|
|
Doc. 10925rev. 2
3 October 2006
Establishment of a European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing
Report
Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population
Rapporteur:
Mr Mats Einarsson, Sweden, Group of the Unified European Left
Summary
During the recent history of Europe, millions of people have been forcibly expelled, transferred or exchanged by reason of their ethnicity, as a result of the delimitation of new state borders or to solve the question of ethnic minorities or, again, on the basis of deliberate policies of ethnic cleansing. Mass deportations have been used to punish some national, ethnic or social groups for their imputed political opinion and hundreds of thousands of people have felt compelled to leave their homeland for fear of being persecuted by oppressive regimes or within new state borders.
As these crimes imply numerous and serious human rights violations, they do not only concern the populations that had to endure them but all the peoples of Europe. Therefore it is the task of the Council of Europe, as a pan-European organisation with the aim of achieving a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage, to commemorate the victims of such acts to ensure that history is not repeated.
To this end, the Council of Europe should establish a European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing to remind Europeans of their history of forced migration, to favour reconciliation, to act as an instrument of conflict prevention and to sensitize public opinion to the personal tragedy of individuals who, as part of a group, had to leave due to fear of persecution or because they were forcibly expelled.
Bearing in mind the gravity of forced population movements in Europe, the human rights and humanitarian aspects involved, the geographical dimension of these tragic events and the intensity of the current debate in some Council of Europe member states, the Assembly calls for the creation of a remembrance centre where historical events could be discussed openly in an atmosphere of tolerance and mutual interest and to teach the young generation about the common European memory in order to overcome the divisions of the past and contribute to a Europe where cultural and religious differences are seen as a benefit and not as a threat.
A. Draft resolution
1. During the recent history of Europe, millions of people have been forcibly expelled, transferred or exchanged by reason of their ethnicity or political and religious beliefs, as a result of the delimitation of new state borders or to solve the question of ethnic minorities or, again, on the basis of deliberate policies of ethnic cleansing. Mass deportations have been used to punish some national, ethnic or social groups for their imputed political opinion and hundreds of thousands of people have felt compelled to leave their homeland for fear of being persecuted by oppressive regimes or within new state borders.
2. In the first half of the twentieth century, forced migration was a collective European experience. 60 to 80 Million Europeans were forced to leave their homeland, many of them never to return again. In Central and Eastern Europe hardly any nation or region was exempted from this tragedy. In recent years millions of people have been forcibly displaced in the Balkans and the Caucasus due to conflicts in these regions.
3. For a long time in history, the international community has acquiesced in and sometimes even encouraged population displacements and transfers as a means to bring durable peace to a region. Nowadays, deportation and forced population transfers could, under the statutes of a number of international tribunals, including the International Criminal Court, be prosecuted as crimes against humanity. In addition, it is widely recognized that they entail numerous and serious human rights violations.
4. As these crimes imply numerous and serious human rights violations they do not only concern the populations who had to endure them but all the peoples of Europe. Therefore it is the task of the Council of Europe, as a pan-European organisation with the aim of achieving a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage, to commemorate the victims of such acts to ensure that history is not repeated.
5. To this end, the Council of Europe member states should establish a European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing to remind Europeans of their history of forced migration, to favour reconciliation, to act as an instrument of conflict prevention and to sensitize public opinion to the personal tragedy of individuals who, as part of a group, had to leave the countries or regions where they were settled due to fear of persecution or because they were physically removed.
6. A European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing should have some physical premises, however small, to be better perceived as a symbol of a common collective European memory. This centre will be principally aiming at educating young generations by teaching and promoting a common European memory in order to overcome the divisions of the past and contribute to a Europe where cultural and religious differences are seen as a benefit and not as a threat.
7. The Assembly, therefore, recommends that the Council of Europe member states:
7.1 take action for the establishment of a European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing (herewith 'the Centre’), under the auspices of the Council of Europe, according to the following guidelines:
7.1.1. the aims of the Centre should be to:
7.1.1.1. favour reconciliation by promoting impartial studies of history and contributing to the creation of a common European memory, overcoming the divisions of the past;
7.1.1.2. act as an instrument of conflict prevention by promoting the respect of human rights and the rights of persons belonging to national minorities; and
7.1.1.3. combat racism and xenophobia by sensitizing European public opinion to the human and human rights aspects of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing, in co-operation with the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI);
7.1.2. the mandate should cover forced movements of populations or groups, including those connected with policies or practices of ethnic cleansing which affected, affect or will affect the geographical area of the Council of Europe member states, with a particular focus on the 20th Century, whether they take place within the borders of one state or between two or more states. Due to its unique character, the mandate should not cover the deportation of Jews during the Second World War ; the numerous initiatives as well as the various centres established to commemorate the victims of the Shoah should however be used as valuable sources of inspiration for the creation and activities of the Centre to be established;
7.1.3. the functions should include, amongst others:
7.1.3.1. conducting or promoting research on the history of forced population movements as well as on relevant international and human rights law;
7.1.3.2. supporting the elaboration of educational materials for history teaching;
7.1.3.3. acting as a permanent forum of public and academic analysis and discussion, with the purpose of applying the lessons of the past to meeting the challenges of today and of the future;
7.1.3.4. organising conferences, seminars, exhibitions and other events; and
7.1.3.5. funding and supporting cross-border NGO initiatives in this field;
7.1.4. the Centre should not be concerned with the issue of compensation for the loss of property resulting from forced population movements;
7.2. as a legal basis for the establishment of the Centre and in order to assure funding outside the ordinary budget of the Council of Europe, consider drawing up an Agreement or a Partial Agreement, as set out in Statutory Resolution (93)28 of the Committee of Ministers, open to signature by member states, with a view to its implementation on the occasion of the Council of Europe’s 60th Anniversary;
7.3. develop activities in this field and set up appropriate national centres;
7.4. use the Council of Europe as a catalyst and co-ordinator for the creation of a Centre and use the Council of Europe to foster a European network so as to enhance European co-operation in this field.
B. Draft recommendation
1. The Parliamentary Assembly refers to its Resolution……….. “Establishment of a European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing”, and recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
1.1. examine the feasibility of establishing a European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing (herewith 'the Centre’), under the auspices of the Council of Europe and present the results of this study to the Parliamentary Assembly within twelve months of its first response to this recommendation;
1.2. for the purpose of creating the Centre and assure funding outside the ordinary budget of the Council of Europe, assess the feasibility of drawing up an Agreement or a Partial Agreement, as set out in Statutory Resolution (93)28 of the Committee of Ministers, open to signature by member states, with a view to its implementation on the occasion of the Council of Europe’s 60th Anniversary;
1.3. encourage members states to link relevant national and international initiatives / institutions with a view to developing an international network under the auspices of the Council of Europe on teaching and promoting remembrance.
C. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Einarsson, Rapporteur
I. Foreword
1. In the collective memory of the peoples of Europe there are wounds that have not healed. Exile has blighted the lives of millions of people and this suffering has been handed down from generation to generation. Sadly, this is not a memory of the distant past for our continent, since violent conflicts and forced population movements have been ravaging entire regions throughout the '90s and are still taking place.
2. During the debate on this issue in the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, some members objected that the events concerning a certain nationality or group were inaccurate or absent. In response to these comments, your Rapporteur emphasizes that it is not his intention to present an exhaustive historical account of all mass deportations and population movements which have occurred in Europe in the 20th century, let alone to minimize the sufferings of some people and highlight others'. The present report provides only examples, drawn from contemporary European history, aimed at illustrating the pan-European dimension of phenomena such as mass deportations, expulsions and population transfers.
3. Your Rapporteur has taken care to indicate the sources of the information contained in this report. The presence of possible inaccuracies, gaps or mistakes should be attributed to the fact that different sources often give a different account of historical facts and that figures vary widely. This proves the need for an institution to promote impartial research about this traumatic period in our history that has left deep wounds in the collective memory of the peoples of Europe.
4. The initiative of creating a European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing in Europe should, as was stressed during the Polish chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 2004, be aimed at achieving reconciliation in Europe by helping nations to overcome prejudice and negative stereotypes and to resolve disputes rooted in the difficult experience of the past.
5. The current initiative of creating a European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing in Europe should be considered in the context of this priority.
6. To prevent possible misunderstandings arising from the fact that words have different meanings and connotations in different languages, your Rapporteur wishes to clarify the meaning he attaches to some terms used in this report:
i. Expulsion: technically is the removal of a foreigner to another country. In practice this term is often used as a synonym of deportation.
ii. Forced population transfer: permanent movement of a large group of people, often defined by their ethnicity or religion, from one region to another. Sometimes two groups are transferred in opposite directions at about the same time, in which case the process is called population exchange.
iii. Ethnic cleansing: the displacement from a given territory of groups of people defined according to ethnic criteria forced, or tolerated or condoned by the state, in order to make the ethnic composition of that territory homogeneous.
iv. Deportation: the removal of someone from a territory. It can apply equally to foreigners and nationals; it can imply the removal inside the same country (resettlement) or abroad.
v. Nation/nationality: a group of people with a common language, culture and ethnicity.
vi. Homeland: is a "distinct geographical location within the territory of a State"1.
7. Besides, your Rapporteur would like to delimitate the scope of his work:
i. Personal scope: this report will focus on expulsions, deportations, forced transfer and resettlement of large groups of people caused by a deliberate policy decision. The report will not deal with the plight of individual asylum seekers who have to leave their homeland due to fear of persecution, nor will it address the displacement of groups of people which cannot be attributed to a deliberate policy;
ii. Material scope: this report will not address the question of the effective right to receive compensation for the loss of properties resulting from forced deportations or transfers.
8. Your Rapporteur believes that it is not possible to discuss forced population movements without mentioning the deportation of Jews to concentration camps under the Nazi regime, in Germany as well as other territories under Nazi influence. This crime against humanity represents one of the most atrocious pages of European history. Due to its specificity, this issue will not be dealt with in this report. The numerous initiatives to commemorate the victims of the Shoah, however, as well as the activities conducted by the Council of Europe in the field of history teaching and the Holocaust, will be a valuable source of inspiration for the establishment of a European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing.
9. As a final remark, your Rapporteur wishes to thank all those who have taken part in the Seminar on the Establishment of the centre for European Nations' Remembrance under the auspices of the Council of Europe (Geneva, 4 November 2004), for their valuable contribution to the present report. He would also like to thank Dr. Barbro Eberan, journalist and writer, for her support in drafting the current report.
II. Introduction
10. 'The right not to be expelled from one's homeland is a fundamental human right'2. This statement may sound clear and apparent to all of us and yet the history of Europe is characterised by forced population transfers and mass deportations, resulting from deliberate policies and often conducted as an instrument of ethnic cleansing. Other times, groups of people have felt compelled to leave their homes and belongings for fear of being persecuted by oppressive regimes or in new state borders.
11. In September 2003, Mr Klich (Poland, EPP/CD) and other parliamentarians tabled a motion for a recommendation on the establishment of the centre for European Nations' Remembrance under the auspices of the Council of Europe. This initiative was in response to the debate which had arisen in Germany over the setting up of a centre Against Expulsions (Zentrum gegen Vertreibungen) in Berlin, as proposed, amongst others, by the so-called Expellees' Association (Bund der Vertriebenen, BdV), a non-governmental organisation formed by the descendants of ethnic Germans who were expelled from the eastern territories of the Reich which were lost after the second world war as well as from other regions, including the territories incorporated or occupied during the war.
12. The proposed creation of a centre in Berlin provoked a lively debate in Germany and caused tension in bilateral relations with Poland, also with reference to the issue of the compensation for the properties that were lost as a result of expulsions.
13. The case of Germans expelled from central Europe is outstanding given the number of people concerned, but not unique. As the present report will describe, many other groups in Europe have been expelled or otherwise forced to leave their homeland for ethnic, religious or political reasons.
14. The motion presented by Mr Klich and others had first of all the merits of placing the issues of mass deportations and forced population transfers in their right context: these acts offend the conscience of all the peoples of Europe and not only of those who had to endure them. It is therefore the task of the Council of Europe as a pan-European organisation with the aim of achieving a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage, to commemorate the victims of such acts while ensuring that history is not repeated.
15. Finally, as to the adoption of the recommendation, a first draft (Doc.10378) was presented to the Assembly in January 2005 and gave rise to an intense debate and several proposals for amendment. A majority voted in favour of the amended text (37 in favour, 30 against). However it was not a 2/3 majority as required for a recommendation to be passed. A new motion for a resolution was presented by Mr. Bindig (Doc.10469) on 8 March 2005 and I was confirmed as a Rapporteur.
