Report (1)
Doc. 7833
18 June 1997
Rapporteur: Mrs Hanneke Gelderblom-Lankhout, Netherlands, Liberal, Democratic and Reformers' Group
Summary
Lasting peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the very survival of a multi-ethnic state require respect for human rights. A year and a half on from establishment of the institutions created by the Dayton Agreements, the picture is one of stark contrasts: difficulties in funding the institutions are compounded by governmental malfunctioning and a lack of political will that threaten the peace and unity of the state.
The Parliamentary Assembly appeals to the authorities of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina and of its two component entities to honour their commitments. It calls on the Committee of Ministers to continue providing the necessary aid to human rights protection institutions, particularly the Commission on Human Rights, and to help establish a balance between the two entities, in particular through the introduction of an ombudsman in the Republika Srpska. Lastly, it asks member states to bring pressure to bear on the authorities of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina and of the two entities by applying the principle of conditionality in their relations with them except in the matter of humanitarian aid.
I. Draft recommendation
1.Since 1992, the Assembly has stated that respect for human rights should be a central aspect of the institutions which would be set up in Bosnia and Herzegovina once peace was agreed.
2.The Washington Agreements of February 1994, followed by the Dayton Peace Agreements, signed on 14 December 1995, have given Bosnia and Herzegovina and each of the two entities of which it is composed (the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska) a particularly advanced body of instruments and machinery for protecting human rights.
3.One and a half years after the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreements the operating record of these institutions for protecting human rights is mixed. Although certain of them are performing a serious task and obtaining concrete results, all are experiencing financial difficulties which put their very existence at risk. Taken as a whole, rather than improving the human rights situation appears to be getting worse.
4.This deterioration is mainly the result of difficulties associated with the setting up of the machinery of the state, the malfunctioning of the judicial system and abuses by police forces. To this should be added significant disparities in the systems for protecting human rights in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska.
5. The Assembly considers this to be a very worrying trend and fears that certain leaders' lack of political will could lead to the break-up of the state. To ensure not only a lasting peace but also the continuing existence of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state, urgent measures must be taken by the international community.
6.The Assembly invites the OSCE to ensure that the local elections take place as scheduled on 14 September 1997 and that all steps are taken to ensure that they are free and democratic.
7.The Assembly therefore recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
continue to provide aid to institutions for protecting human rights, by authorising the Secretary General to offer personal support to institutions, in particular the Commission on Human Rights, whose task is to propagate a human rights culture;
contribute to the establishment of an Ombudsperson for human rights in the Republika Srpska, following the example of the Ombudsmen of the Federation, to be appointed either by the OSCE or by another international institution, in order to create a better balance between the institutions for protecting human rights in each of the two entities;
take seriously into consideration the risk of imbalance between the two entities as well as the paralysing of the functioning of the Commission on Human Rights that the nomination of the judges to the Court of human rights of the Federation would entail;
apply pressure on the authorities of the state and the two entities to co-operate closely with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague and hand over indicted war criminals;
consider enlargement of the SFOR (Stabilization Force) mandate to assist in the reconstruction of relays and for any other wireless communication infrastructure on the hilltops of Bosnia and Herzegovina;
urge the governments of member states to:
give the three institutions (the Office of the Ombudsperson, the Chamber of Human Rights and the Commission for Displaced Persons and Refugees) established to protect human rights the necessary financial resources, at least for the coming year, and staffing, if need be by seconding officials to these institutions;
apply pressure on the authorities of the state and the two entities to fulfil the commitments they have entered into under the Washington and Dayton Agreements and apply the principle of conditionality in their relations with them, except in the case of humanitarian aid.
