Doc. 9533

5 September 2002

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s application for membership of the Council of Europe

Report

Political Affairs Committee

Rapporteur: Mr Claude Frey, Switzerland, Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group

Summary

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia submitted an application for membership of the Council of Europe on 9 November 2000. The Committee of Ministers, in November 2000, invited the Parliamentary Assembly to give its opinion about the application. The FRY was granted special guest status with the Parliamentary Assembly on 22 January 2001.

Since that date, its delegation of special guests has participated in the work of the Parliamentary Assembly and its committees.

In recent years, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has made progress towards democracy and political pluralism. It recognises the principles of the rule of law and respect for human rights and has declared its readiness to continue its democratic reforms within the Council of Europe, in accordance with the standards of the Council.

The Political Affairs Committee therefore proposes that the Assembly recommend that the Committee of Ministers invite the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to become a member of the Council of Europe, on the understanding that the country will honour, within the time limits set, the commitments listed in the draft opinion. These include, inter alia, compliance with the Dayton Agreements, continuing co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague (ICTY) and legislative and institutional reforms, particularly relating to the nature of the state between Serbia and Montenegro.

I.       Draft opinion

1.       The parliament of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia requested special guest status with the Parliamentary Assembly on 7 November 2000 and was granted it on 22 January 2001. Since then, its special guest delegation has participated in the work of the Parliamentary Assembly and its committees.

2.       The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia applied for membership of the Council of Europe on 9 November 2000. By its Resolution (2000)15 of 22 November 2000 the Committee of Ministers invited the Parliamentary Assembly to give its opinion on this application in accordance with Statutory Resolution (51)30.

3.       The Assembly has examined the situation in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on many occasions and, in November 2000, adopted its Resolution 1230 and its Recommendation 1481 on the situation there. An ad hoc committee also observed the elections to the National Assembly of Serbia on 23 December 2000 and in Montenegro in April 2001. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) has, for its part, observed the elections in the municipalities.

4.       In early 2001 a Council of Europe mission was opened in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. At the same time the Secretary General of the Council of Europe appointed a Special Envoy for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. These decisions have helped the Council of Europe’s dialogue with the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and made it possible to implement a number of co-operation programmes and projects aimed at developing and consolidating democratic stability there.

5.       The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has acceded to several of the Council of Europe’s legal instruments, in particular the European Cultural Convention and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

6.       The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has revised its Code of Criminal Procedure, which is a federal responsibility, and adopted a Federal Act on the Protection of National Minorities. It also recently enacted legislation on procedures governing the transfer of indicted persons to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague (ICTY). This legislation, which was the result of a compromise and received only a lukewarm reception in certain circles, could be rendered more effective by rigorous implementation founded on a more marked political will.

7.       As far as the two constituent republics of Serbia and Montenegro are concerned, the reform programmes have not been pursued with the same vigour in both. Whilst in Serbia a battery of legislative reforms has been implemented at a sustained pace, including abolition of the death penalty, in Montenegro energies were for a long time concentrated on the referendum on possible independence.

8.       The agreement which was signed on 14 March 2002 between Serbia and Montenegro, with the good offices of the European Union’s High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and which laid the foundations for reorganising relations between Serbia and Montenegro, opens up abundant prospects for rapprochement with Europe. It will encourage both sides to renew and step up their reform programmes.

9.       The new “Constitutional Charter” to be born of this agreement could offer a chance of survival for a federal state whose institutions were showing signs of tiredness. Nevertheless, the successful establishment of a truly operational federal union will require much good will, dialogue and creativeness and the support of the international community. The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission could probably make a constructive contribution to this process.

10.       As to Kosovo, it is too early to put forward ideas as to its future status. At the present time, and no doubt for some time to come, Kosovo is and will remain governed by the United Nations in pursuance of Security Council Resolution 1244. It is important nonetheless to stress that, whatever form the union between Serbia and Montenegro may take and without prejudice to the decisions which may be made in the future concerning Kosovo, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ought as of now to contribute to the creation of a climate of confidence by co-operating as extensively as possible both with the United Nations Special Representative and the elected authorities in Kosovo. The transfer to Kosovo of almost all the Albanian prisoners is a sign of détente in this respect.

11.       The Assembly considers the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to have made considerable progress towards democracy and political pluralism. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia recognises the principle of the rule of law and respect of human rights. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has declared its readiness to continue its democratic reforms within the Council of Europe, in accordance with the principles and standards of the Council.

12.       The Parliamentary Assembly takes note of the letters from the President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the presidents of the two Chambers of the Parliament and the Prime Minister and notes that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is determined to honour the following commitments:

i.       to ratify the Dayton Peace agreements and to co-operate fully and effectively in their implementation, which notably require the settlement of internal and international disputes by peaceful means;

ii.       as regards conventions:

a.       to sign, at the time of its accession, the European Convention on Human Rights, as amended by Protocols Nos. 2 and 11 thereto, and Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13;

b.       to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights and Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13 thereto within one year of its accession;

c.       to sign and ratify, within one year of its accession, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the protocols thereto;

d.       to sign and ratify, within two years of its accession, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages;

e.       to sign and ratify, within two years of its accession, the European Charter of Local Self-Government;

f.       to sign and ratify, within two years of its accession, the European Outline Convention on Trans-frontier Co-operation and the protocols thereto, and the Council of Europe’s conventions on extradition, mutual judicial aid in criminal matters, the laundering, search, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of crime, and the transfer of sentenced persons, and in the meantime to apply their fundamental principles;

g.       to sign, within two years of its accession, the Council of Europe’s European Social Charter, to ratify it as soon as possible and to endeavour forthwith to implement a policy in keeping with the principles enshrined in it;

h.       to sign the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities and the protocols thereto at the time of its accession and to ratify it within one year of its accession;

iii.       as regards domestic legislation:

a.       to abolish the death penalty in Montenegro within six months of accession and to introduce a moratorium forthwith;

b.       to enact legislation or, preferably, to include provisions in the Constitutional Charter to bring the army under civilian control;

c.       to enact, within one year of its accession, legislation on the reform of the police, comprising a redefinition of the police’s functions, the implementation of the European Code of Police Ethics and the establishment of training structures, and in particular the reorganisation of the secret police and its submission to control by government and parliament;

d.       to enact, in sufficient time for its implementation before the next elections the Draft Broadcasting Law in Serbia, which has been adopted by the Serbian Government, agreed upon by the experts of the Council of Europe and was recently referred to the Serbian Parliament with urgency, and to enact, in sufficient time for its implementation before the next elections legislation on public information in Serbia, placing particular emphasis on guarantees of independence and pluralism;

e.       to enact, within one year of its accession, legislation to enable the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees and the 1967 protocol thereto to be implemented;

f.       to enact, within one year of its accession, legislation on citizen associations and NGOs consistent with European standards for non-profit organisations;

g.       to revise, in co-operation with Council of Europe experts, the legislation and regulations concerning the prison system;

h.       to amend the law governing elections with a view to the next presidential elections or, at the latest, in time for the elections to the Federal parliament, so as to make the process more transparent, and, in particular, to bring it into line with the future Constitutional Charter now being drafted;

iv.       as regards human rights:

a.       to continue co-operating with the ICTY and in this context:

i. to do its utmost to track down all the sixteen indicted persons still at large and to extradite them to the ICTY. Authorities must not give in when confronted with any indicted person who threatens them by whatever means;

ii. to cooperate with the ICTY in giving witness protection if required;

iii. to give clear instructions to the police and prosecutors to enable them to make immediate arrests, as the law on extradition is deficient as regards time required for taking action;

iv. to revise the law on co-operation with the ICTY in accordance with the Statute of the ICTY and the relevant UN Security Council Resolution;

v. to make documents and archives, including military documents and archives, available to the ICTY without further delay.

b.       to cooperate to establish the facts concerning the fate of missing people and giving all information concerning mass graves;

c.       to largely inform the people of Serbia about the crimes committed by the regime of Slobodan Milosevic, not only against the other peoples of the region but also against the Serbs;

d.       to continue the reforms initiated with regard to the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and to the relationship between judges, prosecutors and the police;

e.       to enforce legislation concerning conscientious objectors and, within three years, to enact legislation on an alternative type of service;

f.       to enact, within one year of its accession, legislation creating the office of Ombudsman;

v.       as regards the functioning of the institutions:

a.       to resolve at the earliest opportunity the fundamental constitutional question as to the nature of the state between Serbia and Montenegro, on which a series of other questions hinges, including the rights inherited from the existing federation and representation of the new state in international organisations;

b.       to draft the Constitutional Charter in accordance with democratic, transparent and sound principles and in this context to constitute the new federal parliament, which will have the task of adopting the Charter, by means of elections;

c.       to ensure that, should a referendum on independence take place at the end of the three-year trial period provided for in the agreement between Serbia and Montenegro, that it is organised in conditions of utmost transparency, in full conformity with the law, after a population census and in the presence of international observers;

d.       once the Constitutional Charter has been adopted, to amend the constitutions of Serbia and Montenegro to bring them into line with it and to harmonise the whole of the legal system so as to avoid overlapping of responsibilities between the federation and the republics, paying great heed to European standards in this matter;

e.       to improve the constitutional and legislative provisions concerning decentralisation and the organisation of local authorities and the autonomous regions;

vi.       as regards Kosovo:

a.       to continue to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999 and with the arrangements made under this resolution, in particular the international administration of Kosovo;

b.       to undertake to settle disputes over the future status of Kosovo by peaceful means and solemnly to renounce any use of force;

c.       to contribute to the efforts aimed at building a democratic, multiethnic entity in Kosovo with a view to creating a political climate conducive to reflection and dialogue on its future status;

vii.       as regards monitoring of commitments:

a.       to co-operate fully with the implementation of Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1115 (1997) on the setting up of an Assembly committee on the honouring of obligations and commitments by member states of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) and a monitoring process set up in pursuance of the Committee of Ministers’ declaration of 10 November 1994.

