COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD EXAMINES REPORTS OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA UNDER OPTIONAL PROTOCOLS ON CHILDREN IN ARMED CONFLICT AND ON CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND SALE

The Committee on the Rights of the Child today reviewed the initial reports of Bosnia and Herzegovina on how that country is implementing the provisions of the two Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict and on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

Presenting the report on the Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, Saliha Djuderija, Assistant Minister of Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, said the country assumed an obligation to take all appropriate measures to ensure that children who had not reached the age of 18 did not take direct part in hostilities and were not subject to compulsory recruitment into the armed forces. Bosnia and Herzegovina had gone through a tragic period of conflict between 1992 and 1995. Proceedings had been conducted against war criminals but no case involved children who were indicted, nor had any war crime defendants been charged with recruiting or using children in the armed conflict.

Introducing the report on the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, Ms. Djuderija said Bosnia and Herzegovina had signed the ratification act on 4 September 2002 without reservations and the Convention had been included in the text of the Constitution. In light of the legal force of domestic sources and the current governance structure, the relevant legal sources were the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the constitutions of the entities, the Statute of the Brcko district, as well as the constitutions of the cantons, various laws, secondary legislation, and other general acts. It was common practice that most laws included a general prohibition of discrimination, including discrimination against children on any grounds.

In preliminary concluding remarks, Committee Expert Peter Guran, who served as Rapporteur for the report under the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, said after 15 years it was time to start internally with new initiatives and not only be maintained by the international community. Bosnia and Herzegovina was such a decentralised State, it was thus first of all important to strengthen the structures.

Providing additional preliminary observations, Committee Expert Hatem Kotrane, serving as Rapporteur for the report under the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, felt that Bosnia and Herzegovina was moving forward with the implementation of the Optional Protocol. Progress had been made regarding a number of phenomena described in the Optional Protocol, but difficulties remained in terms of harmonisation of criminal legislation and expanding the competence of courts as referred to in the Optional Protocol.

Regarding the Optional Protocol on children in armed conflict, the Committee asked what the intentions for the future of the National Council for Children were; what measures were available when a child had voluntarily decided to be recruited outside the country; whether legislation regulating the benefits for war victims was discriminatory; and whether children of adults traumatised by the war had also been helped.

Regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina’s report on the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, Committee Experts asked whether studies were available to develop strategies and action plans in the country; whether the police were cooperating with neighbouring countries regarding child rights violations; and which ministry was in charge of implementing activities under the Protocol.

The Committee will release its formal, written concluding observations and recommendations on the reports of Bosnia and Herzegovina towards the end of its three-week session, which will conclude on Friday, 1 October 2010.

The delegation of Bosnia and Herzegovina included representatives of the Ministry of Legal Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Communications and Transport, the Ministry of Defence, the Joint Headquarters of the Armed Forces, and the Permanent Mission of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the United Nations at Geneva.

As one of the 193 States parties to the Convention, Bosnia and Herzegovina is obliged to present periodic reports to the Committee on its efforts to comply with the provisions of the treaty. The delegation was on hand today to present the report and to answer questions raised by Committee Experts.

When the Committee reconvenes in public, at 10 a.m. on Monday, 20 September, it will begin consideration of the initial periodic reports of Montenegro under the Convention (CRC/C/MNE/1), as well under the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the involvement of children in armed conflict (CRC/C/OPAC/MNE/1) and on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (CRC/C/OPSC/MNE/1) in Chamber A. In Chamber B the Committee will consider the combined third and fourth periodic reports of Sudan (CRC/C/SDN/3-4) and its initial report under the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict (CRC/C/OPAC/SDN/1).

