Ethnic Profiling in Gyöngyöspata

Challenging Unequal Treatment by Police

Vigilante groups descended on the Hungarian village of Gyöngyöspata for two months in 2011, forming “patrols” and harassing local Roma inhabitants. Rather than intervening to protect the villagers, the police started imposing fines on Roma for the most minor offences, following an apparently deliberate practice of singling Roma out for this treatment. At first instance, the court agreed with the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union and the Open Society Justice Initiative (which submitted a third party intervention in the case) that policing on the basis of ethnicity amounts to ethnic profiling, a prohibited form of discrimination.  It held that the police by means of its petty offense practice engaged in direct discrimination against members of the Roma community in Gyöngyöspata. On appeal, a second-instance court reversed this ruling for lack of evidence, a view which the Supreme Court of Hungary upheld, holding the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination with regard to the ethnic profiling allegations. The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioner on the other aspect of the case, finding the police harassed the Roma by failing to protect them from the vigilantes.

Facts

In the spring of 2011, right-wing extremist, anti-Roma vigilante groups descended on the segregated Roma settlement of the Hungarian village of Gyöngyöspata to harass its inhabitants under the guise of conducting “patrolling” activities to curb what they defined “gypsy crime.” Often dressed in military-like uniforms and wearing black facemasks, members of the group intimidated Roma, including children, through racial slurs and verbal abuse, following them in close proximity around the village and approaching them with axes, whips or other improvised weapons. In one instance, a Roma woman went into premature labor after being harassed on the street. Intimidation continued at night as well, when Roma were kept awake by the vigilante groups roaming the streets, making loud noises, continuing their threatening language and lighting up people’s gardens with their flashlights. Rising tensions ultimately culminated in a scuffle, shortly after Roma women and children had been “rescued” from Gyöngyöspata by being taken out of the village on buses. Following the scuffle, the vigilante groups left the village, bringing their two-month presence there to an end.

During this period, the police are alleged to have systematically failed to intervene to enforce the law and stop the overtly racist activities of the extremists. At times, the police even appeared to be cooperating with the vigilante groups. Furthermore, the police aggravated the harassment suffered by the local Roma community by engaging in practices of disproportionately and unnecessarily fining persons of Roma origin in that same settlement for minor offenses, usually traffic violations. These traffic violations included walking or pushing a stroller on the street as opposed to the dilapidated sidewalk; throwing away cigarettes or seed shells on the street; the lack of compulsory bicycle accessories, even when the bike was merely being pushed to transport sacks of flour and potatoes—violations that are usually overlooked in the case of the non-Roma.

Open Society Justice Initiative Involvement

The Open Society Justice Initiative submitted written comments as a third party intervener in the case launched by the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU) as an actio popularis.

Arguments

The third party intervention sets out the international standards and norms that govern the actions of the Hungarian police, and whether what they did amounted to unlawful discrimination against Roma.

Legal standards prohibiting ethnic profiling. Ethnic profiling is a form of discrimination which is prohibited under a range of treaties to which Hungary is a party. It has been repeatedly condemned by United Nations and European human rights bodies and by national courts across Europe.

Proof of ethnic profiling. Once a difference in treatment against a specific ethnic group has been established, the burden of proof shifts to the State authority to demonstrate that the difference is justified. The difference in treatment creating the presumption of discrimination and shifting the burden of proof can be established by a wide range of evidence, including statistics.

State obligation to protect against racist attacks. The State must protect vulnerable communities from racist harassment and violence. Police must not condone racist attacks, and must effectively investigate them, including investigating any racist motives of the attackers.