II. Explanatory memorandum by Mrs Gelderblom-Lankhout
Contents
I. The institutions of the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BH)
i.The Commission on Human Rights
a. The Human Rights Ombudsperson
b. The Human Rights Chamber
II. The institutions of the entities
i.The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBH)
a. The Constitutional Court
b. The Court of Human Rights
c. The Supreme Court
d. The Ombudsmen of the FBH
a. The Constitutional Court
b. The Supreme Court
III. Other forms of protection of human rights
i.The institutions of the state
ii.The police
iii.The judiciary
iv.Freedom of information and communication
Appendix: Programme of the Rapporteurs' visit in Bosnia and Herzegovina (24-27 March 1997)
The Washington Agreements of February 1994, followed by the Dayton Peace Agreements, signed on 14 December 1995, have given Bosnia and Herzegovina a particularly advanced body of instruments and machinery for protecting human rights.
The Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly have made a significant contribution to this situation. In 1992, the Assembly adopted Recommendation 1183 on access by European non-member states to institutions operating under certain Council of Europe conventions relating to human rights, followed in 1993 by Recommendation 1204 on the creation of a transitional mechanism for the protection of human rights in European non-member states of the Council of Europe, and culminating in the Committee of Ministers' adoption of Resolution (93) 6 on the control of respect for human rights in European states not yet members of the Council of Europe. The latter contained the seeds of Annex 6 of the Dayton Agreements.
The Dayton Agreements, signed on 14 December 1995 by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Yugoslav Federal Republic (on behalf of the Republika Srpska), recognised the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereafter BH), which is composed of two entities: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereafter FBH) and the Republika Srpska (RS). Each of these has institutions to protect human rights, as well as civil institutions such as their own parliaments, governments, judicial systems and police. Article II of Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreements, which concerns the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Annex 6 are devoted to human rights. Appendix I of Annex 4 lists the human rights agreements that will apply in BH.
At the request of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, the Venice Commission has given an opinion on the constitutional situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina [CDL-INF (96) 9], particularly regarding human rights, which has been of great value in the preparation of this report.
On the concluding comments to its opinion the Venice Commission noted that "the human rights protection mechanism foreseen in the legal order of Bosnia and Herzegovina presents an unusual degree of complexity" and that "the coexistence of jurisdictional bodies entrusted with the specific task of protecting human rights and of tribunals expected to deal with allegations of violations of human rights in the context of cases brought before them inevitable creates a certain degree of duplication". The Venice Commission made a number of proposals for rectifying the situation. These will be considered in the conclusions of this report.
The Venice Commission also concluded that the "important disparities in the human rights protection systems of the two entities [the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska] may also be detrimental to the effectiveness of protection". It made a general recommendation concerning the need for a certain parallelism in the protection afforded by the two entities' legal systems and the possible establishment of equivalent bodies. We will return to this point in the conclusions.
To assess how these institutions were operating in practice, I visited both entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina from 24 to 28 March; I had meetings in Sarajevo, Pale and Banja Luka. The programme of the visit is included in Appendix 1.
I. The institutions of the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Article II of the Constitution of BH, which deals with human rights and fundamental freedoms, states that BH and the entities "shall ensure the highest level of internationally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms". A Commission on Human Rights for BH has been set up as provided for in Annex 6 of the Dayton Agreements.
i.The Commission on Human Rights
The Commission comprises two bodies: the Office of the Ombudsperson and the Chamber of Human Rights.
a. The Ombudsperson for Human Rights
The Ombudsperson was appointed by the OSCE. Mrs Gret Haller, a former member of the Parliamentary Assembly and former Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the Council of Europe, has been appointed for a period of five years. At the end of this period, the Ombudsman will be appointed by the State President of BH. The institution of Ombudsperson is intended to be permanent, unlike the Chamber, which will disappear once BH becomes a member of the Council of Europe and its citizens are granted access to the European Court of Human Rights.
At first sight, this two-level system appears to based on the machinery of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Office of the Ombudsperson does not play exactly the same role as the European Commission of Human Rights or the Chamber that of the Court.