13.       The Assembly realises that although some of these commitments are a direct federal responsibility, others may require specific implementing measures in Serbia and Montenegro. It nonetheless considers that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia commits itself vis-à-vis the Council of Europe to ensuring that the commitments accepted are honoured, including the provisions of conventions ratified, throughout the territory under the effective jurisdiction of the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia;

14.       With a view to ensuring that these commitments are honoured, the Assembly resolves, as of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s accession, to monitor the situation there closely in accordance with its Resolution 1115;

15.       The Assembly recommends that, on the basis of the commitments set out above, the Committee of Ministers:

i. invite the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to become a member of the Council of Europe;

ii. allocate the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia seven seats in the Parliamentary Assembly;

iii. in the light of this opinion, reinforce its support for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in particular in the context of the Council of Europe’s co-operation programmes, and provide these programmes with the requisite financial resources.

II.       Explanatory memorandum by the Rapporteur

A.       Introduction

1.       Since the elections of September 2000 which brought President Kostunica to power and since the election of a new Serbian parliament and the installation of the coalition government in January 2001, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) has begun to resume its place in the international and European communities. A programme of reforms is being implemented at federal level, but particularly in Serbia, at a sometimes impressive pace.

2.       The country is nonetheless still confronted with major difficulties: economic problems, tense relations between Serbia and Montenegro, uncertainty as to the future of Kosovo, disagreements, if not serious quarrels, between President Kostunica’s DSS party and the other members of the DOS coalition, apparatus of government still partly under the influence of the old regime, international pressure for the arrest of war criminals and their extradition to The Hague.

3.       Despite these difficulties, Belgrade has shown political will and determination to embark on reforms and has even managed to make progress in a number of fields: observance of the fundamental principles of democracy and political pluralism have improved significantly, efforts have been made to normalise relations with the other countries in the region and agreements have been concluded with them, and a genuine determination to co-operate with international organisations such as the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the OSCE has become apparent in work on the many joint projects and through constant dialogue. More recently, the agreement made between Serbia and Montenegro with the good offices of the European Union’s High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy is evidence of a desire for rapprochement with Europe.

4.       Co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICT), which was a major obstacle to ending the FRY’s international isolation and permitting its integration in the European family, has so far been only a qualified success. After the spectacular extradition of Slobodan Milosevic to the Tribunal, there was a lull, and only very recently has legislation been enacted to effect other extraditions. This question will occupy public opinion in Serbia and the world as a whole for some time to come.

5.       Generally speaking, the political calendar in the FRY seems to tally with the Council of Europe’s objectives and standards. The interest the FRY has shown in the co-operation programmes with the Council of Europe, the active participation of its special-guest parliamentary delegation and the enthusiastic support of those with whom we spoke, especially in Serbia, for speedy accession to the Council of Europe, a feeling often shared by the officials of the international community on the spot, are all factors indicating that the question is now ripe for debate in the Assembly.

6.       The fact that the country is undergoing constitutional change and that its political institutions are being rebuilt must not prevent it from becoming a member of the Council of Europe. We are naturally working on the assumption that these changes will be effected in accordance with the rules of democracy and in a spirit of dialogue and transparency. Other Council of Europe member states have experienced far-reaching constitutional change, and even splits, after becoming members.

B.       Political situation and state of the institutions

7.       Some of the FRY’s problems are a consequence of the constitutional order inherited from the past. This state of affairs can be summarised thus:

i. The federal Constitution is largely obsolete;

ii. Serbia has never harmonised its Constitution with the federal Constitution;

iii. With effect from 8 July 2000, Montenegro decided no longer to recognise any act of the federal authorities or the international treaties to which the Federation has acceded;

iv. Several decisions at federal level, including accession to international treaties, have been made without appropriate consultation of both Republics;

v. There are many instances of institutional overlapping resulting from inadequate linking between the constitutions. By way of illustration, I was surprised to learn that there were “Foreign Affairs” committees not only in the federal parliament but also in the parliaments of the two Republics.

8.       Consequently, no one seriously envisages retention of the existing constitutional order. During the year 2000, when fresh thought was being given in Serbia to a reform of the Federation, in Montenegro, under the impetus of its President, Mr Djukanovic, and the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS), the idea was floated of a referendum on independence. The group of opposition parties known as “Together for Yugoslavia” was hostile to independence and advocated instead a federation with limited powers. As a result, political debate focused on this controversy, and the reform programmes faded into the background.

9.       European political circles followed this episode with some anxiety, as it was slowing down a well-established momentum for democracy and calling into question the rapprochement with Europe. This was why the EU initiative through Mr J. Solana, the EU’s High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, to offer its good offices to find common ground for an agreement was welcomed with relief and encouragement. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe unanimously welcomed the negotiations and the signing of the resulting agreement on 14 March 2002. According to the Committee of Ministers, this agreement should “serve the interests of both Serbia and Montenegro” and “have a positive impact on the whole region”. The President of the Assembly and the Secretary General in turn welcomed the fact that “dialogue, responsibility and good sense have prevailed” and went on to say that the agreement reached “will certainly help to speed up [the FRY’s] accession to [the Council of Europe]”.

10.        At the meetings with the federal authorities and in the Republics, I defended the same line. It should be emphasised here that the parties’ interpretation and expectations of this agreement and what will follow differ significantly in Serbia and in Montenegro. In Serbia it is seen as the beginning of a new and lasting operational union, whereas in Montenegro, opinion is divided. The government camp gives the impression that it sees the three-year period stipulated in the agreement as a pause to assuage international opinion and secure advantages in the medium term. The idea of a referendum at the end of this period is firmly anchored in people’s minds, at least for the time being.

11.       The way the situation develops, with the preparation of a Constitutional Charter and the establishment of new institutions, may change everything. The space we devote to this question in this document is wholly justified. A charter that is well-conceived and drafted with good faith and that takes account of the parties’ needs and anxieties could be the starting point for a new partnership. Better still, the institutional reforms and new federal elections that should follow could bring about a wholesale change in the political scene, and in particular:

- a reduction in the number and a grouping together of political parties (there are at present more than 20 parties);

-       the development of federation-wide parties at the expense of regional parties.

      This would result in a more natural and less complicated political spectrum.

12.       A committee has been set up on a 5 +5 + 5 basis (5 members of each existing parliament) to draft the Charter. EU and Council of Europe experts, especially from the Venice Commission, will probably be consulted. A deadline for completing the work has been set at the end of June, but it is expected that the draft will not be ready until the end of the summer. The text will be submitted first to the parliaments of the Republics and then to the federal parliament. There is already argument about the composition of the latter: the leaders of Montenegro would prefer a directly nominated body, whereas those of Serbia, and especially President Kostunica, advocate elections “following the example of the European Parliament”.

13.       It seems to me that Europe’s historical and political traditions favour the second option. When the Constitution of new state is to be adopted, a constituent assembly is often convened. Moreover, direct nomination of members of the federal parliament by the parties (or by one of the constituent parties) might give the impression of a confederal structure bringing together independent entities. A close reading of the above-mentioned agreement between Serbia and Montenegro does not permit this interpretation. On the other hand, the words “a unicameral parliament providing certain positive discrimination for Montenegrin representatives” introduce a means of correcting any abuse by the majority.

14.       At a time when attention was focused on these developments concerning the Charter, disturbing news was received: Mr Vlodan Batic, Minister for Justice of Serbia and leader of the Christian Democratic Party of Serbia launched a campaign to collect the 100 000 signatures needed to hold a referendum on the independence of Serbia. Even if it is not my role, as Rapporteur, to take a stance on the peoples’ fundamental choices, I cannot help thinking that such an initiative by a minister in the DOS coalition government is, to say the least, unusual. The initiative itself and the strong reactions from the other parties in the coalition are evidence of the difficult political situation in the country.

Voivodina

15.       An act to restore Voivodina’s autonomous status (omnibus act) has been passed. It recommends the transfer of certain tasks and responsibilities but does not make for true self-government. The only power the Voivodina assembly has is to make proposals to the Serbian Parliament. As part of future moves towards regionalisation in Serbia, the self-government which Voivodina enjoyed until 1989 could be restored.

