HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONSIDERS REPORT OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

The Human Rights Committee has considered the initial report of Bosnia and Herzegovina on how that State party is implementing the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Introducing the report of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Maksim Stanišić, Assistant Minister in the Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees, observed that the past 10 years had been difficult for Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the aftermath of a civil war in which almost half of its population had been displaced. With the aid of the international community, Bosnia and Herzegovina had been working diligently to combat that conflict’s effects, to secure the return of the displaced and to build a democratic society.

Dragutin Čegar, Expert Adviser in the Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees, said that in drafting the report, Bosnia and Herzegovina had tried to provide information from numerous sources, including State and local authorities, administrative agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Admittedly, lack of a unified database at the State level had created significant difficulties. The authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina had been increasingly establishing contacts with NGOs, and civil society groups, both with regard to reporting and concerning mechanisms for assisting and protecting individuals and groups whose rights were endangered.

In preliminary concluding remarks, Christine Chanet, Committee Chairperson, said the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina had made a considerable and commendable effort for the rule of law to be established within a framework that was admittedly not one of their own choosing, and such institutions as the Ombudsman’s Office would find favourable mention in the Committee’s conclusions. She wished to underscore that women had had to pay a heavy toll in the war and had been victims of rape en masse, and were also subjected to domestic violence. The laws were not always the same from one region to another, and there had perhaps not been sufficient prosecutions or assistance provided to victims. In addition, rules of detention and the grounds for them were not consistent with international norms or the Covenant.

Other Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, reforms to the Ombudsman’s Office; how many of the 30,000 persons reported missing from 1991 to 1996 had been recovered or found; details on the Anti-Trafficking Plan; weak penalties for traffickers; and why the Institute for Missing Persons was still not operational. An Expert recalled that other treaty bodies had already pointed to the Constitution – a legacy of the Dayton Agreement – as a serious obstacle to the implementation of those human rights treaties. However, many Experts showed sensitivity to the particular situation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which appeared to be trying to come to grips with its institutional legacy.

The Committee reviewed the report of Bosnia and Herzegovina over three meetings and will issue its formal, written concluding observations and recommendations on the report towards the end of its session, which will conclude on 3 November 2006.

The delegation of Bosnia and Herzegovina also included Jadranka Kalmeta, Permanent Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the United Nations Office at Geneva, representatives of the Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees, the Ministry of Justice, the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Ministry for Internal Affairs of the Federation, and other members of the Permanent Mission of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

Bosnia and Herzegovina is among the 159 States parties to the International Covenant and as such it is obligated to submit reports on its performance aimed at implementing the provisions of the treaty. It is one of the 107 States parties to the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, which provides for the confidential consideration of communications from individuals who claim to be victims of a violation of any rights proclaimed in the Covenant. It is also one of the 59 States parties to the Second Optional Protocol, which aims at the abolition of the death penalty.

The Committee will reconvene in public at 10 a.m. on Monday, 23 October, to begin its consideration of the sixth periodic report of Ukraine (CCPR/C/UKR/6).

Report of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Creating conditions for sustainable return and reintegration of returnees is a strategic aim that has achieved limited results, according to the initial report of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CCPR/C/BIH/1). A plan of action for sustained return – encompassing safety and mine disposal, education and health – was passed by the Commission for Refugees and Displaced Persons in 2004, and it has been noticed that the issue of safety is becoming more and more a secondary one for returnees making the decision to return. During the last two years, implementation of the regulations on property has accelerated and almost all property and residential rights were returned to their pre-war owners and holders. That was a great encouragement for creating a positive climate between persons, total realization of freedom of movement and opening of all parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina for free access and movement of the pre-war population.