In practice, applications can be made to the Ombudsperson, or to the Chamber directly if the applicants so wish (Article V.1 of Annex 6 of the Dayton Agreements). The rules of procedure of the two institutions making up the Commission on Human Rights provide for the same conditions of admissibility, which are based on those of the European Convention on Human Rights:
the exhaustion of domestic remedies, if these exist
actions or decisions occurring after 15 December 1995, other than in cases where an earlier violation continues beyond that date
The Ombudsperson's role is to mediate between the parties. If mediation is not possible, the Ombudsperson can either refer the case to the Chamber, or adopt a final report on the subject.
The major contrast with the machinery of the Human Rights Convention is that the Ombudsperson can take up cases on her own initiative and submit special reports, on specific issues, to any governmental authority. The latter must then reply within the period specified by the Ombudsperson.
The Office of the Ombudsperson was opened in Sarajevo in March 1996. In accordance with Article III para. 3 of Annex 6 of the Dayton Agreements, a second office was opened in Banja Luka (in the Republika Srpska) in June 1996. The Ombudsperson may open other offices wherever she considers them necessary.
In order to assess the work undertaken by the Ombudsperson, I have produced a brief analysis of her activities during the first year of operation of the Office. On 30 April 1997, the Office of the Ombudsperson had recorded 534 applications concerning individual cases, the majority of which concerned problems relating to property and respect for the home. The Ombudsperson decided to initiate inquiries in 27 cases, following preliminary examinations, and in 52 others she asked the Government to take urgent steps. In 34 of these cases, the Government has responded favourably to the request.
The Ombudsperson has adopted final reports in 6 cases and has referred 29 to the Chamber of Human Rights.
Finally, the Ombudsperson has adopted 4 special reports. One of them, relating to discrimination concerning the right to access to health to care and in the right to practice one's profession, has been sent to the mayor and the municipality of Brcko. One on freedom of expression, has been sent to the RS and to its Minister of Information. One on the right to respect for correspondence, the right of access to a court and discrimination concerning this right, has been sent to the Minister for Civil Affairs and Communication for BH. The last one concerns the incident in Mostar of 10 February 1997 and the acting of the police and the failure of the competent authorities to carry out an impartial investigation.
After a year in office the Ombudsperson states in her first annual report(2) that her role of training local lawyers, alongside that of giving Bosnian citizens confidence in the courts, is as important as her judicial role proper in the establishment of the rule of law.
Reference should also made to the function of the High Representative of the OSCE, who is responsible for promoting respect for human rights and to whom the Ombudsperson can forward a report in the event of a person's or entity's not complying with her conclusions or recommendations (Article V. 7 of Annex 6).
The Chamber comprises fourteen members, of whom four are appointed by the FBH, two by the RS and eight by the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers. The Chamber meets one week a month in Sarajevo.
The Chamber's decisions are final and binding.
At the time of my visit to Sarajevo, in late March 1997, the Chamber had had 37 cases referred to it. It had adopted a decision on admissibility in one case (the Matanovic case). It had held a public hearing in that case, attended by witnesses.
Like the Ombudsperson, the Chamber can ask parties to take urgent steps to protect applicants from actions or decisions which could entail a human rights violation.
ii.The Commission for Displaced Persons and Refugees
In addition to the two judicial bodies, Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreements established the Commission for Displaced Persons and Refugees. The Commission comprises nine members, of whom four are appointed by the FBH, two by the RS, and the other three by the President of the European Court of Human Rights.
The Commission took up its functions in November 1996 and between then and late March 1997 it recorded 21 000 complaints concerning property rights. It has offices in Sarajevo, Lukavica and Western Mostar.
The Commission has handed down 500 decisions and is now able to deliver 1000 decisions a month. Although these decisions are final and binding, the Commission cannot publish them because the entities are not ready to apply them; according to the Commission's representative, displaced persons are cards in the entities' hands.
The Commission offers applicants four options:
re-establish applicants' property rights as soon as possible;
maintain the rights and rent the property;
annul property transfers made without consent;
receive compensation for property when the money is available.
8211 have chosen the first option, 797 the second, 76 for the third, and 4522 the fourth, while 2114 have refused all the options.
