REPORT ON
THE STATE OF HUMAN RIGHTS
IN Bosnia and Herzegovina
(Analysis for period from January to December 2003)
Introduction
The beginning of the year 2003 was marked by the constituting of new governmental authorities from the ranks of the parties that won the elections in November last year. The nationalistic parties - SDS, SDA and HDZ - again came to power and formed a coalition joined by the political formations close to them. The efforts of the authorities in power were primarily directed toward preservation of ethnic and political divisions. They did not show willingness to undertake major reforms, especially in the sphere of economy, necessary for renewal of economy, normalisation of the overall situation in the post-war BiH and getting close to Euro-Atlantic integration processes. True, the parliaments and the governments did adopt some laws and decisions of reformist nature; however, this was done under pressure and through influence of international community, which still plays a key role in the life of the country.
The High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina continued with the order-giving practice, neglecting the need to strengthen democratic institutions and dialogue with civil society.
In the area of human rights, neither the international community nor domestic authorities showed a will really to apply the high standards in this area set by the Dayton Peace Accords.
The human rights were on the margin, while the Law on the Protection of Rights of National Minorities, the Law on Gender Equality, and the ratified Protocols 12 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights were passed under the pressure of the Council of Europe as part of the post-accession commitments undertaken at the moment of accession to the Council of Europe in 2002. The adopted laws are neither being implemented nor have by-laws to enable such implementation been passed.
Based on the decision of international community, under the pretext that it was too expensive, the Human Rights Chamber, the judicial instance with the highest credibility in the country, a strong and reliable support for citizens whose rights were violated, was abolished. Since the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina still can not access the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg, this means that the possibility to protect human rights before the courts-of-law was reduced to minimum, if not fully abolished.
The fact that Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić, suspect of crimes commited during the war, are still at large and outside the reach of justice, is burdening the overall situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and making more difficult the normalisation of relations both within the country and with international community.
The unreasonable Law on Ombudsmen of Bosnia and Herzegovina entitled the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina to nominate the candidates for this important position. As it could have been expected, the Presidency did not keep to the basic criteria which the future ombudsmen should meet, so that the people close to nationalistic political parties, without any references in the sphere of human rights, were proposed for this position.
In spite of the fact that the NGOs, as late back as 2000, launched the initiative for creation of Commission for Truth and Reconciliation, the operation of which would undoubtedly alleviate inter-ethnic tensions and contribute to establishment of mutual trust, this idea did not meet the support of the government so that any serious confrontation with the past and work on reconciliation were thus avoided.
In
spite of constant insistence of the Helsinki Committee for
Human Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina and others, the
authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina still do not offer the
information on thousands of citizens officially recorded as
missing.
Among the positive tendencies we should mention the successful process of return of property to refugees and displaced persons. Toward the end of 2003, about 90% of the property was returned to the pre-war owners.
However, the actual process of return unfolds with many more difficulties. Depending on the region, the percentage of return varies between 7%, as was the case with some municipalities in the eastern part of Republika Srpska, up to almost 50% in Drvar, Glamoč and Grahovo.
The social problems and employment rights of the workers became in the course of 2003 one of the biggest problems in the area of human rights. In numerous cases, the process of privatisation resulted in lay-offs, although the social programmes for taking care of redundant workers were not developed. In addition, a number of new owners unlawfully dismissed the workers found in the companies and employed new ones. The major problem, however, consisted in a frequent habit of new owners to skip meeting their basic obligations toward employees. In some of the enterprises, the contributions for pension and health fund are not being paid at all, which meant a denial of even the minimum rights of the employees. Apart from that, in some of the enterprises, the workers did not receive their salaries for the previous two, and somewhere even four years. It is with difficulty that employees can see their rights satisfied in the courts of law, which are slow, inefficient, and sometimes even corrupt. As the trade unions lack the necessary strength, while the authorities are arrogant in their attitude and refuse to enter into dialogue with employees, the latter increasingly decide to take to the most dramatic forms of sedition, i.e. hunger strikes, road blockages, suicidal threats, and similar.
Judical reform and situation in judiciary
All
reports on the state of human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina
after the signing of the Dayton Agreement pointed at
inefficiency of the judicial system, i.e. slowness of courts,
very often mentioning corruption within judiciary system. In
1998, the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina
initiated a reform of judiciary. Until then, judiciary was
separated in two entities, and each entity had its own Supreme
Court. Apart from regular courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina
established in entities, under the Dayton Agreement two courts
were established outside the judicial system, at the level of
the state. These were Human Rights Chamber and the
Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. As
international community indicated that there was a need for
war crime cases to be tried before the domestic courts in BiH,
and after the establishment of the Ministry of Justice in the
Council of Ministers of BiH, it proved logical to establish a
court at the level of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina that
would try war crime cases approved by ICTY, and also organised
crime and terrorism cases. The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina
was established in early 2003, and started working on cases in
March this year, when the Criminal Procedure Code and Criminal
Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina were enacted.
When the High Representative, Paddy Ashdown, took the function, he confirmed that it was a priority task to undertake a reform of judiciary, in three directions: first - a reform of courts, second - election of judges and prosecutors, and third - reform of legislation. All three segments of reform have been conducted simultaneously, and are currently in final stages.
The first segment of reform is reform of court system and jurisdictions, i.e. reducing the number of courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, that would have a smaller number of judges than before. Indeed, the analyses made in the field of judiciary showed that there were too many courts and judges per inhabitant in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as compared with courts in Europe. In line with these findings, legal regulations were adopted abolishing some of the municipal (basic) courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and providing for smaller number of judges altogether in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
At the same time, the prosecutorial system was restructured in a similar manner. This process should naturally be seen in the light of changes in the criminal and civil procedure codes, which now to a large extent facilitate the work of the courts by transferring the burden of proof to the parties in the proceedings.