III. The proposed centre against Expulsions (Zentrum gegen Vertreibungen) in Berlin: history of a controversy
16. As your Rapporteur already mentioned in the introduction, the planned construction of a 'Centre against Expulsions' in Berlin generated a great deal of controversy in Germany. This was to be a memorial to the former German refugees from eastern Europe, i.e. the millions of Germans forced to leave their homes between 1945 and 1947 to resettle within Germany's new borders established by the Potsdam Conference.
17. The principal aim of this project was to commemorate the victims and show how Germany managed to integrate millions of refugees after the Second World War. It was also meant to encourage a reflection on the history of expulsions in the 20th century. Its promoters, Erika Steinbach, Member of Bundestag (CDU) and President of the Expellees' Association, and Peter Glotz, a member of the board of the Centre against Expulsions Foundation, ex-Secretary General of the SPD, and German member of the European Convention, wanted to 'raise the awareness of people around the world' on the 'suffering of the expellees' in order that such a 'violation of human rights' would never be repeated3.
18. Many people both in Germany and abroad objected to this project. In Poland it has been fiercely opposed as too selective and focusing exclusively on the German past whereas Europe is moving towards further integration. There was a fear that the centre would serve the purpose of emphasising the suffering endured by the Germans and minimize the crimes committed by Nazi Germany. Many Poles felt that German expellees were put on the same footing as the Polish victims of German war crimes. Another criticism was that the Expellees' Association started this project without consulting experts from other countries concerned.
19. The creation of the Prussian Claims Society (PSC), an agency modelled on the Jewish Claims Conference, contributed to fuel the controversy. This agency has the aim of supporting the property claims of individual expellees by filing lawsuits before Polish and Czech courts, to obtain compensation for the assets they lost as a result of expulsions. According to PSC's estimates, 13 per cent of those who were expelled from Poland owned real estate there and 30,000 compensation claims are still unsettled4. The Prussian Claims Society and Expellees' associations argue that if compensation claims filed with Poland and other countries were not to be successful, they should be satisfied by Germany.
20. Some leading German figures shared the criticism that the initial project focused exclusively on the expulsion of Germans, to the exclusion of other nationalities who endured the same plight.
21. An alternative approach was proposed by Markus Meckel (German Parliamentarian, SPD), Adam Michnik (one of the leaders of the Solidarity trade union movement, founder and editor of the largest Polish daily newspaper, Gazeta Wyborcza) and Adam Krzeminski (Political commentator and journalist, editor of the Polish magazine Polityka). The idea was to initiate a dialogue among central European countries in order to establish a European centre. A suitable location for this institution would be Wroclaw, a city in northern Silesia which suffered heavily from deportations. As an alternative, the centre would be replaced by a network of regional institutions.
22. In July 2003, the German Bundestag decided to call for the start of a European dialogue on this topic. A few months later the German and Polish presidents signed the Joint Declaration on Ethnic Expulsions in Gdańsk. On 27 November 2003, a resolution adopted by the Sejm (the lower chamber of the Polish parliament) – mainly inspired by Mr Klich's motion for a recommendation - indicated Poland's agreement to the establishment of a centre for European Nations' Remembrance under the auspices of the Council of Europe, which would ensure its international character and impartiality.
23. On the 60th anniversary of the Warsaw uprising, the German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder paid an official visit to Poland. On this occasion he said that 'property issues related to World War II are no longer a subject of controversy between our two governments. Neither the German government nor any other serious political force supports any restitution claims still being voiced. This is our position, and we won't hesitate to make this position clear before international courts, if need be'. In addition, Mr Schroeder rejected the idea of building a memorial centre in Berlin commemorating German expellees because it would unilaterally spotlight German suffering and play down its origin in Nazi aggression5.
24. Tensions between Germany and Poland, however, are far from being defused: on 10 September 2004 the Sejm unanimously passed a resolution asking the government to estimate the total damages that Germany caused Poland in the second world war. In addition, the parliament rejected all claims for compensation or restoration of property from German expellees. The resolution was received with astonishment in Berlin6.
25. Both the Polish as well as the German government promptly refused to begin talks on the question of reparations and declared that they considered this chapter to be closed. Furthermore, they engaged a joint commission of legal experts to prepare a report on “The Claims from Germany against Poland in Connection with the Second World War.”7 This commission concluded that these claims in fact do not exist and that attempts to push them through before Polish, German, US-American or international courts will ultimately fail.8
26. On the basis of the Joint Declaration on Ethnic Expulsion (see para. 22) the German and the Polish Government initiated talks on the creation of a Network of Remembrance and Solidarity. Together with Hungary and Slovakia, they decided to set up a secretariat in Warsaw to coordinate the work of the network. Austria and Czech Republic, who were involved in the preparatory talks, have declared their interest to cooperate with the network, as well as recently the Baltic states and Ukraine. Originally the Network of Remembrance and Solidarity was meant to focus on the topic of forced migration and expulsion. Its scope has now been broadened and extended to the analysis, documentation and dissemination of 20th century history with a view towards the suffering of the people as a result of war, national socialist and communist dictatorship, conquest, forced migration, racism and nationalism.9It is a foundation sponsored by the Polish artist and Auschwitz-survivor Jozef Szajna. With the financial support of Polish and German government institutions the Network has now taken up its activities. A conference and an exhibition on “Remembrance places in East Central Europe” are planned for spring 2006. There are also plans for a big exhibition and a conference on the subject “Forced migration in European context”. The network also plans different publications, among others a dictionary “The Century of Expulsions”. It will also finance translations. So shall the book to the exhibition “Flight – Expulsion – Integration”, opening in Bonn on 2 December 2005, be translated into Polish10.
IV. Forced population movements and ethnic cleansing in Europe: some examples
27. Forced population movements constitute a collective European experience. In the last century 60 to 80 million people were forced to leave their homelands, many of them never to return again. In Central and Eastern Europe there was hardly any nation or region exempted from these gigantic population transfers. A map of the migration waves in Europe during the 20th century shows an innumerable amount of arrows pointing in all directions, many from East to West.
28. Forced population transfers and deportations aimed at changing the ethnic composition of a region have not been rare occurrences in Europe. Even if the term "ethnic cleansing" entered common parlance after the war in former Yugoslavia at the beginning of the 1990s, this practice goes back at least to the 19th century.
29. After the French Revolution the longing for an independent nation-state had gained ground in many parts of Europe. In Central and Eastern Europe especially, an ethnically defined concept of nation developed, based on the idea that origin by birth or descent be the decisive criterion for nationality. The 19th century saw a great reawakening of nationalism in Europe and the emergence of the concept of ethnic purity. While the idea of single nation-States gained strength, ethnic and religious minorities were persecuted and forced to leave areas where they were settled on a stable basis.
