|
|
Doc. 8823
13 September 2000
Honouring of obligations and commitments by Croatia
Report
Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe
Rapporteurs: Mr Jerzy Jaskiernia, Poland, Socialist Group and
Mrs Maria Stoyanova, Bulgaria, Group of the European People's Party
Summary
The Assembly welcomes the significant progress Croatia has made in honouring its obligations and commitments as a member state since its accession to the Organisation on 6 November 1996 and, in particular, since the parliamentary and presidential elections held at the beginning of 2000. Especially as regards the honouring of commitments related to the consequences of the war, the Assembly commends the current President of the Republic, Government and Parliament for having radically improved within a few months Croatia’s record concerning implementation of the Dayton and Erdut Agreements and having thus promoted stability and security in Southeastern Europe.
The Assembly encourages the Croatian authorities to pursue their policy towards consolidation of democratic reforms and European integration and recommends, for this purpose, a series of concrete steps to be taken in future. The member states of the Council of Europe are invited to help Croatia in this respect by stepping up their financial assistance to the country in the framework of the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe.
The Assembly concludes that Croatia has honoured its obligations and most of its commitments and that remaining commitments are in the process of being fulfilled and thus considers the current monitoring procedure as closed. Implementation of further reforms on the issues listed in its resolution will be followed closely in the framework of the post-monitoring dialogue with the Croatian authorities which the Monitoring Committee will carry out on behalf of the Assembly.
I. Draft resolution
1. The Assembly welcomes the significant progress Croatia has made towards honouring its commitments and obligations as a member state since its accession to the Council of Europe on 6 November 1996 and, in particular, since the parliamentary and presidential elections held at the beginning of 2000. Croatia has thus met most of the objectives and deadlines set out in Assembly Opinion No. 195 (24 April 1996) and in Assembly Resolution 1185 (29 April 1999):
i. Croatia has ratified all the Council of Europe conventions it had committed itself to, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the European Charter of Local Self-Government and the European Charter for Regional or Minority languages;
ii. a constitutional revision is on-going aiming primarily at the abolition of excessive presidential powers and the establishment of parliamentary control over the executive;
iii. amendments to the electoral law, adopted in October 1999, take into account most of the recommendations made by the Assembly in its Resolution 1185 (1999), notably regarding revision of the special representational rights of Croatian citizens living abroad, multi-party representation on electoral commissions at state and local level and accreditation of domestic, non-partisan, observers;
iv. amendments to the law on local self-government and administration, adopted in November 1999, take into account most suggestions made by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe; their full implementation depends on further changes to be made to the law on the system of governance and the law on the city of Zagreb; new legislation to strengthen further local and regional self-government in compliance with the European Charter on Local Self-Government is being prepared with a view to adoption before the next nation-wide local elections scheduled for Spring 2001;
v. amendments to the law on the High Judicial Council, adopted in May 1999, take into account most recommendations made by Council of Europe experts; new amendments to the law are being prepared regarding primarily judicial appointment procedures; amendments are also being prepared to the law on courts, with a view to depoliticising the judiciary, and to other laws (such as: code of civil procedure, bankruptcy act, inheritance act, etc.) to increase the efficiency of the judiciary and reduce the heavy backlog of cases;
vi. a new draft law on the Croatian Radio and Television (HRT) was sent to Parliament on 1 June 2000: it has been positively assessed by Council of Europe experts since it provides for the transformation of the HRT into a public service broadcaster and proposes the privatisation of the third channel, in compliance with Assembly Resolution 1185 (1999); further changes to the draft have been proposed by the experts to ensure the independence of the HRT Council from political interference and avoid a complex organisational structure;
vii. a new draft law on telecommunications aiming at ensuring the independence of the Radio and Television Council is being prepared by the Government for submission to Parliament in autumn this year following consultation with Council of Europe experts;
viii. amendments to the criminal code abolishing the possibility for the Public Prosecutor to pursue ex officio criminal actions for defamation of high state officials passed first reading on 1 June 2000; the Constitutional Court also abolished provisions of the law on public information that had allowed for special “urgent court proceedings” in defamation actions against journalists;
ix. two laws on minority rights, the law on education in the language and script of national minorities and the law on official use of the language and script of national minorities, were adopted on 11 May 2000: they have been welcomed by members of the national minorities in Croatia and representatives of the international community;
x. the Constitutional Court of Croatia has fully co-operated with the Venice Commission regarding participation of international advisers in the work of the court in minority cases: this exercise was successfully completed, according to the agreed schedule, at the end of 1999;
xi. the Croatian authorities have fully co-operated with the Assembly’s Monitoring Committee and its rapporteurs in the framework of the monitoring procedure.
2. As regards the honouring of commitments related to the consequences of the war, the Assembly commends the current President of the Republic, Government and Parliament for having radically improved within a few months Croatia’s record regarding implementation of the Dayton and Erdut Agreements and having thus promoted stability and security in Southeastern Europe, notably as regards:
i. co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia;
ii. co-operation with the international community and foreign non-governmental organisations acting in Croatia;
iii. relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina: a fully transparent policy of respect for the independence and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina has been pursued and proposals for an agreement between the two states on return and repossession of property have been elaborated;
iv. return of refugees and displaced persons: this issue is no longer perceived as a political but as a merely financial one and several measures have been taken to facilitate return such as:
a. the creation of a new inter-ministerial structure – the “Co-ordination for Areas of Special State Concern” – to co-ordinate government programmes related to return and trust establishment ;
b. the adoption of a Joint Declaration by the Croatian Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister of Republica Srpska (one of the two entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina) committing both sides to facilitate the return of 2,000 refugees within three months;
c. the publication and discussion with the international community of a report evaluating the implementation of the Return Programme and proposing measures to address the problems of repossession of property and provision of alternative accommodation;
d. the abolition of discriminatory provisions in laws regarding access to reconstruction assistance, repossession of property and the provision of alternative or temporary accommodation;
e. the simplification of procedures for confirming citizenship status of returnees;
f. the establishment of a genuine dialogue with representatives of the Serb community and increased co-operation with the Joint Council of Municipalities in the Danube region;
g. the establishment of frequent contacts between government structures on return and local Housing Commissions; new regulations are being prepared to define the overall procedure for repossession of property, protect the rights of owners and temporary occupants of property to be returned to owners and allow for a more efficient operation of the Housing Commissions; amendments are also being prepared to the decree establishing the Agency for the Mediation of Real Estate Transactions (“Land Bank”) to increase transparency;
h. the use of opportunities offered by the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe to obtain funding for the return of refugees and reconstruction in areas of return.
3. The Assembly encourages the Croatian authorities to pursue their policy towards consolidation of democratic reforms, European integration and implementation of the Dayton and Erdut Agreements:
i. the Government should elaborate and/or the Parliament should adopt as a priority matter:
a. a new, integral constitutional law on the rights of national minorities in compliance with recommendations made by the Venice Commission;
b. further amendments to the Constitution in order to extend to all persons within the jurisdiction of Croatia certain rights currently reserved to citizens, in compliance with recommendations made by Council of Europe experts;
c. further amendments to the electoral law to implement remaining recommendations contained in Assembly Resolution 1185 (1999) regarding minority voting and impartiality of the HRT during electoral campaigns;
d. the laws, amendments to laws and regulations referred to above in paragraph 1 iv to viii and in paragraph 2 iv g regarding local and regional self-government, independence and efficiency of the judiciary, freedom of the media, procedures on repossession of property and the work of the Housing Commissions and of the Land Bank, in compliance with recommendations made by Council of Europe experts and/or other representatives of the international community;
e. a thorough reform of the legislation governing property issues throughout the country (i.e. beyond the areas of special state concern), including the issue of occupancy/tenancy rights, in consultation with international experts;
ii. the Croatian authorities should also take other measures to ensure:
a. prompt enforcement of decisions of all courts, including those of the Constitutional Court;
b. freedom of distribution of printed media on equal terms and on a commercial basis;
c. elimination of the negative effects of post-conflict legislation subsequently amended or abolished;
d. full and non-discriminatory implementation, at both central and local level, of laws regarding access to reconstruction assistance, repossession of property and the provision of alternative or temporary accommodation, as well as of other laws and administrative measures setting conditions to encourage sustainable return and improve inter-ethnic reconciliation; prompt and flexible implementation of the citizenship law;
e. transparent application of the amnesty law and impartial prosecution of war crimes regardless of the ethnicity of the defendant; publication of all war crimes convictions in absentia since 1991; increased efficiency in the control made by the Ministry of Justice of whether charges on war crimes are pending against a person wishing to return (« clearance procedure »).
4. The international community for its part should keep its promises and ensure that financial assistance is granted rapidly to Croatia which cannot and should not carry alone the economic burden of reconstruction and sustainable development in the areas of return. In this respect, the Assembly welcomes the projects of economic assistance recently approved in the framework of the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe, other European Union programmes and the Council of Europe Development Bank.
5. In conclusion, the Assembly is of the opinion that Croatia has honoured its obligations and most of its commitments and that remaining commitments are in the process of being fulfilled. The Assembly therefore considers the current monitoring procedure as closed. It will carry out its post-monitoring dialogue with the Croatian authorities, through its Monitoring Committee, on the issues referred to in paragraph 3 above, or any other issue arising from the obligations of Croatia as a member state of the Council of Europe, with a view to reopening the procedure in accordance with Resolution 1115 (1997), if further clarification or enhanced co-operation should seem desirable.
II. Draft recommendation
1. The Assembly refers to its Resolution … (2000) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Croatia in which it:
i. welcomes the significant progress Croatia has made towards honouring its commitments and obligations as a member state since its accession to the Council of Europe on 6 November 1996 and, in particular, since the parliamentary and presidential elections held at the beginning of 2000;
ii. commends the current President of the Republic, Government and Parliament for having radically improved within a few months Croatia’s record regarding implementation of the Dayton and Erdut Agreements and having thus promoted stability and security in Southeastern Europe;
iii. considers the current monitoring procedure as closed; it will carry out its post-monitoring dialogue with the Croatian authorities on the issues referred to in paragraph 3 of the afore-mentioned Resolution, or any other issue arising from the obligations of Croatia as a member state of the Council of Europe, with a view to reopening the procedure in accordance with Resolution 1115 (1997), if further clarification or enhanced co-operation should seem desirable;
iv. urges the international community to keep its promises and ensure that financial assistance is granted rapidly to Croatia;
v. welcomes the projects of economic assistance recently approved in the framework of the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe, other European Union programmes and the Council of Europe Development Bank.
2. It recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
i. verify progress made in the implementation of recommendations contained in paragraph 3 of Assembly Resolution … (2000) in the framework of its own monitoring procedure when dealing with the relevant themes;
ii. help the Croatian authorities in the framework of its programmes of co-operation and assistance, in particular in the fields of administration of justice, freedom of the media, protection of minority rights and return of refugees and displaced persons;
iii. invite the member states to step up financial assistance to Croatia in the framework of the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe in order to contribute to the cost of reconstruction and sustainable development in the areas of return.
III. Explanatory memorandum by the rapporteurs
Contents Pages
INTRODUCTION 8
CHAPTER ONE: COMMITMENTS RELATED TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE: DEMOCRACY, RULE OF LAW AND RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ……………………………………………………………………… 9
I . PLURALIST DEMOCRACY………………………………………………… 9
A. Elections………………………………………………………………………………… 9
B. The political system of governance…………………………………………….. 12
C. Local self-government…………………………………………………. 12
II. THE LEGAL AND JUDICIAL SYSTEMS …………………………………… 13
A. Legislation……………………………………………………………….. 13
B. The judicial system……………………………………………………… 14
III. HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS………………….. 15
A. Council of Europe Conventions………………………………………… 15
B. Freedom of the media…………………………………………………… 15
C. Minority rights ………………………………………………………... 18
CHAPTER TWO: COMMITMENTS RELATED TO THE RESPECT OF DAYTON AND ERDUT AGREEMENTS ……………………………………………………………… 21
I. RETURN OF REFUGEES AND DISPLACED PERSONS ………………… 21
A. General approach ……………………………………………………… 21
B. Specific issues …………………………………………………………… 23
II. RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES, INCLUDING BORDER DISPUTES, BY PEACEFUL MEANS 29
III. CO-OPERATION WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR
THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA ……………………………………………… 31
CONCLUSIONS……………………………………………………………………….. 32
APPENDIXES
I. Resolution 1185 (1999) and Recommendations 1405 (1999) and 1406 (1999) 34
II. Programme of the visit of the rapporteurs to Croatia (16-19 April 2000) 43
III. Comments of the Croatian Government and Parliament on the preliminary draft report [AS/Mon (1999) 22] 46
IV. 1999 Annual Report of Activities for the Development and Consolidation of Democratic Stability (ADACS) as regards Croatia 61
INTRODUCTION
1. Croatia joined the Council of Europe on 6 November 1996. The monitoring procedure was opened upon accession in accordance with paragraph 12 of Opinion 195 (1996) on Croatia’s request for membership.
2. A first Assembly debate on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Croatia was held on 29 April 1999. It led to the adoption of Resolution 1185 (1999) and Recommendation 1405 (1999) [see Appendix I].
3. In November 1999, the then Chairman of the Croatian parliamentary delegation informed the Committee of progress made in implementation of Resolution 1185 (1999). Certain laws or measures had been adopted within or almost within the set deadlines, notably the electoral law, amendments to the law on local self-government and the law on administration as well as amendments to the law on the High Judicial Council (see also below, Chapter One). Other laws or measures for which no specific deadlines had been set, notably regarding freedom of the media and return of refugees and displaced persons, were pending. No progress at all had been made regarding the commitment to elaborate a Constitutional Law revising the suspended provisions of the 1991 Constitutional Law regarding minority rights.
4. Following parliamentary and presidential elections in January 2000, which led to a completely new political environment in the country, we visited Croatia from 16 to 19 April 2000 (for a detailed programme of our visit, see Appendix II). We held meetings with the new President of the Republic, the new government (two Deputy Prime Ministers, Ministers of Foreign Affairs, of European Integration, of Interior, of Education and Sport, Assistance Ministers of Justice, Local Self-Government and Administration, of Public Works, Reconstruction and Construction, and Adviser to the Minister of Social Affairs) and the new parliamentary majority (Speaker of Parliament and chairmen of parliamentary committees). We also met representatives of political parties from both majority and opposition, the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, the Ombudsman, representatives of the Serb minority and other minorities, media and NGOs representatives. The visit was organised in an excellent manner by Mrs Feric-Vac, Chairperson of the Croatian Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly, assisted by Mr Torti, Secretary to the Delegation to whom we are particularly grateful. Our special thanks go also to the Italian Ambassador, Mr Pigliapoco, for the very fruitful briefing he organised with representatives of international organisations (OSCE, UNHCR and Presidency of the European Union).
5. During our visit, we were positively impressed by the political changes in the country, including a change of attitude towards the international community with which there seemed to be a much better co-operation than in the past. This was the case, for instance, of co-operation with the Hague Tribunal (see below, Chapter Two, Section III). Other positive measures were taken regarding relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina (and thus implementation of Dayton agreements) and the return of refugees and displaced persons (see below, Chapter Two, Section I). We particularly appreciated the words of Mr Mesic, President of the Republic, who told us that the commitments Croatia undertook vis-à-vis the Council of Europe should be honoured not just because we asked for it but mainly because this was in Croatia’s own benefit.
6. For our part, we informed our Croatian interlocutors that the main areas of concern remained minority protection, media, administration of justice and return of refugees and displaced persons.
7. Subsequently, we drew up a preliminary draft report which, after approval by the Monitoring Committee on 9 June 2000, was transmitted to the Croatian parliamentary delegation for comments within three months on 26 June 2000.
8. We are grateful to Mrs Feric-Vac for transmitting us the comments of the Croatian government and parliament already on 7 August 2000, long before the expiry of the deadline, a fact which enabled us to finalise our draft report. These comments appear in Appendix III.
9. What follows is thus an up-date of the progress made by Croatia in the honouring of its obligations and commitments since last year and notably since changes in the legislative and the executive occurred. We will first concentrate on those commitments which constitute specific formulations of Croatia’s general obligations under the Statute, that is commitments referring to elections, local democracy, the legal and judicial systems, the signature and ratification of Council of Europe conventions, freedom of the media and protection of minority rights (below, in Chapter One). Subsequently, we will deal with commitments related to the respect of the Dayton and Erdut Agreements, that is those related to the consequences of the war in former Yugoslavia: commitments for the return of refugees and displaced persons to their homes of origin, the peaceful resolution of disputes,1 including border disputes, and co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (below in Chapter Two).
CHAPTER ONE
COMMITMENTS RELATED TO THE FUNDAMENDAL PRINCIPLES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE: DEMOCRACY, RULE OF LAW AND RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
I. PLURALIST DEMOCRACY
A. Elections
10. Upon its accession to the Council of Europe, Croatia undertook to
“comply, well before the next elections, with the recommendations made by the election observers of the Council of Europe and other international organisations, in particular with regard to the special voting block for the diaspora, minority representation, voter registration lists, voter anonymity, the need to increase the independence of the state broadcasting corporation (HRT) and to undertake a census of the population as soon as possible”.
11. In its Resolution 1185 (1999), the Assembly regretted that “ none of the recommendations to change the electoral law, made by Council of Europe and other international observers in 1995, ha[d] been followed so far” and called on the Croatian authorities :
“i. to amend the electoral law in time before the next parliamentary elections (due for end 1999 or beginning 2000), following consultations between the ruling and the opposition parties and in compliance with recommendations made by international organisations, notably concerning:
a. revision of the special representational rights of Croatian citizens living abroad (for whose representatives twelve seats - 10% of the total - are reserved in the parliament);
b. consultations with representatives of national minorities and international experts on a system of minority voting which would ensure adequate representation of national minorities in parliament without violating the principle of voter anonymity ;
c. the independence and impartiality of the state broadcasting corporation (HRT) during electoral campaigns;
d. multi-party representation on electoral commissions at state and local level ;
e. accreditation of domestic, non-partisan, observers in all elections.”
