Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 349, Mars 2008

1. 1222. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2007 meeting and presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 344th Report, paras 1159–1215, approved by the Governing Body at its 298th Session (March 2007)].
2. 1223. The Government sent its additional observations in communications dated 26 June and 24 September 2007.
3. 1224. Romania has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 1225. At its meeting in March 2007, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 344th Report, para. 1215]:
   • (a) Given the discrepancies between the allegations made by the complainant and the Government’s reply, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information concerning the charge relating to 1999, in order to allow it to form a clear picture of events. In particular, the Committee requests the Government to provide copies of any rulings handed down concerning the case, and any rulings concerning the suspension of Constantin Cretan’s sentence on medical grounds.
   • (b) As to allegations of irregularities of judicial procedure, the Committee requests the Government to open an independent inquiry in order to determine whether correct procedure was followed regarding all the accused, and to review the prohibitions imposed upon Miron Cozma. If it is found that the sentencing has been based on anti-union grounds, the Committee requests the Government to take steps for their immediate release. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
   • (c) As to the allegation concerning the four choices offered by the prosecutor to Ionel Ciontu, the Committee requests the Government to initiate an investigation into the veracity of this allegation and to keep it informed in this regard.
   • (d) The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the principles concerning the obligation to negotiate in good faith are respected in future.
   • (e) As to the allegation regarding a plot to murder Miron Cozma, the Committee requests the Government to open an inquiry into the veracity of this allegation and to keep it informed of the outcome.
   • (f) As to the death of Ionel Ciontu in Jilava prison hospital, in Bucharest, the Committee requests the Government to communicate the results of his autopsy as soon as possible.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 1226. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 26 June and 24 September 2007.
2. 1227. Paragraph (a) of the recommendations in the 344th Report. The Government produced an extract from the judgement (handed down by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 12 December 2003) against Miron Cozma, Romeo Beja, Dorin Lois, Vasile Lupu, Ionel Ciontu and Constantin Cretan, in relation to events between 18 and 22 January 1999, when the miners marched to Bucharest following a strike in the mining sector.
3. 1228. The ruling states that:
   • – The violent clashes between groups of civilians, miners, the gendarmerie, the police and other law enforcement services of the Ministry of the Interior, resulted in material damage which posed a threat to Romania’s national security, as laid down in Act No. 51/1991.
   • – Not all of the miners from the Jiu Valley participated in the protests which took place in January 1999. Only 46.9 per cent of employees approved the march to Bucharest, while 25 per cent did not support the strike. There is evidence that, in some cases, support for the strike was obtained because Miron Cozma threatened to dismiss or evict those who did not agree with the strike.
   • – The election of Miron Cozma as leader of the League of Miners’ Unions of Jiu Valley (LSMVJ) was illegal because, according to section 2(1) of Act No. 54/1991, only employees have the right to organize. Miron Cozma’s contract had been terminated on 11 March 1997, in accordance with section 130(j) of the Labour Code.
   • – In order to resolve the conflict, the Minister and the Prime Minister met the leaders of the miners’ trade union LSMVJ, including Miron Cozma. However, at each meeting, the union leaders, led by Cozma, issued further demands, including political demands that lay beyond the scope of trade union activities.
   • – On 16 December 1998, the Minister announced on television that he recommended the closure of the Dalja and Barbateni mines, as part of a programme to restructure the mining sector. The following day, around 1,000 miners from the two mines met. At this point, Miron Cozma was in Bucharest as leader of one of the delegations sent to negotiate with the Minister, who refused to see him because he was unwilling to discuss the matter with an offender.
   • – On 28 December 1998, a meeting was held in Sacelu (Gorj) between the leaders of the Trade Union Federation of Mines and Energy (CNCSMR), led by Marin Condescu and those from the Jiu Valley, led by Victor Badarca. At this meeting, they decided to call on the Government to request a meeting with the Prime Minister. They also decided that, if their union demands were not met, a general strike would be called on 11 January 1999.