C.       Southern Serbia

16.       Normalisation in southern Serbia is progressing rapidly. With the presence and active assistance of the international community in the field, especially the United Nations, the OSCE, USAID, the European Agency for Reconstruction and many NGOs, Belgrade has managed to establish dialogue between Albanians and Serbs, and peace agreements have even been concluded under the “Covic plan”, named after the Deputy Prime Minister of Serbia, who led the negotiations.

17.       Several thousand refugees have returned home, Serbian military units have been withdrawn from the region, and a plan to amnesty commanders of the UCPMB (an emanation of the KLA) is in hand. One of the most striking successes, thanks to the help of the international community, has been the creation of a mixed Albanian-Serb police force under the auspices of the OSCE. The figures given us show that there are 278 Albanians out of a total of 406 police officers.

18.       The next major step will be the municipal elections that were originally scheduled for mid-June. It now seems that the elections could be postponed to July in order to take account of the results of a population census. One has every right to hope that these elections will allow fairer representation of the Albanian population on municipal councils.

D.       Situation in Kosovo

19.       The FRY exercises no jurisdiction in Kosovo, which is still provisionally administered by UNMIK in pursuance of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, with the aim of building a democratic, multi-ethnic entity with the broadest possible autonomy. The Council of Europe has complied scrupulously with Resolution 1244 and refrained from any action that might be regarded as a premature stance on the future status of Kosovo. However, the Council of Europe has set up an Office in Pristina to support the co-operation and assistance programmes for institutional and legislative reform in liaison with the other international organisations.

20.       The work of these organisations is directed and co-ordinated by the United Nations Secretary General’s Special Representative, Mr Michael Steiner, who took over from Mr Haekkerup. The administration comprises four pillars: the civilian administration (UN), humanitarian affairs (UNHCR), reconstruction (EU) and the restoration of institutions (OSCE). Resolution 1244 also provides for an international security presence, placed under NATO responsibility.

21.       Local elections took place in October 1999 enabling an administrative structure to be put in place. In 2001 elections were held for the provisional parliament of Kosovo. The international community, and the Council of Europe in particular, encouraged members of the Serb community not to boycott the elections in the interests of democratic consolidation and future reconciliation. In the end, these elections took place peacefully and with a large turnout. Now several parties share the 119 seats in the parliament: Mr Rugova’s Democratic Alliance of Kosovo (DSK) (37 seats), Prime Minister Rexhepi’s Democratic Party of Kosovo (DPK) (26 seats) and Mr Haradinaj’s Alliance for the Future of Kosovo (AAK), which constitute the main Albanian movements, have shared most of the ministries among themselves. The Bosnian “VATAN” party holds one ministry in the provisional government, and the Serbian POVRATAK (“return”) party has been given the Ministry of Agriculture, whereas it was insisting on the creation of a special ministry for the return of refugees and displaced persons.

22.       At our meetings with President Rugova, political party leaders and other officials, we noted a willingness to co-operate with UNMIK and even with the Belgrade government on certain points. The return of the Albanian prisoners and settlement of the problems of the Presevo valley in southern Serbia testify to the capacity for solving ethic problems by peaceful negotiation. On the other hand, one message conveyed to us by all the Albanian parties was that of a joint vision for the future, namely independence. We were given clearly to understand that reintegration in the FRY, and still less in Serbia (in the event, for example of Montenegro’s secession), was out of the question. According to representatives of the international community in the field, the conditions for beginning serious discussions about the future status of Kosovo are not yet met.

23.       This state of affairs will inevitably raise a number of questions about Kosovo’s representation in the work of the Council of Europe after the FRY’s accession. The question must be considered carefully for all Council of Europe bodies, in close consultation with the High Representative. Incidentally, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) has decided to grant observer status to the recently created association of municipalities of Kosovo. This initiative, which may seem novel, nonetheless caused anxiety in Belgrade, which feared that it might prejudge the question of the future status of Kosovo.

E.       Rule of law, protection of human rights and legislative reforms

24.       Detailed studies have been made of the functioning of democracy and the legal system in the FRY, especially in the eminent lawyers’ report of 31 October 2001, of which earlier Assembly reports reproduced lengthy excerpts. We shall accordingly confine ourselves here to a few salient points and concentrate in this section on the reforms that seem more pertinent to the purpose of this report, namely the progress the FRY has made towards consolidation of democracy and harmonisation of its legal standards with those of the Council of Europe.

25.       The earlier analyses showed that the main weaknesses in the FRY’s legal order were as follows: lack of clarity in the apportionment of powers and responsibilities among the federation and the republics, poor functioning of the judicial system and in particular the constitutional courts, lack of independence of the courts and failure to comply with the courts’ judgments, a police force that served the “State” rather than the citizens, a timeworn prisons administration, an outmoded legislative framework incapable of combating crime and corruption, and lastly a Criminal Code inherited from the past which, inter alia, provided for the death penalty. In short, despite well-developed legal traditions, the rule of law in the FRY was not, at that precise moment, in conformity with Council of Europe standards. The rapporteurs’ first visit in December 2001 confirmed this finding.

26.       However, a number of reforms which were already under way and have been completed in the meantime or which have been introduced since deserve to be mentioned as evidence of a political will and of a clearly proactive approach to legislation. For example, progress has been made in the fields identified below, sometimes in co-operation with the Council of Europe and the OSCE or other international experts, although efforts still need to be made when it comes to enforcing certain laws. The sectors in which legislative progress has been least rapid or has still not come about will also be mentioned. I believe that the FRY’s accession to the Council of Europe and full participation by Yugoslav representatives in the Council of Europe’s committees of experts could help to speed up the reform programmes.

Capital punishment

27.       At federal level, capital punishment had been eliminated from the Code of Criminal Procedure, but this reform had not been followed up at republic level. In Serbia, although no execution has been reported since, death sentences have still been passed. In March of this year a law abolishing the death penalty was promulgated in the context of the new Criminal Code. In Montenegro, the death penalty is still on the statute book, and an execution took place as recently as October 2001. We were given to understand that a reform was being contemplated whereby capital punishment would be replaced by a lengthy prison sentence. Without wishing to make this a pre-accession condition, I believe that a moratorium should be introduced at the earliest opportunity and that the Monitoring Committee will have to give priority consideration to the question of the abolition of capital punishment.

Justice

28.       With Council of Europe assistance several laws have been passed in Serbia in the field of judicial reform: law on the status of judges and the High Judicial Council, law on the territorial organisation of the jusicial system, law on the courts. Furthermore, the judges’ training college has been established and a programme to train judges in human rights is being devised with Council of Europe assistance. In Montenegro the parliament has voted new measures concerning the independence of judges and prosecutors and the organisation of the courts; these entered into force on 21 February 2002. At federal level, the FRY is contemplating acceding to the European data protection convention, and the Committee of Ministers has ordered an expert appraisal of the state of the FRY’s legislation in this field. The FRY joined INTERPOL on 24 September 2001.

Rights of minorities

29.       Significant progress has been made in this field. Last February, the federal parliament voted a federal Protection of Minorities Act. Shortly afterwards the FRY acceded to the Framework Convention for the Protection of Minorities. Its implementation will necessitate some institutional and administrative adjustments as regards languages, culture, education, etc. We would also point out that the federal Government includes a Ministry of Ethnic Minorities and Communities. In the federal parliament the Hungarians from Voivodina and the Sandjak Muslims’ party are represented and, according to the information we received, may use their languages in proceedings in parliament.

Freedom of expression and media

30.       The present state of affairs gives cause for concern. Despite close co-operation with the Council of Europe and other international experts in the initial stages of the attempts at reform, there are stumbling blocks in both Serbia and Montenegro. These are, on the one hand, the future law on broadcasting and, on the other, a law on public information intended to cover the situation of journalists and the press. As regards the broadcasting law, the key issue is the establishment of an independent regulatory body to grant and manage licences and oversee the transformation of the State Radio and Television Service into a proper public service that guarantees democratic pluralism.

31.       In Serbia, a Bill has been adopted after much humming and hawing, but it is stuck in parliament. An independent expert who analysed the text in a study commissioned jointly by the EU and the Council of Europe¹ voiced a number of reservations as to its compatibility with European standards and in particular with Recommendations Nos. R (1996) 10 et Rec (2000) 23 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. In Montenegro, three Bills designed to attain similar ends have been prepared by the Secretariat for Information. According to the Council of Europe experts, these Bills require serious amendment. The “package” has not yet been approved by the Government prior to its transmission to parliament.

32.       Moreover, for several months now the judicial authorities in Serbia and Montenegro have been dealing with prosecutions brought by politicians against various journalists. In order to curb the improper pressure being exerted against media professionals by means of judicial proceedings and to fully guarantee the freedom of expression and information, not only should the above-mentioned legislation be passed rapidly but also consideration should be given to amending the Criminal Code at the earliest opportunity.