12. Parliamentary elections were held in Croatia on 2 and 3 January 2000. They were observed by an Ad Hoc Committee of the Bureau of the Assembly (see Doc. 8624).
13. Following the death of President Franjo Tudjman on 10 December 1999, presidential elections were organised on 24 January and 7 February 2000. The first round of these elections was also observed by an Ad Hoc Committee of the Bureau of the Assembly (see Doc. 8658).
14. The Ad Hoc Committee on the parliamentary elections noted that these elections, won by six former opposition parties, opened new perspectives for Croatia and showed the desire of the population for political change: “Generally speaking, the elections were held in a normal and orderly manner. Effective steps were taken to facilitate the work of the national and international observers. The new legislative framework met, at least in part, the concern expressed by the international community.”
15. We further share the conclusion of the Ad Hoc Committee on the presidential elections that “throughout the elections the people wanted to pass on a firm message for the need of further democratisation of the country, something they hoped would materialise through the newly elected President, who according to them, should be someone that would respect and at the same time promote all democratic principles and values”. We are confident that President Mesic will come up to their expectations.
16. Regarding more specifically the parliamentary elections, the new electoral law was adopted on 29 October 1999, together with a law on electoral constituencies. Both laws came into force on 13 November 1999, close to the expiry of the Parliament’s mandate thus causing some uncertainty in the pre-election environment. The new electoral law took into account some, but not all of the principles agreed on 25 May 1999 between the then ruling Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) and six opposition parties and consequently the law did not enjoy the full support of the opposition.
17. As far as the recommendations made in Resolution 1185 (1999) are concerned, three out of five were complied with:
Ø Firstly, the new law eliminated the fixed quota of 12 seats (that is 10% of the total number of seats in parliament) reserved for the votes of the Croatian diaspora, that is Croatian citizens with no permanent residence in the country. The quota system had been seriously criticised in the past since it had resulted in the over-representation of the non-resident electorate. The new law created a special constituency for non-resident citizens to elect between 0 and 14 members of parliament according to the relationship between turn-out for this constituency and average turn-out per elected member throughout Croatia. Six seats were finally allocated to the Croatian diaspora.
Ø Secondly, the new law introduced partial party representation on electoral commissions at all levels, thus increasing the confidence of voters and candidates in the electoral process.
Ø Thirdly, for the first time in Croatia, non-partisan domestic observers were able to monitor elections.
18. On the other hand:
Ø The recommendation concerning the establishment of a system of minority voting without violating the principle of voter anonymity was not complied with. A separate 5-member constituency was created for those wishing to identify themselves as members of one of the recognised (“autochthonous”) ethnic or national minorities: one seat for the deputies of the Serb minority, one for the deputies of the Italian minority, one for the deputies of the Hungarian minority, one (to be shared) for the deputies of the Czech and Slovak minorities and one (to be shared) for the deputies of German, Austrian, Jewish, Ruthenian and Ukrainian minorities. The Assembly’s Ad Hoc Committee noted that this provision was administered in such a way as “to require people to identify themselves publicly, for the purposes of “registration”, in terms of “ethnicity” or “nationality” – this giving scope, notably in the former “war-affected” areas, to obstruction, intimidation and discrimination” and concluded that “the need to choose between an “ethnic” or the “general” ballot creates the potential to force an “ethnic” vote... [ and] this was certainly out-of-line with Council of Europe standards and principles”.
Ø Moreover, the amended electoral law led to a further reduction to a single seat for the Serb minority (in the 1995 elections 3 seats were reserved for representatives of the Serb minority in comparison to 13 seats in the pre-war period).
Ø In any event, the right to vote could not be exercised by a large number of refugees, mostly members of the Serb minority, who left the country during the war and remained effectively unable to assert their Croatian citizenship.
Ø Last but not least, although the abolition of the fixed quota of 12 seats for the diaspora votes constitutes a significant improvement in comparison with the previous system, it remains questionable that the right to Croatian citizenship and thus the right to vote is granted to ethnic Croats born abroad and having no permanent residence in Croatia, on the basis of ethnic criteria only.
19. As far as the independence and impartiality of the state electronic media is concerned, although a code of conduct had been introduced to regulate the election-related broadcasts of the Croatian Radio and Television (HRT), as in previous elections, the state media remained through out the campaign excessively biased in favour of the ruling party. Independent media outlets were subjected to harassment both in terms of financial inspection procedures and the laws of defamation.
20. These remaining concerns are expected to be addressed by the new political leaders of Croatia, well in advance before next elections and with the assistance of the Council of Europe and the OSCE.
B. Political system of governance
21. A procedure for constitutional revision has recently started in order to reduce the powers of the President of the Republic and increase those of the parliament and of the government. The revision was agreed between the six parties which won the elections and the President of the Republic prior to parliamentary and presidential elections. The President of the Republic, Mr Mesic, told us that the powers that his predecessor had, made no sense. In its working programme, the government notes that the revision aims at abolishing parallel government and para-state centres of power and establishing parliamentary control over the executive. The question that remains open concerns the extent to which the presidential powers will be reduced.
22. Two working groups, one at governmental level and one at presidential level, have prepared proposals for the constitutional revision. According to the government’s and parliament’s comments on our preliminary draft report, the draft amendments to the Constitution that the Croatian Government presented to the Parliament on 4 July 2000 are largely based on the proposals prepared by the working group of the President of the Republic. The only major difference between the two working groups concerns the future of the Parliament’s House of Counties. While the President’s working group advocates the need to abolish the House of Counties as the second chamber of the Parliament, the Government’s working group prefers retaining the House of Counties, although extensively restructured in terms of composition and functions. The Croatian MPs will eventually decide which of these two options is more acceptable.2
C. Local self-government
23. In its Resolution 1185 (1999), the Assembly welcomes inter alia the ratification by Croatia of the European Charter of Local Self Government on 11 October 1997.
24. Nonetheless, the Assembly notes that “despite [this] ratification… there is still no fully compatible law on local autonomy and administration” and calls on Croatian authorities:
“to pass legislation in the field of local self-government, in compliance with the European Charter of Local Self-Government and in consultation with the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe [CLRAE], by the end of October 1999 at the latest;”
25. On 12 November 1999, the Croatian parliament adopted a law on “amendments and supplements to the law on Local Self-Government and Administration”. These amendments take into account most suggestions of the CLRAE as contained in its Recommendation 46 (1998) and amplified by experts of the Congress in their discussions with the Croatian authorities in September 1999, notably regarding:
Ø the separation of powers of the Župans (previously confirmed to their post by the President of their Republic as both heads of the county assembly and county prefects) between county mayors, who are elected by the county assembly (equally to the municipal mayors or town mayors), and county prefects, who are appointed by the President of the Republic as heads of the bodies of state administration on the territory of the county; however, pending changes to the Law on the System of Government and the Law on the City of Zagreb, which also regulate these matters, the implementation of the amendments in question has been suspended;
Ø possibilities for transfrontier co-operation between local authorities in conformity with the Framework Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation of the Council of Europe; although Croatia has not yet ratified this convention (signed in May 1999), its individual provisions are embodied in the 1999 amendments to the Law on Local Self-government ;
Ø control over the acts of local authorities in conformity with the European Charter on Local Self-Government ;
Ø possibilities for the creation of several associations of local and regional authorities legally recognised by the government; a national union of local authorities has thus been founded; in brief, there are no obstacles for the local and regional authorities as legal entities to mutually co-operate and associate in accordance with law, international treaties that Croatia is a party to and general Croatian policy.
26. According to the working programme of the new Croatian government, a process of extensive decentralisation will be initiated along with the strengthening of local and regional self-government. Local self-government units, particularly in the larger cities, will be able to carry out a considerably larger range of activities and will be assured a higher degree of independence with respect to central government and administration. An essential increase of funding is a condition for the successful achievement of such independence and it will be achieved by reallocating revenues accrued through common taxes, facilitating new sources of local revenues, etc.
27. We were informed by the Assistant Minister of Justice, Local Self-Government and Administration that the Ministry was preparing a law to strengthen local self-government. We recommend that the CLRAE be consulted before the adoption of this law to ensure its compatibility with the European Chart on Local Self-Government.
28. The Government also intends to start considering gradual transformation of the territorial organisation of the country. It will be based on recognition of “specific regional features which represent Croatia’s greatest wealth” and lead to a smaller number of regional units. The Assistant Minister told us that this process will probably take some time.
II. THE LEGAL AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM
A. Legislation
29. Upon accession, Croatia undertook to
“pursue reforms with a view to bringing all legislation and practice in line with Council of Europe standards”.
30. In its Resolution 1185 (1999), the Assembly notes that “a number of Croatian bills or laws have been or are being subject to expertise by the Council of Europe” and recommends that “this consultation should continue in order to ensure full compatibility of Croatian legislation with the Organisation’s principles and standards”.
31. One year later, we can observe that, in some cases, account has been taken of Council of Europe expertise, as is the case, for instance, of the amendments to the Law on Local Self-government (see above) or the Law on High Judicial Council (see below). In few cases, no follow-up has been given to Council of Europe’s expertise. Regarding important pieces of legislation (such as the Constitutional Law on minority rights, the Croatian and Radio Television Act, etc.) consultation with the Council of Europe is currently on-going so that it is too early to know whether the opinion of the Organisation’s experts will be taken into account. We trust that this will be the case.
32. Recently, the Croatian Government and the General Directorate of Legal Affairs (intergovernmental sector) of the Council of Europe have agreed on further improving co-operation through Croatia’s accession to the Organisation’s legal instruments, assistance in on-going legislative reforms through legal expertise, seminars, study visits, etc.
B. The judicial system
33. In its Resolution 1185 (1999) the Assembly noted that «problems persisted in the administration of justice, notably with regard to the huge backlog in cases pending before courts and the lack of enforcement of court decisions» and called on the Croatian authorities
“to address shortcomings in the administration of justice in order to ensure respect of the rule of law and to adopt amendments to the law on the High Judicial Council, in the light of recommendations made by Council of Europe experts and with a view to strengthening the independence of judges, accelerating procedures for filling in vacancies in the judiciary and increasing the autonomy of the High Judicial Council, by the end of April 1999 at the latest;”
34. Amendments to the Law on the High Council of Justice, taking into account the recommendations of Council of Europe experts, were adopted on 7 May 1999.
35. A very interesting report on “the situation in the judiciary of the Republic of Croatia: analysis and proposed measures” was prepared by the Ministry of Justice already under the former government.
36. For its part, the new government in its working programme sets as priorities “improved efficiency of the judiciary, reduction of the number of pending cases, reduced judicial verdict terms and terms of enforcement in particular, with the concurrent upgrading of professional quality and a continuous, organised and efficient fight against corruption”.
37. In the view of the President of the Republic, problems in the administration of justice in the past, including delays and lack of enforcement of court decisions, were mainly due to political interference with the judiciary. Thus depoliticisation of judicial institutions, to which the new political leadership is committed, could rapidly bring about improvements.
38. In March 2000, the Constitutional Court found unconstitutional (as contrary to the principle of separation of powers) several provisions of the Law on the High Judicial Council regarding nomination of candidates for the presidency of the Supreme Court and for the post of General Prosecutor, nomination of and disciplinary proceedings against presidents of courts and other appointment procedures. The Court delayed the revocation of the unconstitutional provisions of this Law until 31 October 2000. Amendments to the law to bring it in conformity with the judgement of the Constitutional Court are currently being prepared within the Ministry of Justice, Administration and Local Self-Government.
39. Moreover, with a view to depoliticising the judiciary, amendments have been prepared to the Law on Courts to provide for a new method of electing the presiding judge, reduce his or her powers and strengthen those of the judges.
40. As regards the backlog of cases, which remains extremely heavy, we fully agree with the new political leadership that the situation cannot be improved overnight. But the new government seems strongly committed to bring forward quick positive results as regards the efficiency of the judiciary, inter alia because improvements in this field are necessary to encourage foreign investment in the country and bring it closer to the European Union. Thus, the Ministry of Justice, Administration and Local Self-Government has started preparing a package of amendments to the existing legislation which may influence the efficiency of the judiciary (amendments to the Bankruptcy Act, the Inheritance Act, the Law on Civil Procedure, the Mandatory Relations Act, etc.). Moreover, the implementation of the above-mentioned decisions of the Constitutional Court concerning judicial appointments will contribute to solving the problem of the numerous judicial vacancies which is partly responsible for the high number of pending cases.
41. As to the Council of Europe assistance in the field of administration of justice, an extensive co-operation is on-going, notably regarding reform of the judicial system, judges’ training, reform of the criminal and criminal procedure codes and reform of the administrative law.
42. As we had also noted last year, despite shortcomings in the administration of justice, the Constitutional Court of Croatia remains an important guarantor of human rights protection. The right to individual appeals to the Constitutional Court has continued to be largely used. The Constitutional Court appointed in December 1999 has on several occasions abolished or annulled unconstitutional provisions in a number of laws. The new Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court which entered into force in September 1999 further extended the Court’s powers and defined a maximum time-limit of one year for the resolution of cases pending before it. But the regulations which would allow implementation of the new Law have not yet been issued by the Court.
43. It is worth noting that the co-operation between the Constitutional Court and the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission has been successfully completed at the end of last year (see also below, paragraphs 71 to 73).
III. HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
A. Council of Europe conventions
44. In its Resolution 1185 (1999) the Assembly congratulated Croatia for having ratified all Council of Europe conventions it had committed itself to within the required deadlines. The Convention on Assistance in Criminal Matters, for which no deadline had been set, was also ratified on 7 May 1999.
B.
A. Freedom of the media
45. Upon its accession to the Council of Europe, Croatia undertook
“to implement the recommendations of Council of Europe experts on legislation relating to media, such as the law on public information, the law on telecommunications and the law on protection of competition”.46
46. Croatia was further expected to “guarantee effectively freedom of the media” in compliance with the above-mentioned commitment.
47. Moreover, in accordance with commitments undertaken during the accession procedure in the Committee of Ministers, Croatia
“should take immediate steps to stop all interference in the exercise of freedom of information and expression inter alia in the press and the electronic media, and should not exert any pressure on the media and journalists. It should furthermore resume discussions with Council of Europe representatives and experts concerning the content of, and the practice under, the Law on Telecommunications and the Law on Croatian Radio and Television, as well as the preparations of a new Bill on Information in line with Council of Europe standards.”i.
i. Electronic media
48. In its Resolution 1185 (1999), the Assembly regretted that, “with regard to freedom of electronic media, amendments to the law on the Croatian Radio and Television (HRT) were rushed through parliament disregarding most of the recommendations made by Council of Europe experts” and called on the Croatian authorities
“to continue national and international consultations with a view to further democratisation of the broadcasting media; to reconsider the decision not to privatise the third channel of the HRT in the light of the technical problems raised by the creation of a fourth channel; to reinforce the independence of the HRT, pending further changes to the HRT law and the telecommunications law in compliance with recommendations by Council of Europe experts, by way of implementing existing legislation;
49. The new government, in its working programme, sets the “provision and fostering of media freedom” as a “government priority” and undertook “to honour the international standards of the freedom of speech and thought”. The government also underlines that “Croatian television must be transformed from a state-controlled to a public, independent and responsible medium which does not serve the propaganda purposes of the party in power.”
50. During our recent visit, we were informed that changes in the senior positions in the Croatian Radio and Television (HRT) had been made in order to increase pluralism. Notably, a new director and a new editor-in-chief had been appointed. But representatives of the media told us that no major changes could occur in the media sector unless new laws on HRT and on Telecommunications were adopted and, even more, unless laws were to be implemented correctly in order to ensure independence of the electronic media.
51. A draft Law on HRT, prepared by a working group in which independent experts on media participated, was sent to parliament on 1 June 2000. Council of Europe experts visited Croatia on 26-27 June and held talks on this draft with the working group which prepared the draft, MPs, and HRT representatives. Their assessment was largely favourable since the draft constituted a significant step towards the transformation of HRT into a public service broadcaster. We particularly welcome the fact that the draft includes a proposal to privatise the third channel of HRT on fair and transparent conditions, in compliance with recommendations made by Council of Europe experts but also, upon our proposal, by the Parliamentary Assembly [see Resolution 1185 (1999)]. The Organisation’s epxerts suggested further changes to the HRT law in order to ensure the independence of the HRT Council from political interference and its transformation into a public service broadcaster avoiding a complex organisational structure. The experts’ written opinions should be transmitted to the Croatian government by the end of August 2000 and, together with the comments made during the public debate in Croatia, will be considered by the government in the preparation of the final draft Law on HRT. The law is expected to be adopted by parliament in its autumn session. It is essential that the adopted law be in line with recommendations made by Council of Europe experts in the course of the last two years and Assembly Resolution 1185 of last year, notably as regards independence of the HRT Council and privatisation of the third HRT channel.
52. As regards the Law on Telecommunications, representatives of the media stressed its importance since it regulates the issue of privately owned media. They also noted that, pending changes in the Telecommunications Law (which could take some time), the situation regarding the concession of licences could be improved only if staff changes were to take place immediately within the Telecommunications Institute (operating according to current law as an “independent regulator of telecommunications”) and the Radio and Television Council (tasked with “allocating concessions enabling the work of radio and television”).