Reports of Bosnia and Herzegovina

The initial report of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (CRC/C/OPSC/BIH/1) highlights that most of the laws passed in Bosnia and Herzegovina after 2000 are currently being harmonised with the standards enshrined in the Convention and the Optional Protocol. There are also attempts to establish more efficient mechanisms to provide child victims with adequate and objective information and efforts are ongoing to develop standardised practices for police and prosecutor offices, with a detailed and discreet clarification of all perceived circumstances and the needs and conduct of the child. The report further affirms that children’s right to life is guaranteed in the country’s highest legislative documents and observed through the securing of adequate development and protection. The right to life is provided for children within their parental, guardian or foster family, or in exceptional cases within accommodation institutions. Jeopardising the right to life is, without exception, punishable under the Criminal Codes in force in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The initial report of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (CRC/C/OPAC/BIH/1) says that on 22 May 2002 the High Representative had passed the Laws on the Judicial and Prosecutorial Training Centres of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska, respectively. These laws had not only established the centres and prescribed their status and management organs, but also defined their approach to training judges and prosecutors as well as candidates intending to become such. The purpose of the training centres was to ensure that the training programs were implemented along the lines of openness, professionalism and impartiality, which made up the integral part of performing the judicial and prosecutorial duty. Civil servants who worked on the implementation of laws - especially those working with or for children - were also obliged to undergo training sessions on children's rights, and media experts were provided specialised training according to their role in promoting the rights set forth in the Convention and the Protocol.


Discussion on the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict

Presentation of Report

SALIHA DJUDERIJA, Assistant Minister of Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, said on 25 May 2000 the United Nations General Assembly had adopted the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, which complemented the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since Bosnia and Herzegovina signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict on September 7, 2000, and ratified it on October 10, 2003, the reporting period would include the period from the day of the Protocol ratification to the day of report submission.

With the ratification of the Optional Protocol, Bosnia and Herzegovina assumed an obligation to take all appropriate measures to ensure that members of the armed forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who had not reached the age of 18, did not take direct part in hostilities and were not subject to compulsory recruitment into the armed forces, and to adopt legislative measures to prohibit and criminalize such practice. In the country’s legal system the Optional Protocol had the status of a national law and could be directly applied where it was in conflict with national legislation.

Bosnia and Herzegovina had not made reservations regarding any provision of the Protocol, thus confirming the country’s dedication to ensuring that minors were not subjected to conscription. This provision was an integral part of national legislation.

The authorities had also given a binding declaration to the United Nations, reading “The State of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall not allow recruitment in the armed forces of any person under the age of 18.” Subsequently, the 1 January 2007 Law on the Defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina established a general ban on the recruitment of children and abolished such conscription throughout the country.

Ms. Djuderija went on to say that Bosnia and Herzegovina had gone through a tragic period of conflict between 1992 and 1995. Proceedings had been conducted against war criminals, both by the International Criminal Court and national courts, but no case involved children who were indicted, nor had any war crime defendants been charged with recruiting or using children in the armed conflict.

Turning to the report, Ms. Djuderija said that document gave an overview of the legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures that had been applied in relation to the Optional Protocol. The report had been prepared with the help of representatives from all levels of Government and the preparation process had been coordinated by the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees, which was in charge of this pursuant to the Law on Ministries and other administrative bodies of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Public discussions had been organized on the draft report. This had allowed the Government both to inform the public about the obligations Bosnia and Herzegovina had assumed and to receive comments on the report for its finalization and submission to the Council of Ministers, who had considered and adopted the report. The governmental and non-governmental sectors as well as the international community had taken part in these public discussions and the feedback that had been received were an integral part of the report.

Questions by Experts

PETER GURAN, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the reports of Bosnia and Herzegovina noted the problem of decentralisation, in other words the responsibility each region had for fully implementing the two Optional Protocols. The Committee had been informed that the central power in Bosnia and Herzegovina was quite limited and that various institutions were dealing with children's rights and the implementation of the Protocols. Could the delegation therefore explain the responsibility of the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees at the national level?

In terms of independent monitoring of children's rights, a human rights Ombudsman had been appointed in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but later a special children's rights ombudsman had been appointed in the Republika Srpska. Could the delegation explain how these two offices were working? Mr. Guran also wished to know about the intentions for the future of the National Council for Children and pointed out that it was essential to guarantee the future of recently created institutions.

Turning to the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict more specifically, the Rapporteur asked what measures where available when a child had voluntarily decided to be recruited outside the country, and whether agreements were in place between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia or Croatia, which had military academies.

Mr. Guran further wished to know what had happened to the victims of the 1992 to 1995 war, how the Government was caring for them, and how were land mine issues were being dealt with?

Other experts then underscored that the first measure recommended after ratification of the Protocol was dissemination and asked whether the State party had done this, and if so, how and targeting which audiences. Related to this, had officials been trained on the Protocol? The report provided many general details but not much in the way of specific information on the Protocol.

