U presudi za trgovinu ljudima, prvoj takve vrste, koju je Evropski sud za ljudska prava (ECHR) donio 7. januara 2010. godine, Kipar je proglašen krivim po više tačaka optuznice u slučaju Rantsev protiv Kipra i Rusije, zato što nije zaštitila Oksanu Rantsevu, državljanku Rusije, koja je pod nerazjašnjenim okolnostima preminula u martu 2001. godine.
Dvadesetogodišnja Ruskinja Oksana Rantseva bila je trafikovana iz Rusije na Kipar, gdje je, sa „umetničkom“ vizom, seksualno eksploatisana u kabareu u Limasolu. Oksana Rantseva je pronađena mrtva u martu 2001. godine, ispod balkona stana koji je pripadao jednom radniku kabarea, a gdje ju je iz policije odveo vlasnik kabarea. Policija je našla posteljinu privezanu za ogradu balkona na gornjem spratu stana. Istraga je pokazala da je smrt nastupila usljed povreda zadobijenih skokom sa balkona.
Tokom niza godina, izdavanje „umjetničkih“ ili „izvođačkih“ viza je bilo direktno povezano sa trgovinom ženama u svrhu seksualne eksploatacije. Trgovci su regrutovali žene nudeći im posao zabavljačica i plesačica u noćnim klubovima i kabareima, da bi ih onda primoravali da se se bave prostitucijom.
Okasnin otac Nikolaj Ratsev podnio je tužbu sudu, tvrdeći da okolnosti smrti njegove kćerke nisu adekvatno istražene, da joj kiparska policija nije pruzila odgovarajucu zaštitu dok je bila živa, a da pojedinci odgovorni za njenu seksualnu eksploataciju i maltretiranje koje je dovelo do njene smrti uopste nisu kažnjeni. On se takođe žalio na nemogućnost da učestvuje u sudskom procesu na Kipru.
Sud je utvrdio da Kipar, u ovom slučaju zemlja destinacije, ne samo što nije zaštitio Oksanu Rantsevu od trgovine ljudima i protivzakonitog pritvora koji je prethodio njenoj smrti, već njenu srmt nije ni adekvatno istražio. Što se tiče, zemlje porijekla, Sud je utvrdio da Rusija nije adekvatno istražila na koji način je Oksana Rantseva trgovana preko njenih granica. Sud je naložio kiparskoj vladi da plati ocu Oksane Rantseve 40.000 evra na ime odštete, dok je Rusija dužna da plati 2.000 evra. U ovoj presudi, Sud je ukazao na obaveze država u vezi sa suzbijanjem trgovine ljudima, bilo da se radi o zemljama porijekla, tranzita ili destinacije, naglasivši značaj prekogranične saradnje.
Napominjući da se, kao novija pojava, trgovina ljudima ne spominje u Evropskoj konvenciji o ljudskim pravima iz 1950. godine, Sud je utvrdio da ona spada u materiju koju reguliše član 4 Konvencije (zabrana ropstva i prinudnog rada). U presudi se govori o pozitivnim obavezama država koje proizilaze iz člana 4 u smislu trgovine ljudima, gdje je istaknuto da države imaju pozitivnu obavezu da usvoje odgovarajuće i efektivne pravne i administrativne okvire, da preduzmu zaštitne mjere i da istraže slučajeve postojeće trgovine ljudima. Sud smatra da je „nesporno“ da ova poslednja obaveza podrazumijeva potrebu za punom i efikasnom istragom svih aspekata optužbi za trgovinu ljudima, od regrutovanja do eksploatacije. Sud ukazuje da se ove obaveze odnose na razlicite države koje mogu biti uključene u trgovinu ljudima kao zemlje porijekla, tranzita ili destinaicje. Imajući u vidu prekograničnu prirodu trgovine ljudima, Sud je naglasio značaj prekogranučne saradnje u istrazi slučajeva trgovine ljudima.
Što se tiče Kipra, Sud je utvrdio da režim „umjetničkih“ viza nije pružio praktičnu i efikasnu zaštitu protiv trgovine ljudima i eksploatacije. Takođe, sud je utvrdio da kiparska policija nije sprovela adekvatnu istragu u slučaju Oksane Rantseve kada je postojala osnovana sumnja da se radi o žrtvi trgovine ljudima. Shodno, Sud je utvrdio da Kipar nije ispunio svoju pozitivnu obavezu iz člana 4. nakon što je prethodno utvrdio da Kipar nije izvršio obavezu iz člana 2 (pravo na zivot) da istraži smrt Oksane Rantseve, Sud je smatrao da nije morao da se bavi proceduralnim obavezama iz člana 4.
Što se tiče Rusije, Sud je utvrdio da slučaj trgovine iz člana 4 Konvencije, čija je žrtve Oksana Rantseva, nije efikasno istražen. U presudi se kaže da nije istraženo na koji način je Oksana Rantseva regrutovana niti su preduzeti koraci radi identifikacije onih koji su uključeni u njenu prodaju i njihovog načina rada. Dalje se kaže da je Rusija bila u mogućnosti da sprovede istragu nad ljudima i mrežama koje su bile uključene u prodaju Oksane Rantseve, ali da je propustila da to učini. Stoga je Rusija proglašena krivom za neispunjenje svojih procesnih obaveza iz člana 4.
Izvor: www.interights.org, http://www.
(U prilogu se nalazi integralan tekst izreke presude.)
In an unprecedented judgment on trafficking in human beings, on 7 January 2010, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found the Republic of Cyprus guilty on multiple counts, in the case of Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia for failing to protect Oxana Rantseva, a Russian national who fell to her death in March 2001 under mysterious circumstances.
Twenty year old Russian woman Oxana Rantseva was trafficked from Russia to Cyprus, a destination country for women trafficked from Eastern and Central Europe for the purpose of sexual exploitation. In Cyprus under the “artiste” visa scheme, she was subjected to sexual exploitation in a cabaret in the island’s largest coastal resort, Limassol. Ms Rantseva was found dead in March 2001 below the balcony of an apartment belonging to an employee of the cabaret, having been taken there from a police station by the cabaret’s owner. The police found a bedspread tied to the railing of the balcony on the upper floor of the apartment. An inquest in Cyprus found she had died as a result of injuries sustained when she jumped from the balcony.
The issuing of special ‘artiste’ or ‘entertainment’ visas was for many years directly related to trafficking in women for sexual exploitation with women being forced into prostitution by traffickers who fraudulently recruited victims for work as ‘entertainment’ dancers in cabarets and nightclubs.
The case was brought by Nikolay Rantsev, Ms Rantseva’s father. He argued that there was no adequate investigation into the circumstances surrounding his daughter’s death, that she was inadequately protected by Cypriot police while she was still alive and that there was a complete failure to punish the individuals responsible for exposing his daughter to the sexual exploitation and ill treatment which ultimately led to her death. He also complained about the lack of access to the judicial process in Cyprus.
The Court found that Cyprus, the State of destination in this case, had not only failed to protect Ms Rantseva from being trafficked or from being unlawfully detained prior to her death, but it had also failed to adequately investigate her death. Russia, the state of origin, was found by the Court to have failed to adequately investigate the way in which Ms Rantseva had been trafficked from its borders. The Court ordered the Cypriot Government to pay Oxana Rantseva’s father the sum of Euro 40,000 in damages and the Russian Government to pay a sum of Euro 2,000. In its judgment, the Court clarified the obligations of states in relation to trafficking – whether states of origin, transit or destination - as well as noting the importance of cross border coordination in fighting trafficking.
Noting that, as a relatively modern phenomenon, human trafficking is not mentioned in the 1950 European Convention, the Court found that it nevertheless fell within the scope of Article 4 of the Convention (prohibiting slavery, servitude, and forced or compulsory labour). The Court elaborated on the positive obligations of states in the context of Article 4 with respect to trafficking, holding that there is a positive obligation on states to adopt appropriate and effective legal and administrative frameworks, to take protective measures, and to investigate trafficking where it has already occurred. The Court described as “indisputable” that the latter obligation involved the need for a full and effective investigation covering all aspects of trafficking allegations, from recruitment to exploitation. The Court noted that these positive obligations applied to the various states potentially involved in human trafficking – states of origin, states of transit and states of destination. Given the cross border nature of trafficking, the Court emphasised, as Interights did in its written comments to the Court, the importance of cross border cooperation in investigating incidents of trafficking.
In relation to Cyprus, the Court found that the regime of “artistes” visas did not afford practical and effective protection against trafficking and exploitation. It also found that the Cypriot police had failed to make appropriate enquiries of Ms. Rantseva in a situation which gave rise to a “credible suspicion” she had been trafficked. Accordingly, the Court found that Cyprus had failed to comply with its positive obligations under Article 4. Having previously found a violation by Cyprus of its duty to investigate Ms. Rantseva’s death under Article 2 (the right to life), the Court found it did not need to revisit the procedural obligation under Article 4.
In relation to Russia, the Court found there was a failure to effectively investigate the trafficking of Ms Rantseva under Article 4 of the Convention. It stated that there had been no investigation into how Ms. Rantseva had been recruited, and no steps to identify those involved in her trafficking or their methods. It stated that Russia was well placed to investigate the individuals and networks responsible for Ms. Rantseva’s trafficking and that it had failed to do so. Accordingly, it found Russia in violation of its procedural obligations under Article 4.
Source: www.interights.org, http://www.
