crimes committed by totalitarian regimes - Ministrstvo za pravosodje

Crimes committed by totalitarian regimes
I would like to underline that many programmes of assistance for democratic reform were carried
out jointly with the European Union – the two institutions sharing the same values – and contributed to
paving the way for new Members to join the Union. The Council of Europe and the European Union
are therefore in themselves examples of reconciliation and prove, as laid out in the Berlin Declaration
of 25 March 2007, that we have learned the painful lessons of a history marked by bloody conflicts. It
is true then, as much for the Council of Europe as for the Union, that the legacy of totalitarian regimes
poses several problems but that the aims of transition, guided in particular by the ‘Copenhagen Criteria’
were and still remain clear:
– To create pluralist democracies, founded on respect for the rights of man, for the constitutional
state and for minorities.
– To establish a climate of trust in these countries as well as in their relations with others.
– To ensure that the collapse of totalitarian organisations does not leave a place for oligarchy,
criminality and corruption.
– To avoid social fracture or conflict between generations.
– To avoid punishment of the guilty of those former regimes taking place in a spirit of vengeanc
rather than justice and to be vigilant that procedures respecting the constitutional state and the
rights of man be applied to them.
– To consolidate social protection in order to prevent nostalgia for “former regimes”.
It is in this spirit that the Council of Europe, in synergy with the Union, has worked since the fall
of the Berlin wall, also learning lessons from the process of transition and reconciliation that it had
previously favoured in Greece, Spain and Portugal.
Our work was directed to and must continue to be directed to several issues.
1. Programmes of cooperation in democratic reforms
In the context of our hearing, this work concerns, above all, institutional and legislative reforms;
Constitutions (thanks to the remarkable work of the Venice Commission), electoral laws, penal and civil
codes, civil or penal procedure, working of the judicial system and the penitentiary system, law and
administrative procedures allowing citizens to defend themselves against the State, laws concerning
lawyers, public prosecutors, the media, minorities, NGOs, etc.
We know however that this legislative and institutional process must be accompanied by a
transformation of mentalities; someone spoke of a “transformation of hearts and minds”. Without this,
the best legislation will go unheeded and reconciliation will be very difficult!
For this reason, reforms must be – and have been – accompanied by bilateral or multilateral
programmes of training for the judicial professions in the widest sense of the term – from judges and
public prosecutors to prison guards or policemen – so that they be put to work in a truly democratic
spirit.
The multilateral meetings organised by the Council of Europe for these professions contributed
much to establishing a climate of trust and reconciliation between European countries and within the
countries themselves. It was not, however, easy to be able, in the 1990s, to bring policemen from both
sides in Bosnia-Herzegovina together for training. Or to bring together in Moscow in 1997 Public
Prosecutors from all member countries of the Council.
I would also like to bring your attention to the programme concerning the Political Schools, to
which the Commission contributed, and that played an essential role in training the political classes of
young democracies. Democracy is indeed also a question of political culture!
280