33.       It is judicious to assert the importance we attach to the above-mentioned legislation being enacted and enforced before the next set of elections. At a time when the destiny of a new state and its place on the international stage are being determined, the presidential elections and the campaign and elections for the new federal parliament ought to be able to take place in an atmosphere of perfect fairness, freedom and transparency.

The army

34.       Effective control of the armed forces by democratically elected institutions is of the utmost importance for democratic stability in the FRY and the whole region. For historical reasons going back to the creation of Yugoslavia, the army has always held a special place and avoided control by the institutions, with the exception of the Head of State. Initially, it was the “King’s Army”, then “Tito’s Army” and then “Milosevic’s Army”! Even today, under the laws in force, a Supreme Defence Council made up of the President of the Federation and the Presidents of the two Republics decides on the army’s activities. Parliament exercises no control, even over the military budget. The role of the Ministry of Defence is also negligible.

35.       Until recently there were links that were perhaps loose but nonetheless unacceptable between the Yugoslav army and the military forces of Republika Srpska. Since the end of February the aid the latter granted the armed forces has been stopped. Whilst all paramilitary structures have been abolished in Serbia, the disproportionately large police force in Montenegro is held by some observers to be the equivalent of a paramilitary force. A comprehensive reform of the army is needed not only to integrate it in a democratic system but also to adapt its organisation to the requirements of the “Partnership for Peace” for which the Government seems to have opted.

Police

36.       After the political changes that occurred in October 2000, the new leaders had to deal with a police force that was bewildered. The following excerpt from the eminent jurists’ report gives a very clear explanation for this which I fully endorse: “….. for decades the concept of maintenance of policing in Yugoslavia was centred – in law and in practice – on protecting State interests and preventing subversion of the State and disorder. The police was militarised and politicised and tended to play a central role in criminal investigations at the expense of prosecutors”. The transition to a democratic police force in the service of society is therefore an urgent priority in the FRY.

37.       Reform of the police force will in theory be embarked upon without delay and will encompass the special security services. The Council of Europe and OSCE are together providing considerable assistance, with the emphasis on questions of ethics and control. Among the most urgent tasks are the drafting of a Bill, advising on internal and external control, implementing the European Code of Police Ethics (Recommendation Rec(2001)10 of the Committee of Ministers) and introducing police training programmes. Most of these questions are the Republics’ responsibility, and the road to reform will be a long and difficult one, as some elements of the old regime will doubtless put up fierce resistance.

Situation of refugees

38.       The authorities of the FRY, in co-operation with UNHCR, OCHA and the UNDP, have devised a National Strategy for solving the problems of refugees and expelled and displaced persons. This will be a medium- and long-term process. A report being prepared by the Parliamentary Assembly’s Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography is looking in detail at several aspects of this question. Its conclusions could possibly be incorporated in the list of commitments.

39.       The first aim of the National Strategy is top help refugees to decide freely to return home or to integrate locally. A large number of Bosnian refugees has already gone home. Of the 367 000 refugees registered in Serbia, 60% have opted for local integration. Measures need to be taken for obtaining citizenship. The situation in Montenegro is special owing to the fact that the Nationality Act, which gives Montenegrin nationality precedence over Yugoslav nationality, must be reviewed and amended.²

Ombudsman

40.       A meeting of national and international experts of the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the OSCE in December resulted in the Minister for Justice of Serbia presenting a Bill creating the office of Ombudsman. This Bill is on the Serbian parliament’s order of business. In Montenegro, a Bill is currently being examined by the Council for the Reform of the Public Administration. Once again the existence of a multitude of texts at the federal, republic and local levels of the old regime has held up work. It may be noted in passing that there is an Ombudsman in Kosovo appointed by the international administration and with relatively wide-ranging powers.

Non-governmental organisations

41.       A new Bill on “citizens associations and non-governmental organisations” was approved by the Serbian Government after amendment in the light of comments by Council of Europe experts. It is now before parliament. A federal Bill is in preparation. This is a matter requiring monitoring, as it could mask malicious intentions in some government circles against a sector which worked energetically to bring about the fall of the old regime.

Local government

42.       In Serbia, a local self-government law was approved in February this year. The CLRAE President declared it to be compatible with the European Charter of Local Self-Government in a communiqué dated 15 February 2002. This law and its implementation will also depend on the future decentralisation plan, for which the Council of Europe is providing expert advice and assistance, and the future Constitution of Serbia, the drafting of which has just started. In Montenegro, it proved impossible to vote the local government legislation before the municipal elections scheduled to take place in May. These elections have therefore been held under the old law.

F.       War criminals and co-operation with the ICT

43.       The question of war criminals and co-operation with the Tribunal in The Hague was a most traumatising experience for the Belgrade government, especially at the beginning. Sharp differences of opinion emerged within the DOS, with the Serbian Prime Minister, Mr Djindjic, and most of the political parties supporting direct extradition in application of the Tribunal’s UN law, while President Kostunica, his party (DSS) and, up to a point, some of the Montenegrin parties (Together for Yugoslavia) strongly favoured voting domestic legislation on the transfer procedure. During this relatively lengthy period of uncertainty, the Chief Prosecutor, Mrs Carla Del Ponte, expressed regret at the “discouraging” level of co-operation.

44.       The sudden and spectacular transfer of former President Milosevic to The Hague on 28 June 2001 marked a turning point in the resolution of the situation. Under international and domestic pressure, the drafting of the Bill was speeded up and, after a difficult passage in the Government and Parliament of the Federation, became law on 9 April last. The law’s enactment was followed the next day by a suicide attempt by a former leader. Since then, two indicted persons, namely General Drajoljub Ojdanovic, Commander of the Armed Forces under the Milosevic regime, Nikola Sainovic, a former Deputy Prime Minister, Milan Martic, ex-President of the Republika Srpska, Mile Mrkšic (member of the so-called Vukova Troïka) and Momcilo Gruban, ex-Commander have given themselves up to the Tribunal. The question whether archives, including military archives, should be made available so as to facilitate the work of the Tribunal is still pending. It is interesting to note that the bringing of charges against alleged war criminals of Albanian origin in Kosovo, which the Serbian Government also wants to see, is also conditional on examination of the archives.

45.       On a more general level, it is time that the leaders of the FRY realised two vitally important things: first, that the ICT is an international court superimposed on national courts and legal systems and that there can be no question of subordinating its activities to national courts; second, and more importantly, that the FRY has a moral and historic responsibility to ensure full light is shed on the lamentable episode of the wars in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo. Neither the leaders nor public opinion should regard co-operation with the ICT as a last resort but rather as a necessary step to reconciliation with the international community and neighbouring countries.

46.       I would prefer the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to make a detailed analysis of the transfer law, and in particular Section 39 thereof, which is controversial in that it imposes a time restriction on the bringing of charges.

G.       Conclusion

47.       In accordance with established practice, the procedure for examining the application for membership began with a visit by eminent lawyers appointed by the European Court of Human Rights at the request of the Bureau of the Assembly to assess the conformity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s legal order with Council of Europe standards. The lawyers’ report was made public in November 2001. Since then, the rapporteurs of the Political Affairs Committee, to which the question was referred for report, and of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, to which it was referred for opinion, have visited the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia twice and held detailed discussions with political leaders at all levels, with representatives of civil society and the media and in particular with officials of the United Nations and other international organisations working in the field. Consequently, the Political Affairs Committee has painstakingly analysed and discussed the progress being made towards democracy in the FRY. I am now in a position to draw the appropriate conclusions from this process:

i.       The FRY has made significant progress in building a democratic society that respects human rights and the rule of law. The political system respects pluralism and freedom of expression. The recent elections were held in normal conditions. The political system respects the principle of separation of the powers. The parliaments have been extremely active, even if some important Bills are still pending before them owing, in some cases, to their very heavy orders of business.

      ii.       As regards international relations, the FRY has given positive signals on the settlement of conflicts by peaceful means. The foundations for co-operation with the ICT are now in place. The federal Government has indicated its interest in the Partnership for Peace, which will be advantageous for stability in the region. Efforts have been made to normalise relations with neighbouring states, particularly Bosnia and Herzegovina and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. Acceptance of the European Union’s mediation in the drafting of an agreement between Serbia and Montenegro may be construed as an important sign of a desire for rapprochement with Europe. As regards Kosovo, the leaders of the FRY have refrained thus far from rhetoric that could create tension and complicate UNMIK’s task.

      iii.       In the light of the foregoing, I believe I am now in a position to propose, first to the Political Affairs Committee, and then to the Parliamentary Assembly, that the Committee of Ministers be recommended to invite the FRY to become a member of the Council of Europe. However, I share the conviction of several colleagues that the full reintegration of the FRY in the family of nations inevitably requires the Serbian people to come to terms with the crimes of the old regime and the establishment of the truth. A wide-ranging information campaign would help to counter the resurgence of reaction, albeit isolated, that has been observable recently, especially since the media showing of the trial of Slobodan Milosevic.

