The Appeals Commission of the Press Council has established that Vecernje novosti Daily has violated the Code of Ethics of Journalists of Serbia by publishing the article entitled “Horror in Smederevo: Roma in Sexual Relation with a Girl”. This article was published on 17 March 2015 in the printed edition in the section “Local News” and on 18 March 2015 in online edition.

NGO Praxis and Standing Conference of Roma Associations of Citizens SKRUG – The League of Roma lodged a complaint to the Appeals Commission of the Press Council, stating that national affiliation of the suspected for a criminal act must not be mentioned, unless it is in direct relation with the type and nature of committed crime. The complainants are of the opinion that the stated article incites discrimination, hatred and violence towards the members of Roma national minority. 

The Appeals Commission adopted the appeal and reached a decision that Vecernje novosti Daily violated the Code of Ethics of Journalists of Serbia. Vecernje novosti Daily was ordered to publish this decision in the third issue from the day of delivery of decision at latest, and within seven days in online edition.

Praxis welcomes the decision of the Appeals Commission and draws attention of the media that stating personal characteristics of the suspected persons or victims is not in line with ethical standard of professional acting of journalists and must not be stated, unless it is in direct connection with the nature of the committed crime.

For more information, see the announcement: Vecernje novosti Daily Violated the Code of Ethics of Journalists of Serbia

Coalition against Discrimination strongly condemns the discriminatory recommendation of the Taxi Association of Serbia stating that taxi drivers should not drive asylum seekers, and reminds that the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, Article 17, recognizes the refusal to provide public services as a form of discrimination.

Aleksandar Bijelic, president of the Taxi Association of Serbia, said for Blic Daily as of 24 March 2015: ”Taxi drivers are recommended not to drive asylum seekers as they can may find themselves in an unpleasant situation. The police which finds asylum seekers in a taxi will temporarily take a taxi away and a court procedure will be initiated.”

Such discriminatory acting of Taxi Association contributes to spreading of xenophobia and intolerance towards asylum seekers. We recall the case of racial segregation in public transportation in America in 1950s and express concern that the same happens 60 years later.

The recommendation to taxi drivers not to drive asylum seekers and explanation of possible problems with the competent authorities clearly indicate the lack of the state’s systemic response to mixed migrations and an efficient system of protection from discrimination.

The members of the Coalition against Discrimination are: Center for Advanced Legal Studies, Civil Rights Defenders, Labris – Organization for Lesbian Human Rights, CHRIS network, Association of Students with Disabilities, Gayten LGBT, PRAXIS and Regional Centre for Minorities.

In the period from 23-24 April 2015, the meeting of Eurochild’s 18 ‘National Partner Networks’ (NPNs), representing over 1900 organisations working for children’s rights across Europe, was held in Amsterdam. The Network of Organizations for Children of Serbia – MODS was represented by Jasmina Mikovic, Praxis Deputy Director and a member of the MODS Steering Committee. In addition, Jasmina Mikovic participated in the joint session of Eurochild and European Network of Ombudspersons for Children (ENOC) where she presented the cooperation of MODS and Deputy Ombudsperson for Child Rights in Serbia.

A collective of national children’s rights networks called for stronger direction at the EU level to help EU member states promote and protect children’s rights in Europe. The meeting of Eurochild’s 18 ‘National Partner Networks’ (NPNs) in Amsterdam, Netherlands today showed the need for a European coordinated approach to encourage EU Member States in their work towards improving the lives of children and young people.

The situation of children and young people in Europe is nowhere near ideal. Across the EU, 28% of children are at risk of poverty or social exclusion compared to an average of 25% for the total population. Over 11% of children in EU leave school before completing secondary education. Youth unemployment is more than twice the average unemployment rate. (Eurostat 2013) Poverty is the main driver for children taken into public care. Over half a million of them end up in institutions in the EU.  The precarious situation of migrant and refugee children, some of whom have been separated from their families, is putting them in extremely vulnerable situations.

“Investing in children is a win for the future. Empowering children guarantees better outcomes in education, savings in state expenditure, lowering radicalisation and increasing innovation across sectors”, says Dana Rušinová, Coalition for Children Slovakia (NPN in Slovakia).

 “The development of EU child protection principles is a step in the right direction. But it can’t stop there. Our governments need support to apply these principles in practice. How, for instance, will they use these to protect child refugees and migrants who are coming to Europe?” asked Edel Quinn, Children’s Rights Alliance (NPN in Ireland).

“Government reform programmes and EU initiatives like the TTIP may increase the level of involvement of private providers in health, education and social services for children. The EU has an important role to play in ensuring that the highest standards of quality, underpinned by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, are maintained across all sectors of provision”, says Marion Mcleod, Children in Scotland (NPN in Scotland).