However, irrespective of the changes in the procedural laws, i.e. of the fact that in future less burden will be placed on the courts, it should be noted here that the reduction in the number of judges will at present inevitably create a backlog, consisting of cases that were not disposed of in courts and prosecutors’ offices before the passage of new procedural laws. At this moment, the situation is such that under the new procedural laws the cases are being disposed of in courts and prosecutors’ offices considerably quicker than earlier, but at the same time the courts and prosecutors’ offices have an enormous backlog of earlier cases that can hardly be resolved in a manner more efficient than in the previous operation of the courts.
True, in Bosnia and Herzegovina there is a larger number of judges per capita than in other European countries, but it is also true that in European judiciary systems there are large numbers of associate professional staff who enable the judges to do only the work of adjudicating the cases, by doing all other related tasks for them. The reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina does not foresee a large number of “accessory associates to judges”, so that the courts have only a small number of professional associate staff, 2-3 per court at most, and thus therefore the reduced number of judges cannot result in higher efficiency. This process of reduction in number of courts and judges should have been spread over a longer time period, until the backlog was resolved, since, performed in this way, the whole process becomes counter-productive. Speaking of the backlog, it suffices to illustrate this by the fact that the processing of an administrative cases before a court of cantonal or district jurisdiction takes one to three years in Bosnia and Herzegovina, while the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina has a three or four-years backlog at this moment. The administrative disputes include very important cases relating to the status rights of the citizens, as well as all other cases in which administrative bodies pass final and binding decisions.
Another aspect of the reform is the re-election of judges in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The High Representative has established High Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils, composed of domestic judges and prosecutors and foreign experts, with a view to appointing new judges and prosecutors.
Vacancies have been announced for all judiciary bodies i.e. for all judges and prosecutors in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In parallel to these vacancy announcements, the citizens were given the possibility to lodge their complaints against individual judges and prosecutors to High Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils, and the Councils examined whether the complaints were founded or not. After the expiry of vacancy announcements, the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils engaged in making a selection of judges and prosecutors. In the process, all candidates applying for vacancies were invited by High Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils for interview, and the decision whether they would be appointed or not depended on the references quoted in their applications, results of the interviews and the findings of the investigations concerning the complaints against the work of incumbent judges and prosecutors. This was the method that has been used in selecting the judges and prosecutors in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the whole process should be completed by 1 April 2004.
Seen by the results of the selection of judges and prosecutors who have been appointed up to now, we may conclude that the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils had appropriately critical criteria in appointing judges and prosecutors, that they have respected national proportionality in all the courts and prosecutor’s offices, and that, whenever possible, they gave preference to the candidates who either did not work in the judicial system or have left the system in 1992 or during the war, that is to say, most frequently to those persons who had left Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Although we might say, in regard to some individual judges and prosecutors, that the selection criteria were not quite well balanced, and that particular criteria were not used with the same weight in every individual case, still we may assess the selection as positive.
Here we must particularly bear in mind that selected judges and prosecutors are for the first time being appointed for life, i.e. that the system of re-election will cease to exist. The limitations to the life-long appointment have been provided for through a continued oversight of the work of each individual appointed judge or prosecutor, which will be conducted by the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council that will be established after the completion of the process of appointment of all judges and prosecutors. This oversight will include a possibility to lodge complaints on the work of individual judges and prosecutors, against whom it will be possible to conduct disciplinary procedures, i.e. there will be given a possibility for judges or prosecutors to be removed in cases of serious abuse of judicial or prosecutorial duties.
This process was launched because one of the basic findings of the international community in the analysis of the work of judiciary was that courts and prosecutor’s offices were dependent on political parties in power, due to the manner of their election. Therefore, one of the basic principles of the rule of law, the principle of the independence of judiciary, was supposed to be imperative in the course of reform. Unfortunately, however, this process took exceptionally long and resulted in obvious dependence of the members of judiciary on international community itself. This dependency on decisions and opinions of international community is still visible, and therefore, it did not contribute to the attainment to the desired goal, i.e. independence of judiciary. Although there are many cases of such dependence in Bosnia and Herzegovina, we will give just one example: the case of decertification of policemen in Bosnia and Herzegovina, conducted within the framework of UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina. By the end of 2002, the UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina completed the verification process by issuing certificates to all policemen in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Large number of policemen, about 500 of them throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina, for various reasons did not receive certificates, and thus, in accordance with the decisions of the IPTF Commissioner, lost the right to be employed in future on jobs which they had been performing until that moment, and at the same time, under these decisions, the competent agencies, i.e. the Ministries of the Interior in Bosnia and Herzegovina, were instructed to terminate the employment contract with these persons. There was given a possibility to file requests for review of the decisions passed by the IPTF Commissioner, which included the reasons for decertification, before the UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The majority of the policemen in question filed requests for review of the decisions, stating that their rights, guaranteed by the European Convention on the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, had been violated. However, the most often reply given by the so-called UN Commission consisted of one single sentence, which read that the Commission did not find in the complaint any grounds for reconsideration of its decision. We purposely said that it was a so-called commission, because no one ever publicly stated who were the members of the Commission, nor were those who applied with the requests for review of the decisions ever invited to give oral explanation of their statements. The latter was necessary since in the process of passage of the decisions of decertification they had never been heard in relation to the allegations on the grounds of which they had been decertified. These decisions became final and binding, and all the decertified persons were removed from their jobs in accordance with the decisions of the Ministry of Interior. The majority of them filed charges before the courts, but during the court procedures, the Office of the High Representative sent a letter to all the ministries that had issued decisions on dismissal, to the effect that they could not reverse their decisions, since these were final and binding decisions of UN Mission, and that even the courts could not reverse such decisions. This letter was sent to the Ministry of Justice of BiH, and to the courts involved in adjudication of the actions of the decertified policemen.
In doing so, the international community directly interfered with the work of judiciary and obviously demonstrated its intention to “control” the work of the court in the most inappropriate way. It would be difficult to imagine any judge in Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose appointment depends on a body such as High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council, established by the international community, to pass a decision that would differ from the one recommended in the letter of the High Representative.