30. In Europe, however, only a few countries were ethnically homogenous nation-states. The Russian Empire, the Habsburg Monarchy, the German Empire and the Ottoman Empire housed many different peoples within their borders. For these large multicultural realms, the ideological striving for national homogeneity was dynamite. In the First World War the multi-ethnic and multi-religious empires fell apart. That was the beginning of the waves of forced expulsion that were to continue until the outbreak of the Cold War in 1947. Despite the fact that the expulsions did not generally aim at annihilating the groups as such, many people perished, being victims to death marches and massacres.
31. When the victorious allies drew new borders in Europe and in the Near East in Versailles 1919 they were convinced that this would guarantee peace in the future. That was an illusion. In the newly created states there were many national minorities cut off from kin state. That created new tensions, chauvinism flourished, many people became stateless. Europe was a minefield where the next catastrophe was pre-programmed.
32. For the totalitarian regimes, forced migration was a way of eliminating what were seen to be disagreeable ethnic or social groups. After the end of WW II forced migration was still seen as the best way to solve ethnic conflicts. Therefore the Allied decided to move the Polish borders westwards, regardless of the individual tragedies this implied both for the Polish and the German population being expelled from their ancestral homeland. As the Balkan wars in the 1990s have shown, forced migration and ethnic cleansing remained conspicuous features in Europe also after the end of the Cold War.
i. The Ottoman Empire and Turkey11
33. The history of the Ottoman Empire exemplifies how multinational empires did not resist nationalist movements. Its national minorities (Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, other nationalities of Christian faith) either favoured the creation of an independent state on national lines or called for their union to existing independent states having the same ethnic composition.
34. At that time, the displacement of entire populations was not considered as deplorable, let alone forbidden, with a view to solving nationality issues: the international community was rightly outraged by the persecution of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1894-1897 but did not move any criticism against a bilateral treaty between the Ottoman Empire and neighbouring Bulgaria establishing a transfer of populations (1913).
35. After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, its successor nation-States were still characterized by a substantial presence of ethnic minorities. Once again the solution was found through an exchange of populations: the Treaty of Lausanne (30 January 1923) legitimized the exchange of Greek and Turkish minorities between Turkey and Greece. As Article 1 of this treaty reads, 'as from the 1st May, 1923, there shall take place a compulsory exchange of Turkish nationals of the Greek Orthodox religion established in Turkish territory, and of Greek nationals of the Moslem religion established in Greek territory. These persons shall not return to live in Turkey or Greece respectively without the authorisation of the Turkish Government or of the Greek Government respectively'. The Treaty of Lausanne, far from being objected to by the international community, was finalized thanks to the efforts of the Norwegian diplomat Fridtjof Nansen, then High Commissioner for Refugees, and approved by the League of Nations.
36. There were an estimated two million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire before World War I, many of whom were allegedly massacred or deported from 1915-1923. Concerning these tragic events, there has been no international agreement as to this past history. Your Rapporteur however welcomes that there have been proposals to set up an international commission of inquiry working under the auspices of the United-Nations or another international body which could contribute to a historical understanding and acceptance of what happened during this period. The European Parliament for its part adopted a resolution in 1987 on a political solution to the Armenian question, recognising and condemning the genocide of Armenians.
ii. The Soviet Union, including the Baltic republics12
37. In the '30s forced population transfers took place in Stalin's Soviet Union. Entire populations were removed from their ancestral homeland as a punishment for their attributed political opinion. Among the populations who were forcibly displaced were Azeris, Chechens, Ingush, Karachi, Finns, Meskhetians, Crimean Tatars, Black Sea Greeks, Kurds, Koreans, Kalmucks, Germans from the Volga region and Ukraine and others. The Kulaks, owners of middle-size farms, were also deported and forcibly resettled in Siberia because considered 'enemy of the people'. The specificity of these movements was that they affected nationals, who were deported within the national borders.
38. In the following years, Stalin continued to use mass deportations as an instrument to punish potential political opponents, in particular in the Baltic countries. In the territory of present Latvia 15,000 people were deported in 1941, when the country fell under the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union following an agreement with Germany (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, 23 August 1939)13. In 1949 a second mass deportation took place, affecting 42,000 people. This deportation was mainly directed against the farming population, who resisted forced collectivisation. Entire families were sent to resettlement areas such as Krasnoyarsk, Amur, Irkustsk, Omsk, Tomsk and Novosibirsk, for life. The number of deportees represented more than 2% of the pre-war population of Latvia. Among these were more than 10,990 children and youths under 16. Women and children under 16 constituted 73% of the deportees.
39. The years 1941 and 1949 marked mass deportations also from the other Baltic countries: in 1941, 10,000 people were deported from Estonia; men were separated from their families and sent to death camps in Siberia; women and children were resettled to the regions of Kirov and Novosibirsk. In 1949 a new deportation campaign uprooted 22,326 persons, representing 2.5% of the population of Estonia at the time.14 Similarly, successive mass deportation campaigns exiled 29,923 families from Lithuania to Siberia and other remote regions of the Soviet Union. Official statistics state that more than 120,000 people were deported from Lithuania during this period, while some sources estimate the number of political prisoners and deportees at 300,000.15
40. In the '40s, however, Lithuania was also a country of resettlement for approximately 20,000 Lithuanians, Belo-Russians and Russians who were living in territories occupied by Germany at the beginning of the war, under the terms of a resettlement agreement between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union. This treaty allowed for an exchange of populations along ethnic lines, with 52,000 Germans leaving Lithuania16, most of whom to be resettled in occupied territories.
iii. Nazi Germany17
41. Nazi Germany concluded a number of bilateral agreements providing for the transfer of Germans to the Third Reich: an agreement with Italy established the compulsory transfer of expatriate German citizens (Reichsdeutsche) and the voluntary transfer of ethnic Germans (Volksdeutschen) to the Reich from the Süd Tirol, a territory ceded to Italy from Austria in 1919. German citizens in Italy were given three months to move while ethnic Germans were to 'opt freely and spontaneously' to emigrate and become German citizens by 31 December 1942, or to remain in Italy. Official German sources give the number of transferees as 237,802, including at most 10,000 German citizens. These numbers, however, are probably not reliable18.