Eurochild, along with a number of child rights organisations and most recently, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in its review of the EU in September 2014, have recommended the EU to develop a strategic direction that will address children’s rights across Europe, taking into account the specific needs of each and every child. The last EU strategic framework, the EU Agenda on the Rights of the Child, expired in 2014.

“The EU has made great strides on improving children’s rights through various policies. For example, the guidelines around rights of victims of crime have supported victims of child trafficking and child abuse. However, we need a comprehensive approach to ensure all children are protected and offered the potential to exercise their rights”, says Pien Klieverik, Defence for Children International (NPN in Netherlands).

Stronger collaboration with Children’s Ombudspersons in Europe
Pleased by opportunities developed in its meeting with European Network of Ombudspersons for Children (ENOC) in Amsterdam today, Eurochild’s NPNs look forward to further their cooperation with the aim to advance children's rights in Europe.

“We need strong, independent children’s ombudspersons in every country. Our members are cooperating with existing ombudspersons and advocating for establishing this crucial role in countries where ombudspersons do not exist. At a time when the situation of children across Europe is worsening we need to work hand in hand”, added Jana Hainsworth, Secretary General, Eurochild.

About Eurochild:
Eurochild advocates for children’s rights and well-being to be at the heart of policymaking. We are a network of organisations working with and for children throughout Europe, striving for a society that respects the rights of children. We influence policies, build internal capacities, facilitate mutual learning and exchange practice and research. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is the foundation of all our work.

National Partner Networks (NPNs) are members of Eurochild and are seen as the representative, legitimate voice of the children’s rights sector in their country. Currently there are 18 NPNs representing over 1900 children’s organisations across Europe:

The list of countries and names of national partner networks:

Austria - Netzwerk Kinderrechte
Belgium - Kinderrechtencoalitie
Bulgaria - National Network for Children
Croatia - Coordination of Associations for Children
Cyprus - Pancyprian Coordinating Committee for the Protection and Welfare of Children
Denmark - Joint Council for Child Issues (Bornesagens Faellesrad)
Finland - Central Union for Child Welfare Finland
France - National Federation of Associations for Child Protection (CNAPE)
Germany - Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Kinder- und Jugendhilfe (AGJ)
Ireland - Children's Rights Alliance Ireland
Romania - NGOs Federation for Children
Serbia - MODS
Slovakia - Coalition for Children
UK- Scotland - Children in Scotland
UK – Northern Ireland - Children in Northern Ireland
UK - Wales - Children in Wales
UK - England - Children England

Within the project of the OSCE Mission to Serbia entitled “We are Here Together – European Support to Roma Inclusion,” funded by the European Union, in the period from September 2013 to June 2015, Praxis provided free legal assistance to Roma population in the procedures for late birth registration. At the end of the project period, Praxis prepared a final analysis of the procedures conducted with the aim of late birth registration and the implementation of the relevant regulations and the practice of the competent bodies.

Summary of the analysis, prepared for the news agency Beta by Milan Radojev, Praxis Legal Coordinator, can be seen here.

The European Network on Statelessness, which represents over fifty civil society organisations from across Europe, is spearheading a new campaign: 'None of Europe's Children should be Stateless' to raise awareness and promote positive solutions on the issue.

Within the campaign, the (ENS) published a new report No Child Should be Stateless, which reveals that thousands of children are growing up without the basic protection a nationality offers to citizens because of gaps in nationality laws and laws governing procedures for birth registration. The report, which draws on extensive analysis of nationality laws in all 47 Council of Europe states, details a worrying array of problems and makes a series of recommendations designed to guide actions to address – and ultimately end – childhood statelessness in Europe.

Director of the European Network on Statelessness, Chris Nash, said: “No child chooses to be stateless. Every child belongs to a community. Yet statelessness continues to exist because European states are failing to ensure that all children born within Europe’s borders or to European citizen parents acquire a nationality. For a child, the inability to secure any nationality can have enormous consequences and amounts to a severe violation of their human rights.”

Nils Muižnieks, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, said “Statelessness increases the vulnerability of children to serious human rights violations, such as trafficking, labour and sexual exploitation, as well as illegal adoption. Stateless children often face multiple, mutually reinforcing forms of marginalization. But statelessness is a solvable issue and as this report shows if governments, regional actors, UN human rights bodies, UN agencies and civil society work together, strategies for action can be developed to tackle and solve this issue once and for all. ”

For more information about the campaign please sign up here.
Download the report here.