53. In compliance with these demands, in April this year, the government relieved of duty the previous director of the Telecommunications Institute. The Parliament, for its part, replaced the previous members of the Radio and Television Council with new members who at their constituent session of 19 July 2000 elected their chairman, vice chairman and secretary.
54. As regards the preparation of a new Law on Telecommunications, a working group in the Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Transport and Communications has been instructed to submit a draft to government. According to the government’s and parliament’s comments (see Appendix III), the draft intends to ensure the independence of the Radio and Television Council through the professionalism of its publicly selected members. The Council could be financed from part of the fees being paid for the broadcasting services. Moreover, as requested by representatives of the electronic media, the frequency scheme and the regulations related to the award of concessions for radio and television stations will soon be defined and published.
55. The government is expected to submit the draft Law on Telecommunications to parliament in the course of September or early October this year. In their comments, the government and parliament state that the draft « is about to be submitted » for Council of Europe expertise. We urge the Croatian government to take into account the recommendations which Council of Europe experts had made on previous drafts and to forward the current draft to the Council of Europe, if possible, before its submission to parliament. We think that the elaboration of this law being quite complicated, it is important that no efforts are spared in order to produce a good law rather than having it adopted quickly.
ii. Printed media
56. In its resolution 1185 (1999), the Assembly regrets that “as to the freedom of printed media, the fact that, outside Zagreb, distribution of newspapers and magazines is in reality monopolised by two companies threatens the existence of independent media, since distributors often withhold or delay sale revenues due to them; journalists of some media are faced with a large number of defamation lawsuits brought by the government and ruling party officials.” Therefore, the Assembly calls on the Croatian authorities
“to solve the problems raised by the monopoly in the distribution of printed media, including by setting the conditions for competition in the distribution on equal terms and on a commercial basis; state officials should refrain from using defamation legislation to intimidate journalists.”
57. In its working programme, the new government committed itself to “take steps in order to provide for economic conditions affording free and independent production and distribution of printed media.”
58. Regrettably, the problems related to distribution, which were analysed in our last year’s report, have not been solved yet. More specifically, the TISAK company which holds the quasi-monopoly of distribution, entered bankruptcy proceedings and is now under judicial control. The Deputy Prime Minister, Mrs Antunovic, told us that as soon as the company was “healthy” again, the government would privatise it.
59. It seemed that all papers had problems with distribution by TISAK and loss of their revenues and, contrary to the past, we did not hear any allegations about discrimination against opposition papers.
60. As regards the defamation legislation, journalists told us that the new political leadership did not use this legislation to intimidate them. This is a significant positive change from the past. Moreover, two paragraphs of Article 204 of the Criminal Code providing for ex officio criminal prosecution for defamation of high state officials have been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. Comprehensive reforms of criminal legislation are under way, and proposed amendments to the Criminal Code eliminating this type of prosecution are now before parliament. The Constitutional Court also abolished articles in the Law on Public Information which had allowed for special “urgent court proceedings” in defamation actions against journalists.
C. Minority rights
61. As stated above, Croatia ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities on 11 October 1997 and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages on 5 November 1997, in compliance with its relevant commitments.
62. Croatia further undertook, upon accession
“to conduct its policy towards minorities on the principles set forth in Assembly Recommendation 1201 (1993) and to incorporate these principles into the legal and administrative system and practice of the country;
to implement the recommendations resulting from the opinion of the Venice Commission on the Constitutional Law on Human Rights and the freedoms and rights of national and ethnic communities and minorities and human rights protection mechanisms”.
63. In this context, the Venice Commission recommended that:
Ø the suspended provisions of the 1991 Constitutional Law on Human Rights and Rights of Minorities [hereafter: “the 1991 Constitutional Law”] - adoption of which was one of the conditions for the international recognition of Croatia’s independence - be revised as soon as possible in order to ensure that persons belonging to minorities are guaranteed rights in the field of local autonomy in accordance with the European Charter of Local Self-Government and Recommendation 1201 (1993);
Ø in order to subject the protection of minorities to a certain degree of international supervision, that an enlargement of the Constitutional Court be provided for, so as to allow it, when deciding upon cases concerning the rights of minorities, to comprise international advisers.
64. Furthermore, under Committee of Ministers Resolution (96) 31, Croatia was required
“to co-operate with the Council of Europe, inter alia in applying the Constitutional Law on Human Rights and Freedoms and the Rights of National and Ethnic Communities or Minorities”.
i. Laws on minority rights and revision of the relevant Constitutional Law
65. In its Resolution 1185 (1999), the Assembly regrets that, “as far as minority rights are concerned, no progress has been made in the preparation of a draft law on the revision of the suspended provisions of the 1991 constitutional law ‘on human rights and the rights and freedoms of national and ethnic communities and minorities’, it calls on the Croatian authorities
“to adopt a constitutional law revising the suspended provisions of the 1991 law ‘on human rights and the rights and freedoms of national and ethnic communities and minorities’, in compliance with the recommendations made by the ‘Venice Commission’ and taking into account new realities, by the end of October 1999 at the latest;”
66. On 11 May 2000, the Croatian parliament adopted a Law on Education in the Language and Script of National Minorities and a Law on Official Use of the Language and Script of National Minorities. The members of national minorities in Croatia have expressed great satisfaction with the adoption of these two laws which have also been favourably assessed by representatives of the international community.
67. Nevertheless, the importance of the adoption of these two laws has somewhat been overshadowed by the simultaneous adoption of a Law on amendments to the 1991 Constitutional Law, without taking into consideration the concerns raised by the Venice Commission in a preliminary report on the draft amendments which had been forwarded to the Croatian government on the day before the vote (10 May 2000). The rapporteurs of the Venice Commission had in particular objected: “the proposed Draft does not “revise” the suspended provisions but clearly abolishes all special regime for important minorities in Croatia. Admittedly, it re-activates provisions concerning proportional representation of minorities making more than 8% of the population but this is again suspended until the results of a census to be held in the future.3”
68. On a positive tone, the parliament, when adopting the amendments to the 1991 Constitutional Law, instructed the government to prepare within 6 months a new, integral Constitutional Law on minorities.
69. For our part, we stressed that, whatever the legal value of this “instruction” could be, what counted mainly was the fact that the commitment that Croatia undertook upon its accession, 4 years ago, to “implement the recommendations of the Venice Commission” concerning the Constitutional Law on minorities, remained unhonoured.
70. We were happy to learn that the Working Group set up by the government and headed by the Minister of Justice, Administration and Local Self-government, in consultation with the representatives of national minorities, produced a draft of a new Constitutional Law on minorities which was forwarded to the Venice Commission for expertise on 24 July 2000. The Working Group will study the remarks and suggestions of this Commission before presenting the draft of the new Constitutional Law for further procedure in the government and parliament. For our part, we expect at least a preliminary assessment of the new draft by the rapporteurs of the Venice Commission as soon as possible.
ii. Participation of international advisers in the work of the Constitutional Court
71. Participation of international advisers in the work of the Constitutional Court, in compliance with Croatia’s relevant commitment, has been a successful exercise which was officially (according to the agreement between the Council of Europe and the Croatian Constitutional Court) completed at the end of last year.
72. The international advisers participated in the work of the Constitutional Court in five cases. These concern legislation on property, access to public functions of members of minority groups and curricula in minority language schools. In four out of these cases, the Court’s judgements followed the advisers’ opinion, whereas the fifth case was struck off the list.
73. The Chairman of the Constitutional Court told us that the Court could consult the advisers also in the future on an ad hoc basis.
CHAPTER TWO
COMMITMENTS RELATED TO THE RESPECT OF DAYTON AND ERDUT AGREEMENTS
74. Upon its accession to the Council of Europe, Croatia committed itself to
“co-operate fully and effectively in the implementation of the Dayton/Paris Agreements for Peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina”, as well as to
“comply strictly with its obligations under the Basic Agreement on the Region of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium [Erdut Agreement], and to co-operate fully with the United Nations Transitional Administration for this region (UNTAES)”.
75. In its Resolution 1185, the Assembly noted that “Croatia co-operated with the United Nations Transitional Administration for the Danube region (UNTAES) until the expiry of its mandate on 15 January 1998. The region has since been peacefully re-integrated into Croatia.”
76. As regards the general commitment to implement the Dayton/Paris agreements, it is specified in more concrete commitments concerning the return of refugees and displaced persons to Croatia, co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and resolution of international as well as internal disputes, including border disputes, in accordance with the principles of international law (an obligation incumbent upon all member states of the Council of Europe).
I. RETURN OF REFUGEES AND DISPLACED PERSONS
A. General approach
77. Under the Dayton Agreement, Croatia committed itself to recognise the unconditional right of all displaced persons and refugees to unobstructed return to their home of origin. Upon its accession to the Council of Europe, Croatia reiterated and extended this commitment by undertaking to
“take all necessary measures, including police protection, to guarantee the safety and human rights of the Serb population in Croatia, in particular in the former UN protected areas and to facilitate the return of people who left these areas and to allow them, through a specific procedure established by law, effectively to exercise their rights to recover their property or to receive compensation”.
78. Before reviewing specific issues related to the return process, we would like to note the change in the overall approach of the new government to the issue of return of refugees and displaced persons. In its working programme the new government states that it “will assume responsibility for all its citizens without any discrimination and will oppose all attempts to divide returnees and finance their return on an ethnic basis.”
79. Both Deputy Prime Ministers we met, Mr Granic and Mrs Antunovic, insisted that return was no longer a political but primarily a financial issue since housing reconstruction, repossession of property (and thus provision of alternative accommodation for the temporary occupants of private property to be returned to owners), as well as economic revitalisation of areas of return – marked currently by high unemployment - were essential conditions to encourage return. Moreover, remaining legal obstacles to return were at the process of being removed (see below).
80. Measures of a general character that illustrate the new positive approach of the government to return include :
Ø The joint declaration, in March this year, signed by the Croatian Foreign Minister, Mr Picula, and the Prime Minister of Republika Srpska (one of the two entities of Bosnia-Herzegovina), Mr Dodic, committing both sides to facilitate the return of 2000 refugees within 3 months.4
Ø The elaboration of proposals for an inter-state agreement on return between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Ø The creation, in April this year, of a new inter-ministerial structure – the “Co-ordination for Areas of Special State Concern” - which, under the chairmanship of the two Deputy Prime Ministers, co-ordinates government programmes related to return and trust establishment. The co-ordination has held several sessions so far, as well as two meetings with representatives of the international community and a number of meetings with the municipalities and towns of return, associations of refugees and returnees, NGOs and other organisations involved in the return and reconstruction programmes.
Ø The use of the opportunities that the Stability Pact presents to find durable solutions: proposals amounting to a total of 55 million US dollars have thus recently been endorsed by Stability Pact Working Table 1 for reconstruction, infrastructure requirements, income-generating quick projects etc. for the accelerated return and initial reintegration needs of 16,500 refugees from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Ø The decision of the government, in April this year, to share, for the first time ever, with the international community, a comprehensive report evaluating the implementation of the Return Programme. Beside a critical analysis of the state of affairs, this report proposes measures for addressing the current problems, notably those of property repossession and provision of alternative accommodation .
Ø The intensification of co-operation with the international community and foreign NGOs acting in Croatia: The international community, primarily the OSCE and the UNHCR, were fully involved in legislative changes related to return and reconstruction, and the government’s position is that they will remain so in the future. The return process continues with UNHCR’s full organisational participation. Vigorous co-operation is established with many donor countries and international agencies in matters related to the preparation and implementation of the Stability Pact and other projects.5
B. Specific issues
i. Elimination of discriminatory legislation regarding property issues and reconstruction assistance
81. Under the Return Programme, the Croatian government committed itself to “guarantee, ensure and support return by defining measures in order to remove all the obstacles to return, especially by the creation of a favourable …legal framework for the implementation of return”.
82. In compliance with its relevant commitment, the government repealed in July 1998 two laws which discriminated Croatian citizens on the basis of ethnicity: the 1995 Law on temporary take-over of specified property and the 1995 Law on lease of apartments in liberated areas. This step has been welcomed.6
83. Three more laws were also identified as containing discriminatory provisions, mainly on the basis of ethnicity, and had to be amended: the “Law on the status of expelled persons and refugees”, the “Law on areas of special state concern” and the “Law on reconstruction”.
84. In its Recommendation 1406 (1999) (see Appendix I), the Assembly urged the Croatian authorities
“to amend or repeal discriminatory legislation, as specified in the Return Programme, as a matter of absolute priority, and to ensure non-discriminatory and transparent implementation of legislation;.. to amend or repeal the discriminatory provisions of the 1996 Reconstruction Law”
85. In November 1999, the Law on the status of expelled persons and refugees, which granted special privileges to particular groups of individuals, was amended to eliminate this differentiation.7 No significant progress had been made in amending the other two discriminatory laws.
86. Since the governmental change, intensive co-operation between the Croatian government and international experts in Zagreb (OSCE and UNHCR) has produced some concrete and positive results:
Ø Amendments to the 1996 Reconstruction Law were adopted by Parliament on 1st June 2000. The amended law prolongs the deadline for applying for reconstruction assistance and makes eligible for such assistance all Croatian citizens and persons who lived in Croatia before the war and whose houses are damaged regardless of the way and time of return. In this respect, the bill originally introduced by government contained no discriminatory provisions. Regrettably, following criticism expressed by the parliament, the government amended its original draft to include a provision delegating power to the executive to issue regulations defining priorities of eligibility for reconstruction assistance in accordance both with the new law and with the Law on the Rights of Croatian Homeland War Defenders and Members of their Families. A so-called “Rulebook” was published on 14 July 2000 by the Ministry of Public Works, Reconstruction and Construction defining four main priority categories of beneficiaries. But contrary to the advise of representatives of the international community, the Rulebook gave top priority in all four priority categories to Croatian Defenders. As such are defined all those who spent at least three months in military service during the conflict, and thus, on this basis, thousands of persons can take precedence over any other applicant for reconstruction assistance.8
Ø Amendments to the Law on Areas of Special State Concern were adopted by Parliament on 14 July 2000. They introduce more efficient procedures in providing for accommodation to temporary occupants of properties that must be returned to their owners and to all other returnees to the areas of special state concern who have no property of their own. This is obtained through the allocation of state-owned flats and houses, building plots and construction material. The amended law deals also with the consequences of previously allocated private property. It is stipulated that the private property allocated for use under the Law on Areas of Special State Concern must be returned within 6 months, whereas alternative accommodation is granted to the temporary occupants with no other housing in Croatia. If property is not returned within the prescribed period of time, the owner is entitled to a state compensation for the use of his/her private property. It is also provided that all property use decisions be repealed within six months.
87. The adoption of these amendments to the Law on Areas of Special State Concern constitutes an important progress towards a solution of the complicated issue of protection of property rights in Croatia. Their positive effects will of course depend on the relevant regulations that the government is invited to issue within 6 months (by the end of January 2001). It is essential that these regulations do not introduce discriminatory elements, for instance in the definition of criteria for allocation of state-owned property. If applied correctly, the amended law could further pave the way for a comprehensive reform of the legislation governing property issues on the whole territory of Croatia, that is beyond the “areas of special state concern”, including occupancy/tenancy rights (see below).
88. As regards the amended Reconstruction Law, it will produce positive effects in promoting return only if it is implemented in a non-discriminatory manner both at central and local level and if sufficient funds for reconstruction are allocated. It is clear that under the previous reconstruction law and programme, few ethnic Serbs received reconstruction assistance. Concerning funding, in the budget for 2000 the government reduced funds for this purpose allowing for the reconstruction of only 2,640 houses. At the same time, the government counts on international assistance to ensure as a matter of priority the reconstruction of at least 35,000 damaged or destroyed housing units, as well as of municipal and social infrastructure in the areas of return. 9
ii. Housing Commissions and property repossession
89. In its Recommendation 1406 (1999), the Assembly urged the Croatian authorities:
“to ensure that the Housing Commissions established under the Return Programme to resolve property and accommodation problems in areas of return, including the processing of applications for re-possession, receive clear instructions to do so quickly and in an impartial and transparent manner, and that their work is closely and more effectively monitored by the Government Commission on Return; to issue non-discriminatory guidelines to Housing Commissions establishing acceptable standards for alternative accommodation for temporary occupants obliged to vacate the homes of returnees; to ensure that the Housing Commissions take resolute action, as a matter of urgency, to resolve cases of illegal, including multiple, occupancy; to make additional resources available to the Agency for the Mediation of Real Estate Transactions ("Land Bank") and to speed up and render more transparent its operations;”
90. Under the old government, the lack of transparency and the dubious role of mayors and deputy mayors and other local officials made the Housing Commissions practically unworkable. Lack of clear and transparent instructions persisted and access to the Housing Commissions by international monitors had been refused.
91. During our recent visit, representatives of the Croatian government informed us that they had received numerous complaints concerning the work of the Housing Commissions. It appears that political obstruction, mainly at the local level, continues to delay the work of the Housing Commissions.
92. In their comments, the Croatian government and parliament acknowledge that the system of property restitution through the Housing Commissions has never been sufficiently expeditious and explain that for that reason the Croatian Government was intensely considering ways of how to improve the system.
93. Since the beginning of 2000, a certain progress has been recorded to the effect that about 500 housing units have been returned to their owners. But out of a total of 10,745 applicants for repossession of property, only 3,268 (approx. one third) have been reinstated into their property. Half of the applications have not been processed yet and inconsistencies persist with regard to repossession cases in the municipal courts, including a lack of enforcement of judicial decisions on eviction in some areas. Moreover, difficulties in granting alternative accommodation to temporary users continues to be one of the main obstacles to repossession of property. 10
94. To address the complex problems related to the work of the Housing Commissions (such as illegal and multiple occupancy and funding for alternative accommodation), the Chairman of the (now defunct) Government Commission on Return had held meetings with the heads of all Housing Commissions on a weekly basis since the beginning of this year. Frequent contacts have also been established between the newly created Co-ordination for the Areas of Special State Concern (which replaced the Government Commission on Return) and the local Housing Commissions.
