rights of persons kept in remand facilities, in psychiatric hospitals and in psycho-neurological boarding houses. Hence, it protects victims of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, and secures respect for and harnessing of human dignity.

For ten years, IDOM lawyers have helped many persons with psycho-social disabilities to recover their legal capacity, giving them the opportunity to live a fulfilled and independent life, in conditions of dignity and equality for everyone. In addition, we have started many legal actions for the recovery of assets of persons with intellectual/psychosocial disabilities who had been deprived of them upon their institutionalization and deprived of their legal capacity.

Over 2,000 persons living with HIV have received legal consultation or have been represented by IDOM lawyers before the authorities and courts of law to ensure the protection of their rights and freedoms. Thanks to IDOM, pregnant women living with HIV are entitled to give birth in any maternity hospital in the country, enjoying respect for the principle of equality and without being discriminated against.

Our beneficiaries are vulnerable persons, for instance, persons living with HIV, persons with intellectual/psychosocial impairments, victims of torture or of inhuman treatment, held in police custody, as well as the victims of medical malpractice. It depends on our help whether such persons are able to enjoy a sufficient level of protection.

If you want to bring your input into IDOM’s work, when you file your income declaration (CET15) with your territorial tax office, indicate IDOM’s fiscal code – 1016620000929. This will secure that the state designates 2% of the income tax paid by you for the protection of the rights of persons listed above.

Thank you for contributing to defending human dignity in our society!

Respectfully yours, Vanu Jereghi, Executive Director

 

THE RIGHT TO VOTE OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES DECLARED INCAPACITATED ACKNOWLEDGED BY COUNCIL FOR THE PREVENTION AND ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION AND ASSURANCE OF EQUALITY

The Council for the Prevention and Elimination of Discrimination and Assurance of Equality (CPEDAE) has ruled in a case started by the Moldovan Institute for Human Rights (IDOM) to find Article 13 para.(1) letter (b) of the Election Code: ”The persons incapacitated by a final court judgment […] are not entitled to elect,” as representing direct discrimination against the right to vote of persons declared incapable on grounds of disability.

On 28 Nov 2017, IDOM considered that a differentiated treatment had been applied to the petitioners on a disability criterion, although art.29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities clearly establishes that persons with disabilities have the right to vote equally to everyone. At the same time, another group of persons with psychosocial impairments was treated in a discriminatory manner by association with persons declared incapacitated.

To recall that IDOM monitored the exercise of the right to vote by persons with mental disabilities during the 2016 presidential elections. Hence, IDOM found that the voting process unfolded with irregularities, since during the elections, the barriers faced by the persons with disabilities of the six residential institutions and three hospitals had not been removed.

In the two cases litigated by IDOM, CPEDAE found that the acts represented direct discrimination against the voting rights of persons declared incapacitated on a disability criterion as well as discrimination against the persons with psychosocial disabilities by association with persons declared incapacitated. At the same time, CPEDAE recommends amending Article 13 of the Election Code to secure the access of persons with mental and intellectual disabilities to the voting process, as its current version provides for a discriminatory treatment, which is in contradiction to the international provisions in human rights matters.

Please find attached the CPEDAE decision (in Romanian).

DECIZIE CONSILIU DEPERSONALIZATA

 

AMERICAN ORGANIZATION “DISABILITY RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL” AND MOLDOVAN INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VISIT TOGETHER MOLDOVAN RESIDENTIAL AND MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS

On 30 and 31 January inst., IDOM together with an international team of experts led by the director of the US-based organization Disability Rights International (DRI) Eric Rosenthal conducted a few monitoring visits to the institutions subordinated to the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Social Protection, as follows:

  • Codru Clinical Psychiatric Hospital;
  • Center for Placement and Rehabilitation of Young Children;
  • Boarding House for Children with Mental Disabilities (boys) of Orhei;
  • Social House of Bădiceni, district of Soroca;
  • Children’s Temporary Placement and Rehabilitation Center of Bălţi.

After the monitoring visits, the US experts will prepare a country report to show the (non)-effectiveness of the system for the social protection of persons with mental disabilities, especially of children placed in socio-medical institutions. The conclusions and recommendations formulated by the experts will help identify practical solutions in order to strengthen the national system for the social protection of persons with disabilities held in residential and medical institutions.

DRI is a nongovernmental organization, set up in 1993, having its premises in Washington DC that aims to prevent discrimination and abuse faced by the persons with mental disabilities, providing support to governments with developing policy papers in the respective areas.

