COMMITTEE ON PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF MIGRANT WORKERS HEARS RESPONSE OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

The Committee on Migrant Workers this morning heard the response of Bosnia and Herzegovina to questions raised by Committee Experts on the initial report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the International Convention on the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee members on 23 April, the delegation, which was led by Saliha Djuderi, Acting Assistant Minister in the Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, highlighted that one product of the Government's 2004 to 2008 Strategy and Action Plan in the Field of Migration and Asylum had been the establishment an immigration centre, with a capacity to accommodate 45 persons. There were no accommodations for children, and the Government was working to deal with that by working with non-governmental organizations, with whom it had signed memorandums of understanding. Another product of the 2004 to 2008 Strategy had been the establishment of the Department for Alien Affairs under the Ministry of Security, and that Department had taken over the powers and responsibility of Entity police. A coordinating body had also been established, responsible to the Council of Ministers, and included membership of all key Ministries. That body would meet at least once a month to discuss and deal with current issues in the field of migration and asylum.

Azad Taghizadet, the Committee Expert acting as Rapporteur for the report of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in preliminary concluding observations, said that, while the Committee understood that the complex structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina's Administration constricted it in enacting unified structures or standards to be implemented throughout the country, it would include a recommendation that in situations regarding the migratory process these various matters had to be resolved notwithstanding the difficult circumstances. Another area of concern were links in regard to the granting of social services, including medical treatment, to migrant workers depending on whether migrants had employment contracts or were members of a particular country. Migrant workers and their families were a particularly vulnerable group and such an approach which distinguished between nationals and migrants could be a factor in discrimination.

0The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Bosnia and Herzegovina towards the end of the session on Friday, 1 May 2009.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will hear the answers of the Philippines to the questions posed by Experts on 23 April.

Response of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Responding to questions raised by Committee Experts on 23 April, the delegation, providing additional information with regard to efforts to combat human trafficking, said that the Hera report and the other studies mentioned in the initial report had now been finalized. Bosnia and Herzegovina was one of the countries in southeast Europe that had actively participated in anti-trafficking activities. It had just passed its third anti-trafficking plan, for 2008-2012. They had also organized a database on victims. Over the past few years there had been very few cases of illegal migrants who had been victims of trafficking, but, on the other hand, the number of Bosnia and Herzegovina nationals who had become involved in human trafficking had sadly risen.

Bosnia and Herzegovina had also organized a database on perpetrators to monitor trafficking, the delegation added. As part of the Hera programme, it had also organized a training programme for judges and law enforcement officials, as well as other professionals dealing with these issues. Since last year, the Government had organized a mechanism for cooperation at State level with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and as of 2007 it had established partnerships with seven different NGOs to provide shelter and safe houses for victims of trafficking. Bosnia and Herzegovina was also actively involved in regional initiatives to combat human trafficking.

The delegation emphasized that Bosnia and Herzegovina had some difficulties when it came to adequate financial resources to provide services for victims of human trafficking. The same was true when it came to ensuring funds for unemployment insurance and social protection for migrants in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was important to realize that even nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina were not covered by appropriate systems in this area.

The delegation highlighted that one product of the Government's 2004 to 2008 Strategy and Action Plan in the Field of Migration and Asylum had been the establishment of an immigration centre, with a capacity to accommodate 45 persons. There were not really accommodations for children, and the Government was working to deal with that issue by working together with NGOs, with whom it had signed memorandums of understanding. At the end of the year, the Government assessed the activities of the NGOs so that it could allocate appropriate funds for the coming year.

Another product of the 2004 to 2008 Strategy had been the establishment of the Department for Alien Affairs under the Ministry of Security, which had taken over the powers and responsibility of Entity police. It had also established a coordinating body, responsible to the Council of Ministers, and included membership of all key Ministries. That body would meet at least once a month to discuss and deal with current issues in the field of migration and asylum, the delegation said. The Strategy had also provided for all forms and bylaws regarding migration and asylum to be posted on a Web page dedicated to such issues in a number of relevant languages, including English.

As for activities within the Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation (CARDS) context, which were devoted to harmonization of practices and laws in Bosnia and Herzegovina with international treaties and the acquis communitaire of the European Union, the delegation said that three groups had been set up and their work resulted in three strategies: in the field of visas, migration and asylum. The strategies had since been adopted by the Council of Ministers.