42. Agreements to repatriate Germans were concluded with Estonia and Latvia, too, by 1939. Some 62,144 German inhabitants of Latvia, including 56,441 of Latvian citizenship, and 16,000 of Estonia were concerned. The transfer was conducted in the three months following the agreement; very few opted to stay behind (some 3,000 in Estonia and 12,000 in Latvia). The bulk of the transferees were resettled in the Incorporated Territories of western Poland, Upper Silesia and East Prussia, while the Polish inhabitants of these areas were ruthlessly expelled. Ethnic Germans were also repatriated from Romania and other regions under Soviet influence (Bessarabia and northern Bukovina)19.
43. Between 1933 and 1945, the Nazis and their collaborators targeted Sinti and Roma on racial grounds. Across German-occupied Europe, Sinti and Roma were interned, killed or deported to camps in Germany or Eastern Europe. The unreliability of pre-Holocaust population figures for Sinti and Roma and the lack of research, especially on their fate outside Germany during the Holocaust, make it difficult to estimate the number and percentage who perished. Scholarly estimates of deaths in the Sinti and Roma genocide range from 220,000 to 500,000. After the war discrimination against Sinti and Roma in Europe continued. Today, with the rise of nationalism and unemployment throughout Europe, Sinti and Roma continue to face widespread prejudices and official discrimination.
iv. Other population transfers during the Second World War20
44. In 1940 Romania and Bulgaria agreed to the exchange of some 62,000 Bulgarians and 110,000 Romanians. In the same year, Nazi Germany dictated the terms of an agreement between Romania and Hungary on ethnically mixed Transylvania.. Approximately 130,000 Hungarians emigrated from Romanian Transylvania, and 202,233 Romanians immigrated there by April 1943. Some 17,614 Hungarians from Bukovina, Bosnia and Moldavia had emigrated to Hungary by the end of 1942.
45. The war period witnessed a proliferation of other minor bilateral treaties to solve the question of ethnic minorities, between Germany and Hungary, Germany and Bulgaria, Germany and Croatia, Yugoslavia and Italy, Bulgaria and Romania21.
v. The aftermath of the Second World War22
46. Even in the aftermath of the war, forced displacement continued. As the Allies decided to move Poland’s borders westwards, the Germans living in the areas east of the rivers Oder and Neisse were expelled from their ancestral homeland now being Polish territory. Though figures vary widely it is estimated that around 14 million Germans were forcibly transferred from eastern and central Europe, most of whom settled within the borders of today’s Germany23. In addition, post-war settlements included the compulsory exchange of 200,000 ethnic Hungarians from Czechoslovakia and 200,000 Slovaks from Hungary in 1946; the exchange of 10,000 Hungarians from Yugoslavia with 40,000 Serbs and Croats; and additional exchanges of populations between the Soviet Union and Poland and the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia24.
47. The eastern borders of Poland were also redefined, with the subsequent repatriation of Poles living in the territories beyond the Bug river, which were lost in favour of Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania, at that time federate republics of the Soviet Union. In fact, the territorial settlement between Poland and the Soviet Union reflected on the one hand the territorial occupation by the Soviet army, on the other the agreements on population transfer already signed during the war (the so-called Republic Agreements of 1944). The Polish government estimates that from 1944 to 1953 some 1,240,000 Poles were 'repatriated' under the provisions of such agreements25.
48. As your Rapporteur mentioned at the very beginning of this report, very often people feel compelled to leave their homeland due to changes in state borders, because they do not want to live under a certain regime or because they fear being persecuted by the new government. The aftermath of the Second World War saw considerable migration movements of this kind, which can be considered as voluntary only very superficially. Hundreds of thousands left their countries as they fell under the influence of or were annexed by the Soviet Union including, amongst others, 420,000 Finns; between 300,000 and 350,000 Italians left Yugoslavia after the Treaty of Osimo (1954), which set the border between the two countries26.
49. Numerically, Germans and Poles were the nationalities who were the most concerned by mass population movements in connection with war events. The phenomenon, however, affected all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the Baltics and the Balkans as well as western European countries bordering the east European bloc, such as Italy and Finland27.
vi. Recent times
50. At least two regions in Europe have been ravaged by ethnic conflicts in recent years: the Balkans and the Caucasus.
51. The conflicts in the former Yugoslavia have provoked a massive displacement of civilians, forced to flee inside their country or abroad due to fear of persecution and ethnic cleansing. The humanitarian consequences of the displacement of population from the countries of the former Yugoslavia has been analysed by a number of reports prepared by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. Your Rapporteur believes it unnecessary to recall these issues in detail, but would like to mention the latest figures.
52. As regards Bosnia and Herzegovina, out of more than 2 million people forcibly displaced during the war, 1 million 473 people had returned by 1 July 2004. Of these, 440,147 were refugees who had fled Bosnia and Herzegovina, and 560,326 were forcibly displaced inside the country.28 Some 100,000 refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina remain displaced in the Balkans. Bosnia and Herzegovina is still hosting more than 25,000 refugees from Croatia and Kosovo, while some 325,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Bosnia still require a durable solution to their plight.29
53. Serbia and Montenegro, on the other hand, counted 234,000 internally displaced persons in 2002, including 22,500 minority IDPs and 5,000 IDPs from southern Serbia.30 In the same year, IDPs in Croatia amounted to 17,486 and refugees, mainly from Bosnia and Herzegovina, to 7,3631 In the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia there were 9,442 IDPs and a total of 2,942 refugees, mainly Kosovars.32
54. Another region of ethnic strife in contemporary Europe is the South Caucasus. Although it is difficult to give precise figures, estimates indicate that the conflict in the region has provoked the displacement of more than one million people within the region, of whom still nearly 600,000 in Azerbaijan, some 235,000 in Armenia and around 240,000 in Georgia.33 The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population has recently approved a follow-up report on the situation of refugees and displaced persons in this region (Rapporteur: Mr Cilevičs, Latvia, SOC).
V. Forced population movements: from an acceptable way to solve the issue of minorities to a crime against humanity
55. The perception of forced population movements by the international community has changed over the years. This change has been reflected by an evolution of international law: from an acceptable way to solve the issue of ethnic and religious minorities, these acts became unlawful after the tragic events of the Second World War. Since then, the prohibition of forced population movements in international law developed progressively, and in several respects: from limited to situations of armed conflict, such a prohibition was extended to situations of peace; from limited to international movements, it was extended to forced movements within the same country; finally, from limited to foreigners, the prohibition was extended to nationals.34
56. Nowadays, forced population movements are considered as 'crimes against humanity' under the statute of a number of international tribunals, including the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and, outside Europe, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR); they are considered as a gross violation of human rights and as an interference with rights enshrined in various international instruments35. Collective expulsions of foreigners, finally, are prohibited by Article 4 of Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights36.
