|
|
14 September 1993
Doc. 6910
1403-9/9/93-1-E
REPORT
on the situation of the refugees and displaced persons
in Serbia, Montenegro and the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(Rapporteur: Mr FLÜCKIGER,
Switzerland, Liberal, Democratic and Reformers Group)
Summary
Following the Assembly's earlier report on the situation of the refugees and displaced persons in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia (Doc. 6740), the present report focuses on the over half a million refugees and displaced persons in Serbia, Montenegro, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Ninety-five per cent of the refugees live with host families and 5% in collective centres. These families and the refugees they are lodging are undoubtedly suffering from the severe economic conditions now prevailing in these countries, which in turn are the cause of deteriorating standards of health care, particularly in Serbia and Montenegro.
Whatever the responsibilities involved in their predicament, humanitarian considerations dictate that refugees should receive care and protection. The draft resolution contained in the report proposes a number of measures aimed at overcoming the obstacles to the delivery and distribution of humanitarian aid.
I. Draft resolution
1. In accordance with the Assembly's Order No. 483 (1992) on the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, a delegation of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography visited Serbia, Montenegro and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia from 26 July to 3 August 1993 to monitor the situation of the refugees and displaced persons. The purpose of the visit was humanitarian. It had no effect on the Parliamentary Assembly's relations with Serbia and Montenegro, the special guest status enjoyed by the Parliament of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia having been withdrawn on 30 June 1992.
2. The Assembly recalls its Recommendation 1205 (1993) and report (Doc. 6740) which resulted from the visit undertaken by a delegation of the committee to Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina in November 1992.
3. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the number of registered refugees in Serbia and Montenegro in June 1993 was 525 000, of whom 357 000 were from Bosnia-Herzegovina and 168 000 from Croatia. In addition, it is estimated that there are a further 100 000 unregistered refugees. Registered refugees account for 5% of the population in Serbia and 11% in Montenegro. In Serbia, about 85% are Serbs, whereas Muslims, Croats and other nationalities make up the remaining 15%. In Montenegro, about one-third are Serbs, one-third Montenegrins and another third Muslims. According to the two republics' laws all must be treated on an equal footing.
4. In the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, there are 32 000 registered refugees, mostly Muslim, representing 1,5% of the population.
5. In Serbia and Montenegro 95% of the refugees live with host families and 5% in collective centres, which are being brought up to standard under a programme subsidised by the UNHCR.
6. The economic situation in Serbia and Montenegro has deteriorated, notably on account of the application of sanctions by the United Nations. Inflation is rising by over 10% per day. The average monthly income amounts to the equivalent of 10 to 20 Deutschmarks. Industrial production is about half its 1992 level and up to 70% of the work force is unemployed, according to official statements. There is no doubt that the population is suffering as a result. Families who have taken in refugees find it hard to maintain their hospitality.
7. Health care has deteriorated markedly, according to the World Health Organisation. Official figures show that mortality has risen from 10,3 to 11,3 per thousand since 1989. Diseases thought to have been eradicated have reappeared. In order to be admitted to hospital, patients must supply certain pharmaceutical products, as well as anaesthetics. Because of lack of spare parts for haemodialysis machines, treatment has become ineffective.
8. The decline in the standard of health care in Serbia and Montenegro is due to the general economic situation but also to the effects of the United Nations embargo, including delay or even prohibition of essential shipments of food and medical supplies. Under the terms of United Nations Resolutions 757 and 820, imports of food and other supplies for humanitarian purposes are exempt from the embargo, subject to authorisation by the United Nations Sanctions Committee.
9. The obstacles put in the way of essential imports for the population's survival hamper the efforts of the international humanitarian organisations which provide about 10% of the overall needs of the refugees and other vulnerable groups.
10. Some of this aid is being misappropriated or diverted, either to the black market or to other regions.
11. Asylum policy is in principle open, and the treatment of refugees appears to conform to international standards, with refugee status accorded to those arriving from the republics of the former Yugoslavia without distinction as to national, religious or ethnic origin. Nevertheless, there appear to have been certain restrictions in practice as far as Serbia is concerned. Moreover, there is evidence that Serbian refugees are being encouraged to settle in areas characterised by national, ethnic and religious diversity such as Kosovo, the Sandjak and Vojvodina. Conversely, Muslim refugees are discouraged from settling in such areas, where the situation is already tense. There may also be "indirect discrimination" against Muslim refugees in so far as reduced resources are made available to them.
12. Therefore, while the Assembly remains convinced that the United Nations embargo on Serbia and Montenegro is justified as long as there is no end to the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the interests of the Muslim community are not respected, in the light of the above considerations it appeals:
i. to the Security Council of the United Nations
a. to review the implementation of Resolutions 757 and 820 with a view to ensuring that the embargo on Serbia and Montenegro effectively and generously exempts transactions for humanitarian purposes;
b. to allow shipments of humanitarian aid through the Adriatic port of Bar (Montenegro);
c. to ensure that the terms of the peace plan to be concluded safeguard the right of return of the refugees and displaced persons;
ii. to the governments of the member states of the United Nations, and in particular those of Council of Europe member states, in co-operation with the international humanitarian organisations,
a. to take in also refugees from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in particular and as a matter of urgency for the purpose of family reunion;
b. to increase, without earmarking, their contributions to the international humanitarian aid effort on behalf of the former Yugoslavia;
iii. to the governments of the Council of Europe member states
a. to avoid the imposition of visa requirements for refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina, since the neighbouring countries use this as an excuse for prohibiting transit across their territory;
b. to prevent, in co-operation with the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, an extension of the conflict in the Balkans;
iv. to the international and national humanitarian organisations operating in Serbia, Montenegro and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to monitor closely the distribution of aid;
v. to the Government of the Republic of Serbia not to settle refugees in areas where they are likely to increase existing tensions;
vi. to the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to examine the situation of the refugees and displaced persons whose allegiance to the federal republic or whose dual nationality has prevented them from returning in safety to their country of origin.
II. Explanatory memorandum
by Mr FLÜCKIGER
I. Introduction
From 26 July to 3 August 1993 a delegation of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography visited Serbia, Montenegro and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.1 The purpose of the visit, carried out in pursuance of Order No. 483 (1992) on the crisis in the former Yugoslavia,2 was to study the situation of the refugees and displaced persons in order to report back at regular intervals to the Parliamentary Assembly. It was a follow-on from the study visit to Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia in November 1992.3
The purpose of the visit was humanitarian. Nevertheless, the delegation was aware that the political aspect could not be entirely excluded, as the dividing line between humanitarian and political aspects was in this case very difficult to draw.
This was the first official visit by a parliamentary delegation to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia since the beginning of the embargo against Serbia and Montenegro.
Upon arrival in Budapest, members of the delegation met officials at the Office for Hungarians Living Abroad. In Serbia, Montenegro, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the delegation held talks with parliamentarians, ministers and officials responsible for refugees, health and social affairs, human rights and minorities and religious leaders as well as with representatives of local and international humanitarian organisations and the diplomatic community in Belgrade. The delegation met refugees in Novi Sad (Vojvodina), Prijepolje (Sandjak), Priština (Kosovo), Rozaj (Montenegro) and Skopje (former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) and visited a Belgrade hospital.
This report endeavours to give as objective an account as possible of the information collected on the situation of the refugees and the civilian population, as well as of the talks held by the delegation, with a view to drawing conclusions for the attention of the Parliamentary Assembly.
II. Hungary
Office for Hungarians Living Abroad
According to Mr Istvan Zalatnay, Vice-President of the Office for Hungarians Living Abroad, during the first five months of 1993, 2 478 persons approached the Hungarian authorities in charge of refugees (77,5% from Serbia, including Vojvodina; 9,2% from Romania and 6,6% from Bosnia-Herzegovina). Of those coming from Serbian-controlled territories, 90,5% are ethnic Hungarians, 3,3% are Serbs and 2,8% Croats. 86% of the Bosnian refugees are Muslims.
Most refugees are housed by relatives or friends, subsidised for the purpose, while others live in collective centres.
According to the people we spoke to, there are generally no clandestine migrants in Hungary, a country which has so far practised an open-door policy.
The Office was created three years ago in order to look after the 3½ million Hungarians living in neighbouring countries; it now faces a difficult situation. The circumstances of the Hungarian minority in Vojvodina have become difficult to bear because of the Serbian policy of using every means to discourage Hungarians from exercising cultural autonomy so as to induce them to leave the country.
Mrs Marta Blasko, assistant to the Vice-President, was able to confirm the tactics used by the Serbs to encourage Hungarians to leave Vojvodina. One of the most striking examples consisted in enlisting young men in the Yugoslav army, where there are in fact in proportion more Hungarians than Serbs. The parents of young deserters are threatened and usually their houses are destroyed or commandeered.
An estimated 30 000 Hungarians have arrived from Vojvodina. Most of them have been offered temporary protection and some have requested refugee status.4 In this respect, Hungary recently passed a law on citizenship under which any ethnic Hungarian may obtain Hungarian nationality within one year; in other cases the period is eight years.
The Hungarian Government decided to protest in order to draw the international community's attention to human rights violations, while asking for the Hungarian minority's right to culture, identity and survival to be respected.
III. Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is made up of two republics: Serbia and Montenegro. It has a total population of 10 600 000 inhabitants — 9 975 957 in Serbia and 624 043 in Montenegro — whose ethnic composition is as follows: 62,3% Serbs; 5% Montenegrins; 16,6% Albanians; 3,3% Hungarians; 3,1% Muslims; 1,1% Croats and over 7% members of other nationalities.
1. Serbia
1.1. Vojvodina
a. Meeting with the delegation of the Parliament of Vojvodina
Vojvodina is an autonomous region, the most highly developed one in Serbia.
The Parliament of Vojvodina has 120 members elected by a majority system by all Vojvodina's citizens. Since its creation on 1 February 1993, the Parliament — which has no legislative function and whose task, like that of a French regional council, is to oversee application of the laws and regulations of the Republic of Serbia — has held four meetings in its six official languages.
Vojvodina has a population of about two million, comprising various ethnic groups. The biggest minority is the Hungarian. The representative of the Serbian commissioner for refugees said that the Vojvodina region had taken in a large number of refugees: 145 000 so far, including 33 000 in Novi Sad.
People we spoke to said that 82% of the refugees were Serbs, 7% Muslims and 7% Croats. The great majority of them had fled Bosnia and Croatia. Half the refugees were children and students who could continue their studies in total freedom. 50 000 refugees had returned home to Slavonia, in the territories under Serbian and UNPROFOR control.
As for the Hungarian minority, some young men (estimated at between 15 000 and 20 000) had refused to join the army, following a call by the Democratic Committee of Hungarians in Vojvodina. They had fled to the west and some had subsequently returned without being prosecuted. We were told that: "Serbia has never driven anybody out".
Ninety-five per cent of the refugees are living with host families; the rest are staying at reception centres. Unemployment and a growing food shortage (direct consequences of the embargo) are causing acute problems for host families.
All refugees are registered on arrival and given a card as proof of their refugee status. They are all entitled to education and accommodation, without discrimination.
Victims of physical or mental maltreatment may benefit from a protection and aid programme.
Dr Asim Dizdarevic, head of the Federal Parliament delegation, expressed his hope that the visit by the parliamentary delegation would be a first step towards restoring lasting relations with Europe and towards the establishment of genuine peace.
Those we spoke to generally deplored the fact that humanitarian aid had not only been reduced (from 25% to 10% in recent months) but was not being fairly distributed.
b. Meeting at the Serbian Red Cross Office
According to the representative of the Red Cross Office of Vojvodina the Serbian Red Cross was part of the International Red Cross movement and worked in accordance with its principles. There was close co-operation with the Serbian Commissioner for Refugees but the Red Cross had its own mandate. Some 96% of the refugees were hosted by volunteer families, the remainder in collective centres. The United Nations embargo had restricted the standard of living of these families and put many out of work. They had not expected to have to care for the refugees for so long. It had now been 2½ years. International humanitarian assistance was essential.
According to another representative of the Red Cross Office of Vojvodina there were now 145 709 refugees/displaced persons in Vojvodina. The first had arrived by bus in May 1991. The Serbian Red Cross had launched an appeal to families to take them in, on the assumption that lodging with families would be reassuring. The response had been unexpectedly generous, with 30 000 families, mostly farmers, coming forward. Most of the refugees were women and children. Since then over 2 000 refugee babies have been born in Vojvodina. A number of collective centres had also opened, especially for those suffering from physical or mental disability. However, a survey of the general population following the tightening of the United Nations embargo showed that 62 000 families were living on or below the poverty line. These included families that had taken in refugees but had since lost their jobs. During 1992 only 10% of basic needs of the refugees were provided by international humanitarian organisations. However, this had increased to about 30% in the first months of 1993. This percentage had now dropped again. Some thirty to seventy people a day approached the Serbian Red Cross Office for medicines which they could not afford.
According to the representative of UNHCR, Belgrade office, UNHCR had begun operating in autumn of 1991, conducting an in-depth survey of needs in summer 1992. In late 1992/early 1993 target quantities of daily subsistence needs had been distributed (wheat flour, canned food, sugar, detergents etc.), amounting to about 25% to 30% of total needs. However, this had now dropped to 20%. There was a risk of humanitarian catastrophe. Most worrying was the lack of medicaments, cooking oil, and, in anticipation of winter, oil for heating. International humanitarian assistance provided in part through the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) Programme.
According to the representative of the Committee for the Reception and Distribution of Medicines before the embargo the Serbian health care system had been comparable to the most advanced in Europe. For example, there had been no case of polio since 1962, nor diphtheria since 1977. However, the United Nations embargo had severely curtailed the quality of health care. There was now a recurrence of tuberculosis and other contagious diseases. Spare parts were lacking for haemodialysis and other hospital equipment. Since Yugoslav assets abroad had been frozen, it was no longer possible to import the materials required for medical testing (Aids, etc.). The pharmaceutical industry depended on raw materials that could no longer be imported. Supplies of food, disinfectant or heating oil were reduced to the minimum, limiting hospital care to the severest cases. A flu epidemic would be disastrous. At the end of June 1993 an extraordinary meeting of Serbian medical doctors had been held, the conclusions of which had been sent to the Council of Europe. The whole population was at risk, especially children, pregnant women and the elderly.
According to the representative of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Office of Belgrade (IFRC), the IFRC launched an international appeal in May 1992 for 43 million Swiss francs for the former Yugoslavia to which the response had been very good. This had made it possible to distribute mainly food, hygienic supplies and baby parcels, complementing the aid provided by other organisations. A second appeal for 47 million Swiss francs had been launched in December 1992, but this had not met with the success of the first — probably as a result of "donor fatigue" stemming from the world recession, growing government deficits, and waning interest on the part of private donors. An appeal for the second half of 1993 seeking 53,6 million Swiss francs had just been launched. 300 000 hygiene parcels had been promised by the European Community and 100 000 baby parcels by various donors. Resources would also go to the social welfare programme including counselling for traumatised victims at a centre in Belgrade. Two more such centres were planned, in Novi Sad and Podgorica. Emphasis would also be placed on targeted medical supplies for Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia, and on assistance through bakeries and soup kitchens. It was anticipated that 180 more soup kitchens would have to be operated in Serbia and Montenegro during the coming winter, to provide 75 000 to 80 000 meals a day.
But one of the main problems was the operation of the embargo in Serbia and Montenegro, under which humanitarian aid deliveries (food, medicine, etc.) were allowed with the authorisation of the United Nations Sanctions Committee. At the end of April 1993, for instance, authorisation for a big shipment of medical supplies from the Swiss Red Cross had been delayed for so long that "use by" dates came close to expiring, and storage costs became prohibitive. The consignment was sent instead to Croatia. Other instances of shipments being delayed or re-directed because of sanctions difficulties were: 2 000 baby parcels from the Belgian Red Cross, 50 "Balkan boxes" (specialised medicaments and supplies for hospitals in Serbia/Montenegro) from the Norwegian Red Cross, and other relief goods including used clothing and spare parts for vehicles used in the delivery of relief items.
c. Visit to the Fruska Gora refugee centre (near Novi Sad)
This centre — a former youth work camp — houses around 300 persons, most of them elderly (two-thirds from Croatia and one-third from Mostar and Sarajevo). Most of those questioned had been evicted by the military; their houses had been demolished and they had been subjected to physical and mental violence.
The living conditions were decent on the whole (seven beds per room), but there were complaints about men and women having to use the same washrooms and toilets.
Everyone questioned agreed that they had enough to eat but suffered from a lack of medicines. They all wanted to return home.
One of the refugees gave an account of his detention in inhumane conditions in a camp at Dretelj, 35 km from Mostar. He had been forced to change nationality and take a Muslim name. Not one of the 70 000 Serbs living in Mostar had remained, he said. He had seen 200 persons killed, including Serbs who had been put out of the windows from the 10th floor under the eyes of their family. Mass graves had been found. When he had left on 18 August 1992, he had mentioned the existence of the Dretelj camp to the Swiss delegate of the International Red Cross at Split.
Another refugee, a former prisoner from near Vocin, had been beaten, had petrol poured over him and he had been taken to a cemetery and left for dead after he had his throat cut. After managing to reach home, he had rescued his cows. The militia came but he escaped and hid in the forest for a week. His house had been set on fire. He went into town to collect his savings from the bank. All his money was then stolen. He had been recaptured and they wanted him to admit to holding weapons. He was later exchanged, with another group, for Croatian prisoners. Now he was in the Fruska Gora camp, with no possessions and no hope for the future because the Croat authorities refused to give him his pension.
The head of the camp confirmed what the refugees had told us, and also complained of dwindling humanitarian aid. It was becoming increasingly difficult to obtain the bare minimum, particularly in terms of medicines and basic hygiene products. The present situation would not get any better as winter drew near.
The children we questioned could not remember what had happened to them.
1.2. Belgrade
a. Meeting with a delegation of both houses of the Federal Parliament
The Federal Parliament is composed of two houses: the Chamber of Citizens (138 members) and Chamber of Republics (40 members).
Among other things, the Federal Parliament legislates, takes decisions of a constitutional nature as well as decisions concerning border changes, and it may declare a state of war.
The Federal Parliament is anxious to open a dialogue with the international community so that the sanctions and embargo affecting the Federal Republic are lifted as quickly as possible.
The President of the delegation of the Federal Parliament recalled that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had taken in over 640 000 refugees, which was proving a heavy burden to bear because of the decline in living standards owing to the embargo.
Ninety-five per cent of the refugees were living with host families, whose present income averaged 40 to 60 Deutschmarks a month.