Amendments to both entities’ Constitutions now provide that all the people in Bosnia and Herzegovina are constituent peoples on all the territory, regardless of their ethnic origins. These constitutional amendments offer a legal basis for stronger protection not only for the vital interests of the constituent peoples, but also for the protection of the rights of “others”, i.e. national minority members. Election of the parliamentary houses in both entities, for the first time, provides for representatives of national minorities. Preliminary surveys showed that the number of members of national minorities, except the Roma, involved in organs and governmental institutions, or employed in the governmental structures, are proportionate to the percentage of their members in the population, and some communities – Jews and Montenegrins – are represented at an even greater rate than their share in the population.
Presentation of Report

MAKSIM STANIŠIĆ, Assistant Minister for Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, introducing the report, drew attention to the fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina had already presented reports to many human rights treaty bodies, and fully intended to continue its efforts in that direction. For example, Bosnia and Herzegovina would be presenting its initial report on how it was fulfilling its obligations under the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers later this year. The past 10 years had been a difficult period for Bosnia and Herzegovina in the aftermath of a civil war in which almost half of its population had been displaced. With the aid of the international community, Bosnia and Herzegovina had been working diligently to combat the aftermath of that conflict, to secure the return of the displaced and to build a democratic society.

DRAGUTIN ČEGAR, Expert Adviser, Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, said that, in drafting the report, Bosnia and Herzegovina had tried to provide information from numerous relevant sources, including State and local authorities, administrative agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as other relevant and reliable sources. Admittedly, lack of a unified database at the State level had created significant difficulties in this regard.

In general, government authorities had been the primary sources of information. The second most important source had been media reports, in particular from the independent press, since they were the first to report on human rights violations. A third important source had been information from the NGO community, which had become a key factor and player in the promotion of human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mr. Čegar emphasized that the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina were increasingly establishing contacts with NGOs, and civil society groups, both with regard to reporting and concerning mechanisms for assisting and protecting individuals and groups whose rights were endangered. For example, recent agreements on combating trafficking in human beings had included NGO involvement.

Furthermore, the most widely read daily papers had carried announcements inviting NGOs to involve themselves in the process of preparing the report. The Sarajevo-based United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had also contributed. Finally, Mr. Čegar said that information reported in other documentation supplied to United Nations Committees was used, where relevant, in particular with regard to the position of women, children, the elderly, persons with disabilities, foreign nationals, and national minorities.

Constitutional and Legal Framework for Implementation of the Covenant

Responding to a list of written questions posed by Experts in advance, the delegation said the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights formed an integral part of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Provisions of the Covenant had the legal standing of Constitutional provisions and were applied directly in situations when domestic legislation did not regulate certain issues.

The Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees controlled the laws and policies on human rights issues. The Human Rights Committee of Bosnia and Herzegovina could also establish the standards for legislation in the country, by requiring that legislation be harmonized with the international legal human rights instruments to which Bosnia and Herzegovina was a party, such as the Covenant. Individuals could also make a direct complaint about the application of a rule if they felt that it did not reflect the standards established by the Covenant, the delegation added.

The Covenant had only rarely been cited in actual decisions in the courts in cases of human rights violations. However, that had been due to a lack of proper dissemination. That situation was increasingly changing, the delegation averred, as judges and human rights lawyers were made aware of the Covenant and its protections.

The Law on the Human Rights Ombudsman of Bosnia and Herzegovina entered into force in April 2006. The authorities were still, however, working towards its full implementation, the delegation said, and a working group had been set up to that effect. The Office would be based in Banja Luka, but three field offices were also contemplated.

The Ombudsman’s Office was already overburdened: it had some 5,000 complaints before it at present. Originally, the complaints mostly involved property rights issues, but as most of those had been settled, the complaints now were largely concerning labour and employment questions.

Discrimination Against Women and Domestic Violence

Regarding discrimination against women, the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the entity constitutions provided for gender equality as one of the basic human rights. The definition of discrimination included in the Law on Gender Equality in Bosnia and Herzegovina also directly enabled an easier recognition of practical situations in which people were treated differently, because of their gender. A statistics database on women’s issues was being set up. According to the quota system of politics, women benefited from positive discrimination in their favour, and were thus encouraged both to vote and to run for election.

In the past two years, two pieces of legislation had been drafted to protect women against domestic violence. Currently, the delegation said, they were trying to develop practical measures to enable victims of domestic violence to seek redress and receive protection.

Accountability, Right to Life and Prohibition of Torture

The delegation explained that the Law on Implementation of Appropriate Measures for Effective Implementation of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) Mandate and Other International Restrictive Measures had been adopted by Bosnia and Herzegovina to strengthen cooperation with the ICTY. That law provided for provisional measures to ban the use, alienation and disposal of property belonging to those indicted by the Tribunal for serious violations of international humanitarian law.

Bosnia and Herzegovina had taken a number of measures to strengthen its cooperation with the International Tribunal to facilitate the arrest or transfer of indicted persons, including Radovan Karadzic and Radtko Mladic. The State Investigation Agency was working in that direction, and a number of international agencies were blocking assets of those war criminals and it was hoped that they would soon be brought to justice.

The selection process of judges had also been totally reformed, and completely depoliticized, the delegation stated. Judges at all levels had since been reselected according to the new laws. In addition there was a new criminal code, which came into effect on 1 March this year, and a new code of criminal procedure. The new procedural code had streamlined the old system and had enabled Bosnia and Herzegovina to speed up the time it took for cases to be processed through the system.

The International Criminal Tribunal had already referred five cases to Bosnia and Herzegovina courts, with a total of nine indicted persons, the delegation emphasized. Bosnia and Herzegovina was the first country in the region that ICTY cases had been referred to, and that indicated how serious they had been about working together and about improving their legal system. The courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina were becoming ever more capable to respond to that difficult task, both in terms of staffing and technical capability. The war crimes courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina were made up of an international panel of jurists, with a mix of nationalities that acted as a guarantee of impartial judgements.

The delegation further underscored that Bosnia and Herzegovina had established a State Protection Agency, which had a war crimes unit, with a large staff, and a witness protection unit. They were also working to train police on how to document and treat war crimes. The International Tribunal had specifically expressed its appreciation of the cooperation afforded them by this Agency and its war crimes unit.

Regarding results from the independent Srebenica Commission established in the Republika Srpska, the delegation said that the Committee for Finding Out the Truth About the Events In and Around Srebenica had issued a report, which had been widely disseminated, detailing the events, the number of victims, and their place of execution. Following the publication of the report, for the first time ever, the Republika Srpska had taken responsibility for those events.

Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted the Law on Missing Persons in November 2004. The law defined the right of families of missing persons to learn of the fate of the missing members of their families, their residence or to get the remains of the deceased. Owing to a lack of political will among the authorities of both entities, the process of searching for missing persons was often long and difficult, the delegation explained. The law addressed that situation and provided for greater cooperation among authorities in the search for the missing.

The process for setting up the Fund to Support Families of Missing Persons had been long and drawn out. However, it was expected to be operational in January 2007.

Regarding civil reparations for war victims, the delegation noted that women victims of sexual violence during the war were granted certain rights in that regard. The law was being amended so that women could directly claim compensation from the local authorities. It was difficult because the country simply did not have enough funds to ensure social benefits to all of the war-affected population.

Slavery and Forced Labour

On the issue of trafficking, much had been done, both through the adoption of new legislation, and by means of public awareness-raising campaigns. There were now only two “nightclubs” or brothels in the country, whereas previously there had been over 200. Indeed, the delegation underscored, the Government fully intended to see those two nightclubs closed down, as such clubs had been the hub of human trafficking rings. Trafficking had been a big problem in the past, but it had been largely eradicated today. The same was true of smuggling of people or illegal migration, across the country’s borders – a phenomenon which had been greatly reduced by means of the new penal legislation.

Liberty and Security of the Person and Treatment of Prisoners

On detainees and prisoners, in 2005 the Law on Execution of Criminal Sanctions, Detention and Other Measures was implemented. The norms set forth in that law were in full compliance with the standards set out in the UN Minimum Standard Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, European Prison Rules and the European Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

With a view to preventing abuse of detainees in police custody, the Minister of Justice had enacted a Training Programme for Institution Police in 2006, which provided for, among others, the review of practical application of regulations dealing with detention; international standards and norms in the area; the use of fire arms; psychology; and drugs and narcotics.

Under the current Code of Criminal Procedure, under no circumstances could detention exceed six months, the delegation affirmed.

Oral Questions by Committee Experts

Committee Experts then asked various questions and made comments on a number of topics, including a lack of standardization with regards to medical and forensic evidence, in particular in domestic violence cases; reforms contemplated for the Ombudsman’s Office; how many of the 30,000 persons reported missing between 1991 and 1996 had been recovered or found; information on the implementation of the State Anti-Trafficking Plan; what was being done to toughen weak penalties for traffickers; policies to address the phenomenon of “forced begging” by children; detention of mentally ill persons against their will, in particular in view of the inadequacy of institutions for them; why the Institute for Missing Persons was still not operational, given the gravity of the question and its fundamental ramifications for civil and political rights; and, given that civilian victims of war had to prove that they had suffered 60 per cent physical disability to be compensated, what did that mean for war victims who had been subjected to rape or torture?

An Expert recalled that two other international treaty bodies had already pointed to the present Constitution – a legacy of the Dayton Agreement – as a serious obstacle to the implementation of those human rights treaties. Also, he felt that the present Constitution’s total commitment to ethnic equality was at the expense of gender equality in the country.

A couple of Experts drew attention to the fact that there were no representatives from the Republika Srpska in the delegation, and expressed concern that Bosnia and Herzegovina needed to involve both federal authorities and those at the entity level in implementing its obligations under the Covenant.

Many Experts showed sensitivity to the particular situation faced by Bosnia and Herzegovina, which appeared to be trying to come to grips with the institutional legacy of the Dayton Accords, and was unsure of how to move on. An Expert was gratified to acknowledge the degree of progress Bosnia and Herzegovina had made, given the high level of complexity of the difficulties the country had faced after the war.

An Expert was concerned that the legislation in Bosnia and Herzegovina appeared only to cover discrimination against women in the public and political sphere, but did not provide protections in the private sphere.

While disciplinary measures for prisoners were reserved for grave infractions according to the report, an Expert wished for further clarification, given that over 50 per cent of all prisoners had been subjected to such measures.

An Expert requested further information regarding reports that detainees were not always informed of their rights or the reasons for their detention. A 2003 report had also contained numerous allegations of police brutality.

Response by Delegation to Oral Questions put by Experts

Responding to the oral questions, the delegation said that the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina had gone through a number of changes, and had itself paved the way to the phasing out of the Office and its powers. The short answer was that the Office had not been an obstacle to the implementation of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s obligations or to reform, but had been helpful.

Regarding the lack of representation on the delegation from the Republika Srpska, the delegation assured the Committee that the delegation represented the ethnic make up of the country, and it’s composition did not indicate a lack of implementation in the Republika Srpska. The choice of delegates had been constrained by the need to find competent experts.

Constitutional reform was a hot issue in Bosnia and Herzegovina, too hot an issue to be ignored. Now that elections had been held, talks on Constitutional reform would continue. The delegation expected a new phase of such talks to continue shortly, involving politicians, experts and the High Representative.

Non-discrimination was universally promoted in the laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina, both in the civil and criminal sphere, the delegation affirmed. Since they had begun to monitor implementation of the Covenant, much progress had been made. Regarding women’s rights, the electoral quota had helped women through reserving 30 per cent of slots for them. There were also numerous women’s rights NGOs, which fought for an even greater percentage of seats or posts in government to be reserved for women.

In addition to the gender equity law, a long-term phased programme with gender agencies at the State level had been established to review sectoral laws. To date, two initiatives had been undertaken: to review labour legislation and the presentation of women in the media.

Turning to the 30,000 missing persons, over 14,000 had been found. Of course, that meant that over 15,000 remained missing. Here, the delegation stressed that, while the Institute for Missing Persons was being established, the International Commission for Missing Persons continued the search. They were also receiving help from international agencies, in particular, with regard to analysing DNA evidence. The establishment of the Institute had been stalled. It was a complex question, and one difficulty was that the expectations of the families of the victims often did not meet the mandates outlined for the future body. The Parliament had also halted the initiative on the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation, owing to opposition from victims’ associations.

Bosnia and Herzegovina was now in the process of harmonizing the rights of women war victims and had negotiated the percentage of disability, that is, those who were determined to be a victim of sexual or psychological damage during the war did not have to show 60 per cent disability, but all could be considered for compensation or benefits, with their cases treated on a case-by-case basis. Also it had been emphasized that both physical and psychological harm should be treated equally.

The latest action plan on human trafficking, at the national level, had been developed jointly by the Ministries of Human Rights; Security; Foreign Affairs; Justice; and the Prosecutor’s Office, all of whom had been involved in the planning and implementation of the national strategy. The issue had been included in the school curriculum, to inform students of the problem. Some 90 per cent of funds for the plan had come from partners such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, UNICEF and bilateral Government donors.

The authorities made all efforts to assist the victims of trafficking to return to their countries of origin, if they wished to do so, the delegation insisted. Victims who cooperated with the authorities in finding the traffickers were offered the right to stay in the country if they so chose. Those who did not cooperate were granted a three-month stay, and were then repatriated. All victims, of course, could always file a request for asylum.

On the issue of the group of Algerian men who had complained they were unfairly stripped of their Bosnian and Herzegovina citizenship, the delegation said the Government had acknowledged its mistake. The Constitutional Court had ordered that their rights had been violated and measures were being taken to restore their rights. In addition to providing financial assistance to their families, the Government had contacted the United States and requested that the Algerian Group be returned. That group was currently being detained at Guantanamo.

Pre-trial detention regulations provided for separation of the sexes as well as from convicted prisoners. Pre-trial detainees were held at police premises until a final order of detention was issued.

The death penalty was prohibited in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the delegation said. The last time a sentence of death was imposed was during the war, but the sentence had to be commuted as the courts held that the death penalty was contrary to the laws of the State.

Regarding harmonization of entity laws with State-level laws, that process was mandatory. True, it had not been fully carried out to date. However, the delegation clarified, where State law and entity law clashed, the entities were required to apply the State rule.

With regard to the structure of the Ombudsman’s Office, the delegation explained that, in 1996, when it was originally established, it had been headed by an international representative. In 2003, the institution was nationalized. There were also Ombudsmen’s Offices at the entity level, and there was a good deal of overlap in the mandates. In March 2006, the Ombudsman’s Office was reformed. The entity-level Ombudsmen were being phased out. The Office was now based in Banja Luka with three field offices, including in Mostar and Sarajevo. The mandate of the Ombudsman now specifically included protection of the rights of children and of religious minorities. The Office included three Ombudsmen from the three constituent peoples, who were appointed by public announcement. However, all citizens could apply for appointment, including those from other groups than the constituent peoples. The Ombudsmen served consecutive two-year terms, for a total of six years, and could be re-elected. The new Ombudsman would take office on 1 January 2007.

Further Oral Questions by Experts

An Expert was concerned that the Covenant and its Optional Protocol had not been published in all the languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Another Expert wanted to know the practical application of rules concerning detention. He further wondered what the grounds for detention were and whether those were uniform at the entity and State levels. All he had found in the report was a mention of harm to State security or property. One Expert asked about the grounds for placing someone in solitary confinement. Further, an Expert wondered whether the apparently extensive protections for detainees at the national level were reflected in the entity level standards.

Response by Delegation

The Covenant and the Protocols still had to be translated into the official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the delegation confirmed.

Regarding police detention, the delegation said that persons could be kept in police custody for a maximum of 24 hours, although, in practice, such custody was generally shorter. After 24 hours the individual had to be handed over to the prosecutor, who was informed of the case from the moment the detainee was taken into police custody. If an individual was taken into custody unlawfully, the law provided for compensation.

Sentences for human traffickers were often for five to nine years’ imprisonment, with a typical sentence of two and a half years.

Detention regulations were identical in the State-level and entity-level criminal procedure codes. The presumption of innocence was a fundamental principle at all levels, and detention was not seen as punishment, the delegation stressed. The grounds for detention were reasonable grounds to believe that an individual had committed a crime and that the suspect would escape; would tamper with evidence; would put pressure on witnesses or other individuals to hide a crime; or would commit a new crime punishable by imprisonment for at least 5 years; or if the circumstances surrounding the crime made it necessary to issue a detention order for public security and public property.

The opposition encountered by victims associations to the draft legislation on Commission for Truth and Reconciliation involved disagreement on the manner of appointing Commission members, the amount of compensation to be allocated, and the participation of victims and families of victims in the procedure. This matter was not closed, however, the delegation emphasized and they were working on a solution.

Freedom of Movement

By the end of the war, almost half of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina had been displaced, and one third of all housing had been destroyed. To date 1,014,340 refugees and displaced persons had returned, 45 per cent of them returning to communities in which their group was a minority. Over half of the returns had occurred within three years of the signing of the Dayton Accords, and had then diminished increasingly until 1998. Returns had been on the upswing since then, with some 100,000 returnees in 2002. The delegation attributed that increase to new legislation and enforcement regarding restitution of the property of returnees. However, there were still a large number of returnees and displaced persons waiting for funds to rebuild their homes or businesses.

Related to the issue of returnees and freedom of movement was that of demining since a large area of the territory having been contaminated by mines. From the beginning of the war until the first half of 2005, 4,860 persons had been killed by mines or unexploded ordnance, 1,532 of them since the peace agreement had been signed. Through the demining efforts of the Mine Action Centre, and with international assistance, the average number of victims was constantly decreasing and was 4.5 victims a month in 2004. Some 45,450,000 square metres of the former minefields had been cleared and repossessed since 1999.

Right to Be Recognized Before the Law and to Birth Registration

On the issue of the right to a fair trial, the delegation noted that new draft legislation sought to solve the problem of overburdened court schedules by shortening deadlines for trials and various procedural actions, bringing in new judges on short appointments, and instituting training sessions in court management and for administrative personnel. Benchmarks had been introduced by the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council, so that it was known when decisions were due to be handed down by all of the courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Council had also set guidelines for judicial appointments and training, and today all judges and prosecutors had to spend at least 4 days a year at training sessions or seminars, though typically they spent more, with an average of 7 or 8 days devoted to training.

Registration of all children at birth was required by law. That was the responsibility of parents, and health authorities also submitted information on an ex officio basis to the appropriate authorities. If the parents did not register the child, the child would be registered automatically, without a name. The difficulty was that the Roma, who moved frequently, often failed to register their children. One new development was a unified electronic database of personal documentation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Freedom of Opinion and Incitement to Racial Hatred

There had been a problem with threats to journalists, the delegation said. With regard to the media in general, there was still a lack of sensitivity and the public was insufficiently informed about the situation that certain marginalized groups, such as the Roma, faced. That was something that needed to be corrected.

Another member of the delegation expanded on the previous statement to note that there was a Communications Regulatory Agency, an autonomous regulatory agency with national staff and a clearly defined mandate, to ensure that the media did not disseminate hate speech. Indeed, it had issued some 100 decisions to sanction media, issuing fines or suspensions, for incitement to hatred.

Minority Rights

Minorities were protected by the Constitution, legislation and international treaties at the national level, and there were also laws at the entity level, the delegation explained. Departments and towns were also able to contribute to addressing minority rights, the right to display cultural symbols, the right to education and the right to establish ties with their national countries of origin, for example.

Oral Questions by Committee Experts

Committee Experts then asked various questions and made comments on a number of topics, including the status of minorities that were not considered national minorities; what was being done to facilitate access by the Roma to social services, including through the provision of personal documents; what was being done to address acts of religious extremism; how intercultural harmony and tolerance were being promoted; and what measures had been taken to promote minority participation in the government.

An Expert expressed scepticism that the major issues affecting returns today were property questions. He had visited the country and had noted that ethnic tensions were still very real and were a concrete obstacle to returns. The responsibility for returns had recently shifted from the entity level to the State level, and he wished further information about how that transition had gone, especially as the crux of the problem of ethnic tensions had to be addressed at the local level. He was also concerned about the resettlement of Roma populations near Sarajevo, which was being undertaken owing to concerns about unsafe drinking water. He wondered why nothing had been done to address the issue of water and other infrastructure until now, given that the community was 40 years old.

Response to Oral Questions

Responding to these oral questions and others, the delegation said the authorities’ optimistic view of returns was based on their wide historical overview of the process. They were not saying that the issue of ethnic discrimination had totally disappeared, only that it had now become secondary to property concerns. The fact that incentives to return were regulated at the State level now ensured equality of benefits to all returnees.

Regarding the Roma resettlement case, the delegation said that the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees was involved in the issue, to protect the Roma’s rights, and to ensure that the Roma would only be resettled if a permanent, long-term solution could be found that the Roma themselves would agree to.

In drafting its legislation, Bosnia and Herzegovina had accounted for national minorities, as they had been defined in international law, but had also left room for “other” groups, which were defined by common characteristics and who would be treated with the same status as national minorities.

Regarding abuses of religious freedom, of course, the mere fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina had drafted legislation on religious freedom did not automatically stifle such crimes. However, there now existed clear mechanisms for redress. Traditionally, however, citizens had turned to mediation to resolve such cases. Rules had also been set on the display of religious symbols at the cantonal level. Peace and tolerance were a process that would take time, the delegation observed, but they were working to change legislation and educational curriculum to promote that path.

Roma of course needed identity documents, just like other citizens, the delegation confirmed. Roma had a specific problem, however, which was that they often could not afford the fees involved. Most cantons and some communities in the Republika Srpska had undertaken actions to resolve that issue.

Preliminary Remarks

CHRISTINE CHANET, Chairperson of the Committee, thanked the delegation. She recognized that Bosnia and Herzegovina was in a difficult situation and the Committee was well aware that the State structure was not one that the State had chosen, but had been the subject of an international agreement. The report and presentation had paid clear tribute to the contribution of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to the promotion of human rights in the country, and it was to be regretted that no NGOs had come to Geneva.

Ms. Chanet observed that Bosnia and Herzegovina had acceded to almost all of the international human rights treaties, and in reporting to them the authorities would learn how to better fulfil their obligations. They had made a considerable and commendable effort for the rule of law to be established within a framework that was admittedly not one of their own choosing, and such institutions as the Ombudsman’s Office would find favourable mention in the Committee’s conclusions.

With regard to the situation of women, Ms. Chanet wished to underscore that women had had to pay a heavy toll in the war and had been victims of rape en masse. There was also the issue of domestic violence. The laws were not always the same from one region to another, and that presented a difficulty. There had perhaps not been sufficient prosecutions or assistance provided to victims of violence. In addition, rules of detention and the grounds for them were not consistent with international norms or the Covenant. Grounds such as threats to property should not be included.

Ms. Chanet cautioned that the conditions in which a displaced person was to live upon return, without being discriminatory, suggested that it would not be on terms of equality, and consideration of national origin might be a curb to the resettlement of a great many individuals who felt their rights would not be guaranteed.

Finally, Ms. Chanet observed that the plight of the Roma was one to be found in all European nations. Their marginalized condition only further reinforced the State’s obligation to register Roma children at birth. It was not the responsibility of the parents; it was incumbent on the State to register children and no payment should be required.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CT06014E