A court in Hungary has cleared a branch of the Order of Malta of allegations of complicity in abuse at a care home, but campaigners claim it nevertheless obstructed victims’ pursuit of recompense.
A written judgment from the Budapest Metropolitan District Court published on 18 March said that the Charitable Service of the Order of Malta in Hungary (CSOMH) was not culpable for abusive practices known to have taken place at the Topház care home, in the northern city of Göd.
The full verdict exonerated CSOMH, confirming that after it took over the facility in 2018 the physical abuse and severe neglect perpetrated in prior years when it was run by the state did not continue.
In her judgement, Dr Monika Németh-Jakabosné – who issued a shorter oral verdict in February – cited an expert evaluation which found that since CSOSMH took over, not only “the management, but also the staff community have come a long way…and this multifaceted development is not yet over”.
The judgement explicitly affirmed that past practices at the home both constituted “inhuman and degrading treatment’”, as acknowledged in previous investigations, and also “violated the international prohibition of torture”. Hungary’s Ombudsman for Fundamental Rights previously dismissed allegations of torture in 2018.
The Validity Foundation, a disability rights organisation, brought the case against government agencies and CSOMH to court after it conducted its own investigation of Topház in 2017.
Its report in April that year exposed severe malpractice and prompted UN inspectors to conduct a wider review of Hungary’s social care institutions in 2019.
They in turn issued a critical report, describing severe, and systemic human rights abuses in such facilities including violence towards residents, forced abortions, involuntary sterilisation, and the inappropriate separation of disabled children from their parents.
The UN inspection included a visit to Topház but did not disaggregate its findings by location, leaving campaigners concerned about the possibility of ongoing violations elsewhere.
Validity said that it only reluctantly named CSOMH as a defendant in its case after it had blocked Validity from further access to the site, making it impossible to verify the CSOMH’s claims about improved conditions.
The denial of access surprised some observers, given Validity’s crucial role in exposing severe malpractice at the Topház care home which eventually led to CSOMH taking over the facility.
Validity’s report revealed scenes of severely malnourished children confined to caged beds and adults with open wounds tied to their beds with improvised manacles. Some of the residents exhibited muscle wastage and atrophied limbs.
Following the publication, the Hungarian government immediately suspending Topház‘s director and launched an investigation which led to his dismissal a few months later.
Subsequently CSOMH, which operates the Göd facility under the name “House of Providence”, has undertaken a major government-funded upgrade and arranged for the transfer of many of the roughly 200 residents to smaller housing units, either purpose built on site or purchased nearby.
However, according to Validity’s director Steven Allen, “none of the service users resident at or before the time of our 2017 report have received apology, compensation or access to targeted psycho-therapeutic support to address their past mistreatment”.
Residents seeking specific redress would need to submit individual claims against the government, requiring them or their legal guardians to instruct independent lawyers to issue proceedings against the state.
CSOMH enjoys a close relationship with Hungary’s government, which has given it substantial financial support and granted it exemption from the normal accountancy rules for charities and transparency requirements for public procurement. Its operational head, executive vice-president Miklós Vecsei, serves as “Ministerial Commissioner” in the prime minister’s office.
Mr Allen claimed CSOMH has hindered the formation of lawyer-client relationships to pursue redress. “CSOMH appears intent on frustrating residents’ pursuit of recompense by barring Validity and other advocacy NGOs from contact with residents and their guardians”, he said.
In her verdict, Dr Németh-Jakabosné rejected the allegation that this amounted to undue obstruction, saying: “The court found that there was insufficient evidence of access to justice in the case”.
Validity said it would appeal this part of the ruling. In a statement to The Tablet, CSOMH said that it “does not intend to respond to statements made by others” and affirmed that court’s findings.
“In alignment with the findings of the experts, the court, in its ruling, has affirmed that the work conducted within the institution is professionally and legally sound, serving the best interests of the residents,” the statement said.
Loading ...