The European Network on Statelessness is launching its new report “No Child Should be Stateless” as part of its ongoing campaign seeking to end childhood statelessness in Europe.
 
The report offers a synthesis of research studies conducted by ENS members in eight European countries as well as analysis of nationality laws in all 47 Council of Europe states. It explains why many thousands of children continue to grow up stateless due to gaps in European nationality laws or obstacles preventing birth registration. The report reveals that even among those states that have acceded to relevant international conventions, more than half are still failing to properly implement their obligations to ensure that children acquire a nationality. ENS's research also sheds light on new and emerging cases of childhood statelessness, including the risk faced by children born to refugees and migrants or through surrogacy, adoption or to same sex couples.
 
No child chooses to be stateless but for those affected this can mean growing up without access to rights and services, denied opportunities, unfulfilled potential and a sense of never quite belonging. It brings hardship and anguish to children and their parents alike. Yet this is an entirely solvable problem, and the report concludes with a series of recommendations designed to guide action to more effectively address – and ultimately end – childhood statelessness in Europe.
 
You can join the debate around the report at #StatelessKids, as well as follow live tweeting from its launch event in Strasbourg from 16.00 -18.00 (CET) - including a keynote address by Nils Muižnieks, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. The event is co-convened with UNHCR whose #ibelong campaign seeks to eradicate statelessness globally within a decade.
 
You can sign up here to receive more information about ENS and its campaign.

The Commissioner for Protection of Equality has established that Taxi Association of Serbia acted discriminatory by recommending taxi drivers not to take refugees, asylum seekers and migrants.

Specifically, the president of the Taxi Association of Serbia in his interview for Blic Daily as of 24 March 2015, stated, among others, the following: “Taxi drivers are recommended not to take asylum seekers as they may find themselves in an unpleasant situation. The police which finds asylum seekers in a taxi will temporarily take a taxi away and a court procedure will be initiated. In the procedure, a taxi driver is supposed to prove that he did not know that people in his car were not asylum seekers.”

On that occasion, Praxis filed a complaint to the Commissioner for Protection of Equality stating that denying transportation services to one population group is a discriminatory act, which creates hostile environment and spreads intolerance and xenophobia in society. The recommendation given to taxi drivers is contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and a series of provisions of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, which clearly recognize the refusal to provide a public service as a form of discrimination.  

The Commissioner for Protection of Equality has established that refugees, asylum seekers and migrants were put in an unequal position in regard to use of taxi services on the basis of their personal characteristics, and thus the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination was violated. The Commissioner also recommended that president of the Taxi Association of Serbia should act in a way to contribute that taxi drivers provide transportation services to all passengers under the equal conditions, and take care, within his regular activities, not to violate legal regulations on prohibition of discrimination. 

At the moment when a large number of refugees pass through Serbia running away from the war, the minimum we can do is not to make their struggle for survival more difficult. The increased number of xenophobic statements made by representatives of authorities and newspaper texts contribute to spreading of intolerance in society. Therefore, the opinion of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality sends a clear message that discriminatory statements are unacceptable and that everyone, with no exception, has the right to protection from discrimination.

Download: Opinion of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality

© UNHCR
Refugee or Migrant – word choice matters.

GENEVA, Aug 27 (UNHCR) – With almost 60 million people forcibly displaced globally and boat crossings of the Mediterranean in the headlines almost daily, it is becoming increasingly common to see the terms 'refugee' and 'migrant' being used interchangeably in media and public discourse. But is there a difference between the two, and does it matter?

Yes, there is a difference, and it does matter. The two terms have distinct and different meanings, and confusing them leads to problems for both populations. Here's why:

Refugees are persons fleeing armed conflict or persecution. There were 19.5 million of them worldwide at the end of 2014. Their situation is often so perilous and intolerable that they cross national borders to seek safety in nearby countries, and thus become internationally recognized as "refugees" with access to assistance from States, UNHCR, and other organizations. They are so recognized precisely because it is too dangerous for them to return home, and they need sanctuary elsewhere. These are people for whom denial of asylum has potentially deadly consequences.

Refugees are defined and protected in international law. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol as well as other legal texts, such as the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention, remain the cornerstone of modern refugee protection. The legal principles they enshrine have permeated into countless other international, regional, and national laws and practices. The 1951 Convention defines who is a refugee and outlines the basic rights which States should afford to refugees. One of the most fundamental principles laid down in international law is that refugees should not be expelled or returned to situations where their life and freedom would be under threat.

The protection of refugees has many aspects. These include safety from being returned to the dangers they have fled; access to asylum procedures that are fair and efficient; and measures to ensure that their basic human rights are respected to allow them to live in dignity and safety while helping them to find a longer-term solution. States bear the primary responsibility for this protection. UNHCR therefore works closely with governments, advising and supporting them as needed to implement their responsibilities.