It is with regret that we presume that judiciary will continue to be dependent on the international community, which will supervise the work of each and every individual judge and prosecutor in the forthcoming period.
In addition to these two judicial reform priorities, the reform of legislation has also been going on. It is almost completed by the passage of new procedural laws, i.e. the Criminal Procedure Code, the Civil Procedure Code, and new, textually almost identical, criminal codes for Bosnia and Herzegovina and both Entities. The procedural codes were passed in order to improve the efficiency of the judiciary, while the new criminal code was passed in order to modernise the old one and adapt it to the present conditions and to the existing codes of the democratic countries abroad.
There would be nothing to object to these changes in legislation, had they been carried out, in terms of the procedures and in terms of their tenor, in a manner suitable for a democratic country, that is, had they been changed in such a way as just to improve the existing arrangements in order to make the procedures more efficient. The laws were drafted by commissions composed of domestic judges and international experts, but under the dominant influence of international experts. Some of the laws were imposed by the High Representative, later to be adopted by the parliaments. Another part of the laws was passed by the parliaments in summary procedures, under such instructions of the High Representative. The High Representative ordered that the laws be adopted as textually almost identical legal documents. This was nonsense, because it could not happen in any country in the world with established judicial, executive and legislative branch to pass such laws in a summary procedure. We should also note that neither there were public debates on the draft laws, nor the suggestions of the associations of judges, prosecutors or lawyers were solicited.
Another, not less serious objection to these laws, consists in the fact that the laws incorporated various schools of jurisprudence, and various institutes, so that the court proceedings will be conducted in manner unknown anywhere else in the world. The passage of the laws and their enforcement took place almost on the same day, with little or no previous training of judges and prosecutors, although the trial proceedings were almost completely changed in comparison with the previous trial proceedings.
Even if we set aside very significant objection that by such changes, carried out within a short period, the judiciary can not be made more efficient, but on the contrary - more clogged, still a fundamental objection remains, and that is, that they could lead to infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizens, right to fair proceedings, because the question is how to see justice done within a system in which neither the judge nor prosecutor nor defence are clear on how to proceed. The laws contain significant vaguely worded places and gaps, which altogether could lead to serious violations of the rights of individual citizens.
The overall conclusion that can be drawn in regard to all the reforms presently going on is that they were necessary and that it was also necessary to change the whole system of judiciary, but that it was not necessary, and even counter-productive, to undertake them without significant participation of domestic experts, and without opportunity being given to the civil society protagonists to voice their opinions about the reforms. Also, the whole process was performed within a very short period of time, which cannot produce positive outcomes. Even in a stable judicial system such reform would certainly produce negative consequences, let alone in a country such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is passing through a complete transition, and which, based on the Dayton Constitution, has a very complex and inefficient system of government.
Relations between ethnic groups and status of
national minorities
Bosnia and Herzegovina has signed and ratified all important international instruments which guarantee the rights to the members of the national minorities, as well as those that prohibit racial, religious and other forms of discrimination. Thus Bosnia and Herzegovina has a binding obligation to comply with, among other, the Framework Convention on Protection of National Minorities, and the Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.
The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Article 2 contains provisions against discrimination that have been harmonised with international instruments.
In 2002, the Constitutions of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska, underwent changes to the effect that the present Entity Constitutions provide for equality of all three constituent peoples throughout the territory of the country, which was not the case with previous ones.
However, both BiH Constitution and the Entity Constitutions refer expressly only to the members of the three constituent peoples – Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats – while the term «other» refers to the members of national minorities and those who do not identify themselves as members of any of the constituent peoples.
There are no representatives from the ranks of national minorities at any of the levels of legislature, either municipal, cantonal, entity or state level. The Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina launched an initiative for changes of the Election Law which would guarantee the members of national minorities the right to elect their representatives in the parliaments, but this proposal has not been accepted up to now.
The basic characteristic of relations between ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina is the aspiration of political representatives of numerically bigger ethnic group in a given territory to achieve supremacy without taking into account the interests of numerically smaller groups. At the same time, in those parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina where the members of the same ethnic group are numerical minority, their political representatives stand for compliance with the highest standards of human rights protection.
The most frequent acts that adversely affect the relations between the ethnic groups are planting of explosive devices in front of religious facilities, desecration of graveyards, verbal injuries and threats, acts of religious intolerance.
The consequences of discrimination on ethnic grounds are most obvious in the area of employment. In the major part of the municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the majority peoples are represented in public institutions with 99% of the employees. This percentage is lowest in Sarajevo where the 95% of the employed come from the ranks of majority people.
The causes of such situation are to be found in the character of the ruling nationalistic parties and in the political climate they create. These parties, HDZ, SDA and SDS above all, advocate solely the interests of their respective peoples and are not willing to condemn perpetrators of the human rights violations if the victims of such acts are members of other two peoples. The culprit is always seen as coming from the ranks of other two peoples.
The national parties do nothing to build a relationship of tolerance between members of various ethnic groups and religious communities. Rather contrary! These parties secure their influence and power by maintaining a feeling of fear and threat from other and different. The closing of ranks around the nationalistic parties feeds on more or less serious outbursts, excesses, even acts of terrorism. This does not mean an allegation that the nationalistic parties directly instigate such acts, but it is certain that their behaviour encourages both the extreme nationalists and the criminals who are behind the major part of wrongful deeds the victims of which are the members of minority peoples. Belief that such acts would not be punished, confirmed in practice, inspires the extremists to commit acts which cause fear and make people renounce on the idea to return or make them leave the environments in which, as members of a certain nation, they feel unsafe and threatened.
The religious communities also bear part of the responsibility for the present situation. The inter-religious dialogue, if such exists at all, takes part only between the hierarchs of religious communities and the parish priests are not included. It is not uncommon that priests directly serve the purpose of nationalistic political parties and speak the language of politicians. They are, in a certain way, the link between the nationalistic political parties and practising believers. One can not resist the belief that the nationalistic parties owe their electoral victory to the clergy and their role in the electoral campaigns.
