The Scars of the Erasure_web

Erasure_4a 10.1.11 20:29 Page 119THE ERASURE AS A VIOLATION OF LEGALLY PROTECTED HUMAN RIGHTS119It is necessary to emphasize that even if all these objections were wellgrounded,viewed from the perspective of the right to freedom of thought, expressionand belief, these are not reasons that could justify the unlawful erasurethat followed. The first objection can be met by saying that even if the erasedpeople did not want to apply for Slovenian citizenship, this was their legitimatechoice, protected by the right to freedom of thought and belief. What is also importantin this connection is the standpoint of the authorities, at the time of theerasure as well as later, that Slovenia chose the principle of free choice so everyonecould decide to accept or refuse Slovenian citizenship with the state not enforcingacceptance. This stance does not imply that it is allowable to punishpeople who decided not to take Slovenian citizenship by depriving them of theirexisting status, to which citizenship is not tied: i.e., the status of permanent resident.The second and third objection even more explicitly refer to beliefs andopinions and therefore warrant a similar answer. Even if they refused to join theterritorial defense units, even if they opposed the independence of Slovenia, andeven if they voted against it at the referendum, their conduct was still consistentwith their right to freedom of thought and belief, so it cannot be used as a justificationfor depriving them unlawfully of permanent residence status. Moreover,even if the law did provide that a person could be deprived of a status on thegrounds of such reasons, such a provision could be declared unconstitutionalby the Constitutional Court if an assessment of constitutionality was required,and indeed the Constitutional Court has already issued such a ruling. 37 Theirpermanent resident status could have been revoked only if they were found guiltyof a criminal offense (e.g., against the security of the state) and sentenced toimprisonment of more than three years, as was defined in Article 24 of the 1991Aliens Act.Some interviewees told us that they did not approve of independence becausethey thought it was in contravention of Yugoslav federal laws. Others, whowere members of the Yugoslav People’s Army, said that they did not want to crossover to the territorial defense units because by so doing they would have violatedthe oath they took to respect the laws of the SFRY.My friend worked for the territorial defense – he came to me twice and askedme to cross over. Of course I said that I’d not dream of doing it, as, firstly, theuniform is a sort of ethical code, I made an oath. Secondly, regardless of the ethicalcode, I was a post-graduate student and that’s what I wanted to do, ratherthan aim my gun as a TO (territorial defense) at someone in Tolmin. It’s completelypointless. (Željko, 49)In many cases, though, these objections were entirely unfounded. Manyerased persons we interviewed assured us that they wanted to apply for citizenshipbut their applications were not accepted or they were instructed to apply37 Ruling of the Constitutional Court No. Up-77/94, dated 16. 9. 1997.