 

IDOM STARTS CASES TO REACQUIRE PROPERTY OF PERSONS WITH MENTAL DISABILITIES, DEFRAUDED AFTER INSTITUTIONALIZATION AND DEPRIVATON OF LEGAL CAPACITY

Last year, the Moldovan Institute for Human Rights (IDOM), through the attorneys of its Litigation and Advocacy Program, in partnership with Keystone Moldova, started a number of cases on the re-obtaining of property of persons with mental disabilities who had been defrauded during institutionalization and deprivation of their legal capacity.

According to the IDOM lawyer Valerian Mămăligă: “Until recently, a person with mental disabilities could be declared incapacitated under a court judgment and deprived of legal capacity. And so, the person would be deprived of their fundamental rights while their decisions would be made by their guardian. The persons under guardianship would often be placed in residential institutions while the guardian remained in charge of their property, including of its alienation. At present, with the amending of the Civil Code and of the Civil Procedure Code, more and more persons who had been declared incapacitated are now being reinstated in their rights by having their legal capacity acknowledged. Theoretically, they could return to the community but most of them do not have a place to live because other people live now in their houses, or they had been sold.”

One of such cases is the one of Ion (name is changed – author’s note) who lived with his family until he was 14, with his two sisters. After his parents died, he was placed in the Orhei Boarding House for Children with Mental Disabilities. Unfortunately, of the property he was supposed to inherit, there is only the land plot there now on which the family’s house was once located, while the other land plots had been fraudulently sold.

Keystone specialists intervened in this case and requested the assistance of an IDOM’s lawyer to obtain Ion’s inheritance share. Since the beneficiary had not accepted his succession in due term because the authorities of the Children’s Boarding House had not undertaken the necessary actions of information about the deadline for accepting the succession after mother’s death, the property right was assigned to his sister.

In order to redeem Ion’s inheritance rights, IDOM lawyer filed a complaint in court in Ion’s interests and requested prolongation of the term for accepting the succession after mother’s death, and namely one half of the testamentary property.

In another case, Sergiu (real name was changed – author’s note) was born with a congenital infection and is mentally retarded. He lived with his mother until he was 39 and then was placed in the Cocieri Boarding House. He has been there for 19 years. Five years ago, his mother sold the apartment, being unaware that her son had a share in it. The lawyers found that Sergiu’s mother in fact wanted to sell her apartment in exchange for life provision but she had been deceived by the buyer and in fact signed a sale and purchase contract. Sergiu had also lost his share in his Chișinău apartment because he had been misled and forced to sign a power of attorney with the notary by which he had granted his mother the right to dispose of his assets.

Later, when Sergiu’s mother understood that she had been deceived, together with her son filed a complaint in court for recognizing the nullity of the sale and purchase contract. The court ruled to reject their complaint as groundless, and thus they lost ownership of the only house they had.

IDOM lawyers intervened to provide legal assistance to Sergiu at the phase when the court judgement under which Sergiu and his mother had lost their ownership of their only house was appealed with Chișinău Court of Appeal. The latter ruled to accept the appeal, dismiss the first instance court judgement and recognize as void the apartment sale and purchase contract.

The dispute is now pending before the Supreme Court of Justice.

Regaining of one’s property right was also the goal in the case of Andrei (name is changed – author’s note) who has also been deprived of his legal capacity. His close relatives had refused to take care of him and so, the guardianship on him and his brother was assigned to a non-related person who at that time was holding the position of chief of the Department for the Protection of Child Rights. The guardian did not live together with his dependents, having placed him in the Boarding House of Bălți. After Andrei’s brother died, the guardian sold his brother’s share in the apartment to a relative without Andrei’s knowledge.

Keystone Moldova requested IDOM lawyers to provide legal assistance to Andrei, especially with verifying the legality of the guardian’s administration of his and his brother’s property and of the sale of one share of the joint property held by the latter.

According to IDOM lawyer Olesea Doronceanu – “Having reviewed the beneficiaries’ files, we found that their placement in a boarding house raised very many questions, while the administration of their property, and especially the sale of one share of their joint property is not clear and apparently abusive and contrary to the law.

We filed a criminal complaint in the beneficiary’s interests with the National Anticorruption Center (NAC) and requested it to start an investigation in order to establish the correctness, proportionality and legality of the guardian’s and guardianship body’s duties in regard to their dependents.

At IDOM’s request, NAC started a criminal case under art.328 of the Moldovan Criminal Code “Exceeding one’s power or exceeding one’s work duties”. The beneficiary was then found injured party and heard in the case.