Some media outlets also have a negative impact, when, in their search for sensationalism they contribute to dissemination of intolerance, even hatred against other peoples. By protecting particular political, nationalistic and clannish interests, some of the media outlets contribute to the climate of fear and insecurity.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Law on Protection of Rights of Members of National Minorities was adopted in 2003. This Law too has been harmonised with international conventions. It provides for criminal prosecution of those who jeopardise the survival of minority group members or instigate ethnic hatred and discrimination. However, this Law is still not applied in practice both due to the lack of political will and to the absence of by-laws that would regulate its implementation.
The Law lists 17 national minorities, the members of which live in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, since there are no valid statistical data (the last census was conducted in 1991), it is realistic to assume that the number of minorities is even greater. NGOs claim that in Bosnia and Herzegovina there are members of 21 national minorities.
The most numerous national minority is Roma minority. According to the estimates, there are about 80,000 to 85000 Roma people in Bosnia and Herzegovina. At the same time, they are also in the worst position among the minority group, both in terms of economic situation and in terms of access to education, use of language and cherishing own culture.
The Romany language is not used in communication with law enforcement, administration or judiciary. The Romany language is not being taught in schools. There are no printed media in Romany language and only two radio stations occasionally broadcast programmes in Romany language.
Particularly devastating is the situation concerning employment and economic position of Roma.
In each of the two cantons, Sarajevo and Tuzla, there are only two policemen of Romany nationality employed, and in Visoko there is one Romany teacher employed. In the chemical combine in Tuzla, there are two chemical engineers of Romany nationality. There are municipalities where not a single Romany is employed, although before the war the rate of employment of Romany was not insignificant.
The health care coverage is very low, because only employed persons and members of their families, and pensioners, are entitled to free medical treatment.
As concerning the access to education, the girls of Roma nationality in average abandon further schooling in the fifth grade of primary school, although eight-year primary education is compulsory.
Significant number of Roma has still not repossessed the apartments and houses in which they lived before the war, while the conditions in which majority Roma is living do not satisfy even the minimum standards of dignity of accommodation. They usually live in houses without sanitation, water supply and electricity, with cramped spaces.
Respect
for Privacy and Secret Services
Throughout the year, Bosnia and Herzegovina was being shaken by various scandals in connection with the operation of secret service. There are at least three domestic secret services operating in the country, which are serving the cause of parties in power and are not subject to any kind of oversight, either governmental, parliamentary or civil.
Although the Constitutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina and both entities guarantee privacy, the transcripts of the tapped conversations occasionally emerge in public, mainly through printed media. It is known for certain that in the large majority of cases legal procedures, according to which wire-tapping and bugging may be conducted only under strictly defined circumstances and following the order of the competent court, were not complied with. However, since the secret services are in the hands of political parties, they are being used in attempts to disqualify political opponents.
The greatest attention of the public was drawn to the disclosure of the results of the wire-tapping of conversations of Zlatko Lagumdžija, leader of the Social-Democratic Party, the strongest opposition party. Arbitrarily construing the results of the wire-tapping, the ruling SDA Party accused Lagumdžija, his associates and SDP, of attempting a coup d’etat. The Prosecutor’s Office did not find any grounds for launching a criminal investigation in this case, the House of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that there were no elements deriving from the results of wire-tapping that would indicate that a coup d’etat was being prepared, and the public saw this as an attempt to discredit the opposition. The citizens thus increasingly feel insecure in regard to the services, the operation of which is not subject to any kind of oversight.
Another case of bugging of some foreign diplomats, residing in the same apartment building, also leaked in the public. Bugging devices were found, but the secret services tried to justify this by saying that they were bugging one of the tenants, national of Bosnia and Herzegovina, undergoing court procedure.
The Board of the Islamic Religious Community from Stolac addressed the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights with a complaint that their correspondence was being regularly read before being delivered to them in open envelopes.
It is not known for certain in this case who is the one who violates the right to inviolability of letters, but there are indications that such acts are also widely spread.
In the heat of combat against terrorism, there appeared cases of unwarranted search of apartments of a number of citizens on the part of SFOR soldiers. The SFOR soldiers did not have either a mandate or warrants of competent courts for such searches, and for several other cases of apprehension. In addition, the citizens who experienced such kind of violation of human rights do not have a single legal remedy to resort to, nor is there any, either domestic or international, judicial body that would have the jurisdiction to review the complaints concerning the behaviour of international peace forces.
If
there were any successes in 2003 concerning human rights and
their protection, it was in the area of implementation of
property laws. After a series of years of blatant obstruction
and discrimination, in 2003 the pace of return of property
quickened. As of 30 October, about ninety percent
of claims for repossession of property (224,000 claims in
total) in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina were
positively resolved. In 54 municipalities of Bosnia and
Herzegovina the process of return of property was fully
completed.
The aforementioned data are unfortunately in large disproportion to the number of refugees and displaced persons who returned to their pre-war homes in 2003. Comparing the October 2001/2002 to October 2002/2003 period, we can see that the year 2002 was even more successful in terms of implementation of the Annex 7 of the Peace Agreement: 85,189 persons returned in 2002, while 55,687 persons returned in 2003, of which 28,470 to the Federation of BiH, 24,928 to the Republika Srpska and 2,289 to Brčko District.
In the municipalities of Foča/Srbinje and Višegrad, about 95 percent of property claims were positively resolved, but only about ten percent of Bosniak refugees returned to these places. In Trebinje, 98% of claims were resolved, and about 400 citizens of Bosniak ethnicity returned to this municipality.
Cumulatively, from the time of signing of the Dayton Agreement to 30 October 2003, 963,655 refugees and displaced persons returned to their homes, of which 419,711 were the so-called minority returns. 703,790 refugees and displaced persons returned to the Federation of BiH, 239,191 to the Republika Srpska, and 20,674 to Brčko District.