95. The government is preparing new regulations which will define the overall restitution procedure, protect the constitutional rights of the owners and temporary occupants of such property and provide a basis for a more efficient operation of the Housing Commissions tasked to deal with these problems. In fact, a thorough restructuring of the whole Return Programme is planned. Moreover, amendments are being prepared to the decree establishing the “Land Bank” to increase transparency. All these planned reforms are of course welcomed; but they could be partly responsible for the ‘wait and see’ attitude that many Housing Commissions have adopted claiming that they are waiting for new instructions. The situation therefore should be clarified as soon as possible.
96. The UNHCR, for its part, has repeatedly stressed the need that the Housing Commissions be immediately de-politicised and that cases of illegal and/or multiple occupancy be dealt with in accordance with the existing legal framework.
iii. Tenancy rights11
97. In its Recommendation 1406 (1999), the Assembly urged the Croatian authorities
“to seek and follow the advice of Council of Europe legal experts in resolving the problem of the right to occupy formerly socially owned property claimed by refugees, displaced persons and returnees”
98. Contrary to the attitude of the previous government, the new one seems ready to discuss with the international community the issues surrounding the loss of occupancy/tenancy rights (the main type of real property right in urban areas of the former Yugoslavia), including the possibility of providing state-owned housing to former holders of tenancy rights who wish to return or just and fair compensation to former holders who do not wish to return. The Assistant Minister for Public Works, Reconstruction and Construction told us that a working group would probably be created to tackle the issue of former tenancy rights. The proposals formulated by the international community in September 1998 could constitute a basis for consideration. Council of Europe experts could also be invited to give advise on the matter.12
iv. Confirmation of citizenship status and validation of documents
99. In its Recommendation 1406 (1999), the Assembly urged the Croatian authorities “to simplify and speed up the process of issuing the requisite citizenship and travel documents for potential returnees and to give full effect to the 1997 Law on Convalidation”.
100. Moreover, in its Resolution 1185 (1999) the Assembly added that:
“clear instructions must be given to officials of the Ministry of the Interior to show flexibility in applying the 1991 citizenship law in respect of long-term residents of Croatia who are currently stateless and attempt to obtain citizenship through naturalisation; such applications should be treated most expeditiously; negative decisions must be motivated and appeals against negative decisions must be considered under urgent procedure by administrative courts; the validation of documents issued in the formerly UN protected areas, including those allowing access to pensions and other social rights, must be further facilitated and an information campaign on the conditions for validation must be organised”.
101. The rules and procedures for the delivery of documents to persons who were former residents and/or have close family links with Croatia and wish to return have been discussed between the new Minister of Interior and the UNHCR. The Minister told us that, in accordance with the proposal made by UNHCR, these people can apply for citizenship by a simple revocation of the administrative act which had de-registered their status of permanently residing alien. The 5-year continuing, permanent residence criterion had indeed be one of the main obstacles to obtain citizenship for residents who fled during the war, since they had thus interrupted their “permanent residence” in Croatia.13 The new government’s position is that these people will be considered as having never left the country and thus being eligible for Croatian citizenship. This is a more than welcome development which can encourage and essentially facilitate return of refugees.
102. According to figures supplied by the Croatian government, in the period from June 1998 to 21 July 2000 a total of 9,521 applications have been received, of which 9,084 were answered and 8,200 approved. Moreover, among 23,000 applications for return, only in 952 cases the citizenship status of the applicants had not been confirmed yet.
v. Reconciliation
103. In its Resolution 1185 (1999), the Assembly urged the Croatian authorities to accelerate
“the process of reconciliation between the Serb and Croat ethnic communities …, in order also to contribute to stopping the emigration of citizens of Serb ethnic origin in the Danube region; Croatian authorities should take urgent measures to reactivate, at both national and local levels, the implementation of the “Programme for the establishment of trust, accelerated return and normalisation of living conditions in the war-affected areas” (October 1997), which has so far been disappointing”.
104. Moreover, the Assembly urged the representatives of the Serb ethnic community, for their part,
to “take concrete action to promote tolerance and reconciliation through, inter alia, more active participation in the National Committee to Establish Trust and the existing local trust committees, as well as in the Joint Council of Municipalities in the Danube region”.
105. No substantive progress has been recorded with regard to the implementation of the Programme to Establish Trust since last year, although we heard it was applied to some few cases regarding Bosnian Croats in the Knin area. This non-implementation was apparently due partly to the lack of political will under the former government, but also to the fact that the Programme did not foresee any implementation mechanisms. Since April this year, trust establishment has been included in the tasks of the newly set-up “Co-ordination for Areas of Special State Concern.”
106. Members of the government we met were of the opinion that a new political environment coupled with more rapid economic development would foster trust between different ethnic groups. The basic principles of the government’s approach would be: the promotion of tolerance; relevant activities to be undertaken at different levels to ‘mainstream’ trust establishment into Government structures; an emphasis on the creation of a civil society, and the commensurate involvement of ‘the people’ rather than officialdom in trust establishment activities; a much greater role for the non-governmental sector, and a more pro-active role for the media in trust establishment activities.
107. Educational programmes fostering tolerance, pluralism and democratic values will be promoted. Review of the history textbooks by an independent expert group created under the auspices of the Ministry of Education was completed in June this year. Thus, the Ministry is planning to introduce some changes already in autumn 2000. The adoption of the law on education in the languages of national minorities could also contribute to fostering tolerance.
108. As far as the Serb minority is more particularly concerned, we met representatives of the Joint Council of Municipalities (JCM), established under the Erdut Agreement as an advisory body to co-ordinate the interests of the Serb community in the Danube region, in particular with regard to government policies and measures for the reintegration of the region and promotion of reconciliation. They told us that they were satisfied with co-operation with the new government. Recently, monthly government subventions had been transferred to the JCM without delay and in accordance with an agreement on co-financing. They underlined that the economic situation in the Danube region remained disastrous and unemployment extremely high. Such circumstances obviously could not encourage return of refugees. As far as reconciliation was concerned, they said that despite improvements, violent inter-ethnic incidents continued to occur. They complained that even when important positive steps were taken by the government, their implementation was lacking at local level.
109. In their annual session, held on 7 April 2000, the JCM reviewed 1999 activities and asked Serb Assistant Ministers, for their part, to increase their engagement in the new Government and to take a more constructive approach within their respective ministries.
110. An important step forward in terms of reconciliation and establishment of dialogue between the returnees (Croats and Serbs) as well as refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina settled in the areas of return was the signing of a Joint Declaration between the Serb National Council, the Serb Democratic Forum and the Community of Immigrants and Settlers of Croatia on 5 May 2000. The purpose of the Declaration is to foster mutual understanding and co-operation, promote joint activities aimed to accelerate and improve conditions of return, help solve the refugees’ fundamental human and civil rights problems and create an atmosphere of tolerance and mutual respect.
vi. Amnesty
111. In its Resolution 1185 (1999), the Assembly requires that
“all amnesty procedures must be transparent, beneficiaries should be immediately informed of the decision granting them amnesty and the administrative authorities should execute such decisions without any delay”.
112. Since its adoption on 5 October 1996, the Amnesty Act has been applied to 20,437 persons. In May 2000, the Ministry of Justice established a working group to address problems linked to the application of the law. The Minister of Interior stated in June this year that the police would not arrest returnees for mere participation in the armed conflict.
113. In several cases, beneficiaries of an amnesty decision have subsequently been sentenced for war crimes. Such cases create a climate of insecurity for potential returnees and obviously discourage return. A source of uncertainty is also the fact that the precise number of war crimes convictions reached in absentia since 1991 in Croatia remains unknown. Some returnees risk to be faced with war crimes charges despite receiving clearance from the Ministry of Justice that there are no charges pending against them.14
vii. Return movements
114. To what extent new legislation and policies since the government change at the beginning of 2000 have in practice encouraged return is too early to assess. According to figures supplied by the ODPR and the UNHCR, 7,446 ethnic Serbs have returned and registered their return to Croatia in the first five months of 2000 as part of organised actions. The same sources estimate that the actual number of returnees is much higher and the ratio of organised and spontaneous return stands at 1:3, so that the estimated number of non-registered returnees amounts at about 20,000. Registration of these spontaneous returnees is under way.
115. Since the beginning of this year, ODPR has received 4,000 new applications for the return of refugees residing in FRY and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The procedure for dealing with the return applications has been simplified, the period of consideration has been limited to 30 days and temporary accommodation is provided to all returnees whose property is destroyed or occupied.
116. According to UNHCR/ODPR, a total of 74,000 Croatian Serbs have returned by 1 August 2000 to Croatia out of 300,000 Croatian Serbs who have left the country after 1991. Approximately, 206,000 ethic Croats have returned since the end of the conflict.15
II. RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES, INCLUDING BORDER DISPUTES, BY PEACEFUL MEANS
117. Upon its accession to the Council of Europe, Croatia undertook
“to settle international, as well as internal disputes by peaceful means; to settle outstanding international border disputes according to the principles of international law.”
118. In its Resolution 1185 (1999), the Assembly noted that
“land and sea borderlines are being determined through negotiations. Normalisation of relations with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) is progressing through the conclusion of several bilateral agreements. Recent agreements have provided for special relations between Croatia and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and have ensured free passage of the nationals through each other’s territory and use of the Croatian port of Ploce by Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
i. Bosnia and Herzegovina
119. The new government under Prime Minister Racan and the new President of the Republic, Mr Mesic, are to be congratulated for showing right away their determination to respect the independence and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina and base relations with the latter on equality and full transparency.
120. As an example of the new approach, one can quote the new leadership’s decision to reduce financial assistance to the Croat component (HVO) of the army of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Further assistance will be provided in full transparency via the central government of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo (and not directly to HVO as in the past) and managed by the Council on Military Matters of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This political decision was implemented with the signing on 6 May 2000 of an agreement between the Croatian Minister of Defence and his counterpart from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
121. It is also indicative that the first official visit of the new President of the Republic was to Sarajevo. On that occasion, Mr Mesic declared that Croatia would no longer interfere in Bosnia’s internal affairs or finance the Herzegovina para-state which should be dissolved.
122. The new transparent policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina was further confirmed during the recent visit of Prime Minister Račan to Sarajevo and Mostar (27-28 July 2000). On that occasion, three new bilateral agreements were signed (readmission, customs co-operation, co-operation between the two foreign ministries). As decided by the Croatian Government on 30 June 2000, the citizens of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina can cross the border with identity card only. The decision became effective on 28 July after the signing of the agreement on readmission of illegal residents and will be valid until 30 September 2000. However, if proved satisfactory, this practice may be renewed after the tourist summer season. Intensive negotiations are resumed on other important agreements (trade, property rights) and expected to be concluded by the end of this year. Croatia has also proposed an inter-state agreement on the return of refugees and restitution of occupied property. The already signed agreements on borders, the Port of Ploče and free passage through Neum will soon be ratified by the Croatian Parliament.
123. In general, the approach adopted by the new political leadership towards Bosnia and Herzegovina radically improves Croatia’s record in implementation of the Dayton/Paris agreements.
ii. Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY)
124. As regards relations with FRY, in its working programme the new government states that the rate of normalisation with FRY will depend primarily on democratic processes in the latter. Croatia “will co-ordinate its policy with the activities of the European Union”. Moreover, in promoting normalisation, “ways will be sought to support the development of democracy and civil multiethnic society in [FRY]. The democratisation processes will also be given support”. Croatia has a clear political and economic interest to see an early resolution of the succession issues concerning the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, currently blocked by the Belgrade authorities. Apparently, the new government has taken contacts with and expressed support to the opposition in the FRY.
125. As regards the strategic Prevlaka peninsula, this is part of the Croatian territory recognised by the international community. The new government continues to regard this “as exclusively a security issue” and urges the international community “to deal promptly” with it.
126. Concerning more particularly relations with Montenegro, Croatia supports democratic reforms there. Unstable situation in Montenegro is a cause of concern. During the visit to Montenegro by the Croatian Foreign Minister Picula (20 July 2000), it was agreed to sign as soon as possible a protocol on free flow of goods and a protocol on road traffic and to establish a joint commission for the promotion of political and economic relations between Croatia and Montenegro.
iii. Slovenia
127. Regarding relations with Slovenia, the new government states that it “shall endeavour to deal with [inherited] outstanding issues - from the still undefined part of the borders through the dispute about the ownership share in the Krsko nuclear power plant to the outstanding liabilities of Ljubljanska Banka to Croatian citizens – through intensive dialogue ».
128. Successful visits to Slovenia by President Mesić and Foreign Minister Picula confirm that the Croatian Government intends to strengthen good neighbourly relations. The Slovenian side has prepared and presented a project for transfrontier co-operation. Meanwhile Slovenia is expected to ratify the Agreement on Transborder Traffic and Co-operation between the two countries (signed in April 1997), which would facilitate the border crossing procedure (daily migration) and provide a legal framework for more vigorous transborder co-operation in all areas of social and economic life. Further, this would greatly facilitate the realisation of local programmes at the level of counties or towns on both sides of the border. The Joint Diplomatic Commission for the Croatian-Slovenian Border Delimitation is negotiating options for the remaining borderline disputes, whereas the Joint Croatian-Slovenian Commission for Marking, Maintenance and Reconstruction of the State Border is working in parallel, preparing the required borderline documentation which will be a constituent part of the Border Agreement.
III. CO-OPERATION WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA (ICTY)
129. Upon its accession to the Council of Europe, Croatia undertook
“to co-operate with, and actively assist, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in bringing before the tribunal without delay persons indicted for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide”.
130. In its Resolution 1185 (1999), the Assembly “acknowledges that Croatia was among the first states to institutionalise its co-operation with the tribunal by adopting a constitutional law on co-operation with the ICTY; it also acknowledges that Croatia has mediated the surrender of some indicted Croats to the ICTY”. But the Assembly notes that
“the Croatian authorities have failed to honour fully their commitment to “co-operate with, and actively assist, the Prosecutor of the ICTY”: the latter has been complaining about obstructions and interference with investigations and prosecutions and about undue delays on the part of Croatian authorities in complying with requests and executing court orders.”
131. We congratulate the new political leadership of Croatia for having radically changed its attitude towards the ICTY in the few months since it came to power, by taking mainly the following steps:
Ø the definition of the legal and diplomatic status of the ICTY Liaison Officer in Zagreb (February 2000);
Ø the transfer to the ICTY of the indicted Mladen Naletilic “Tuta” (March 2000);
Ø the adoption by Parliament of a Declaration on co-operation with the ICTY, which for the first time recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over the 1995 Operations “Flash” and “Storm”, jurisdiction always contested by the previous government (April 2000);
Ø the initiation of exhumations of alleged war crimes victims of Serb ethnicity in Gospic (April 2000);
Ø the handing over to the ICTY of long-expected documents related to the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina and kept in the Croatian State Archive, including written and video records related to crimes committed by the Yugoslav Army (JNA) in the Dubrovnik area.16
132. As a result, Mrs Carla Del Ponte, General Prosecutor of the ICTY, has expressed her satisfaction on co-operation with Croatia to the UN Security Council on 3 June 2000.
CONCLUSIONS
133. Government representatives told us that they did not enjoy any “grace period” from their electorate which following parliamentary and presidential elections at the beginning of the year was eager to see radical changes as soon as possible. During its first months of governing, the coalition of six parties has indeed been working hard to produce tangible results. It has in general succeeded in radically improving the international image of Croatia and offering a model of democratic transition to other countries of the region.
134. The new government’s efforts in bringing about democratic reforms, promoting stability and security in south-eastern Europe and improving its record of co-operation with the international community have been rewarded by three important diplomatic successes:
Ø on 24 May 2000, Croatia officially joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace program;
Ø on 17 July 2000, Croatia was admitted to the World Trade Organisation;
Ø on 19 July 2000, the European Commission adopted directives for negotiations on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Croatia which should be approved by the Council of Ministers in October this year.
135. As regards more specifically the honouring of its commitments and obligations as a member state of the Council of Europe, Croatia has met most of the objectives and deadlines set up in Assembly Opinion No. 195 (24 April 1996) and in Assembly Resolution No. 1185 (29 April 1999), notably as regards:
Ø the ratification of Council of Europe conventions;
Ø the initiation of a constitutional revision to redistribute the powers between the President of the Republic, the Government and the Parliament;
Ø the adoption or elaboration of laws, amendments to laws and regulations regarding elections, local and regional self-government, independence and efficiency of the judiciary, freedom of media and protection of minority rights.
136. Regarding the honouring of commitments related to the consequences of the war, we commend the current President of the Republic, Government and Parliament for having radically improved in few months’ time Croatia’s record concerning implementation of the Dayton and Erdut Agreements and having thus promoted stability and security in Southeastern Europe, notably in respect to:
Ø co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia;
Ø co-operation with the international community and foreign NGOs acting in Croatia;
Ø relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina;
Ø the return of refugees and displaced persons which is no longer perceived as a political but as a merely financial issue; many concrete measures have thus been taken to facilitate return such as:
• the abolition of discriminatory provisions in laws regarding access to reconstruction assistance, repossession of property and the provision of alternative or temporary accommodation;
• publication of a report evaluating the implementation of the Return Programme and proposing measures for addressing the problems of repossession of property and provision of alternative accommodation;
• simplification of procedures for confirming citizenship status of returnees;
• establishment of a genuine dialogue with representatives of the Serb community and co-operation of the government with the Joint Council of Municipalities in the Danube region; promotion of inter-ethnic reconciliation;
• the establishment of frequent contacts between government structures on return and local Housing Commissions;
• the use of opportunities offered by the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe to finance return of refugees and reconstruction in areas of return.