Reporting committee : Political Affairs Committee

Reference to committee: Doc. 8909 and Reference No. 2564 of 26 January 2001

Draft opinion adopted by the committee on 26 June 2002 with 1 vote against and 2 abstentions

Members of the committee : Jakic (Chairman), Baumel (Vice-Chairman), Feric-Vac (Vice-Chairperson), Spindelegger (Vice-Chairman), Aguiar, Aliyev (alternate : Seyidov), Andican, Arzilli, Atkinson, Azzolini, Bakoyianni (alternate : Liapis), Behrendt (alternate : Lörcher), Berceanu, Bergqvist, Bianco (alternate : de Zulueta), Björck, Blaauw, Blankenborg, Bühler, Cekuolis (alternate : Olekas), Clerfayt, Daly, Diaz de Mera, Dreyfus-Schmidt, Durrieu, Eörsi, Frey, Glesener, Gligoroski, Gönül, Gross, Henry, Hornhues, Hovhannisyan, Hrebenciuc, Iwinski, Judd, Karpov, Kautto, Klich, Koçi, Kostenko, Lloyd, Loutfi, Margelov, Martinez-Casan, Medeiros Ferreira, Mignon, Mutman, Naudi Mora, Neguta, Nemcova,  Nemeth, Oliynyk, Paegle, Pangalos, Pourgourides, Prentice, Prisacaru, de Puig, Ragnarsdottir, Ranieri, Rogozin, Schloten, Severinsen, Stepová, Timmermans (alternate : van der Linden), Toshev, Turjacanin, Vakilov, Vella, Voog, Weiss (alternate : Svec), Wielowieyski, Wohlwend, Wurm, Yarygina (alternate : Nazarov), Zacchera (alternate : Malgieri), Zhvania, Ziuganov (alternate : Slutsky)

N.B. The names of the members who took part in the meeting are printed in italics

Secretaries of the committee: Mr Perin, Mr Sich, Mr Chevtchenko, Mrs Entzminger

APPENDIX I

LIST OF POLITICAL PARTIES³

National Assembly of Republic of Serbia

 

Party	Number of deputies
Christian - Democratic Party of Serbia	7
Civic Alliance of Serbia	9
Coalition Vojvodina	4
Democratic Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians	1
Democratic Alternative	6
Democratic Centre	4
Democratic Party	47
Democratic Party of Sandzak	2
Democratic Party of Serbia	45
League of Social-Democrats of Vojvodina	6
New Democracy	9
New Serbia	8
Reform Democratic Party of Vojvodina	4
Serbian Radical Party	23
Serbian Resistance Movement - Democratic Movement	1
Serbian Unity Party	10
Social - Democracy Party	13
Socialist Party of Serbia	37
The Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians	6
The Association of Free and Independent Trade Unions	1
The Farmers’ Party of Serbia	1
The League for Sumadija	1
The Movement for Democratic Serbia	2
United Pensioners’ Party	1

DEPUTIES' GROUPS

 

list of deputies' groups	number of seats
Democratic Opposition of Serbia	90
Deputy does not belong to any Deputies' Group	1
DOS - Christian - Democratic Party of Serbia	7
DOS - Democratic Alternative	6
DOS - Democratic Party of Serbia	45
DOS - League of Social-Democrats of Vojvodina - The League for Sumadija	7
DOS - New Serbia	8
DOS - The Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians	6
DOS - Vojvodina Reformists and Democratic Party of Sandzak	6
Serbian Radical Party	23
Serbian Unity Party	14
Socialist Party of Serbia	37

Federal Assembly

Chamber of the Republics

Socialist National Party (Montenegro )	19
Democratic Opposition of Serbia	10
Socialist Party of Serbia-JUL	7
Serbian Radical Party	2
Serbian Renewal Movement	1
Serbian National Party (Montenegro)	1

:

Chamber of Citizens

Democratic Opposition of Serbia	58
Socialist Party of Serbia- JUL	44
Socialist National Party	28
Serbian Radical Party	5
Serbian National Party	2
Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians	1

APPENDIX II

List of documents produced or commissioned

by the Parliamentary Assembly concerning the FRY:

- Doc 8889 (8 Nov. 2000): Situation in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Report by the Political Affairs Committee, Rapporteur: Mr Claude Frey, Switzerland, LDR)

Resolution 1230

Recommendation 1481

- Doc. 8928 (20 January 2001): Federal Republic of Yugoslavia – recent developments (Report by the Political Affairs Committee, Rapporteur: Mr Claude Frey, Switzerland, LDR)

Resolution 1237

Recommendation 1491

- AS/POL (2001) 01 – Political Affairs Committee (Opinion to the Bureau of the Assembly on the request from the Federal Parliament of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for special guest status with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Rapporteur: Mr Frey, Switzerland, LDR)

- Doc 8934 (Ad hoc Committee to observe the elections to the National Assembly of Serbia/Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Rapporteur: Mr Gross, Switzerland, SOC), 22 January 2001

- AS/Bur/Youg (2001) 01 (Report by the eminent lawyers to the Bureau of the Assembly, Prof. Dr Rudolf BERNHARDT, Former President of the European Court of Human Rights and Mr Raimo PEKKANEN, Former Judge of the European Court of Human Rights)

- Venice Commission: Report on the constitutional situation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 26 October 2001 (requested by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights)

APPENDIX III

Proceeding Points for the Restructuring of Relations Between Serbia and Montenegro Agreement on Principles. The Agreement on Principles of relations between Serbia and Montenegro within the state union shall be signed by participants in the talks: the President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Deputy Federal Prime Minister, the President of the Republic of Montenegro, the Serbian and Montenegrin Premiers and, as a witness, the EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy. The document shall be submitted for debate to the Parliaments of member states and the Federal Parliament. Constitutional Charter. On the basis of opinions put forward in parliamentary debates, that is, parliamentary conclusions, a constitutional commission, whose members shall be delegated by the Parliaments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), Serbia and Montenegro, shall draft the Constitutional Charter, the highest legal act of the state union of Serbia and Montenegro. The text of this act shall be adopted by the republican parliaments first, and than submitted to the Federal Parliament. Such procedure would reaffirm the elements of Serbian and Montenegrin statehood, stemming from the present-day factual situation and the historic rights of the two member states. Provision on Reconsideration. Upon the expiration of a three-year period, the member states shall be entitled to instituting proceedings for a change of the state status, that is, withdrawal from the state union. If Montenegro withdraws from the state union, international documents related to the FRY, the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244 in particular, shall relate to and fully apply on Serbia as its successor. A member state that uses this right, shall not inherit the right to international and legal status, and all debatable issues shall be regulated specifically between the state successor and the newly established state. If in a referendum process both member states declare themselves in favour of a change of the state status (independence), all debatable issues shall be resolved in succession proceedings, as was done in the case of former Yugoslavia. The Laws on Referendum shall be adopted by the member states, taking full account of internationally recognised democratic standards. The name of the state: Serbia and Montenegro. Institutions of Serbia and Montenegro: the Parliament, the President, the Council of Ministers and the Court. Parliament: A unicameral parliament providing certain positive discrimination for Montenegrin representatives. The Laws on the Election of Representatives to the Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro shall be adopted by the member states, in compliance with the principles defined by the Constitutional Charter. Mechanisms to protect against outvoting of member states shall be provided for. President of Serbia and Montenegro: The President, elected by the Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro, shall propose the composition of the Council of Ministers and direct its work. Council of Ministers: The Council of Ministers shall be composed of five departments: foreign affairs, defence, international economic relations, internal economic relations and protection of human and minority rights. The competences of the ministries shall be defined in detail subsequently. The Court of Serbia and Montenegro: The Court shall have constitutional-court and administrative court functions, and shall deal with harmonisation of court practice. The administrative court function shall be exercised in relation with administrative acts of the ministries of the Council of Ministers. The Court shall take legal views and give opinions related to the harmonisation of court practice. The Court is not an appellate court and has an equal number of judges from the member states. The Army: The Army of Serbia and Montenegro shall be under the command of the Supreme Defence Council, composed of three presidents. The Supreme Defence Council shall make decisions by consensus. Conscripts shall serve the army on the territory of their respective member states, with the possibility of serving on the territory of the other member state, if they wish so. Elections and Appointments: Upon the promulgation of the Constitutional Charter under the specified procedure, elections shall take place, the Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro shall be constituted, the President of Serbia and Montenegro shall be elected, as well as members of the Council of Ministers and judges of the Court of Serbia and Montenegro. It shall also be possible to provide for rotating during a term in office. (In the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defence, the minister and his/her deputy from different member states shall take turns when one half of the term in office expires). In representing the member states in international organisations (UN, OSCE, EU and the Council of Europe), parity shall be provided for through rotation, whereas special models for representation shall be defined for international financial organisations. In diplomatic and consular representative offices of Serbia and Montenegro abroad, a special agreement shall be made on proportionate representation of the member states. The Constitutional Charter shall be submitted to the Parliaments for deliberation by the end of June 2002 at the latest. Dislocation of federal institutions. Some federal institutions can be headquartered in Podgorica. Constitutional reconstruction of the member states. Within the activities aimed at the promulgation of the Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro, the member states shall amend their respective constitutions in compliance with the Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro or promulgate new constitutions by the end of 2002 at the latest. Economic sphere. The level of economic reforms reached in Serbia and Montenegro shall be a proceeding point for regulating mutual economic relations. The member states shall be responsible for unhindered operation of a common market, including the free flow of people, goods, services and capital. Harmonisation of the economic systems of the member states with the EU economic system shall overcome the existing differences, primarily in the spheres of trade and customs policies. In both regards, economic reforms that have already been carried out in the member states shall be taken into full account, while solutions that would provide for the quickest integration into the European Union shall be accepted. Transitional solutions in harmonising trade and customs policies should take into account the interests of the member states. The European Union shall assist in the accomplishment of these objectives and monitor the process on a regular basis. The modalities for the achievement of these objectives shall be elaborated in parallel with the Constitutional Charter. If one of the member states believes that the other does not live up with commitments under this agreement concerning the operation of a common market and the harmonisation of trade and customs policies, it shall reserve the right to raise the matter with the EU in the context of the Stabilisation and Association Process with the view to the adoption of appropriate measures. The EU shall guarantee that, if other conditions and criteria for the Stabilisation and Association Process are fulfilled, the agreed principles of constitutional organisation shall not be an obstacle to a rapid conclusion of the Agreement on Association and Stabilisation. President of the Federal Republic Yugoslavia Vojislav Kostunica Deputy Federal Prime Minister Miroljub Labus President of the Republic of Montenegro Milo Djukanovic Premier of the Republic of Serbia Zoran Djindjic Premier of the Republic of Montenegro Filip Vujanovic Witnessed by EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana Belgrade, March 14, 2002