Throughout the year, the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in BiH cautioned against often uncritical presentation of enviable data on the implementation of property laws, which served to push the issue of real return in the background. International community was the most loud in this, desirous of creating the impression that one of the most important processes for the survival of multiethnic Bosnia and Herzegovina was coming to an end. Such position is absolutely in harmony with the ruling parties’ nationalistic concept of ethnically clean territories
The municipality of Modriča is both an example and result of such a war and post-war policies. The data from July 2003 indicate that out of 9,660 pre-war Croat inhabitants only 150 of them now live in this municipality. Under the guise of “humane resettlement”, designed and conducted by the HDZ, Croats from this part of Posavina were being resettled, mainly to the Republic of Croatia. Although we could say for the previous post-war period that it was a period when the local authorities did everything in their power to obstruct the process of implementation of property laws, it is now a fact indeed that (by September 2003) less than 60 out of 4,500 claims for repossession of property have remained unresolved. The “humanely resettled” are not returning, but have instead either sold or have the intention to sell their property.
The selling or exchange of houses and apartments is a general phenomenon, happening throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. Although no one keeps records of this, free estimates indicate that in urban settlements more than 75 percent of the repossessed property is being sold. The returnees return to the places of their pre-war residence just in order to come into the possession of apartment, then to buy it, sell it, exchange it or simply lock it, afterwards to return to their present places of residence. In statistical books they are then recorded as both returnees, and displaced or refugees. Thus demographic picture of ethnically clean territories becomes a reality of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The percentage of sale of real estate is lower in rural areas, where people have at least some possibility to do some work thus to survive. Nevertheless, in rural areas as well there is a large number of (repaired) houses which the owners use as weekend cottages, having resolved their housing problem in the other Entity.
The estimates indicate that there are presently about 640,000 BiH nationals throughout the world, while there are 670,000 persons internally displaced in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina (30% of the pre-war population). Time is obviously not any more working in favour of those who support return. The majority of refugees have regulated their status in the countries of asylum, while the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina do nothing to attract them back to their homes.
The
fact that as many as 110,000 citizens of Bosnia and
Herzegovina have left the country since the Dayton Accords is
appalling. 90 percent of them are young people. Only in Oslo
there are 1,700 university students from Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Scarcely anyone of them contemplates returning to
a country in which only 0.3 percent of the budget are
earmarked for education and research, while the bureaucratic
machinery and politicians gulp as much as 64 percent of the
GDP. This is the reason why in the age pattern of the
returnees the major group are people with more than 60 years
of age. Also alarming are the official figures of the Ministry
of Civil Affairs, Department for Citizenship and Personal
Documents, according to which 17,458 persons, for major part
young persons, were removed from the registry of BiH citizens
on their own request.
Domestic authorities have done and are doing almost nothing to support sustainable return. The returnees need a job, health care, education for their children, safe environment. The reform of education did not take hold. Many have not been provided with the possibility to have education in their mother language, although numerous agreements were signed to that sense in order to have this constitutional right implemented in practice. In some of the places of return, even four years after return the returnees have not been provided with electricity or water supply, roads are ruined, and there are no schools and surgeries. The returnees are forced to pay high fees to get connected to electricity and water supply networks, and telephone lines.
In comparison with previous years, when the main obstacle to return appeared to be the obstructing of implementation of property laws, and threats to security of person and property as next in order of importance, in 2003 the monitors of the Helsinki Committee and the fact-finding mission of the HC for the area of human rights situation have found out that the problems have now moved to the economic and social sphere, although the discriminatory attitudes on grounds of ethnic origin are still present. The safety of returnees and their property is in area in which there are obvious improvements throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina.
In 2003, more intensive reconstruction of religious facilities started. Local authorities have shown more understanding for this area of rights and needs. It is now easier for religious communities to get the necessary permissions, and there are not so few cases where the authorities, within their limited possibilities, even give financial support for renewal of religious services and reconstruction of destroyed or damaged facilities.
On the issue of employment, there are present absolutely discriminatory attitudes against returnees. Without exception, in all the cities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, there appears the same pattern: the so-called minority returnees are being denied their right to work. The amendments to the Law on Employment in Public Administration, Establishment and Enterprises are nowhere being implemented in full. The examples of drastic discrimination are many.
For illustration, in Foča/Srbinje, by 1 November 2003, only four Bosniaks – president of the municipal assembly and three policemen got jobs in public sector. According to the date of the Ministry of Justice of RS, out of twenty judges employed with the District Court in Banja Luka two are of Croat and one of Bosniak ethnic origin. In the District Court in Srpsko Sarajevo, out of eight judges seven are of Serb and one of Croat ethnic origin. In the District Court in Doboj, out of 38 employees, one is of Croat and one of Bosniak ethnic origin. Ethnic representation, provided for under the Constituent Peoples Decision, has also not been implemented in Trebinje, Bijeljina (district courts), Foča, Zvornik, Vlasenica, Lopare, Rogatica and Srebrenica (municipal courts) – in these courts all the employees are Serbs.
Drvar, Grahovo and Glamoč are among those municipalities in which a relatively large number of Serbs returned (in total 15,000 – Drvar 7,500, Glamoč 4,100, Grahovo 3,500, i.e. 50% of the pre-war population of Serb ethnic origin). All of them without exception, together with other population, live under almost unbearable conditions. For illustration, – in Grahovo, altogether 229 inhabitants or six percent of the pre-war number of employed (3,500) have jobs. 98 percent of the industrial infrastructure was destroyed in Grahovo during the war, and it is the municipality with the lowest rate of employment in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Drvar, less than 250 returnees have jobs, mostly working illegally.
In many municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the authorities by hiding behind the former Law on Building Land, without informing the pre-war users and without these participating in the procedures, have taken the land away from the members of the minority peoples, and allotted it to “persons with merits”. When examining the lists of those who received the land for free, it becomes obvious that these are mainly activists or followers of the ruling parties SDA, HDZ and SDS in power in the respective areas.
The Serb returnees in Sanski Most, as a consequence of the decision of the former authorities, were deprived of their lands, on which Bosniaks built housing and business facilities in the meantime. Only in the territory of this municipality, there were 125 cases of usurpation of private land. Such actions not only violated the fundamental human rights of the pre-war users, but also meant the continuation of ethnic cleansing by other means.