57. In parallel to the progressive acceptance of the prohibition of these acts, another branch of international law developed: the cornerstone of international refugee protection, that is the Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees, and the statute of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees were created under the still vivid impression of the atrocities committed by the fascist regimes, of the sufferings endured by the civilian population during the second world war as well as the multi-faceted displacement caused by the war37.
58. Deportations and forced population transfers have been used as forms of punishment against potential opponents and as instruments of ethnic cleansing. It is important, however, to realise that very often in history deportations and transfers have been regarded by states as the only way to protect their own nationals abroad or by a coalition of states to bring lasting peace to a region. This position is epitomised by the statement made by Sir Winston Churchill in the House of Commons in 1944 that 'Expulsion is the method which, in so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble... A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by these transferences, which are more possible in modern conditions…'
59. At first sight, it would seem that this approach is completely outdated and superseded. It is true that Council of Europe member states have committed themselves to the respect of the rights of national minorities, amongst others through the ratification of the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities38. It cannot be forgotten, however, that the approach of the international community to finding a durable solution for the former Yugoslavia was by separating different ethnic groups.
60. Despite the undeniable evolution of international law, therefore, your Rapporteur believes that the Council of Europe should make further efforts to familiarise the general public with the plight of forced population movements, disseminate information on the protection of national minorities and intercultural dialogue, and finally conduct a consistent diplomatic activity to obtain from member states an unwavering commitment to the respect of the rights of national minorities, refugees and internally displaced persons.
VI. A European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing
61. As long as the subject of forced population movements was used as a political instrument historical research was hardly possible. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union the situation changed fundamentally. New sources became available, and as frontiers fell it was possible to establish international and interdisciplinary cooperation. Experts from different countries have met to analyse the forced migration waves in Europe and to discuss what actions should be taken in order to heal the wounds and to solve the conflicts resulting from the expulsions in the last century39.
62. In order to achieve reconciliation in Europe it is therefore necessary to integrate these crimes against humanity into the collective memory of Europe. The establishment of a European remembrance centre should help to develop a common historical consciousness in Europe by supporting the European nations to come to terms with their past.
63. It is a fundamental challenge to unify countries with such different historical backgrounds and collective memories. To overcome and prevent prejudices and misunderstandings it should be one of the essential tasks of the Centre to encourage people from different countries to share their thoughts and feelings across borders.
64. The first step towards the establishment of a European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing is to create political agreement on the initiative. This is the role of the Parliamentary Assembly.
65. Once this political agreement is reached, details such as name, funding and structure could be decided on the basis of an expert report, commissioned by the Committee of Ministers through one or more specialised committees or relevant Council of Europe directorates, in the framework of guidelines laid down by the Assembly.
i. Objectives
66. Your Rapporteur firmly believes that a European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing under the auspices of the Council of Europe should be a non-political and impartial institution. The aim of such a Centre should be to testify the suffering endured by the victims, with a view to sensitizing the wide European public to these tragedies and promote dialogue between nations.
67. Rather than a memorial or a museum, the Centre should be a living institution, engaged in the organisation of events and the support of initiatives and projects. In this sense, the centre should be an instrument to prevent future conflicts, promote the respect of human rights and in particular the rights of national minorities, and contribute to the fight against intolerance, racism and discrimination.
68. The Centre should aim at conveying historical knowledge and supporting impartial historical studies. The member countries in the Council of Europe should take the responsibility to convey this knowledge by describing the events in the past from their national point of view and by analyzing what marks these events have left in their national collective memory. This would allow for a better understanding across borders.
69. The Centre should establish co-operation with relevant initiatives and institutions in other European countries. The Centre should not only aim at improving communication on a high scholarly level but also encourage the dialogue between the generations. One of the essential tasks should be to develop didactic material to be used for discussions in schools and other pedagogic institutions. For the future of Europe it is very important that the young generations are given the chance not only to acquire knowledge about what happened in the past but also to share their thoughts and feelings about these events and to discuss what we can learn from the past for the present and for the future.
70. To prevent conflicts in the future the Centre should aim at creating a network where different views on European history could be discussed openly across the borders. It should be the essential task of the Centre to encourage people from different countries to share their thoughts and feelings in an atmosphere of tolerance and mutual interest. The past should be commemorated as a warning for the present and the future without reviving animosities and by concentrating on building up a multi-faceted Europe where cultural and religious differences are seen as a benefit and not as a threat.
ii. Functions
71. The function of the Centre should include:
i. research and education, by building up on existing expertise from inside and outside the Council of Europe, with a view to producing materials for school teachers and students, in the framework of the activities on history teaching conducted by the Council of Europe; or by supporting research projects in the areas of history, law, protection of national minorities, etc. In this context, it is relevant to mention the activities conducted by the General Directorate IV of the Council of Europe in the field of history teaching and the production of school materials.
ii. public awareness-raising, through the organisation of targeted or general campaigns, exhibitions, the publication of information material, etc.;
iii. documentation and information, accessible to governments, NGOs, scholars, students and the general public;
iv. permanent discussion, through the organisations of conferences and seminars bringing together politicians, academics, non-governmental organisations and other relevant actors.
iii. Structure and funding
72. Your Rapporteur believes that a European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing should have some physical premises, however small, to be better perceived as a symbol of a common collective European memory.
73. The question of whether to set up a virtual centre or a physical facility will have to be studied in detail in the light of expert opinions and the development of the project. In any case, it seems useful to establish a network of existing institutions and initiatives dealing with this issue and to pool their resources.
74. A physical facility could adopt the status of a European foundation with its own governing board, executive committee and secretariat. As an alternative, it could be attached to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Museum.
75. Finally, a project under the auspices of the Council of Europe could be set up in the form of a partial agreement between the states wishing to participate, following a decision by the Committee of Ministers. This would enable the institution to have its own budget funded by the contributions of participating states.
76. The centre could be funded either with financial support from the various governments involved in the project or with assistance from interested institutions.
iv. Partnerships
77. The centre should be set up in close cooperation with relevant international agencies and national remembrance centres. The Committee of Ministers, through one or more of its specialised committees, should draw up a list of institutional resources available and consult the various national and international organisations that are engaged in research activities or have documentation available on the subject of expulsions and forced transfers.