   • – Also on 28 December 1998, while the main leaders were in Sacelu, Miron Cozma chaired a meeting with other leaders. At this meeting, they adopted a motion to support and ensure that the demands of the trade union organizations were met, and to organize protest marches and meetings in Bucharest between 5 and 10 January 1999. They also adopted a document, signed by Miron Cozma, containing 30 demands including: the resignation of Minister Radu Berceanu, compensation amounting to US$10,000 for each dismissed employee, loans at concessional rates of interest, 2 hectares of land and wages for the miners equivalent to US$500.
   • – On 30 December 1998, the General Inspectorate of the Police and the gendarmerie commanders adopted a range of measures to prevent and counteract the negative impact of demonstrations and protests involving social groups from the mining areas. In the meantime, in view of the fact that, in 1990–91, violence had erupted during the miners’ demonstrations in Bucharest, Bucharest city hall issued a communiqué confirming that the march/meeting organized by Miron Cozma on behalf of the LSMVJ was banned, as the necessary legal guarantees that it would be peaceful and orderly had not been provided.
   • – The general strike in the Jiu Valley began on 4 January 1999 and lasted until 18 January 1999, when the miners began their march on Bucharest. Following the speeches given by Miron Cozma, Romeo Beja and other trade union leaders, the tone of the protest became increasingly political, degenerating into the proclamation of anti-government and anti-presidential slogans.
   • – On 4 January 1999, the Government issued a communiqué stating that conditions were not favourable for talks. It also stressed that responsibility for non-payment of the miners’ wages for the days of the strike lay with the trade union leaders. Their wage demands could be assessed from a technical point of view by a competent committee at the headquarters of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, in accordance with the legislation on labour disputes.
   • – Certain trade union leaders, such as Vasile Lupu and Romeo Beja, misinformed the heads of the mining units by saying that the strike was legal and that the presence of the miners was required. They thus caused many people to be present who did not wish to take part in the strike and who were taken by bus to Petrosani.
   • – On 14 January, before the meeting of the Coordinating Council, Miron Cozma issued “instructions” on how to use tear gas grenades and protection measures when doing so. Tear gas grenades had already been used in Costesti against law enforcement agents.
   • – On 15 January 1999, the civil court in Petrosani ruled that the general strike was illegal.
   • – On 18 January 1999, Miron Cozma decided the itinerary of the march to Bucharest and Romeo Beja, Ionel Ciontu and Vasile Lupu, as well as the leader, Luka Gheiza, coordinated the start of the Jiu miners’ march.
   • – During the strike, and on the day of departure for Bucharest, the Government stated that it was open to dialogue in order to defuse the situation but that the conditions imposed by Miron Cozma were unacceptable.
   • – On the morning of 19 January 1999, after 7 a.m., the miners attacked the military facilities at Bumbesti, throwing stones and rocks, some of a considerable size, at the army and the gendarmes. The soldiers withdrew, responding with tear gas, and the miners were able to move on towards Targu Jiu. Nine soldiers were injured as a result of the miners’ violence and serious material damage was caused, including damage to vehicles which belonged to the gendarmerie and police.
   • – On the morning of 20 January 1999, another confrontation took place at Costesti. A total of 15,000 protestors converged on the square outside the prefecture of Targu Jiu and around 4,500 protestors headed for Rm. Valcea, either on foot or by bus, accompanied by around 150 cars. A force of 2,137 officials and soldiers, 400 police officers and 1,700 gendarmes was deployed. Local people and other citizens at the scene of action booed and hurled insults at the police. They also spat and threw stones at them. Under these circumstances, the attack launched at the rear of the unit commanded by Miron Cozma, at the same time as those launched on the two flanks, was devastating. The security forces were attacked by thousands of people armed with clubs, poles, stones, chains, pitchforks, poleaxes and various blunt instruments, as well as tear gas and equipment belonging to the Ministry of the Interior.