The Commission only has sufficient resources to continue in operation until June 1997. It has only received 1/6th of the budget it had requested.
Article VI of the Constitution deals with the Constitutional Court. It comprises nine members, four of whom are chosen by the House of Representatives of the Federation and two by the Assembly of the RS, the other three, currently Mr Danelius, Sweden, Mr Marko, Austria and Mr Favoreau, France, being chosen by the President of the European Court of Human Rights.
The Constitutional Court has jurisdiction over issues referred by any court in BH, concerning whether a law, on whose validity its decision depends, is compatible with the Constitution and with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its protocols.
So far, no issues have been referred to the Constitutional Court.
Article X of the Constitution, concerned with constitutional amendments, states that "no amendments to this Constitution may eliminate or diminish any of the rights and freedoms referred to in Article II of this Constitution or alter the present paragraph".
II.The Institutions of the Entities
i.The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBH)
a.The Constitutional Court
The Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina establishes a Constitutional Court composed of nine judges: six from the FBH and three non-citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina appointed by the President of the International Court of Justice (currently Judge Ajibola (Nigeria), Judge El Khani (Syria) and Judge Rigaux (Belgium)).
The Court was constituted in January 1996. Its main function is to settle disputes between the cantons, between the cantons and the municipalities, between the cantons and the federal government, or between the institutions of the federal government. It can also rule on whether a law or regulation is in compliance with the constitution.
It can only receive references from the President or Vice-President of the Federation, the chairs of the cantons or 1/3 of the members of parliament. So far, no references have been made to it. According to the President of the Court, problems are resolved by political rather than judicial means.
b.The Court of Human Rights
The Court is provided for in the Constitution of the FBH and comprises seven members: three judges from Bosnia and Herzegovina and four members appointed by the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers in accordance with Resolution (93) 6.
The Court has not yet been constituted, since the Committee of Ministers has not so far made the appointments for which it is responsible. This is certainly not because of any negligence on its part. It is probably the outcome of further reflection on the potential conflicts between the case-law of the Court of Human Rights of the FBH and that of the Chamber of Human Rights of the BH, as the Venice Commission relevantly notes.
According to the Venice Commission, it can be argued that the Washington Agreement providing for the creation of the Court of Human Rights has been politically (if not legally) superseded by the Dayton Agreements. One can even go further and argue that it would be politically dangerous to create this Court.
Resolution (93) 6 constitutes the legal basis for the appointment of the four judges by the Committee of Ministers(3). The Resolution refers to a state, and not to an entity succeeding a state. The establishment of a court of human rights for one of the two entities, in this case the FBH, would thus be a symbolically dangerous gesture as it could be interpreted as encouraging the separation of the two entities. It would also serve to increase the imbalance between the institutions in the two entities.
c.The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court also comprises nine judges and can be appealed to by the cantonal courts on issues relating to the constitution, laws and regulations of the Federation and other issues which do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court or the Court of Human Rights of the FBH.
Its decisions are final and binding. It is the highest appeal body of the FBH.
d.The Ombudsmen of the FBH
The three Ombudsmen, Branka Raguz, Vera Jovanovic and Esad Muhibic, established under the Washington agreements, were appointed by the OSCE. The next appointments will be made by the State of BH and should take place in 1998.
Their role is that traditionally associated with an ombudsman, which is to mediate between citizens and the authorities. The Venice Commission had expressed the opinion that the ombudsmen should be empowered to issue recommendations to the administration and that the latter's obligations in response to these recommendations should be somewhat clarified.
To provide them at least with access to a judicial body with decision-making powers, the State Ombudsperson has added an article to her Rules of Procedure enabling the FBH ombudsmen to refer cases to her which she can then refer to the Chamber of Human Rights. The FBH ombudsmen have used this opportunity and have already referred two cases to the Chamber, which has declared them admissible.
