COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE REVIEWS REPORT OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

The Committee against Torture this morning concluded its consideration of the combined second to fifth periodic report of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the efforts of that country to give effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Introducing the report, Saliha Djuderija, Assistant Minister for Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, said activities had been initiated to harmonize the criminal legislation of Republika Srpska and the Brcko District with the definition of torture contained in the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A draft Law on Victims of Torture and Civilian Victims of War had also been prepared, aimed at establishing a mechanism for providing compensation and harmonizing the rights of victims of war and torture in the country. However, winning the political support for the adoption of this law remained challenging.

Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Committee Expert Luis Gallegos Chiriboga said it was very preoccupying that the judgements of the Constitutional Court were not respected and followed through, leaving victims and their families with a sentiment of abandonment. The Law on Missing Persons should also be respected, and investigations of missing persons should continue, Mr. Chiriboga underscored. With regards to the ongoing reform, the Rapporteur asked for greater detail on the amended Law of Criminal Procedures.

Xuexian Wang, the Co-Rapporteur for the report of Bosnia and Herzegovina, wished to know how members of the Office of Public Complaints were selected, how the alleged lack of victim protection was tackled and how Bosnia and Herzegovina had followed-up the previous recommendation of the Committee to establish independent monitoring mechanisms. Ms. Wang noted with concern that the legislation on the duration of solitary confinement varied among the different entities and that threats or violence had to be used for a crime to be considered as rape in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Other members of the Committee then raised a number of issues and questions, including that the right of minors to be placed in separate confinements had been infringed in some cases and that the draft Law on the Victims of Torture, and the compensation system under consideration, might offer different treatment depending on the entity a person lived in. Committee members asked for statistics on ill-treatment in entity prisons, and to what extent the Ombudsman investigated psychological torture, also requesting more information on the country’s legislation on stateless persons and its cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

The delegation of Bosnia and Herzegovina also included other representatives of the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Ministry of Security of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Ministry of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Office of the Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The delegation further included members of the Office of the Prosecutor of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Ministry of the Interior of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Ministry of Justice of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor of the Brcko District, the Police of the Republika Srpska, the Ministry of Justice of the Republika Srpska, and the Permanent Mission of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

As one of the 147 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Bosnia and Herzegovina is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture. The Committee considered the report of Bosnia and Herzegovina over two meetings.


When the Committee reconvenes this afternoon at 3 a.m. it will start its consideration of the initial report of Mongolia.


Report of Bosnia and Herzegovina

The combined second to fifth periodic report of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CAT/C/BIH/2-5) notes that Bosnia and Herzegovina has ratified the Convention and has become a signatory of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Also, the country’s Law on Execution of Criminal Sanctions prescribes that convicted persons enjoy the protection of basic rights. The treatment of convicted persons must be humane and with respect for their human dignity, to preserve their physical and mental integrity, taking into account to maintain the necessary order and discipline. The criminal laws of the Republic of Srpska and the Brcko District had previously not contained an express legal definition of torture as covered by Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code and the Convention. However, comprehensive amendments had been made to the Law on Criminal Procedure and the Criminal Code was currently being amended upon recommendation of a team tasked with monitoring and evaluating the harmonization of criminal law. The increased influx of complaints of detainees and prisoners further led the Ombudsman of Bosnia and Herzegovina to visit all correctional institutions and have insight into all aspects of prison life, with special emphasis on the enforcement of the country’s obligations under the two afore-mentioned Conventions.

The report underscores that to date there have been no cases of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment by employees of the Federal Police Administration. However, persons deprived of freedom by the Federal Police Administration are briefed on their right to submit complaints and may submit a complaint against improper and inappropriate behaviour of police officers. Should such cases occur, they would be subjected to urgent and unbiased investigations. In fact, every citizen has the right and opportunity to file a complaint regarding the Federal Police Administration’s proceedings. The unit for professional standards is responsible for handling such complaints, leading the internal procedures against the police officials and, as appropriate, submitting these to the Disciplinary Commission to start disciplinary proceedings. Internal investigations were initiated, inter alia, in cases of serious injuries to a detainee or person under police protection, in cases of incidents relating to the use of the police weapon, or any incidents of abuse or coercion of force.

