Interview with HR Commissioner: “Member states did not want a strong mechanism protecting social and economic rights.”

Interview by Christina Vasilaki, ThePressProject correspondent in Brussels

Nils Muiznieks, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, presented a report yesterday (full text pdf) calling on European governments to change course over harsh austerity policies which, according to the Commissioner, are seriously impacting citizens' human rights.

Read about the ten main areas where human rights are being eroded in Greece due to austerity in The Press Project’s coverage of the report.

Basic labour rights, children's rights to health and education and the democratic rights of all citizens including freedom of expression are all being eroded according to the report, particularly in countries such as Greece which are under intense pressure from international lenders to not only balance their budgets but implement sweeping reforms.

The report also included recommendations for alternatives to the current policies being implemented including debt restructuring and better use of European cohesion funds to counter unemployment.

The report comes at a time when the issue of lifting the ban on bank auctions of foreclosed main residencies continues to be a major sticking point between the Greek government and the troika of lenders (the IMF, EC, and ECB) in negotiations over the release of the next tranche of emergency loans to the country.

According to an exclusive interview given by Mr Muiznieks to The Press Project, the increase in homelessness that lifting the ban would almost certainly entail would add to one of the most serious – and most ignored – problems in today's Europe.

Read the full interview below:

Apart from the ‘urgent consolidation programs’, the new economic governance sets some binding new rules which are actually imposing a permanent state of austerity. How can your recommendations take an equally binding character?

My recommendations are not binding. The only body that can issue binding judgments is the European Court of Human Rights. I have to persuade governments, I have to raise awareness, I have to convince them that it is in their interest to take the steps that we recommend. Sometimes I can point to legal obligations, sometimes I can point to efficiency, sometimes to political expediency. The nature of the conversation and the arguments I try to use to persuade officials differ, depending on the context. I cannot force any government to do anything.

How satisfied are you from the impact of your recommendations?

In some contexts we have had a good impact on the public discussion. For example, in Greece, we were successful in raising awareness of the dangers to democracy posed by Golden Dawn and the need to fight impunity. I never had such media interest for any report that I put out from Greece. I was told by the deputy ombudsman and the Head of the Human Rights Commission that we have helped prepare the ground for a crackdown. In Spain, it’s clear that the media and everybody picked up on the alarm bells we rang about child poverty and the situation for children. In other contexts, our messages did not really have any impact.

Concretely, how can an EU citizen seek a solution when he feels that his rights have been violated by austerity policies?

The first, easiest place to go and look for a solution, to complain at a national level, is to NGOs or national human rights structures, or to national courts. We have seen that in some contexts the Constitutional Courts have struck down austerity measures in Portugal, Latvia, Lithuania. The next is of course the European level. If the country has ratified the European Social Charter and the system of collective complaints, then a country can go to the ESC. If an individual has exhausted all domestic remedies, he/she can go to the European Court of Human Rights. Those are solutions available to people. Many of them can take a really long time. So that is why I urge governments to take measures that prevent complaints.

How effective are national human rights structures and ombudsmen – especially in times of economic difficulty?

It is clear that some NHRS [National Human Rights Structures] and national ombudsmen have weakened during the crisis. In Greece, as well. I know that the National Commission for Human Rights was seriously struck by austerity measures. And the point we are making is that these are partners for governments that can really help safeguard human rights. Some ombudsmen have been very active in these areas and others have been passive. Part of my message is aimed at NHRS. ‘Be more active’. ‘Play a proactive role in policy discussions because if you don’t the complaints will be at your door later on’. Many ombudsmen have not been used to playing a proactive role on these issues. They are used to receiving complaints. I am telling them as well: ‘Go out and affect the policy discussions at an earlier stage and you will receive fewer complaints’.

In your report you talk about alternative solutions to deal with the crisis: “Deficit financing, debt restructuring, development assistance, international cooperation”. Unlike what you propose, the EU has even added recently a conditionality clause on its cohesion policy. Is the Council of Europe in a position to condemn these policies?

I am not in the business of condemning. I am in the business of trying to persuade partners. Including the EU. I was recently in the European Parliament and my message was mainly “do better where you have competence in human rights. You are not doing a good job.” Very often structural funds are not going to the benefit of human rights. Part of my job is to raise awareness within the EU institutions, the European Commission, the European Parliament as well as the member states. So, I hope to be engaging with the different Commissioners and the European Parliament and promoting these guidelines if they want to do better on human rights in member states. The EU – particularly in the bailout programs, but also in the use of structural funds has a huge responsibility. For example in the few areas that EU has competences is on the disability rights.
These kinds of measures are definitely problematic. I believe that EU money, cohesion funds, structural funds, EU bailout packages should safeguard human rights. And if conditions are put on them that are unrealistic or create more damage than good, I think it is up to the national human rights structures to criticise them and it is also part of my job and I am trying to do this.

This week in Greece a thirteen year old girl died from carbon monoxide poisoning in a home without electricity. According to some recent figures 8/10 Greeks have reduced their heating expenses, using fireplaces and stoves, and 350 000 people have had their electricity cut. Is the absolute prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment applicable in this case? And how would you answer to people in Greece that talk about a “war situation with war casualties”?

Using war terminology is not really the human rights approach to examine situations of extreme difficulty. I do not know this particular case but is clear that a huge number in Greece is affected by cuts to really basic services. And if a child has died, this is an avoidable tragedy and as I stressed in this issue paper children deserve special attention. Local and national authorities need to look out for the families in need and try to help them, support them in any way they can in these difficult situations. And I think that a lot of awareness raising needs to be done in the European Commission and elsewhere about the impacts of austerity measures on human rights in Greece. Because, unfortunately a lot of people are learning a lot of lessons from mistakes made in helping Greece. And these mistakes are sometimes acknowledged but I think more learning needs to happen. Because the only thing I can help with is some of the mistakes made are internalised and used in subsequent assistance packages in other countries.

Greece has signed since 1984 the European Social Charter, which guarantees social and economic human rights. However, there is no doubt that the measures taken during this crisis have abolished – or are about to abolish – basic labour rights. The excuse is that these policies will revitalise the labour market. Can the deterioration of the labour rights protection be excused?

No, labour rights and collective bargaining rights and so on should not be suspended in times of economic crisis. Trade unions and others have worked to establish these rights for many years. They should be protected under the Social Charter. The problem is that the Social Charter does not have that kind of enforcement mechanism that the European Court of Human Rights has. So, I try to raise these concerns when I meet with the national authorities and to point at their obligation in the Social Charter. But, it is not as strong a mechanism. That is because member states did not want a strong mechanism protecting social and economic rights. But I think it is very useful in raising awareness and reminding member states and governments of their obligations even if they are not always fulfilled.

Since there has been a lot of discussion lately in Greece about another Troika demand, the allowance of auctions by banks of first homes in the event of unpaid mortgages, I would like to ask you to share your experience from other countries on this topic.

It is a huge problem in Spain and we have looked at it in the report. It is a massive problem and it traumatizes children and families and leads to huge poverty. It is a growing problem actually. And the problem is that we have very little data on homelessness. Very few European countries gather data on homeless people. But this is an issue that becomes bigger and bigger. It is a problem that affects many other rights.