The case is pending.

 

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MOLDOVA, THANKS TO IDOM, PREGNANT WOMEN LIVING WITH AIDS MAY DELIVER IN ANY COUNTRY’S MATERNITY FOLLOWING GENERAL RULES AND WITHOUT BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST

The Swedish Embassy in Chișinău –”We are very proud of the wonderful results obtained in 2017 by our partner NGOs in combating domestic violence, promotion of human rights and freedom of expression through the pluralist media. Women living with HIV may now deliver at any hospital in the country; people with mental disabilities may exercise equal rights before the law; 465 victims of domestic violence have enjoyed legal assistance, etc.”

Please read more about the local heroes and NGO efforts on the official webpage of the Swedish Embassy in Chișinău (story in English): http://bit.ly/2mYeRwz

IDOM ORGANIZES TRAINING TO EMPOWER PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL STAFF TO PREVENT TORTURE AND INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT

The event was designated for the management (including chief doctors of sections, higher medical assistants, and staff responsible for patient assistance and supervision) of Orhei Psychiatric and TB Hospital.

Over 50 persons have been trained in preventing ill treatment based on the CPT standards and CAT recommendations. Trainers in this event were Dumitru Russu, Coordinator of IDOM’s Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Ion Caracuian, Head of the Torture Combating Section of the General Prosecutor’s Office of Moldova.

This activity was financially supported by Swedish Agency for International Cooperation Development (SIDA).

     

 

OVER 50 PERSONS TRAINED BY IDOM EXPERTS IN PREVENTION OF ILL-TREATMENT BASED ON CPT STANDARDS AND CAT RECOMMENDATIONS

On 13 December 2017, IDOM held a training on “Empowering the Staff of Psychiatric Hospitals in Preventing Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment”. The event was dedicated to the management of Codru Clinical Psychiatric Hospital (including chief doctors of sections, higher medical assistants, and the staff responsible for assisting and supervising hospital patients).

Over 50 persons were trained in preventing ill treatment based on CPT standards and CAT recommendations. Trainers in the event were Dumitru Russu, Coordinator of IDOM’s Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Ion Caracuian, Head of the Torture Combating Section of the General Prosecutor’s Office of Moldova.

This activity was financially supported by Swedish Agency for International Cooperation Development (SIDA).

    

     

UN COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE REITERATES 90 PERCENT OF IDOM’S OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SET OUT IN LATTER’S COUNTRY SHADOW REPORT

The UN Committee Against Torture has published its concluding observations as part of its 2017 review of the Republic of Moldova.

In this connection, the Committee reiterated 90 percent of IDOM’s observations and recommendations that the latter had set out in its shadow country report.

* The State party should ensure that all fundamental legal safeguards against torture are enjoyed in practice by all detained persons, including arrested persons and those in pretrial detention, from the outset of their deprivation of liberty;

The State party should monitor the provision of such safeguards and ensure that any official who fails to provide them in practice is subjected to disciplinary or other appropriate punishment;

* The right of detainees to have prompt and confidential access to a qualified and independent lawyer immediately after arrest and during all stages of detention, including hearings;

* The right of detainees to request and receive a medical examination conducted in confidentiality by an independent doctor within 24 hours of their arrival in a place of detention;

* Ensure that no one is held in pretrial detention for longer than prescribed by law;

* Amend its legislation and take all necessary measures to shorten the duration of pretrial detention and consider replacing pretrial detention for minor crimes with non-custodial measures, including electronic surveillance;

* Improve material conditions in temporary detention facilities and pretrial facilities and ensure that they have protocols and qualified staff to interact with persons with mental or intellectual disabilities;

* Independent monitoring mechanisms have access to psychiatric hospitals and neuro-psychological institutions, and provide for independent complaints mechanisms for patients in all psychiatric hospitals and psycho-neurological residential institutions and their family members;

* Ensure that prompt, impartial and effective investigations are undertaken into all allegations of abuse or violence, including any violence conducted or condoned by administrative and medical staff employed in such institutions; prosecute alleged perpetrators; and provide redress to victims;

* Ensure that no one is involuntarily placed in such institutions for non-medical reasons, including by ensuring that patients have the right to be heard in person by the judge ordering the hospitalization, that judges seek the opinion of a psychiatrist, and that such decisions can be appealed;

* Review all cases of persons who have been forcibly placed in psychiatric hospitals for non-medical reasons and provide them with an opportunity to be released and, as appropriate, receive redress;

* Undertake urgent measures to improve the material conditions, including food and hygiene, in all psychiatric hospitals and psycho-neurological residential institutions.