   • – Witnesses and 87 victims stated that around 3 p.m. a group of nearly 30 miners, all armed and led by Miron Cozma, appeared on the hill near the commune of Nefulesti. The soldiers were viciously attacked, beaten on the head, the feet and the hands. Some were thrown into the Mzeul Tronantilor ravines and many were brutally stripped of all their weapons. It was Romeo Beja who ordered the soldiers to be disarmed, issued death threats and used the hostages as a human shield at the head of the column of miners. Members of the security forces at the roadblock and those on the flanks were forced to withdraw and gather in a barn where, having been completely disarmed, they were told that they were prisoners. The police officers were beaten and forced to board the buses. They were held captive for a number of hours until the road was empty and the column of miners had moved on towards Rm. Valcea. During this confrontation, a large number of officials and soldiers suffered personal injuries. The prefecture windows were smashed with stones and a number of security guards were attacked. At around 7 p.m. the electricity was cut off twice across the whole town and, during this time, the protesters became increasingly violent.
   • – A total of 23 miners were injured, either through self-inflicted injuries or as a result of inhaling tear gas, or through means other than the actions of the security forces (chilblains, atrocities, etc.). When questioned, they all stated that they neither claimed nor had any proof that they had been attacked by the security forces.
   • – On the afternoon of 21 January 1999, after the security forces had been defeated at Costesti, Constantin Dudu Ionescu was nominated Minister of the Interior. That evening, a meeting of the leaders of the parliamentary parties took place at Cotroceni Palace and a joint declaration was adopted to defend the institutions of the state of law and ensure public order. That same evening, at the request of the Supreme Council of National Defence, the Government issued an urgent decree, declaring a state of emergency and martial law. The decision was implemented during the night, with a number of tanks and peacekeeping forces deployed in the region.
   • – On 22 January 1999, an extraordinary session of Parliament was called. The same day, a government team led by the Prime Minister met the trade union leaders, led by Miron Cozma, at Cozia monastery. During this meeting, the union’s demands were discussed and a three-part protocol was signed. All three agreements stated that the Government would not impose sanctions against the participants or the union leaders present at the protests between 4 and 22 January 1999.
   • – Following the violent actions of the miners between 18 and 22 January 1999, the Ministry of the Interior recorded losses amounting to 21,943,737,000 lei, in addition to the 99,290,000 lei spent on medical assistance to the injured. Of the 321 officials and soldiers deployed, 68 brought civil cases while the others sought to press criminal charges.
   • – The actions of the miners and the other participants in the events of January 1999, led by the accused – Miron Cozma, Romeo Beja, Dorin Lois, Ionel Ciontu, Vasile Lupu and Constantin Cretan – should be viewed together, rather than as separate acts or independent offences, as they were part of a complex crime aimed at subverting the powers of the State, as laid down in section 31(2), taken in conjunction with section 162(2) of the Penal Code.
   • – The strike was called, even though the prerequisites imposed by the legislation on the resolution of collective labour disputes and by the terms of the employment contract covering the period 1998–99 had not been met. These stipulated that the strike should have been called within the unit and only after the signatures of at least half of the members had been received and all attempts to resolve the conflict by conciliation had failed.
   • – The action of the miners endangered the State as a political entity, as well as its role within the context of social relations. The violent actions of the miners, led by the accused, Miron Cozma, and five other trade unionists, impeded the work of the security forces by holding them prisoner at Costesti, and also undermined the power of the State through calls for the Government to be toppled, for the President to resign and for early elections to be called. Under these circumstances, Article 2 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome, 1950), ratified by Romania in 1993, provides for the possibility of lawful action to quell a riot or insurrection.
   • – For these reasons and according to section 31(2) and section 162 of the Penal Code, Miron Cozma is sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for incitement to undermine the authority of the State. Under section 65 of the Penal Code, his rights laid down in section 64(a), (b) and (c) are revoked for a period of five years. The accessory penalty laid down in sections 71 and 64 of the Penal Code also applies. Furthermore, as an additional penalty in compliance with section 67 of the Penal Code, he is stripped of his military rank. In line with the provisions of section 116 of the Penal Code and as a security measure, he is banned from staying in or passing through Bucharest for a period of five years after the primary sentence has been served.
   • – Ionel Ciontu and Constantin Cretan are sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting incitement to undermine the authority of the State.