By the end of 2003, the mandate of the Commission for Real Property Claims and Repossession of Property (CRPC) expires, and thus from early November the implementation of property laws has been fully transferred under the jurisdiction of the Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
A large number of houses and apartments that have been returned to their owners is either destroyed or devastated, so that the refugees and displaced persons, although expressing their desire to return, do not have a possibility to do so. There are less and less donors. The interest for return surpasses by far the financial capacities for reconstruction.
To give an example from Central Bosnia: in the area of Bugojno, Busovača, Donji and Gornji Vakuf/Uskoplje, Dobretić, Jajce, Fojnica, Novi Travnik, Kreševo, Kiseljak, Travnik and Vitez, 36,172 housing facilities were destroyed during the war. By September 2003, about 17,000 of them were reconstructed. About 19,000 are still waiting to be reconstructed. The figures from Tuzla canton illustrate how poor the results of the reconstruction were: in 2003, in all 13 municipalities of the Canton only 400 houses were reconstructed.
The coming into force of the Law on Amendments to the Law on Refugees and Displaced Persons marked the establishment of a single Fund for Return. The Fund should start operating at the beginning of 2004, and is supposed to be financed by funds coming from all levels of government in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as by loans of the European Development Bank.
After the Dayton Peace Agreement there were about 47,000 people in collective accommodation centers throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. Today this kind of accommodation using by 2,000 familys.
During the fact-finding mission on the state of human rights, the representatives of the Helsinki Committee were once more persuaded that the process of return is significantly impeded by the fact that not all indicted war criminals were brought to justice, and that some of them freely stroll in BiH cities.
The National Assembly of the RS has not yet harmonised its Law on Flag, Coat-of-Arms and Anthem, Seals, Territorial Organisation and Local Self-governance with the constitutional amendments on equality of peoples. The returnees continuously keep mentioning the fact that the present flag, coat-of-arms and anthem clearly represent mononational symbols of Serb people, presenting the Republika Srpska as an entity of exclusively Serb people. The attempts to change certain symbols in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina also did not produce any results.
Disregard for public interests and for the basic role of the media, as well as further undermining of the reputation of the profession was the basic characteristic of printed media in 2003. The journalist profession here and now is least mindful of its own code and of the quality of its products, and puts minimum work into building its own self-respect. Violation of ethical standards and rules has become everyday practice of many of the BiH dailies and weeklies. The emergence of intolerance during the election campaigns and promotion of interests of only one political option or group in the course of 2003 escalated into such practice today where the printed media grow into private intimidators, often taking on themselves the role of a prosecutor, judge and executioner. In increasing measure they intrude as designers of political arena, obstructing any form of democratic dialogue, and thus, of democratisation of society.
From
the pages of printed media, open threats are being sent to
individuals or groups, who are put on a hit list. Absolutely
contrary to the nature of the job they should be doing, the
BiH papers are full of unargumented texts, labels pinned on
other and different, mutual irritation flavoured with
animosity, insults and open hatred. Unverified or even
fabricated information is often used as weapons. Using the
media right to freedom of action as a smoke-screen, they
trample down the right of each human being to be protected
from abuse of such freedom. Apart from editors and journalists
(often consciously) violating the Code that they themselves
have adopted, many also ignore the existence and decisions of
the Press Council as a self-regulatory body in charge of
monitoring and mediation. What further contributes to the
chaotic situation in printed media is a fact that the
journalists are still fragmented into six associations. All
the attempts to unite the journalists within a single
association did not give any results even in 2003.
Such approach to journalism made printed media enable to resist the new post-electoral offensive of the governmental bodies, political or financial power centres and individuals aimed at tampering with editorial policies.
As result of all this, we have insufficiently and inadequately informed citizens. At the same time, public is losing confidence in written word, all the more so since the institutions of the system do not react even to those topical issues that, dealt by the press using the method of research journalism, clearly point to the cases of corruption and other forms of crime.
On the other hand, even eight years after the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords, with almost 190 million KM of international assistance invested into electronic media, Bosnia and Herzegovina still does not have regulated public broadcasting system. The concept was to have three legally separate broadcasters complementing each other, of which one would provide services throughout the territory of the state, and other two in the entities in which they are operating. One joint legal person would be responsible for use of assets, technical resources, advertisements, mutual representation, rights related to foreign programmes, and for harmonising the system, policies and procedures between the three broadcasters, and this body should be responsible to the management board of the system. However, no one came out with clear and viable plans. Each new team of experts starts with a new model.
Sometimes
one has the impression that the international community is
more engaged in disciplining electronic media than in making
true an authentic desire to assist in a serious and extremely
complex process.
To
be true, it was announced that solution would be found, in an
“urgent procedure” – on which the High Representative
insists – by the end of the year.
In such a hurry, shortcomings were already built into
the system, which will be difficult to mend afterwards. Above
all, one of the shortcomings was a decision that the future
management boards of the public broadcasters should be
appointed by the political parties in power, which will,
contrary to all democratic rules, enable unacceptable
interference with editorial policies. In such further chain of
events, the management boards will appoint the directors and
editors-in-chief of radios and TVs, and these will in turn
appoint journalists in their confidence.
All this is far from the vision of editorial
independence.
Both
entity parliaments have already in the course of 2003 palpably
demonstrated their attitude toward independence and freedom of
media, the Federation Parliament by its order (the Amendment
to the Law on the RTV of the Federation) on mandatory
broadcast of all sessions of both Houses in full, and the
Republika Srpska Parliament by requesting resignations of the
top people of the Entity TV. Through such decisions the
parliamentarians impede, among else, the promotion and
implementation of democratic standards and principles of the
European Convention on Human Rights Protection.
The
fact that radio and TV stations, due to continuous and
“rigorous” supervision of the Communication Regulatory
Agency (CRA), have eliminated the language of hatred from
their programmes, thus loses in value, apart from the fact
that these programmes are for major part sterile and far from
those topics that most directly concern the citizens.
