23rd October 2008: Foundation for Legal Defense of Hungarians Rights lodged a complaint to the police
2008-11-19. 19:39

31st October, 2008 NLAS news, on the basis of an article of Magyar Nemzet (by Tamás Pilhál), 29th October, 2008.

The Foundation for Legal Defense of Hungarians’ Rights lodged a complaint on Monday because of the measures taken by the police on the 23rd of October. The complaint may be examined by the recently established Independent Police Complaint Body. According to the National Legal Aid Service, the fact that the participants of the commemoration, practising their rights of assembly were shepherded into Markó street, closed between cages and prevented from free retreat, constitutes an abuse-like application of law. People were prevented from moving during two hours, thus their right of personal freedom was infringed – pointed out Tamás Gaudi-Nagy, managing director of the legal aid organization. He emphasized: the diversion and keeping back of the march moving from the Police Headquarters to Astoria was illegal, because the march between two announced events is allowed – this was reinforced also by a final judgement taken in 2004, in the case of György Budaházy.

According to the National Legal Aid Service, further examples of the abuse of rights by the police are the serial, and mostly absolutely unjustified identity checks. Another peculiarity of the identity checks “of a harrassing character” – with the words of Tamás Gaudi-Nagy – was that people were compelled to tell their names and personal data before a camera, although this was previously called “disquieting” by the data protection ombudsman.

It is memorable that in June Máté Szabó, then provisonal data protection ombudsman established: this police practice is objectionable from the aspect of the right for human dignity, therefore he disapproves it. The ombudsman emphasized: the identity checks must not be intimidating or humiliating, and the police measures must not cause a disadvantage which is not proportional with the purpose of the measures. The disputed identity checks with a camera have been applied since last September, and not even the ombudsman’s statement could divert the leaders of the police from this practice. The police continuously deny that the identity checks are recorded onto video on central instruction, and say that it happens only in the case of some arrested people, in their own interest. Yesterday our newspaper was informed by the ombudsman’s office that until now they have not received a complaint relating this year’s 23rd of October.

According to the National Legal Aid Service, the dignity of the national holiday on the 23rd of October was injured by the unjustified size of the police presence, and the unnecessarily great number of armed men in uniform generated a feeling of threat in the peaceful participants of the commemoration.

The National Legal Aid Service performed monitoring activity on the 23rd of October, 2008, thus the majority of the injurious police measures was observed personally by us. In our opinion the most prejudicial thing is the fact that the police wanted to prevent and limited the march leaving from Déryné lane in reaching the site of the other announced commemoration at Astoria. The march between two announced demonstrations does not come under the obligation of announcement; this is proven by several court judgments. Among others, in the case of György Budaházy, accused by violation of the right of assembly, initiated in 2003, the Buda Central District Court took a decision on the dismissal of the charge (No. 10. Sz. XI. 692/2004/2) on this ground. (The decision can be read here.) In the campaign of the referendum held on the accession to the European Union the opponents organized several demonstrations on the same day, and György Budaházy rode between these sites with several other people, without announcement. The reasons of the decision on the dismissal of the charge emphasize that in the court’s opinion somebody’s march from a demonstration to another event does not come under the right of assembly, except if the organizers announce in advance that the organized march from one site to another is a part of the event. The defendant (György Budaházy) and his three companions wanted to take part in two, independently organized demonstrations. In political life there may be periods when several demonstrations with similar purposes are held in one town, and at such times inevitably happens that some persons want to take part in several events, and march from one to a second (third) event. There may be several people wishing to do the same thing, so they march from one site to another in smaller or bigger groups, bringing with them the transparents or other objects used or to be used on the demonstrations. In the court’s opinion this march can not be deemed as a march or demonstration coming under the right of assembly, not even in the case when several people move with the same purpose.

In our opinion a peaceful crowd must not be handled as collective criminals: if some persons perform illegal activity, or it is likely that they possess dangerous objects, their aimed separation should be done instead of taking measures against the whole marching crowd as a security measure, because it constitues an outrageous injury of the right of assembly of the persons concerned, and of the dignity of the national holiday. We also find prejudicial the phenomenon, which by now has become large-scale, that after the end of an announced demonstration the police check the identity of the persons leaving the site – who are presumed to be participants of the demonstration on the basis of external signs (flags or other objects) – without any concrete reason or purpose, and take their data, without any act of the persons concerned, which could give cause for it. These measures are of harrassing and intimidating character, suitable to deter people from participating in various demonstrations and commemorations. Such phenomenon was observed ont the 20th of September, 2008, after the event organized by Sixty-four Counties Youth Movement on Hősök (Heroes’) Square, and also on the 23rd of October. When I was informed about the encirclement of the demonstrators at Markó street, I hurried to the site with my colleagues from the National Legal Aid Service – including Krisztina Morvai –, Mr. Nick Griffin, President of the British National Party, and Mr. Roberto Fiore, an Italian Member of the European Parliament. They joined the monitoring group of our National Legal Aid Service as observers. After the encirclement we asked the commander of one of the subunits (a fifty year-old lieutenant colonel with a moustache) to allow us to speak to the security commander of the site as soon as possible, in ordet to clarify the situation and to help solving the tense situation without a conflict. Following our repeated request the lieutenant colonel promised it, but the proposed reconciliation unfortunately did not happen. Our conviction is that in such situations reconciliation with the members of the National Legal Aid Service – which does not endanger the performance of police measures – can help much in preventing the escalation of any event threatening public order and security. Unfortunately the arrest of György Budaházy was an example of these events. In our opinion the police measures taken on the 20th of September, 2008, around the Calvinist church on Szabadság square – which we deem injuriuous – could have been avoided if the commanders on the site had taken into consideration the point of view of our Organization and had conciliated with us. The National Legal Aid Service performs an observant and watch-keeping activity on the day of every significant demonstration in order to prevent events entailing the infringement of the fundamental human and citizens’ rights and to solve the emerging conflicts in an optimal way. For that purpose we feel necessary that the responsible commanders of the police forces participating in securing the events should not refuse reconciliation.

(www.nja.hu)