78. The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Museum deals with the issues of expulsions and ethnic cleansing by organising a number of exhibitions on the fate of the displaced victims and will therefore be a key partner for the establishment of this centre.
79. Within the Council of Europe, the bodies dealing with migration and their experts – the European Committee on Migration (which deals with pan-European migration policies and migratory flows) and the Specialist Group on Roma, Gypsies and Travellers – should be involved in the project. The Directorate General of Political Affairs and Directorate General IV - Education, Culture and Heritage, Youth and Sport have also closely followed the discussions on the project, and both should therefore be closely associated to the development of a concrete proposal for the establishment of the centre.
VII. Conclusions and recommendations
80. This report is about a multi-faceted phenomenon: forced population movements. It is multi-faceted because it encompasses expulsions, deportations and exchanges of populations; it can take place within one or between more countries; it is used as a form of punishment for imputed political opinion, a means of ethnic cleansing or a way to solve the issue of national, ethnic or religious minorities. However multi-faceted and complex, it is a single phenomenon having the following features: 1) it has a mass dimension, since it concerns entire populations, national or ethnic groups, or otherwise identifiable groups of people; 2) it is forced, either directly or indirectly; 3) at present, it is unlawful on the basis of international human rights law and international criminal law.
81. Forced population movements are a human rights and a pan-European issue. This is why the Council of Europe is the appropriate instance in which they should be addressed, in the context of the organisation's fundamental aim which is 'to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage (…)'.40
82. Why should the Council of Europe establish 'a centre’? Because the remembrance of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing in Europe is still a politically controversial issue, at national and bilateral level. If, as the Polish Presidency argues, 'it is essential to overcome prejudice, negative stereotypes and resolve disputed rooted in the difficult experience of the past', it is also essential to give a clear, visible and tangible sign that the moment for doing so has come.
83. If the establishment of a physical centre is important, this should not duplicate the activities already conducted at national and international level by other institutions, such as the International Museum of the Red Cross and Red Crescent or national remembrance centres. The Council of Europe centre should, instead, act as a 'coordinating' structure, enabling institutions relevant in this field to communicate effectively, interact, cooperate and conduct joint programmes. In this way, the initiatives undertaken would have a more far-reaching, European-wide impact.
84. In addition, a European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing should promote activities such as the organisation of conferences and seminars, historical and legal research, the publication of handbooks and school materials. The Council of Europe has the expertise to do this, drawing from its experience in related fields, such as remembrance of the Holocaust, history teaching, the promotion of intercultural dialogue and the protection of ethnic minorities.
85. Your Rapporteur asks the members of the Parliamentary Assembly to support the idea of the establishment of a centre, to signify the firm refusal of forced migration and ethnic cleansing and to contribute to the creation of a common European memory of these tragic events in the past.
* * *
Reporting committee: Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population
Reference to committee: Doc. 10469, Ref. 3065, 18.3.2005 – see also Ref. 2880 (25.11.2003) and 2916 (26.1.2004)
Draft resolution and draft recommendation unanimously adopted by the Committee on 11 April 2006.
Members of the Committee: Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu (Chairperson), Mrs Tana de Zulueta (1st Vice-Chairperson), Mr Doros Christodoulides 2nd Vice-Chairperson), Mr Jean-Guy Branger (3rd Vice-Chairperson), Mr Pedro Agramunt, Mr Küllo Arjakas, Mr Hüseyin-Kenan Aydin, Mr Ryszard Bender, Mr Akhmed Bilalov, Mrs Mimount Bousakla (alternate: Mr Paul Wille), Mr Ivan Brajović, Mr Márton Braun, Lord Burlison (alternate: Mr Bill Etherington), Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mrs Minodora Cliveti, Mrs Elvira Cortajarena (alternate: Mr Joan Puig Cordón), Mr Franco Danieli, Mr Joseph Debono Grech, Mr Taulant Dedja, Mr Nikolaos Dendias, Mr Abilio Dias Fernandes, Mr Karl Donabauer, Mr Mats Einarsson, Mrs Lydie Err, Mr Valeriy Fedorov, Mrs Daniela Filipiová, Mrs Margrét Frimannsdóttir (alternate: Mrs Gudrún Ögmundsdóttir), Mrs Gunn Karin Gjul, Mrs Angelika Graf, Mr John Greenway, Mr Andrzej Grzyb, Mr Ali Riza Gülçiçek, Mr Michael Hagberg, Mr Holger Haibach, Ms Gultakin Hajiyeva, Mr Doug Henderson (alternate: Mr Michael Hancock), Mr Jürgen Herrmann, Mr Ilie Ilaşcu, Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, Mrs Corien W.A. Jonker (alternate: Mr Ed van Thijn), Mr Oleksandr Karpov, Mrs Eleonora Katseli, Mr Tibor Kékesi, Mr Dimitrij Kovačič, Mr Petr Lachnit (alternate: Mr Tomáš Jirsa), Mr Geert Lambert, Mr Jean-Marie Le Guen (alternate: Mr Denis Jacquat), Mr Younal Loutfi, Mr Jean-Pierre Masseret (alternate: Mr Rudy Salles), Mrs Ana Catarina Mendonça, Mr Morten Messerschmidt, Mr Paschal Mooney, Mr Giuseppe Naro, Mr Xhevdet Nasufi, Mr Gebhard Negele, Mr Pasquale Nessa, Mrs Annette Nijs, Mr Kalevi Olin, Mr İbrahim Özal, Mr Cezar Florin Preda, Mr Alojz Přidal, Mr Gabino Puche (alternate: Mr Adolfo Fernández Aguilar), Mr Milorad Pupovac, Mr Martin Raguž, Mr Anatoliy Rakhansky, Mr Marc Reymann, Mr Branko Ružić, Mr Samad Seyidov (alternate: Mr Mr Aydin Mirzazada), Mr Luzi Stamm (alternate: Mrs Rosmarie Zapfl-Helbling), Mr Sergiu Stati, Mrs Terezija Stoisits, Mrs Elene Tevdoradze, Mr Tigran Torosyan, Mrs Ruth-Gaby Vermot-Mangold, Mrs Iliana Yotova, Mr Akhmar Zavgayev, Mr Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Mr Serhiy Zhyzhko, Mr Emanuelis Zingeris.
N.B. The names of the members who took part in the meeting are printed in bold.
Secretaries of the Committee: Mr Halvor Lervik, Mr Mark Neville, Ms Dana Karanjac
1 United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, Final report of the Special Rapporteur Mr Al-Khasawneh on human rights and population transfer, 27 June 1997 (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/23).
