Czech Govt Human Rights Commissioner: Unfortunate decision not to compensate Romani woman for sterilization contradicts the very point of the law
Czech Government Human Rights Commissioner Klára Laurenčíková has told news server Romea.cz she considers the recent decision by the Czech Health Ministry to not compensate a woman who was forced to undergo sterilization under threat of her children being taken away from her - a woman whose Romani origin is also listed in the medical records as the reason for her to be sterilized - to be a decision that contradicts the very point and purpose of the compensation law, which is unfortunate. The Human Rights League reported on the case this week.
In the medical records for this applicant, her Romani origin is explicitly listed as the only reason for her sterilization. She had been threatened with having her children taken away from her and placed in an orphanage if she did not comply and was sterilized in 1989.
Q: What is your opinion of how the ministry is proceeding in this case? What is your assessment of the fact that the ministry has, for example, absolutely ignored the pressure that was put on this woman in the form of threatening to take away her children?
A: The decision by the Health Ministry to reject the application for compensation in this case is one that I consider to be unfortunate, not only does it contradict the assessment of the case made by the ministry’s own Department of Health Care, but it also contradicts the very point and purpose of the compensation law. The listing of her ethnicity as the reason for sterilization clearly demonstrates the illegality of the operation performed, and in addition, the surgery happened after inhumane pressure was brought to bear by social workers against the woman to be sterilized. I consider it essential that the Health Ministry pay attention to meeting the standard for ascertaining the facts during these administrative proceedings on providing a one-off sum of money to the sterilized women, and that the ministry deal properly with the evidence and its quality. I do not find this formalism in the area of the admissibility of evidence, which is preventing the issuance of a decision that is fair, to fulfill the aim of the law, which is to compensate for the enormous suffering of the sterilized women, whose lives were absolutely altered as a consequence of that sterilization.
Q: What is your assessment of the Health Ministry’s behavior so far during the compensation process? Is the ministry proceeding per the law, in accordance with its spirit, when it refuses, for example, to consider any evidence other than medical records?
A: It is a big success that the compensation law exists after so many years of neglecting these serious violations of the bodily integrity and the dignity of the sterilized women, which happened during the second half of the last century. Its implementation, nevertheless, is currently facing several challenges, specifically the Health Ministry’s personnel workload when processing requests and the procedural rigidity of the administrative proceedings on providing compensation. Unfortunately, the will of the ministry staff to aid the victims of these illegal sterilizations is being hampered in quite a few cases exactly by the question of proving the sterilizations took place. At the moment, the priority should be to take into account the fact that in the vast majority of cases, medical records about the sterilization of the applicant are no longer available several decades after these operations were performed.
Q: How can this situation be improved and remedied?
A: First of all, I would beef up the capacities of the Health Ministry personnel so that these requests for compensation for the illegal sterilizations can be processed in a timely manner and with the necessary space for each case. Furthermore, I consider it necessary for the ministry to provide greater cooperation with regard to the admissible evidence. This could take the form of a methodology, or at least a list of the kinds of evidence that would be sufficient to support the applicants’ claims.
Last but not least, the ministry should take into account the assessments of its Department of Health Care in its decisions. If the ministry makes a decision that contradicts that department’s evaluation and rejects a request, the applicants must have the opportunity to have the decision reviewed. Alternatively, it is possible to consider the creation of an independent commission that would assess the application in advance, and its output would then serve as the basis for the ministry’s decisions.