   • – A criminal indemnity action is admissible. The accused, Miron Cozma, Romeo Beja, Dorin Lois, Vasile Lupu and Ionel Ciontu are jointly liable, together with the League of Mining Trade Unions, for the following damages: 3,432,277,697.8 lei plus interest for the period between the court’s ruling and the payment of the debt to the Ministry of the Interior; 4,080,056 lei plus interest for the period between the ruling and the payment of the debt to Horezu village hospital in the county of Valcea; and 27,749,701 lei plus interest for the period between the ruling and the payment of the debt to Valcea county hospital.
4. 1229. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of the recommendations. In a communication dated 24 September 2007, the Government relates to the conclusions of the Supreme Council of Justice which, by means of a judicial review, carried out the inquiry requested by the Committee.
5. 1230. In this context, the provisions of the Romanian Penal Code provide for a judicial review of all acts and measures implemented by the prosecutor during the criminal trial. The monitoring consists of checks on observance of the guarantees of a fair trial according to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as the fundamental principles of a criminal trial, such as equal treatment, disclosure of the truth, presumption of innocence, individual freedom, respect for human dignity, right to a fair defence, and equal weight of arms between the defence and the prosecution.
6. 1231. The Government points out that the review of the case found no procedural irregularities or violations of procedural guarantees. The parties involved did not allege any violations of procedural guarantees as provided by law, either during the criminal proceedings or when the verdict was handed down. In statements made in court, the accused did not file any protest concerning non-compliance with procedural rules. Their allegations solely concerned the manner in which the persons conducting the inquiry and the court interpreted the documents provided as evidence in this case and the judicial handling of the case, these being the points against which an appeal was lodged.
7. 1232. As regards the comments made by prosecutor Viorel Siserman to Ionel Ciontu during the court proceedings, the Government maintains that Ionel Ciontu was interviewed by the prosecutor in the presence of his defence lawyer. During the criminal proceedings, the accused did not file any complaint concerning the methods used by the prosecutor. During the trial, neither Ionel Ciontu nor his co-defendants alleged that, during the investigation, the prosecutor Viorel Siserman had violated the procedural framework laid down by law. Section 266 of the Penal Code prohibits any prosecutor from obtaining a statement by means of promises, threats or violence towards the person being questioned. None of the parties filed a criminal complaint against prosecutor Viorel Siserman for any misconduct during questioning.
8. 1233. Thus, all procedural guarantees imposed in order to guarantee a fair trial, according to the provisions of article 21, paragraph 3, of the Romanian Constitution and Articles 10 and 11, paragraph 2, of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, as well as Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, were respected.
9. 1234. Paragraph (f) of the recommendations. The Government states that, on 29 September 2005, Ionel Ciontu was placed in custody in Deva prison. During his detention, he received medical treatment at the prison medical centre for cardiovascular, digestive and respiratory conditions. On a number of occasions, he was admitted to the medical unit of the National Prisons Service, as well as public health-care centres, for cardiological, pneumological and gastroenterological assessments. He received medication, a low sodium diet and measures to protect his stomach lining, as prescribed by specialist doctors. Following acute respiratory problems diagnosed on 3 January 2007, Ionel Ciontu’s general condition deteriorated. This situation led to special cardiology tests on 5 and 9 January 2007, gastroenterological tests on 9 January 2007, and abdominal ultrasound and laboratory tests on 8 January 2007. On 9 January 2007, the cardiologists and gastroenterologists diagnosed “decompensated cirrhosis of the liver, of unknown etiology, affecting the parenchymatous and vascular tissue” and recommended that the patient be admitted to the prison hospital at Bucuresti Jilava. On 10 January 2007, due to severe dyspnoea, a dry cough and a general deterioration of his condition, emergency tests were carried out (echocardiogram, Doppler ultrasound examination). The diagnosis was a thromboembolism, deep vein thrombosis in the lower extremities and severe pulmonary hypertension. An anti-coagulant treatment was prescribed and it was decided to transport the patient to the emergency clinic at Bagdasar Arseni to monitor the anti-coagulant treatment. At this hospital, the diagnosis made at Bucuresti Jilava prison hospital was confirmed. The patient was admitted to the intensive-care unit, where his condition deteriorated and he went into cardiac arrest. Attempts to resuscitate the patient were unsuccessful. Time of death was registered as 2.40 a.m. on 11 January 2007. According to the death certificate issued by the forensic surgeon performing the autopsy, Ionel Ciontu died of cardiorespiratory insufficiency, a pulmonary thromboembolism and a thrombosis of the right femoral vein.