2 Statement of Mr José Ayala-Lasso, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 28 May 1995.
3 Cf. Zentrum gegen Vertreibungen (www.z-g-v.de).
4 Deutsche Welle – World, 3 August 2004, www.dw-world.de.
5 Deutsche Welle – World, 2 August 2004.
6 Deutsche Welle – World, 12 September 2004
7 “Gutachen zu Ansprüchen aus Deutschland gegen Polen in Zusammenhang mit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg”, erstattet im Auftrag der Regierungen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Republik Polen von Prof. Dr. Jan Barcz und Prof. Dr. Jochen Frowein, 2.11.2004.
8 Ibidem.
9 http://www.bundesregierung.de
10 See following online articles: “Für eine Wiedervereinigung der Erinnerung”, Neuer Zürcher Zeitung online, 23 November 2005; “Vertreibung nicht aus dem Kontext reißen”, Die Welt online, 23 November 2005.
11 Mr Gülçiçek (Turkey, SOC) has asked your Rapporteur to include his written comments: 'the mass movements of Muslim and Turkish populations triggered as a result of atrocities and persecutions should be given more attention. The period between 1820 and 1922 witnessed major migratory movements from the territories lost by the Ottoman Empire, being essentially a multi-ethnic state, towards the remaining territories at the centre. 2.3 million Muslim Turks were living only in the former territories of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans. 800,000 of these immigrated to Turkey during 1912-1926. 812,000 Turks had lived as second class minorities in the lost territories, while the remaining 630,000 persons (27%) lost their lives. Similarly, an estimated 1.5 million Muslims of Turkish and Caucasian descent had immigrated to Turkey, fleeing from persecution in the second half of the 18th century'(comments made during the Committee meeting of 4-5 November 2004).
12 Mr B. Aliyev (Azerbaijan, SOC) asked your Rapporteur for a summary of his written comments on 'the mass deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenian SSR between 1948 and 1953' to be included in the present report: 'By two decisions of 1947 and 1948 the Council of Ministers of the USSR decided to resettle 100,000 collective farm workers and other members of the Azerbaijani population from the Armenian SSR to the Kura-Araks Lowlands of the Azerbaijan SSR by 1950. In 1997 the President of Azerbaijan, Mr Heydar Aliyev, promulgated a decree on the mass deportation of Azerbaijanis from their historical and ethnic lands. Pursuant to this decree, a State Commission has been set up to conduct a comprehensive study of these tragic events' (the comments will be reproduced in their entirety in the Acts of the Seminar on the Establishment of the Centre for European Nations' Remembrance under the auspices of the Council of Europe (Geneva, 4 November 2004).
13 The information about Latvia is from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia, Briefing Paper 04, Soviet Mass Deportations from Latvia, available from www.am.gov.lv.
14 The information about Estonia is from the website of the Tartu City Museum in Estonia, linnamuuseum.tartu.ee.
15 The information about Lithuania is from United States State Department, Background note on Lithuania, July 2004.
16 Repatriation Treaty of 10 January 1941. Source: Lithuanian central internet gates, www.lietuva.lt.
17 Source of this section: United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, The human rights dimensions of population transfer, Rapporteur: Mr A.S. Al-Khasawneh, preliminary report, 6 July 1993, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/17*, at www.unhchr.ch.
18 Idem, paragraphs 129-130.
19 Idem, paragraphs 131-134.
20 Idem, paragraphs 135-136.
21 Idem, paragraphs 137 and 140.
22 The Hungarian diplomatic representation to the Council of Europe sent your Rapporteur some comments, concerning paragraph 28 of the present report as well as the issue of the deportation of Hungarians from the sub-Carpathian region of the USSR (present Ukraine). Due to their length, these comments will be included in their entirety in the Acts of the Seminar on the Establishment of the Centre for European Nations' Remembrance under the auspices of the Council of Europe (Geneva, 4 November 2004). Amongst other things, these comments include the results of recent historical research, according to which in 1946-1947 76,616 Hungarians were deported from Czechoslovakia to Hungary, 44,129 Hungarians were deported from Slovakia to Bohemia and approximately 40,000 Hungarians emigrated from Czechoslovakia while 60,257 Slovaks moved from Hungary to Czechoslovakia.
23 There are no exact figures about this massive exodus of the German population from the eastern parts of the German Reich as statistical inquiries were not possible in the chaotic situation at the end of the war. It is also difficult to differ clearly between refugees and expellees. Millions of Germans had fled from their homes already in the winter 1944/45 for fear of falling into the hands of the Soviet army, several million had died on the flight. Those who had not fled were expulsed after the war.
24 Idem, paragraph 136.
25 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Broniowski v. Poland, admissibility decision, paragraph 4.
26 Duroselle, Histoire diplomatique de 1919 à nos jours, 1993.
27 United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, The human rights dimension of population.
28 UNHCR, One millionth returnee goes home in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 21 September 2004.
29 UNHCR, 16 March 2004.
30 UNHCR, Estimate of refugees and displaced persons still seeking solutions in South-Eastern Europe, as of 18 December 2002, at www. unhcr.ch.
31 Ibidem.
32 Ibidem.
33 UNHCR Statistics end 2004 (provisional, as of 20 June 2005)
34 Bill Fenrick, Senior Legal Adviser, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), contribution to the Seminar on the establishment of the Centre for European Nations' Remembrance under the auspices of the Council of Europe.
35 The expert group set up in the framework of the activities of the Special Rapporteur on Human rights and population transfer of the UN Commission on Human Rights has drawn up a list of human rights norms affected by population transfers.
36 This Protocol has been ratified by all Council of Europe member states with the exception of Andorra, Liechtenstein, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
37 UNHCR's contribution to the Seminar on the establishment of the Centre for European Nations' Remembrance under the auspices of the Council of Europe.
38 ETS 157. This Convention has been ratified by most Council of Europe member states. The exceptions are France, Georgia, Greece, Iceland, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Turkey.
39 see Bingen/Borodziej/Troebst (ed.): “Vertreibungen europäisch erinnern? Historische Erfahrungen – Vergangenheitspolitik – Zukunftskonzeptionen”, 2003, report from an international congress on forced migration in Germany 2002 with contributions by experts from different countries.
See also Bülent Kaya: “The changing face of Europe – population flows in the 20th century”, Council of Europe Publishing, 2002.
40 Statute of the Council of Europe (ETS 1), Article 1.