In order to assist families, the UNHCR was working with the authorities to set up new collective centres. The situation was at breaking-point: sanitary conditions were deplorable, long-eradicated diseases were reappearing (for example tuberculosis and measles) and killing people because of a lack of vaccines and medicines. Behavioural disorders were also on the increase.
We were told that, among the refugee population, 1 500 children were on the waiting-list for operations, there were more than 6 000 diabetics, and 250 persons needed dialysis but could not be given the appropriate treatment.
Humanitarian aid covered only 10% of needs. Moreover, the transfer of pensions of more than 58 000 retired persons was frozen abroad. Family allowances for 40 000 children of Yugoslavs working abroad had not been sent. Despite the numerous requests from the Yugoslav authorities to the Sanctions Committee, this freeze had been maintained.
b. Meeting with Mr Milos Radulovic, President of the Chamber of Republics
Mr Radulovic confirmed what had been said by the members of the delegation of both houses of the Federal Parliament about the catastrophic situation on the economic, social and humanitarian fronts.
The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had no territorial claims but simply wished to find a solution everyone could accept. It had approved the Vance/Owen plan. The Bosnian Serbs not being nationals of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the latter could not interfere with their decision-making.
The population's only concern was to see an end to the conflict so that factories could begin working again and the refugees return home if they so wished.
The crisis, which was complex in view of the nature of the interests involved, had humanitarian consequences. In response to the question whether there was no contradiction between the willingness to close the borders with Bosnia-Herzegovina and the recent decision to suspend the authorisation for the CSCE's observers to stay, Mr Radulovic pointed out that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had asked for United Nations observers at the borders in order to prove that it is not the aggressor. It had received no response. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia only wanted recognition and had nothing to hide. He felt that sanctions were a mistake and that the United Nations had adopted a policy based on incomplete information, especially as his country was complying with all the relevant international rules.
Our delegation took note of the information provided and said that it would be communicated to the Parliamentary Assembly.
c. Meeting with Mr Popovic, Federal Minister of Labour, Health and Social Affairs
Mr Popovic made an appeal to the Council of Europe delegation concerning the catastrophic health situation facing the whole population, which would worsen with the approach of winter.
The Sanctions Committee had blocked all imports of humanitarian aid since July, even though Mrs Ogata, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, had publicly recognised the efforts of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to find solutions to the Bosnian crisis. He felt that the attitude of the Sanctions Committee contradicted the spirit of United Nations Resolutions 757 and 820. This attitude was mainly influenced by that of the non-aligned countries in the Sanctions Committee and the poor dissemination of information.
By way of example, he referred to photos of Croatian tanks entering Bosnia-Herzegovina, which had never been circulated, and the destruction, which he had witnessed, of 53 Serb villages in 1991. There was not only one truth. He also informed us that a letter had been sent to WHO asking for the unfreezing of Yugoslav assets abroad.
The public should be better informed. The international community should send several observers so that an objective report could be drawn up.
d. Meeting with Mrs Margit Savovic, Federal Minister of Human Rights and Minority Affairs
Mrs M. Savovic stressed that her ministry was unique in the world. The largest minorities in Yugoslavia were the Albanian and Hungarian. The purpose of the ministry's work was to make sure that the national identity of each minority was respected and preserved. Several documents were being prepared, mainly dealing with the situation of refugees in general, the law on national minorities, and the protection of Serb and Montenegrin minorities in neighbouring states.
She felt that the Hungarians who had fled to Budapest were doing a lot of harm to the Hungarian community living in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Democratic Committee of Hungarians in Vojvodina asked the young people not to enlist. Nevertheless, 80% of the young people had responded. It was normal that these young people should do their duty.
She added that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia would not give up Kosovo, where extremists were continually fomenting tension. The Albanians were preventing their children from following the school curricula drawn up by the Serbs, even though they could go as far as upper secondary education without speaking Serbian. The Albanians had boycotted official posts as well as the census which has been carried out. The result was that dialogue was non-existent, and it would be hard to make any progress without Albanian participation.
e. Meeting at the UNHCR Office, Belgrade
According to the Acting Chief of Mission, UNHCR, the number of refugees could be estimated at about 460 000 in Serbia and about 64 000 in Montenegro. The Commissioner for Refugees of Serbia and Montenegro gave higher figures which included unregistered and social cases. In addition to distributing food aid and other humanitarian supplies UNHCR was continuing its shelter programme, ie the refurbishing of collective centres so as to take the pressure off the families who were hosting over 95% of the refugees, and running a social programme for traumatised women. UNHCR worked closely with other humanitarian bodies including the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO). As far as refugee protection was concerned, while Montenegro had kept its borders open, there had recently been some restrictions in Serbia. The biggest problems were the operation of sanctions and the earmarking of humanitarian aid. There were delays in getting authorisation from the Sanctions Committee for aid deliveries from outside Serbia or Montenegro, there was a lack of funds and difficulty in finding partners to help carry out assistance programmes. Many donor countries refused to give for Serbia and Montenegro. Owing to under-staffing in the Federal Government services, there were also some difficulties in obtaining visas for aid workers.
On a separate occasion, this official said that there were also some distribution problems which should not, however, be exaggerated. In the last ten months UNHCR had distributed 60 000 tons of food in Serbia. The Loznica Red Cross Society had transferred 6 tons of its consignment to women and children across the border in Zvornik (Bosnia-Herzegovina), but not to the military. Punitive action had been taken. There was some graft. For example 600 litres of vegetable oil had been sold by the Red Cross Society in Kosovo. In his opinion, sanctions could be said to be strengthening rather than undermining the authority of the government.
The Representative of UNICEF described the catastrophic deterioration of the economy. Inflation was out of control, and was now affecting even hard currency prices. A coca-cola cost $ 10; 4 kg of detergent cost $ 50. Most people survived on yoghurt and bread, which was fairly readily available. Average salaries were 10 to 20 Deutschmarks per month. The inflation resulted from the imbalance of supply and demand and speculation. Forty per cent of goods found their way on to the black market. Farmers were holding back their wheat because by the time they were paid for it the money was worthless. Five per cent of the population was becoming very rich at the expense of the rest. In two months the dinar could give way to barter. The net result was that the families hosting the refugees could no longer cope. It was difficult to reach these families but information was gathered via questionnaires and shared by several humanitarian organisations (ECHO, IFRC etc.).
The health situation was also disastrous with many illnesses re-appearing. Hospital patients had to provide their own anaesthetics, among other things. There were no disinfectants available. It was children who were most affected.
UNICEF had funds to cover only 40% of its needs. Its operations on behalf of all children included providing basic medicines and vaccines, treating chronic illnesses, psychological rehabilitation through school programmes, basic school textbooks for years one and two, and peace education programmes.
The Acting Special Representative of WHO based his information on data from the Federal Institute of Public Health, hospitals and health centres, where refugees and their host families went for treatment. Comparison of data for 1989 and 1992 showed an increase in total mortality from 10,3 to 11,3 per thousand. Comparing figures for 1986 and 1991, there had been a 544,3% increase in the incidence of ischemic heart disease and the incidence of respiratory tuberculosis had increased by 128,4%. There had been a 591,4% increase in different psychoses, attributable to the stress of war. The situation in the Sandjak was worse. The deterioration in the standard of health was attributable to the free fall of the economy and to the effects of sanctions: since Serbia and Montenegro's foreign assets had been frozen, no equipment or materials for diagnosis or treatment could be imported. Medical machines stopped running for lack of spare parts. The pharmaceutical industry could not import the raw materials. Lack of medicine had now pushed the cancer mortality rate up to 100%. Mental patients were chained to beds or radiators for lack of tranquillisers. Some 5 500 patients needed haemodialysis but could be treated only for another four months owing to lack of spare parts for the machines. The embargo on oil had reduced the number of doctors' emergency visits and home visits by 60%. Some hospitals had to do their laundry in cold water. Before winter some hospitals would close. About 45% of deliveries were by Caesarean section because women were too anaemic to deliver normally. Children were under-nourished. Blood transfusions were done without modern testing. Whereas health care had been exemplary in Yugoslavia, it was now in deep crisis.
The World Food Programme, according to its representative, provided UNHCR with the refugees' basic food needs. Referring to the embargo, the assumption that it would mobilise the population against the regime was mistaken. People talked only about their economic problems while the government was getting stronger. From the food point of view, the problem was that the embargo made it more difficult to supply Bosnia and Herzegovina via Belgrade. Unfortunately consignments had been blocked en route from the Bulgarian Black Sea port of Burgas, including wheat flour and baby food. The spirit of the humanitarian aid exemption under the embargo had been flouted. The United Nations Sanctions Committee had refused to allow the use of the Adriatic port of Bar (Montenegro) which would allow millions of dollars savings in transport costs. In the field, the Serbs of Bosnia continued their attacks, and the Federal Yugoslav Government claimed to have no influence over them. The situation under Bosnian Serb authority was totally out of control. UNHCR convoys might have all the necessary authorisations but were subject to petty bosses along the route. Belgrade appeared to have no way of putting out the fire it had started. On the other hand there was no evidence that the Federal Government was providing military assistance to the Bosnian Serbs.
According to the representative of Médecins sans Frontières Belgrade had over the last year become violent and criminal.
According to the representative of IFRC, the IFRC had opened a centre in July for traumatised war victims, predominantly women. It was receiving about fifty calls a week.