With regards to the situation in detention centres, the report notes that overcrowding is particularly pronounced in the Foca prison, the correctional Institute Banja Luka and in Eastern Sarajevo. In other criminal correctional facilities the occupancy rate ranges between 70 and 80 per cent on average. When determining the treatment for each convicted person, it should be taken into account that the most risky categories, prone to violence and destructive activities, are not scheduled in the same collectives. If the house rules regarding violence are violated, disciplinary proceedings are launched against perpetrators, and appropriate disciplinary penalties are brought.

Presentation of Report

SALIHA DJUDERIJA, Assistant Minister for Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, said the preparation of this report had included representatives of various Ministries and the Office of the Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Prosecutors of the entities and the Brcko District, the Ministries of Justice of the entities, the Ministries of the Interior and the Police Authority of the Brcko District.

Speaking about the activities undertaken over the five years since Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted its last report, Ms. Djuderija said activities had been initiated to harmonize the criminal legislation of Republika Srpska and the Brcko District with the definition of torture contained in the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The criminal legislation of Republika Srpska did not contain the definition of torture as set by the Convention. The process of harmonization was still ongoing since, in parallel to this harmonization, there had been proposals to change the legislation regarding aspects of corruption, war crimes and trafficking in human beings, among other topics.

Ms. Djuderija noted that there had been improvements in criminal cases and better cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague. Also, the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina had established a Working Group in 2009 to prepare Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Strategy for Transitional Justice. That strategy aimed at establishing facts, conducting reconciliation and institutional reform, establishing a system of reparation and construction of memorials and commemorations of victims of the recent war. To prepare this strategy, a very complex process had been launched, in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme, with the aim to submit the strategy to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Council of Ministers for approval in 2011.

Bosnia and Herzegovina had also adopted a Strategy for Dealing with War Crime Cases, aware that this was a long and complex process on which depended the efficient disposal of all remaining war crime cases. The Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees had also initiated activities to improve the situation of women victims of wartime violence with a view to secure a durable and sustainable mechanism for their protection.

Ms. Djuderija said a draft Law on Victims of Torture and Civilian Victims of War had been prepared, aimed at establishing a mechanism for providing compensation and harmonizing the rights of victims of war and torture in the country. Winning the political support for the adoption of this law remained challenging, but efforts were underway to submit this draft to Parliament in this post-election period.

Another important development was that Bosnia and Herzegovina had ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Authorities, in collaboration with the Office of the State Ombudsman, had initiated the establishment of national prevention mechanisms.

The Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees had also initiated measures to appoint a Monitoring Committee for penal institutions, police stations and psychiatric institutions, with a view to establish an independent monitoring mechanism in places of involuntary liberty deprivation, and a Monitoring Committee had been established to oversee residential facilities for child victims of violence, victims of trafficking, asylum seekers, illegal migrants, refugees, the elderly, persons with disabilities, as well as other institutions as needed.

Bosnia and Herzegovina had also paid particular attention to investigating violence in prisons and detention facilities and continued its efforts to improve the treatment of prisoners, particularly in terms of formal education and occupational activities. In the past few years, notable progress had also been made in the level of professionalism of persons conducting hearings with detainees. These professionals regularly attended training on the latest methods, techniques and rules of their work. The State party was also close to establishing a permanent monitoring system which would allow unannounced visits to detention facilities. In addition, monitoring teams were able to communicate with detainees in total confidence.

Ms. Djuderija went on to say that the Institute for Missing Persons encountered some difficulties in its work but was fully operational and fulfilled its mission. In fact, in 2009 and thus far in 2010, the Institute had presented evidence that 20,000 of the 27,794 persons hitherto recorded as missing had been found, of which more than 17,500 persons had been identified. This was 72 per cent of all registered missing persons.