An Expert noted that the services provided to war victims had faded away due to numerous reasons. There seemed to be infrastructure in place, such as mental health centres, but these seemed under-utilized, perhaps due to stigmatization and a lack of coordination. Could the delegation comment on this and explain how victims were being identified?

The Committee also wished to know whether there were any special provisions that prohibited the recruitment of children under 18; whether legislation prohibited trading and exporting arms with or to countries where children were involved in armed conflict; and how it had been ensured that training programmes accounted for the best interest of the child.

On peace education, an Expert said non-governmental organizations and civil society had been undertaking peace-promoting activities. But did the State have systematic programmes to incorporate peace education into school curricula and the educational system? This was a responsibility of the State; how was such long-term preventive work conducted regarding peace, security, and children affected by armed conflict?

Experts also asked what legal aid had been given to victims of trafficking; whether the process to unify the Ombudsman’s Office had been completed; whether the legislation regulating the benefits for victims of civil war was discriminatory in any way; and whether children were legally prevented from being involved in any security activities outside the country.

A Committee Member noted that the Penal Code had no specific provisions banning the involvement of children in armed conflict. Should additional provisions be added to focus specifically on the involvement or conscription of children in armed conflict?

Response by the Delegation

Responding to the question on decentralisation, the delegation said Bosnia and Herzegovina was composed of several entities. Much of the responsibility was vested with the authorities of these entities and their cantons. Thus, little authority was given to the central power, but the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees was responsible for the preparation of treaty body reports and the coordination of various children's rights affairs. The Ministry operated at a national level and had a specific human rights department where children could file reports against violations of their rights.

Explaining institutions working on children's rights, the delegation said the Ombudsmen Offices considered individual applications and children's rights issues. There was also the Council for Children, which had however been out of operation since 2002 as the Republika Srpska had not agreed to participate. In the future, a department dealing specifically with children's rights would also be established at the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees. The constitutional court of Bosnia and Herzegovina could also issue decisions to remedy discrimination or other human rights violations. It could also repeal provisions of law as for example when it had repealed the salaries of civil servants regarding maternity leave, which had made a difference between servants in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and those in the Republika Srpska. Also, the Protocol was an equal instrument within the legal system of Bosnia and Herzegovina and could be directly applied.

Turning to dissemination, the delegation explained that the Protocol had been published in the country’s official gazette and was available on the website of all institutions working on human rights. The Protocol was also taught at judicial training centers, although rather indirectly, and civil servants working with children were trained on both the Convention and the Protocol. The Protocol and other instruments were further part of the curricula on human rights and democracy, which was being taught at secondary schools, universities and at some vocational schools.

The Committee wondered how children could learn about the Convention and the Optional Protocol specifically, not just related matters. Experts also pointed out that they had no information as to whether children had been consulted when developing the report. The Committee was anxious that children be informed about these documents and that the State took appropriate steps to achieve this, and also to provide peace education.

There was no special training programme on the Protocol, but there was a subject in school that dealt with the Protocol, the delegation replied. The Protocol may not have been explicitly at the forefront, but the Government would continue working on this. As for the culture of peace, the Committee rightly noted that there were problems in the education sector, but children were learning about the international obligations of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The delegation said even 15 years after the war there were still problems relating to the treatment of victims, notably psychosocial rehabilitation of war victims. The decentralised system had made it difficult to deal with victims in a unified manner, but the state strategy for transitional justice that was developed by the Council of Ministers would remedy that fact and solutions to provide the same services across Bosnia and Herzegovina were being sought. Activities relating to the war required certain political decisions, but these were unfortunately subject to different interpretations, either by the entities or the State.

Following-up on this explanation, an Expert asked who was responsible for implementing the state strategy for transitional justice, given the independent regions.

That was indeed one of the great challenges, the delegation acknowledged. The Council of Ministers had decided that it was the Ministry of Human Rights, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Civil Affairs that were responsible for implementing that strategy. The Ministry of Social Protection and other ministries, as well as civil society and independent experts were also part of the working group which was also supported by the United Nations Development Programme. During 2010 and 2011, a clearly-targeted document would be developed to further define the roles and responsibilities, but it also must be ensured that the political authorities would adopt key decisions to consolidate the society of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

As to how a child or legal guardian could address an independent institution to protect their rights, the delegation responded that could be done by addressing the Ombudsman. That office had not existed when the report had been prepared, but had been established by now. The Ombudsman was fully independent in exercising its duties and responsible for monitoring the rights of the child. There was also the institutional court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Parliamentary and Military Commissioner that had been appointed last year. The Commissioner was fully independent and obliged to inform the Human Rights Ombudsman in cases of irregularities so the latter could protect children's rights.