The Public Information Officer, UNHCR, pointed out that Serbian refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina, Krajina and Slavonia were radicalised and resented the minorities for example in Vojvodina. Muslim refugees were forced to take Serbian identity. Moreover, there were tensions between refugees who received public assistance and the local population who did not. Typical flats were very small and sometimes housed eight or ten people in two rooms. The shops were emptying. There was a big fear of the forthcoming winter because fuel and clothing were in short supply.
f. Meeting with the delegation of the Serbian Parliament
The delegation of the Serbian Parliament deplored the absence of Parliamentary Assembly observers at the previous elections and felt that the measures taken by the international community were too severe. It therefore considered it important for the Assembly's delegation to visit the refugees in order to have a better idea of their catastrophic situation.
The Serbian Parliament had 250 members. Serbia was a democratic state, with a legislature, an executive and a judiciary.
The members of the Serbian delegation expressed their surprise at the impact of Resolution 820 and the ban on the transit of commodities, which were having very serious economic consequences unfortunately affecting children most of all. They recalled the appeal made by Mrs Ogata for the international community to help the sick.
At present, 96% of refugees were being looked after by host families, and 4% were housed in 170 collective centres.
Serbia had drafted a law on refugees, and the Serbian Parliament was co-operating with the federal authorities.
Those we spoke to were unanimous in asking our delegation to help by arguing for the lifting of the embargo.
Your Rapporteur took this opportunity to inform members of the Serbian Parliament delegation that the Council of Europe delegation, after seeing for itself the dire conditions in which the refugees and civilian population were living in both humanitarian and health terms, had, without wishing to prejudge the appropriateness of the sanctions, written to the President of the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr Martinez, to ask him "as a matter of urgency" to prevail upon the the competent United Nations authorities to review those provisions that are proving too directly harmful to the population in terms of humanitarian aid".5
g. Meeting with Father Anton Pecar, Director, Caritas, Belgrade
Caritas had been present in Belgrade only since the change of regime in 1989. Thanks to shipments from Caritas in many countries, the Belgrade Centre had been able to distribute food, clothes and medicines to the increasing numbers of refugees from Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina who had begun to arrive in 1991. Seventy-two truck-loads of aid in all had been distributed at seven diocesan centres in Serbia and Montenegro. Food had been given to the Red Cross, to orphanages, hospitals and retirement homes. Up to 200 people a day came to the Caritas Centre for help. One of the biggest problems was storage space for which Caritas depended on the municipal authorities, which were not very helpful, although at the moment there were few goods to stock. The last consignment had been delivered on 1 June. A 20-truck food convoy was expected from Caritas Germany. The embargo was placing obstacles in the way even of humanitarian deliveries. Permission from the Sanctions Committee for a consignment of medicines from Vienna had been awaited for months; deliveries from Caritas USA and Caritas Netherlands had been delayed; transfers of funds from the latter had been blocked; the scanner at the hospital at Niš was in need of spare parts. Hospital hygiene was elementary, health care standards had dropped and epidemics threatened. The country was living at survival level.
He also feared that owing to the evolution of the situation the Office of Caritas in Belgrade would have to shut its doors.
h. Meeting with His Beatitude Pavle, Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church
His Beatitude Pavle thought that the international community had no idea of the extent of the disaster. The current atmosphere of hatred and violence was worse than any fighting, and he felt very deeply the misfortune suffered by the Serbian people stressing that everyone had a share in the responsibility.
In order to seek a solution and ease the suffering, four meetings with representatives of the different Churches had been held between May 1991 and October 1992.
Despite the humanitarian efforts of the Orthodox Church, its convoys to the populations in need were attacked.
He described the conflict as a civil war influenced less by the different religions involved than by nationalism. He mentioned Islamic propaganda with its call for revenge by fire and sword.
Metropolitan Anfilohige Radovic also thought that nobody escaped blame and that everyone should shoulder some of the responsibility. He wondered why the Serbs alone were suffering from the embargo and deplored the fact that Europe was shunning them and treating them as enemies.
The most important question was that of the ethical aspect of sanctions, in the view of Metropolitan Irineri Berlovic. A wave of anti-western feeling was emerging, which was in nobody's interest.
i. Meeting with Dr Franz Perko, Archbishop of Belgrade
Dr Perko confirmed that the sanctions hurt especially the poorest among the population. Caritas had enormous difficulties getting deliveries through because there were obstacles from the Sanctions Committee. Hygienic products were in very short supply. Many refugees had small babies but no nappies, for example. There was little prospect of a rapid end to the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina which might go on another two or three years. The warring parties were not yet tired of it. Those negotiating on behalf of the three sides lacked the mettle to carry out what they agreed to. The only solution in his personal opinion was a United Nations protectorate. Up to 200 000 United Nations troops would be needed to enforce peace. The question was how long the humanitarian effort could go on. Needs were increasing but donations drying up. The Council of Europe delegation's humanitarian mission was welcome.
In reply to the question how Serbia was aiding the Bosnian Serbs, Dr Perko thought it was not with arms, which the Yugoslav Federal Army had left behind in quantities sufficient, he had been told, for ten years of war. However, the Bosnian Serbs were receiving economic aid, without which they could not go on. To the question whether medicines that Caritas gave to hospitals in Serbia found their way to the Bosnian Serbs, Dr Perko admitted that this was impossible to verify. Asked about the nature of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Dr Perko said that of course religion played a part; however, its origins were not religious but national. Unfortunately the nationalities were divided along religious lines. Thus the Muslims could not be Serb because they were not Orthodox, nor Croat because not Roman Catholic. Therefore their nationality had to be described as Muslim.
International recognition of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina had come not too early but far too late in what was a necessary process of disaggregation. The hesitations had been fatal. The problem was that the western powers had seen the break-up of Yugoslavia as a dangerous precedent for the break-up of the Soviet Union.
In answer to the question why each side in the war presented its case in terms of self-defence, Dr Perko said that there were several truths, each partial. What could be said was that there was no Vatican-German plot against Orthodoxy. On the contrary the Vatican had for some time now been very critical of Croatia against whom sanctions should probably be applied by the United Nations for its part in the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The solution for Kosovo's independence depended on the outcome of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina; if frontier changes were acceptable there, why not for Kosovo? On the other hand insistence on the immutability of frontiers in Bosnia-Herzegovina would have to apply to Kosovo too.
j. Meeting at the Serbian Commissariat for Refugees, Belgrade
Mr Sava Ivanić, Assistant Commissioner, said that the Commissariat had been established under the Refugees Act of 1 April 1992. This covered establishment of refugee status, shelter, registration, co-ordination of assistance, resettlement, insurance, health protection, etc. The Commissariat's activities were carried out on behalf of the Serbian Government. An important feature of the Act was the stipulation that all be treated equally regardless of nationality or religion — unlike the impression gained from the western media.
Of the 580 000 refugees in Serbia (representing 5,9% of the total population of 9 975 957), 323 000 (that is 55,6%) were from Bosnia-Herzegovina, 488 000 (that is 84,1%) were of Serbian nationality, 36 000 (that is 6,2%) were Muslims, 1,6% were Croats and 8,1% were Hungarians, Albanians etc. Of the total, 47,6% were adult females, 9,8% adult males and 42,6% were children under 18. Health care and education were provided on the same basis as all citizens. In Serbia 96,9% of the refugees had been taken in by families, the remainder were in collective centres.
The refugees, host families and collective centres were all subsidised as far as possible in cash and in kind. Those few refugees who had found work, normally temporary, which provided them with an adequate income, were not assisted. The major problem was lack of resources. The economy was foundering — industrial production was at 51,6% of the previous years' level and inflation was high and rising rapidly. Many host families could no longer cope and many refugees were applying to move to collective centres. These were being expanded as part of a $ 5,1 million rehabilitation and construction programme sponsored by UNHCR. Of the 265 centres planned, 170 were open. Moreover, refugees were still arriving, many fleeing from the hostilities in Bosnia-Herzegovina, others from Slovenia and Croatia, especially from the cities where they could not find jobs.
Mrs Radmilla Cvetković, Secretary of the Serbian Red Cross, pointed out that the refugees were doubly penalised — in that they had left with nothing and were now suffering the consequences of the United Nations embargo, under which the procedures for authorising humanitarian aid deliveries were too bureaucratic and obstructive. Seventy percent of the work force was now unemployed as a result of the closing of factories. There was a lack of basic necessities which would get worse with the approach of winter.
Mr Aleksandar Radovanović, Adviser, emphasised the constant decline in international donations. The target was for 40% of needs to be covered by international assistance, but this had not been reached. Aid was being increasingly earmarked for the other republics. The United States' last donation of $ 21 million had been earmarked for Bosnia-Herzegovina, Slovenia and Croatia. Italy's $ 50 million donation was for Bosnia-Herzegovina (especially the eastern enclaves).