10. 1235. Under section 80(3) of Act No. 275/2006 on the enforcement of sentences and the measures applied by the judicial bodies during a criminal trial and section 219(2) of the corresponding implementing regulations, in the event of the death of a person in custody, family members (spouse or up to fourth degree relatives) or another designated person can, on request, obtain access to the personal file of the deceased or to any other documents concerning the death.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1236. The Committee recalls the complainant organization’s allegations to the effect that, following the announcement of the closure of two mines in the Jiu Valley in 1998, Miron Cozma was given a mandate to enter into negotiations with the Government. When the Government refused to negotiate with Miron Cozma, the Jiu Valley miners’ trade unions voted to strike on 4 January 1999, their main demand being an increase in the mining budget. The strike lasted for 14 days, to no effect. On 18 January, the miners and their trade union representatives, including Miron Cozma, Constantin Creta, Romeo Beja, Dorin Lois and Ionel Ciontu, set off for Bucharest. As a result of their march, they eventually succeeded in opening negotiations at Cozia, and an agreement between the trade union representatives and the Government was reached on 22 January 1999. The complainant organization alleges that the terms of the agreement were not respected, especially those concerning the decision not to impose any sanctions on the trade union leaders present at the protests. It also refers to Miron Cozma’s successive arrests (in 1997, 1999, 2004 and 2005), the amnesty covering the events of 1991 from which he benefited, and his arrest immediately after his release when his pardon was revoked, a decision that was later overturned by a court. During its previous examination of the case, the Committee was particularly concerned about the severity of the prison sentences of ten and five years handed down to the trade unionists and the fact that the Government had not provided any further explanations of the events described in the complaint. Furthermore, in order to form a clear picture of the acts for which the trade unionists were imprisoned in 1999, the Committee asked the Government to send it copies of any rulings handed down concerning the case and those concerning the suspension of Constantin Cretan’s sentence on medical grounds, as well as any rulings concerning his parole applications.
2. 1237. The Committee takes note of the ruling of 12 December 2003, forwarded by the Government. The Committee regrets that the Government did not supply the High Court ruling of 28 September 2005 upholding the convictions of Miron Cozma, Romeo Beja, Dorin Lois, Vasile Lupu, Ionel Ciontu and Constantin Cretan in 2003, the judgement on the suspension of the latter’s sentence on medical grounds, or the judgement on Miron Cozma’s application for parole. It appears from the verdict handed down in 2003 that one of the reasons that charges were brought was because the right to strike was exercised. According to the court ruling, the events of January 1999 (the strike and the march on Bucharest) led by the trade union leaders “should be viewed together, rather than as separate acts or independent offences, as they were part of a complex crime aimed at subverting the powers of the State, as laid down in section 31(2), taken in conjunction with section 162(2), of the Penal Code”. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the principles of freedom of association do not protect abuses consisting of criminal acts while exercising the right to strike.
3. 1238. The Committee recalls that the complaint submitted by the complainant organization also raises the question of the need for good faith in negotiations and the need for the Government to honour its commitments. The Committee observes that the Minister refused to hold talks with Miron Cozma on 16 December 1998 because he considered him to be an offender, although he had been elected by the miners to negotiate with the Minister following the announcement of the closure of two mines in the Jiu Valley. On 22 January 1999, an agreement was signed at Cozia between the trade union representatives and the Government. This agreement included a commitment made by the Government to refrain from imposing sanctions on the participants and trade union leaders present at the protests between 4 and 22 January 1999, and this is confirmed in the court ruling. The Committee recalls that both employers and trade unions should bargain in good faith and make every effort to come to an agreement, and satisfactory labour relations depend primarily on the attitudes of the parties towards each other and on their mutual confidence [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, para. 936]. Acknowledging the complex nature of the present case and the general violence which the verdict addressed, the Committee is concerned at the proceedings instituted by the Government against the trade union leaders, which appear to infringe the terms of the Cozia agreement.
4. 1239. The Committee recalls that, during its previous examination of the case, having expressed its concern regarding the successive arrests of Miron Cozma (in 1997, 1999, 2004 and 2005) and the arrests of the other trade union leaders, it asked the Government to open an independent inquiry to establish whether legal procedures had been respected in relation to all the defendants and to review the bans imposed on Miron Cozma. The Committee notes that the Government approved the conclusions of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, according to which no procedural irregularities or violations of procedural guarantees, as provided by law, were found. The Committee was also concerned by the fact that, having been released as part of an amnesty on 15 December 2004, Miron Cozma was immediately re-arrested, following a decision to revoke his pardon, a decision that was later overturned by a court. While the revocation of the pardon was in force, Miron Cozma was once again placed in custody. Furthermore, the Committee was concerned by the revocation of a certain number of his fundamental rights. The revocation of fundamental rights, such as the ban on entering or staying in Bucharest and Petrosani, a large mining town, for a period of 17 years and the ban on being elected to any trade union post or any public office, could be justified only on the basis of criminal charges unconnected with trade union activities and serious enough to impugn the personal integrity of the individual concerned. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the restriction of a person’s movements to a limited area, accompanied by the prohibition of entry into the area in which his trade union operates and in which he normally carries on his trade union functions, is inconsistent with the normal enjoyment of the right of association and with the exercise of the right to carry out trade union activities and functions [see Digest, op. cit., para. 129].
5. 1240. The Committee notes that, on 2 December 2007, Miron Cozma was released. However, on his release, the ban on his entering Bucharest or Petrosani was not lifted. The Committee requests the Government to lift the prohibition on Miron Cozma staying in or passing through Bucharest and Petrosani. Also noting that Constantin Cretan, Dorin Lois and Vasile Lupu are still in prison, the Committee requests the Government to review the situation of these trade unionists and consider their immediate release, and to keep it informed in this regard.
6. 1241. With regard to the Committee’s request to open an inquiry to establish the truth of the allegation made by the complainant organization in relation to prosecutor Viorel Siserman’s meeting with Ionel Ciontu, the Committee notes the Government’s reply to the effect that the judicial inspectorate carried out the necessary investigation and that no violation of procedural regulations was found, and that the Penal Code prohibits any prosecutor from obtaining a statement by means of promises, threats or violence towards the person being questioned. In addition to this, none of the parties involved lodged a criminal complaint against prosecutor Viorel Siserman for misconduct during questioning, including under section 266 of the Penal Code.
7. 1242. With respect to the complainants’ allegations of a plot to murder Miron Cozma, the Committee recalls that, when it last examined the case, it asked the Government to provide information on this subject. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not provided the relevant information. With reference to its previous examination of the case, the Committee recalls that the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of these organizations, and it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected [see Digest, op. cit., para. 44]. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure the safety of Miron Cozma.
8. 1243. With regard to the death of Ionel Ciontu, the Committee notes the information sent by the Government, stating that Ionel Ciontu’s death was caused by cardio-respiratory insufficiency, a pulmonary thromboembolism and a thrombosis of the right femoral vein.
9. 1244. The Committee also recalls that, at the time the complaint was lodged, the complainant organization alleged that Miron Cozma, Constantin Cretan, Dorin Lois, Vasile Lupu and Ionel Ciontu were imprisoned in conditions that, at times, were a threat to their health and safety. The Committee observes that the Government has remained silent on this point. The Committee is of the opinion that detained trade unionists, like all other persons, should enjoy the guarantees enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights according to which all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person [see Digest, op. cit., para. 54]. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that this principle is respected.