The delegation went on to explain that a new law on the process for recruiting soldiers had been drawn up in 2008. Vacancies were being announced in the press and care was being given that Bosnia and Herzegovina’s national composition was reflected in the composition of its armed forces. Soldiers could serve until 35 years of age.

Concerning anti-mine action, strategies were in place and the country hoped for the long-term financial support of the international community and country donors to implement these. Having signed the Convention and Protocols, Bosnia and Herzegovina was obliged to clear all mines by 2019. Although much remained to be done, de-mining centers had been established, awareness-raising activities had been undertaken, and the army had a demining battalion that had achieved significant results.

As for the involvement in foreign armed services, the delegation said Bosnia and Herzegovina citizens were forbidden to be part of foreign armed forces. The country had also established a memorandum of understanding with Serbia and passed a law on international legal assistance in 2009, including procedures for extradition and extraterritorial competencies.

On arms possession, the delegation explained that in 2005 the Council of Ministers had established a Council for the Control of Small Arms to regulate the use and misuse of small arms. A recent report of that body showed that civilians possessed many of country’s small arms. However, authorities had been able to confiscate and destroy some arms and ammunition and activities in this field had been intensified in recent years, due in no small part to the assistance received from the United Nations Development Programme.

According to a UNDP report, 16 per cent of households legally possessed small arms, so how effective were the results of the collecting campaign, an Expert asked. Responding, the delegation said the campaign was ongoing and successful, but it would be impossible to confiscate all small arms in the near future. Nevertheless, non-governmental organization research showed that the number of arms in the country had been reduced.

The delegation went on to say that the ministry in charge of implementing the Protocol at a national level was the Ministry of Human Rights.

Turning to the explicit prohibition of children’s involvement in armed forces, the delegation said the law on armed forces provided that any person recruited into the armed forces must be above the age of 18. Also, cases where national legislation did not cover contents of the Protocol, the latter could be directly applied.

As for psychosocial rehabilitation centres, the problems were not so much the centres themselves but tradition, the strong stereotypes, and taking the necessary political and financial decisions. The law on social protection also allowed for direct cooperation with non-governmental organizations that implemented services for victims of the war. The war had ended over 15 years ago and thus many suffering from war trauma were now adults. Efforts were therefore mostly made in the field of tackling post-traumatic stress disorder.

Responding to whether children of adults traumatised by the war had also been helped, the delegation said the Government was trying to establish an early-warning system in schools. Results had been achieved, but communities often did not wish to discuss war traumas as they continued to consider these as private problems. Trauma applied to most of the population and victim care would need to continue for a long time.

Related to this, on the issue of compensation, the delegation said authorities were taking efforts to set up a national framework law to harmonize the enjoyment of rights, but such a decision required political consent. After the elections in October 2010 a final decision would hopefully be taken. At the moment, war victims did receive compensation, although this was not appropriate enough and varied according to the entity.

The Council for Children’s Rights existed on paper but no longer worked. The decision was there, but the Council had no members from Republika Sprska. The idea for reviving it had not been given up and they had attempted to give the Council an apolitical nature to take it back to professional issues.

Preliminary Concluding Observations

PETER GURAN, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the reports of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in preliminary concluding observations, said the Committee wished to help Bosnia and Herzegovina to resolve its current situation. After 15 years it was time to start internally with new initiatives and not only be supported and maintained by the international community. That was a major preoccupation, but one that Mr. Guran said was shared by the delegation. Bosnia and Herzegovina was such a decentralised State, it was thus first of all important to strengthen the state strategy for transitional justice and to strengthen the structures. It was also very important to maintain the regional framework of cooperation so as to maintain peace, and children's rights were a good starting point for this.

Discussion on the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography

Presentation of Report

SALIHA DJUDERIJA, Assistant Minister of Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, said Bosnia and Herzegovina had signed the ratification act on 4 September 2002 without reservations.