Mr Vojislav Milenković, Director of the European Department in the Serbian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, confirmed that the embargo was having a detrimental effect. It had been based on the pretext that Serbia had been responsible for aggression. But this conception had been abandoned by western governments, especially since the outbreak of fighting between Muslims and Croats. The sanctions should be lifted altogether. He welcomed the news that your Rapporteur had sent a letter to the President of the Assembly asking that the application of the embargo with respect to humanitarian aid should be re-examined.
k. Meeting at the Austrian Embassy with diplomatic representatives of the member states of the Council of Europe and of countries whose parliaments enjoy special guest status
Your Rapporteur briefed the some sixty diplomatic representatives on the delegation's first impressions, corresponding to a somewhat different picture of the Yugoslav problem than that generally shown. All testimony agreed that the economic and humanitarian situation was of serious concern, even though there might have been some exaggeration for effect. Moreover, the 600 000 refugees in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were not there on some sudden impulse, but because they had been expelled from their homes. It was to be hoped that the Assembly Bureau would conduct an inquiry into the responsibilities involved in the war. Replying to the question whether the delegation's interest in the humanitarian plight of the general population and the refugees might not be interpreted as a form of sympathy for the dictatorial regime, your Rapporteur emphasised the strictly humanitarian nature of the visit. This had been made quite clear during every discussion in Novi Sad and Belgrade. For the moment there were no official relations between the Council of Europe and Serbia/Montenegro (see Appendix IV).
The embargo did not cover humanitarian aid, yet this was arriving in insufficient quantities. It was not acceptable to allow the sick to die for lack of medicine or spare parts for medical equipment. To this it was replied that many crocodile tears were being shed. For example, the Serbian regime had pillaged the social security system with the result that pensioners were now in difficulty. Nor was the economic situation as dramatic as it was claimed: in the first quarter of 1993 Serbian exports amounted to $ 700 million. About 250 Serbian firms around the world were managing to help the economy.
Your Rapporteur met a representative of the Humanitarian Law Fund, a non-governmental organisation which monitors human rights, and received a file of documents.
l. Visit to a Belgrade hospital
The hospital specialises in dialysis and geriatrics; it has 1 000 beds.
Doctors confirmed the aforementioned disastrous situation. They had run out of medicines and antibiotics. Dialyses normally carried out every other day could now only be done once a fortnight as the equipment was no longer replaced or repaired for lack of spare parts.
The laboratory had been working at only 35% capacity since January 1993 for lack of materials (for example there were no more test-tubes for medical analyses).
The geriatrics department was full because the elderly had nowhere else to go, as they had no money.
Doctors told us that unless the situation improved the hospital would have to close in the autumn. In six months the mortality rate had risen by 35%.
m. Visit to host families in Belgrade
Your Rapporteur visited two host families in Belgrade. One housed refugees from the southern Krajina, east of Zadar. These refugees' house was still intact, not being in the war zone, and they were trying to do an exchange with Croats housed in Serbia. But the Croats here were not in danger and were defended by law. As Serbs in Croatia they had lost all their rights. Whereas the Serbs had only expelled the Croats from their villages in an orderly fashion with the assistance of the Croatian Red Cross, the Croats had completely destroyed the Serbian villages. Only two Croat villages had been demolished. 6 000 Serbian homes had been destroyed in the Zadar area.
The other family, of four members, housed seven refugees from Tuzla (Bosnia-Herzegovina) in a small apartment. Though this was hard they managed to survive financially on odd jobs. Their monthly income was about 80 Deutschmarks, with help also from the Red Cross. Although the children had been accepted at school and university without any problem, it was difficult to buy school books and supplies.
1.3. Sandjak
a. Meeting with local officials and elected representatives of Prijepolje and a representative of the Red Cross (Prijepolje)
Prijepolje is a town of Muslim tradition which has taken in around 1 340 refugees, of whom 44% are Muslim, 53% Serb and the rest Montenegrin.
Our interlocutors told us that no discrimination was being practised among the refugees. They said that the various press reports were erroneous, and offered us evidence to show that no mosques in the town had been destroyed, contrary to what was said in one of the Mazowiecki reports.
The delegation was able to verify with the Mayor of Prijepolje and a locally elected representative that all the mosques in Prijepolje were intact except for damage to a minaret.
b. Discussions with a representative of UNHCR Field Office, at Prijepolje, Sandjak
The centre of operations was Priština (Kosovo). He covered fifty-seven communes together with one Serb assistant. The population of the Sandjak, historically a buffer zone between the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires, was 52% Muslim, out of a total of 440 000. The rest were Serbs and Montenegrins. The Muslims made up 80% of the urban population and were a source of militant support for Mr Alija Izetbegovic's Democratic Action Party. Indeed it had been rumoured that such militants might have started the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Certainly many had gone to fight. Trouble would start when they returned. There was a movement which amounted to "ethnic cleansing", to encourage the Muslims to leave the Sandjak. Before the December 1992 elections, the authorities had let it be known that in the event of a Muslim victory the army would be sent in. The Muslims had concluded there was no point in voting. After elections many had been dismissed from public posts. Police road blocks had been set up and Muslims robbed and beaten. The Sandjak Democratic Action Party was subject to harassment. Sixty to seventy thousand Muslims had left for Turkey, Scandinavia etc. Since the beginning of the war, 85 000 refugees, of whom 80% were Muslim, had arrived in the Sandjak, where they had friends and where the Islamic humanitarian organisation Merhamet was strong. Ninety-five per cent lived with families. However, many were unregistered. The flow, controlled by the Serbian Commissioner for Refugees, had virtually stopped since January 1993. For example, after February 1993 when the Muslims had been terrorised in Trebinje and the Mosque burned, many had left for Scandinavia. Four thousand had attempted to come to the Sandjak. They had been stopped by the Serbian police at Ribavice and taken to Rožaj (Montenegro).
FAP, the factory that made Mercedes trucks under licence, was to shut on account of the embargo. The Muslims were made redundant first. Uncontrolled Serb paramilitary units operated in Priboj, a village close to the frontier to which access was by road through a pocket of Bosnia-Herzegovina (9 km). The Belgrade-Bar railway also crossed this pocket. The police chief of Priboj acted like a frontierland sheriff complete with six-guns at each hip. In this context, the Ministry of Human Rights and Minorities had said the police had the right to punish people in the street. For example, a person arrested by the police had been asked how much he earned. He had refused to reply and had been put in prison. Humanitarian aid convoys bound for Bosnia-Herzegovina complete with permits from the Yugoslav Federal Government were turned back at gun point. Seventeen Muslims had been kidnapped off the bus on the way to Priboj. A train had been stopped and twenty-five Muslims had been kidnapped. They had not been seen since. Police and military personnel on board had done nothing to prevent the kidnapping. Houses had been burned in Priboj and in Plebja. There had been grenade attacks on Muslim houses in Bjelo Polje in Montenegro. Some had tried to seize this occasion in order to increase tension between Serbs and Muslims.
c. Discussion with Imam Rifat Plojović and Imam Nadir Dacić, Prijepolje
According to Imam Plojović, Muslim and Serb communities had lived peacefully enough. Problems had begun with the nationalist awakening. The predominant feeling in the Muslim community following the war in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina was fear for the future. Nevertheless no mosques had been destroyed or badly damaged in the Sandjak. According to members of the Islamic congregation in Prijepolje a minaret had been damaged when a bus load of reservists, apparently drunk, had stopped and opened fire with a machine gun, hitting the minaret in three places. Some neighbouring houses were also hit. It had to be said that the Muslim community in Prijepolje was perfectly free to worship and suffered no pressures from the government. There had been no night-time police raids on Muslim homes or on Muslims on the street.
During the Tito era all the Islamic community's property had been confiscated. Only the mosques remained. Before the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Chief Imam had asked for and received an inventory of all confiscated property. There had been forty-seven pieces of property, including shops and houses. Out of five cemeteries, four had been demolished.
Although the communities had lived peaceably in Prijepolje so far, there was tension in the area. Most Muslim families from the Sandjak had relations in Sarajevo. They had gone there to study or for work. It had been said that the Muslims from the Sandjak had begun the hostilities in Bosnia-Herzegovina but in fact they were simply defending themselves. The Serbs said there were no Serbs from the Sandjak fighting in Bosnia-Herzegovina but this was belied by the death notices. Reservists could be heard boasting that they were going to the front.
To reach Priboj buses had to cross the frontier manned by Serbs. Muslims had to get off the bus and were derided by Serb passengers, usually reservists. Half the Muslims of Priboj had left. Imam Dacić, who had first hand experience of this situation, had left his job there because of it. There was a general fear of "ethnic cleansing". The economic situation exacerbated these fears. Factories had closed and many Muslims had left to seek a better life elsewhere, knowing that when employment picked up again it was the Serbs who would be taken on first.
The Imams could not affirm that no Muslim carried an individual weapon. But it was ludicrous to suggest that the community could defend itself by force of arms against a Serb attack when it could hardly live on its average income per head of 3 to 10 Deutschmarks.
The problem now was the deteriorating trust. If a Muslim was arrested for some legitimate reason he would put it down to being a Muslim.
d. Visit to the refugee centre of Prijepolje (Jabuka)
This centre is a former holiday camp; a building is being modernised by the UNHCR, which will be developing a social and psychological support programme run by the Belgrade Mental Health Institute.
On the whole, the refugees — overwhelmingly Serbian — did not complain of the lack of food but they did complain of their inactivity and the lack of medicines and basic hygiene products. They feared the approach of winter because most had no warm clothing for their children. They also mentioned that without money their refugee cards were useless; moreover, their cards did not entitle them to free travel on public transport.
One young woman gave an account of the way she had been evicted from her home in Zenica on 2 June 1992 by Muslims who had destroyed her house. Her husband had remained behind and had barely enough to eat. She added that the Muslims had razed forty-five villages to the ground in her home region.