© 2001 Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Federeal Republic of Yugoslavia
Kneza Milosa 24 - 26, Belgrade; phone: 381 11 36 15 055; fax: 381 11 36 18 366; E-mail: mfa@smip.sv.gov.yu

APPENDIX IV

Programme of the visit of the Rapporteur (7-12 April 2002)

I.       Pristina (Kosovo), 7-8 April 2002

Sunday, 7 April

15.00       Arrival of Mr Frey⁴

20:00       Working dinner at Restaurant ‘ORA’ with

Mr Alexander BORG-OLIVIER, Director of the Office of the Legal Adviser, Office of the Special representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations (SRSG)

Mr Andrew Whitley, Director of the Office of Return and Communities, Office of the SRSG

Mr Peter SCHUMANN, Principal International Officer, Ministry of Public Services

      Mr Mark ETHERINGTON, Director of Policy Affairs, OSCE

      Ms Karin VOLKNER, Head of Council of Europe Secretariat Office

      Ms Lucia CATANI, Deputy Head of Council of Europe Office

Monday, 8 April

09:00        Mr Bajram REXHEPI, Prime Minister

10:00        Mr Nexhat DACI, President of the Assembly

11:30        Mr Ramush HARADINAJ, Head of AAK (Alliance for the Future of Kosovo)

14:00        Mr Ibrahim RUGOVA, President of Kosovo, Mr Rugova’s residence

15:00        Mr Michael STEINER, Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations

      Mr Charles H. BRAYSHOW, Deputy Special Representative - UNMIK

      Mr Anthony RICCI, Pillar I

      Mr Peter SCHUMANN, DSRSG, Pillar II

      Ambassador Pascal FIESCHI, OSCE, Head of Pillar III

      Mr Andy BEARPARK, EU, Head of Pillar IV

16:15       Ambassador Pascal FIESCHI, OSCE HQ, Mr Mark ETHERINGTON, Director of Policy Affairs, OSCE and Mr Jeremy LIDSTONE, Director of Media Affairs, OSCE HQ

Departure via Skopje

II.       Podgorica (Montenegro), 9 April 2002

Tuesday, 9 April

9.15       Arrival at Podgorica

10.00       Mr Branko LUKOVAC Minister of Foreign Affairs (Independent)

11.00       Mr Zeljko STURANOVIC, Minister of Justice

12.00       Mr Svetorzar MAROVIC (DPS), Chair of the Committee of Foreign Affairs  of the Parliament

13.00       Ms Vesna PEROVIC (Liberal Alliance), Speaker of Parliament

14.00       Mr Milo DJUKANOVIC, President of the Republic

15.00       Lunch break

16.30       Presidents of parties of the coalition « Together for Yugoslavia »

Mr Predrag BULATOVIC (President of SNP), Mr Savo DJURDJEVAC (Vice-President of NS), Mr Bozidar BOJOVIC (President of SNS)

18.00       Mr Michael ROBINSON, Head of the OSCE Sub-office Podgorica

20.00       Working dinner in Restaurant Dank with :

Mr Michael ROBINSON (OSCE)

Ms Laurie WISEBERG (OHCHR, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights)

Mr Robert BREEN, (UNHCR, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees)

Mr Peter SINTLER, EU Monitoring Mission

Ms Verena TAYLOR, Special Envoy of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Ms Eva KOPROLIN, Head of the Council of Europe Office

III.       Belgrade, 10-12 April 2002

Wednesday, 10 April

11:00       Arrival in Belgrade

12:00       Mr Goran SVILANOVIĆ, Minister of Foreign Affairs

13:30       Lunch

16:00       Mr Vojislav KOŠTUNICA, President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

16:30        Mr Rasim LJAJIĆ, Federal Minister for National and Ethnical Groups

17:30        Mr Zoran ŽIVKOVIĆ, Federal Minister of Interior

18:30       Mrs Nataša MIĆIĆ, President of the Parliament of the Republic of Serbia and Mr Dragor HIBER, Committe on Justice and Administration

Thursday, 11 April

08:15       Ambassador Geoffrey BARRETT, Head of the Delegation of the European Commission

09:00-12.00       Meetings with Federal Parliament Representatives

09:00       Mr Dragoljub MICUNOVIĆ, Welcome by the Chairman of the delegation and other members of the Yugoslav Parliament special guest delegation to the PACE

10:00       Commission of the Chamber of Citizens for Foreign Policy Relations: (P. FILIPOV, M. FILIPOVIC, M MARJATOVIC, M. ISAKOV, D. VUJADINOVIĆ, I. DAČIĆ and R. KADIĆ)

11:00       Commission on Constitutional Issues (S. GAVRILOVIC, V. KALUDJEROVIC, B. BOJOVIC and M. MINIC)

12:30       Lunch hosted by the Yugoslav Parliament special guest delegation to the PACE

14:30-20:00        Meetings with Government Representatives of the Republic of Serbia

14:30        Mr Zoran ĐINĐIĆ, President of the Government of the Republic of Serbia

15:30        Mr Nebojša ČOVIĆ, Vice President of the Republican Government

16:30       Mr Žarko KORAĆ, Vice President of the Republican Government

17:30       Mr Vladan BATIĆ, Minister of Justice of the Republic of Serbia

19:00       Mr Dušan MIHAILOVIĆ, Minister of Interior of the Republic of Serbia

20:00       Dinner hosted by the Ambassador of Switzerland, Mr GAUDENZ B. RUF with

      Ambassador Stefano SANNINO, Head of OSCE Mission to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

      Mr Christian HELLBACH, Counsellor, German Embassy

      Mr Ivan VEJVODA, Fund for an Open Society Yugoslavia (SOROS Foundation)

Ms Verena TAYLOR, Special Envoy of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Friday, 12 April

8:15       Mr Bogdan IVANISEVIC, Representative of the Human Rights Watch

09:00-11:00        Meetings at the Parliament of the Republic of Serbia

09:00       Mr Dragan MARŠIĆANIN, Committee on Constitutional Issues

10:00        Ms Nada KOLUNDŽIJA, Chairperson, Committee on Foreign Affairs

      and Mr PETROVIC, member of the Committee

11:30       Press conference at Media Center

14:50       Departure to Zurich

APPENDIX V

Conclusions of the report by the eminent lawyers

on the conformity of the legal order of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

with Council of Europe standards

(declassified on 7 November 2001)

…….

A. SHORT SUMMARY OF OUR FINDINGS

1. Summarising succinctly our findings in this report, the following should be said about democracy, the rule of law and human rights in the FRY:

      Democracy

      The institutions of the legislature and the executive are formed by means of democratic elections, which have generally been assessed positively. There is a multi-party system. There is a developed structure of ordinary courts. However, the judiciary lacks independence and authority. The current constitutional crisis and political problems in the relations between the three entities of the FRY are creating considerable difficulties that will have to be resolved as soon as possible. Some State institutions are not functioning properly. Large parts of the legal framework governing State institutions are outdated and certain areas, especially with regard to judicial independence, require urgent and radical reform (see paragraphs 38 to 145).

      Rule of law

      The rule of law is enshrined in the three constitutions. The FRY has legal traditions and a developed legal system. However, there is a high degree of legal uncertainty, mostly due to lack of harmonisation of laws. There is a considerable problem with regard to enforcing judgments. The legislative framework governing the police is outdated and does not ensure independent supervision. Certain aspects of the police’s structure and personnel policy, especially in Montenegro, are not in conformity with European standards. The prison system does not comply with European prison standards. Legal consciousness is not sufficiently high, old attitudes persist in some areas and there is a great deal to be desired with regard to judicial interpretation of the law in the light of the principles of the rule of law and of human-rights protection (see paragraphs 146 to 187).

      Human rights

      The three entities’ constitutions and legislation guarantee fundamental human rights, but the provisions governing a number of areas do not afford the level of protection required by the ECHR or other Council of Europe standards. Such areas include, inter alia, the use of firearms and lethal force, all forms of deprivation of liberty, civil and criminal procedure, minorities’ rights, freedom of expression and of the media, and freedom of association. Investigations of crimes committed during the armed conflicts of the recent past have commenced but are not always progressing at a satisfactory pace. Although the Federal Constitution prohibits capital punishment, it is provided for under the law of the two republics. Rules governing cooperation with the ICTY have not been adopted. Human-rights training has started but is insufficient (see paragraphs 188 to 259).

B. THE REFORMS

2. Throughout the report we have mentioned the draft laws currently being prepared and other ongoing reform efforts. For our conclusions it is important, in addition, to present a general overview of this process⁵.

3. The following first reforms have been undertaken:

- a federal and a Serbian amnesty law have been enacted (see paragraph 202 above);

- Article 196 of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure has been declared unconstitutional (see paragraph 205 above);

- provisions of the Serbian Law on Internal Affairs have been declared unconstitutional (see paragraph 209 above);

- repressive provisions of the 1998 Serbian Law on Public Information have been declared unconstitutional (see paragraph 242 and footnote 165 above);

- amendments to the Federal Law on Citizenship have been adopted (see paragraph 237 above).

- new legislation regarding certain aspects of the electoral system has been passed, including the Federal Law on Financing of Political Parties, the Serbian Law on Election of Representatives and the Montenegrin Law on Referenda (see paragraphs 72, 73 and 79 above);

4. The following relevant draft laws, some of which we have seen, are being prepared:

- draft Serbian law on courts (see paragraphs 122-126 above);

- draft Montenegrin law on courts (see paragraphs 122-126 above);

- draft laws on internal affairs of the two republics (see paragraph 175 above);

- draft Federal Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraphs 211-213 and 216 above);

- draft Criminal Codes for the Federation and the two republics (see paragraph 193 above);

- draft Montenegrin law on the use of arms (see footnote 122 above);

- draft federal law on national minorities (see paragraphs 228-230 above);

- draft Serbian laws on public information and on freedom of information (see paragraphs 247 and 248 above);

- draft Montenegrin law on public information (see paragraph 242 and footnote 163 above)

- draft Montenegrin law on broadcasting (see paragraphs 247 and 249 above);

- draft law on broadcasting for Serbia, prepared at federal level (see paragraph 248 above);

- draft laws on elections (see paragraph 231 above);

- draft amendments to the law on administrative procedure;

- draft Serbian law on local self-government (see paragraphs 136 and 231 above).

5. International assistance is being provided in respect of most of the draft laws (see the list of materials in Annex II to this report). Parallel to that work, training programmes have already been put in place or are planned for the near future. The Priority Programme (see paragraph 7 above) is a basis on which more detailed projects have been or are being developed.

6. There is no doubt that the vast reform programme undertaken by the authorities covers most aspects of the democratic State structure, the rule of law and human rights. It can be expected, therefore, that considerable changes will be made to the majority of the laws relevant to the present report.

7. As to the progress of the reform itself, however, a better pace than that observed at present is required. For example, ambitious plans for sweeping changes in the judiciary and in public administration were launched in Montenegro as early as 1998, but the results are still not evident three years later. In Serbia and at the federal level the process of reform has slowed down in the last couple of months.

8. Some of the above draft legislation is at present in early stages of preparation, even before approval of the respective government. It is apparent that the adoption of all the necessary new laws will take years even with intensive and efficient financial and expert support from the international organisations involved. The restructuring of different institutions will also take a fairly long period of time. In addition, time is also needed to secure adequate implementation through training and changes of attitudes.

C. ASSESSMENT

9. As stated in the introduction, we were asked to give an opinion on whether the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia meets the Council of Europe’s standards in respect of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. We must reiterate here that our assessment is limited to the situation in the territory under the effective control of the Federation or the republics (see paragraphs 27 to 35) and is based on the assumption that the Federation will survive the current constitutional and political crisis⁶ (see paragraphs 36 and 37).

10. We find that the institutional foundations of democratic legislative, executive and judicial powers are in place and that there is a developed body of law. However, the legal order in the FRY in most areas is still the same as it was before 5 October 2000. Vast legislative reforms and institutional changes are necessary, as has been indicated in detail in the text of this report.

11. Along with the situation at the time of the assessment, the will to continue reforms that have started in the right direction was a factor which was taken into consideration in respect of some countries that joined the Council of Europe in the past few years. Such an approach is also justified in the case of the FRY.

12. Yugoslavia has started the preparations needed to fulfil the requirements for joining the Council of Europe. Several urgent steps have been undertaken: the most repressive legal provisions enacted by the old regime have been repealed by the legislature, declared unconstitutional, or may be no longer applied in practice. There is a comprehensive programme of reform. Assistance from international organisations, including the Council of Europe, is being provided. Draft laws covering many important areas are in preparation.

13. All authorities in Yugoslavia showed during our meetings a willingness to fulfil the membership requirements as soon as possible. That attitude is impressive. The general level of awareness of the principles of democracy, the rule of law and human rights is high, and there is a strong will to implement them in practice.

14. It must be pointed out, however, that the pace of the reforms is not satisfactory. The difficulties slowing down the changes are mainly of an internal political nature. At the time of writing, most of the necessary changes have not been carried out. That fact may be given less weight if significant progress is evident in the near future.

15. Our conclusion is, therefore, that the legal order of Yugoslavia is not, at this stage, in conformity with Council of Europe standards but that the basis and the potential for meeting the requirements in respect of democracy, the rule of law and human rights are present. Given the existing willingness and capacity to carry out programmes involving new legislation, institutional changes and other reforms, it may be expected that the FRY will comply in the foreseeable future with Council of Europe standards.

D. AREAS IN WHICH URGENT ACTION IS NECESSARY

16. The following is a very short summary of the areas in which action is needed most urgently. The order in which they are listed reflects the structure of the present report and not on any degree of priority:

- harmonisation of legislation enacted by the republics and the Federation; progress in resolving the constitutional crisis; proper functioning of the constitutional courts;

- certain amendments to legislation on elections and referenda;

- radical reform of the rules on the appointment and, above all, dismissal of judges;

- adequate remuneration for judges;

- training in the respective professional fields and, in particular, in human rights, for judges, prosecutors, police officers, prison authorities, other State personnel and lawyers;

- practical application in the courts’ everyday practice of the legal remedies for the protection of human rights; judicial interpretation of existing legislation in the light of the principles of the rule of law and of safeguarding human rights;

- compliance by the State authorities with court judgments and strengthening of the system for the enforcement of judgments concerning private parties;

- development of a comprehensive programme against crime and corruption;

- effective prosecution of the perpetrators of war crimes committed in the past decade;

- full co-operation with the ICTY;

- reform of the police, including, inter alia, clarifying its tasks and powers, optimising it in size and structure, adopting a code of police ethics, based on European standards, and opening the police force to women;

- new legislation on minorities and adoption of a comprehensive programme on the reintegration of ethnic Albanians and other minorities into all branches of the State administration and, in particular, in the police;

- complete abolition of capital punishment;

- amendment of the legal provisions governing the use of lethal force and firearms, and new training, focused on preserving life, for the police and the armed forces;

- reform of legislation on all forms of deprivation of liberty;

- amendments to procedural laws in the light of the requirements of Article 6 of the ECHR and the case-law of the Strasbourg institutions;

- new laws on media and broadcasting;

- revision of legislation on all forms of political and other organisations.

APPENDIX VI

Exchange of correspondence concerning the honouring of commitments






Belgrade, 29 August 2002

Dear Mr. Schieder,

      I have the pleasure to inform you that all the parties involved reached
consent, regarding respecting and fulfilling commitments by the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia after its accession to the Council of Europe.

      Please find enclosed the letter, signed by Mr Vojislav Kostunica,
President of the Federal Republic Yugoslavia, Mr Srdja Bozovic, speaker of
the Chamber of Republics of the Federal Parliament, Mr Dragoljub
Micunovic, Speaker of the Chamber of Citizens of the Federa1 Parliament
and Mr Dragisa Pesic, Federal Prime Minister which expresses the
willingness of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to honour above
mentioned commitments.

      
In that regard, I would like to stress out, once again, our strong
determination to contribute, through the Council of Europe, to the stability
and democratisation of the region.

