The Dayton Peace Accords : A Six-Month Review

13 June, 1996

Contents

Introduction

This review has been undertaken by the ICG team in Bosnia which is based in Sarajevo, Mostar, Tuzla and Banja Luka. ICG has been monitoring all the non-military aspects of the Dayton Peace Accords (DPA) since the beginning of 1996.

The DPA came into force last December, beginning a process of attempting to reconcile the previously warring communities of Croats, Muslims and Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The fact that the United Nations Security Council mandated the NATO-led Implementation Force (IFOR) for a period of one year has led many to believe that the international involvement in helping bring the country back to democracy would also come to an end within a year. The High Representative, who co-ordinates many of the international organisations and agencies responsible for carrying out implementation of the civilian aspects of the Dayton Agreement, has no similar time limit imposed on his role.

ICG is firmly of the view, shared by many others involved in Bosnia, that on the most optimistic forecast, reconciliation and the creation of a lasting peace will require a longer period of time.

Nicholas Hinton, President, ICG
June 1996

Annex 1A - Agreement on the Military Aspects of the Peace Settlement

Article 1 General Obligations

The Parties have failed to comply with the opening statement that "they undertake to recreate as quickly as possible normal conditions of life in Bosnia and Herzegovina". The establishment and reception of IFOR was, however, fully implemented in a timely manner.

The cease-fire has held; all parties have shown restraint, under the watchful eye of IFOR. However, the Parties have failed to "provide a safe and secure environment for all persons in their jurisdictions" as provided for under the Article. This failure remains the single greatest impediment to full freedom of movement.

Progress has been made, but this has not yet been satisfactorily completed.

Phase 1, covering the establishment of a Zone of Separation and withdrawal of forces behind the lines of separation was completed on time. The Gorazde - Sarajevo corridors remain insecure, and can only be used with difficulty. All inter-ethnic movement takes place only under escort.

Phase 2, adjustments of the Inter-Ethnic Boundary Line (IEBL) in areas where it did not conform to the cease- fire line, have been carried out successfully through negotiations within the Joint Military commission (JMC), although some minor adjustments remain to be agreed.

Phase 3, withdrawal of heavy weapons to barracks/cantonment within 120 days, was slightly delayed in its implementation. Although completed in most respects, some controversy over numbers remains to be worked out.

The JMCs were established as required and notifications were made in accordance with the schedule laid out in the article. Some data are in the process of being verified (see remarks on Phase 3 above).

This was achieved successfully, and without major difficulty.

However Article 6 (3) on IFOR's support of civilian operations, which is a key provision of the Dayton Agreement, has proved a significant matter of contention. IFOR has often limited its tasks to observing interference with the freedom of movement and in many cases failed to prevent or otherwise appropriately respond to such interference. In 51 group visits across the inter-entity boundaries between 17 April and 15 May reported by IFOR, 22 visits were cancelled before they started or were aborted when the visitors were confronted by hostile crowds on the other side. In some cases IFOR has prevented the visits going ahead in an effort to prevent violence, instead of preventing interference on the other side.

This too went smoothly, with an orderly withdrawal of many forces and a smooth transfer of others to the new Implementation Force.

This has been completed successfully.

Many prisoners have been released; however, some remain in custody. Paragraph 1g which requires each party to comply with any order or request from the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has not been fully complied with, nor has Paragraph 2, which requires the Parties to grant access to graves, as well as the recovery and evacuation of bodies. The responsibility for implementing these elements rests squarely with the Parties.

Annex 1B - Agreement on Regional Stabilisation

General

Although the deadlines have not yet passed, progress towards implementation is underway in both operative articles 2 and 4.

Although negotiations based upon the 1994 Vienna Document began as scheduled, little progress towards obtaining an agreement on a set of measures has been made, which means the article is behind schedule. However, where these measures are also relevant to annex 1A, the Parties are in fact complying with the measures, but only because they are required to do so by IFOR. Prior to full agreement on Article 2, however, the Parties have been given training and testing on the process of arms control verification. The establishment of military liaison missions between the respective chiefs of the armed force has yet to occur.

This article involves all five parties (the armed forces of Croatia, Yugoslavia, Republika Srpska, the Federation and Bosnia-Hercegovina) who have agreed to complete their negotiations by 10 June or face an imposed solution as laid out in paragraph 3 to the article. With the deadline rapidly approaching, negotiations have gone into extended sessions, and a draft agreement has been initialled. The OSCE is optimistic that an agreement will be reached.

Annex 2 - Agreement on Inter-entity Boundary Line and Related Issues

Article 4, the first of two operative articles, lays out the process to be followed for delineating and marking the IEBL and the Inter-entity zone of separation (ZOS). The requisite joint commissions have been formed and negotiations are ongoing. More than forty adjustments have been made, however several hundred issues, albeit minor in nature, remain on the table. Negotiations are resolving problems and should continue beyond the D+180 deadline, according to IFOR. A separate issue concerns the continued presence of Croat police in Kulen Vakuf, a part of the Bosnian territory on the Croatian - Bosnian border, an issue which is not considered critical at this time and one for which resolution is expected eventually.

Binding arbitration on this issue is scheduled to begin sometime after D+180, or 10 June 1996, but the Parties have still not nominated their arbitrators. Meanwhile the RS is building up false expectations among the Bosnian Serbs by distorted propaganda about the purpose of the arbitration, many of whom are displaced persons who have been re-settled from elsewhere. Emotions are running high and violence against the remaining Muslims is prevented only by the constant presence of IFOR. It seems likely that there will be a continuing need for a military presence there long after the arbitartion decision is handed down by 14 December.