Another refugee from Gorazde told us of how the Muslims had burned his house. His wife had died in the fire. He had left the town on 28 August 1992. Out of 35 000 inhabitants, 22% were Serbs. Eight-hundred-and-sixty-two Serbs had been killed. Before leaving, he had seen members of the UNPROFOR giving the Muslims heavy weaponry, as had been stated in several Serb television reports in June-July 1992.
A couple of Serbian refugees with two young children had left Mostar on 16 April 1992, before the outbreak of hostilities. The young woman's brother had been killed in Krajina. The two children were suffering from high blood pressure and headaches. The husband had not obtained refugee status, unlike the rest of the family. His request had been "pending" for a long time. He had no job but he had been asked to return and fight in Bosnia-Herzegovina. He was not interested in doing so. He had also been offered a job in Priština (Kosovo), but had turned it down.
Another refugee, asked our delegation to help her find her husband, who had been evicted from their home in Banovici, near Tuzla. She had been able to communicate with him thanks to an amateur radio, but had not had any news for some time. The delegation took note of her statement with a view to informing the Red Cross in Geneva.
Another refugee appealed for help in finding a whole group of people who had disappeared from the Trourh TV relay station at Gorazde, on 25 August 1992. The delegation promised to alert the Red Cross in Geneva.
The delegation also heard the accounts of two refugees, one Muslim and one Croat, living in this camp, who said they were satisfied with the accommodation. One of them, a 21-year old Croat born of a Serbian mother from Zavidovice (near Zenica) had begun serving in the federal army on 16 June 1991, at Korsumlja (Kosovo), before moving to Niksic (Montenegro) on 9 December 1991. His service over, he had asked to stay on in the army, only leaving in January 1993. Since 1991 he had had no news of his family and could not return to Croatia, where he would be sent to prison — or worse — because he had joined the federal army. He had asked the Red Cross five times to locate his family and was now like a stateless person not knowing where to go.
The other refugee, a Muslim, had been wounded while fighting in the federal army in Brcko (Bosnia-Herzegovina), on 21 March 1992. He had undergone emergency surgery in Belgrade and, after convalescence, had been sent to the refugee centre.
2. MONTENEGRO
2.1. Podgorica
a. Meeting with the delegation of the Parliament of the Republic of Montenegro
The Vice-President of the Parliament confirmed that the Republic of Montenegro operated an open-door policy for refugees. The population of Montenegro had increased by 10% since 1991.
At the moment 95% of refugees (that is around 60 000 people) were living with families. The remainder were in one of the twenty-five collective centres. Most (90%) came from Bosnia, the rest from Croatia.
He made an urgent appeal for international solidarity so that the host families and refugees would continue to receive aid.
The representative of the Liberal Alliance said that his party was determined that the Republic of Montenegro should become sovereign. He believed that Belgrade bore sole responsibility in the conflict as it had always taken a pro-Serb line.
Unless the United Nations sanctions were lifted, it would be impossible for Montenegro to go on looking after refugees and displaced persons.
In his view, President Milosevic would start a war in Kosovo to overcome the regime's problems.
The representative of the Popular Party confirmed that the refugees wanted to return home. Even though they were a considerable burden on the Montenegrin population, this had never led to any inter-ethnic conflicts. He felt that the sanctions against Montenegro were unjust, and asked for the admittedly already considerable international humanitarian aid to be stepped up.
The representative of the Serbian Radical Party said that his party was the second largest in the Federal Parliament, with forty members. He deplored the sanctions and blamed them on lacunae in the information carried by the media. His party's policy normally ruled out any contact with such delegations as the Parliamentary Assembly's as long as the embargo was still in force. He had made an exception because of the mission's humanitarian purpose. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had done everything to bring about peace in Bosnia.
He added that Montenegro was in a deplorable situation made worse by the drought. Despite this, the country was still granting asylum to all who sought it. He rejected what had been said by the previous speaker: Montenegro did not depend on Belgrade but enjoyed every right guaranteed by the Yugoslav Constitution.
His party wanted a union of all Serbian territories and Orthodoxy.
The representative of the Social Democrat Party pointed out that Montenegro was the oldest state in the former federation: 65% of its population were Montenegrins, 9% Serbs, 14% Muslims and 6% Albanians.
The Montenegrin delegation hoped that the Geneva Conference was a harbinger of peace, but was nevertheless afraid of trouble spots in the Sandjak and Kosovo regions.
All wanted relations with the Council of Europe to be normalised.
b. Meeting with the Commissioner for Refugees of Montenegro, and President of the Yugoslav Red Cross
According to the Commissioner for Refugees, Montenegro applied an open asylum policy. There were 60 670 refugees in Montenegro, representing 9,7% of the population, 90,1% were from Bosnia-Herzegovina. 96,6 were lodged with families, the rest in collective centres. 34,2% were Serbs, 32,9% Montenegrins and 32,8% Muslims. All were treated on the same footing. The cost of maintaining a refugee was the equivalent of two Deutschmarks per day, that is 60 Deutschmarks a month — more than the average monthly wage. Thanks to UNHCR and other organisations, humanitarian aid covered 30% of needs, but only for food. The Refugee Commission also paid funeral expenses.
According to the President of the Yugoslav Red Cross, international humanitarian aid had dropped disastrously. There were now reserves for only two weeks. This was because of donor fatigue and also because of sanctions. Bilateral aid was earmarked for the other republics. Nevertheless, his discussions with the IFRC and the ICRC in Geneva had given him grounds for optimism.
c. Meeting with UNHCR, IFRC, and the Danish Refugee Council, Podgorica
According to the Head of UNHCR Field Office, Montenegro was the only former Yugoslav republic maintaining a completely open asylum policy. Refugees made up about 10% of the population. Yet the country was very poor, and certain areas were among the poorest in Yugoslavia. There was some tension between the refugees and the host population, especially in certain coastal areas. UNHCR conveyed especially food provided by the World Food Programme from its central warehouse to twenty-one municipalities where the Red Cross took over. Shortages had been avoided hitherto but could not be avoided in September-October if the donor countries did not provide the resources.
The European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO), whose representative had been invited to the meeting but had been unable to attend, was supplying food boxes to the refugees, not to the host families, which caused some resentment. A scheme to give $ 5 to $ 10 per month assistance to families had fallen foul of the Sanctions Committee. There was no Montenegran government aid to families.
The influx of refugees had given rise to tensions due to the fear that they threatened the local population's jobs. There had been incidents at Nikšić in particular, with a bomb attack on a mosque which had killed two Muslims. With the first influx of refugees from the Trebinje area, no official Montenegrin assistance system had been operating. The international humanitarian organisations had tried to make up for this, which made it appear that the Muslims were being favoured. The Montenegrin Commission for Refugees then produced a programme, which was not discriminatory. Muslim refugees were issued passports very quickly but those who wished to transit Serbia en route to Scandinavia for example were often prevented from doing so by the Serbian police.
As for aid deliveries, UNHCR had tried unsuccessfully to get permission from the Sanctions Committee to use the port of Bar, which would cut costs. The reason for the refusal was that it would inject income into the economy. The only alternatives were Thessaloniki (Greece) or Burgas (Bulgaria).
The attempt to exchange aluminium from Montenegro for medicines and food from the European Community had also been refused by the Sanctions Committee. All transport was blocked. There was thus a double burden caused by the refugee crisis and the effects of the embargo.
The representative of the IFRC monitored the arrival and distribution of international aid, which had been too slow to arrive. There had been some improvement, especially in delivery of hygiene packs from the European Community. But the social welfare cases amongst the local population were as much in need as the refugees. More refugees were expected from Herzegovina.
d. Visit to the Rozaj camp
The town of Rozaj has two refugee centres with a total capacity of 350 beds. 2 315 refugees have come to the town (the majority sent by UNHCR), and each family has taken in one. Their ethnic breakdown is: 2 270 Muslims, 30 Serbs and 15 Croats. There is no problem of cohabitation with the villagers. Many of the refugees have left for Denmark and Sweden, which have opened their borders to refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina.
One of those in charge of the centres complained of a lack of money and other resources to meet the refugees' needs. For two months the centres had been receiving no more than 5 tonnes of flour a month instead of the 7 tonnes expected, and UNHCR and UNICEF aid had dried up. The Islamic organisation Merhamet tries to help them financially.
The secretary of the local Red Cross told us that in the centres there was no discrimination on the basis of nationality.
He did, however, deplore a certain indirect discrimination on the part of the authorities. The centres were not receiving any more money because so many of the refugees were Muslims. The 120 maintenance workers were no longer paid. He added that refugee centres in Montenegro were run by an agency whose management changed every month, and he suspected that it was "forgetting" or "deviating" the aid that the Rozaj centres were allocated.6
2.2. Priština (Kosovo)
a. Visit to the refugee centre at Kisnića, Pristina
The centre consists of miners' accommodation at the Kisnića mine (lead, zinc, silver). According to the local UNHCR representatives, many Albanian workers had been replaced by Serbs. Many Serbian refugees had been offered accommodation and jobs but few wished to come to Kosovo.
Two Serbian women from a Muslim neighbourhood of Sarajevo had managed to leave in April 1992 thanks to the Children's Embassy and UNPROFOR. One, a nurse, had found work as a secretary in a Pristina brick factory. She earned 10 Deutschmarks a month on average but could not afford a pair of shoes. The other had worked in a commercial firm owned by Croats. She was now unemployed. Hygiene conditions in the centre were unsatisfactory; for example, there was no hot water. There were no fresh fruit or vegetables. There was no medicine. Both wanted to return to Sarajevo as soon as peace returned.