137. We encourage the Croatian authorities to further pursue their policy towards consolidation of democratic reforms, European integration and implementation of the Dayton and Erdut Agreements and recommend, for this purpose, a series of concrete steps which we enumerate in our preliminary draft resolution.
138. As a conclusion, we are of the opinion that Croatia has honoured its obligations and most of its commitments and that remaining commitments are in the process of being fulfilled. We therefore recommend to the Assembly to consider the current monitoring procedure as closed. Implementation of further reforms on the issues listed in our preliminary draft resolution will be followed closely in the framework of the post-monitoring dialogue with the Croatian authorities which the Monitoring Committee will carry out on behalf of the Assembly.
139. To help Croatia implement further recommended reforms, against the background of a particularly difficult economic situation, the international community should now keep its promises and ensure that financial assistance is granted rapidly to Croatia which cannot and should not carry alone the economic burden of reconstruction and sustainable development in the areas of return. In this respect, we welcome the projects of economic assistance recently approved in the framework of the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe, other European Union programmes and the Council of Europe’s Development Bank and recommend to the Committee of Ministers to step up its assistance to Croatia in the framework of its co-operation and assistance programmes.17
APPENDIX I
Resolution 1185 (1999)18
Honouring of obligations and commitments by Croatia
1. The Assembly welcomes the progress Croatia has made towards honouring its commitments and obligations as a member state, since its accession to the Council of Europe on 6 November 1996:
i. Croatia has ratified, within the deadlines, set up in Opinion No. 195 (1996), all Council of Europe conventions it had committed itself to, including the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the European Charter of Local Self-Government and the European Charter for Regional or Minority languages;
xii. a number of Croatian bills or laws have been or are being subject to expertise by the Council of Europe. This consultation should continue in order to ensure full compatibility of Croatian legislation with the Organisation’s principles and standards;
xiii. co-operation between the Constitutional Court of Croatia and the European Commission for Democracy through Law (“Venice Commission”), as regards participation of international advisers in the work of the court in minority cases, has been satisfactory.
2. The Assembly notes that Croatia is still facing the consequences of the war. Against this background, the Assembly is satisfied with the progress made by Croatia in honouring commitments related to the implementation of Dayton and Erdut Agreements, in particular:
i. Croatia has co-operated with the United Nations Transitional Administration for the Danube region (UNTAES) until the expiry of its mandate on 15 January 1998. The region has since been peacefully re-integrated into Croatia;
ii. land and sea borderlines are being determined through negotiations. Normalisation of relations with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) is progressing through the conclusion of several bilateral agreements. Recent agreements have provided for special relations between Croatia and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and have ensured free passage of the nationals through each other’s territory and use of the Croatian port of Ploce by Bosnia and Herzegovina.
3. As far as co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is concerned:
i. the Assembly acknowledges that Croatia was among the first states to institutionalise its co-operation with the tribunal by adopting a constitutional law on co-operation with the ICTY;
ii. it also acknowledges that Croatia has mediated the surrender of some indicted Croats to the ICTY;
iii. it notes, however, that the Croatian authorities have failed to honour fully their commitment to “co-operate with, and actively assist, the Prosecutor of the ICTY”: the latter has been complaining about obstructions and interference with investigations and prosecutions and about undue delays on the part of Croatian authorities in complying with requests and executing court orders.
4. With regard to the issue of return of refugees and displaced persons, the Assembly refers to its Recommendation 1406 (1999) on the return of refugees and displaced persons to their homes in Croatia, in which it welcomes the adoption of two fundamental programmes, one for the return and one for reconstruction, and urges the Croatian Government to take concrete measures to fully implement them.
5. In respect of other obligations related to the consequences of the war, the following measures should be taken by the Croatian authorities:
i. clear instructions must be given to officials of the Ministry of the Interior to show flexibility in applying the 1991 citizenship law in respect of long-term residents of Croatia who are currently stateless and attempt to obtain citizenship through naturalisation; such applications should be treated most expeditiously; negative decisions must be motivated and appeals against negative decisions must be considered under urgent procedure by administrative courts;
ii. the validation of documents issued in the formerly UN protected areas, including those allowing access to pensions and other social rights, must be further facilitated and an information campaign on the conditions for validation must be organised;
iii. all amnesty procedures must be transparent, beneficiaries should be immediately informed of the decision granting them amnesty and the administrative authorities should execute such decisions without any delay;
iv. the process of reconciliation between the Serb and Croat ethnic communities should be accelerated, in order also to contribute to stopping the emigration of citizens of Serb ethnic origin in the Danube region; Croatian authorities should take urgent measures to reactivate, at both national and local levels, the implementation of the “Programme for the establishment of trust, accelerated return and normalisation of living conditions in the war-affected areas” (October 1997), which has so far been disappointing.
6. Representatives of the Serb ethnic community, for their part, should take concrete action to promote tolerance and reconciliation through, inter alia, more active participation in the National Committee to Establish Trust and the existing local trust committees, as well as in the Joint Council of Municipalities in the Danube region.
7. As for the international community, it must assist Croatia more actively in its efforts for mine clearance and reconstruction. In this context, the Assembly welcomes the approval by the Council of Europe’s Social Development Fund of two loans of 33.7 million dollars for the financing of two projects in Eastern Slavonia and further encourages similar initiatives on the basis of projects submitted by the Croatian Government.
8. On the other hand, the Assembly regrets that little progress has been made by Croatia in honouring commitments and obligations related to the fundamental principles of the Council of Europe (democracy, rule of law and human rights):
i. none of the recommendations to change the electoral law, made by Council of Europe and other international observers in 1995, have been followed so far;
ii. despite ratification of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, there is still no fully compatible law on local administration and autonomy;
iii. problems persist in the administration of justice, notably with regard to the huge backlog in cases pending before courts and the lack of enforcement of court decisions;
iv. as far as minority rights are concerned, no progress has been made in the preparation of a draft law on the revision of the suspended provisions of the 1991 constitutional law “on human rights and the rights and freedoms of national and ethnic communities and minorities”;
v. with regard to freedom of electronic media, amendments to the law on the Croatian Radio and Television (HRT) were rushed through parliament disregarding most of the recommendations made by Council of Europe experts;
vi. as to the freedom of printed media, the fact that, outside Zagreb, distribution of newspapers and magazines is in reality monopolised by two companies threatens the existence of independent media, since distributors often withhold or delay sale revenues due to them; journalists of some media are faced with a large number of defamation lawsuits brought by the government and ruling party officials.
9. Accordingly, the Assembly calls on the Croatian authorities to take the following measures, within the deadlines set in agreement with the Croatian parliamentary delegation:
i. to amend the electoral law in time before the next parliamentary elections (due for end 1999 or beginning 2000), following consultations between the ruling and the opposition parties and in compliance with recommendations made by international organisations, notably concerning:
a. revision of the special representational rights of Croatian citizens living abroad (for whose representatives twelve seats — 10% of the total — are reserved in the parliament);
b. consultations with representatives of national minorities and international experts on a system of minority voting which would ensure adequate representation of national minorities in parliament without violating the principle of voter anonymity;
c. the independence and impartiality of the state broadcasting corporation (HRT) during electoral campaigns;
d. multi-party representation on electoral commissions at state and local level;
e. accreditation of domestic, non-partisan, observers in all elections.
ii. to pass legislation in the field of local self-government, in compliance with the European Charter of Local Self-Government and in consultation with the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, by the end of October 1999 at the latest;
iii. to address shortcomings in the administration of justice in order to ensure respect of the rule of law and to adopt amendments to the law on the High Judicial Council, in the light of recommendations made by Council of Europe experts and with a view to strengthening the independence of judges, accelerating procedures for filling in vacancies in the judiciary and increasing the autonomy of the High Judicial Council, by the end of April 1999 at the latest;
iv. to adopt a constitutional law revising the suspended provisions of the 1991 law « on human rights and the rights and freedoms of national and ethnic communities and minorities », in compliance with the recommendations made by the “Venice Commission” and taking into account new realities, by the end of October 1999 at the latest;
v. to continue national and international consultations with a view to further democratisation of the broadcasting media; to reconsider the decision not to privatise the third channel of the HRT in the light of the technical problems raised by the creation of a fourth channel; to reinforce the independence of the HRT, pending further changes to the HRT law and the telecommunications law in compliance with recommendations by Council of Europe experts, by way of implementing existing legislation;
vi. to solve the problems raised by the monopoly in the distribution of printed media, including by setting the conditions for competition in the distribution on equal terms and on a commercial basis; state officials should refrain from using defamation legislation to intimidate journalists.
10. In the light of the considerations above, the Assembly concludes that, although certain progress has been made since accession, Croatia has not yet honoured all obligations and commitments it accepted as a member state of the Council of Europe. The Assembly therefore resolves to continue monitoring Croatia’s fulfilling, within the set deadlines, its commitments and obligations and to examine further progress at its April 2000 part-session at the latest.
Recommendation 1405 (1999)19
Honouring of obligations and commitments by Croatia
1. The Assembly refers to its Resolution 1185 (1999) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Croatia in which it:
i. welcomes the progress made by Croatia in honouring its commitments and obligations, since its accession to the Council of Europe on 6 November 1996, in particular as regards the ratification, within the fixed deadlines, of all Council of Europe conventions it committed itself to, the on-going consultation with Council of Europe experts on bills or laws, and the co-operation between the Constitutional Court of Croatia and the European Commission for Democracy through Law (“Venice Commission”);
ii. notes that Croatia is still facing the consequences of the war and, against this background, expresses satisfaction with progress in the implementation of the Dayton and Erdut Agreements, in particular with regard to co-operation with UNTAES and the peaceful re-integration of the Danube region into Croatia since expiry of its mandate (15 January 1998); the on-going negotiations on land and sea borderlines; the normalisation of relations with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY); agreements on special relations with the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and on free passage of the nationals through each other’s territory and use of the Croatian port of Ploce by Bosnia and Herzegovina;
iii. acknowledges that Croatia was among the first states to institutionalise its co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and has mediated the surrender of some indicted Croats to the Tribunal, but notes that the Croatian authorities have failed fully to honour their commitment to “co-operate with, and actively assist” the Prosecutor of the tribunal;
iv. refers to its Recommendation 1406 (1999) on the return of refugees and displaced persons to their homes in Croatia, in which it welcomes the adoption of two fundamental programmes, one on return and one on reconstruction, and urges the Croatian authorities to take concrete measures to fully implement them;
v. proposes a series of measures to be taken by the Croatian authorities with regard to other obligations related to the consequences of the war, in particular application of citizenship legislation, validation of documents issued in the former UN protected areas, amnesty procedures and reconciliation;
vi. calls on the representatives of the Serb ethnic community to take concrete action to promote reconciliation;
vii. underlines that the international community must assist Croatia in its efforts for mine clearance and reconstruction and, in this context, welcomes the approval by the Council of Europe’s Social and Development Fund of two loans of 33.7 million dollars for the financing of two projects in Eastern Slavonia and encourages further similar initiatives;
viii. regrets that little progress has been made by Croatia in honouring commitments and obligations related to the fundamental principles of the Council of Europe (democracy, rule of law and human rights), notably in the field of electoral reform, local self-government, administration of justice, the revision of the suspended provisions of the 1991 constitutional law “on human rights and the rights and freedoms of national and ethnic communities and minorities”, in compliance with recommendations made by the “Venice Commission”, and freedom of expression, including freedom of electronic and printed media;
ix. calls on the Croatian authorities to take, before the end of October 1999, a series of measures in the areas mentioned in the above sub-paragraph.
2. Therefore, the Assembly strongly recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
i. address the Assembly’s concerns, as summarised above and illustrated in more detail in Resolution 1185 (1999),
a. in the Programme of Activities for the Development and Consolidation of Democratic Stability for Croatia to help the country overcome the above-mentioned problems;
b. in its own monitoring procedure;
ii. reiterate its appeal to member states:
a. to increase their financial assistance and expertise for mine clearance;
b. to offer financial aid for reconstruction and development in the war affected areas of Croatia.
Recommendation 1406 (1999)20
Return of refugees and displaced persons to their homes in Croatia
1. The Parliamentary Assembly welcomes the recognition by the Government of Croatia of the unconditional right of refugees and displaced persons who fled their homes in Croatia during the wars in the former Yugoslavia to return voluntarily to their homes on the basis of a free and informed choice, and of their right to recover their property. The Assembly also welcomes the Croatian Government's avowed determination actively to support such return at both central and local levels.
2. The Assembly particularly welcomes the adoption in 1998 by the Government of Croatia of the Programme for the return and accommodation of displaced persons, refugees and resettled persons and of the Continuing programme for the reconstruction of war-affected settlements. The Assembly emphasises the importance of sustained progress by the Croatian authorities at all levels in implementing these programmes in an impartial manner.
3. The Assembly notes with satisfaction that, according to the latest Croatian Government statistics (27 April 1999), confirmed by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 31 586 Croatian Serb refugees have returned from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (Republika Srpska) since the end of 1995 (10 127 since the introduction of the Return Programme in June 1998), while an officially estimated 26 567 Croatian Serb displaced persons have returned from the Danube Region to other parts of Croatia and 35 367 ethnic Croat displaced persons have returned to that region. Moreover, some 35 000 refugees have returned to Croatia from countries outside the region of the former Yugoslavia since the end of the war.
4. The Assembly notes with concern, however, that according to UNHCR estimates of numbers of refugees and displaced persons still seeking a durable solution within the region of the former Yugoslavia at present, there are some 270 000 refugees from Croatia in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including recent arrivals from the Croatian Danube Region, and some 30 000 to 40 000 refugees from Croatia in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Republika Srpska). In Croatia itself, there are an estimated 18 880 ethnic Croat refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina (20% from the Federation and 80% from Republika Srpska) and from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. An estimated 3 000 Croatian Serbs and 52 000 ethnic Croats remained internally displaced.
5. In addition, several thousand persons enjoying temporary protection status and refugees from Croatia were living in countries outside the region, mainly in Germany, Switzerland and Austria.
6. The Assembly is concerned that despite progress made in regard to the return of refugees and displaced persons to their homes in Croatia, there remain obstacles to return which should be more vigorously addressed by the Croatian authorities at all levels.
7. Such obstacles include continuing insecurity in the regions of return (primarily in the former United Nations Sectors North and South and in the Danube Region), including harassment, intimidation and the presence of landmines; the lack of inhabitable housing and of alternative accommodation for those temporarily occupying the homes of returnees; depressed economic conditions including unemployment, together with discrimination against job-seekers belonging to minority ethnic groups; the difficulty, for those wishing to return, to obtain the requisite citizenship and travel documents from the Croatian authorities; educational curricula geared to the needs of the majority ethnic group; threats of prosecution for supposed war crimes; confusion surrounding the amnesty law; and a general political and cultural climate which hinders reconciliation.
8. The Assembly is particularly concerned by the continuing departure abroad of citizens of Serb ethnic origin from the Danube Region.
9. The Assembly acknowledges Croatia's economic difficulties in the Danube Region and in other formerly occupied areas. It also notes Croatia's considerable efforts to repair war damage and its appeal for international financial support expressed in particular at the Conference on reconstruction and development of the Republic of Croatia, held in Zagreb on 4 and 5 December 1998. In this connection the Assembly is concerned that discriminatory legislation on reconstruction remains in force.
10. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
i. urge the Government of Croatia:
a. to ensure the security of returnees by means of effective multi-ethnic policing, immediate, thorough investigations of all security incidents including alleged harassment and intimidation, and action to ensure that offenders are swiftly brought to justice;
b. to intensify its mine-clearance programme, in cooperation with the international community, in particular in areas of return;
c. to amend or repeal discriminatory legislation, as specified in the Return Programme, as a matter of absolute priority, and to ensure non-discriminatory and transparent implementation of legislation;
d. to ensure that the Housing Commissions established under the Return Programme to resolve property and accommodation problems in areas of return, including the processing of applications for re-possession, receive clear instructions to do so quickly and in an impartial and transparent manner, and that their work is closely and more effectively monitored by the Government Commission on Return;
e. to issue non-discriminatory guidelines to Housing Commissions establishing acceptable standards for alternative accommodation for temporary occupants obliged to vacate the homes of returnees;
f. to ensure that the Housing Commissions take resolute action, as a matter of urgency, to resolve cases of illegal, including multiple, occupancy;
g. to seek and follow the advice of Council of Europe legal experts in resolving the problem of the right to occupy formerly socially owned property claimed by refugees, displaced persons and returnees;
h. to make additional resources available to the Agency for the Mediation of Real Estate Transactions ("Land Bank") and to speed up and render more transparent its operations;
i. to ensure that all applications from returnees for financial aid for reconstruction of property are dealt with swiftly and impartially, pursuant to the Mandatory Instructions for the implementation of the Reconstruction Programme and to intensify publicity about the Programme for the benefit of potential applicants;
j. to amend or repeal the discriminatory provisions of the 1996 Reconstruction Law;
k. to simplify and speed up the process of issuing the requisite citizenship and travel documents for potential returnees and to give full effect to the 1997 Law on Convalidation;
l. to provide all returnees, both organised and spontaneous, with "green cards" giving them immediate access to social welfare and other benefits and assistance;
m. to significantly increase opportunities for refugees to travel to Croatia with a view to their assessing the situation in relation to their homes and their social and economic rights, thus helping them to exercise a free and informed choice as to whether they wish to return on a permanent basis;
n. to pursue the process of reconciliation far more vigorously, in particular in the areas of return, by fostering a political and cultural climate of respect, tolerance and non-discrimination, through transparent application of the Amnesty Law, and by rendering effective the operation of the Committees for the Establishment of Trust at national, regional and local levels;
o. to submit projects to the Social Development Fund of the Council of Europe designed to finance the construction and rehabilitation of housing for returnees;
p. to ensure that refugees obtain the right to apply for Croatian citizenship from abroad, for repossession of property and for reconstruction assistance either via Croatian embassies or consulates, or directly to local authorities;
ii. urge the member states:
a. to increase their financial assistance and expertise for mine clearance, particularly in areas of return;
b. to step up their provision of financial aid for reconstruction and development, especially for the building of alternative accommodation for those having to leave temporarily occupied property belonging to returnees.