In their 1995 annual report, the ombudsmen maintained that the authorities were not applying the Constitution of the Federation, which amounted to a situation in which politics took precedence over the law. In their next report, for the period 1 January to 30 June 1996, the ombudsmen stated that the six months following the signing of the Dayton Agreements had seen no improvement in the constitutional situation while the human rights situation had deteriorated.
In the 1996 annual report, their conclusion was still more pessimistic, maintaining that despite their repeated requests to the institutions concerned to take steps to improve the human rights situation it had in fact got worse.
They concluded that since the September 1996 elections the system had become completely paralysed. The application of the FBH Constitution was a precondition for the application of the Dayton Agreements in the State of BH. They particularly pointed the finger at the absence of legislation and the state of the judicial system. Many other parties, particularly NGOs, have expressed the same concerns.
a.The Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court comprises seven members serving a non-renewable eight-year term of office. The President is elected by the National Assembly of the RS.
Its task is to review the constitutionality and legality of legislation. Matters can be referred to it by the President of the Republic, the National Assembly or the Government. Parliament may authorise other bodies of the entity to refer matters to it. It can also consider matters of constitutionality and legality on its own initiative. Individuals cannot apply to it but it can initiate a constitutional appeal.
The Constitution of the RS contains no provisions concerning the status of international human rights instruments in the hierarchy of laws. In principle, the instruments listed in the Dayton Agreements, including the European Convention on Human Rights, should also apply in the RS. However, the Constitution of the RS does not authorise the Constitutional Court to rule on whether legislation is in compliance with these international instruments (see opinion of the Venice Commission, [CDL-INF (96) 9, 3.3.1).
b.The Supreme Court
The Court was established in 1992. It protects the rights and interests of all citizens and reviews the legality of decisions. It protects human rights and fundamental freedoms in a practical sense, in the context of civil and criminal cases referred to it.
There is no ombudsman for the RS. In its Opinion, the Venice Commission had stated that an ombudsman's office should be established. When I visited Pale, the President of the Constitutional Court informed me that a proposal to appoint an ombudsman had been made and had been accepted by the National Assembly.
The proposal to appoint an ombudsman for the RS is supported by the OSCE, the High Representative of the OSCE and the RS itself. It is also included in the programme of priority activities for the BH adopted by the Committee of Ministers.
In April, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights adopted a Resolution calling on the authorities of the RS to immediately establish institutions for protecting human rights and in particular an ombudsman for human rights.
Very close attention must be paid to how this is carried out. To maintain a parallel approach between the two entities and ensure his independence, the ombudsman should be appointed by the OSCE or another international institution, as was the case with the three ombudsmen of the FBH.
III.Other forms of protection of human rights
As already noted, the various bodies responsible under the Dayton Agreements for protecting human rights are, to varying extents, operational. However, they can only be effective if the rule of law applies, with institutions that function properly and citizens who have confidence in their legal system.
i.The institutions of the State
Everyone I spoke to agreed that the institutions of the State of BH do not function. The collective presidency meets very rarely, even though it was intended to hold weekly meetings. Nor does Parliament sit. As a result, although the Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly has allocated five seats to the special guest delegation of the BH, instead of the three initially provided for, the Parliament was initially unable to appoint its representatives. The appointments were finally made on 30 April.
Another consequence is that legislation, particularly that designed to harmonise national laws with international human rights instruments, has not been passed. We have already referred to the disastrous consequences of the absence of property legislation.
Certain reforms are under way in the entities, such as the reform of the criminal code in the FBH, in co-operation with the Council of Europe. It is planned to abolish the death penalty, even in time of war. The RS also intends to amend its legislation and a preliminary draft was scheduled for 1 April. The citizenship law, prepared with the Council of Europe's assistance, is practically completed.
ii.The police
The police in the FBH are strongly criticised for corruption and incompetence. Yet police co-operation is essential. The IPTF (International Police Task Force) has the task of strengthening the local police and even had its terms of reference widened at the London Conference, but it has been accused of not making full use of this mandate.