The Ministry of Human Rights had consulted various ministries and bodies when preparing the report. First, all competent authorities dealing with children's rights had participated at an inter-sectoral working group. On the basis of reports and data available, experts used the text of the revised guidelines of the Committee to prepare information and answers which were then compiled and offered as a draft report to non-governmental organizations, international organizations and other stakeholders. This was followed by a public debate and the resulting comments had been incorporated into the draft report as appropriate.

The Convention had been included in the text of the Constitution. In light of the legal force of domestic sources and the current governance structure, the relevant legal sources were the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the constitutions of the entities, the Statute of the Brcko district, as well as the constitutions of the cantons, various laws, secondary legislation, and other general acts. It was common practice that most laws included a general prohibition of discrimination, including discrimination against children on any grounds.

Questions by Experts

HATEM KOTRANE, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Bosnia and Herzegovina, said Bosnia and Herzegovina had various action plans, but these did not cover everything from a sectoral point of view. There were many sectoral plans, but what about the coordination of all these; had authorities thought about a plan that covered all sectors? Mr. Kotrane also noted that not many statistics had been seen and wondered whether studies were available in Bosnia and Herzegovina to develop strategies and action plans.

The Committee was not yet convinced that national law had taken up the definitions of the Optional Protocol. Forced labour for example was not criminalised in the Penal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It may be forbidden, but was it sanctioned just as the sale of children? The Penal Code must be aligned with the provisions of the Optional Protocol.

The Rapporteur said the answers given this morning gave the impression that crimes committed abroad were being prosecuted, but that the extensions of the Protocol were not exactly applied in spite of the fact that many States extended their provisions on the basis of that Protocol.

Bosnia and Herzegovina had signed bilateral agreements with many neighbouring countries but apparently not with Serbia and Croatia, Mr. Kotrane went on to say. Was that in fact correct? He also wished to know how the police in Bosnia and Herzegovina and neighbouring countries were cooperating regarding child rights violations.

Another Expert then noted that the report highlighted Bosnia and Herzegovina’s problems in the area of data collection and analysis. While appreciating that, the Expert underscored that data was essential as policy-making required information from the field. The Optional Protocol really depended on knowing the background of both child victims and the perpetrators so that the laws could be applied in a targeted manner. Would the existing bureau of central statistics be strengthened?

There was also a strong lack of harmonization of laws. These differences were creating inequalities in the application of the Protocol and in the sanctions given. The laws urgently needed to be harmonized to ensure that children were not treated differently because they lived in different entities.

Another Committee Member said she was still not quite clear which ministry was in charge of implementing and monitoring the activities undertaken under this Optional Protocol. Was it the Ministry of Security or the Ministry of Human Rights which also worked on children's rights, including this Protocol?

In 2005 the Committee had raised the issue of birth registration and notably mentioned that authorities had refused to register Roma children without appropriate documentation. This was serious as it would make such children vulnerable to the crimes under the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.

Another expert wondered whether Bosnia and Herzegovina had considered establishing a hotline for children who were victims of offences under the Protocol.

Response by the Delegation

Responding to those questions and others, the delegation said, with regards to the competence of the various ministries, that the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees was responsible for implementing this Protocol, as well as any protective measures, and the Ministry of Security was responsible for the prevention of child trafficking more specifically.

What other functions did the Ministry of Human Rights have, an Expert asked? Did the Ministry have the human and financial resources to implement its mandate, and how was it ensured that children's rights remained a top priority?

The delegation said the Ministry Human Rights and Refugees was mostly a coordinator and intervener that helped local social welfare services if needed. It was enough for an non-governmental organization or local organ to send a request to intervene, based on which the ministry decided how resources would be pooled and how the intervention should be organised. For now, the Ministry was practically a preventive mechanism that attempted to ensure that no serious situations emerged at local levels. Certain local centres had no funds to help victims and that was where the ministry stepped in. The ministry also provided grants to non-governmental organizations to ensure they were ready to act if their support was needed, although non-governmental organizations of course also had their own initiatives.

In terms of work with the Roma community, Bosnia and Herzegovina had joined the Roma inclusion decade and launched a programme for unregistered children. Efforts had been made to assess how many Roma children were not registered, but the attitude of Roma people was problematic since parents often did not wish to register their children. Authorities had therefore also conducted awareness raising activities and the relevant authorities and entities were now ensuring registration was done ex-officio by the health institutions where the birth happened. The problem had not been rooted out, also due to the Roma lifestyle, but Government would continue working on this.

In terms of trafficking of children and sale of children, legislation had gone through positive changes since the drafting of the report.