Goran Svilanovic

H.E. Peter SCHIEDER, President
of the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe
Strasbourg

Your Excellency,

      We, the signatories of this letter,

      Following the firmly expressed determination of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia for full reintegration into international community,

      Recalling the will of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, expressed on November
9 2000, to become a member of the Council of Europe,

      Considering that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in accordance with Article 4
of the Statute of the Council of Europe, is able to fulfill the conditions of membership of
the Council of Europe as set forth in Article 3 of the Statute,

      Wishing for Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to contribute, in the framework of the
Council of Europe, to safeguarding and realizing the ideals and principles which are the
common heritage of the countries of Europe consisting of the spiritual and moral values
which are the true source of individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law,

      Believing that full-fledged membership of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in
the Council of Europe will contribute to stability in the region and facilitate resolving of
the open issues by peaceful means,

      Convinced that full membership of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the
Council of Europe is in the best interests of and will greatly benefit Yugoslav citizens
and all ethnic communities, both those living in Serbia and in Montenegro,

      We have the honor to inform you that we have reached the full consensus on
acceptance of the commitments related to the accession of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia to the Council of Europe and, in that regard, we declare that the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia is determined to honour the following commitments:

      i.       to ratify the Dayton Peace agreements and to co-operate fully and effectively in
their implementation, which notably require the settlement of internal and international
disputes by peaceful means;

      ii.       as regards conventions:

H.E. Peter SCHIEDER, President
of the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe
Strasbourg

      a.       to sign, at the time of its accession, the European Convention on Human
Rights, as amended by Protocols Nos. 2 and II thereto, and Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7,
12 and 13;

      b.       to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights and Protocols Nos. 1, 4,
6, 7, 12 and 13 thereto within one year of its accession:

      c.       to sign and ratify, within one year of its accession, the European Convention
for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and
the protocols thereto;

      d.       to sign and ratify, within two years of its accession, the European Charter for
Regional or Minority Languages;

      e.       to sign and ratify, within two years of its accession, the European Charter of
Local Self-Government;

      f.       to sign and ratify, within two years of its accession, the European Outline
Convention on Trans-frontier Co-operation and the protocols thereto, and the Council of
Europe’s conventions on extradition, mutual judicial aid in criminal matters, the
laundering, search, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of crime, and the transfer of
sentenced persons, and in the meantime to apply their fundamental principles;

      g.       to sign, within two years of its accession, the Council of Europe’s European
Social Charter, to ratity it as soon as possible and to endeavour forthwith to implement
a policy in keeping with the principles enshrined in it;

      h.       to sign the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities and the protocols
thereto at the time of its accession and to ratify it within one year of its accession;

      iii.       as regards domestic legislation:

      a.       to abolish the death penalty in Montenegro within six months of accession and
to introduce a moratorium forthwith;

      b.       to enact legislation or, preferably, to include provisions in the Constitutional
Charter to bring the army under civilian Control;

      c.       to enact, within one year of its accession, legislation on the reform of the
police, comprising a redefinition of the police's functions, the implementation of the
European Code of Police Ethics and the establishment of training structures, and in
particular the reorganization of the secret police and its submission to control by
government and parliament;

      d.       to enact, in sufficient time for its implementation before the next elections the
Draft Broadcasting Law in Serbia, which has been adopted by the Serbian Government,
agreed upon by the experts of the Council of Europe and was recently referred to the
Serbian Parliament with urgency, and to enact, in sufficient time for its implementation
before the next elections legislation on public information in Serbia, placing particular
emphasis on guarantees of independence and pluralism;

      e.       to enact, within one year of its accession, legislation to enable the Geneva
Convention on the Status of Refugees and the 1967 protocol thereto to be implemented;

      f.       to enact, within one year of its accession, legislation on citizen associations
and NGOs consistent with European standards for non-profit organisations;

      g.       to revise, in co-operation with Council of Europe experts, the legislation and
regulations concerning the prison system;

      h.       to amend the law governing elections with a view to the next presidential
elections or, at the latest, in time for the elections to the Federal parliament, so as to
make the process more transparent, and, in particular, to bring it into line with the future
Constitutional Charter now being drafted;

      iv.       as regards human rights:

      a.       to continue co-operating with the ICTY and in this context:

      -       to do its utmost to track down all the sixteen indicted persons still at large
and to extradite them to the ICTY. Authorities must not give in when confronted with
any indicted person who threatens them by whatever means;

      -       to cooperate with the ICTY in giving witness protection if required;

      -       to give clear instructions to the police and prosecutors to enable them to
make immediate arrests, as the law on extradition is deficient as regards time required
for taking action;

      -       to revise the law on co-operation with the ICTY in accordance with the
Statute of the ICTY and the relevant UN Security Council Resolution;

      -       to make documents and archives, including military documents and archives,
available to the ICTY without further delay.

      b.       to cooperate to establish the facts concerning the fate of missing people and
giving all information concerning mass graves;

      c.       to largely inform the people of Serbia about the crimes committed by the
regime of Slobodan Milosevic, not only against the other peoples of the region but also
against the Serbs;

      d.       to continue the reforms initiated with regard to the independence and
impartiality of the judiciary and to the relationship between judges, prosecutors and the
police;

      e.       to enforce legislation concerning conscientious objectors and, within three
years, to enact legislation on an alternative type of service;

      f.       to enact, within one year of its accession, legislation creating the office of
Ombudsman;

      v.       as regards the functioning of the institutions:

      a.       to resolve at the earliest opportunity the fundamental constitutional question as
to the form of the state between Serbia and Montenegro, on which a series of other
questions hinges, including the rights inherited from the existing federation and
representation of the new state in international organisations;

      b.       to draft the Constitutional Charter in accordance with democratic, transparent
and sound principles and in this context to constitute the new federal parliament, which
will have the task of adapting the Charter, by means of elections;

      c.       to ensure that, should a referendum on independence take place at the end of
the three-year trial period provided for in the agreement between Serbia and
Montenegro, that it is organised in conditions of utmost transparency, in full conformity
with the law, after a population census and in the presence of international observers;

      d.       once the Constitutional Charter has been adopted, to amend the constitutions
of Serbia and Montenegro to bring them into line with it and to harmonise the whole of
the legal system so as to avoid overlapping of responsibilities between the federation
and the republics, paying great heed to European standards in this matter:

      e.       to improve the constitutional and legislative provisions concerning
decentralisation and the organization of local authorities and the autonomous regions;

      vi.       as regards Kosovo:

a. to continue to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244
of 10 June 1999 and with the arrangements made under this resolution, in
particular the international administration of Kosovo;

b. to undertake to settle disputes over the future status of Kosovo by peaceful
means and solemnly to renounce any use of force;

c. to contribute to the efforts aimed at building a democratic, multiethnic entity
in Kosovo with a view to creating a political climate conducive to reflection
and dialogue on its future status;

      vii.       as regards monitoring of commitments:

      a.       to co-operate fully with the implementation of Parliamentary Assembly
Resolution 1115 (1997) on the setting up of an Assembly committee on the honouring of
obligations and commitments by member states of the Council of Europe (Monitoring
Committee) and a monitoring process set up in pursuance of the Committee of Ministers'
declaration of 10 November 1994.

      
Please accept, your Excellency, the assurance of our highest consideration.

Table of contents

I.       Preliminary Draft opinion        2

II.       Explanatory memorandum by the Rapporteur        6

A.       Introduction       6

B.       Political situation and state of the institutions       6

      Voivodina       8

C.       Southern Serbia        8

D.       Situation in Kosovo       8

E.       Rule of law, protection of human rights and legislative reforms        9

      Capital punishment       9

      Justice       10

      Rights of minorities       10

Freedom of expression and media       10

The Army       10

Police       11

Situation of refugees       11

Ombudsman       12

      Non-governmental organisations       12

      Local government       12

F.       War criminals and co-operation with the ICT        12

G.       Conclusions       12

Appendix I

List of political parties       15

Appendix II

List of documents produced or commissioned by the Parliamentary Assembly

concerning the FRY………………………………………………………………………………………. 17

Appendix III

Agreement between Serbia and Montenegro       18

Appendix IV

Programme of the visit of the Rapporteur ……………………………………………………………… 21

Appendix V

Conclusions of the report by the eminent lawyers………………………………………………………24

Appendix VI

Exchange of correspondence concerning the honouring of commitments …………………………. 28

¹ Doc. ATCM (2002)3 – K. Jakubowicz, Analysis and comments on the Serbian draft Broadcasting Law, 15 April 2002.

² Situation of refugees and displaced persons in the FRY – Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography (Rapporteur: Mr Boriss Cilevics)

³ List established on 30 May 2002

⁴ The Rapporteur was accompanied by Mr Barış Perin, Head of the Secretariat of the Political Affairs Committee

⁵ It cannot be excluded, however, that our information is incomplete and that the lists in paragraphs 262 and 263 may become obsolete on certain points.

⁶ If Montenegro and Serbia become separate States, they will have to submit new applications for admission to the Council of Europe and a fresh examination of the conformity of their legal order with Council of Europe standards will have to be carried out.