Bosnia and Herzegovina had also continued its activities to suppress trafficking in persons, particularly in building the capacities to support victims. A central database had been established to mange data on persons identified as victims of trafficking.

Also notable were that the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees compiled data on ethnically motivated crimes on an annual basis, including cases of inhuman and degrading treatment, that the Office of the State Ombudsman of Bosnia and Herzegovina had been unified, and that the mandate of that Ombudsman had been expanded, particularly regarding cases of discrimination.

Questions by Experts

LUIS GALLEGOS CHIRIBOGA, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Bosnia and Herzegovina, noted with concern that an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 women had been subjected to rape, but that the authorities had failed to establish the real number. The Rapporteur also noted that 160,000 criminal cases had not been resolved. This was an extraordinary number which, in any other part of the world, would mean a judicial collapse.

Also very preoccupying was the fact that the judgements of the Constitutional Court were not respected and followed through, leaving victims and their families with a sentiment of abandonment. The Law on Missing Persons should also be respected, and investigations of missing persons should continue, Mr. Chiriboga underscored.

With regards to the ongoing reform, Mr. Chiriboga asked for greater detail on the amended Law of Criminal Procedures and whether the Committee could be informed of the outcome of the analysis of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s trafficking legislation compared to international instruments.

In terms of non-refoulement, could the delegation comment on reports that the Constitutional Court had failed to properly assess cases of international applicants for protection. Also, could the delegation elaborate on the statement of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s report saying there had been “no cases of extradition, return or expulsion because of concerns that people could be tortured”.

Mr. Chiriboga also wished the delegation to comment on reports alleging that, in the context of the unfair proceedings on the war on terror, some 1,500 foreign nationals, who had come to Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-1995 war, had been stripped of their citizenship. Also, could the delegation inform the Committee on the criteria used for such decisions, the Rapporteur asked.

Mr. Chiriboga also wondered to what extent the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons had been implemented, while also pointing out that the general lack of data collection was an issue of concern.

XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Bosnia and Herzegovina, said the Committee had received reports that two officers were overseeing 500 prisoners, which was clearly too much. What measures had the authorities taken to tackle this situation, Mr. Wang wondered.

Bosnia and Herzegovina had done much concerning the activities of the police, Mr. Wang noted, but pointed to reports that said not enough was done to investigate police ill-treatment. What had authorities done to tackle this situation?

The Co-Rapporteur also wished to know how members of the Office of Public Complaints were selected, how the alleged lack of victim protection was tackled and how Bosnia and Herzegovina had followed-up the previous recommendation of the Committee to establish independent monitoring mechanisms.

The Committee had also recommended in the past that Bosnia and Herzegovina establish a fund for the families of missing persons. Had this been done, Mr. Wong wondered, also asking what the delegation’s reaction was to reports saying many trafficking victims just gave up rather than using the lengthy support process.

Mr. Wang also pointed out that the meaning of “reinforced surveillance measures” remained unclear, that legislation on the duration of solitary confinement varied among the different entities, and that redress was important as there should be official recognition that wrong had been done to the victims.

Another Committee member asked whether sexual intercourse without consent would not be sufficient to define rape. This was the most common definition used, but legislation in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina required that, in addition, threats or violence be used for a crime to be considered as rape.

A Committee member said the State party’s report made reference to overcrowding in prisons and Banja Luka correctional institute, asking whether this problem had been solved, and whether detailed information could be given on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s detention facilities.

Amnesty International had provided interesting information suggesting that Bosnia and Herzegovina failed to provide access to provide remedies and reparation. In fact, it seemed that victims of sexual violence in the Republika Srpska were unable to claim any reparation. Could the delegation comment on this? Amnesty International further said that victims of sexual violence only received 70 per cent of the financial support given to war veterans. Could the delegation comment on this, an Expert wondered.