APPENDIX II
Programme of the visit of the rapporteurs to Croatia
(16-19 April 2000)
Sunday 16 April 2000
8.00 pm Working dinner with representatives of international organisations (EU presidency, UNHCR, OSCE) hosted by the Italian Ambassador, Mr Fabio PIGLIAPOCO
Monday 17 April 2000
9.30 am Meeting with Mr Zlatko TOMCIĆ, President of the Croatian National Parliament, Mr Zdravko TOMAC, Vice-President of the Croatian National Parliament and Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Policy
Mrs Mirjana FERIĆ-VAC, Head of the delegation of the Croatian National Parliament to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
10.20 am Meeting with Mr Smiljko SOKOL, President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia
11.15 am Meeting with Stjepan MESIĆ, President of the Republic of Croatia
1.25 pm Meeting with Mr Mato ARLOVIĆ, Vice-President of the Croatian National Parliament and Chairman of the Committee on Constitution, Rules of Procedure and Political System
Mr Ingrid ANTIČEVIĆ-MARINOVIĆ, Chairman of the Committee on Legislation
Mr Luka BEBIĆ, member of the Committee on Constitution, Rules of Procedure and Political System
Mr Ljubica LALIĆ, member of the Committee on Constitution , Rules of Procedure and Political System
1.30 pm Lunch hosted by Mr Zdravko TOMAC, Vice-President of the Croatian National Parliament
3.00 pm Meeting with the Presidents of parliamentary groups of the ruling coalition parties represented in the Croatian National Parliament:
Social Democratic Party (SDP)
Croatian Social Liberal Party (HSLS)
Croatian Peasant Party (HSS)
Istrian Democratic Congress (IDS)
Croatian People’s Party (HNS)
Liberal Party (LS)
Primorsko Goranski Alliance and Croatian Party of Slavonia and Barania
3.50 pm Meeting with Presidents of parliamentary groups of the opposition parties represented in the Croatian National Parliament:
Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ)
Croatian Party of Right (HSP)
Croatian Christian Democratic Union (HKDU)
4.30 pm Meeting with representatives of national minorities represented in the Croatian National Parliament:
Mr Furio RADIN, MP, Italian national minority
Mr Zdenka ČUHNIL, MP, Czech and Slovak national minority
Mr Milan DUKIĆ, MP, Serbian national minority
Mr Borislav GRALJUK, MP, Austrian, German, Ruthenian, Ukrainian and Jewish minorities
Mr Tibor SANTO, MP, Hungarian national minority
5.15 pm Meeting with the President and members of the Joint Council of Municipalities:
Mr Miloš VOJNOVIĆ, President
Mr Mirko JAGETIĆ, Vice-President
and Mr Jovan AJDUKOVIĆ, member
6.00 pm Meeting with representatives of electronic media and printed press:
Mrs Neda RITZ, editor-in-chief, Croatian Television (HTV)
Mirjana RAKIĆ, Chief of the Foreign Affairs Programme, HTV
Mr Damir MATKOVIĆ, journalist, HTV
Mr Josip KELEMEN, Mr Branko KUZCLE, Open Television (OTV)
Mrs Zrinka VRABEC-MOJZEŠ, journalist-moderator, Radio 101
Mrs Jagoda VUKUŠIĆ, vice-president of the Croatian Journalists’ Association,
Mr Benjamin TOLIĆ, editor-in-chief, HINA
Mr Igor MANDIĆ, editor-in-chief, Vjesnik
Mr Davor IVANKOVIĆ, Head of Zagreb office of correspondence, Slobodna Dalmacija
Mr Dražen BOROŠ, Head of Zagreb office, Glas Slavonije
Mrs Jagoda VUKUSIC, Novi List, Vice-President of the Croatian Journalists’ Association
Mr Igor ALBORGHETTI, Globus
Mrs Marina SERIĆ, Većernji List
Mr Zcljko MATANIĆ, Javisti glasike
6.45 pm Meeting with representatives of NGOs:
Mrs Nevena ŽUNJIĆ, Chairperson of the Legal Centre of Dalmatinski Odbor Solidarnosti (Protection of Human Rights and Humanitarian Activities Association)
Mrs Aleksandra KURATKO, spokesperson, and Mr Vladimir PRAN, project leader on “open parliament”, of Gradani organizirano nadgledaju glasanje /GONG (Citizens Organised to Monitor Elections)
Mrs Jelka GLUMIĆIĆ and Mr Duro MILOŠEVIĆ, Odbor za ljudska prava Karlovac (Committee for Human Rights Karlovac)
Mrs Mirjana GALO, President, and Mr Igor GALO, Secretary General, of Udruga za zaštitu ljudskih prava i gradanskih sloboda/ HOMO
Mr Albert KRALJ, Mrs Zrnka NOVAK and Mr Gojko MARIČIĆ, Gradanski Odbor “Povratak Kući” (Citizens’ Committee “The return home”)
Mr Bojan MUNJIN, HHO-Hrvatski Helsinski Odbor (Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights-CHC)
Mrs Biserka MILOŠEVIĆ, Centre for Peace, Non Violence and Human Rights - Osijek
Tuesday 18 April 2000
9.15 am Meeting with:
Mr Goran GRANIC, Deputy Prime Minister
Mr Ivan JAKOVCIC, Minister for European Integration
Mr Lovre PEJKOVIC, Assistant Minister for Public Works, Reconstruction and Construction
Mrs Lidija Lukina KARAJKOVIC, Assistant Minister of Justice, Local Self-Government and Administration
11 am Meeting with:
Mrs Zeljki ANTUNOVIC, Deputy Prime Minister
Mr Sime LUCIN, Minister of Interior
Mr Vladimir STRUGAR, Minister of Education and Sport
Mr Davorko VIDOVIC, Adviser to the Minister of Social Affairs
Mr Lovre PEJKOVIC, Assistant Minister for Public Works, Reconstruction and Construction
1.30 pm Lunch hosted by Mr Tonino PICULA, Minister of Foreign Afairs
3.45 pm Meeting with Mr Ante KLARIĆ, Ombudsman of the Republic of Croatia, and
Mr Marta VIDAKOVIĆ-MUKIĆ, Deputy Ombudsman
7.00 pm Dinner hosted by Mrs Mirjana FERIĆ-VAC, Head of the delegation of the Croatian National Parliament to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
APPENDIX III
Zagreb, 7th August 2000
Comments by the Government of the Republic of Croatia and the Croatian National Parliament on the Preliminary Draft Report by the Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the preliminary draft report on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Croatia [AS/Mon (1999)22]21
INTRODUCTION
The introductory part gives a comprehensive and quality account of the monitoring procedure applied since Croatia’s admission to the CE membership in 1996 to date. We feel that the Croatian Parliament’s adoption of the amendments to the Constitutional Law on Minorities on 11 May 2000 is somewhat over-critically described. What the matter amounted to was a procedural omission occurred in a keen desire to have the minority acts package adopted as soon as possible (notably, the Law on Education in Minority Languages and Scripts and the Law on Official Use of Minority Languages and Scripts), rather than a lack of political will to co-operate with the Venice Commission. Meanwhile, the Working Group headed by the Minister of Justice, Administration and Local Self-government has prepared a draft of the new integral Constitutional Law on Minority Rights and sent it to the Venice Commission for expert opinion on 24 July 2000. Once the opinion has been received, the Working Group will consider the remarks and suggestions of the Venice Commission before forwarding the said Constitutional law for further procedure in the Croatian Government and Parliament.
CHAPTER ONE
I - PLURALIST DEMOCRACY
B) Political system of governance
Proposed amendments to the Constitution that the Croatian Government presented to the Parliament on 4 July 2000 are largely based on the proposals prepared by the Working Group of the President of the Republic. The only major difference compared to the Croatian Government’s proposals relates to the future of the Parliament House of Counties. While the President’s Working Group advocates the need to abolish the House of Counties as the second parliament house, the Government’s proposals prefer the idea of retaining the House of Counties, although extensively restructured in terms of composition and functions. The Croatian MPs will decide which of these two options is more acceptable. Note that the procedure of constitutional reforms has just begun.
C) Local self-government
The Law on the Amendments to the Law on Local Self-Government from December 1999 tried to better define some chapters in the Law apostrophised by the Rapporteurs in the course of monitoring. These Amendments have introduced certain improvements following the consultations with the CE experts, related to the separation of the dual role of the county prefects (Župan) and thereby the definition of criteria for their nomination, scope and powers. However, as the application of these provisions is linked to the relevant provisions of the Law on the System of Government and the Law on the City of Zagreb, which also regulate these matters, the provisions of the original wording of the Law on Local Self-government are applied pending their modification.
Regarding the transfrontier co-operation of local authorities, Croatia has ratified Article 10, para. 1 and 3 of the European Charter on Local Self-government. The possibility of such co-operation is contained in the provisions of the Law on Local Self-government, i.e., the amendments thereto from 1993. Furthermore, in May 1999 Croatia signed the European Framework Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation among territorial units or authorities. While this Convention is not yet ratified, its individual provisions are embodied in the 1999 Law on the Amendments to the Law on Local Self-government. This Law also defines the ways of establishing transfrontier co-operation analogous to the relevant provisions of European Framework Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation.
As for the associations of local and regional authorities, this possibility is defined in the Law on Local Self-government, i.e., the 1993 Amendments thereto. Indeed, based on this Law, a national union of local authorities has been founded. The 1999 Amendments to the Law have also created legal preconditions for the counties as regional self-governments to join the national union. There are no obstacles for the local and regional authorities as legal entities to mutually co-operate and associate in accordance with law, international treaties that Croatia is a party to, and general Croatian policy.
The Croatian Government contemplates an early start of activities aimed at providing legal frameworks for decentralisation of government and strengthening the powers of local and regional authorities, along with creating conditions for increasing their revenues. The Government also intends to start considering gradual transformation of Croatia’s territorial organisation.
II - THE LEGAL AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM
A) Legislation
In order to bring the Croatian legislation in line with the European standards, the Croatian Government sent to the Council of Europe, i.e., the Venice Commission, some more important bills for expertise. These are the Constitutional Law on Minority Rights, the Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court, the Internal Affairs Act, the Asylum Act, the Associations Act, the HRT (Croatian Radio & Television) Act; the Telecommunications Act is about to be submitted for expertise.
In late June Croatia was visited by the CE experts Mr. Norman McLean, Mr. Karol Jakubowitz and Mr. Christophe Poirel, who discussed the proposed HRT Act (see section Electronic Media) - to be soon adopted in the Parliament - with its proponents (members of the Government Working Group for drafting the HRT Act, MPs and HRT representatives).
B) The judicial system
In order to improve the efficiency of the judiciary, in accordance with the Croatian Government’s programme where measures are envisaged to this end, the Ministry of Justice, Administration and Local Self-Government has started the procedure of amending the existing regulations which may influence the efficiency of the judiciary (amendments to the Bankruptcy Act, the Inheritance Act, the Law on civil procedure, the Mandatory Relations Act, etc.).
Actions are also taken to take politics out of the judiciary. Thus the Government is presented with proposed Amendments to the Law on the Courts which provided for a new method of electing the presiding judge. Namely, the presiding judge would be proposed by the judges of a court and appointed by the Minister of Justice. This proposal is designed to reduce the powers of the presiding judge and to strengthen those of the judges.
III - HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
A) CE Conventions
The visit by CE Director General for Legal Affairs Mr. Guy de Vel, assessed as very successful, paved the way to further improvement of co-operation through Croatia’s accession to the CE legal instruments, assistance in continued legislative reforms through legal expertise, seminars, study visits and other types of co-operation.
B) Freedom of the media
i) Electronic media
In late June 2000 Croatia was visited by the CE experts Mr. Norman McLean and Mr Karol Jakubowitz who, having studied the proposed HRT Act, gave their remarks and suggestions during their talks with the proponents of the Act (The Government Working Group for drafting the HRT Act), the MPs, and the HRT representatives. The experts’ assessment of the draft HRT Act was largely favourable with a note that the draft contains significant improvements in relation to the provisions of the existing HRT Act. The members of the Government Working Group found their talks with the experts highly useful, because they resolved some dilemmas and provided proposals for better legal solutions. The experts’ written opinions are expected soon and they, along with the comments on some provisions in the draft law made during the public discussion in Croatia, will be given a serious consideration in preparing the final draft HRT Act which is expected to be adopted in the autumn Parliament session.
The privatisation of the third channel of the HRT is planned to be carried out as recommended in item 51., i.e. on fair and transparent conditions through a public invitation to bidders.
The draft of the new Telecommunications Act intends to ensure the independence of the Radio and Television Council through the professionalism of its publicly selected members, The Council could be financed from a part of the fees being paid for the broadcasting services.
The frequency scheme and the regulations related to the award of concessions for radio and television stations will soon be defined and published.
In April this year the Croatian Government relieved of duty the previous director of the Telecommunications Institute; the Croatian Parliament House of Representatives replaced the previous members of the Radio and Television Council with new members who at their constituent session of 19 July 2000 elected their chairman, vice chairman and secretary. The new composition of the Radio and Television Council reflects the recommendations of the CE Media Experts.
The Croatian Government is expected to present a new Telecommunications Act for parliament procedure in the course of September or early October this year.
ii) Printed media
Two paragraphs of Article 204 of the Criminal Law providing for ex officio criminal prosecution for defamation of high state officials have been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Law. Comprehensive reforms of criminal legislation are under way, and proposed amendments to the Criminal Law eliminating this type of prosecution are now in the parliament procedure.
B) Minority rights
Along with the amendments to the Constitutional Law on Human Rights and Rights of Minorities, on 11 May 2000 two laws were adopted related to the minority rights: the Law on the Use of Minority Languages and Scripts and the Law on Education in Minority Languages and Scripts. The members of national minorities have expressed great satisfaction with the passage of these laws. The experts of the Venice Commission, as well as other representatives of the international community, have assessed these two laws very favourably.
i) Revision of the Constitutional Law
When passing the amendments to the Constitutional Law on Human Rights and Rights of Minorities, on 11 May 2000 the Croatian Parliament demanded from the Government to prepare a new comprehensive Constitutional Law within six months. The existing Constitutional Law explicitly specifies 22 national minorities in Croatia, which is an increase in the number of minorities earlier specified in the Constitutional Law. It should be noted that this change in the Constitutional Law was practically of a temporary character, introduced within a package of laws covering the minority issues.
The Government’s Working Group headed by the Minister of Justice, Administration and Local Self-government, in consultation with the representatives of national minorities, produced a draft of a new Constitutional Law on minorities and forwarded it to the Venice Commission for expertise. After receiving its opinions, the Working Group will study its remarks and suggestions before presenting the Constitutional Law for further procedure in the Government and the Parliament.
CHAPTER TWO
COMMITMENTS RELATED TO THE RESPECT OF
DAYTON AND ERDUT AGREEMENTS
I. RETURN OF REFUGEES
A) General approach
In the implementation of Croatia’s commitments related to the return of displaced persons and refugees a significant progress has been made during the first six months of this year and the mandate of the new Croatian Government, as acknowledged in the Preliminary Draft Report.
The most important problems encountered in the return of displaced persons and refugees to their homes are linked to the reconstruction of their destroyed or damaged property and the restitution of the temporarily occupied property to its owners, mostly the returnees from FRY and B&H. Solutions to these problems were or still are partly dependent on legal and procedural revisions (the Reconstruction Act has already been revised and a revision of the property restitution procedure is pending), whereas the rest of the solutions lie in providing funds required to bring the started processes to completion (reconstruction of additional 35,000 damaged and wrecked houses and providing alternative accommodation for the temporary occupants of private property to be returned to their owners).
In order to ensure the return of all displaced and resettled persons, to remove obstacles to their return and to make the return in the future a primarily humanitarian and financial, no longer a political issue, the following actions were taken or are under way:
B) Specific issues
Return procedures
Over the first five months in the current year 7,446 persons returned to Croatia as part of organised actions and registered their return. However, according to our estimates the actual number of returnees is much higher and the ratio of organised and spontaneous return stands at 1:3, so the estimated field number of non-registered totals about 20,000. Registration of these spontaneous returnees is under way, organised in the field by the Department for Displaced Persons, Returnees and Refugees within the Ministry for Public Works, Reconstruction and Construction (MPWRC) in co-operation with other relevant ministries and NGOs.
Since the beginning of this year MPWRC Department for Displaced Persons, Returnees and Refugees has received 4,000 new applications for the return of refugees residing in FRY and B&H.
Besides, the MPWRC Department for Displaced Persons, Returnees and Refugees in conjunction with UNHCR has greatly accelerated and simplified the procedure of dealing with the return applications, shortened the period of consideration to 30 days and provided temporary accommodation to all returnees whose property is destroyed or occupied.
From FRY, B&H and the Croatian Danube Region a total of 74,000 Croatian Serbs have returned by 1 August 2000, out of 300,000 Croatian Serbs who have abandoned their homes in Croatia after 1991.