A couple, with two children aged 17 and 18 in a separate room, had worked as civilians at the Yugoslav National Army barracks in Dubrovnik. When the Yugoslav National Army left they had been interrogated by the Croatian militia and told to evacuate the military apartment they had occupied since 1988. They left Dubrovnik with 140 other civilians. They planned to stay in Kosovo but so far had found no job. Even if peace returned there would be no job in Dubrovnik because they were Serbs. The children were doing well at school in Pristina and could probably go on to university. The food at the centre was very bad. They received a box every month containing 1 kg detergent, a 2,5 kg tin of salt fish (34 fishes), 1 kg sugar, 5 litres of cooking oil, 2,5 kg white beans, 1 tin of peaches, and 2 boxes biscuits. Each family received 3/4 of a loaf of bread per day. However, there was nowhere to cook except for a one-plate stove in the room. There was no shower and no hot water. In one year they had received one hygienic package.
b. Meeting with Professor Milos Simović, Chief Executive of the District, with the Head of UNHCR Field Office, the representative of the Kosovo and Metohija (Kocmet) Red Cross and the Secretary of the Red Cross of Pristina
The Kosovo region had taken in 6 000 refugees, half of them Muslims. Many migrant workers were coming to Kosovo after they had been expelled from their work in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Each refugee was duly registered and received a parcel. They should stay only three to six months with a family before being sent to a reception centre.
The population was becoming increasingly worried with the approach of winter because of the growing lack of food and medicine. Two hundred factories had closed, hitting the poorest sections of the population. No payment was made from abroad. The sanctions were only profitable for the speculators and Albanian separatists.
They were also being denied information, and, they insisted that the embargo should not apply to medical aid.
As for internal tensions, which had existed since 1990, the district leader deplored the fact that the Albanian political leaders had always tried to pursue their policies through acts of terrorism. In the last twelve months, for example, there had been 120 attacks on the police.
A CSCE delegation had stayed in Kosovo for eight months. The nine experts had obtained all the help needed for their inquiry. They had held forty-three meetings with the authorities. The longer the delegation had stayed, the more objective were its observations. Responsibility for ending the mission, which had not hindered anybody, lay with the Federal Government.
In any case, Kosovo had given a lot of publicity to our visit. He was ready to receive other similar delegations.
c. Meeting with representatives of the Democratic League of Kosovo Albanians
Dr Fehmi Agani and Dr Shadir Shaquiri, respectively Vice-President of the Democratic League and Secretary for Foreign Affairs, informed us about the situation facing Albanians in Kosovo.
The Albanians' situation had deteriorated since 1989, especially as a result of the implementation of a special Serbian socialist party programme suspending all institutions. Despite the 1991 referendum, in which 99% of all voters had said yes to independence, and the May 1992, elections in which twenty-two political groups had presented candidates, the Kosovo Parliament was in exile. The DLK representatives were ready to convene Parliament, without wishing to break the law but at the risk of 15 months to 15 years of prison.
Kosovo had previously been an autonomous province within Serbia, on equal footing with the other Yugoslav republics in that it had been represented in the Federal Presidency, had had a right of intervention in the Federal Parliament and possessed legislative powers. They thought that the problem could be resolved thanks to a compromise: an independent Kosovo, completely open to all neighbouring countries. Reunification with Albania, something the Serbs opposed, was not the purpose for the moment, even if they did not want to exclude it in the course of possible future European or Balkan arrangements, but never without the agreement of the different parties. The autonomy which was envisaged by Serbia for Kosovo would only allow it to administer local life, subject to conformity with the directives set by Belgrade.
There were complaints about continual discrimination against Albanians, who could not, for example, use the sports stadium they had built.
No Albanian text-book had been published for three years, Albanian schools had been closed, 400 000 schoolchildren could not attend school. In August 1991, 5 000 lower secondary school teachers had been sacked. In October 1991 all university teachers had suffered the same fate. Teachers were paid with funds from Albanians living abroad.
Dr Shaquiri explained how, following a peaceful demonstration last year for Albanian students to be allowed to return to school, over 100 people had been arrested and imprisoned. After the general strike in 1990, shop-keepers had been fined and their stores closed during one year. In 1989, the striking miners had been imprisoned and made redundant.
Television channels broadcast mainly Serbian-language programmes. The entire written press was in Serbian hands and the only Albanian newspaper cost five times more than the others.
We were also told of the problems caused by the embargo. Another appeal was made for the international community to be made aware of these problems.
IV. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
1.1. Meeting with the Skopje delegation, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)
According to the IFRC delegation, refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina had begun to arrive in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in April 1992, and had first been lodged by families. The Government had then established collective centres, usually in holiday resorts. The exact number of refugees who had arrived at that time was not known. Since then, many had been resettled in other parts of the world. Today the number of registered refugees was approximately 30 000 of whom 1 649 lived in centres. About two-thirds lived in the Skopje area. The IFRC's role was to assist the (unofficial) Macedonian Red Cross Society in the ongoing relief operation, which served both refugees and social cases. The latter numbered 20 000 in January 1993 and 125 000 in July 1993. The IFRC concentrated mainly on hygienic supplies, the UNHCR on food needs.
The social welfare programme was designed to identify and help those refugees in the centres who had been traumatised by violence. Sixty-two out of the total of 1 649 had been thus identified. Most were alone without family support and experienced anxiety, confusion over their identity and role, and depression. Seventy-one per cent had suffered physical and psychological violence, 33% had directly witnessed torture and the murder of family members, 63% had lived under threat and had had to leave their homes under excessively stressful conditions, and 15% had been raped. Therapy consisted of weekly conversations with a psychiatrist and attempts to build new ties, especially between refugees in the different centres. Information was important to the refugees, especially about their families. As for the future, most hoped to return home. Others expressed interest in finding a job in the FYROM. There were animation projects in the centres (decorating, sanitary improvements, organisations of libraries) and a special programme for teenagers including learning Macedonian, sports and recreational activities.
The IFRC had also worked out a "Disaster Preparedness Plan" for the Red Cross of the FYROM, so as to ensure a rapid response in the aftermath of earthquakes and other natural disasters, but emphasising "refugee migration" should the situation worsen in neighbouring Kosovo. The plan assumed an influx of 400 000 which would completely inundate the country's resources. Since there were 2,4 million Albanians in Kosovo, this estimate might be too low. This was of course only "worst case" contingency planning but observers supported the view that if neither the Serbs nor the Albanians were willing to compromise then sooner or later the situation would deteriorate.
1.2. Meeting with the Head of UNHCR Liaison Office, Skopje
According to the Head of UNHCR Liaison Office in Skopje, the majority of the some 32 000 refugees in the FYROM were Muslim. Some 10% were of Croatian origin. Many had family in the FYROM. UNHCR's budget was about $ 5 million. Host families were given a cash subsidy and food packages. Food was provided by the World Food Programme (WFP). Médecins sans Frontières operated in the refugee centres. UNICEF ran an education programme, including school transport. The refugees had either family or friends elsewhere in Europe whom they could join or they wished to leave the FYROM but had no resources or they wished to stay in the FYROM. All had temporary protection status.
1.3. Visit to the Cicino Selo camp
This camp — a former holiday camp with 311 beds — accommodates refugees of whom about 95% are Muslim, the rest being Serbs and Croats. It has been in operation since 4 July 1992.
Living conditions are good. Refugees are housed five to six to a room. Volunteers give them religious instruction.
The Director in charge of the camp told us that there were no cohabitation problems between refugees of different nationalities.
One refugee told us that he had come to the camp with his 87-year-old mother and that his wife and daughter were in Austria. He was waiting for an Austrian visa.
Another refugee, from Herzegovina, was a former prisoner who had been arrested as a civilian and had greatly suffered in detention.
Generally, the refugees questioned did not complain about the living conditions in the camp, but they did not feel entirely safe. Their experiences were still fresh in their minds. Of all the camps visited this was the only one to be padlocked, although the refugees enjoyed freedom of movement.
1.4. Meeting with the Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Affairs
Mr Blagoja Petruševski, Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Affairs, referred to the secondary effects of the embargo on Serbia and Montenegro suffered by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The economic isolation had reduced domestic production.
The number of unemployed persons was estimated at more than 175 000 because of company shutdowns and the impossibility of exporting. Macedonian goods were stopped at the border by Serbian customs officials.
Despite this situation the country was ready to take in any refugee who arrived at the border, thus showing a great sense of solidarity. But, increasingly, families could ill support the burdens this added to the financial problems they already faced.
1.5. Meeting with Mr Andov, President of the Assembly of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Mr Andov, President of the Assembly of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, regretted that the Council of Europe had not yet approved the co-operation programme with his country in such areas as the electoral system, the law, human rights, culture and the media.
V. Conclusions
The members of the delegation stayed within the terms of the Assembly's ad hoc directives, which stressed observation of the refugees' problems in the humanitarian and social context of the host countries.
However, and as planned, the gathering of information and testimony included meetings with officials of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. These contacts, which were unavoidable, in no way altered the position of the Parliamentary Assembly vis-à-vis the said republic.
Broadly speaking, the information received from the refugees, the civil and religious authorities, representatives of humanitarian organisations and individuals was consistent. The some 600 000 people — whether registered or not — who have found refuge in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are suffering from the marked deterioration in the country's economic situation.
