Deprivation of Cell-Phones on May 26th Demonstration Represents Violation of Right to Private Life and Correspondence

Statement of NGOs - Public Ombudsman and Youth for Justice

The deprivation of cell-phones of people detained during the May 26th 2011 developments represents a grave violation of human rights.

Particularly, such act contradicts the right to private life and correspondence and right of property guaranteed by the article 8 and the article I of the protocol I of the convention.

We would like to pay special attention to the facts of possible violation of right of private life and correspondence. It is understandable that on the background of violation of right of life, inhuman and degrading treatment, illegal imprisonments, violation of right of assembly, the attention of public is diverted from this problem. However, we think that the protection of private life and correspondence is extremely important, especially when the public control transfers to the sphere of private autonomy. It is impossible for the state oriented on the welfare of human being to exist in the terms of violation of private life.

It has been acknowledged and everybody agrees that the right of private life and correspondence can be restricted and the European Convention also acknowledges it. However, this kind of restriction must satisfy strictly determined criteria. We think that the confiscation of the cell-phones from the detained people is absolutely unjust and contradicts the above mentioned criteria.

First of all we would like to note that in the era of the modern technologies the cell-phones are equipped with multiple functions, like recognition of multimedia, photographing, video reporting and recording, internet access, high chances of keeping different kinds of data. The cell-phones are often used as a notebook for significant details as well. The cell-phones also have a system of registration of calls and possibility of keeping the contact data. Considering these functions, it is possible to say that the cell-phone is not just the object of property but it has more specific functions and needs specific protection. In other words, the cell-phone is not just the item worthy for communication, but it also represents a device for keeping private, medical, commercial and other type of data. So, we think that the right to private life and correspondence guaranteed by the article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights should be applied here.

On the case Petri Sallinen and other vs. Finland the European Court of Human Rights stated that seizing the disks from the applicant’s computer represents restriction of right to private life and correspondence. Analogically, we allege that the deprivation of cell-phones from the demonstrators on May 26th represents an intervention in the right of private life and correspondence especially considering that the cell-phone represents means of communication which keeps the information sent and received during the communication. We also think that the access to such information by the police officials equals to secret hearing and recording since the police official can get and keep the obtained material. No doubt that the material obtained by violating the law can be used as evidence in court. However, this is not important in this case. The main thing is that the police official illegally intrudes in the sphere of private autonomy of the individual and obtains information which should be protected by law.

We consider that the seizure of cell-phones in the circumstances when the individual is detained illegally when the procedure established by law has not been implemented and the fate of the seized cell-phones has not been ascertained cannot be considered an act implemented according to the law. Thus we consider that this act is arbitrary and illegal.

Considering all the above mentioned, we think that the Minister of Internal Affairs, at least is obligated to make statement regarding the seizure of cell-phones and ensure that they are returned back to their owners.

June 21st of 2011