Elimination of discriminatory legislation
In order to eliminate discriminatory regulations and legal obstacles to the process of return, the Reconstruction Act and Law on Areas of Special State Concern have been amended.
• In terms of reconstruction rights the Amendments to the Reconstruction Act, adopted in the Parliament on 1 June 2000, ensure equal treatment of all Croatian citizens and persons who lived before the war in damaged houses, regardless of the way and time of return. These amendments prolong the deadline for filing the reconstruction requests.
• Amendments to the Law on Areas of Special State Concern, adopted in the Parliament on 14 July 2000, introduce more efficient procedures and models of housing care, i.e. alternative accommodation for temporary occupants of properties that must be returned to their owners and for all other returnees to the areas of special state concern who have no property of their own, including the former holders of tenancy rights. Such housing care is regulated through the award of state-owned flats and houses, building plots and construction material.
This Law also more flexibly deals with the consequences of previous awards of private property by introducing an entirely new model of restitution of the property awarded under this Law. It is stipulated that the private property awarded for use under the Law on Areas of Special State Concern must be returned within 6 months, with alternative accommodation being given to the temporary occupants with no other housing in Croatia, according to the models of housing care defined under this Law. If property is not returned within the prescribed period of time, the owner is entitled to a state compensation for the use of his private property. Also provided is the repeal of all property use decisions within six months.
As beneficiaries of this Law are defined all the persons residing in the areas of special state concern, or the returned pre-war population and other persons settling in these areas.
Housing Commissions and property restitution
The system of property restitution through the Housing Commissions has never been sufficiently expeditious and for that reason the Croatian Government is intensely considering ways of how to improve the system. Since the start of 2000 a certain progress has been recorded to the effect that about 500 housing units have been returned to their owners. Out of 10,745 restitution requests, a total of 3,268 has been solved so far by way of actual return of property to the owners.
Contributory to the review of the complex problems related to the Housing Commissions (illegal and multiple occupancy, finances for alternative accommodation) and the ways of dealing with them are frequent contacts established since early 2000 between the local Housing Commissions and the Commission for the Implementation of the Return Programme, the Co-ordination for the Areas of Special State Concern and the Department for Displaced Persons.
To ensure a better approach to the existing problems of property restitution and the Housing Commissions, the Government is preparing a new regulation which will define the overall restitution procedure, protect the fundamental human and constitutional rights of the owners and temporary occupants of such property and provide a basis for a more efficient operation of the housing commissions tasked to deal with these problems. In fact, a thorough restructuring of the whole Return Programme is planned.
Also in the pipeline are amendments to the Decree on the Agency for the Mediation of Real Estate Transactions, intended to improve its work and make it more transparent.
Creating conditions for sustainable return, reconstruction and alternative accommodation
A priority in the new conditions following the revision of the Reconstruction Act (1 June 2000) which makes all the returnees eligible for reconstruction is to allocate sufficient funds for reconstruction of at least 35,000 more damaged or destroyed housing units, as well as municipal and social infrastructure in the areas of return, and to create basic conditions for economic revitalisation there.
To address these problems and ensure conditions for sustainable return (it often happens that the returnees shuttle between the country of refuge and Croatia), the Croatian Government has decided to take a loan from the Development Bank of the Council of Europe in the amount of Euro 30 million for reconstruction and housing care of temporary users.
Also in store is the implementation of the return project financed through the Stability Pact in the amount of US$ 55.6 million, comprising a series of smaller reconstruction and housing care projects, as well as infrastructure reconstruction, basic assistance to agriculture and small entrepreneurship at the local level of municipalities and towns in the areas of special state concern. Talks are being held with donors and concrete return and reconstruction projects prepared. Of these, several are in the final stage or just started, such as:
a) Switzerland - reconstruction of the returnees’ homes and provision of alternative accommodation for temporary occupants in the area of Knin, a project worth Swiss Francs 4.2 million. On 24 July 2000 reconstruction and construction works were started on 300 houses: 125 for the Serb returnees and 125 for the B&H refugees (alternative accommodation); 50 more houses are planned for reconstruction for the B&H refugees who want to return to B&H.
b) Norway - reconstruction of the homes of the returnees from FRY and B&H and provision of alternative accommodation for temporary occupants (restitution to the returnees); the Norwegian Government’s approval of the proposal sent on 2 May 2000 is awaited.
c) Austria - reconstruction of a block of 54 flats in Vukovar, Euro 720 thousand; proposal sent in May 2000.
d) Netherlands - about Euro 4 million assistance to agricultural households and reconstruction of the returnees’ houses damaged to a lesser extent in 12 municipalities of return.
Another current reconstruction project is that of the European Union/ASB going on in 13 municipalities (through the EUPOP Programme) worth Euro 23 million (13 million already approved, 10 million pending). So far the U.S.A. Government has approved US$ 13 million for various reconstruction and return programmes through USAID and NGOs in Croatia. An extra US$ 15 million is expected to be approved in the course of this year for a number of reconstruction and return programmes in Croatia.
The fact is that funds intended for the purpose are coming in at a slow pace, which was partly expected since the budgets of most countries were fixed at the end of the last year and already allocated to other areas needy of humanitarian aid before the Croatian Government came up with its return and reconstruction programme. We welcome the recommendation by the CE Rapporteurs that the whole international community should now keep its promises and financially help Croatia which cannot and must not alone bear the burden of reconstruction and development in the areas of return.
During this year intensive co-operation has been established with the international community and foreign NGOs acting in Croatia. The international community, first of all OSCE and UNHCR, were fully involved in legislative changes related to return and reconstruction, and the tendency is that they will remain so in the future. The return goes on with UNHCR’s full organisational participation. Vigorous co-operation is established with many donor countries and international agencies in matters related to the preparation and implementation of the Stability Pact projects. In late April this year the international community was presented with the integral text of the Croatian Government’s report on the implementation of the Return Programme which beside a critical analysis of the state of affairs includes proposed measures for addressing the current problems (some of these measures are already applied, some are being prepared). This report has contributed to an intensification of the dialogue with and participation of the international community in dealing with all the mentioned issues.
Co-ordination for the Areas of Special State Concern
The Co-ordination for the Areas of Special State Concern, set up by the Croatian Government in April this year in place of the earlier Commission for the Implementation of the Return Programme, has played an important role with its more determined approach to the questions related to the return of displaced persons and refugees and its more constructive co-operation with the international community. The Co-ordination has held seven sessions so far plus two meetings with the representatives of the international community and a number of meetings with the municipalities and towns of return, the associations of refugees and returnees, the NGOs and other organisations involved in the return and reconstruction programmes.
Implementation of the Joint Declaration by Republic of Croatia and Republika Srpska signed by the Croatian Foreign Minister Tonino Picula and the Prime Minister of Republika Srpska Milorad Dodik in Banja Luka on 9 March 2000 (implementation results by 8 June 2000):
• As part of its commitment under the Joint Declaration to provide conditions for the return of 2,000 refugees, from 1 March to 1 June 2000 the Croatian Government enabled 2,103 refugees to return to Croatia from Republika Srpska. Of these approved 722 persons returned to Croatia from B&H/RS in three months’ time stipulated in the Joint Declaration, as registered by the MPWRC Department for Displaced Persons, Returnees and Refugees (lists submitted to B&H/RS). The actual number of returnees is estimated to be double the number. For example, The Serb Democratic Forum estimates that since the beginning of this year more than 500 refugees have returned from RS to Western Slavonia, especially in the wake of the Picula-Dodik Joint Declaration.
• Total requests for return from RS to Croatia: 2,708 of which 737 new requests since 1 March 2000. UNHCR/ODPR-organised convoys and border crossings after 1 March 2000: 19 crossing involving 112 returnees. The UNHCR/ODPR-organised go-and-see visits by the refugees from B&H/RS to the places of their return in Croatia since 1 March 2000: 30 go-and-see visits by 651 persons.
• So far the Joint Working Group of the Governments of Croatia and B&H/RS held only one meeting in Zagreb, but also a follow-up meeting of department heads in Banja Luka with participation of several prefects of the municipalities of return in Croatia and RS. The Working Group is tasked to deal with the questions of return to the country of origin and to care for their local integration in the country of refuge. The representatives of the refugees’ and returnees’ organisations in Croatia and B&H/RS also took part in the meeting of the Joint Working Group.
• As for the return of refugees currently resident in Croatia to B&H/RS, so far the MPWRC Department for Displaced Persons, Returnees and Refugees has collected 4,654 requests for voluntary return to B&H/RS. The processed requests are sent on a daily basis to RS through diplomatic channels (about 100 requests a day). Registration for voluntary return to B&H is continued.
Co-operation and dialogue established with B&H/RS under the said Joint Declaration will continue in the future through various activities aimed at finally resolving the question of the return of refugees to both Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Additional activities of the Croatian Government in respect of return:
• In the framework of regional approach to the return of refugees, the Croatian side was calling upon relevant B&H/RS ministries to prepare proposed projects within the Stability Pact for the return of B&H refugees presently residing in Croatia.
• The Croatian Government is preparing proposals for dealing with the return of the Croats to B&H, especially to RS, and the property issues of the B&H Croats who wish to settle in Croatia permanently.
• The Government is drafting an inter-state agreement on return between Croatia and B&H.
• The Government will continue with its efforts to harmonise the return procedures, especially those related to the restitution of property and the illegal and multiple occupancy.
• To speed up the return from B&H/RS, continued work of the Joint Working Group of the Governments of Croatia and B&H/RS through regular bimonthly meetings.
• The Croatian side will continue to encourage and support the associations of Croatian and Serb refugees and returnees in the confidence-building efforts in the areas of return.
• The Croatian Government will continue to encourage the meetings between the Croatian and RS mayors to promote a joint approach to and to co-ordinate solutions to the questions of two-way return.
• The Croatian Government will provide the B&H/RS authorities with all relevant information about the property status of all applicants for the return to Croatia currently resident in B&H/RS.
• As for FRY where such co-operation is unfeasible at present, information is exchanged with UNHCR as a leading partner in the return of refugees from FRY - currently discussed are additional arrangements for data exchange (UNHCR: contacts in FRY and B&H/RS with persons who have not yet returned although allowed to return; MPWRC Department for Displaced Persons, Returnees and Refugees: registration of spontaneous returnees to Croatia who have not registered their return - estimated at about 20,000).
• The Croatian Government will provide temporary accommodation for the returnees from FRY And B&H/RS who upon their return to Croatia have no alternative home.
We believe that the above outlined approach, as well as the activities planed for the future, will significantly contribute to the creation of improved conditions for the return of a greater number of refugees to and from Croatia and help find more efficient lasting solutions for the populace in the region resettled as a consequence of war.
Citizenship and documents
Information about 8424 applications for confirmation of the citizenship of persons willing to return to Croatia covers the period from June 1998 to 10 March 2000, not the first two months of this year as stated in the Preliminary Draft Report. The same applies to the number of approved applications. For the sake of update, it should be noted that in the period from June 1998 to 21 July 2000 a total of 9521 applications have been received, of which 9084 answered and 8200 approved.
Reconciliation
One of the most important formal achievements over the past period in terms of reconciliation and establishment of dialogue between the returnees, Croats and Serbs, as well as B&H refugees settled in the areas of return is the signing of the Joint Declaration between the Serb National Council, the Serb Democratic Forum and the Community of Immigrants and Settlers of Croatia (5 May 2000). The Declaration is signed by two leading Serb associations in Croatia very active in the areas of return, which bring together the Serb returnees, and one of the largest associations of the B&H refugees settled in the areas of return. The purpose of the Declaration is to foster mutual understanding and co-operation, promote joint activities aimed to accelerate and improve the conditions of return, help solve the refugees’ fundamental human and civil rights problems and create an atmosphere of tolerance and mutual respect. The dialogue between the associations was initiated through the Co-ordination for the Areas of Special State Concern and has resulted in the formal signing of the Declaration.
Amnesty
Since the passage of the Amnesty Act (5 October 1996), it has been applied to 20,437 persons.
II. RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES, INCLUDING BORDER DISPUTES, BY PEACEFUL MEANS
The Croatian Government is using every opportunity to express its readiness for improvement and strengthening of regional co-operation as an important factor of stability and economic co-operation in the wider region. This particularly applies to the neighbouring countries. That is why good neighbourly relations rank high on the list of foreign policy priorities in the Croatian Government’s programme for the period 2000-2004. Croatia takes an active part in the meetings of various regional initiatives, such as: the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe, the Central European Initiative, the Alps-Adria Working Community, the Danube Commission and the Co-operation Process in Southeastern Europe. Croatia has also contributed to the launching of the Adriatic-Ionian Initiative and actively participated in the Ancona Conference on 19-20 May 2000. This y
year Croatia is presiding over the Working Community of Danube Regions.
Slovenia
Successful visits to Slovenia by President Stjepan Mesić and Foreign Minister Tonino Picula confirm that the Croatian Government intends to strengthen good neighbourly relations. The Slovenian side has prepared and presented a proposed project for transfrontier co-operation. Meanwhile Slovenia is expected to ratify the Agreement on Transborder Traffic and Co-operation between the two countries (signed in April 1997), which would facilitate the border crossing procedure (daily migration) and provide a legal framework for more vigorous transborder co-operation in all areas of social and economic life. Further, this would greatly facilitate the realisation of local programmes at the level of counties or towns on both sides of the border. The Joint Diplomatic Commission for the Croatian-Slovenian Border Delimitation is negotiating options for the remaining borderline disputes (the last 11th sector of the land border, i.e., the area where the river Dragonja flows into the Piran Bay; Sv. Gera, delimitation at sea), whereas the Joint Croatian-Slovenian Commission for Marking, Maintenance and Reconstruction of the State Border is working in parallel, preparing the required borderline documentation which will be a constituent part of the Border Agreement.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Changed transparent policy towards B&H and consistent adherence to the Dayton Agreement was recently reconfirmed by the visit of Prime Minister Ivica Račan to Sarajevo and Mostar (27-28 July 2000). On that occasion three new bilateral agreements were signed (readmission, customs co-operation, co-operation between the two foreign ministries). As decided by the Croatian Government on 30 June 2000, from now on the citizens of Croatia and B&H can cross the border with identity card only. The decision became effective on 28 July after the signing of the agreement on readmission of illegal residents and will be valid until 30 September 2000. However, if proved satisfactory, this practice may be renewed after the tourist summer season. Intensive negotiations are resumed on other important agreements (trade, property rights), expected to be concluded by the end of this year. Croatia has also proposed an inter-state agreement on the return of refugees and restitution of occupied property. The already signed agreements on borders, the Port of Ploče and free passage through Neum will soon be ratified in the Croatian Parliament.
The Mostar visit by Prime Minister Račan and his meeting with the Croat representatives in B&H government authorities have created a much more favourable atmosphere in the relations between B&H Croats and the Croatian Government. Financing of the Croatian military component in the B&H Federation, based the Agreement between the Republic of Croatia and the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, has become transparent. Particularly important in this context is the Agreement between the Republic of Croatia and the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina on Financial Aid to B&H Federation - the Federal Ministry of Defence, signed on 6 May by ministers Radoš and Prce. The first audit of the Croatian Ministry of Defence has shown that the remitted funds have been used as allocated (for the military payroll) and within the agreed time schedule.
FRY
Serbia
Relations between Croatia and Serbia are determined by the international isolation of the Milosević regime. The Croatian Government is ready to go on implementing the Normalisation Agreement, but further progress will depend on normalisation and democratisation within FRY, especially Serbia. The Croatian Government’s support to the development of democracy and civil multiethnic society in FRY will be co-ordinated with the international community. Croatia’s keen political and economic interest is to see an early resolution of the succession issues concerning the former SFRY; the Belgrade authorities are blocking any solutions proposed by the four successor States, even a compromise solution suggested by international mediators.
Montenegro
Croatia supports democratic reforms in Montenegro, as also stated in the Croatian Government’s Programme. Strengthening of economic relations with Podgorica will be the next step of co-operation. Unstable situation in Montenegro is a cause of concern.
During the visit to Montenegro by the Croatian Foreign Minister Tonino Picula (20 July 2000) it was agreed to sign as soon as possible the protocol on free flow of goods, and the protocol on road traffic and the establishment of a joint commission for promotion of political and economic relations between Croatia and Montenegro. The Croatian Government has classified the Karasovici-Sutorina (Debeli Brijeg) border crossing as an international 1st category border crossing. Montenegro has announced the opening of its office in Zagreb.
Kosovo
The Croatian Government is very concerned about the rising violence in Kosovo and hopes that the KFOR and UNMIK efforts will normalise the situation and stabilise the region and thus create conditions for the return of refugees.
III) CO-OPERATION WITH THE ICTY
Along with the already recognised progress in Croatia’s co-operation with ICTY, we wish to note that the Rapporteurs were allowed access to documentation related to the war in B&H, kept in the Croatian State Archive. Below are some more examples of delivered documents which may be helpful in the ICTY’s work:
- 5 June 2000, delivery of 574 documents related to the case of General Blaškić;
- 13 June 2000, delivery of 668 documents to the ICTY Prosecutor’s Office in Zagreb, related to the war in B&H;
- 21 June 2000, delivery of written and video records related to the crimes committed by the Yugoslav Army (JNA) in the Dubrovnik area.
CONCLUSIONS
Added to the list of important diplomatic successes as rewards for the new Croatian Government’s efforts in the pursuit of democratic reforms and regional stability and security should be the admission of Croatia to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on 17 July 2000. Another major success is the adoption of the directives for negotiations on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Croatia by the European Commission on 19 July 2000, which should be approved by the Council of Ministers in October. The Croatian Government expects that these negotiations may be opened some time in autumn.