The host families in particular, with whom 95% of the refugees are lodged, have or will soon come to the end of their resources. Tensions have already appeared between the native inhabitants and the refugees. Inadequate diet, the absence of medicines, and the deterioration of medical equipment which cannot be replaced all amount to serious deficiencies suffered by the population.
Humanitarian aid now covers only 10% of overall needs. The representatives of the humanitarian organisations working in the field are sounding the alarm. The UNHCR in particular is expecting the worst over the coming winter.
United Nations Resolutions 757 and 820 are cited to underline that they should exempt all forms of humanitarian aid from the embargo.
It is our duty to call attention to what could happen in the future. It is clear that the economic and financial ruin of the present Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will generate new migratory flows in the long term.
Moreover, responsibility requires us to ask certain questions about the moral and material consequences of the embargo, the political aspect of this measure being purposely eclipsed since it goes beyond the delegation's terms of reference.
Finally, and for the sake of completeness, we should mention the perceptible tension that reigns in the areas visited, particularly Kosovo, leading to the conclusion that the international community must do everything to prevent a conflict which could spread to the whole of the Balkans.
APPENDIX I
Programme
for the visit of a delegation of the
Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography
to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
and to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(26 July-3 August 1993)
Monday 26 July
5 p.m. Meeting with Mr Istvan Zalatnay, Vice-President, Office for Hungarians Living Abroad, Budapest, and Mrs Marta Blasko, Assistant to the Vice-President
Tuesday 27 July
3 p.m. Meeting with a delegation of the Parliament of Vojvodina, Novi Sad
4 p.m. Meet representatives of local and International Red Cross, and UNHCR, Novi Sad
Visit to refugee centre at Fruška Gora
Wednesday 28 July
10.30 a.m. Meet delegation of the two Chambers of the Federal Parliament, Belgrade
12.30 p.m. Meet Mr Miloš Radulović, President of the Chamber of the Republics
1.15 p.m. Meet Mr Velibor Popović, Federal Minister of Labour, Health, and Social Affairs
2.30 p.m. Lunch hosted by the head of the parliamentary delegation, Dr Asim Dizdarević
4.30 p.m. Meet Mrs Margit Savović, Federal Minister for Human Rights and Minority Issues
6 p.m. Meet representatives of UNHCR, WHO, UNICEF, WFP, IFRC and Médecins sans Frontières
8 p.m. Working dinner hosted by the Chargé d'Affaires of Switzerland
Thursday 29 July
9 a.m. Meet delegation of the Serbian Parliament, Belgrade
9.45 a.m. Meet Father Anton Pecar, Director of Belgrade Caritas
10.30 a.m. Meet representatives of the Serbian Commission for Refugees and Serbian Red Cross
12 noon Visit to refugee host families (part of delegation)
12 noon Visit to hospital (part of delegation)
1 p.m. Meet His Beatitude Pavle, Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church
2 p.m. Meet diplomatic representatives of Council of Europe member states and of countries whose parliaments enjoy special guest status with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Austrian Embassy
4 p.m. Meet Dr Franz Perko, Archbishop of Belgrade
8 p.m. Working dinner hosted by the Chargé d'Affaires of Greece in Belgrade
Friday 30 July 1993
4 p.m. Visit to " Jabuka" refugee centre at Prijepolje (Sandjak) accompanied by UNHCR representative
Saturday 31 July
9 a.m. Meet representatives of the Islamic Community of Prijepolje
12 noon Meet delegation of the Parliament of the Republic of Montenegro, Podgorica
3 p.m. Meet Montenegrin Commissioner for Refugees and the President of the Yugoslav Red Cross
4 p.m. Meet representatives of UNHCR, IFRC and Danish Refugee Council
Sunday 1 August
4 p.m. Visit to Rozaj (Montenegro) refugee centre (part of delegation)
4 p.m. Visit to Kisnica refugee centre, Priština (Kosovo) accompanied by UNHCR and the local Red Cross (part of delegation)
8 p.m. Meet Prof. Milos Simović, Chief Executive of the District, and representatives of UNHCR and the local Red Cross
Monday 2 August
10 a.m. Meet representatives of the Albanian Community, Priština
2 p.m. Meet representative of IFRC, Skopje, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)
3 p.m. Meet representative of UNHCR, Skopje, followed by visit to refugee centre, Cicino Selo
Tuesday 3 August
8 a.m. Meet Mr Blagoja Petroševski, Deputy-Minister of Labour and Social Questions, FYROM
9.45 a.m. Meet Mr Andov, President of the Parliament, FYROM
Members of the delegation
Mr Michel Flückiger (Switzerland) Head of the delegation. Chairman of the committee. Vice-President of the Parliamentary Assembly.
Mr Doeke Eisma (Netherlands) Member of the committee.
Mr Christos Pahtas (Greece) Member of the committee.
Secretariat
Mr Simon Newman Secretary to the committee.
Ms Agnès Nollinger Co-Secretary to the committee.
Press
Mr Francesco Cerri Correspondent of the Journal de Genève.
Interpreter
Ms Michelina Procacci
APPENDIX II
APPENDIX III
Letter from the Chairman of the Committee on Migration,
Refugees and Demography
to the President of the Parliamentary Assembly
Committee on Migration,
Refugees and Demography
Belgrade 30 July 1993
...
The ad hoc sub-committee set up by the Bureau on 2 July 1993 in accordance with the Assembly's Order No. 483 (1992) held talks on 27, 28 and 29 July 1993 with the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and with representatives of the humanitarian organisations operating in that country.
The statements made by all the parties concur that:
—Th e embargo declared by the United Nations against the republic is having dire effects on the 550 000 or so refugees as well as on the civilian population. As a result, contrary to the terms of the United Nations Security Council's Resolutions 757 and 820, medicines are so scarce that the death rate is rising constantly. Children, old people and pregnant women are particularly affected by these shortages.—
—Di seases previously eradicated have now reappeared, even in epidemic form (for example, the incidence of tuberculosis has increased by 124% and that of cardiovascular disorders by 500%).—
—Pa tients are no longer receiving the necessary care. It is even planned to close the hospitals early next winter. Hence the importance of strictly supervising the destination and distribution of medicines.We
We consider it a matter of the utmost urgency to prevail upon the competent United Nations authorities to review those provisions that are proving too directly harmful to the population in terms of humanitarian aid.
You will appreciate that such a situation calls for an urgent reaction from yourself, which is why we felt unable to defer this letter. Needless to say, you will receive all relevant particulars immediately upon our return on 4 August 1993.
On behalf of my colleagues, Mr Eisma and Mr Pahtas, and myself, I express to you our kind regards.
(signed) Michel Flückiger
Committee Chairman
APPENDIX IV
Memorandum
on the visit of the delegation of the
Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography
to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
1. In a declaration adopted on 8 October 1991, the Committee of Ministers decided to suspend co-operation with the Yugoslav authorities, specifying, however, that implementation of this decision left open the possibility of maintaining contacts with persons, organisations and non-governmental institutions.
2. As for the Parliamentary Assembly, the special guest status obtained by the Federal Assembly of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 8 June 1989 was suspended on 25 November 1991 and withdrawn by the enlarged Bureau on 30 June 1992. Consequently, there are no official relations between the Assembly and the Parliaments of Serbia and Montenegro.
3. By its Order No. 483 (1992) on the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe instructed its Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography "to monitor the situation of refugees and displaced persons, and to report to the Assembly at regular intervals" (see Appendix).
4. The visit of this delegation falls within the scope of this order and complements the study visit which took place in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia in November 1992 (see Doc. 6740 and Recommendation 1205 (1993)). The purpose of the visit is to study the situation of the refugees and displaced persons.
Reporting committee: Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography.
Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none.
Origin: Order No. 483 (1992).
Draft resolution adopted by the committee on 1 September 1993 by 30 votes to 0 with 1 abstention.
Members of the committee: MM. Flückiger (Chairman), Cucó, Sir John Hunt (Vice-Chairmen), Mrs Aguiar, Mrs Arnold, Mrs Astgeirsdottir, MM. Attard Montalto, Biefnot, Billing, Böhm, Branger, Brennan, Brito, Brunhart, Ehrmann (Alternate: Schreiner), Eisma, Fava (Alternate: Parisi), Fiorini, Foschi (Alternate: Caldoro), Fuhrmann, Galanos (Alternate: Hadjidemetriou), Ghesquière, Gotzev, Mrs Hacklin, Mr De Hoop Scheffer (Alternate: Aarts), Iwinski, Karcsay, Kiliç, Kiratlioglu, Lord Kirkhill, MM. Konen (Alternate: Goerens), Laanoja, Landsbergis, Mrs Mascher, Mr Pahtas, Mrs Persson, Mrs Robert, MM. Sarafopoulos, Siwek, Skaug, Stoilov, Miss Szelényi, MM. Vázquez (Alternate: Miss Guirado), Zlobec.
N.B. The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in italics.
Secretaries to the committee: Mr Newman and Ms Nollinger.
1 1 See composition of delegation and programme of meetings in Appendix I.
2 2 See Appendix II.
3 3 See Doc. 6740 and Recommendation 1205 (1993).
4 1 Hungary has ratified the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees.
5 1
See Appendix III.
6 1 This type of arrangement is peculiar to the Republic of Montenegro.