Does the German delegation recognize, that Germany can not continue to
violate the human right of access to information in 5 federal states with
half of the population? (see 124.28 og 124.42)
Recommendations:
123.22: Ratify the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC);
123.28: Withdraw all reservations to human rights instruments to which
Germany is a party, first of all, to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights
123.42: Align its national legislation with international human rights
standards
Response to recommendations:
124.22: "Accepted. Before ratifying the United Nations Convention against
Corruption, an adaptation of the legislation regarding the criminal offence
of bribery of members of parliament is needed. A corresponding draft
legislative bill should be submitted by members of the German Bundestag."
124.28: (Withdraw all reservations e. g. ICCPR") "Accepted. Legal
regulations and their implementation already comply with international
standards and norms."
I have seen the webcast
of the Germany Review - 16th Session of Universal Periodic Review. I noticed
many states complaining about the Youth Office (Jugendamt). I would like to
comment on the standard German answer, that decisions can be brought to
courts.
I am German citizen having lived 30 years in Norway and studied
Norwegian and international law in Norway. I have practical
experience with German administration and courts, because my mother gave me
the authority to act on her behalf when she became 90 years old.
I run a website showing problems with and the lack of:
in Germany and get many emails of foreigners shocked by German
administration and courts. Germans typically ask me to shut up. Family Rights and Jugendamt
5 German states are the last states in the civilized world to deny its
citizens freedom of information i. e. the "Right to Know" or access to
public information. While Germans have been subject to these denials for
ages (Appendix
D, E), foreigner are used to these civil
rights and do not accept human right violations.
Family Rights and Jugendamt
The lack of the human right of access to public documents (according to
Art. 19 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, OSCE and
Art. 10 European Convention of Human Rights) is international considered a
precondition for democracy is the top of the iceberg:
More then 120 states with
more then 5.9 billion inhabitants adopted
FOI laws or provisions in constitutions (http://right2info.org/laws).
5 German states with half of the population lack FOI laws.
However UNESCO
has recommended Freedom of Information laws to all states reviewed during
the 16. UPR session. Austria recommended to Bahrain (A/HRC/WG.6/13/L.4):
"Enact a progressive, substantive Freedom of Information law". Djibouti,
Ghana
got same suggestion.
Germany invited civil society to discuss the report. Since I am in
Norway, I applied for access of the draft
report, which was discussed. However after waiting 3 month I did not yet
get the report. I see that the contribution of the Baltic Sea NGO Forum
has been ignored, but due to the 3 month time to decide on the application
I can not see the influence of other civil society contributions.
According to CoE RECOMMENDATION No. R
(85) 13 an independent Ombudsman for public administration should be
empowered "to investigate and give opinions when human rights are involved".
Germany is the only country in Europe which "reserved the right to comply
with it or not" (Appendix E). The
Parliamentary Assembly confirms in in Recommendation
1615 (2003) the importance of the institution of ombudsman within
national systems for the protection of human rights and the promotion of the
rule of law, and of its role in ensuring the proper behaviour of public
administration (Appendix
F).
Administration and Jugendamt are not subject to investigations and control
of an independent ombudsman. German authorities claim that courts guarantee
the rights of citizens. However most victims do not risk to go to court,
because of costs.
When administrative courts were founded, there was no supervision of
judges, because it would have been a disadvantage for citizens who
complain against the administration lead by the government. However the
dictator Hitler added
supervision of courts. Before the Prussian
administrative courts (Preußischen Oberverwaltungsgericht) have been
without supervision since 1875, as well as e. g. administrative courts in
Saxony. But § 7 sentence 1 of the first regulation
("Durchführungsverordnung) of 29. April 1941 of the decree of the fuehrer
("Führer-Erlass") on the establishment of the administrative court of the
Reich (Imperial Law Gazette RGBl
I S. 201: Erste DV = RGBl I S. 224) gave the minister of justice of
the Reich supervision rights.
Today a majority of both law scientists, lawyers and politicians defend this
invention of supervision of judges of the dictator Hitler.
1939 the organisation of the Jugendamt was changed. The mayor became the
head of the Jugendamt, which was not changed after the war. Administrative
complains ("Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde") against the Jugendamt do not give
the right to a that an answer within reasonable time giving reason.
Unfortunately the German
press does not inform the public about human right violations and lack
of independence of judges, but gives the impression that Germany has the
best justice system in the world. Therefore politicians preferring "Third
Reich" over international law still get elected.
Three dozen petitions to German parliaments
to abandon rules from the Third Reich in favour of international law did not
help and were a waste of time.