The IPTF has to reorganise itself to carry out its new terms of reference and was due to become operational in April. The proposals are to reduce the number of local check points and impose sanctions on those extorting money. The IPTF also intends to have a presence in police stations, which is not currently the case.
It is intended to operate similarly in the RS but for the time being the IPTF is meeting local resistance.
It was planned to establish a joint police force, composed of equal numbers of citizens of the two entities, wearing the same uniforms and driving the same vehicles. This proposal has not yet been implemented.
In addition, 120 specially qualified investigators were to be responsible for examining alleged human rights violations by police officers.
iii.The judiciary
The cantonal courts have primary responsibility for ensuring respect for human rights. However, judges are political appointments. The best hope lies in the forthcoming local elections, which should open the way to the appointment of judges according to the principle of the separation of powers.
iv.Freedom of information and communication
It is vital to give the population the possibility to escape from the propaganda being broadcasted in their own entity, and to give them the possibility of forming their own opinion of what is happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the other countries in Europe.
One of the major problems is the absence of free communication between the two entities: the lack of telephone lines hinders direct communication and TV and radio broadcasts from each entity are jammed in the other. Yet it is vital to establish proper communication to bring an end to the "propaganda" which, for example, discourages Serbs from returning to the federation and vice-versa.
Relays and/or any other wireless communication infrastructure on the hilltops of Bosnia and Herzegovina were demolished on purpose during wartime. Reconstruction of this infrastructure is crucial for the freedom of information and therefore for democracy and peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina
The SFOR mandate should be enlarged by giving the technicians in SFOR the opportunity to assist in the reconstruction of this communication infrastructure.
"Oslobodjene", which is the main daily newspaper in BH, with a circulation of 15 000 to 18 000 copies a day, only covers 20 to 22% of the territory. It cannot be sold in the RS or in Western Mostar. On the other hand, its international edition published in Frankfurt has a daily print run of 10 000 to 12 000.
There does not appear to be any political pressure on the press in the FBH, the problem being the financial situation which threatens its very existence.
There are two preconditions for any progress in the situation: the war criminals must be handed over to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague and local elections must be held.
According to the first annual report of the State Ombudsperson, as long as the international community fails to give a strong international body a clear mandate to arrest all the persons accused of war crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina and bring them before the Hague Tribunal, it will have no credibility, particularly regarding its commitment to the full application of human rights in the country.
Following my discussions in Pale with the most eminent legal specialists of the RS, I see very little cause for optimism. The very legality of the Hague Tribunal is questioned: Serb lawyers consider that the indictment is directed against all the people and have called for the wording of the indictment to be altered.
As to the second condition, it is to be hoped that the local elections now scheduled for 14 September 1997 can take place and that they will be better organised than those held on 14 September 1996, since the country's future depends on their being properly conducted. Everyone I spoke to thought that most of the problems arose at the local level.
Another painful problem that was evoked in the two entities is that of the mass graves that have not yet been opened and the number of bodies they contain. After a year's experience, Elisabeth Rehn, the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Commission for Human Rights for Yugoslavia, thinks that these mass graves should not be opened too precipitately. Their location is now known and it will therefore always be possible to open them but this must only be done when it is more or less clear who is buried there, so that they can be identified and their bodies returned to their families, rather than, as has sometimes happened in the past, opening up a grave and then not knowing what to do next.
As far as national institutions are concerned, the conclusion to be drawn is that after varying periods in place the national human rights machinery is functioning reasonably well, on the trial and error basis that is inevitable given these institutions' innovatory character.
Nevertheless, no matter how effective they are, they need the national authorities' political commitment if they are to function properly as well as funding from the international community.
Legislation is required on property rights, which is at the centre of the majority of cases coming before not only the Commission for Displaced Persons and Refugees, which was set up for that purpose, but also the State Ombudsperson, more than 80% of whose cases concern this subject, and the Chamber of Human Rights. So far, neither the entities nor the State have passed such legislation. The High Representative of the OSCE is therefore currently drafting such a law, which he will then submit to the two entities. This is probably the best way of ensuring harmonised legislation.