The term "high-risk migration countries" was linked to the issuing of visas, the delegation explained. Among criteria for determining if a country was high risk included if there were armed conflicts in those countries, organized crime, human trafficking and drug trafficking. Countries that had been deemed high risk were periodically evaluated and their status could be changed. It was no longer necessary for citizens of Albania and Turkey to acquire a visa to enter Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Regarding work permits, costs for such permits were not borne by the migrants, but by the employers. The fee for such permits ranged from 50 to 100 convertible marks (kms). Based on the Asylum and Employment Laws, work permits were clearly defined in terms of their duration. The duration of work permits varied between the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republika Srpska and the Brèko District.

Turning to health insurance, health insurance coverage was mandatory for migrant workers and their families, as specified by local legislation, on an equal footing with Bosnia and Herzegovina nationals. All those with employment contracts were insured and were entitled to the same healthcare package. Unemployment insurance was also mandatory for all workers. If a migrant was not to blame for the termination of their contract, they could benefit from this unemployment insurance just as nationals could.

The limits on remittances sent back home by migrants was 15,000 euros, as regulated by banks, the delegation reported. As for taking back home their personal belongings, migrants could apply for customs duty exemptions, which would be done with their respective countries of origin.

As for programmes for those wishing to leave Bosnia and Herzegovina to work, the Government had a project since 2006, which was carried out and financed in cooperation with the European Union, the International Organization for Migration, the International Labour Organization, Switzerland, Germany and other donors to help foster Bosnia and Herzegovina citizens who wished to work or study in the European Union, Australia, the United States and Canada.

With regard to quotas for work permits, the delegation wished to avoid any misconceptions. There were many jobs or situations in which foreign nationals could work in the country that were not subject to the quotas, such as for all foreign nationals with higher education degrees, all foreign nationals whose work was based on an international agreement, foreign nationals performing essential tasks in a company, teachers, and for foreign nationals who were married to a foreign national who lived or worked in the country.

As for trade unions, any worker that had an employment contract was entitled to belong to a trade union. Here, the delegation noted that there was a difference in Bosnia and Herzegovina between migrants with established legal status in the country and irregular migrants in terms of their rights.

Turning to the question of transit and irregular migration, the delegation noted that in 2005 Bosnia and Herzegovina had started working on integrated border management, and the Integrated Border Management Strategy had entered into force in 2006. There had been 511 illegal border crossings identified since then.

When an illegal migrant was identified the International Organization for Migration (IOM) stepped in with its assisted voluntary return programme and IOM was in charge of the return. As for foreign nationals who worked in Bosnia and Herzegovina without a work permit, under domestic law the person could not legally reside in the country and measures of expulsion for one to five years were taken. The typical term was one year for persons coming from a country where a visa regime applied and who was found without documents or work permit. Not all persons under expulsion orders were accommodated in the immigration centre, only if there was reason to believe they would run away or if their identity could not be established would they be placed in the centre. Persons placed in immigration centres could appeal that decision within 24 hours, and the authorities had to respond in a 24-hour period, and the appeal decided by a judge within 72 hours.

As to whether Bosnia and Herzegovina had a bilateral agreement on readmission with Serbia and Montenegro, the answer was "yes", that had been slowed down owing to the separation of the two countries, and the Montenegro agreement had been finalized in December 2008.

There had been a number of trainings on migration, which had included information on the Convention, carried out for the Department for Alien Affairs, the Department for Border Affairs and the police. The delegation hoped that the Convention would also be included in trainings carried out for judges and prosecutors.

Regarding revocation of citizenship, the delegation stressed that, as set out in the Dayton Peace Agreements, all those who had acquired Bosnia and Herzegovina citizenship would be subject to revision. If a person obtained such citizenship in an irregular way, through false documents, or if that person had remained absent from the country for many years, that called into question the reasons for which a person had lodged the request for citizenship and it could be revoked. Such revocation was only possible by judicial decision and it was possible to appeal such decisions. Appellants could not be repatriated until a decision was handed down.