It
is worth mentioning that in 2003, the Communication Regulatory
Agency has for the first time since its coming into existence
got a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina for its general
director. This is just one of the steps in transforming the
Agency into a fully domestic institution. It will be of
extreme importance to ensure financial and political
independence in its work from the very start, the more so
since in the forthcoming period it will be confronted with a
lot of work in the sector of development of telecommunications
and broadcasting.
Women’s Human Rights
Women’s human rights still have not gained full recognition in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women has been incorporated in the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
In May 2003, the Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina on Gender Equality was adopted, which marked the beginning of activities to round up a set of legal regulations governing women’s human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Indeed, this Law promotes, regulates and protects gender equality, and guarantees equal opportunities to all the citizens, both in public and in private spheres, and bars direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of gender, particularly in the areas of education, economy, employment and work, social and health care, sports, culture, public life and media, irrespective of marital or family status. Furthermore, the Law regulates the obligations of the authorities, i.e. the Ministry for Human Rights of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was obligated to form an agency for gender equality at the state level within three months. The Law also prescribes the obligation to have all the state and entity laws harmonised with the provisions of the Law, within six months at the latest.
The authorities, however, have not honoured their commitments – the state agency for gender equality was not formed, while the process of harmonisation of other laws and secondary legislation is still in the incipient stage.
All the levels of legislature in Bosnia and Herzegovina have commissions for gender equality, while in the municipalities commissions for human rights have been formed, with the mandate to monitor the issues of protection and fulfillment of women’s human rights. The Ombudsmen of Bosnia and Herzegovina and of entities also have established bodies for monitoring the women’s rights.
In 2003, activities for preparation of the first national report for CEDAW were initiated, and it is estimated that the report will be completed by the end of the current year, and that in early 2004 will be sent to the UN for consideration. This year, the Ministry for Human Rights has begun the activities for development and adoption of an Action Plan for women’s human rights, based on the commitments deriving from the Beijing Declaration.
Thus therefore, Bosnia and Herzegovina has secured sufficient number of mechanisms for implementation and safeguarding human rights in general, including women’s human rights, but, unfortunately, the social practices do not produce satisfactory results in the protection and promotion of these rights.
The delayed processes of implementation of the Law on Gender Equality of Bosnia and Herzegovina further compound the problems and reproduce the relations which suppress women and marginalise their rights in the decision-making, privatisation, employment, violence and discrimination in the family and in society in general.
Although they make more than half of the population (51%) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the women in Bosnia and Herzegovina are not even close to being proportionally present in the sphere of labour and social relations (employment rate of women is about 44%), in the political life (about 14,2%), or in the political parties (about 18,5%). Considerably higher percentage of women is employed in education, health and social care sector - about 62%.
The general poverty and difficult socio-economic situation in BiH society affects mostly the population of women and children.
The entity labour laws provide for equal right to employment for men and women, but the situation is completely different in practice. The employers rarely decide to employ women as it raises the operation costs, since women have a possibility to use sick leave in order to provide care to their children or may use the maternity leave. However, apart from this discrimination, there is also a discrimination against women on the grounds of age: the majority of vacancy announcements that appear in daily press ask for women up to 35 years of age, normally with a remark that they should have «attractive looks».
When looking for a job, or on the very work place, the women of Bosnia and Herzegovina are exposed to various forms of sexual harassment. The survey conducted by the Gender Centres of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska within the Gender Equality and Equity Project in BiH, on a sample of 600 interviewed persons, indicates that sexual harassment or abuse exists in all environments, but what is troubling are the responses which speak of the attitudes of women population toward such behaviours. 87,62% of them deem that they were not exposed to some form of sexual harassment, but even if sexually harassed, 33,33% of women claim that it was by their colleges, and 37,33% claim that it was by their superiors. According to the same survey, 17,6% of men and 7,9% of women from the sample does not see an invitation to intimate relations as sexual harassment or abuse, which indicates that women do not recognise various forms of sexual harassment as such.
The unemployment of population of women reflects largely on the access of women to health care. Bosnia and Herzegovina does not have a uniform health care policy and health care organisation for protection and promotion of public health. This area, like the area of education and social welfare, falls within the competence of the entities, and in the Federation within the competence of the cantons as well. Since the unemployment levels are high in Bosnia and Herzegovina, more than 50% of the female population is without health insurance.
The right to abortion is provided for under the existing legal regulations, and the procedures are quite simple, but because of co-payment fee for abortion and necessity to pass through the commission procedures, an increasing number of women decides to visit private doctors.
It should be emphasised here that the general economic situation becomes increasingly a determining factor that makes women decide to terminate pregnancy (28 out of 100 pregnant women opt for termination of pregnancy), particularly in urban environments.
Regrettably, we have to state that in the educational curricula there is no such subject as sexual education and family planning, which has an impact on a demographic development of the country.
The problem of domestic violence is very pronounced in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Unfortunately, this form of violence is still enshrouded in a veil of silence and rarely spoken about in public. The most frequent victims of domestic violence are women (mostly in the age of 25 to 35), children and even elderly. According to unverified data – since comprehensive research into this problem was never conducted – estimates are that violence is present is one out of four families.
Domestic laws (Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Codes of Federation of BiH and of RS) sanction the use of violence, bodily injuries, rape or other forms of sexual molestation of spouses or other family members. Special facility in the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina is that lawsuits on grounds of such acts are filed ex officio.
Within
the project Fact-Finding Mission in Women’s Prisons in
Bosnia and Herzegovina and by conducting the interviews with
female inmates, the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in
Bosnia and Herzegovina, with partnership of Foundation
Heinrich Böll – Regional office Sarajevo, found out that
80% of the convicts had committed criminal act of murder of
their spouses or other family members because they had for
long suffered a physical and mental abuse.