In terms of transitional justice, and more particularly the afore-mentioned draft Law on the Victims of Torture and the compensation system under consideration, an Expert expressed concerns that these might not be comprehensive. The treatment may vary, depending on the entity a person lived in, the Committee member said, underscoring that a sound compensation system must be comprehensive, individual and collective.

Experts also noted with concern that the right of minors to be placed in separate confinements had been infringed in some cases. Keeping young people together with adults was one of the worst things, the Committee member said, underscoring that this was a mortgage on the future of a country. How was this problem addressed in the State party?

Experts asked for statistics on ill-treatment in entity prisons, whether information could be given on the outcome of such cases, and how Bosnia and Herzegovina cooperated with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to bring to justice high-level war criminals, given that fighting impunity was essential under the Convention.

Experts also wished to know about Bosnia and Herzegovina’s legislation on stateless persons, to what extent the Ombudsman investigated psychological torture, what the status of the unification of the different Ombudsmen was, and whether - in terms of non-refoulement - the delegation could comment on the case of six Algerians sent to Guantanamo.

Response of Bosnia and Herzegovina

SALIHA DJUDERIJA, Assistant Minister for Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, responding to these and other questions, said the Ombudsmen Offices had been reunified on 1 May 2009, meaning that the process of unification had been completed successfully. It was important for the Committee to know that the Ombudsman would play an important role in the monitoring of prisons and detention facilities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Ombudsman had established a database, which provided statistics broken down by type of crime, and the next report of that body was expected on 10 December, providing a critical overview of the remaining issues in the country.

In terms of transitional justice, Ms. Djuderija said a Working Group had been active for the past one and a half years, attempting to find adequate solutions for all victims. That State-level Working Group brought together civil society, representatives of Ministries, academia and other entities, in an attempt to articulate an appropriate strategic approach to some key problems that kept coming up in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The problem of women victims of war had been repeatedly mentioned in this context as this group of people had very specific needs. The basic forms of protection for women victims of war existed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but were implemented at entity levels. Women victims of war could claim a specific percentage of disability and thus exercise a right to social benefits, but according to the constitution, it was the entities which were responsible for the reintegration of women victims of war. This was a difficult task which was always conditioned by adequate political decisions, the delegation underscored.

Bosnia and Herzegovina had done a lot in the area of missing persons and had succeeded in identifying about 70 per cent of all hitherto missing persons. The Institute for Missing Persons continued its work despite the difficulties relating to the exhumation and identification of bodies. This process also depended on the cooperation of the families because the success of identifications depended on whether all family members provided DNA samples or not. The families of victims received financial support, but this varied depending on the entity they lived in. The harmonization of this legislation was not yet achieved due to a lack of political decisions, among other reasons.

In terms of compensation for victims of war crimes more specifically, Ms. Djuderija said between 1,000 and 3,000 families had requested compensation. This was a very exhaustive number, particularly given the political changes currently occurring in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nonetheless, the draft Law on the Victims of Torture would be the first piece of legislation that the new Government would consider.

Other members of the delegation said Bosnia and Herzegovina had had 36,000 criminal cases pending in 2009. This was not excessive, given the resources in place, and could be managed without compromising the right to a fair and expeditious trial. War crimes, more specifically, must be completed within 7 years, for the most difficult cases, and within 15 years, for the others, according a 2002 strategy adopted on the issue. One of the tasks ahead was to establish a unified database of war crime victims and determine their total number.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia had no concerns about its cooperation with Bosnia and Herzegovina, the delegation asserted. It added that the country had no pending extradition obligations regarding suspected war criminals.

On the violation of prisoners’ rights, the delegation said that national legislation made no distinction between suspects, detainees or prisoners, thus ensuring that the same criteria and standards were applied. Reporting violations of the rights of prisoners might be problematic, but the legal measures for this were in place.

