Helsinki Committee’s work was only getting started when communism fell,
says director Lucie Rybová
Along with Charter 77 and the Committee for the Defence of the Unjustly
Persecuted, the Czechoslovak Helsinki Committee was a key dissident
organisation in the communist period, pressuring the government to adhere
to its human rights commitments. Today known as the Czech Helsinki
Committee, it is still active, advocating for people who often have nowhere
else to turn. I discussed the committee’s work with its director, Lucie
Rybová. But I first asked her about the reasons for its establishment, in
November 1988.
“Originally there was the International Helsinki Federation for Human
Rights, which invited states that had signed the declaration and also
covenants to set up national Helsinki Committees, to monitor whether states
were keeping their promises.
“Because at that time it was difficult to make a civic organisation, in
1988 a group of critical thinkers and leaders, many of whom had also signed
Charter 77, decided to set up an informal group that would monitor how
those treaties were kept by the Czech Republic.”
But wasn’t Charter 77 also kind of inspired by the Helsinki Accords?
“Yes. Originally there was the question whether it was better to set up
a separate Helsinki Committee or just to maintain the group around Charter
77.
“Because of practical reasons the other organisation was set up. But the
people were the same, like Václav Havel or Jiří Hájek and other
signatories.”
They were taking quite a big personal risk being involved in the
Czechoslovak Helsinki Committee.
 “Sure it was risky and it is risky today, as well [laughs].”
But in a different way, because you don’t face harassment or
imprisonment by the police, I’m sure.
“Not imprisonment, but I think there are ways in which you can be at
least discouraged from getting involved with some specific cases.”
Really? How is the Czech Helsinki Committee today discouraged from getting
involved in some specific cases?
“There are many ways in which you may be discouraged. The practical case
is that you are not supported by the state in information or funding and in
your proposals to amend laws.
“Or your analyses are ignored or denied, or you are requested to get
more data, which is very difficult sometimes, because you need access and
money to make analyses that are critical of current policies.”
If we could step back in time a little bit, if we speak about the period
before 1989, what was would you say the main achievement or impact of the
Czechoslovak Helsinki Committee? I was reading a quote from Bishop Václav
Malý and he said it was another nail in the coffin of the previous system.
What do you think was the major achievement or impact of the Czechoslovak
Helsinki Committee?
“I would say it was the first organisation that reminded people that
human rights were a value and taught the public that there are
international instruments that Czechoslovakia is also obliged to follow and
that these instruments are vital to their normal lives. So it was educating
the public and the state about their obligations.”
In 1990 after the fall of communism the Czechoslovak Helsinki committee
was officially registered, then a few years later it became the Czech
Helsinki Committee. Why did it keep going after the fall of communism?
“It kept going because its mission was not finished. It was just getting
started.
“The Czech Helsinki Committee’s enemy was not the communist regime,
but the state which ignored the rights of individuals in their everyday
lives – and that is the mission that we are committed to doing until
now.”
What are your main activities today?
“We are trying to help groups which are most vulnerable and not helped
by other organisations. We are doing less for the rights of foreigners and
refugees now, because there are currently organisations which have
separated from the Czech Helsinki Committee and are specialised in this.
Nevertheless, we still work in this area to some degree.
 “We are mainly concentrating on the rights of prisoners and the rights
of children whose parent is a prisoner, because imprisonment affects the
whole family and there are many children who can’t meet their parent who
is in prison, because they come from poor families that can’t afford it.
“These children are also traumatised due to the conditions under which
they visit their parents in these prisons, because these are often very
bad.”
Is there overcrowding in Czech prisons? I was not aware that there are
serious problems in the Czech prison system.
“Before President Vaclav Klaus’s amnesty there was a big problem with
too many prisoners, low prison capacity and not enough staff to manage
them. This impacted prisoner rehabilitation too.
“This problem has gone down since then. However, we think that Czech
state policy concerning punishment, which sees imprisoning often as the
sole way of punishing people, is wrong and this issue will come back if
nothing is changed.”
I know you also work with Romanies and Romany rights. Have you perceived
any kind of improvement in the treatment of Romanise in the Czech Republic?
“There are improvements, in the sense that there are more institutions
and more professionals concerned with this problem. These are here to help
them with access to many rights. Like the rights to housing, health, etc.
The only thing is that there aren’t clear visions and ideas on how to
implement this right.”
And every few years the government comes out with a new plan and it
doesn’t really go anywhere?
“Yes, I mean the plans are on the table already and they should have
existed years ago. But the thing is there isn’t enough capacity to
implement them or to monitor them.”
What other areas are you involved in?
“There is one specific project which we have been involved in for quite
some time, I personally since 2005, and this is the case of illegally
sterilised women, though now we know that also older men were victims.
“The Czech Helsinki Committee drafted the law on victim compensation.
However, now we have more and more people who are calling us for help and
we are unhappy because we are finding out that these victims who need
concrete help to get documentation were and are again traumatised by asking
the doctors and giving evidence.
“They need concrete assistance: legal, psychological… and support. But
all they are getting is ignorance and people accusing them of just wanting
money.”
I know you’ve been working on this legislation with minister for human
rights, Jiří Dienstbier, who has been in office since last year. How have
you found working with him?
“For me working with him is quite easy, because I know his team, which I
used to be part of; I used to work for the minister of human rights. I
think he is an open person and is willing to make unpopular changes.
“The only problem I see is that he is also minister for legislation and
thus the agenda he has is very large. The team he has is not big enough to
cover both areas. This is a weakness.”
And also he doesn’t have a ministry.
 Yes. This is a fact. He is the minister of a non-existent ministry
[laughs].”
If speak about the modern Helsinki Committee, the post-1989 version, what
would you say have been your major successes and achievements?
“That’s difficult to say. But I think it is the fact that the
organisation has continued to exist despite the lack of resources and the
fact that we are open to so many individuals and have such a wide extent of
coverage.
“So we have lots of work but because of low resources we are fighting
for our existence. In individual cases we have seen the results in the
sense that people don’t feel alone. They feel relief.”
And you are dealing with them at a very personal level?
“Yes. Sure. We have counselling centres so they can come to us and share
their trauma. And sometimes we are the last institution they can come and
talk to. Even in cases where we can’t help at least we give them time and
attention.”
Tell me, how do you feel personally working with these traumatised people
who come to you as a last hope?
“Many times I feel hopeless just as they do. Because I know that with a
larger capacity and more funding we could do more and help them more
effectively, especially when they come to us to seek defence representation
after being discriminated against.
“I am sure that we could then do more and defend them more effectively.
And also sometimes I feel we need to be patient and try to learn from those
cases and use them when we are creating or commenting on a law or policies,
to use it at least on a systematic level.”
| 
Related articles
Also in section "News"
Most popular articles