Therefore I hope that the Human Rights Council will understand that
meaningless administrative complaints and dependent courts will not solve
the Jugendamt problems.
CEED (Conseil Européen des Enfants
de Divorce) and Olivier Karrer has a more action orientated approach,
which has to be seen in the context of this documentation and proof that
constructive suggestions through conventional channels are useless.
I can answer questions and give further information with Scype user wkeim1.
Obviously one minute and 14 seconds were not enough for delegations to
document and prove that the Jugendamt violates international law. I hope the
US Mission understands the relevance of citizen rights like Freedom of
Information and the troika report can support and explain the many
complaints about the Jugendamt.
"31. Poland requested to know about its recommendation made at the
first review regarding judicial control over the administrative
decisions of the Jugendamt and about measures taken to meet the
international obligations arising from article 17 of ICCPR. Poland made
a recommendation.
59. Turkey noted insecurity caused by growing xenophobia and the
killing of 10 persons by the National Socialist Underground. It noted
the separation of Turkish children from their families by the Jugendamt
and criticism of that body’s actions. Turkey made recommendations.
115. Italy requested Germany to elaborate on the specific measures it
intended to take for migrant children to overcome possible obstacles
encountered in accessing higher education. It referred to concerns about
the work of the Jugendamt."
II. Conclusions and/or recommendations
123. Responses to the following recommendations will be provided by Germany
in due time, but no later than the 24th session of the Human Rights Council
in September 2013:
"123.22: Ratify the United Nations Convention against Corruption
(Austria); (Article 5, 7, 10, 12 and 13 of UNCAC are about ATI in
various fields.) [UNCAC mentioned in Baltic Sea NGO Forum Submission]
123.28: Withdraw all reservations to human rights instruments to which
Germany is a party, first of all, to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (Russian Federation); [2]
123.42: Align its national legislation with international human rights
standards (Iraq); [indirect 1, 3, approx. 5]
123.46: Expand the mandate of the German Institute for Human Rights to
receiving complaints of human rights violations (India); [7]
123.49: Secure proper follow-up to the accepted recommendation from
the first UPR cycle and introduce tools that will improve the effective
judicial control over the administrative decisions of the Office of
Youth called Jugendamt (Poland); [approx. 5]
123.145. Introduce independent and effective legal and professional
supervision of the Youth Office (Jugendamt) and ensure that the
Jugendamt decisions be in conformity with binding international norms,
including the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (Turkey);
[approx. 3, approx. 4]
123.169. Federal and State Governments, in consultation with civil
society, broaden and intensify existing human rights training in schools
as well as the routine training of police, security, prison and health
personnel, and set up a monitoring and evaluation mechanism to assess
progress (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland);" [4]
Conclusion: Suggestions 2,3,4 and 7 of the Baltic Sea NGO Forum
were recommended by states. Publishing international conventions [6]
could support education in international law (see recommendation
123.169). Freedom of Information law [1] and independent judges [5] is
indirectly support by recommendation 123.42 (Align its national
legislation with international human rights standards). Therefore only
decriminalisation of defamation [8] is missing, ATI [1], independent
judges [5] and publish CCPR, ESCR on Internet [6] are indirectly
included.
124.22: "Accepted. Before ratifying the United Nations Convention
against Corruption, an adaptation of the legislation regarding the
criminal offence of bribery of members of parliament is needed. A
corresponding draft legislative bill should be submitted by members of
the German Bundestag."
124.28: (Withdraw reservations e. g. ICCCP): "Accepted. Legal
regulations and their implementation already comply with international
standards and norms. "
124.42: (Align its national legislation with international human
rights standards): "Accepted."
124.46: "Not accepted."
124.49: (control over Office of Youth): "Accepted. Already now it
is possible to subject decisions made by the Youth Welfare Office to
judicial review."
124.145: (supervision of Office of Youth)"Accepted. It is
already possible to have decisions taken by the Youth Welfare Office
examined by a court to verify their compliance with applicable German
law and also with the European Court of Human Rights’ rulings with
regard to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights."
124.169: "Accepted. Human rights education is embedded in state
school curriculums. It is constantly reviewed, as is human rights
basic and further training in the Federal Police. Additional
monitoring is not necessary."
Conclusion: Germany accepts, but will do nothing, basically because of
the pretension that "standards are high enough".
Rejection of
Suggestions of Commissioner for Human Rights by German Parliaments,
Freedom of Information and Separation of Powers:http://wkeim.bplaced.net/coe_result.htm