Further Questions by Committee Experts

AZAD TAGHIZADET, the Committee Expert acting as Rapporteur for the Report of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in further questions, asked for clarification about the right to emergency medical care. He had the impression that, for migrants that had no medical insurance or did not come from a country with which multilateral agreements had been signed, there was no possibility of that worker receiving emergency medical care. Similarly, with regard to health care for pregnant women and newborn children as well as the right to education, he was still unclear on how those rights were exercised and insured for all migrant workers and their families

Experts asked the same question with regard to enjoyment of social security and pension benefits by workers in irregular situations or migrants from countries where there were no bilateral agreements with their countries of origin in place.

An Expert asked about the relationship between the work contract and the work permit. He took it that there was no possibility of appealing against a revocation of a work permit once the work contract was terminated. However, what if the work contract were terminated because of the employer's fault: could the employee then remain in the country to look for other work?

Another concern was what happened to citizens who had their citizenship revoked but had no other nationality. Where could they be repatriated to? On expulsions, the delegation had said that that procedure took from one to five years, if that was true, how did the migrants survive in the meantime? Did they have the right to work?

Response by Delegation

Responding to additional questions raised, the delegation said that, regarding remittances, the delegation had been talking about legal limits defined by the law on money-laundering, which required special approval for transmittal of amounts over 15,000 euros.

When it came to emergency health care, every emergency case would be admitted and hospitalized, even if the person was unidentified. Children and pregnant women had health care rights regardless of whether the employer or the insured paid contributions or not.

Regarding social rights of migrant workers from countries with which Bosnia and Herzegovina did not have bilateral agreements on social insurance, in those cases rights to medical insurance, health care and related rights were exercised as much as possible. When it came to pensions, the period covered in Bosnia and Herzegovina could be added to the time period covered in some other countries to which the person might move or work later on or in the country of origin, even in the absence of a bilateral agreement with Bosnia and Herzegovina, the delegation said.

Once again the delegation underscored that the Government was having trouble in paying out social insurance benefits, but those problems were the same for all, including citizens.

On the right to education, there were private, public and international schools. When it came to access to education in public schools, there were no problems for migrant workers and members of their families to have access to education in those schools, the delegation insisted.

A migrant worker would not be expelled if they lost their first job. Work permits were issued for certain periods and during that period the worker could look for a new job even if the employment contract had been terminated. Moreover, it was also possible to lodge a complaint if the employer terminated the job contract, and until that complaint was cleared up the worker could stay in the country.

For countries where Bosnia and Herzegovina did not have bilateral agreements, there was still a possibility for migrant workers to enjoy pension rights, but then it was on the same terms as for Bosnia and Herzegovina nationals, the delegation explained.

Applications for residence had to be decided within a 30-day time limit, which could be extended to 60 days in exceptional cases, where a background check or additional information was required. Regarding complaints on residence applications from 2003 to 2008, 70 to 78 per cent of those had been successfully resolved and, of those denied, 60 per cent were being annulled and returned to the body of first instance to be reconsidered, the delegation said.

With regard to the members of the Bosnian Diaspora, the Government was trying to strengthen ties with that population, including through amendments to the law on citizenship to allow for dual citizenship with countries that did not recognize that.


Preliminary Concluding Observations

AZAD TAGHIZADET, the Committee Expert acting as Rapporteur for the Report of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in preliminary concluding observations, noted that the delegation was a very representative one which demonstrated the importance Bosnia and Herzegovina attached to the rights of migrant workers and members of their families. There could be no question about the host of difficulties which had had to be overcome by Bosnia and Herzegovina in recent years, and the Committee could see the enormous work achieved in a very short period of time by that country.

Mr. Taghizadet said the Committee understood that the complex structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina's Administration, compelled by its historic background, constricted it in enacting unified structures or standards to be implemented throughout the country, given its federal structure. However, the Committee would include a recommendation that in situations regarding the migratory process these various matters had to be resolved notwithstanding the difficult circumstances in which it found itself. That was especially important for Bosnia and Herzegovina as more than a third of its nationals were working abroad and it was simultaneously a sending, receiving and transit country for migrant workers.

Mr. Taghizadet was also concerned when a link was established between the granting of social services, including medical treatment, to migrant workers and whether or not they had employment contracts or were members of a particular country. While the Committee understood the financial constraints that Bosnia and Herzegovina was labouring under, nevertheless, migrant workers and their families were a particularly vulnerable group and such an approach which distinguished between nationals and migrants could be a factor in discrimination. It was therefore necessary in future that Bosnia and Herzegovina look at these concerns when formulating its policies and programmes in the migration area.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CMW09010E