Responding to the alleged lack of witness protection, the delegation said the Office of the Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina, among other bodies, was fully capable of providing witness protection as it disposed of relevant and fully staffed services. At the entity level, however, such capacities were not as good as at the State-level. Nonetheless, they were being developed and some types of victim protection, for example that the voices of victims could not be recognised, were available.

According to national legislation, persons deprived of their liberty must be informed of their rights promptly and in a language they understood. This included that they were aware of the reasons for their liberty deprivation and their right to select their own defence council. Arrested persons unable to pay for their legal defence were entitled to receive such defence for free.

Criminal Procedure Legislation further prescribed that a court may not use testimonies received under violation of the rights covered by the national legislation, the Convention or other international treaties to which Bosnia and Herzegovina had acceded. Also, suspects could not be held in police custody longer than 24 hours and had to be brought before a prosecutor or a court.

It was true that the crime of rape was legally set in such a way that the use of force or the threat of force were important elements. This was one of the changes in the criminal legislation that must be considered to ensure that the absence of consent to a sexual act was sanctioned, the delegation said, asserting that this would soon be looked into.

The Committee had also spoken about video recording during criminal proceedings, the delegation noted, saying that according to the country’s laws all examinations of suspects must be recorded, either in audio or audiovisual form.

As to the situation in correctional facilities in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the delegation said authorities had made significant investments in this field, resulting in the availability of 160 additional correctional officers, an increase of the capacity of such detention facilities by 1,077 places, the reconstruction of new public telephone boots and new video recording equipment, among other things. In terms of prison overcrowding, more specifically, measures had been taken to construct new prison facilities. However, authorities were aware that this could not entirely solve the problem. Therefore, alternative forms of sanctions, such as community services, were used and would be further looked into.

The delegation asserted that solitary confinement was exclusively used as a disciplinary measure in Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to the law on criminal sanctions, this was only allowed for cases of prisoners who either posed a security risk to other prisoners or who did not respect the house rules of a liberty deprivation facility. The delegation however acknowledged a legislative gap regarding solitary confinement which was allowed for only up to 10 days at the national level, but up to 20 days at the entity level. The Committee had also spoken about isolation, the delegation noted, but asserted that this did not exist in these terms in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where solitary confinement was the only measures to be taken in this regard.

Responding to questions and comments about the medical care provided to prisoners and detainees, the delegation said that, according to the law, convicted persons could request to be examined in external local institutions to ensure that examinations were impartial. In such cases, however, prisoners must themselves cover the costs, if the external medical examination had not been recommended by a prison doctor.

Prisoners could also get in touch with the outside world, such as their family or lawyer, they could contact the Ombudsman or non-governmental organizations, and they were allowed to communicate with inspection teams appointed by the Ministry of Justice. Correctional institutions were by law obliged to grant these rights to prisoners, the delegation underscored.

In terms of monitoring of prison conditions, the delegation said current legislation ensured a number of parties access to detainees and the exchange of confidential information. There were several monitoring bodies and inspectorates that supervised the prisons and detention facilities, including an independent committee appointed by the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the International Committee of the Red Cross, among other bodies.

Bosnia and Herzegovina applied all standard rules to ensure that persons with disabilities in residential facilities enjoyed all their rights, including protection from abuse or inhuman or degrading treatment. The Council of Ministers had appointed a Monitoring Committee to oversee residential institutions. This body had visited most of the relevant institutions to see for itself the conditions there, finding that improvement areas mostly included staff recruitment, training and financing.

Responding to queries about bringing the definition of torture in line with the Convention, the delegation said the offense of extortion of confessions contained in entity laws coincided by 90 per cent with the Convention’s definition of torture. Nonetheless, Bosnia and Herzegovina had the obligation to bring its laws in line with the Convention. The team supervising the harmonization of national legislation would prioritize this issue and complete the process as quickly as possible.

The delegation confirmed that international conventions were applied across the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This was the case for both conventions that Bosnia and Herzegovina had acceded to itself - which happened at the State-level - and the treaty accessions it had inherited from the former Yugoslavia.

The delegation said that Bosnia and Herzegovina had signed agreements with Serbia and Croatia in terms of extradition of dual nationals. These bilateral agreements provided for transfers of criminals with dual nationality who crossed the border to a country after committing a crime in the other.

Also, in 2009, the criminal legislation pertaining to human trafficking had been improved and harmonized across the entities. Nonetheless, procedures for trafficking victims to receive compensation were long and it was difficult to receive compensation. Victims could file compensation claims, but only a few cases had been brought to a successful end. Nonetheless, the Government financed non-governmental organizations to provide services to victims of trafficking, the delegation underscored.

Further Comments by Committee Experts

LUIS GALLEGOS CHIRIBOGA, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Bosnia and Herzegovina, on the issue of missing persons, reiterated his concern that families of missing persons felt abandoned as they were often not sufficiently informed about the cases and their outcomes.

Mr. Chiriboga also emphasised that the whole definition of torture, as set in the Convention, must be included in all of the country’s legislation, also at the entity level. The issue was not about extraction of confessions, but about torture in its holistic sense.

The Rapporteur noted the high numbers of war cases, saying that persons who had lived through crimes required a recognition and compensation of their human rights violations. Bosnia and Herzegovina must recognize the importance of political consensus to tackle this issue, Mr. Chiriboga underscored.

The definition of rape must also be changed in legislation, and the rape of men must be included. Also, how many victims of war crimes, rape and sexual degradation had received treatment? Mr. Chiriboga said that since no action had been taken on these cases, the perpetrators remained free, making it difficult for victims to be at ease. The Committee’s major preoccupation was that the notion that such crimes were permissible would be reinforced if the perpetrators were not brought to justice.

XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Bosnia and Herzegovina, noted with appreciation that many missing persons had been found. However, about 7,000 people continued to be missing, Mr. Wang noted, encouraging Bosnia and Herzegovina to continue its efforts to settle this issue.

Following-up on the explanation that some war crime cases were investigated within 7 years and others within 15 years, the Rapporteur asked starting from which year this was counted.

Mr. Wang also wished to know whether protection was provided to all witnesses or only those with special needs, whether allegations of threats and intimidations against witnesses had been investigated, and whether the delegation could comment on the 10-day gap on the duration of solitary confinement at the national and the entity levels.

Another Committee member underscored that the obligation of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the Convention was not only to refrain from torture, but also to avoid expelling people to countries were they may be subjected to torture. Amnesty International, for example, had reported on the transfer of a detainee to a country where he had been tortured.

An Expert asked how many people had been detained longer than 180 days, how many people fell under the emergency category, whether the delegation could comment on reports by the Ombudsman on detainees who were deprived of legal aid, and whether indefinite detention without charge on the basis of secret evidence existed in the country, as reports suggested.

Response by Delegation

Responding to these and other questions, the delegation of Bosnia and Herzegovina said in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s political context it was difficult to speak about cases of national security, particularly about persons who had been admitted to the country on the basis of security aspects.

Responding to queries on whether persons could be detained without a time limit, the delegation said two such cases had ended up in court and in both cases the Government had paid compensation. Everything was being done to fully uphold the standards which Bosnia and Herzegovina had accepted, Ms. Duderija underscored.

Informing families of the whereabouts of their missing loved ones was difficult, not least because fifteen years had passed since the disappearances and because uncovering burial sites was not a simple process. Nonetheless, all the data that was available to the Institute for Missing Persons and all information contained in the database were fully available to families.

The procedure to receive compensation was not complicated, the delegation went on to say, while pointing to the great number of requests. It was however problematic that courts in the different entities delivered very different judgments. Tackling this was above all difficult because it required full agreement by the political sphere of the entities.

The timeframe for the investigation of war crimes had begun to run as of 2008, the delegation said in response to the Committee’s question.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT10/027E