These are only some of the recommendations made for the Republic of Moldova.

All the findings and recommendations of the Committee may be found on the webpage: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/…/MDA/CAT_C_MDA_CO_3_29668_E.pdf

10 DECEMBER – INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

Each year, on 10 December, the Moldovan Institute for Human Rights (IDOM) marks the International Human Rights Day.

This day must represent a moment of reflection for state institutions, civil society and citizens on the fact that human rights and fundamental freedoms should not be defied, violated or ignored.

In 2017, the International Human Rights Day constitutes the beginning of a campaign that will last for a year, to mark the 70th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

TOWARDS THE END OF THE YEAR, WE DRAW CONCLUSIONS AND TOTAL UP

In 2017, IDOM lawyers helped six persons, with psychosocial disabilities, to regain their legal capacity, thus giving them the opportunity to live a fulfilled and independent life, in conditions of dignity and equality for everyone.

The first case was of a man who had been deprived of his legal capacity when he was 18, at the insistence of the guardianship body. He had been deprived of the right to decide for himself, including of the right to marry or seek a job as well as of the rights to decide on his medical treatment, manner of living or planning of his life as a whole. This young man was supported in court by the UN Office for Human Rights and by our organization.

In the second case, a young man was represented in court by IDOM lawyers and with the support of Keystone Moldova. From the moment this young man was declared capable, his life changed. He already lives in the community and has recently got married. See the video report produced by Radio Free Europe: https://www.youtube.com/europalibera    

In other three cases, the lawyer of IDOM’s Litigation and Advocacy Program represented the interests of three petitioners in the proceedings for regaining their legal capacity. The petitioners, persons with mental disabilities, aged between 22 and 36, had been abandoned at birth and, at a young age, were placed in the Hâncești Boarding House for Children with Mental Disorders. After reaching their major age, the young women were deprived of their legal capacity and the grounds for their deprivation were not based on their incapacity to be reintegrated in the society but rather on the authorities’ incapacity of providing alternatives to the social protection system. During the court hearings of October inst., all the interested persons supported the action and proved that the young women possessed enough life skills and capacities to be reintegrated in the society.

The sixth person was yesterday declared capable by the court. IDOM was again involved in this case and helped her regain her legal capacity.

To recall that in April 2017, the UN Committee for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recommended to the Republic of Moldova to take a number of measures for improving the situation of such persons, one of which referred to the recovery of full legal capacity of all people with disabilities and to having its guardianship system revised, so that to introduce assisted decision-making mechanisms.

IDOM PRESENTS IN PRESS CONFERENCE THE RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS COLLECTED AFTER THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF 21 NOVEMBER INST.

Today, 30 November 2017, the Moldovan Institute for Human Rights (IDOM) organized a press conference entitled “Deficiencies and Solutions for Securing the Respect for Human Rights of People with Mental Disabilities, People Living with HIV/AIDS and Victims of Medical Malpractice in Moldova.” The event took place at IDOM’s premises.

At the conference, the Project Coordinator Radu Bobeică presented the results and conclusions collected after the National Conference held on 21 Nov 2017. They will be included in the papers developed and then passed over to the public sector decision makers.

This event was possible thanks to the generous support of the American people through the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

For more details, please contact Radu Bobeică, Project Coordinator in IDOM (tel: +373 767 15 585 or email: radubobeica@yahoo.com).

Photo from the event:

    

IDOM ORGANIZES ANOTHER TRAINING FOR MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING CHIEF DOCTORS OF SECTIONS, HIGHER MEDICAL ASSISTANTS AND STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR PATIENT ASSISTANCE AND SUPERVISION OF BĂLȚI PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Today, 27 December 2017, IDOM has organized a training on “Empowering the Staff of Psychiatric Hospitals in Preventing Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment”

The event was designated for the management (including chief doctors of sections, higher medical assistants, and the staff responsible for patient assistance and supervision) of Bălți Psychiatric Hospital.

Over 70 persons have been trained in preventing ill treatment based on the CPT standards an CAT recommendations. Trainers in this event were Dumitru Russu, Coordinator of IDOM’s Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Ion Caracuian, Head of the Torture Combating Section of the General Prosecutor’s Office of Moldova.

This activity was financially supported by Swedish Agency for International Cooperation Development (SIDA).