Concerning the issue of women refugees, it is estimated that 50% of these women were expelled from their homes. The government did not adopt any programme for these women; it is only NGOs, especially women’s organisations, that through their programmes provide help to the refugees and displaced persons. These programmes are mostly in the areas of human rights, computer training programmes or humanitarian social programmes. It is true that the state Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees did develop a Strategic Plan for rehabilitation of housing stock and sustainable return for refugee population in general, but it did not focus on population of women in particular.
Another pronounced problem in Bosnia and Herzegovina is human trafficking. Unfortunately, trafficking in human beings, and abuse of women for prostitution is on increase in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Until recently, Bosnia and Herzegovina was just a country of transit and destination, but all indicators available show that it has also become a country of origin for this problem.
The authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted the National Action Plan for Combating Human Trafficking and established a co-ordination committee for tracking, preventing, suppressing and sanctioning the trafficking in human beings, especially in women and children. The basis for this Plan was the Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Convention on the Rights of the Child, and European Convention on Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms.
Also, a network of NGOs RING was formed, to monitor the implementation of the Action Plan for Combating Human Trafficking, which opened a number of shelters for women victims of trafficking and domestic violence (Modriča, Mostar, Sarajevo, etc.).
Special care for women victims of trafficking is provided by IOM (International Organisation for Migration), which provides for them, looks after their health and mental state, and enables their return to the country of origin. Along with this international organisation, UNOHCHR, UNICEF, OSCE, OXFAM and other agencies also take part in following this problem.
We must note here that, unfortunately, there are no valid statistical data on the number of women victims of trafficking, but according to the Report of UNOHCHR from June 2003 (Trafficking in human beings in Bosnia and Herzegovina) there were 70 criminal charges brought against 90 persons in 2002. Out of that number, 76 women with foreign citizenship received sentences from 9 to 30 days of imprisonment and 9 domestic nationals were sentenced with 253 days of imprisonment in total. Domestic nationals were penalised for putting premise at disposal or for mediation in prostitution or human trafficking for the purpose of prostitution.
The domestic legislation, i.e. the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina sanctions the criminal offences of human trafficking, but the shortcoming in the Law on Immigration and Asylum are the main obstacle in suppressing and preventing human trafficking. Regrettably, we have to remark here that the links between the law enforcement and criminal circles, as well as corruption, create a favourable soil for the increase in human trafficking.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, there are presently 65 sentenced women who are serving their sentences in special facilities for women. There were no cases of violence against them on the part of the staff of these establishments. All international standards relating to the treatment of these persons in prison establishments were met.
Rights of the Child
The rights of children are almost invisible in the social life of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Since there was no census since 1991, there are no reliable available statistical data on the population numbers in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is estimated that 1/3 of the population in Bosnia and Herzegovina are children from 0 to 18 years of age.
Bosnia and Herzegovina ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in December 1993, whereby the Convention came into force and became an integral part of the legal system of the country. The Dayton Agreement and the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina reaffirmed the importance of the Convention, incorporated in the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
According to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its Entities, one of the fundamental principles is prohibition of any form of discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, gender, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin. These principles are protected by the relevant criminal codes.
The legal regulations in Bosnia and Herzegovina which relate to the protection and the rights of children has been transferred to the Entities and these rights are treated through a large number of legal projects, depending on the right in question. The only law that was adopted at the national level of Bosnia and Herzegovina was the Framework Law on Primary and Secondary Education of BiH (Official Gazette 18/2003). This law regulates all matters pertaining to the rights of children to education, promotion of respect for human rights, freedom of movement, rights and duties of parents and schools, as well as the standards that must be applied in the education process. Other matters related to the rights of the children, such as access to health care, social protection, and heath insurance have been passed at the levels of Entities and cantons, such as the Family Law, the Law on Education, the Law on Basis of Social protection, Protection of Civil Victims of War and Protection of Families with Children, the Law on Health Insurance, the Law on Ombudsmen of the Federation of BiH and of Republika Srpska - to mention just few of the laws treating the rights of children in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Bosnia and Herzegovina for the first time sent a Report on the Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to the UN Committee in 2001. To date, this report was neither accepted nor considered by the UN Committee. Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted the Action Plan for Children of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the 2002-2010 period and formed a Council for Children in BiH, the mandate of which is to monitor and implement this Action Plan. The Convention on the Rights of the Child served as basis for the preparation of the Action Plan for Children of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
There are cases of violation of the rights of children that could amount to discrimination of certain groups of children on the grounds of their ethnic origin, religion, even of political opinions of their parents. The most frequent cases of violation relate to lack of access to school facilities, and the issue of the subject of religious instruction being imposed on children from mixed marriages. At present, the Framework Law on Primary and Secondary Education of Bosnia and Herzegovina is being implemented in practice. On the basis of this Law curricula have been developed, founded upon common core curricula. This generated numerous debates among parents, teachers and religious communities, who deem that schools and the curricula of schools in which part of the legal regulations has been implemented threaten the national interests, such as the right to language, culture, etc. Naturally, there was not a single institution or NGO to make a survey among children, or to ask them about their opinions as to whether they would like to be in the same classroom with their schoolmates from other national groups.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, there are institutions accommodating children with developmental difficulties, but due to economic situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina these institutions operate under great strain and manage to survive only with utmost effort.
A big problem in Bosnia and Herzegovina is domestic violence; the most frequent targets of the violence are women and children. There are also cases of paedophilia (Ilijaš, Banja Luka, Sarajevo, etc.) and other forms of sexual abuse of children.
All laws on health care guarantee to all children from 0 to 7 years of age the right to health care, but most frequently such health care is not provided, because the parents of the children do not have health insurance. 40% to 50% of children in Bosnia and Herzegovina do not have health insurance.
The status of children who belong to national minorities in terms of classes held in mother tongue, proportional representation of their culture in school curricula, and other educational contents that would recognise specific characteristics of all peoples, cultures and religions present in these territories is a problem that has not yet been resolved, although the Law on National Minorities (Official Gazette of BiH 12/2003) has been adopted. However, the implementation of this Law has not even started.
No: 03A-01/2004