The government has agreed to water down its controversial protest law after the OSCE warned the legislation violated international human rights standards, marking a climbdown just months after the bill was rushed through parliament.
Justice Minister Marios Hartsiotis backed sweeping changes proposed by MP Irene Charalambides at an emergency session on Monday, with lawmakers set to begin article-by-article discussion in early January before a plenum vote.
The reversal follows fierce criticism from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which published an opinion in September highlighting multiple breaches of human rights conventions. The law was passed after clashes outside the foreign ministry.
Around 80% of Charalambides’ proposed changes have been accepted, she told philenews. One key revision will tighten rules on face coverings, requiring police to prove someone is acting violently and endangering lives or property before demanding they remove a mask.
The development appears to kill off a bill by AKEL MPs Aristos Damianou, Giorgos Koukoumas and Andreas Pashiourtides that called for full repeal of the legislation.
Charalambides said her proposal aligns with democratic values and human rights as set out by the EU and UN. She welcomed the positive approach taken by Hartsiotis and Legal Affairs Committee chairman Nikos Tornaritis in convening an emergency session.
Justice Ministry representative Phaedra Gregoriou told the committee the ministry had studied the OSCE opinion since September and prepared a draft bill in cooperation with the Law Office and experts based on the international body’s recommendations.
“What we prepared looks quite similar to Mrs Charalambides’ bill,” she said.
Gregoriou said the changes clarify that protest organisers bear no liability, though this was already clear in the law as it provided no penalties. The ministry still disagrees on two to three points compared with Charalambides’ proposal, she noted.
The ministry objects to removing definitions of public order and public morals, noting these exist in the constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. The meaning of “morals” may become outdated after 20 years and it falls to courts to interpret it, she added. The law does not ban gatherings, only sets restrictions, she said.
Another sticking point concerns removing the threshold of 20 people for requiring notification. Gregoriou argued the number is there for convenience as notification is not mandatory.
“We don’t mind lowering the number to zero, but that would restrict the right further, as a group of five demonstrators might think they have an obligation to notify,” she said.
Law Office representative Alexis Antoniades said the Law Office believes Charalambides’ bill moves in the right direction, noting some points need technical legal improvement.
AKEL MP Andreas Pashiourtides said the law has the peculiarity that going to court is not an effective remedy if someone decides to break up a demonstration.
“A court vindicating me two years later for a demonstration that was broken up does not satisfy me legally,” he said.
Committee chairman Tornaritis said the Legal Affairs Committee will not wait for the government’s draft bill. However, agreement between Charalambides, the justice ministry, the Law Office, the commissioner for legislation and Professor Konstantinidis is a prerequisite to finalise the text, he said.
“We declare absolute respect for the recommendations of international organisations and say we cannot submit proposals to repeal something just because we disagree with part of a proposal,” he said.
After the session, Tornaritis said the committee will not support AKEL’s proposal to repeal the legislation, noting AKEL submitted amendments at the last minute in the plenum rather than in committee for discussion.
“Always respecting the positions, decisions and opinions of international organisations, we will move within that framework,” he said.
Pashiourtides expressed surprise at the institutions’ apparently positive stance, pointing out that the OSCE recommendations largely echoed objections raised by opposition MPs when the original bill was debated.
“99% of what the OSCE said and is included in the bill were positions raised during discussion of the government bill in the Legal Affairs Committee. I’m surprised because at that time we met fierce opposition from the executive and they accepted nothing. Does it take an international organisation to pull your ear and not MPs and parties?” he asked, noting that productive time is being wasted.
Read more: