1. Introduction
1. Over the years, the Parliamentary Assembly has put
a considerable amount of effort into keeping the debate on the concerns
of internally displaced persons (IDPs) on its agenda, notably through
its Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. It has adopted
various recommendations and resolutions on general issues such as
internal displacement in Europe
as well as on specific ones such
as the humanitarian situation of the displaced populations in Turkey
, Russian Federation and some other
CIS countries
, South-Eastern Europe
or the South Caucasus
. In the aftermath of the war between
Russia and Georgia in August 2008, the Assembly has recently adopted
two reports on “The humanitarian consequences of the war between
Georgia and Russia”
, raising not only the concerns of
the newly displaced persons but also those of the “old” IDPs. A report
on “Solving property issues of refugees and internally displaced
persons” is also currently in preparation by the Committee on Migration,
Refugees and Population.
2. The current report stems from the conclusions of a seminar
on “Protracted displacement situations in Europe” organised by the
Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population in cooperation with
Mr Walter Kälin, Special Representative of the UN Secretary General
on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), on 25
November 2008 in Geneva. Much of the information presented in this
report draws from the presentations and work carried out on the
subject matter by various international humanitarian and development
organisations participating in this seminar, such as the Office
of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Office
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), International Organization for
Migration (IOM/ESD), Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (OCHA/DPSS), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and
Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC). The rapporteur is
grateful for these valuable inputs.
3. The rapporteur extends his particular gratitude to the Representative
of the UN Secretary General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced
Persons, the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre and the UNHCR
for their many useful comments and suggestions at later stages of
drafting this report.
4. In the course of preparing this report, the rapporteur carried
out a fact-finding visit to Armenia and Azerbaijan from 4 – 8 May
2009. The aim of this visit was to acquaint himself with government
policies in Armenia and Azerbaijan as regards the protection of
rights of IDPs and refugees as well as in terms of finding durable
solutions. In Yerevan, he met with President Sargsyan, President
of the National Assembly, Head of the Migration Agency of the Ministry
of Territorial Administration, Chairman of the Standing Committee
of the National Assembly on Protection of Human Rights and Public
Affairs, Advisor to the Human Rights Defender, heads of international
humanitarian missions and representatives of the civil society.
In Baku, he met with Deputy Prime Minister/Chair of the State Committee
on the Work with Refugees and IDPs, Speaker of the Milli Meijlis
of Azerbaijan, Chief of the State Migration Service, Ombudsperson,
heads of international humanitarian missions and representatives
of the civil society. In both capitals, the rapporteur also visited
communal centres and settlements for IDPs and refugees. He extends
gratitude to the parliamentary delegations of Armenia and Azerbaijan
as well as to the Council of Europe offices in Yerevan and Baku
for their effective assistance to the programme. In order not to
upset the balance of this report covering the situation of IDPs
throughout Europe, the rapporteur has chosen to include his conclusions
from this visit as an annex to this report.
5. The goal of the present report is to raise the key political,
human rights and future development concerns relating to long-term
IDPs in Europe. The rapporteur remains convinced that as long as
durable solutions are not found in respect of IDPs and the conflicts
that caused these in the first place, the threat of re-eruption
of unresolved conflicts and ethic violence in Europe will prevail.
Also, Europe has the responsibility to guarantee that the IDPs and
refugees from the many unresolved conflicts in Europe would not
become “Europe’s forgotten people”.
2. Key challenges
for internal displacement in Europe today
6. Some 2.5 to 2.8 million Europeans are internally
displaced in 11 of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe:
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Georgia,
Moldova, Russian Federation, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”,
Serbia and Turkey
. The vast majority of displaced persons
were forced to leave their homes some 15 to 35 years ago as a result
of armed conflicts or human rights violations, and are living in
situations of protracted displacement.
7. Despite the human rights guarantees offered by the European
Convention on Human Rights, the guidelines elaborated by the Committee
of Ministers of the Council of Europe or the Assembly’s long-standing efforts
to call upon its member states to adopt national legislation in
line with the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, the
number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Europe has not
fallen significantly over the past decades
.
8. There are two particular problems relating to protracted internal
displacement situations in Europe. The first is that the process
for finding durable solutions has become stalled, and the second
is that IDPs have been marginalised by disregard for or failure
to protect their human rights, in particular economic, social and
cultural rights.
9. Several Governments do not exercise effective control over
their entire territory because of the lack of resolution of their
internal yet international-dimension conflicts (Azerbaijan, Cyprus,
Georgia). The resulting “parallel legal systems”, as well as unwillingness
of some national/ regional authorities or some parties or the international
community to engage in effective peace negotiations that could provide
durable solutions, continued insecurity and absence of organised
reconciliation mechanisms limit IDPs’ access to their rights during
displacement and stall their return.
10. In some cases, IDPs and/or their considered options for durable
solutions have become manipulated aspolitical
pawns. In order to support
the claim of territory not currently under its control, some governments have
been pushing for the return of IDPs at the expense of local integration.
In some other cases, the reality of internal displacement has simply
been denied in an effort to portray the situation as solved and
to direct international attention elsewhere. Temporary housing arrangements,
segregated schools as well as economic and social marginalisation
are among some of the immediate consequences.
11. Where return has been possible, the main challenges to the
sustainability of return are the lack of jobs, inadequate housing
and insufficient assistance. Difficulties acquiring documentation
are also hampering access to social and economic rights, local integration
and settlement of IDPs. Central governments at times fail to exercise
sufficient control over reintegration processes at the local level
to ensure its implementation. There is also little monitoring and
information on the sustainability of return and other durable solutions.
12. IDPs are often cut off from their usual support networks and
coping mechanisms and as a result their vulnerability increases
dramatically. They have to cope with dramatic change and loss, as
well as with deep uncertainty and fear for themselves and their
loved ones. All the while, they live with the persistent threat
or effects of the armed conflict, even if this may have ended years
before. In many ways, IDPs are even more vulnerable and unprotected
than asylum seekers who cross an international border. And yet they
do not enjoy the same international protection as refugees.
13. Another characteristic of protracted internal displacement
in Europe is that many IDPs have not secured justice for violations
they suffered. Perpetrators of human rights violations and crimes
committed during the armed conflicts mostly remain at large, court
decisions are disproportionately not in favour of IDPs of certain ethnicities,
or their implementation is stalled, and many IDPs continue to seek
information on the fate and whereabouts of their disappeared relatives.
14. The effective reintegration of IDPs is often a low priority
of national and local governments. Donor and media fatigue regarding
long-term internal displacement in Europe adds to the neglect of
the remaining IDPs. This applies also to the international community
dealing with IDP issues, who often lack adequate funding and suffer
from differing operational structures between development and humanitarian
partners or different agency mandates and priorities.
15. All in all, the current state of affairs in Europe with regard
to internal displacement does not allow for much optimism or complacency.
It requires from all local, regional and international actors constant
vigilance and result-oriented action.
3. Major human rights
concerns for IDP
16. Housing is
typically the dominant concern both during protracted displacement
and after return. Particular difficulties stem from the fact that
displacement often marks for IDPs the beginning of a rural to urban transition
which increases the pressure on the housing market and tends to
weaken IDPs’ interest to return to rural areas .The housing conditions
of IDPs in Europe remain precarious. Some 390,000 IDPs still live
in collective centres, makeshift shelters or informal settlements
without security of tenure and often without access to basic services
such as water, electricity or sewage systems. In the North Caucasus,
nearly 13,000 IDPs live in often crowded and unsanitary conditions
in collective centres. In Azerbaijan, some 39 per cent of people
displaced in the early 1990s still live in collective centres. The
persistence of indecent housing and living conditions after so many
years reinforces the social marginalisation of IDPs. The closure
of collective centres (Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo
,
Russia) has not necessarily led to improved housing alternatives
for IDPs. The last tented camp was eradicated in Azerbaijan at the
end of 2007 and the IDPs were relocated to the newly constructed
settlements provided with necessary infrastructure. Nevertheless,
some new settlements in Azerbaijan have been constructed within
a few kilometres of the military confrontation line raising certain security
concerns. The remoteness of some settlements poses problems for
some IDPs in accessing employment and essential services.
17. While resources are often scarce in the post-conflict transition
phase, IDPs suffer disproportionately since they have to compete
for these resources from a marginalised position. IDPs can be disadvantaged during
displacement or local integration with regard to employment because they have lost
social networks which could have facilitated employment opportunities
and they suffer from a social stigma associated to their displaced
status or ethnicity. In the context of return, IDPs’ livelihood
opportunities can be affected by discrimination and restriction
of freedom of movement due to security reasons, which prevents returnees
from accessing and cultivating their land or looking for jobs. Unresolved
property issues regarding business premises and land (including
farm land) also limit IDPs’ livelihood opportunities at their current
residence and in the place of return, and compromises the sustainability
of local integration and return. In case of return to areas where
IDPs belong to national minorities, they may face outright discrimination.
18. Access to quality and non-discriminatory education is a critical concern
during displacement but also in the context of return. In Azerbaijan
and Georgia, for instance, despite progress made in integrating
IDP children into the regular schooling system, still quite a number
of children attend so-called “IDP schools”, where the large majority
of pupils are of IDP families and which offer, because of their
geographical location in or close to IDP settlements, little possibilities
for mixing with non-displaced children. Non-discriminatory and unbiased education
is also an essential component of reconciliation. The existence
of partisan curricula has in Bosnia and Herzegovina been a serious
obstacle to return leading to partial returns where children remain
in displacement or commute to attend school in a curriculum and
language with which they feel comfortable. On the other hand, the
continuing existence of “two schools under one roof” has cemented
the separation of communities in return areas. The development of
a common curriculum while being a positive development has not put
an end to separate schooling of children based on their ethnicity
which persists in some parts of the country. Security issues can
also limit access to education like it is the case in Kosovo.
19. Protection of property left behind and,
ultimately its
restitution or compensation, are often ignored or limited to
residential housing to the exclusion of business premises and land,
therefore hindering IDPs in their efforts to resume their lives
and economic activities, and remain a serious source of grievance
and a trigger-point for future conflict. Restitution programmes
have been put in place in several European countries and regions
affected by internal displacement (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia,
Kosovo, Croatia, Georgia) as well as compensation programmes for
destroyed properties (Turkey, Russia) with unequal approaches and results.
For instance, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo legislation
provided for restitution of socially-owned property while Croatia
rejected such restitution without offering adequate compensation. Restitution
of tenancy and other occupancy rights and compensation for respective
losses are typically also neglected, as is the principle that displaced
persons must be allowed to re-establish possession of land they held
on the basis of uncontested use, bearing in mind that IDPs must
not be discriminated against on the ground of their displacement
.
20. An overly strict application of
requirements
for legal documentation and non recognition of documents,
coupled with failure to replace or issue new documentation, prevents
IDPs in some countries from accessing and enjoying a range of rights:
health, education, property, work – and often years after their
initial displacement. Where countries do not exercise effective
control over their entire territory, this can result in parallel
“legal systems” where authorities on either side do not recognise
legal documentation issued by the other. This situation can seriously
affect the implementation of legislation, judicial decisions and,
ultimately, IDPs’ life (recognition of years of service for pension
procedures, property inheritance, diplomas, driving license, etc).
This is the case for instance in Serbia and Kosovo in relation to
the non-recognition of documents, but also in Georgia where laws
on the protection of property in IDPs’ area of origin have been
enacted by the Georgian government, but have not been implemented
due to the lack of cooperation by the de facto authorities of South
Ossetia and Abkhazia. Similarly, the government of Cyprus, does
not recognise the “Immovable Property Commission” of the internationally
non-recognised “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”
.
21. Discrimination, harassment and
denial of political participationby
IDPs from minority communities frequently occurs at the local authority
and local community level, and they are exacerbated if mixed signals are
sent from the central level. European central, regional or local
authorities are not always well prepared to accept and effectively
cope with the tensions which unavoidably come along with social
pluralism, i.e. with the co-existence of dominant and non-dominant
groups.
22. Ethnic minority groups not
linked to a party involved in the conflict - such as the Roma -
are often particularly affected. Whereas displaced persons tend
to flee to areas where they would not be in a minority position
and where people from the same ethnic, religious or national community
live, this is not an option for the Roma. Displacement aggravates
the social marginalisation of Roma. The fact that many Roma do not possess
legal documentation and official residence does not allow them to
benefit from the assistance provided to IDPs and leads them to live
in informal settlements without basic services.
23. Besides the Roma, other particularly
vulnerable IDPs in Europe include the traumatised, disabled
and chronically ill, female heads of households, children, in particular
unaccompanied minors, as well as elderly, in particular those who
do not enjoy family support. They are at risk of desperate poverty
as well as exploitation and abuse. Donors and Governments often
fail to recognize the vulnerabilities of marginalised groupsin the recovery phase, e.g., by cutting funding for collective
housing complexes, even though it is the most vulnerable such as
the elderly or people with mental disabilities that tend to stay
behind. Mental health issues, often rooted in conflict atrocities
and exacerbated by the protracted nature of displacement, are frequently
neglected and responses underfunded.
24. The lack of IDP-specific policies
and laws,or their belated adoption, often
add to the problems. Furthermore, IDPs either are not involved in
peace processesor they become
an object of political manipulation, with the result that they cannot
properly influence the agenda in accordance with their best interests,
needs and rights. IDP legislation, policies and programmes exist
in several European countries such as Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Russia and Serbia. However, they do not
always fully comply with the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement
either in relation to the definition of IDPs or with regards to
the durable solutions supported. In the Russian Federation, only
35.4 percent of IDPs (registered by UNHCR) have IDP status in accordance
with the legislation, presumably due to a government policy to decrease
the number of IDPs in order to reduce burden associated with assistance
and also declare the end of the conflict and stabilisation. The
status, however, provides little practical assistance to lead them to
return or integration.
4. Available protection
mechanisms
25. IDPs are entitled to protection provided for under
international humanitarian law and human rights law. The 1998
UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement remain
the main normative instrument which guides and assists governments
to discharge their responsibilities in protecting and assisting
people forcibly displaced within their countries. Although the Guiding
Principles are not a binding instrument, they reflect and are consistent
with international human rights and humanitarian law, and have been
endorsed as an “important international framework for the protection
of internally displaced persons” by key international fora.
Regrettably, there is still insufficient
will on behalf of the governments to adopt the Guiding Principles
into national legislation or to implement them in full.
26. Even though most Council of Europe member states concerned
have established domestic normative frameworks for internal displacement,
only three of the affected member states – Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey
- have made some progress in bringing IDP legislation into line
with the provisions of the Guiding Principles. Paradoxically, some
of these are the countries with the least prospect of return of
their IDP populations in the near future because of the lack of
political solutions. At the same time, the IDP situation has improved
best in Cyprus, where the government has devoted significant resources
to ensuring IDPs’ access to their rights in the government-controlled
areas. Progress has also been made in the Balkans, where there have
been advances in EU integration.
27. European IDPs enjoy the additional protection of their fundamental
rights through the European Convention
of Human Rights, which remains the most effective tool
of protection of the IDPs in Europe. As IDPs remain under the protection
of their own country, they are entitled to the same rights as any
other citizen. In particular, in accordance with Article 1 of the
ECHR, they are able to exercise the rights and freedoms defined
in the Convention.
28. Thus each individual IDP under the jurisprudence of a Council
of Europe member state is protected by the ECHR and has the right
to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. Since mid-1990s
when Russia, the Balkans and South Caucasus states joined the Council
of Europe, the Court of Human Rights has issued several judgments
relating to internal displacement in the region. There have been
a number of cases against Turkey as well. In 2007, the Court ordered
Russia to pay the owners of an estate in a Chechen village for its occupation
and damage by Russian police units. The Court has also ordered Turkey
to pay compensation to Greek Cypriot applicants for violations of
their property rights. There are also several cases pending concerning the
denial of property restitution in northern Cyprus or Russia. The
recent war in Georgia has brought over 3000 individual appeals to
the court against Georgia, some 400 against Russia as well as an
inter-state appeal launched by the Georgian authorities against
Russia. On the whole, however, the number of cases brought to the
European Court of Human Rights has remained relatively low, partly
due to the general lack of awareness by IDPs of their rights and
limited legal assistance available to them.
29. There are other Council of Europe instruments that are binding
to the signatory member states. These include the European Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the Revised
Social Charter, the European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s
Rights or the European Convention on Action against Trafficking
in Human Beings.
30. Of particular importance – and much under-exploited - is the
protection mechanism provided by the European
Social Charter and the revised
Social Charter, which allows international NGOs having participatory
status with the Council of Europe and being listed as having standing
with the European Committee of Social Rights to submit collective
complaints irrespective of whether the organisations concerned come
under the jurisdiction of any of the States Parties to the Social
Charter.
31. Certain vulnerable groups are also protected by specific international
instruments. Ethnic minorities, children and women, for example,
are particularly at risk in these crisis situations. Article 27
of the UN Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, the U.N. Convention
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the U.N. Convention
on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women
and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child continue to apply
even in the abnormal situation of forced internal or external displacement.
32. Of “soft law” instruments, mention should also be made of
a set of
13 recommendations elaborated by
the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in its Recommendation
Rec(2006)6 upon the instigation of the Parliamentary
Assembly. This recommendation “
underlines
the importance in the IDP context of certain obligations undertaken
by the Council of Europe member states that go beyond the level
of commitments reflected in the UN Guiding Principles”
. It also refers to existing
gaps in international law and the resulting need to have a binding
regional instrument on IDPs in Europe. The rapporteur is of the
opinion that a specific binding Council of Europe instrument could
indeed contribute to bringing more specific elements to guide the
member states’ response to IDPs, which would also reinforce the
legal value of the UN Guiding Principles. He therefore deems it
desirable to reconvene the Ad hoc Committee of Experts on the Legal Aspects
of Territorial Asylum, Refugees and Stateless Persons (CAHAR) in
order to assess how the existing Council of Europe legal framework
protects IDPs and how it ensures access to humanitarian assistance
and durable solutions and, finally, where existing instruments fall
short of the standards set out by the Guiding Principles on Internal
Displacement or other binding instruments adopted in other regions,
how to complement them.
33. It may be concluded that, although the legal and normative
framework could be further improved, the outstanding issues are
more related to the political will of State parties to make these
instruments operational on the ground. The European Convention of
Human Rights can provide sufficient protection guarantees only when
IDPs are aware of the application mechanisms and enjoy access to
legal assistance.
34. Regrettably today a wide gap between legislation and practice
persists, particularly at local level. In some cases, the authorities
face severe financial constraints and are unable to meet IDPs needs
for protection and assistance, even if the will is there. In other
cases, governments clearly lack the necessary political will to protect
and help displaced persons.
5. National responses
35. There is no question that the primary responsibility
for protecting displaced persons lies with governments and local
authorities. It is at this level that the difference will finally
need to be made.
36. In most countries Governments’ efforts have focused mainly
on return, limiting or excluding assistance to other durable solutions
such as local integration or integration elsewhere in the country.
This situation seriously limits the possibility for IDPs to make
a free choice between the various durable solutions. For a solution
to be considered durable, IDPs should enjoy their rights in a non-discriminatory
manner and have no considerable protection or assistance needs related
to their displacement. Conditions for durable solutions include
a safe environment, non-discriminatory access to human rights, documentation,
restitution of property or compensation, access to basic needs and
livelihood opportunities.
37. The fulfilment of these conditions can take years of progressive
improvement which explains why it is sometimes difficult to determine
when a durable solution has been reached. It is essential that programmes supporting
durable solutions have a comprehensive approach looking at all the
elements which make a solution sustainable. For instance, there
is often a considerable focus on reconstruction and restitution
to facilitate return. In Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia and Kosovo,
as examples, significant efforts have been made to finance the reconstruction
of houses. However, in the absence of income-generating projects,
reconciliation activities, and access to rights, houses will remain
empty or return will not be sustainable.
38. Return in itself is not a durable solution if the conditions
mentioned above are not met. Therefore returnee figures do not necessarily
reflect the achievement of a durable solution and there is a need
to monitor the conditions of returnees well after they have returned.
While returnees are no longer displaced, they may still have specific
protection and assistance needs that should be monitored to determine
whether their return can be considered sustainable. Security risks
for instance, can be higher upon return than during displacement.
39. Protracted displacement create situations where the line between
the improvement of the living conditions of IDPs and their local
integration often gets blurred. This is particularly the case where
temporary IDP settlements turn into permanent ones or where IDPs
tend to progressively integrate socially and economically with the
local population. The main difference between the two situations
is probably the intention of the displaced persons to return or
stay. Local integration can either be a durable solution in itself
or a way to live a decent life until other durable solutions become
feasible. It is probably this blurred line that has led several
countries to limit IDPs’ self-reliance and living conditions in
an effort to push them to return. Some countries have done this
in order to avoid consolidating the results of ethnic cleansing
or regain territory not under their control. Yet, it needs to be
underlined that IDPs who are given the chance to integrate locally,
even if temporary and without prejudice to their right to return,
will be in a stronger position and have more capacity to successfully
exercise this right once it becomes politically feasible.
40. There have been some positive trends and initiatives at policy
level in recent years. For example, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey
have recently changed their approach to local integration. In 2005,
Turkey developed a national framework focusing on the integration
of IDPs through improved infrastructure and income-generating activities
as well as psychological assistance and capacity building activities.
Georgia adopted in 2005 a State Strategy and in July 2008 the Georgian
Government approved an Action Plan to implement the State Strategy
with a view to facilitating integration of IDPs while respecting
their right of return. This Action Plan has been recently updated
but it was not yet adopted by the Government at the moment of writing.
Azerbaijan has invested significant resources into building purpose-built
settlements for IDPs, and continues to provide other forms of assistance
to IDPs. Turkey and Armenia, among others, have also developed programmes
to facilitate the integration of returnees.
41. The outstanding issues of particular concern, region by region,
include:
5.1. IDPs in South Caucasus
(Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia)
42. The unresolved conflicts over the regions of Nagorno-Karabakh,
Abkhazia and South Ossetia continue to affect progress on finding
durable solutions for the 838,500 to 865,500
IDPs
that have been displaced in the South Caucasus since the early 1990s.
The war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008 and the subsequent
occupation of the two separatist regions and parts of Georgian territory
under Georgian government control before the war by the Russian
forces added another 26,000
to 37,605
displaced persons
unable to return, and dwarfed the prospects for the return of all
IDPs in the near future. Chances for solving the conflict over the
Nagorno-Karabakh region remains equally elusive.
43. In this context, the rapporteur welcomes the recent policy
change in Azerbaijan and Georgia, which now aims at improving the
living conditions and developing local integration strategies for
the IDPs, all the same not excluding the ultimate possibility of
their return. The Government of Azerbaijan has constructed 47 new settlements
for 90,000 IDPs and is planning to provide new accommodation to
another 70,000 displaced persons. The Government has considerably
increased the state budget for IDPs, the 2007-2011 State Programme
for IDPs now totalling 1 billion USD.
44. In July 2008, the Georgian Government adopted an Action Plan
to implement the State Strategy for IDPs. The Georgian Ministry
of Refugees and Accommodation has recently updated this Action Plan,
taking into consideration the prevailing circumstances after the
war, and is expecting to present it to the Government for adoption
in June 2009. In the post-war months, the Georgian Government has
constructed 38 settlements for 18,000 IDPs and provided complementary
measures for livelihood and access to social services. Under the State
Strategy, the Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation is providing
durable housing solutions for “old” IDPs residing in collective
centres through rehabilitation and ownership transfer to IDP families.
A donor conference in October 2008 raised 4.5 billion USD, part
of which is planned for the improvement of housing conditions of
the old and new displaced persons. Some concern has been voiced
over the almost exclusive emphasis on infrastructure as opposed
to developing a comprehensive integration policy which would encompass
the whole range of civil, cultural, economic, political and social
rights of IDPs. Moreover, full participation of all segments of
the IDPs in the planning and management of the resettlement plan
should be better guaranteed
.
45. Nonetheless, vast numbers of displaced persons in Azerbaijan
and Georgia continue to live in difficult conditions, either in
collective centres – the majority of which do not meet minimum living
standards and may negatively affect the health and well-being of
IDPs, especially the children and elderly – or in cities in private accommodation,
abandoned apartments and with relatives. There is limited information
on the latter category of IDPs and it is therefore unclear what
issues they face as a result of their displacement.
46. Elderly IDPs and female-headed households face particular
difficulties; they are less likely to have an income or support
for maintaining their homes in collective centres. In Azerbaijan,
the practice of granting IDP status, whereby only the children of
males who were physically displaced during the conflict are eligible
for the status, and not those born of female IDPs, is discriminatory
and further deprives female-headed households of social benefits.
In both Azerbaijan and Georgia, psycho-social integration of displaced
children in local schools should be paid more attention to, as many
still attend public schools which, due to their location in areas
of IDP settlements, are not sufficiently mixed with non-displaced
pupils. In many instances IDP situations lead to role reversals
and changes between men and women IDPs, with women increasingly
taking more and more responsibility for the household. Men often
find it difficult to secure work and have little role in bringing
up the family or supporting the family. This can lead to increased
tensions in the family and in some instances domestic violence and
other problems.
47. Differently from Azerbaijan and Georgia, the Government of
Armenia has not linked durable solutions to the peace process but
has given priority to integration. There is no specific legislation
for the protection of IDPs in Armenia. The Government claims that
all IDPs are Armenian citizens, the refugees from Azerbaijan have been
encouraged to naturalise, and that all citizens enjoy the same rights
and do not need specific legislation. The key priority for the Government
is the organisation of the return of the IDP families who so wish
to their permanent residence. The rapporteur observed that data
on the number, location and living conditions of IDPs from the border
zone is to an extent missing. As IDPs are not well defined in national
legislation, it causes misinterpretation about their status. The
majority of refugees from Azerbaijan during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
have been naturalised; some IDPs and refugees have resettled in
the border zone under the “Post-conflict rehabilitation of bordering
territories of the Republic of Armenia” programme; about 900 refugee families
have solved their housing problem through the Housing Purchase Certificates
that the Armenian Government has distributed since 2005. However,
the state is in need of 45 million USD donor aid to be able to relodge
the refugees and IDPs accommodated in derelict conditions in collective
centres, plus another 38,5 million USD to organise the return of
1005 households to their permanent residence in the border areas.
5.2. IDPs in North Caucasus
(Russia)
48. 85,000 to 136,500 people remain displaced in Russia
more than fifteen years after the inter-ethnic and separatist conflicts
in North Ossetia in 1992 and Chechnya in 1994 and 1999
. While the situation
in Chechnya has generally stabilised, the region of North Caucasus
remains insecure as hostilities continue between government forces
and rebels throughout the territory. In the absence of political
solutions to the conflicts, human rights abuses including abductions
and enforced disappearances persist and the rule of law remains
weak
.
49. Durable solutions for IDPs continue to be hindered throughout
the Russian Federation by the lack of adequate housing and employment
opportunities as well as by limited and discriminatory access to
services, benefits, pensions, documents and assistance. Much of
it is due to the continued requirement of residence permit (“propiska”)
, internal passports or employment
records, which the displaced are often not in the position to provide.
Some 40,000 displaced pensioners are reportedly receiving only a
minimum pension because no mechanism has been put in place to address
the issue of workbooks lost during flight and burned archives.
50. Many IDPs have received compensation for lost property, but
it has not led to widespread reconstruction of housing since the
amount has become increasingly insufficient to purchase or build
housing. Hence most IDPs live in rented accommodation or with families
and friends. The Government of Russia should determine the number
of IDPs still in need of permanent housing and ensure their inclusion
in the federal housing programme. It should also allocate necessary
funds to the programme to cover these needs.
51. In 2007, the Government of Chechnya deregistered the remaining
IDPs in the Republic. Collective centres, which still housed around
4,400 displaced families in 2006
,
were closed down in 2008. Many of those evicted have not found adequate
accommodation since.
52. Russian courts have turned down all applications or restitution
of lost or seized property in Chechnya, instead promoting compensation
schemes by which IDPs could receive compensation for destroyed housing. However,
property compensation is differentiated depending on the IDPs settlement
preference. IDPs who return to Chechnya receive up to 350,000 roubles
as compensation for lost property and housing, while those who do
not return to Chechnya receive a maximum of 125,000 roubles. Those
who do not return to Chechnya must give up the title to their housing
and property while those who return to Chechnya retain their title.
53. Ethnic Chechen IDPs living outside the North Caucasus often
fall victim of racial attacks and face particular difficulties in
securing housing, personal documents and jobs, and in moving freely
without police controls. The Russian Government should be encouraged
to implement measures to combat racism and xenophobia as prescribed
in the PACE Recommendation 1667 (2004).
5.3. IDPs in the Balkans
(Serbia, Kosovo, Croatia, ”the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Bosnia
and Herzegovina)
54. 13 years after the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina
and Croatia, and 10 years following the armed conflict in Kosovo,
over 354,070 IDPs remain in the region as well as an estimated 20,000
unregistered Roma IDPs
, some
of whom have been displaced for a period of between 7 and 17 years.
55. In general, as regards the Balkan region, inadequate housing
is a major problem and property restitution is hindered due to the
lack of documentation. For Roma, lack of documentation poses even
greater problems in accessing basic rights. There is poverty, unemployment,
lack of access to livelihoods and local integration is not supported
by the authorities. In return areas, displaced persons face discrimination
as regards assistance and entitlements (including in education and
pension awards) increasing the vulnerability of the affected population
and pose additional obstacles to return.
56. In 2008, 124,600 registered IDPs remained in Bosnia and Herzegovina
and almost 600,000 people had returned to those places from where
they originated
. Returnees are more likely to suffer
discrimination and lack of access to livelihood opportunities and
services, than IDPs as they form part of a local ethnic minority. Fragmentation
of the social welfare system has resulted in differential pension
awards being paid out, increasing the vulnerability of the elderly.
Access to unbiased and non-segregated education is required. Furthermore,
whilst there were 1,500 returns in 2008, the situation of those
8000 persons in collective centres is unlikely to improve. Whilst
reconstruction of housing is important, return and local integration
options require greater support. In late January 2009, the Council
of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted a Revised Strategy
for the Implementation of Annex VII of the Dayton Peace Agreement,
which was still pending before the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia
and Herzegovina at the time of writing. This Revised Strategy will
create a new momentum, if ratified and implemented, for the remaining
IDPs and returnees to exercise their right to a durable solution.
57. In March 2008, 2,600 IDPs remained in Croatia half of whom
were Serb.
Significant progress
has been made by successive governments since 2000 in reforming
legislation, through property restitution and reconstruction efforts,
including adopting measures in favour of Serb return. Actual returns
have been low though: about one third of Croatian Serb IDPs and
refugees have returned but only half of these returns have been
sustainable. Obstacles to return include lack of full pension entitlements
being made out, impunity for war-crimes, lack of remedies for the
restitution of occupied agricultural land, private property claims
through the judicial process and lack of remedies for lost occupancy
rights.
58. In 2008, Serbia (excluding Kosovo) had 226,000 IDPs with an
estimated 20,000 Roma. 20,000 people were also displaced in Kosovo,
mainly in Serb-majority areas.
Kosovo’s declaration of independence
from Serbia in 2008 may have created uncertainty for displaced Serbs
in Serbia proper and within Kosovo itself. Roma are the most vulnerable
of the IDPs here and lack of documentation prevents registration
and access to housing and social assistance. Prospects for durable
solutions and integration of IDPs are slim.
59. As regards “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, 770
people remain displaced today, the majority being ethnic Macedonians
or Serbs who felt unable to return to the Albanian-dominated regions.
400 of the IDPs were placed in private accommodation but 300 continue
to live in poor conditions in collective centres. There is concern
that IDPs have grown increasingly reluctant to return following
the 2008 parliamentary elections which were accompanied by outbreaks
of violence in Albanian-dominated areas.
5.4. IDPs in Turkey
60. According to a national IDP survey released in 2006,
some 953,680 to 1,201,200 people were displaced from the east and
south-east of the country between 1986 and 2005
. In recent years, the Turkish Government
has made significant progress to address (and even to prioritise)
the internal displacement situation. Apart from the above national
survey on the number and conditions of IDPs, it has drafted a national IDP
strategy, adopted a law on compensation for property damages, adopted
in 2006 the Van Action Plan for addressing the needs of IDPs at
the provincial level, and supplemented the 2004 Return to Village
and Rehabilitation Project (RVRP). In addition, Damage Assessment
Commissions have been established to compensate for property losses
suffered by the IDPs. A national framework focusing on the integration
of IDPs in urban areas through improved infrastructure and income-generating
activities has been developed; however, implementation has not yet
followed at the desired speed.
61. The RVRP, which encompasses 14 provinces, is based upon co-ordination
and co-operation between various departments in order to ensure
a healthy and effective return process for those who wish to return
and to reinforce adaptation to urban life by economic and social
conditions for those who prefer to stay at their current residences.
About 83,3 million YTL (40 million euros) has been spent through
this project on infrastructure investments, rebuilding schools and
village clinics, donating construction materials to citizens returning
to their villages as well as on social projects. The 2006 national
IDP survey revealed that some 55 per cent of the displaced population
still wished to return to their areas of origin, while about 12
per cent of the IDP population had returned
. 88 per cent of displaced people surveyed
who had returned to their villages said nevertheless that they did
so without assistance from the government. Return programmes have
also been criticised for lacking transparency, consistency, consultation
and funding
.
There is continued absence of development in the return areas, and
further efforts are needed to improve basic infrastructures.
62. Little or no steps have been taken towards abolishing the
“village guards”, a paramilitary force created by the government
to oppose the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), which was responsible
for some of the worst human rights violations in the 1980s-1990s
and which has been identified as a principle obstacle to the return of
IDPs and to the stability of the region. A law adopted in May 2007
even strengthens the “village guards” system. Landmines (reportedly
about a million within the country) also remain a security concern.
Other concerns include the lack of economic opportunities, social
services and basic infrastructure in south-eastern Turkey constitute
a hindrance to return
. The Turkish government should
be encouraged to further address whether the solutions to internal
displacement must equally be part of wider effort at national recognition
and reconciliation on the Kurdish issue, if any such solution is
to be durable and effective. Linkages between durable solutions
to displacement and reconciliation initiatives to address past human
rights violations against IDPs, should be studied.
63. Considering that many IDPs will not return, there is a need
to provide concrete solutions for displaced persons who opt for
local integration. Most displaced people live in peripheries of
cities, both within affected provinces and elsewhere in Turkey.
They are among the urban poor, sharing with other migrants the problems of
acute social and economic marginalisation and limited access to
housing, educational and health facilities. It is unclear if IDPs
are specifically discriminated against though it may be inferred
that IDPs from Kurdish ethnicity of rural background is aggravating
their social and economic marginalisation and encounter problems integrating
into an urban environment since most lack basic educational, occupational
and linguistic difficulties.
64. Some problems particularly identified vis a vis IDPs are the
lack of psychosocial care, despite a prevalence of psychological
and emotional trauma, low levels of education and high unemployment
among adults, and particularly among displaced women. Displaced
children have limited access to schooling, and child labour is reported
to be an increasing problem in urban centres with significant IDP
populations.
65. A number of Government programmes fail to take into consideration
the specific situation of the displaced. For instance, one criteria
for determining poverty and eligibility to social assistance is
not owning agricultural property. Many displaced people own rural
property and are therefore disqualified even if they have been unable
to access their property for more than a decade. This indicates
a need for Government programmes and plan of action that would specifically
address IDPs in urban settings.
5.5. IDPs in Cyprus
66. More than 30 years after having been displaced, up
to 201,000
people continue
to be internally displaced in the area under the control of the
Government of the Republic of Cyprus. The Turkish Cypriot leadership
considers, that displacement ended with the 1975 Vienna III agreement.
While Cypriot IDPs no longer have fundamental humanitarian needs
and have largely integrated in the places they have settled, the displaced
are still unable to take back possession of the property they forcibly
left behind, or to return to their homes.
67. At political level, the renewed political process between
the leaders of the two Communities, which started in March 2008,
inspire reasonable optimism. For the first time in recent years,
and despite fundamental disagreements between the sides on a number
of key issues, conditions seem to be better than ever before for
achieving substantial progress in the settlement process of the
Cyprus problem. The process brings hope to Cypriots, but remains
fragile and needs to be encouraged and supported by the international
community.
68. The Committee for Missing Persons, which resumed its activities
in 2004, has achieved some results. The Government of the Republic
of Cyprus, the Turkish Cypriot leadership and Turkey
, should be encouraged to investigate
the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared and inform relatives
of the progress of investigations. Excavations, exhumations and
identifications are ongoing, but investigations as to the conditions
they disappeared and / or they perished, have not begun.
69. Property remains the main outstanding issue for displaced
people. There is still no mutually agreed mechanism for deciding
property claims, and the choice of residence for the displaced persons
is limited. The development of property for housing, tourism or
commerce in the area not under the effective control of the Government
of the Republic of Cyprus, has complicated matters further. In 2006,
the Republic of Cyprus passed a law making the purchase, rent and
sale of property owned by Greek Cypriots in the occupied part, without
the consent of the registered owner a crime
. Displaced
Cypriots on both sides have applied to domestic and international
courts to assert their rights. In a judgment in 2005
, the European Court of
Human Rights ordered Turkey to introduce a remedy for the protection
of property and possessions in the area under Turkish Cypriot administration.
In response, in March 2006, the Turkish Cypriot leadership established
the “Immovable Property Commission”. A decision on the effectiveness
and adequacy of this “Commission”, which is not recognized by the
Government of Cyprus, is currently pending before the European Court
of Human Rights. Another landmark judgment regarding the issue of
property rights of Greek Cypriots, in relation to their properties
in the occupied part of Cyprus which are illegally sold to foreign
nationals, was issued on the 28th April 2009 by the Court of Justice
of the European Communities
.
The court said among other that a judgment of a Court in the Republic
of Cyprus must be recognized and enforced by the other member states,
even if it concerns land situated in the northern part of the island.
The suspension of the application of the
acquis communautaire in
those areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government does
not exercise effective control, and the fact that a judgment given
by the courts of a member state cannot, as a practical matter, be enforced
where the land is situated, do not preclude its recognition and
enforcement in another member state.
70. An additional concern is the discrimination of children of
IDPs: whereas children whose father has a “displaced person” status
are entitled to a Refugee Identity Card and the benefits deriving
from “displaced person” status, children whose mother has the same
status are not granted the same benefits. They are only entitled
to a Certificate by Descent, which however does not entitle them
to access any benefits. This issue is currently under examination
by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. The Government of the
Republic should amend national legislation to ensure that all children
of people with “displaced status” are treated the same in accordance
with the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus and international
obligations.
6. International response:
role of the Council of Europe in advancing protection of the human
rights of IDPs
71. It is a core business of the Council of Europe to
encourage member states to step up the implementation of their legislation
in place and to observe human rights to the letter. The various
institutions and monitoring bodies of the Council of Europe follow
the situation of IDPs enjoyment of their rights. Their findings
and conclusions should be systematically mainstreamed in European
states’ action plans for the protection and promotion of IDPs’ human
rights. Also, the avenues provided by the collective complaints
mechanism under the European Social Charter (Revised) should be
further explored.
72. However, most importantly, the Council of Europe – and most
particularly its Assembly - needs to tackle the root causes which
led these populations to the displacement in the first place and
which keep them in displacement still today. As long as lasting
political solutions are not found, i.e. as long as inter-ethnic
tensions continue to exist, national minorities cannot live in complete
safety with full respect for their rights, separatist movements
are supported externally by other states or non-state actors, and
the countries which have suffered these terrible conflicts have
not become stable, peaceful, prosperous democracies, any long-term
solution to the problems of displaced persons will be difficult
to deliver. It is therefore of paramount importance that the member
states join and implement such instruments as the Framework Convention
for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Convention
of Regional and Minority Languages, and promote in their societies
values of pluralist democracy, human rights, tolerance, the rule
of law, and non-discrimination.
73. It is the Council of Europe’s and this Assembly’s responsibility
to prevent wars and to prevent displacement. Genuine international
peace keeping and peace building efforts are necessary in the regions where
violence and prejudice against local communities and IDPs cannot
be curbed by locally available political means. Member states of
the Council of Europe should avail their expertise and resources,
either through the Council of Europe or other competent international
bodies, in support of the protection, safe and dignified return
and integration of IDPs. The rapporteur welcomes to this end the
decision of the Assembly’s Political Affairs Committee in November
2008 to set up an Ad Hoc Sub-Committee on early warning systems and
the prevention of crises in Europe. IDP-related human security and
international humanitarian law and international law issues should
figure high on the agenda of the envisaged conference to be held
later this year.
74. The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights should
also be encouraged to bring together national human rights institutions
and Ombudspersons from the regions with current long term IDPs in
order to assess the progress made in accomplishing various Council
of Europe recommendations on protecting IDPs’ rights and identify
the remaining obstacles for securing durable solutions, and issue
a position paper on the subject matter.
75. The Council of Europe Development Bank should be encouraged
to step up its co-operation with the member states concerned with
a view to financing more projects regarding returning refugees and
IDPs.
76. The Assembly should remain seized for a more comprehensive
follow up on IDP-related issues, both through its country by country
monitoring mechanism conducted by the Monitoring Committee and through
the “regional” or issue-based reports by its Committee on Migration,
Refugees and Population. In particular, the rapporteur sees the
need for further attention to be paid to the situation of the displaced
persons in the Caucasus region and in Turkey.
7. Future perspectives:
ways forward
77. Four elements must be put in place to ensure that
IDPs can fully enjoy their human rights in Europe. These include:
a. a renewed effort by the international
community to find political solutions
b. a strong legal and normative framework;
c. a strong will of all relevant actors to implement such
a framework; and
d. the capacity of these actors to implement such a framework.
78. Although in legal terms the primary responsibility for protecting
displaced persons lies incontestably with national governments and
local authorities, it is the common responsibility in Europe to
engage in finding political solutions to the lingering internal
conflicts. The recent war in Georgia was a tragic reminder that
the threat of war remains a reality in Europe even in the 21st century,
and that international “ostrich policies” and reluctance to deal
with the heart of the matter can lead to severe consequences. The
rapporteur highlights that resolving internal displacement and preventing
future displacement are essential elements of peace building and
thus inextricably linked to achieving lasting peace. Much stronger
pressure from the international community is therefore needed to
find political solutions and work out reconciliatory mechanisms.
79. The absence of political solutions should however not serve
as an excuse for Governments for failing to address protracted displacement
situations. The Government retains the primary responsibility to
its citizens regardless of a protracted conflict and even in the
absence of territorial control.
80. IDPs’ right to return under international humanitarian law
as well as their right to return in the exercise of their freedom
of movement deriving from international and regional human rights
law must be unconditionally observed and ensured by all responsible
authorities. This requires that potential returnees are guaranteed security
which in turn underlines the importance of bringing those who caused
the displacement to justice. It is also essential that the living
conditions of the displaced are adequate, for instance, that they
have access to basic services such as education or healthcare and
can find employment or other livelihoods. Damaged houses must be
repaired or rebuilt, occupied property must be returned to lawful
owners and other tenancy or occupancy right should also be restituted.
81. In reality, return may be very complicated even when political
and material obstacles are removed. A hostile atmosphere is not
easy to deal with - as seen in Bosnia and Herzegovina where many
displaced people have sold their houses rather than move back. Though
this tendency may indicate failure, it is important to recall that
return always must be voluntary,
it is not an obligation.
82. Authorities have the responsibility to enable conditions for
three viable options: return, integration or integration elsewhere
in the country. They should not favour one approach to the exclusion
of others and base their policy and programming on participatory
assessments of durable solution preferences carried out among displaced
populations, including marginalised groups.. Enabling the IDPs to
lead a normal life, where they currently are, and protect their
right to return are not mutually exclusive.
83. Both international and national legislation and normative
frameworks need to be further developed. IDPs must enjoy the same
level of protection and realisation of their rights as the rest
of the population, though respect of their rights may require specific
and additional effort. IDPs have specific vulnerabilities and assistance
needs not shared by the rest of the population. They are therefore
entitled to differential and preferential treatment without such
treatment being deemed “discriminatory”.
84. Greater concern for IDPs should not, on the other hand, come
at the expense of other people at risk. Discussions that emphasise
the plight of IDPs are often understood to imply that those who
have not been displaced are comparatively safer and that IDPs are
systematically at greater risk. This is not always the case. There
are many instances when people are unable to flee their homes during
an armed conflict, even when staying may endanger their lives. These
people also need priority attention.
85. The majority of the European countries concerned are in the
phase of post-conflict recovery now. Many of these governments have
progressively modified their approach to the problem of IDPs, moving
away from humanitarian assistance and mainstreaming their protection
and assistance into development strategies and poverty reduction
plans. In several countries, this has meant the phasing out of direct
assistance to IDPs. The reason behind this is that it is expected
that IDPs will take advantage of the benefits provided by regular
social welfare system as other citizens do, based on socio-economic
criteria.
86. This development is positive to the extent that it certainly
strengthens the integration of IDPs into existing social structures
and normalises their situation as citizens. However, it also creates
the risk that their special needs are ignored. A considerable segment
of the population continues to live in collective centres, has no
land to cultivate, struggles to earn an income, and faces discrimination
in gaining access to public services. Thus there is still a strong
need for national authorities to devote resources, expertise and
political will to address the specific vulnerability of IDPs at
their current place of residence. There is also a continuing need
for international assistance, notably in terms of technical aid,
expertise and knowledge sharing.
87. Action plans on IDPs need to give particular attention to
minority groups and their human rights in order to avoid a further
cycle of violations. Many persons from minority groups may need
special protective measures given that they may lack proof of identity
or residence before their displacement. Governments have still to realize
that the creation of a climate of tolerance and dialogue is necessary
to enable ethnic and cultural diversity as a factor, not of division,
but of enrichment and cohesion for European societies.
88. Children, especially those who become unaccompanied during
armed conflicts, should be the subject of particular attention and
assistance by competent authorities in order to guarantee their
basic needs and rights, including housing and access to education.
Women and girls are also at a heightened risk of abuse and gender-based
violence. Survivors of violence and torture require specific support.
89. Also the considerable implementation deficit needs to be tackled.
For example, tax benefits and favourable welfare arrangements provided
for by law in some countries are not always recognised and applied in
practice. Furthermore, the efficiency of the bodies and agencies
responsible for implementing laws set up in countries concerned
needs to be enhanced. Often the administrative complexities and
bureaucracy encountered by displaced persons are as much a matter
of lack of administrative capacity as they are of lack of will.
90. Bottom-up initiatives need to be encouraged and developed.
Civil society and NGOs have a key role to play – to speak out on
behalf of IDPs and promote their agenda. The IDPs themselves need
to have better awareness and education on the instruments available
to protect them. Finally, IDPs must be informed and consulted on
all relevant steps leading to durable solutions, and to the extent
possible, be given the opportunity to participate in decisions affecting
them.
91. There is no single solution to internal displacement. Those
affected have too varied protection and assistance needs. Innovative
responses need therefore to be promoted in order to effectively
address the multitude of needs faced by the affected populations.