Migrants choose to move not because of a direct threat of persecution or death, but mainly to improve their lives by finding work, or in some cases for education, family reunion, or other reasons. Unlike refugees who cannot safely return home, migrants face no such impediment to return. If they choose to return home, they will continue to receive the protection of their government.

For individual governments, this distinction is important. Countries deal with migrants under their own immigration laws and processes. Countries deal with refugees through norms of refugee protection and asylum that are defined in both national legislation and international law. Countries have specific responsibilities towards anyone seeking asylum on their territories or at their borders. UNHCR helps countries deal with their asylum and refugee protection responsibilities.

Politics has a way of intervening in such debates. Conflating refugees and migrants can have serious consequences for the lives and safety of refugees. Blurring the two terms takes attention away from the specific legal protections refugees require. It can undermine public support for refugees and the institution of asylum at a time when more refugees need such protection than ever before. We need to treat all human beings with respect and dignity. We need to ensure that the human rights of migrants are respected. At the same time, we also need to provide an appropriate legal response for refugees, because of their particular predicament.

So, back to Europe and the large numbers of people arriving this year and last year by boats in Greece, Italy and elsewhere. Which are they? Refugees or migrants?

In fact, they happen to be both. The majority of people arriving this year in Italy and Greece especially have been from countries mired in war or which otherwise are considered to be 'refugee-producing' and for whom international protection is needed. However, a smaller proportion is from elsewhere, and for many of these individuals, the term 'migrant' would be correct.

So, at UNHCR we say 'refugees and migrants' when referring to movements of people by sea or in other circumstances where we think both groups may be present – boat movements in Southeast Asia are another example. We say 'refugees' when we mean people fleeing war or persecution across an international border. And we say 'migrants' when we mean people moving for reasons not included in the legal definition of a refugee. We hope that others will give thought to doing the same. Choices about words do matter.

By Adrian Edwards, Geneva

M. S. from Zemun, who suffers from paraplegia and who was deprived of the right to free movement, has been advocating since 2007 for pavements in his street to be accessible to persons with disabilities. He addressed the competent city authorities, which ignored his problem for four years. In 2011, he decided to file a complaint to the Commissioner for Protection of Equality against the Belgrade City Secretariat for Traffic. The Commissioner established discrimination and recommended that city authorities adjust the street in which M. S. lives to the needs of persons with disabilities. Even though the city authorities acted according to the recommendation, construction works were badly performed and M. S. was still facing impediments. The competent bodies found that their job was completed, though the goal of the recommendation was not achieved.   

Afterwards, M. S. addressed Praxis for assistance and the motion for the peaceful settlement of dispute was filed to the Public Attorney’s Office in Belgrade, with the proposal to adjust the pavement in his street to the needs of the persons with disabilities and to set appropriate ramps.  The Public Attorney’s Office acted upon the stated requests, and after seven years M. S. was finally able  to move along his street.

Unfortunately, this is not a sole case, because M. S, as well as other persons with disabilities, face great difficulties on a daily basis, when using public transportation and in access to public facilities, which are inaccessible.

A. F. was registered in the birth registry book more than five months after the decision determining the date and place of birth and ordering the registration in the birth registry book was reached. The time A. F. spent without documents was additionally prolonged because the competent Jagodina City Administration refused to implements the final court decision.

First, the procedure for registration in reconstructed birth registry books before the administrative body in Jagodina was initiated. The request of A. F. was rejected and she was referred to address the competent court to determine the fact of her birth. Therefore, A. F. initiated a non-contentious procedure for determination of date and place of birth. The competent court reached a decision according to which the Registry Office in Jagodina was obliged to perform the registration in the birth registry book. However, instead of implementing the court decision, Registry Office in Jagodina sent the notice where it pointed out that the body rejected the request of A. F. for re-registration in birth registry books and that “the party did not lodge a complaint with the prescribed period and afterwards the decision became final”.

The proceeding body apparently does not know that negative decisions cannot be final in the administrative procedure, and it also neglected the fact that this body had referred A. F. to initiate the respective procedure before the court in order to register in the birth registry book.

Praxis pointed out to the competent body at numerous violations of the law and rules of administrative procedure it made by refusing to implement the final court decision, but the decision was implemented only after a complaint was filed to the president of Jagodina City Administration and the Ombudsperson. However, A. F. still cannot exercise basic human rights, as the fact of Serbian citizenship was not registered to her during the birth registration, despite the existence of grounds for it.