Annex 3 - Agreement on Elections

Article I(1) The Dayton Agreement states: "The Parties shall ensure that conditions exist for the organisation of free and fair elections, in particular a politically neutral environment; shall protect and enforce the right to vote in secret without fear or intimidation; shall ensure freedom of expression and of the press; shall allow and encourage freedom of association (including of political parties); and shall ensure freedom of movement."

• (7) To ensure that the will of the people serves as the basis of the authority of government, the participating States will

• (7.1) hold free elections at reasonable intervals, as established by law;

• (7.2) permit all seats in at least one chamber of the national legislature to be freely contested in a popular vote;

• (7.3) guarantee universal and equal suffrage to adult citizens;

• (7.4) ensure that votes are cast by secret ballot or by equivalent free voting procedure, and that they are counted and reported honestly with the official results made public;

• (7.5) respect the right of citizens to seek political or public office, individually or as representatives of political parties or organisations, without discrimination;

• (7.6) respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties or other political organisations and provide such political parties and organisations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law and by the authorities;

• (7.7) ensure that law and public policy work to permit political campaigning to be conducted in a fair and free atmosphere in which neither administrative action, violence nor intimidation bars the parties and the candidates from freely presenting their views and qualifications, or prevents the voters from learning and discussing them or from casting their vote free of fear of retribution;

• (7.8) provide that no legal or administrative obstacle stands in the way of unimpeded access to the media on a non-discriminatory basis for all political groupings and individuals wishing to participate in the electoral process;

• (7.9) ensure that candidates who obtain the necessary number of votes required by law are duly installed in office and are permitted to remain in office until their term expires or is otherwise brought to an end in a manner that is regulated by law in conformity with democratic parliamentary and constitutional procedures.

• (8) The participating States consider that the presence of observers, both foreign and domestic, can enhance the electoral process for States in which elections are taking place. They therefore invite observers from any other OSCE participating States and any appropriate private institutions and organisations who may wish to do so to observe the course of their national election proceedings, to the extent permitted b law, they will also endeavour to facilitate similar access for election proceedings held below the national level. Such observers will undertake not to interfere in the electoral proceedings.

The Organisation of Security and Co-operation in Europe which is supervising the preparation and conduct of elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina, has simplified the above in the following 12 points:

1. A politically neutral environment

Since fighting has stopped and IFOR is deployed throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina, there is, at least, a basis on which to begin building a politically neutral environment. To this end, the international community has established a plethora of joint commissions, working groups, and sub-commissions in which it is working with the Parties. These include the Joint Civilian commission, the Joint Military commission, the Provisional Election commission, Political Parties Consultative Council and the Media Experts commission. In addition, the work of the various Ombudspersons should contribute to improving the political environment.

However, the political environment depends to a large extent on the media, who is in power, and the continuing influence of indicted war criminals.

The media differs markedly from region to region depending largely on who controls the purse strings. In Bosnian government-controlled areas of the federation the media picture appears reasonably healthy at first glance with a vast number of alternative voices. There are as many as six alternative local television stations, three daily newspapers, as well as numerous magazines and radio stations.

The extent of the media in government-controlled areas of the federation is to a large extent a reflection of the willingness of international donors such as George Soros, UNESCO and the Westminster Foundation to put money into the Bosnian media. Indeed, in the course of the war more than $5 million was invested in the Bosnian media from abroad. Nevertheless, state television remains the principal source of information for most people living in government-controlled areas of the federation. That said, the output of Bosnian television is no longer overtly biased on behalf of the ruling SDA at the expense of competing political parties.

The media picture is more grim in Republika Srpska and Croat-controlled areas of the federation. There are two minor independent newspapers in Banja Luka with tiny circulations and no alternative to the state television based in Pale. To date, Pale television has made no attempt to moderate its extreme nationalistic position. That said, the influence of Pale television has been diminished as a result of NATO bombing last year which took out many transmitters. As a result, foreign television, that is Croatian, Serbian and Montenegrin stations, are a more significant factor in the parts of Republika Srpska where they can be picked up.

In Croat-controlled federation territory there appears to be no alternative media voice. At present there is not a single newspaper in so-called "Herzeg-Bosna" let alone an alternative paper. Radio Herzeg-Bosna, Radio Mostar and Television Mostar are all fiercely nationalistic and effectively an arm of the HDZ. Moreover, the ruling party is now planning its own television Herzeg-Bosna.

To date, only the Bosnian government has arrested indicted war criminals (two) and only Croatia has handed over an indicted war criminal to the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague (Tihomir Blaskic who went of his own free will). The most notorious indicted war criminals, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, remain at large and are still in power in Republika Srpska. Moreover, all the ruling parties - the Muslim SDA, Serb SDS and Croat HDZ - dominate civic institutions, including local government, the courts and police.

At present it is not possible to make a telephone call from the federation to Republika Srpska. This lack of inter-entity communications inhibits the development of a politically neutral environment.

2. The right to vote in secret without fear or intimidation

The Provisional Election commission (PEC) has established rules for secret balloting and drawn up an Electoral Code of Conduct which prohibits actions that could result in coercion, intimidation or reprisals. OSCE supervisors, with the help of local police forces and, where appropriate, of the IPTF, will enforce this code.

Planning for the deployment of 1200 mobile OSCE supervisors is well advanced. The OSCE has arranged for the United Nations Volunteers to supply the staff who are not seconded by OSCE governments.

Officials from the OSCE, United Nations High commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organisation of Migration (IOM) have been meeting with representatives of the major refugee host countries to set up co-ordination centres in key European cities to help refugees cast absentee votes.

However, the level of fear and intimidation in the voting process ultimately depends on the political environment.

3. Freedom of expression and access to the media for all wishing to participate in the electoral process

The media situation has been considered above. To counter the existing power of nationalists in the media various initiatives are already under way.

Several media training organisations have started or are about to start programmes in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This includes the Soros Foundation, the BBC (funded by Britain's Know-How Fund) and Internews (US-funded). All are attempting to inculcate democratic attitudes to reporting via raising the technical level of expertise of journalists.

London's Institute for War and Peace Reporting has also recently launched its own programme which will involve monitoring the output of the entire media throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina and attempting to boost the quality of local journalism via seminars and training sessions with Serbo-Croat-speaking international journalists, as well as funding a handful of local projects.

Another media project which may in the coming months have a great impact throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina is the broadcasting of war crimes trials from The Hague. The trial of Dusan Tadic (a Serb accused of committing atrocities at the Omarska concentration camp in 1992) began on 7 May and is being broadcast live by Internews on satellite, with edited programmes being re-broadcast on Bosnian state television. Bosniaks are already saying that they find the coverage therapeutic. However, the trial is not being re-broadcast either in Republika Srpska or in Croat-controlled parts of the federation.

The OSCE has itself organised a radio project aimed exclusively at the elections which is funded by Switzerland. Reporters will be trained in Bern in Switzerland and the station will then broadcast for two months in the run-up to elections. However, no matter how good the coverage, it is unlikely that this station can have much impact. Stations using the Serbo-Croat news services of Voice of America, Deutsche Welle and Radio Free Europe already exist and have to date failed to have much impact.

The most ambitious media project is to create an independent television network throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina using the existing alternative television stations as a basis for expansion. The project is massively ambitious and will cost $17 million over two years if it goes ahead as currently envisaged. About half the necessary money was pledged at a donors' conference in Brussels on 22 May. Difficulties in finding a project manager have already delayed the start of the project.

The Provisional Election commission has drawn up an Electoral Code of Conduct which contains standards for the media and journalists. In addition, a Media Experts commission in Sarajevo and five regional sub-commissions throughout the country have been set up. These bodies will monitor compliance of the standards and will have authority to withdraw press accreditation from journalists.

The Media Experts commission is made up of representatives of the governments of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Republika Srpska as well as qualified media specialists appointed by each of the parties, representatives of the Interior Ministries, a member appointed by the High Representative and Human Rights officers of the OSCE mission. The numbers are weighted so that effectively the OSCE human rights officers control the commission.

Several media commitments were made in the Federation Forum Joint Statement of 14 May. These are to provide one hour of prime-time radio and television programming every day from 21 May until election day on all stations in the Federation for information relevant to elections, to provide equitable and significant amounts of prime-time television and radio time to opposition political parties starting 1 June, to review within seven days applications for radio and television frequencies to increase independent media outlets, and to ensure freedom of movement for journalists.

4. Freedom of movement

Though Bosnians of all nationalities have begun to cross the inter-entity boundary line (IEBL), genuine freedom of movement does not exist. Indeed, according to UNHCR, virtually no refugees or displaced persons have been able to return to homes in areas where they would be in an ethnic minority. Moreover, organised visits which cross the IEBL or the former Croat-Muslim front lines are often met with violence which is usually orchestrated by local authorities. In some instances, displaced people trying to visit their homes have been beaten up and killed.

One critical obstacle to greater freedom of movement is the fact that Republika Srpska, government-controlled federation territory and Croat-controlled federation territory all have separate vehicle number plates. Police in Republika Srpska and Croat-controlled federation territory will invariably stop a car with a number plate from another part of Bosnia-Herzegovina. In addition, there is virtually no public transport which joins the entities together. UNHCR attempts to set up inter-entity bus lines have been sabotaged by the authorities in Republika Srpska.

5. Freedom of association

Without freedom of movement and with no possibility of telephoning between the entities, there can only be minimal freedom of association. Nevertheless, serious political parties do now exist in both Republika Srpska and government-controlled federation territory. This is not the case in Croat-controlled federation territory where the ruling HDZ has effectively ensured that the climate of fear prevents the evolution of a political alternative.

Otherwise, all the ruling parties control the facilities which may be used for meetings and are thus able to cancel them at any stage. In addition, alternative groups which already exist generally lack the means to do anything.

The European Union has put aside some money for development of local NGOs across Bosnia-Herzegovina with grants up to DM30,000. In addition, international NGOs are involved in stimulating local groups around a host of projects.

The OSCE Mission has also attempted to boost inter-ethnic dialogue among five groups of society: intellectuals, religious leaders, journalists, women and youth. In this way, for example, members of Circle 99, the Sarajevo forum of independent intellectuals, have travelled to Banja Luka and Mostar in an attempt to forge links with similar-minded intellectuals in those cities. While the journeys were made in safety, the outcome in both cases was disappointing. In Mostar, for example, out of a dozen Croats invited to the Circle 99 meeting only two turned up, one of whom left almost immediately feeling that the level of danger was too great.

6. The will of the people as the basis of government authority

The legislation exists, and indeed existed in 1990, for the will of the people to be the basis of government authority. However, Bosnians lack democratic traditions. The OSCE is thus attempting to boost awareness of democratic practices with a voter-education programme.

7. All seats in at least one chamber of government are freely contested in a popular vote

The Provisional Election commission has drawn up rules for registration of candidates for the House of Representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

8. Universal and equal suffrage to all citizens

The Provisional Election commission has adopted rules on voter registration which allow all citizens, including refugees and displaced persons, to vote on an equal basis. The commission will also ensure that absentee ballots are mixed with ballots cast in person to ensure that all valid ballots, regardless of origin, are viewed equally.

9. The right of citizens to seek office without discrimination

The Provisional Election commission has established that any eligible voter, except those under indictment by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, may seek office.

However, according to the Dayton Agreement, only a Serb can represent Republika Srpska in the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina and only a Croat and a Muslim can represent the federation in the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina. This prevents a Croat, Muslim or a member of a national minority from representing Republika Srpska in the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina as well as a Serb or a member of a national minority from representing the federation in the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

10. The right of individuals and groups to establish in full freedom their own political parties, with necessary legal guarantees

The Provisional Election commission has adopted rules on registration of political parties and independent candidates.

11. Candidates with the number of votes required by law are duly installed in office and permitted to remain there until their terms are legally terminated

OSCE supervisors will ensure that the vote count is fair and accurate. The OSCE will facilitate installation into office of winning candidates and subsequently monitor the political situation to ensure that elected officials remain there until their terms have expired.

12. Observers to be present at elections

Eduard von Thijn was appointed monitoring co-ordinator for Bosnia-Herzegovina on 7 March. Since then he has been encouraging international institutions, countries and non-governmental organisations to send 2,000 observers, and also planning the logistics of the operation. The Provisional Election commission has also passed rules allowing registered political party or independent candidates to observe polling stations and counting centres.

The OSCE established a Provisional Election commission which held its first meeting on 1 February 1996.

The commission published its rules and regulations on 22 April.

The Dayton Agreement states: "The commission shall consist of the Head of the OSCE Mission, the High Representative or his or her designee, representatives of the Parties, and such other persons as the Head of the OSCE Mission, in consultation with the Parties, may decide. The Head of the OSCE Mission shall act as Chairman of the commission. In the event of disputes within the commission, the decision of the Chairman shall be final."

The Provisional Election commission was formed. However, the Head of the OSCE Mission decided not to invite anybody from the opposition to join it.

The Dayton Agreement states: "... A citizen who no longer lives in the municipality in which he or she resided in 1991 shall, as a general rule, be expected to vote, in person or by absentee ballot, in that municipality, provided that the person is determined to have been registered in that municipality as confirmed by the local election commission and the Provisional Election commission. Such a citizen may, however, apply to the commission to cast his or her ballot elsewhere..."

The Provisional Election commission decided that a person would only be able to vote in a different municipality to that in which he or she was living in 1991, if that person did so in person.

Dayton Agreement on Implementing the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 10 November 1995

Mostar Elections

Article I(2) states: "We agree on the principles for the Interim Statute for the City of Mostar as defined in the Annex which forms an integral part of this Agreement. We shall ensure that the Interim Statute for the City of Mostar shall be finalized on the basis of these principles by 31 December 1995...

"In parallel to the adoption of the Interim Statute, we request the EU Administrator to issue a decree on the conduct of elections for the City Council and the City-Municipal Councils on the basis of the principles for the Interim Statute in the Annex. These elections shall take place no later than 31 May 1996."

The Interim Statute for the City of Mostar was finalised before 31 December 1995 and the EU Administrator issued a decree on the conduct of elections. However, the Bosniak side was not happy that refugees and displaced persons would not be able to vote in the elections.

When the new EU Administrator for Mostar Ricard Perez Casado called elections for 31 May, the Bosniaks decided to boycott. Since the election commissions in east Mostar resigned, there was no way to proceed and elections had to be postponed.

The EU Administrator caved in to the Bosniak objection and negotiated a delay of one month with both sides in Mostar. As a result, preparations are being made for Mostarians who are currently refugees or displaced people to be able to vote. This will be achieved either by bussing them in or by arranging voting abroad. Casado has called elections for 30 June.

Annex 4 - Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Article 6(1) The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina

The Dayton Agreement provides for this court to have nine members: four to be selected by the House of Representatives of the Federation, and two by the Assembly of the Republika Srpska. The remaining three members were to be selected by the President of the European Court of Human Rights after consultation with the Presidency.

The nominations to the Constitutional Court have been postponed until after the elections in September. However, nothing in the Constitution mandates such a delay. The Constitution came into force on the date DPA was signed (see Article 12 - "This Constitution shall enter into force upon signature of" DPA).

The Central Bank has not yet been established. In addition to the widely accepted Deutsche Mark, three different currencies are in circulation in the three respective parts of the country (Bosniak territory, Herzeg-Bosna and the Republika Srpska). No Governing Board has been set up yet. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is charged with appointing the Governor but has apparently gone no further than arranging for individuals of both Entities to have preliminary discussions on the creation of a Central Bank.

The Dayton Agreement states: "Within three months from the entry into force of this Constitution, the Entities shall amend their respective constitutions to ensure their conformity with this Constitution ...."

The three-month deadline passed in March and none of the entities have amended their constitutions to comply with the B&H Constitution. The RS Constitution should be of special concern to the international community as it violates the territorial integrity of B&H and international human rights law.

The Parties have established a Joint Interim commission (no deadline was stipulated by the DPA, but this was formed as one of the first structures at the beginning of February). Mariofil Ljubic is the President, while Irfan Ajanovic is the Vice President. The JIC is working at present on adopting the amendments to the Constitution which, if passed, will be offered to the Ustavotvorna Skupstina. According to Article 1(c) of the DPA, the JIC is to be chaired by the High Representative or his designate, Mr. Steiner.

Annex 6 - Agreement on Human Rights

Article 1 - Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

The Dayton Agreement states: "The Parties shall secure to all persons within their jurisdiction the highest level of internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms..."

Comments follow on areas of concern in this respect (points 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12):

1. The Right to Life

Republika Srpska has failed to comply with the DPA in three respects:

1. ethnic cleansing has continued, whereby people threatened with their lives or physical well being have left their places of residence. The expulsions of 500 Bosniaks from Teslic over the past two weeks is the most recent example of non-compliance;

2. Loss of life in part due to restrictions in freedom of movement, whereby groups of Bosniaks tried en masse to go back to their former places of residence and some were killed by Serbian gangs and other elements in trying to block them (e.g. Prijedor, Doboj);

3. attempted threat to life by mining Bosniak houses in Prnjavor and other towns.

In Sarajevo, on the other hand, there has been no ethnically-motivated murder since the signing of the DPA. ICG has received conflicting information of threats to life and of loss of life in Bihac, which we have not been able to confirm.

2. The Right not to be Subjected to Torture or Other Degrading or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment

There are only a few documented cases of torture, of which the "Zvornik 7" in Republika Srpska is the most egregious. Seven missing Bosniaks surrendered to IFOR and were delivered to the RS authorities. Despite close scrutiny of the case by the UN, IPTF and IFOR, the seven were subjected to torture and at least one has suffered three broken ribs. IPTF normally surveys torture cases only sporadically; and there is no reliable information on how wide-spread the practice is, although some people have alleged "roughing up" during arrest and detention whereby the police used violence or threats of violence to get information from them, usually during the first 24-48 hours of investigation.

A Sarajevo-based human rights NGO, after a fact-finding mission to Republika Srpska has suggested to ICG that "physical maltreatment of detainees in Republika Srpska certainly exists." The same NGO has quoted Red Cross officials that in the Federation prisons the situation is positive, and the Federation authorities behave according to international humanitarian law.

In Velika Kladusa, the renegade Fikret Abdic's supporters have claimed last month that in 13 cases the Federation police has beaten those arrested but released them within 48 hours. Violence against Abdic supporters has been an on-going problem, with most incidents caused by neighbours or gangs, only some of whom have alleged violence by the police.

4. The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person

As of May 28, 1996, the ICRC has documented a total of 1017 prisoner releases: 218 by the Croat side, 577 by the Bosnian side (including 3 persons arrested after 14 December, 1995), and 222 by the Republika Srpska (including 2 persons arrested after 14 December, 1995). Six persons arrested before the signing of the DPA remain in detention on the basis of suspicion of war crimes after the last check made by the War Crimes Tribunal (or ICTY): 3 in Sarajevo and 3 in Republika Srpska (in Pale). There are also 6 persons arrested after the signing of the DPA: 5 by the Federation and 1 by Republika Srpska. There is one person remaining in detention awaiting the results of ICTY's investigation; there are 7 remaining in detention on the basis of a conviction of a local court. In addition, there are 5 "special cases": 4 persons from Arab countries detained by the Croat side, and one Swede detained by the Bosnian side. In total, there are 25 registered prisoners still in detention, of whom 6 are held by Republika Srpska, and 19 by the Federation (4 by the Croat side and 15 by the Bosnian side). It is unclear whether or not additional un-registered prisoners remain in detention.

All parties have failed to comply with the "security of the person" provision. The Federation, in the Sarajevo suburbs, has not intervened to the fullest to protect the Serbs and others there from verbal and physical harassment. Republika Srpska has continued with its practice of ethnic cleansing.

5. The Right to a Fair Hearing in Civil and Criminal Courts, and other Rights Relating to Criminal Proceedings

ICG authoritative information about cases in Zenica, Tuzla, Sarajevo, Mostar, and Konjic, suggests that the Federation judiciary's independence is questionable. The ruling political parties, SDA and HDZ, have exerted great political, financial, and other influence on its work, resulting in the distrust of many citizens of the work of the courts. In many of the cases reviewed, the judgement passed by the authorities has been affected by politics, including cases where members of the majority were tried for criminal offences. The Ombudspeople have emphasized the recent practice of placingruling parties' members or supporters in the judiciary, and preventing the employment of competent people not members of the aforementioned parties. This way, the party policies are pursued, including:

1. the undue lengthening of procedures (or simply not acting on cases) if the decisions are deemed not in the interest of the ruling party. The prime examples of such behaviour are the complaints of people who consider violations to the right to return to their apartments. ICG understands that in such "property cases" the Ministry for Housing "wait terribly long in situations when expediency is needed." The Ministry has not solved one complaint within the given time-frame.

2. the determination which suspects will be sought by the police in the most serious criminal cases.

8. Freedom of Expression and the Press

Freedom of expression has generally been protected in the Federation except in so-called "Herzeg-Bosna". In the Federation there exists a multitude of magazines, newspapers, and radio stations that are freely voicing alternative (or any) points of view, including: RTV Studio 99, Radio Zid, Radio Chameleon, TV Betel, Nasi Dani, Slobodna Bosna, Dnevni Avaz, Fokus, Oslobodjenje, etc. Their outreach is limited, however, and covers mostly the cities, primarily Sarajevo, Tuzla, and Zenica. In Tuzla alone, there are six radio stations, three TV stations, and numerous newspapers. Importantly, no radio or TV station covers the whole territory of the Federation, except the state RTV BiH. The independent RTV Studio 99 has informed ICG of the existing government pressures on its work, including denying frequencies for its radio station. It also claims that it is unable to get office space (it currently operates from a basement). There has been a similar case reported to ICG by the Democratic Circle of Bihac, whereby a group of people has been denied a frequency by the government for a radio station.

ICG has been reliably informed that in general the government pressures on the independent and alternative media are considerable but of limited effect given the fact that their outreach is small. The state RTV is strictly dominated by the ruling SDA party.

In "Herzeg-Bosna", no independent media exist. Only Croatian state RTV can be accessed in West Mostar, where pervasive fear and insecurity restrict free speech. In East Mostar, on the contrary, there is at least some diversity in printed media.

A similar situation as in West Mostar exists in Republika Srpska. There are two alternative (not independent) newspapers Novi Prelom (the Liberal Party newspaper claiming a circulation of 3,000) and Nezavisne Novine (the Social Democrat newspaper which claims a circulation close to 10,000) in Banja Luka. In addition, small newspapers have recently begun to emerge in smaller towns such as Bijelina and Doboj.

9. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Freedom of Association with Others

Freedom of association and peaceful assembly in the Federation is protected in the larger cities: Sarajevo, Zenica, Tuzla. Political parties organize freely there and members of minorities can gather to protest government policies. On May 17, 1996, for instance, the Democratic Initiative of Sarajevo Serbs organized a meeting in the Ilidza suburb with the inhabitants of the Osijek municipality. They were able to discuss freely the difficult position and harassment endured since the transition of the suburbs into Federation hands. Apart from in the larger cities, freedom of association elsewhere meets antagonism and harassment. The situation in Bugojno, where some of the more hard-line SDA reside, is particularly bad. The Croat cultural society "Napredak" for instance has been forbidden to meet.

In "Herzeg Bosna" no political party except the ruling HDZ and now the Croat Party of Rights can organize or assemble. A faction of the latter has emerged, the Pure Croat Party of Rights. Not even other parties with the prefix "Croat" such as the Croat Peasant Party for instance are allowed to assemble in Mostar, Stolac, Kiseljak, etc. The Green party dares to maintain only covert contacts with its members in West Mostar, because of fear of retaliation of HDZ activists. A group of Serbs from East Mostar which considers forming a political party are not holding meetings in West Mostar because of fear of police-sponsored or tolerated violence. Another group of Serbs led by Milan Bodiroga, whose pro-Croat statements won him the backing of "Herzeg Bosna" authorities, has been permitted to meet and speak freely in West Mostar.

In Republika Srpska, radovan Karadzic's SDS party still rule - there are over 20 political parties, but only two without the prefix "Serb" or with similar ideological leanings exist - the Liberal Party and Social Democrat Party. They face periodic harassment in trying to assemble. No parties from the Federation are allowed to assemble or participate in election activity in Republika Srpska. However, the Socialist Party of Republika Srpska which is closely linked to Slobodan Milosevic's Socialist Party of Serbia is active in the political scene as the main opposition.

10. The Right to Marry and Found a Family

The right to marry and found a family in the Federation is protected. The old Yugoslav law regulating family relations is still in force (which stipulates that if for whatever reason the partners are not living together for three years they can automatically get a divorce). People of different ethnicities still marry without any problem in the Federation, but this practise, which was widespread before the war (30% of all marriages were mixed), is almost non-existent in Republika Srpska. There are many specific problems regarding divorce, especially when the whereabouts of one of the partners (a detainee, soldier, displaced person, etc.) is not known. However there can be a proxy representative present on behalf of one partner to make a divorce possible.

11. The Right to Education

The right to education on the territory of the Federation is generally protected. In Sarajevo for instance there are primary and secondary schools, including the Catholic high school of St. Joseph, accessible to all (teaching staff but not pupils must be baptized Catholics). A new Bosniak (Muslim) high school has been opened in Sarajevo a year ago along the lines of the Catholic high school. After the transition of the Sarajevo suburbs to the Federation authorities, the problem regarding the primary school in Ilidza to continue using the educational program of Republika Srpska (until the end of the year) was successfully resolved with the prompt intervention of the High Representative's Office and the OSCE human rights team.

12. The right to liberty of movement

Freedom of movement has improved considerably since the signing of the DPA, but is still much restricted, mostly by the Republika Srpska authorities and Croat authorities in Herzeg- Bosna. Cars with Bosnian licence plates are routinely and meticulously checked in Herzeg- Bosna by the Croat police. At the border crossing with Croatia, Bosnian-plated cars are routinely stopped, while Herceg-Bosna-plated ones are waved through. Cars with Croat state plates and Herceg -Bosna plates can be seen in Sarajevo and generally throughout the Federation, while it is impossible to see a Bosnian-plated car in West Mostar or other Croat-held towns such as Stolac.

In Mostar, freedom of movement exists for pedestrians. Men of military age are reluctant to cross the divide; some do sometimes causing individual incidents of violence, mainly in West Mostar.

Bosniaks are generally fearful of venturing into Republika Srpska and few try it.

Travelling across the Bihac pocket, there is "transitory freedom of movement," from point A to B without stopping. Cars going from Eastern Bosnia to Bihac cross the Republika Srpska territory without many problems.

Around the Tuzla region, and within each entity, there has been no hindrance of people of the same ethnic origin. Problems and harassment occur if and when someone is able to cross. People from the Federation believe that it is possible for Serbs to come in freely. Indeed, 150 have returned to Tuzla with the intention of moving back permanently. However, there have been several cases of Serbs returning only to meet verbal abuse and occasionally bodily harm.

In and around Sarajevo the situation is not satisfactory. RS plated cars do not enter Sarajevo for justified fear of violence, and Bosnian-plated cars do not go to Republika Srpska. The drivers of the only bus connecting the Lukavica and Grbavica suburbs (the former in the RS, the latter now in the Federation) has been threatened by the RS police with his life. UNHCR is determined to get the bus running, and provide its own driver and UNHCR plates. UNHCR has said that there is harassment and beatings of Serbs in Grbavica who cross the IEBL. Any mass crossing through the IEBL when the intent of the people to return to their homes is known has been often ended in violence, the cases of Trnovo and Doboj being the latest episodes that claimed lives.

Article 2(1) The commission on Human Rights

The Dayton Agreement states: "To assist in honouring their obligations under this Agreement, the Parties hereby establish a commission on Human Rights... The commission shall consist of two parts: the Office of the Ombudsman and the Human Rights Chamber."

An Ombudsperson and the Human Rights Chamber have been appointed within the time-frame stipulated by the DPA (D+90 for the Chamber,no deadline for the Ombudsman).

The mandate of the commission is to consider alleged or apparent violations by the Parties to the DPA of the rights set out in the European Convention and its Protocols, on prohibited grounds such as ethnicity, religion, etc. Allegations are normally directed to the Ombudsman, who investigates them and makes a report. Based on the investigation, the Ombudsman can pass a report to the Chamber for resolution or decision regarding an alleged violation. The Ombudsman's office began receiving complaints on March 27, 1996, and thus far has over 100 provisional files and has opened 25 cases. The majority of the cases regard the most acute problem of property rights, followed by rights to formerly military (JNA) apartments, violations of the right to citizenship and rights to blocked financial accounts (state succession cases), and a couple of cases regarding missing and detained people.

The Chamber held its inaugural session on March 27-29, and will finalize its rules and procedures during its third session, June 17-20. Most Chamber sessions have been planned through October.

The Human Rights Ombudsperson

Article 4(2) states: "The Ombudsman shall be appointed for a non-renewable term of five years by the Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE after consulting with the parties."

The Human Rights Chamber

Article 7(1&2) states: "The Human Rights Chamber shall be composed of 14 members...Within 90 of this Agreement entry into force, the Federation...shall appoint four members, and the Republika Srpska two members...The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe...shall appoint the remaining members, who shall not be citizens of B&H or a neighbouring state and shall designate...a President of the Chamber."

After consultation with the Parties, the Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE appointed Ambassador Gret Haller of Switzerland as Ombudsperson for a non-renewable term of five years. Donna Gomian, an experienced American lawyer, is Deputy Ombudsperson, while Michael Ingledow, is the Ombudsperson's liaison.

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has appointed the following eight individuals to the Human Rights Chamber: Professor Rona Abay of Turkey; Professor Giovani Grasso of Denmark; Mr. Jakob Moller of Iceland; Professor Manfried Novak of Austria; Ms. Michelle Picard of France; Professor Dietrich Guido Rauschnig of Germany; Professor Adam Zelinski of Poland; and Professor Peter Germer of Denmark -- as President of the Chamber.

Republika Srpska has appointed the following: Professor Vitomir Popovic, of the Banja Luka Law Faculty; and Mr. Miodrag Pajic, lawyer and President of the Brcko Municipal Council.

The Federation appointed the following four individuals: Mr. Hasan Balic, Judge in the Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina; Mr. Mehmet Dekovic, also a judge in the Supreme Court; Mr. Zelimir Juka, a judge in the Constitutional Court of Bosnia-Hercegovina; and Vlatko Marotic, a lawyer.

Facilities, Staff and Expenses

Article 3 states: "(1)The commission shall have appropriate facilities and a professionally competent staff...(2) The salaries and expenses of the commission and its staff...shall be borne by Bosnia and Hercegovina...(3) The commission shall have its headquarters in Sarajevo...and have one additional office in the territory of the Federation and Republika Srpska..."

The Office of the Ombudsman has just acquired new offices after initially sharing its staff and offices with the Human Rights Chamber. It employs 15 people, 7 of whom are administrative staff. Its budget of $1 million has been set for the year, but it was provided not by Bosnia-Herzegovina but through a grant by the Swiss government.

The Ombudsman's Banja Luka office in Republika Srpska has not yet opened but it is expected to do so on July 1, 1996. Both offices will have two experienced international lawyers, two experienced domestic lawyers, and two deputies investigating cases on behalf of the Ombudsman. The three international lawyers are about to begin their work. The Office provides an extensive two-part training for its employees, with both procedural and substantive human rights training on actual case law.

Office space is currently a problem for the Human Rights Chamber, but it is expected to be resolved soon, when it will probably be located in the building of the Bosnian Presidency. The budget for the Chamber for this year has been provided by a grant of $1 million from the Danish government, which has pledged continued support beyond the first year. Lack of office space is the reason why there is only one person hired thus far, Ms. Zeljka Knezevic, the assistant to the Chamber's President.

Annex 7 - Refugees and Displaced Persons

Article 1 (1) states: "All refugees and displaced persons have the right freely to return to their homes of origin..."

According to UNHCR, there are 697,198 refugees in Europe and other countries, 661,474 in republics of former Yugoslavia, and 1,282,257 internally displaced persons.

According to UNHCR estimates, there have been approx. 70,000 spontaneous returns (25,000 to Mrkonjic Grad, 15,000 to Cazin / Velika Kladusa, 10,000 to Sarajevo, 20,000 throughout the Federation). According to the BH Ministry for Refugees, there have been between approx. 50,000 returns. The balance is zero, since there was almost an equal number of departures from homes (approx. 60,000 Serbs, prior to reintegration).

726 refugees have returned from abroad with UNHCR's assistance or knowledge. Of this number, 200 were men from Zepa who fled to Serbia proper, and were repatriated by UNHCR following months of detention, and 269 returned through a bilateral agreement (BH - Turkey).

The Parties have clearly failed to comply. Harassment, intimidation, persecution and discrimination on account of ethnic origin, religious belief and political opinion continue to take place unabated in both entities. Domestic legislation impeding the return of refugees (laws on abandoned property, army property, etc.) have not been repealed or amended. Written and verbal incitements of ethnic and religious hatred continue, especially in the RS. Most importantly, public and military officials responsible for serious violations of human rights, some of them indicted by the Tribunal, still remain in power. In short, steps taken to facilitate or permit the return of refugees and displaced persons fall far short of the expectations spelled out above.

Visits of DPs to their homes or areas of origin in RS and Croat-controlled parts of the Federation have been mainly unsuccessful. Despite agreements obtained in advance, reaction against the visits has often been violent. There has been visible involvement of civilian police in preventing the visits.

According to B&H TV, in an attempted visit to Doboj over the Muslim Bajram holidays, IFOR intervened in order to stop the local Serb radio from calling the population to "defend their homes from Muslim intruders". There is still no adequate monitoring and analysis of media in B&H, controlled by the ruling national parties.

A group of Muslims attempted to return to a village in RS (Zvornik municipality) and their repaired houses were mined and destroyed by Serb police and civilians (confirmed to Human Rights Watch by IPTF).

Following the expulsions of Muslims from Teslic, the local police commander was removed from his duties, which was the first instance of "...dismissal or transfer, as appropriate, of persons in military, paramilitary, and police forces, and other public servants, responsible for serious violations of the basic rights of persons belonging to ethnic or minority groups."

Additionally, movement of Srebrenica DPs to the reintegrated suburbs of Sarajevo, and the Government's failure to provide adequate security to the remaining Serb population, has resulted in further departures as well as the prevention of any returns.

The Parties have not complied with this provision. It is not sufficient to provide the ICRC with list of missing persons. The provision requires that the Parties provide information on the missing to help ascertain their fate. It should also be noted that apparently no one has the mandate over "post-Dayton detainees".

Several groups of individuals, some of them minors, are in detention after being arrested by police/military in the following areas: Zvornik 7, Zlatiste near Sarajevo 3, Kiseljak 2 civilians and 2 military, Fojnica 6 military. Most of these were a violation of the right to freedom of movement. Such incidents are not only a violation of DPA, but are counter-productive to the confidence-building process.

The commission was to be established within 90 days after DPA entered into force (see Article 9(1)). After some initial problems, the commission did convene its first meeting in mid-March. However, budgetary problems prevented the commission from becoming operational before mid-May. Since then, thanks in part to the intervention of ICG, the commission has hired its Executive Director and has been in the process of drafting its rules and regulations. It is expected that the commission will start processing claims by the end of June.

Annex 8 - commission to Preserve Ancient Monuments

Article 1 states: "The Parties hereby establish an independent commission to Preserve National Monuments..."

The commission has been set up under the Chairmanship of Professor Leon Tressouyre, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Paris, and consists of Simo Brda, Republika Srpska, Miroslav Pameta, formerly Vice-Minister of Culture of Herzeg-Bosna, Rizvan Begovic, Minister of Culture B&H, and Azedine Bechaouche, UNESCO. The commission met twice on 31 March and 7/8 May and will meet again in October. It is engaged in drawing up lists of monuments.

Annex 9: Bosnia and Herzegovina Public Corporations

Article 1(1) states: "The Parties hereby establish a commission on Public Corporations... to examine establishing Bosnia and Herzegovina Public Corporations to operate joint public facilities, such as for the operation of utilities, energy, postal and communication facilities, for the benefit of both Entities."

The commission has been established. In accordance with Article 1(2) it consists of five Members; two appointed by the Federation, one by the Republika Srpska, and two by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). One of the two latter has been appointed by the EBRD as the Chairman and is actually himself an EBRD representative. The first meeting of the commission was held on 18 April 1996.

At the first (and only) meeting of the commission on Public Corporations (see above) it was decided that a Transport Policy Working Group would be set up to prepare for the establishment of the Transportation Corporation. This Working Group is headed by a representative from the International Management Group and is operating. It is foreseen that the EBRD person in charge of dealing with Annex 9 will work on the actual establishment of the Transportation Corporation during the following two weeks. No agreement has been made on the initial operating budget for the Transportation Corporation yet and this is not expected to happen until the Corporation actually exists.

Annex 10 - Agreement on the Civilian Implementation of the Peace Settlement

The five articles of Annex 10 state in broad terms the duties of the High Representative with responsibility to the civilian implementation of the Peace Settlement and the means of coordinating and liaising between the High Representative and the considerable number of international organisations and agencies called upon to assist in the implementation. The key coordinating body, the Joint Civilian commission, charged by the High Representative, has been established, as have a plethora of other bodies, to promote coordination.

The office of the High Representative got off to a slow start and he was criticised for this at the time. The office still suffers from a lack of available resources. It is still appointing staff. However, coordination and liaison arrangements have improved considerably recently. It is too early to make judgements as to the impact of many of the civilian organisations and agencies required to assist the High Representative. As with other aspects of the implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement, the fact that Republika Srpska refuses to accept that it has subsidiary status to that of the State of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and therefore does not qualify, for example, for donations via the World Bank, causes difficulties.

Annex 11 - Agreement on the International Police Task Force

General

Article 1 of the Annex repeats a statement made in both Annexes 1 and 4 which outlines the responsibility of the Parties to provide a safe and secure environment within their respective jurisdictions - this they have not done. Within this framework, the IPTF has been successful in carrying out its mandate of assistance to police agencies despite resource shortages and delays in the arrival of competent personnel.

This program is underway and is running successfully within resource limitations. Police forces are being streamlined: the Federation has agreed to reduce its number of uniformed police from 20,000 to 11,500. Although details are not yet available, indications are that the RS will also reduce its numbers considerably.

Incidents of human rights or other abuses are to be reported, investigated or handled as necessary by the IPTF. In order to carry out this demand upon their services and bearing in mind the fact that the IPTF is unarmed, a close working relationship has been established between it and IFOR: the latter has agreed to place forces on call as necessary to assist the IPTF in the performance of these duties and to provide it with a level of protection. This co-operation is working well, especially in the elimination of unauthorised check points.

[Bosnia Menu]

[ICG Home]

[Contact ICG]