The Croatian Government has accepted the Rapporteurs’ view that the assumed political obligations must be consistently honoured. A series of above described activities should leave no doubt that the Government considers these commitments a matter of priority. The Government’s and the Parliament’s legislative activities will be greatly intensified in autumn, with the proposed constitutional amendments and a number of crucial bills to be presented for parliamentary procedure, all aimed to boost further democratisation and strengthen the rule of law. Also noticeable over the first six months of the new government is a highly dynamic work within many parliament committees, which have dealt with more than one hundred bills.
In conclusion, it should be reminded that the Croatian Government has embarked on all these activities first and foremost in the interest of all its citizens and with the purpose of strengthening democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights as fundamental values and standards of the Council of Europe to which the Republic of Croatia is fully committed.
****
DATA ON DISPLACED PERSONS, RETURNEES
AND REFUGEES ON ODPR WELFARE FROM 1ST AUGUST 2000
CURRENT SITUATION (1.O8.2000.): 71,775 displaced persons and refugees are still on ODPR welfare, among them:
• 35,529 displaced persons (27,477 displaced Croats from Danube Region and 8,052 from areas liberated in “Flash” and “Storm” operations where reconstruction is still under way);
• 24,102 refugees, mostly from B-H
• 12,144 returnees.
A significant number of persons who no longer have refugee status on the basis of Croatian citizenship are still living in Croatia, approximately total of 140,000 B-H refugees (the number includes 22,000 B-H refugees still pertaining status), and cc. 30, 000 refugees from FRY who came to Croatia mostly on the basis of property exchanges. Also, Croatia is still a refuge for 2,326 Kosovars who are under refugee protection. In 1999 ODPR registered the total of 4,057 Kosovo refugees. Since July 1999 some 955 Kosovars have voluntarily returned to Kosovo in organized manner, and a higher number of them have returned spontaneously.
RETURN IN THE YEAR 2000
• Minority return from 1 January 2000 to 31 July 2000 - total of 9,576 new returnees have been confirmed:
a) Cross-border return: 8,183 returnees from FRY and 989 from B-H
b) From Croatian Danubian Region: 404 returnees
(Return following the GoC/ODPR and UNHCR procedure and “putni list” procedure, as well as registered spontaneous returnees).
Note: It is estimated that the actual number of returnees in the field is much larger as the ratio between organized and spontaneous return is 1:3. It is estimated that the number of unregistered spontaneous returnees since 1 January 2000 is more than 20,000. Due to the one-month backlog in data registering and data processing, more accurate data on return will be available later.
According to the already submitted application for cross-border return of Croatian refugees temporarily residing in FRY and B-H, some 13,714 Croatian citizens are still awaiting return to Croatia (a majority of them have been already approved for return - cc. 10,000). The number of potential returnees to Croatia is not final for the process of submitting applications for return is still going on in FRY and B-H (applications are collected by UNHCR and delivered to ODPR). New applications after 1 January 2000: 4,120.
Out of total approximately 300,000 Croatian Serb refugees who had left Croatia after 1991, the total of 74,000 refugees and displaced persons have already returned from FRY, B-H and Danubian Region.
• Return of displaced Croats from 1 January 2000 to 31 July 2000 - total of 5,522 new returnees:
a) To Croatian Danubian Region: 3,998 returnees (total of 50,000 returnees by now out of 85,000 formerly registered displaced persons);
b) To other war-affected areas of Croatia: 404 returnees (total of 123,000 returnees by now out of 130,000 formerly registered displaced persons).
The number of returnees – ex-displaced persons is smaller than was the case in the previous years, for the remainder are the most vulnerable cases: displaced persons whose houses are totally destroyed and are still awaiting reconstruction, old and disabled, and families who need housing solutions instead of reconstruction.
ACCOMMODATION OF DISPLACED PERSONS AND REFUGEES
At this moment, there are 15,761 persons in organized accommodation facilities. Out of this number, 11,474 persons are displaced (9,622 from Danube Region and 1,852 from other areas of Croatia), 588 are returnees and 3,699 are refugees. The total of 258 organized accommodation facilities, including hotels, collective - centres, social welfare facilities, dormitories, etc, serve the purpose of housing displaced persons and refugees (35 facilities are hotels accommodating 2,380 persons). The vast majority of displaced persons and refugees live in private accommodation.
As a direct consequence of the refugee crisis, a large number of elderly and infirm displaced persons, returnees and refugees has remained in Croatia with no family to care for them. Therefore, ODPR has also provided and managed 6 facilities for the accommodation of cc. 400 elderly and infirm displaced persons, returnees and refugees. Such facilities are too few to meet all requirements.
***
APPENDIX IV
Activities for the development and consolidation of democratic stability (ADACS)
Annual report 1999 - SG/INF(2000)5
Croatia
In 1999, co-operation with Croatia focused as in the past, in particular on Human Rights, the Rule of Law and the media.
In the field of Human Rights, co-operation activities continued to put emphasis on the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning in particular the functions of the Government agent and the compatibility of the Croat legislation with the ECHR.
Legal co-operation was mainly related to issues of privatisation, the penitentiary field and the status of magistrates.
In the media field important activities were organised concerning the coverage of elections and the editorial independence of journalists. Legal expertise was provided on the draft law on telecommunications.
The political agenda in Croatia with the prospect for parliamentary elections has certainly influenced the intensity of co-operation in 1999.
The year 2000 will certainly open new possibilities for the development of the co-operation in Croatia, including in the context of the Council of Europe's contribution to the Stability Pact. In 1999 the Committee of Ministers has initiated a process of evaluation of the results of the co-operation programmes and their contribution to the fulfilment of commitments undertaken by Croatia when joining the Council of Europe. Similar evaluations will be undertaken with other partner countries in the future.
In the field of confidence building measures activities concerned i.a. Minorities in the Media, the integration of children of Bosnian and Serbian origin in the Croatian society (groups for creative socialisation).
Human Rights
_________________________________________________________________________
26-27/01/1999. Zagreb - Conference on the legal consequences of the dissolution of the SFR Yugoslavia in the field of labour and social welfare laws.
15-16/02/1999, Zagreb - Seminar on 1ntroducing local NG0s to European mechanisms of protection and promotion of human rights and opportunities for co-operation with the Council of Europe".
22-23/03/1999, Strasbourg - Expert meeting to discuss the findings and follow-up of the expertise on the Croatian Public Assembly Bill.
22-23/04/1999 and 30/9-1/10/1999, Zagreb - Seminar on the European Social Charter - Social Security Issues.
01-02/09/1999, Sisak - Seminar on the ECHR, organised in co-operation with the LDA of Sisak and the Croatian Law Centre.
06-10/09/1999, Strasbourg - Study visit on the role and work of the Government Agent for the Croatian Government Agent.
06-08/10/1999, Dubrovnik - Seminar on the follow-up of the compatibility exercise of Croatian legislation with the European Convention on Human Rights.
11-13/10/1999, London - Study visit by the Croatian Government Agent.
22-24/11/1999, Zagreb - Training session on “Intercultural, peace and human rights education for Croatian schools", organised by the Human Rights Education Association together with the Croatian Committee for Human Rights Education and the Croatian Ministry of Education.
25-26/11/1999, Zagreb - Seminar for officials and representatives of the Croatian public administration on "the role of the Government Agent in Strasbourg and its own country".
Equality
_________________________________________________________________________
23-24/06/1999, Zagreb - Seminar on violence against women.
February, June, October 1999 - Political education training seminars for women, organised by the Centre for Women Studies in Zagreb.
Media
_________________________________________________________________________
18/01/1999 - Analysis of the Croatian Telecommunications Law.
09-10/06/1999, Zagreb - Legislative expertise on a draft Telecommunications Law
16-17/06/1999, Opatija - Seminar on media coverage of elections.
Training programme for media professionals
05-06/03/1999, Zagreb - Contribution to a seminar on labour rights and editorial independence for journalists, organised by the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ).
Education
_____________________________________________________________
25-27/03/1999, Opatija - Education for democracy and European Studies in Croatia.
15-17/11/1999, Lovran - Meeting on “Education for democracy and European Studies in Croatia”
19-20/11/1999, Zagreb - Training seminar on education for democracy citizenship for/with the Croatian Site of Citizenship.
Local Authorities
______________________________________________________________
20-21/05/1999, Zagreb - Meeting on Croatian law on local Financing of Regions and Local Self-Governments Units.
Social Issues
______________________________________________________________
08-10/09/1999, Zagreb, Vukovar (Eastern Slavonia) - Local housing reconstruction and social infrastructure revitalisation, fact-finding mission.
11-13/11/1999, Zagreb - Pilot project on Integration of Local Housing Reconstruction and Social Infrastructure. Revitalisation in Croatia, First Capacity Building Seminar.
02-03/12/1999, Zagreb - Seminar on the different European experiences in fighting drug abuse in the light of the Croatian draft law on illicit use of narcotic drugs.
Legal Co-operation
_________________________________________________________________________
26/03/1999, Oslo - Meeting on electoral legislation in Croatia.
12-13/04/1999, Zagreb - Expert meeting on the enforcement of prison sentences.
16-17/04/1999, Dubrovnik - Bilateral seminar on "Securities in property law - the role of Notaries", in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice and the Croatian Notaries Chamber.
26-30/04/1999, London - Study visit for the Assistant Minister at the Ministry of Public Administration of Croatia, and the Counsellor at the Ministry of Public Administration of Croatia.
29-30/04/1999, Strasbourg - Visit to the Council of Europe by the President of the Supreme Court of Croatia, and the Croatian Minister of Justice.
12-13/05/1999, Opatija - Seminar on commercial law and bankruptcy, organised by the Croatian Ministry of Justice.
21/05/1999, Zagreb - Round Table on “The reform of property legislation" (in co-operation with OSCE).
01-13/09/1999, Eisenstadt (A) - Study visit on the organisation of court registrars.
18-19/10/1999, Zagreb - Meeting on "community policing".
19-20/1011999, Zagreb - Seminar on the development of bioethics.
23-24/11/1999, Zagreb - Seminar "prison staff policy : European standards and national practice".
Civil Society
______________________________________________________________
20-22/05/1999, Crikvenica - "Development of civil society in Croatia - models of the co-operation between the state and NG0s" organised by the Office of the Government of Croatia for co-operation with NG0s and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
09-10/09/1999, Split - Meeting on "Development of co-operation between NG0s”, organised by the European Help Centre for Non-Profit Organisations (CEAVA).
Youth
22-27/06/1999, Zagreb - Training Course for Croatian Youth NGO Leaders and Civil Servants in charge of Youth Questions.
01-07/11/1999, Zadar - Training Course for Croatian Youth NGO Leaders and Civil Servants in charge of youth questions.
*
* *
Reporting committee: Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe.
Reference to committee: Resolution 1115 (1997) of 27 January 1997.
Draft resolution and draft recommendation unanimously adopted by the committee on 8 September 2000.
Members of the committee: MM. Mota Amaral (Chair), Sole Tura, Sinka, Ms Severinsen (Vice-Chairs), Mr Agramunt, Ms Akgönenç, MM. Atkinson, Attard-Montalto, Bársony, Baumel, Bindig, Christodoulides, Dagys, Davis, Demetriou, Diana, Dumitrescu, Ms Durrieu, MM. Enright, Eörsi, Evangelisti, Eversdijk, Ms Feric-Vac, MM. Floros, Frey, Frunda, Gjellerod, Gross, Gürkan, Gusenbauer, Haraldsson, Holovaty, Irmer, Ivanenko, Jansson, Jaskiernia, Jurgens, Ms Kautto, MM. Kostytsky, Kuzmickas, van der Linden, Magnusson, Marmazov, Moreels, Myrvoll, Nedelciuc, Ms Nemcova, MM. Pahor, Pollo, Pollozhani, Ms Poptodorova, Ms Ringstad, MM. Saakashvili, Saglam, Ms Sehnalova, MM. Shaklein, Smorawinski, Soendergaard, Solonari, Steolea, Ms Stoyanova, MM. Surjan, Taylor, Vahtre, Vella, Weiss, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Zierer.
N.B. The names of those members who took part in the meeting are printed in italics.
Secretaries to the committee: Mr Ausems, Mr Dufour, Ms Chatzivassiliou and Ms Trévisan.
1 An obligation incumbent, in any event, upon all member states of the Council of Europe.
2 Whatever solution might be chosen, we hope that the on-going constitutional revision will offer the occasion for recommendations of Council of Europe experts formulated in the past (during the so-called “compatibility exercise” between the Croatian domestic law, including Constitution, and the European Convention on Human Rights) to be implemented. The experts had in particular recommended amendments to a number of constitutional provisions (regarding legal aid, peaceful assembly and public protest, right of petition, right to non-political association) which granted certain rights solely to Croatian citizens rather than to all individuals within the jurisdiction of Croatia.
3 The census has subsequently been scheduled for the first two weeks of April 2001. A new Law on Census of Population, Households and Apartments 2001 entered into force on 13 July 2000. Since the results of the census are decisive for the enjoyment of some minority rights, especially as regards the right to proportional representation, we would appreciate if the Venice Commission could also access this new census law. As far as we are informed, the law could raise some problems in two respects : one the one hand, some of its provisions could create difficulties for the subsequent return of refugees, most of whom are members of minorities; on the other hand, some of its provisions raise doubts as their compatibility with international human rights standards (and possibly also with the Constitution of Croatia) regarding respect of the right to privacy: this is notably the case of article 9 of the law which gives complete discretion to the Director of the Institute for Statistics in determining data protection measures, access to the census database and liability, until regulations on these matters are passed. This provision does not seem to be in conformity with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
4 In honouring its commitment, the Croatian Government enabled 2,103 refugees to return to Croatia from Republika Srpska. 722 returns have been registered by the Office for Displaced Persons, Returnees and Refugees (ODPR). The actual number of returnees is estimated to be double the number. For more details concerning number of requests for return from Republika Srpska to Croatia and vice-versa, as well as the work of the Joint Working Group of the two governments, see Appendix III.
5 For concrete return and reconstruction projects see Appendix III.
6 Nevertheless, individuals who had acquired rights under these two laws retained them and those who were dispossessed of their properties remained unable to repossess them or to obtain compensation for their continued loss.
7 Again, the amendments to the law did not revoke the status from individuals who had already acquired it and have thus retained the benefits. In May 2000, the Croatian Constitutional Court confirmed that the abolished provisions of this law were unconstitutional for violating inter alia the principle of equality before the law. In compliance also with this judgement, the residual discriminatory effects of the law in question should be abolished. Moreover, the parliament should abolish the so-called “Authentic Interpretation of Article 14” of this law (regarding property issues), issued in May 1999 by the previous parliament, since it infringes the independence and impartiality of the judiciary by interfering into pending individual judicial proceedings.
8 It should be noted though that since Croatian Defenders have already been given top priority for reconstruction assistance or were the exclusive beneficiaries under two laws of 1996, in practice the number of Croatian Defenders who will benefit from the priority established by the newly issued Rulebook may not be that high.
9 Thus, the government has asked a loan from the Development Bank of the Council of Europe in the amount of 30 million Euro for reconstruction and alternative accommodation of temporary users of property to be returned to owners. The return project financed by the Stability Pact comprises smaller reconstruction projects for which details are given in Appendix III. Another reconstruction project is being implemented through the EUPOP Programme of the European Union. During the recent visit of President Mesic and Prime Minister Racan to the United States, the hosting government offered an economic assistance of 30 million dollars to Croatia, part of which will be used for reconstruction projects.
10 In half of the cases of repossession of property processed by the Housing Commissions, temporary users of this property have been identified as needing alternative accommodation. The amendments recently adopted to the Law on Areas of Special State Concern will hopefully facilitate the provision of alternative accommodation.
11 For an analysis of the problem see Doc. 8353, p.32.
12 As noted by the OSCE in its latest progress report, the issue of tenancy rights in Croatia has become even more urgent following the adoption in 1999 of special legislation in Bosnia and Herzegovina which effectively reinstates occupancy/tenancy rights to the pre-war status quo.
13 See for an analysis of the citizenship law and the problems it raised, Doc. 8353, pp. 33-34.
14 Thus, on 2 August 2000, a Croatian Serb returnee was arrested on war crimes charges near Petrinja following a sentence passed in absentia in March 1999. The person had nevertheless returned through an organised UNHCR return process which included a clearance procedure from the Ministry of Justice. Clearly similar incidents do not encourage return.
15 Concerning returns from Republika Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina) since March 2000 see above footnote 5 and below Appendix III. Data on overall return to Croatia (1995-2000) by the ODPR, as of 1st Aufgust 2000, are reproduced at the end of the comments of the Croatian government and parliament on the preliminary draft report in Appendix III.
16 See for detailed figures and dates the comments of the Croatian government and parliament in Appendix III.
17 See Appendix IV for the 1999 Annual Report of Activities for the Development and Consolidation of Democratic Stability (ADACS) as regards Croatia.
18 Assembly debate on 29 April 1999 (14th Sitting). See Doc. 8353, report of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (rapporteurs: Mr Jaskiernia and Mrs Stoyanova). Text adopted by the Assembly on 29 April 1999 (14th Sitting).
19 Assembly debate on 29 April 1999 (14th Sitting). See Doc. 8353, report of the Committee on Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (rapporteurs: Mr Jaskiernia and Mrs Stoyanova). Text adopted by the Assembly on 29 April 1999 (14th Sitting).
20 Assembly debate on 29 April 1999 (14th Sitting). See Doc. 8368, report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography (rapporteur: Mr Akselsen) and Doc. 8380, opinion of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee (rapporteur: Mr Hegyi). Text adopted by the Assembly on 29 April 1999 (14th Sitting).
21 Comments are given only on the parts of the Preliminary Draft Report which we believe need up-dating.