As noted, the Commission for Displaced Persons and Refugees only has guaranteed funding until June. The same applies to the other institutions. Under the Dayton Agreements, the expenses of the Commission on Human Rights must be met by the State of BH. However, the country's financial situation makes this impossible, firstly because the non-functioning nature of the national institutions - Parliament and the Government -means that the State budget has not been adopted and secondly because there are insufficient financial resources. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Prlic, has appealed to the international community on behalf of the Presidency for the necessary financial support, particularly in view of the important contribution of the Commission on Human Rights to the peace process in BH. In March 1997, the current chairmen of the OSCE and of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers also issued a joint appeal on this subject.
The international community has placed human rights at the heart of the institutions that it has set up in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with a view to re-establishing peace and establishing the rule of law and democracy. This will enable the country to join the European organisations of which it wishes to become a member, in particular the Council of Europe, to which it has already applied for membership, in April 1995.
In the event of failure, the alternative is the resumption of the war and/or the country's break-up into several entities. This is what certain nationalist forces are seeking. It is therefore vital for the international community, and in particular the Council of Europe and its member states, to ensure that the human rights institutions to whose establishment they have largely contributed can continue to function, which means that they must receive the necessary financial support and staffing.
The Council of Europe must continue to contribute to the establishment of a properly balanced body of human rights machinery in the two entities, which means not creating a Court of Human Rights in the FBH and appointing an ombudsman in the RS.
The international community must apply pressure on the federal authorities and the two entities to fulfil the commitments they have entered into, and to this end they should apply the principle of general conditionality, except in the case of humanitarian aid.
Programme of the Rapporteurs' visit in Bosnia and Herzegovina (24-27 March 1997)
Monday 24 March 1997
18 h 00 MM. Srdjan Dizdarevic, President of BiH Helsinki Committee and Nedjo Milicevic, BiH Helsinki Committee board member and member of "Circle 99"
19 h 00 Mrs Peggy Hicks, Director, Human Rights Coordination Centre, Office of the High Representative
20 h 30 Dinner with Mrs Donna Gomien, Senior Deputy Ombudsperson, Mr Michael Ingledow
Tuesday 25 March 1997
9 h 00 Mr Jadranko Prlic, BiH(4) Foreign Minister
10 h 00 Mr Mato Tadic, FBiH(5) Minister of Justice
11 h 00 Mr Nudzeim Recica, Deputy Minister of Civil Affairs and Communication, on behalf of M. Alija Izetbegovic, Chairman of BiH Presidency
12 h 00 Mr Mehmet Zilic, FBiH Minister of Interior
14 h 30 Mr Banko Petric, Republika Srpska Minister of Justice
M. Dragan Kijac, Republika Srpska Minister of Interior
MM. Gaso Mijanovic, President of Republika Srpska Constitutional Court and member of Republika Srpska National Assembly Committee on constitutional affairs, Svetislav Stanojevic, President of Republika Srpska Supreme Court and Miroslav Gladanac, Republika Srpska Public Prosecutor
Wednesday 26 March 1997
8 h 30 Mr Steven Segal, Executive Officer, Property Commission
9 h 30Mr Kresimir Zubak, member of BiH Presidency
10 h 05 Mr Vladimir Soljic, FBiH President
10 h 45 Mr Edhem Bicakcic, Bosnian FBiH Prime Minister and Head of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