The delegation went on to say that since 2008 work on the methodologies of data collection had been done. Now, data was collected every year across the country and since last year a national report on violence against children was prepared, disaggregating the data for the various types of crimes.

The delegation explained that the Council of Ministers had appointed a state coordinator for combating trafficking in persons. The coordinator had been working with representatives of various ministries and coordinated the activities of international organizations and non-governmental organizations working in this field. Combating trafficking in persons had been planned very comprehensively and considerable success had been achieved in this field. This may also be thanks to the clear political will on this issue.

Experts pointed out that the sale of children was different from trafficking and could occur for various reasons, such as forced labour. Were there any plans to also criminalise the sale of children, as prescribed by the Optional Protocol?

The delegation said according to its legislation whoever sold or bought a person under 18 for adoption, transportation of organs, exploitation by work, or any other purpose, shall be punished by imprisonment of at least five years. Experts pointed out that the national legislation may contain some definitions, but it did not fully comply with the Protocol and did not fully cover its scope.

Asked what had been done to help families reintegrate child victims of trafficking, the delegation said social workers had been trained to implement good practices. The idea was to ensure the best interest of the child and not to re-victimize children. Social workers tried to ensure complete services for the child in all cases, but sometimes parents refused to cooperate.

As for children’s knowledge about the Optional Protocol, the delegation said since 2008 the Ministry of Human Rights had been organising sensitisation campaigns for children in primary schools about violence against children, including sexual violence and the sale of children. In cooperation with Save the Children, the ministry had also implemented awareness raising activities on all forms of violence against children from 2008 to 2010.

Experts said the Committee had learned that the manner of hearing cases and making judgments were unequal due to different criminal laws. In some cases testimonies of children had reportedly not been used.

The delegation explained that the Committee was probably referring to the case of a mentally disabled child victim whose testimony had not been used for that reason. However, that was a rather exceptional case. Generally children were listened to when giving statements during criminal proceedings. However, when hearing minor plaintiffs for offences such as rape or sexual violence, witnesses could not be asked about their life before the offence or their testimony could not be used in court.

Asked whether compensation was given, as expected in article 9 of the Optional Protocol, the delegation confirmed that children were free to request compensation for damages.

Turning to extraterritorial jurisdiction, the delegation explained that citizens committing offences against Bosnia and Herzegovina or its nationals could be prosecuted if they came to its territory, and the pre-conditions for extradition had been established by a 2009 law on international legal assistance. Bosnia and Herzegovina had also established numerous bilateral agreements with countries of former Yugoslavia on criminal matters.

The police internationally cooperated through the International Criminal Police Organization, the regional center for cross-border crime, as well as bilateral agreements on police cooperation, all of which included the exchange of information as well as joint planning of investigations.

The delegation said Bosnia and Herzegovina had two country-wide hotlines, one on internet abuse and the other on child prostitution.

As for institutionalised children, the Council of Ministers had in 2009 appointed a commission for the monitoring of institutions with child residents, but not a single case of abuse had been reported.

The Committee pointed to past reports about officials and security company employees who had been involved in child abuses without being brought to justice. The delegation said the Committee probably referred to cases dating back to the year 2000. One procedure nevertheless had taken place at the time and meanwhile the situation had changed dramatically. Bosnia and Herzegovina was not immune to such crimes, but the past few years had not seen any drastic cases in that regard.

Bosnia and Herzegovina was aware of the risk of sex tourism and included inspections in so-called tourism communities so that hotels would implement preventive mechanisms.

Preliminary Concluding Observations

HATEM KOTRANE, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in preliminary concluding observations, felt that Bosnia and Herzegovina pressed on with the practical implementation of the Optional Protocol. Progress had been made regarding a number of phenomena described in the Optional Protocol, but the various action plans should be strengthened and further coordinated. Difficulties also remained in terms of harmonisation of criminal legislation and expanding the competence of courts as referred to in the Optional Protocol. The Rapporteur hoped that there would be sufficient basis for Bosnia and Herzegovina to extend its competence with the help of the international community and trusted that the recommendations of the Committee provided a basis to strengthen children's rights.

SALIHA DJUDERIJA, Assistant Minister of Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, said the suggestions and questions asked helped Bosnia and Herzegovina to ensure better protection of children's rights, to which the country was firmly committed.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CRC10/036E