Statement of the Foundation for the Defense of Hungarians’ Rights on the Slovak bill confirming the Benes decrees

Budapest, September 25, 2007, www.nja.hu

The following statement is issued by the „Foundation for Legal Defense of Hungarians' Rights” and the „National Legal Aid Service” in connection with the news on 9/20/07 that the overwhelming majority of the Slovak Parliament, including all parties, accepted a bill on the inviolability of laws passed after World War II, including the Benes decrees. The decision states that laws, including the Benes decrees, passed by Czechoslovakia and the Slovak National Council after World War II are unquestionable and untouchable and cannot be changed. According to the decision the aforementioned laws are not discriminative any longer therefore there is no possibility for initiation of legal action or any kind of material compensation.

Therefore the National Foundation for the Defense of Rights deems it necessary to make the following statement regarding this bill.

1. By confirming the Benes decrees –the complete and unconditional disfranchisement of the Hungarian and German ethnic groups- the Slovak Parliamant committed itself to collective disfranchisement and consequently the physical annihilation, oppression of human dignity and complete confiscation of property of Hungarian and German masses.

2. According to the recently confirmed decrees the Hungarian people had no rights to their property, were not allowed to use their language, not even to keep their Hungarian citizenship, were not allowed to use the courts, not free to listen to the radio and the otherwise free healthcare and educational system was unavailable for them. Based on these rulings about fifty thousand Hungarians were deported to the Czech gulags and more that one hundred thousand Hungarians were expelled to Hungary under the so-called population exchange program. Based on the fabricated accusation of war crimes about 85 000 hectars of agricultural land and about 15 000 houses were confiscated for which neither the Slovak nor the Hungarian government gave adequate compensation. This way the rights of the ethnic groups of Czechoslovakia to life, human dignity, property and homeland were severely violated.

3. The recently confirmed decrees were the rulings of a president who was not elected and who did not have the authority to issue decrees. These decrees were not only in opposition to generally accepted international humanitarian law but were illegal even according to the Czechoslovakian constitutional rules of the time.

4. It is not true that a purely theoretical decision was taken without any legal consequence. The truth is that masses of Hungarians have not been able to get back their illegaly confiscated properties and belongings that were taken away based on the Benes decrees. The reason is that these authoritarian rules that were based on national hatred are being held sacrosanct by the Slovak government thus continually violating the European Convention of Human Rights and the human rights charter of the European Union.

5. The importance of the above statements is not decreased by the insensible complicity of the Hungarian governments since 1945. During the communist rule the Hungarian government tacitly resigned from the compensation of those Hungarians who were forcefully deported through the population exchange. They made agreements according to which in exchange for the indemnification of Hungarian war crimes, the Hungarian government would not demand compensation from Czechoslovakia.

6. The international community has a major responsibility in accepting Slovakia to the European Council and to the European Union. Through international monitoring they were fully aware of the disfranchisement of the Hungarians living in Slovakia and the troubled human rights situation which they purposefully overlooked. This responsibility is not decreased by the fact that an agreement was made between Hungary and Slovakia in 1995 and ratified in 1997 which did not provide true guarantee for the protection of rights of the ethnic Hungarian population. At the same time the international community accepted and reinforced the borders that warrant disfranchisement.

7. We remind that the common borders were accepted by Hungary based on the false or supposed expectation that rights of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia would be protected and guaranteed. The borders are not self-serving institutions. They express the expectation of the international community that the territorial conditions set by them are appropriate for the protection of basic rights and freedom for the people involved. The objective of all organization of power is the protection and guarantee of a human, legally acceptable condition for the peaceful coexistence of peoples. The failure of this expectation makes a new international arrangement necessary regarding the borders. The border between Hungary and Slovakia, especially in the context of the disfranchised and endangered Hungarian ethnic community in Slovakia, is unsuitable for the peaceful coexistence of people. The Slovak decision makes it urgent to transform the East European conditions through efficient international institutions providing protection for minorities and modifying the borders according to principles of ethnicities. This should be based on the well-known examples of international and intergovernmental relations (South-Tirol in Italy, the Swedish self-government of Finnland or the English-Scottish relationship) that should be followed as examples.

8. It is the duty of Hungary to serve the survival of Hungarians who live outside its borders. Therefore it should raise the issue of responsibility of Slovakia at international institutions, at the European Council and the European Union demanding suspension of Slovakia’s membership or its exclusion. Hungary must do all it can for the acknowledgement of proper legal status for those territories that were detatched and for the proper determination of borders.