12 h 30 Lunch with Mr Jasna Malkoc, OSCE Senior Democratisation Coordinator and NGO Coordinator; Mrs Elaine Conkievich, Special Adviser to OSCE Deputy Head of Mission for Human Rights, Mr Jaume Guardans, Ombudsmen liaison officer; Mr Dieter Wolkewitz, Rule of Law Coordinator
14 h 30 MM. Branka Raguz, Vera Jovanovic, Esad Muhibic, FBiH Ombudsmen
16 h 00 Mr Johan van Lamoen, Senior Legal Adviser, OHR
17 h 30 Members of Steering Board of Human Rights Coordination Centre (OHR, OSCE, IPTF, UNHCHR, UN Civil Affairs, UNHCR, EU (N.B. the Council of Europe is also a member of Steering Board)
19 h 15 Mrs Elisabeth Rehn, UN Special Rapporteur
20 h 00 Dinner with Mr Johan van Lamoen, Senior Legal Adviser, OHR
Thursday 27 March 1997
8 h 30 Mr Mirko Boskovic, President of FBiH Constitutional Court
10 h 00 Mr Venceslav Ilic, President of FBiH Supreme Court, Mrs Mirjana Hadzikaric, President of Judges' Association and recently appointed as member of the FBiH Human Rights Court (yet to be established)
11 h 00 Meeting with the editor of "Oslobodjene"
12 h 00 Mr Jean-Fran�ois Pirlot, Head of Mission, UNHCR
13 h 30 Lunch with Mr Mehmed Dekovic, Member of the Human Rights Chamber and Mr Andrew Grotrian, Registrar of the Chamber
15 h 00 Mr Manfred Seitner, IPTF Commissionner
16 h 00 Departure for Banja Luka
18 h 00 Mr Vitomir Popovic, Republika Srpska member of Human Rights Chamber, Brcko arbitrator, President of Institute of International Law and International Business Cooperation
Friday 28 March 1997
9 h 30 Ombudsperson's Office
10 h 30 Meeting with "LEX" (NGO, Legal aid)
12 h 00 Prof. Dr. Rajko Kuzmanovic, Dean of Banja Luka Law Faculty and member of Republika Srpska Constitutional Court
14 h 00 Meeting with Bishop Franjo Komarica
Reporting committee: Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights
Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none
Reference to committee: Doc. 7705 and Reference No. 2148 of 27 January 1997
Draft recommendation adopted unanimously by the committee on 13 June 1997
Members of the committee: MM. Hag�rd (Chairperson), Schwimmer, Bindig (Vice-Chairpersons), Mrs Aguiar, MM. Ak�ali, Alexander, Aushev, Bartumeu Cassany, Berti, Besostri, Clerfayt, Columberg, Contestabile, Deasy, Dees, De Marco (alternate: Sceberras Trigona), Demetriou, Deniau, Mrs Err, Mr Fogas, Mrs Frimansd�ttir, MM. Frunda, Fuhrmann, Fyodorov, Mrs Gelderblom-Lankhout, Mr Guenov, Mrs Holand, Mr Hunault, Ms J��tteenm�ki (alternate: Mr Jansson), MM. Jaskiernia, Jeambrun, Kelam, Lord Kirkhill, MM. Kostytsky, Kovacevic, Loutfi, Mrs Lundholt, MM. Magnusson, Martins, M�sz�ros, Micheloyiannis, Mosetic, Nastase (alternate: Ionescu), N�meth, Mrs Novesk�, MM. Oleksy, Pantelejevs, Sir Irvine Patnick, Pollo, Polydoras, Poppe, Prokop (alternate: Mrs Plechat�), Rhinow, Robles Fraga (alternate: Lopez Henares), Rodeghiero (alternate: Speroni), Sol� Tura, Solonari, Staciokas, Sungur, Symonenko, Tahiri, Vishnyakov, Weyts, Wittmann, Mrs Wohlwend.
N.B. The names of those members who took part in the vote are printed in italics.
Secretaries to the committee: Mr Plate, Ms Coin, Ms Kleinsorge and Ms Clamer
Note: 1 By the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights
Note: 2 See also the remarks made by the Ombudsperson at the press conference she held on 5 May 1997.
Note: 3 According to Article 1 of Resolution (93) 6: "At the request of a European non-member state, the Committee of Ministers may, after consulting the European Court and Commission of Human Rights, appoint specially qualified persons to sit on a court or other body
responsible for the control of respect for human rights set up by this state within its internal legal system (hereafter called the "control body")".
Note: 4 State of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Note: 5 Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina