This bulletin contains information about Amnesty International’s main concerns in Europe between January and June 2003. Not every country in Europe is reported on: only those where there were significant developments in the period covered by the bulletin, or where AI took specific action.

A number of individual country reports have been issued on the concerns featured in this bulletin. References to these are made under the relevant country entry. In addition, more detailed information about particular incidents or concerns may be found in Urgent Actions and News Service Items issued by Amnesty International.

This bulletin is published by Amnesty International every six months. References to previous bulletins in the text are:


AI Index EUR 01/01/98 Concerns in Europe: July - December 1997
AI Index EUR 01/02/98 Concerns in Europe: January - June 1998
AI Index EUR 01/01/99 Concerns in Europe: July - December 1998
AI Index EUR 01/02/99 Concerns in Europe: January - June 1999
AI Index EUR 01/01/00 Concerns in Europe: July - December 1999
AI Index EUR 01/03/00 Concerns in Europe: January - June 2000
AI Index EUR 01/001/2001 Concerns in Europe: July - December 2000
AI Index EUR 01/003/2001 Concerns in Europe: January-June 2001
AI Index EUR 01/002/2002 Concerns in Europe: July - December 2001
AI Index EUR 01/007/2002 Concerns in Europe: January - June 2002
AI Index EUR 01/002/2003 Concerns in Europe: July - December 2002


The European Union must address its human rights deficit

In its research, reporting and campaigning, Amnesty International consistently seeks to back its work on individual cases and countries by making use of international standards and mechanisms. At the regional level, the main resource for AI’s human rights work in Europe has always been the human rights framework of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court developed since the 1950s by the Council of Europe. That framework remains a key tool, but the regional picture is changing. Over the past decade, the European Union (EU) has emerged as a prominent actor in its own right in the field of human rights, creating a highly dynamic political and legal context for human rights advocacy not just in external relations but also internally. Consequently AI’s work at the EU is becoming increasingly important.

As it evolved from an economic into a political entity, the EU has developed its own distinct human rights profile. This showed mainly in the context of the EU’s relations with third countries, but the adoption of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2000 and the European Parliament’s annual reports on human rights in the EU reflected the basic notion that human rights should begin at home. Now, with the European Union about to expand its membership to 25, and with a new constitutional treaty being negotiated which may incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the landscape of human rights in Europe is set to change further, and significantly. However, the EU is as yet slow in coming to grips with that.

The EU aspires to a leadership role in the field of human rights, but at a time of great international turbulence and profound internal debate it is confronted with increasing challenges. The Iraq crisis has left it divided and vulnerable on the world stage, impairing its confidence and its effectiveness in matters of values and principles. At the start of the current Italian Presidency, Amnesty International warned that the EU had lost its grip on the human rights agenda. In external relations, it has been unable if not unwilling to confront the challenges of insecurity and formulate a coherent response to those violating human rights on the pretext of "fighting terrorism". In the domestic sphere, the pursuit of the "area of freedom, security and justice" has also been dominated by concern for security, by emphasis on control rather than on protection.

As regards human rights standards within Europe, the EU’s human rights policy will remain fundamentally flawed as long as it turns a blind eye to human rights violations within its own borders. Amnesty International’s regular reports on human rights abuses in Europe such as this biannual Concerns in Europe Bulletin have consistently included the majority of EU member states as well as candidate countries, showing a common and disturbing pattern of abuse by law enforcement officials. At a public hearing in the European Parliament in April on the subject of respect for fundamental rights within the EU, it became clear that the EU could no longer afford to hide behind national responsibility or lack of competence. Addressing this human rights deficit must be a matter of priority. The first report presented by the network of independent experts on human rights in the EU was an important step towards systematic monitoring and reporting. However, the ultimate goal must be to establish adequate accountability at EU level for human rights observance in EU member states, present and future.

The overriding preoccupation with security has accelerated EU processes towards harmonization of legislation in the field of criminal law, and towards increased police and judicial cooperation. The consultative process launched by the European Commission's Green Paper will be decisive in the codification of minimum procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the EU.
Meanwhile the EU’s focus on asylum and immigration remained dominated by the drive for control. Negotiations on the Common European Asylum System continued under great political pressure which may lead member states to adopt common standards that fall short of the Geneva Convention and other relevant principles of international refugee and human rights law. The lengths to which the EU was prepared to go to accommodate political pressures manifested itself in a disturbing manner in the EU Afghanistan Return Plan that is to facilitate and even enforce the return of refugees and asylum seekers to a country that is by no means safe. Similarly, Amnesty International is concerned about protection obligations being diluted in the EU’s increasing efforts to engage with countries of origin and transit to stem illegal immigration.

The past years have seen a significant effort on the part of the EU to make its human rights policies in relation to third countries more effective. Progress in the past decade and especially in the last few years has been quite remarkable. New sets of guidelines on torture and on human rights dialogues were drawn up, and the Community’s co-operation program has been reorganized and is now based on a framework of priorities. However the greatest challenge, still, is to put human rights into practice, and to be more effective. [Contribution by AI’s EU office]

Leadership is required now more than ever to restore and reshape a proper human rights agenda in the EU. Amnesty International believes that there is a need to revitalize a clear perspective on the essential values that should be at the heart of all the Union’s policies to ensure that the EU strikes the right balance between security and human rights; between control and protection; between the standards it demands of others and those it is prepared to apply to itself.



Police torture and ill-treatment

The report of the Council of Europe’s European Committee for the Prevention of Torture or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on a visit by a CPT delegation to Albania in October 2001 was published, with the government’s permission, in January, together with the government’s response. The CPT report contained detailed allegations of torture of detainees by police supported by medical evidence. In its response the Ministry of Public Order did not deny the CPT’s findings, but described various remedial measures that had since been taken.

In April the Albanian People’s Advocate (Ombudsperson) reported that in 2002 his Office had received more complaints against police officers than in the previous year and that 70 of these were complaints about police ill-treatment; following investigation the Office found that 15 of these were justified, 20 remained to be investigated, and the others were either invalid or did not fall within the Office’s remit. On the basis of the Ombudsperson’s recommendations, disciplinary measures were taken against 12 police officers and prosecutors opened investigations against 24 police officers. The People’s Advocate commented, however, that investigations were sometimes delayed or perfunctory, or were terminated for reasons that did not accord with Albanian law. The report concluded: "There is a lack of will and there are delays by the Prosecution in carrying out swift and objective investigations when the accused are police officers."

There continued to be reports of police ill-treatment. On 3 January Gazmend Tahirllari died due to police ill-treatment (see below). On 14 May police officers arrested Ndoc Vuksani, aged 37, and took him to Shkodër police station where they allegedly beat him brutally, while questioning him in connection with a crime, before releasing him six hours later for lack of evidence. A certificate issued by a medical forensic expert the following day found that his left arm was fractured and he had bruises on his left shoulder. This certificate and photographs of the injuries were reportedly sent to the Shkodër military procurator, together with a formal complaint, but AI was not aware whether an investigation was opened.
On 26 May there were demonstrations in Tirana by former political prisoners and other victims of political persecution under communist rule in support of their demands for compensation. Police intervened and allegedly beat and injured a number of protesters. Among them were: Sali Bujari aged 68, from Korça district; Tefta Kolaci, a woman in her fifties, also from Korça; and Uran Metko, a member of parliament. During a similar demonstration on 15 May police are also alleged to have ill-treated a number of demonstrators, including Agim Musta, aged 71. The police authorities, however, denied that police ill-treated demonstrators, although it appeared that there was photographic evidence in support of at least some of these allegations.

An investigation of a "disappearance" is re-opened.

On 21 May three former employees of ShIK, the National Information Service (secret police), were arrested in Tirana on charges of "abduction" and "torture with serious consequences" in connection with the "disappearance" in 1995 of two men - Remzi Hoxha, an Albanian who had earlier moved from Macedonia to Albania, and Armand Loshaj, an Albanian from Kosovo - and the torture of Ziso Kristopulli. Their arrest followed a request by the Ombudsperson to reactivate this case. In May it was reported that the Prosecutor General’s Office had appointed a group of experts to trace the supposed place of burial of Remzi Hoxha and, possibly, of Armand Loshaj, in the area of Lezha. Arrest warrants were also issued for six to nine other ShIK officers, most of whom had allegedly left the country and settled in the UK.

Trial proceedings against police officers

On 17 March Korça district court sentenced in absentia police officer Lorenc Balliu to 16 years’ imprisonment for the murder of Gazmend Tahirllari; five co-defendants, also police officers, were sentenced to between three years and four months’ imprisonment. Gazmend Tahirllari was arrested on 3 January and died in Korça hospital the following day. Although initial medical findings concluded that his death was caused by excessive alchohol, his family, supported by the Ombudsperson, insisted on the exhumation of his body and a forensic examination by experts from Tirana, who found that his death had been caused by kicks or punches to his head.

On 13 June Elbasan district court sentenced police officer Ardian Bello to six months and 15 days’ imprisonment, for causing "light injury" to Xhevdet Cangu who was reportedly hospitalized due to the ill-treatment.

On 14 May the trial started of two police officers, Edmond Koseni and Xhafer Elezi, charged with "torture" and "arbitrary acts" in connection with the severe ill-treatment of Naim Pulaku in Elbasan in December 2001 when Edmond Koseni was chief of police of Elbasan district (see AI Index: EUR 01/002/2002). The defendants reportedly denied the charges against them. The trial had not finished by the end of June.
Investigations in several other cases resulted in police officers being charged with having ill-treated detainees. In April, chief of Elbasan district police, Niko Brahimaj, was suspended from office, and placed under investigation after Afrim Saliu complained that he had beaten and injured him.

Conditions of detention

Despite repeated protests by detainees and by human rights organizations, the conditions of detainees in prisons and police stations were often very poor. The conditions of over 1000 people held in police stations were particularly harsh and sometimes amounted to cruel and inhuman treatment. Overcrowding in prisons meant that police stations accommodated some 400 convicted prisoners, who should by law have been transferred to prisons, as well about 900 detainees held on remand. Children (aged 14 to 17) were often held in police cells together with adults, also illegally. A new prison with capacity for 800 prisoners was built with Italian funding in


Peqin, but since it was designed primarily to accommodate repatriated Albanians convicted in Italy, said to number well over 800, it seemed unlikely to solve the problem of prison overcrowding in Albania.

In April AI delegates visited Shkodër police station, with a maximum capacity of 50 detainees, and found there were 98 detainees including convicted persons, and children sharing cells with adults, some of whom had been held there since 2000. In some cells the overcrowding was so acute that the inmates had to sleep in turns. In June some 40 detainees reportedly went on hunger-strike in protest against conditions and alleged ill-treatment. The AI delegation found similar overcrowding and poor conditions in Lezha and Laç police stations. Earlier warnings that overcrowding and extremely unhygienic conditions would lead to epidemics proved true - in April there was an outbreak of scabies amongst detainees in Vlora police station, with a maximum capacity for 40 detainees, which in February reportedly held 110 detainees. Although police sources claimed to have improved hygiene, by June about 80 per cent of detainees were infected, according to a press report. Acute overcrowding was also reported in other police stations around the country.

Trafficking of women and children

The trafficking of women and children continued. In March the press reported that nine people had been arrested and an investigation had been opened in Korça into a child-trafficking network. According to the press it was suspected that some 10 children, including babies, had been trafficked from Korça region to Greece and Turkey, and that some of these had possibly been trafficked for their organs. In April Artan Shkurti, a police officer, was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for trafficking a 19-year-old woman for prostitution. In June three men and a woman were arrested in Korça on a charge of trafficking two children to Greece for exploitation as beggars or cheap labour, while four men were arrested in Durrës on a charge of selling a child to Italy. In


February Durrës District Court sentenced five men to between five and 15 years’ imprisonment for trafficking women for prostitution.

In June a US State Department Report on Trafficking in Persons stated that the Government of Albania did not meet the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, but was making "significant efforts to do so". However, figures for prosecutions showed that the conviction rate in cases involving charges of trafficking was very low. According to the report: "In 2002, 144 trafficking cases were sent to trial by the General Prosecutor’s office and 17 people were convicted. The Ministry of Public Order investigated 31 cases of police involvement in trafficking during 2002, with at least one officer convicted but given a minimal sentence."

The low conviction rate was partly due to the reluctance of witnesses to testify in such cases for fear of reprisal. However, in June an OSCE-facilitated agreement on witness protection was signed by the Albanian authorities and a number of international agencies, pending the adoption of witness protection legislation. It was hoped that this would enable courts/prosecutors to secure convictions.

Abolition of the death penalty even in time of war

In May Albania signed Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for the total abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances. It had ratified Protocol No.6, abolishing the death penalty for ordinary crimes, in September 2000, after which the death penalty was replaced by life imprisonment. The last death sentence was carried out in 1992.

Albania also signed, in May, Protocol No.12 on the General Prohibition of Discrimination.

Ratification of impunity agreement with the United States of America

On 19 June Albania ratified a bilateral agreement with the USA committing it not to surrender US nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes to the new International Criminal Court (ICC). Earlier, AI had urged the Albanian parliament not to ratify the agreement (see AI Index: EUR 05/002/2003).


Unequal age of consent

On 9 January the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of three gay men who had filed complaints against Austria after being convicted under Article 209 of the Austrian Criminal Code in the period 1996-1997. The latter article, which was repealed in July 2002, set the age of consent for gay men at 18 years of age as opposed to 14 for heterosexuals and lesbians. Gay men convicted of violating Article 209 faced up to five years’ imprisonment. In the cases of L. and V. v. Austria and S.L. v. Austria the European Court of Human Rights ruled that in convicting all three men under Article 209 Austria had violated Articles 14 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), namely the prohibition of discrimination and the right to respect for private life. The Court awarded the three men compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. Austria chose not to contest the ruling of the Court.

Human Rights Advisory Board

In a statement issued on 4 March the Human Rights Advisory Board (HRAB) announced the reinstatement of the Turkish born human rights activist Bülent Öztoplu (see AI Index: EUR 01/002/2003). He had been suspended from one of the HRAB’s six fact-finding commissions shortly after his arrest on 12 September 2001 on an outstanding international arrest warrant relating to an incident alleged to have occurred in Mannheim, Germany in 1984. Bülent Öztoplu’s exclusion from the HRAB’s fact-finding commission was a source of considerable controversy, since not only did it appear to infringe his presumption of innocence, but senior figures within the HRAB and the Ministry of the Interior were alleged to have agreed to block his reinstatement, even if he were found innocent.

Bülent Öztoplu was eventually exonerated of all charges by a court in Mannheim in December 2002. Several months previously, in October 2002, Vienna’s Independent Administrative Tribunal also found that police had insulted, degraded and excessively treated the human rights activist while arresting him in September 2001 and in doing so had violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Allegations of police ill-treatment

In the period under review Amnesty International was informed that 42-year-old Oleksandr Galiakhmetov had allegedly been ill-treated by a police officer during questioning in December 2001. Oleksandr Galiakhmetov, a Ukrainian national, was arrested on suspicion of blackmail by the Vienna Criminal Investigation Department on the afternoon of 5 December 2001. He was then taken to the Federal Police Department in Vienna for questioning. Oleksandr Galiakhmetov alleged that his request for a lawyer was refused and he was subsequently questioned from 5.15pm to 12.30am.

The alleged ill-treatment reportedly occurred at the end of his questioning when he refused to sign a statement. His refusal was made on the basis that there had been language problems with an interpreter who was present during the questioning and that he was uncertain about the accuracy of the statement. A police officer allegedly suddenly hit him on the back of his head so hard that Oleksandr Galiakhmetov’s head hit a table-top and continued hitting him on the back of his head and on the left side of the rib-cage until he fell to the ground and lost consciousness. After the alleged incident, Oleksandr Galiakhmetov was transferred to Josefstadt prison in Vienna on 6 December 2001.

After his arrival at Josefstadt prison, Oleksandr Galiakhmetov complained to the prison doctor about severe pain in the left side of his rib-cage. He stated that on 7 December 2001 he showed the doctor the place where he had pain but that the doctor told him to dress after seeing a large haematoma on his chest. No treatment was reportedly given. It was not until 20 February 2002, following Oleksandr Galiakhmetov’s repeated complaints that an X-ray was taken and it was found that his sixth and seventh ribs were broken. A medical report stated that the fracture could have been caused by a blow to Oleksandr Galiakhmetov’s body.

In mid-February Amnesty International wrote to Minister of the Interior, Ernst Strasser, urging an impartial and thorough investigation into the incident and requesting to be informed of its findings. The Austrian authorities informed the organization in a letter in mid-June that an investigation had been initiated into the incident after Oleksandr Galiakhmetov’s lawyer had lodged a complaint about his client’s alleged ill-treatment. The police officers who questioned Oleksandr Galiakhmetov denied that he was ill-treated and the interpreter rejected the veracity of the accusation. Oleksandr Galiakhmetov was also unable to identify the accused police officer in a police identity parade, resulting in the criminal investigation into the incident being discontinued. The Austrian authorities did, however, confirm that Oleksandr Galiakhmetov’s request for a lawyer during his questioning had been refused as was "the usual practice at that time". Austria’s Administrative Court later ruled that this practice should be discontinued and detainees be allowed access to a lawyer during questioning (see below).

On 24 April Vienna’s Independent Administrative Tribunal found that police officers had ill-treated a man during a demonstration in Vienna on 13 April 2002. The man had taken part in a counter-demonstration to a far right-wing meeting held on Vienna’s Heldenplatz in the afternoon of 13 April. During the counter-demonstration demonstrators clashed with police after they attempted to force their way through police lines in order to disrupt the far right-wing meeting. Several of the protestors threw stones and other objects at the police. The police responded to the stone-throwing by deploying a water-cannon against the demonstrators. At approximately 4pm the police using force began to clear the area outside Heldenplatz occupied by the counter-demonstrators, during which the man was ill-treated by two police officers.

At the time of the incident the man was standing outside a metal fence surrounding Heldenplatz. After reportedly being soaked by water-cannon the man had repeatedly verbally protested against the police’s use of water-cannon and had banged a flagpole against the nearby metal fencing. Two police officers approached the man from behind and knocked the flagpole out of his hand. The Tribunal found that "without apparent necessity" the police officers knocked the man to the ground by using their batons and kicking his legs away from under him. In doing so, the man received blows to his head and upper-body. The police officers then kicked and hit the man as he lay on the ground. The man was then taken into police custody and later transferred to Rossauer Länder police detention centre, from where he was released shortly before 1am the next day. A medical examination of the man, undertaken on 14 April 2002, revealed that he sustained large bruising to his left upper arm, left thigh and pelvis and various abrasions and swelling on other parts of his body.

The police officers attempted to justify the arrest, stating that they believed that the man had been a "ringleader" among those demonstrators who had thrown stones and other objects at the police. However, the Tribunal found that the available evidence, including the man’s injuries, indicated that the police officers’ use of force had been disproportionate and therefore unlawful. Video evidence shown during the hearings had also depicted police officers shoving, hitting and kicking another detainee as he was led through police lines into custody.

Rights in police detention

In mid-January Austria’s Administrative Court of Justice ruled that detainees must be informed of their right to a lawyer during any police action lasting longer than one hour, including detainees who voluntarily allow themselves to be questioned by the police. The ruling, however, still fell short of recommendations made by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) during its past visits to Austria. The CPT recommended that persons suspected of a crime should have the right of access to legal counsel from the very start of their arrest.


The United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights

The UN Commission on Human Rights expressed concern about the human rights situation in Belarus at its 54th session in Geneva. Resolution 2003/14, adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights on 17 April, expressed deep concern about a number of issues, including "credible sources - implicating senior government officials of the Government of Belarus in the forced disappearance and/or summary execution of three political opponents of the incumbent authorities and of a journalist" and reports of arbitrary arrest and detention. It also expressed deep concern about persistent reports of harassment of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), opposition political parties and individuals engaged in opposition activities and the independent media. The UN Commission urged Belarus to address these concerns by investigating fully and impartially all cases of forced "disappearance", summary execution and torture (see below) and by bringing the actions of the police into conformity with Belarus’ international human rights obligations. It also urged Belarus to establish the independence of the judiciary and end impunity, release journalists and other individuals imprisoned for politically motivated reasons, and cease the harassment of NGOs and political parties.

"Disappearances"

In the face of widespread international criticism that Belarus has failed to investigate the "disappearances" of three opposition figures and a journalist the Belarusian authorities took the unprecedented step of discontinuing criminal investigations into all four cases (See AI Index: EUR 49/013/2002). On 22 January the relatives of Yury Zakharenko, Viktor Gonchar and Anatoly Krasovsky were informed of the decision by officials heading the investigation into the "disappearances". No reason was reportedly given for the decision. A delegation of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) Parliamentary Assembly Working Group, which visited Minsk from 5 to 7 February, stated that it was "unhappy to learn that the investigations into the cases of disappeared politicians have been suspended". Similarly, on 27 February Svetlana Zavadskaya, the wife of the missing journalist, Dmitry Zavadsky, learned that the investigation into her husband’s "disappearance" had been terminated, reportedly on the basis that the authorities "had been unable to locate him". The families of the men immediately appealed against the decisions, albeit unsuccessfully by the end of June.

Press freedom

During its January part-session the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted Recommendation 1589 (2003) Freedom of expression in the media in Europe. Belarus featured repeatedly in Recommendation 1589 as an example of a country where press freedom is frequently violated. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has repeatedly expressed concern about this and other human rights related issues in the country (see AI Index: EUR 01/002/2003).

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe expressed concern about various forms of legal harassment, such as defamation suits or disproportionately high fines which "bring media outlets to the brink of extinction". Belarus was among several countries cited by the Parliamentary Assembly as examples where such practices exist. It urged member states to stop immediately all forms of legal and economic harassment of dissenting media, a problem which assumed disturbing proportions in Belarus in the first half of 2003 and resulted in the closure of several independent newspapers.

One of Belarus’ largest regional independent weekly newspapers, Novaya Gazeta Smorgoni, located in the western Belarusian town of Smorgon, was forced to close on 3 February after Grodno Regional Economic Court suspended for three months the business license of its owner, Romuald Ulan. The latter had reportedly been summoned to court in late December 2002 after local government officials had filed complaints against him for violating various tax, fire and employment regulations. The newspaper, which had been critical of local government, had in the past reportedly experienced other forms of harassment from local officialdom. By the end of June Romuald Ulan’s right to engage in economic activities had not been reinstated.

The system of official warnings, administered by the Ministry of Information and issued for the most spurious of reasons, was also regularly employed in the period under review to keep in check Belarus’ independent press. It was reported that the satirical weekly newspaper Navinki received two official warnings from the Ministry of Information on 21 and 22 May and was thereafter suspended for a three-month period. One of the warnings was reportedly issued after the newspaper had printed a caricature of President Alyaksandr Lukashenka earlier in the year. The editor of Navinki, Pavel Kanavalchyk, was fined the equivalent of US$700 by Moskovsky District Court in Minsk on 20 May for publishing the offending caricature.

One of the highest profile newspapers forced to close by the authorities was the Minsk-based Belaruskaya Delovaya Gazeta. On 29 May Belaruskaya Delovaya Gazeta and its monthly supplement, Dlya Sluzebnogo Polzovania, were forced to close for three months after receiving three warnings from the authorities for alleged violations of the press law. The newspapers were alleged to have slandered President Alyaksandr Lukashenka and have reportedly commented on the ongoing trials of several businessmen in a series of articles. The OSCE’s Representative on Freedom of the Media requested urgent clarification for the closure of the newspapers on 30 May, stating "... no special protection should be afforded to public officials, including the president ... Conversely, public officials should learn to exercise a greater level of tolerance to criticism, including from the media, than ordinary citizens."

In early June Belaruskaya Delovaya Gazeta successfully appeared under the mastheads of the newspapers Ekho and Salidarnasts, albeit only for two issues until the authorities stopped the newspapers going to print. As a result Ekho was suspended by the authorities for three months, while the director of the Chyrvonaya Zorka publishing house, which had printed the newspapers, was dismissed from his post. Disturbingly, a fifth independent newspaper, Predprini-matelskaya Gazeta, received a second official warning from the Ministry of Information in late June and was suspended for three months after reportedly printing an article about the dismissal of the director of the Chyrvonaya Zorka publishing house, Vladimir Tselesh.

Prisoners of conscience

On 4 March a court in Asipovichy ruled that convicted Pagonia editor Nikolai Markevich could return to his home town of Grodno, located on Belarus’ western border with Poland. He had approximately one year remaining of an 18-month sentence of "restricted freedom". The ruling was made on the condition that Nikolai Markevich pays 15 per cent of his income to the state. Similarly, on 21 March a court in Zhlobin ruled that Pagonia staff writer Pavel Mozheiko also be allowed to return to Grodno. He had served approximately six months of a 12-month sentence of "restricted freedom". Both men had been convicted by a court in Grodno of slandering President Alyaksandr Lukashenka in June 2002 (see AI Index: EUR 01/002/2003).

At the end of June a third journalist, editor of the newspaper Rabochy Viktor Ivashkevich, remained in detention in Baranavichy, 140km south-west of the capital Minsk. He was sentenced in September 2002 by a court in Minsk to a two-year term of "restricted freedom" after being convicted of slandering the President in a newspaper article in the pre-election period in 2001. Earlier in June 2003, however, his two-year sentence of "restricted freedom" was reduced by one year, bringing forward the date of his release to 16 December 2003.

Recommendation 1589 (2003) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe urged the release of all three men (see above). It stated that it was "unacceptable in a democracy that journalists be sent to prison for their work" and urged Belarus to "free all journalists imprisoned for their legitimate professional work and to abolish legislation that makes journalistic freedom of expression subject to criminal prosecution". Belarus’ human rights community has repeatedly called for the removal of the relevant articles from the Belarusian Criminal Code which criminalize libel and insult.

Detention of protestors

The Belarusian authorities continued to resort to repressive measures to stifle peaceful protest and numerous people were deprived of their liberty solely for exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly. In January and February detentions occurred sporadically in Minsk and Belarus’ regions resulting in peaceful protestors serving prison sentences of between two and 10 days for participating in unsanctioned meetings and demonstrations.

The month of March, however, saw a concerted large-scale clamp-down by the Belarusian authorities on peaceful protest. The year's first large-scale protest action, "People's March: For Better Life", took place in Minsk on 12 March and resulted in a wave of arrests. The organizers of the demonstration - former Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Sannikov, Charter-97 human rights activists Ludmila Gryaznova and Dmitry Bondarenko, and small business leader Leonid Malakhov - were subsequently sentenced to 15 days' imprisonment later the same day. A fifth person, Valery Levanevsky, was convicted and sentenced to 15 days’ imprisonment for his participation in the protest action on 2 April. Vice-Chairman of the Belarusian Popular Front, Yury Khadyka, also served a 15-day prison sentence in mid-June for his role in the demonstration. Amnesty International considered all six protestors to be prisoners of conscience.

At least 50 peaceful protestors were detained in Minsk city centre on 23 March during an unsanctioned demonstration staged to protest against President Alyaksandr Lukashenka's government and to coincide with the 85th anniversary of the creation of the first Republic of Belarus. Although a sizeable number of the detainees were released later the same day, 14 demonstrators were reportedly detained overnight at the notoriously bleak Okrestina detention facility in Minsk. On 24 March Leninsky District Court in Minsk sentenced 11 demonstrators to periods of imprisonment between three and 15 days. Another participant received a seven-day sentence on 27 March for his part in the protest action.

On 25 March more peaceful protestors were detained during an unofficial demonstration in Minsk. Sovetsky District Court sentenced eight of the participants to periods of imprisonment of between five and 15 days on 26 March. A significant number of the detainees belonged to the ZUBR youth human rights and pro-democracy movement. The Belarusian human rights organization, Spring-96, calculated that as a result of the demonstrations on 12, 23 and 25 March at least 24 demonstrators had been imprisoned, while six were fined and eight warned.

Death penalty

On 13 May the UN Human Rights Committee announced two rulings on individual complaints of violations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In the cases Bondarenko v. Belarus and Lyashkevich v. Belarus the mothers of two men, who had been executed after being convicted of murder, alleged that their sons had been executed in secret and no information was provided to them on either the time of the executions or on the location of the burial site of their sons. One of the men, Anton Bondarenko, who was executed on 24 July 1999, had been the subject of Amnesty International urgent membership action (see AI Index: POL 10/01/00). The Human Rights Committee ruled that the secrecy surrounding the date of execution and the place of burial, and the refusal to hand over the bodies for burial "had the effect of intimidating or punishing families intentionally leaving them in a state of uncertainty and mental distress" and amounted to inhuman treatment of the families, in violation of Article 7 of the ICCPR.

On 17 April the Chairman of the Belarusian Constitutional Court, Gigory Vasilevich, reportedly stated that Belarus’ population was not yet ready to accept the abolition of the death penalty, even though he personally regarded abolition as inevitable. He was quoted by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting as stating: "Abolition of capital punishment is inevitable. This is underpinned by the country's desire to join the Council of Europe." The latter body has repeatedly informed Belarus that a moratorium on the death penalty is one of several preconditions for the reinstatement of Belarus’ guest status at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.


Alleged police ill-treatment

In May the United Nations (UN) Committee against Torture examined Belgium’s initial report on its implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture). In April, prior to that examination, AI submitted a briefing to the Committee which focused on the organization’s concerns relating to ill-treatment by law enforcement officers in Belgium, illustrated by individual case histories.

A 60-page public document issued by AI in May (Belgium before the UN Committee against Torture: alleged police ill-treatment, AI Index: EUR 14/001/2003) contained a summary of the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations, together with the full text of AI’s briefing to the Committee. It also included a set of key recommendations which AI called on the incoming Belgian government to address as a matter of priority, aimed at remedying inadequacies in safeguards against police ill-treatment and preventing ill-treatment by police officers, and reflecting the Committee’s recommendations in this area.

AI expressed concern about the numerous allegations received in recent years that law enforcement officers have subjected people -- a high proportion of them foreign and non-Caucasian Belgian nationals -- to physical and psychological ill-treatment, including racist abuse, and have used excessive force.

The briefing pointed out that the cases of police ill-treatment reported to AI fell into two broad categories:
- those occurring on the streets and in police stations and concerning individuals intercepted or arrested on suspicion of having committed, or being about to commit an offence;
- those concerning unauthorized immigrants and rejected asylum seekers at various stages of the deportation process.

AI focused its attention on:
- the absence of a number of fundamental safeguards against ill-treatment in police custody, namely that people deprived of their liberty have no right of access to a lawyer upon arrest and during questioning, no right to have relatives or a third party notified of the fact and place of their detention and no explicit rights of access to a doctor, including one of their own choice, nor to be informed of their rights;
- improper or abusive use of force in the context of public demonstrations;
- cruel and dangerous methods of restraint during forcible deportation operations by air and the absence of an independent monitoring body to oversee the treatment of foreigners held in airport transit zones and during deportation;
- the detention of unaccompanied minors in centres for unauthorized immigrants and asylum- seekers, and inadequate arrangements for their safety and protection on return to their country of origin;
- difficulties faced by people wishing to lodge complaints about police ill-treatment;
- obstacles to prompt and impartial investigations into complaints of police ill-treatment and to the bringing to justice of those responsible for such human rights violations.

In its consideration of the report submitted by Belgium, the Committee expressed a number of concerns which reflected some of AI’s own concerns in Belgium.

The findings of the (UN) Committee against Torture

The Committee welcomed, amongst other things, Belgium’s recognition of the Committee’s competence to receive individual complaints under Articles 21 and 22 of the Convention against Torture and the adoption, in June 2002, of a law introducing the specific crimes of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment into the Belgian Penal Code. However, the Committee raised a number of reasons for concern and issued a series of relevant recommendations.

It recommended that Belgium expressly guarantee in national legislation the right of all people, whether subject to judicial or administrative arrest, to have access to a lawyer, to a doctor of their own choice, to be informed of their rights in a language they understand and to inform their relatives promptly of their detention.

AI welcomed as a positive development the Belgian delegation’s indication, during the Committee’s questioning, that the government had established an inter-departmental working group, to examine aspects of police arrest, with the aim of remedying problem areas, including those linked to the rights of detainees in police custody.

The Committee expressed concern about cases of excessive use of force during demonstrations and during the deportation of foreigners and recommended that Belgium ensure that guidelines on the use of force in such circumstances conform in full with the requirements of the Convention against Torture. It also recommended that Belgium proceed immediately with investigations in cases of alleged use of excessive force by public officials.

The Committee called on Belgium to ensure that all officials committing acts of degrading treatment be liable to criminal charges, even if it were to be established that they were acting on the orders of a superior, and to specify clearly in its legislation that evidence obtained under torture is automatically inadmissible in Belgian courts.

The Committee was also concerned, among other things, about:
- the possibility of prolonging the detention of foreigners "for as long as they refuse to collaborate with their repatriation" and recommended in this context that a maximum limit be placed on the length of time foreigners subject to deportation orders might be held;
- the possibility that unaccompanied foreign minors might be placed in detention, "sometimes for lengthy periods", and recommended that specific legislation be drawn up concerning unaccompanied minors, taking the best interests of the child into account;
- reports of asylum-seekers being formally released but transferred to the transit zone of the national airport and then left, unable to leave it and without assistance, and recommended that Belgium ensure the follow-up treatment of asylum-seekers when released.

In addition the Committee indicated its concern that foreigners, even those long resident in Belgium, who were deemed to have significantly disturbed public order or national security, might be deported from Belgium, even though the majority of their personal ties lay in Belgium. It recommended that so-called ‘extreme urgency’ appeals for asylum and also appeals for annulment of deportation orders, filed by any foreigner subject to an expulsion decision and claiming that he/she risked being subjected to torture in the destination country, should have a "suspensive character."

The Committee also expressed concern about a legislative reform in April 2003 affecting the exercise of universal jurisdiction by the Belgian courts over grave violations of international humanitarian law, insofar as the reform allowed the Belgian government, in certain cases (where the victim was not Belgian and where the accused’s own country was deemed to offer a fair and effective avenue to justice), to decide that a Belgian judge did not have jurisdiction over complaints relating to such violations and to refer the complaint to that country for decision on any further action. The Committee urged that Belgium ensure respect for the independence of the Belgian courts from the executive power in the context of the exercise of universal jurisdiction over grave violations of international humanitarian law.

The Committee raised a number of concerns relating to the prison system and issued a series of recommendations, highlighting the urgent need to modernize Belgium’s penitentiary legislation and the need, amongst other things, for increased efforts to combat inter-prisoner violence; for isolation of detained juvenile offenders to be imposed exceptionally and for a strictly limited period of time and for more efficient and effective external supervision of prison establishments, allowing the possibility of regular visits by non-governmental organizations.


General and political developments

New and multi-ethnic state and Republika Srpska governments were appointed in mid-January, headed respectively by Adnan Terziæ, and Dragan Mikereviæ. In February a new Federation government was sworn in, led by Ahmet HadžipaŠiæ. In April Mirko Šaroviæ, the Bosnian Serb member of the state Presidency resigned after a judicial investigation discovered evidence of his involvement in an illegal arms trade arrangement between a Bosnian Serb arms company and the government of Iraq. He was replaced by Borislav Paravac.

Under supervision of the international community, the comprehensive overhaul of the country’s intelligence services continued, with the purpose of abolishing the entities’ secret services and establishing a state intelligence and security agency. This agency would be tasked with combating organized crime and corruption, and eventually take responsibility for initiating criminal investigations into war crimes committed during the 1992-1995 armed conflict.

The integrity and professionalism of those in charge of the entity security and intelligence services had been challenged by repeated reports that they were operating outside the law and civilian control mechanisms. In the Federation, police opened a criminal investigation in April against Ivan VukŠiæ the acting director of the Federal intelligence and security service, for his alleged involvement in attacks against international personnel during their audits of the Hercegovaèka banka in April 2001 (see AI Index: EUR 01/003/2001). He subsequently resigned. Meanwhile, another state body which had been set up under the auspices of OHR in late 2002, the State Agency for Protection and Information, was reportedly understaffed and marginalized by the entities’ intelligence services.

In January, several judges and prosecutors were appointed to the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had jurisdiction over organized crime and corruption as well as "international terrorism" and other crimes under international law. The Court was officially opened on 27 January and is envisaged to expand further through the establishment of several specialized chambers and divisions, including a special Chamber for war crimes (see below).

In May the Bosnian State Government signed a bilateral agreement with the United States (US) which provided impunity for US nationals accused by the International Criminal Court (ICC) of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. AI called upon the members of the State Parliament in June not to ratify this agreement, which violated Bosnia-Herzegovina’s obligations under international law, including as a state party to the ICC. Both houses of the State Parliament ratified the agreement in mid-June.

In mid-June the Peace Implementation Council (PIC), an intergovernmental body consisting of over 55 countries and agencies, monitoring the implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement, endorsed a proposal by the High Representative to abolish the Human Rights Chamber by the end of 2003. The proposal envisaged that the Chamber would stop receiving new applications by the end of July and would cease its work at the end of the year, when its caseload would be transferred to the Constitutional Court. AI expressed grave concern about these developments, fearing that the abolition of the Human Rights Chamber was premature and would leave citizens without protection from, and redress for, human rights violations. In particular, AI stressed the large outstanding caseload of the Chamber (some 10,000 in early June, with on average 200 new cases coming in each month), and the lack of an accessible and adequate legal mechanism to take over this work, given the Chamber’s unique mandate which allowed it to address both war-time and recent human rights violations. The Constitutional Court (which at the time had not functioned for over a year due to problems in the appointment of judges) does not have jurisdiction to take over the Chamber’s entire caseload. Furthermore the entity court systems –currently undergoing far-reaching reforms and restructuring –may not prove capable or willing to provide redress in the near future; in fact, many cases of alleged human rights violations now pending before the Chamber originated at this very level of the judicial system.

Impunity for war-time human rights violations

International prosecutions

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (Tribunal) continued to try alleged perpetrators of serious violations of international humanitarian law, including the trial of former Federal Yugoslav President Slobodan MiloŠeviæ. In late March two Bosnian Croats, Vinko Martinoviæ and Mladen Naletiliæ were found guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and sentenced to 18 and 20 years’ imprisonment respectively, for their command and individual responsibility for crimes against the non-Croat population in the Mostar region in 1993.

In May, the trial commenced of four former commanders in the Bosnian Serb Army, Vidoje Blagojeviæ, Dragan Jokiæ, Dragan Obrenoviæ and Momir Nikoliæ, for their criminal involvement in the executions of thousands of Bosniak men and boys after the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995. This trial is one of six separate proceedings initiated so far, which focus solely on the massive violations which were committed in the former "protected area" of Srebrenica. Two of the defendants, Dragan Obrenoviæ and Momir Nikoliæ, pleaded guilty to one of the counts against them, after which the remaining charges were withdrawn and proceedings against them separated from that of the other defendants.

Cooperation between the Republika Srpska (RS) authorities and the Tribunal remained unsatisfactory, particular regarding the failure of RS police to arrest those indicted by the Tribunal –to date no such arrests have been made. A total of 17 publicly indicted suspects remained at large, the majority of them Bosnian Serbs thought to be residing in the RS or in neighbouring Serbia and Montenegro. In April, the NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR) arrested Naser Oriæ, a war-time commander in the Bosnian Government Army who had been secretly indicted for war crimes against Serb civilians in villages near Srebrenica. Also in April, Ivica Rajiæ, a Bosnian Croat former military commander, accused of war crimes in central Bosnia, was arrested by police in Croatia; he was extradited in June. In May, an indictment was issued against two Serbs, Jovica StaniŠiæ and Franko Simatoviæ, both high-ranking commanders in the Serb security forces which had been involved in war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Croatia and northern and eastern Bosnia. Both men had already been arrested for their alleged involvement in the murder of Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjiæ in March and were transferred to the Tribunal in May and June.

Domestic prosecutions

In June the PIC endorsed a proposal by a joint OHR/Tribunal working group to establish a special chamber for war crimes in the new State Court, to be operational from 2004. This was the latest development in a protracted process which aimed to set up a judicial mechanism which would be capable of taking over cases from the Tribunal and other sensitive and complex cases from the Cantonal and District Courts. It was envisaged that the War Crimes Chamber would include international judges and prosecutors for a period of three to five years after which it would be entirely staffed by local officials. However, AI remained concerned that the proposed solution would prove inadequate to address the vast legacy of outstanding cases of war crimes and other crimes under international humanitarian law. Given the problematic and flawed trials for war crimes conducted so far before the entity courts, the organization had serious concerns that a short-term solution which would only deal with a fraction of the outstanding caseload would not provide justice to the tens of thousands of victims of these crimes, nor would it benefit the longer-term process of truth-seeking and reconciliation between various communities. The proposal also did not take into account the regional nature of the war and the fact that many perpetrators as well as material evidence relating to these crimes remained in neighbouring states, beyond the reach of the Bosnian criminal justice system. Another issue of crucial importance, the protection of vulnerable witnesses from attacks and intimidation, was not adequately addressed: although a new state-level law was imposed by the High Representative in January, in practice there was no effective protection inside the country and AI was informed that no international protection scheme, along the lines of the one used by the Tribunal, was foreseen.

Several trials for war crimes opened or continued before local courts, mainly in the Federation. In February the Mostar Cantonal Court started the retrial of four Bosnian Croat former military police officers accused of war crimes against the Bosniak civilian population and prisoners of war. The Federation Supreme Court had quashed the earlier acquittal of all defendants in mid-2002 and ordered a retrial before the same court. The defendants were inter alia allegedly responsible for the detention and subsequent "disappearance" of 13 ABiH soldiers, who remain unaccounted for (see also: EUR 01/003/2001 and below under "disappearances"). The Zenica Cantonal Court continued the trial of Bosnian Croat military commander Dominik IlijaŠeviæ for war crimes committed against Bosniak civilians in Stupni Do in central Bosnia, amid concerns that prosecution witnesses were not sufficiently protected from intimidating and offensive treatment by the accused and their families in court. Furthermore, evidence relevant to the case, which had been collected and presented in two separate concurrent criminal proceedings against members of the same armed forces’ unit, in connection with the same crimes, respectively before a court in Croatia and the Tribunal, was apparently not being transferred or accepted by the Zenica Cantonal Court.

The Banja Luka District Court continued criminal proceedings for war crimes against 11 former police officers from Prijedor in connection with the 1995 abduction and murders of Father Tomislav Matanoviæ and his parents (see EUR 01/002/2003). In late January, the public prosecutor charged the suspects with war crimes against the civilian population for their involvement in the illegal detention of the victims. Trial proceedings opened in late June but were adjourned immediately as defence lawyers asked for the exemption of the entire judicial panel and for the case to be transferred to another jurisdiction. The request was subsequently turned down by the Supreme Court. A criminal investigation into the murders is continuing with the aim of identifying the perpetrators of these crimes.

AI had serious concerns over the intransigence of the domestic criminal justice system, which, despite being presented with clear evidence pointing to individuals’ potential responsibility for war crimes, has time and again failed to take steps to actively prosecute alleged perpetrators. A major factor in fostering this continuing impunity is the virtual non-cooperation between entity judiciary and police forces, in particular with regard to the enforcement of arrest warrants. A case in point was the failure of ViŠegrad police in the RS in early April to arrest two serving Bosnian Serb police officers charged with war crimes by the Goražde Cantonal Court (in the Federation). The case had been reviewed and approved by the Tribunal Prosecutor’s Office in line with the so-called Rules of the Road procedures in mid-2002, although both officers continue to serve in the ViŠegrad police force, having been certified by the (since departed – see also below) United Nations Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina/International Police Task Force (UNMIBH/IPTF) in December 2002. On 2 April the Goražde Cantonal Court reportedly sent an arrest warrant to the ViŠegrad chief of police after he had failed to serve its earlier summons upon the two officers to appear before the Goražde Cantonal Court. The ViŠegrad chief of police, however, denied having received this warrant, despite the fact that it was reportedly handed over in the presence of EUPM police monitors. The two suspects remained at large.



Unresolved "Disappearances"

On 5 March, Amnesty International issued a 60-page report, Bosnia-Herzegovina: Honouring the ghosts: confronting impunity for "disappearances" (EUR 63/004/2003), which argued that immediate measures should be taken to resolve this serious and continuing human rights violation, given the thousands of outstanding cases and the pervading impunity for perpetrators. AI recommended that all acts of "disappearances" be made a criminal offence in domestic legislation, that the relevant political and military authorities start meaningful cooperation to investigate unresolved cases, including by disclosing locations of mass grave sites and other information and that provisions are made to safeguard the right to reparation for the relatives of the "disappeared". Furthermore the organization called upon the international community overseeing the peace process, including the OHR, the NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR) and the newly deployed European Union Police Mission (EUPM) to actively support investigations and prosecutions in cases of "disappearances", given the small number of cases which have led so far to criminal proceedings. AI also made a number of recommendations with regard to social and economic rights of the relatives of the "disappeared", many of whom remain displaced including single female heads of households with no guaranteed access to basic benefits or adequate housing. AI suggested that legislation on benefits awarded to relatives and dependants of missing persons be amended so that those entitled to these benefits can claim them in both entities and that similar issues which affect relatives of the "disappeared" be included in the state law on missing persons which is currently being drafted.

The Srebrenica case

Two days after the publication of AI’s report, the Human Rights Chamber of Bosnia-Herzegovina issued a decision in the case of 49 relatives of the "disappeared" from Srebrenica who had brought an application against the RS authorities. The Chamber expressly recognized the continuing pain of the relatives of the "disappeared" and concluded that the RS had done almost nothing to relieve their agony by clarifying the fate and whereabouts of those still missing, demonstrating a total indifference to the suffering of the Bosniak community. The Chamber held that this inaction by the RS authorities amounted to a violation of the relatives’ right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment and the right to private and family life (respectively Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – ECHR). The Chamber ordered the RS to immediately disclose all information relevant to establishing the fate and whereabouts of the "disappeared" and on the location of mass graves where the victims had been buried. To this end, the RS had to conduct a full, meaningful, thorough and detailed investigation into the human rights violations at Srebrenica, also with the aim of bringing those responsible to justice. Furthermore the RS had to pay a total of 4 million Konvertible Marks (2 million Euros) compensation to the Srebrenica-Potoèari Memorial – where thousands of victims who have been so far exhumed and identified will be finally buried - for the collective benefit of all applicants and families of Srebrenica victims. The RS had to publish the findings of its investigation and pay the first half of the compensation money by 7 September 2003 and forward an interim status report on steps taken to comply with the Chamber’s orders by 7 June 2003. Subsequently the Chamber struck out over 1,800 further applications filed by other Srebrenica relatives, as it was decided that the 7 March decision would apply to all victims collectively.

In early June, the RS liaison to the Chamber submitted a brief report, which failed to adequately address the various parts of the decision which the government was obliged to implement. The government report stated that no criminal investigations had been initiated into the events at Srebrenica, due to some "limiting factors", which included investigations and proceedings conducted by the Tribunal into the same case, which the authorities claimed had impeded their own investigation. They also alleged that SFOR had seized documentation about relevant units of the Bosnian Serb Army and had prohibited the authorities from conducting any investigations. Furthermore, the RS government implied that the number of victims killed at Srebrenica was smaller than the estimated 8,000 and contended that some had died of natural causes or had committed suicide. By late June, the first part of the compensation had not yet been paid, although the RS government had reportedly decided to allocate funds to do so in its budget.

Updates on individual cases

AI members campaigning on several individual cases of "disappearances" received replies from the relevant government authorities in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The RS Ministry of the Interior (MUP) wrote to AI members in April on the case of Himzo Demir, the head of ViŠegrad secondary school who had been abducted and subsequently "disappeared" in May 1992. Although an investigation into the case had been ongoing since April 2002, so far the ViŠegrad police appeared to have limited its activities to interviewing Mrs Demir and locating and questioning some Bosniak returnees.

In the case of Col Avdo Paliæ the RS MUP replied to AI in February – however the reply only reiterated steps taken in the investigation already know to AI which had so far not produced any results, and lamented the lack of cooperation given by the RS military authorities who hold key information as to what happened to Col Paliæ after he was last sighted in Vanekov mlin prison in Bijeljina. In its March report, AI stressed the legal responsibility of the armed forces under both national and international humanitarian law to provide information on prisoners of war and the location of grave sites and called on SFOR to use its authority and influence to ensure that such cooperation was offered effectively and unconditionally. The Paliæ case also demonstrated the problem of non-implementation of many important Chamber decisions and the lack of adequate and sustained scrutiny of this process by the international community in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Responses from the Bosnian Federation authorities in the case of Fahir Penava and 12 other ABiH soldiers (see above) pointed to another obstacle in resolving "disappearances" where responsibility allegedly lay with the war-time Bosnian Croat armed forces, the HVO (Hrvatsko vijeæe obrane) , which have since been incorporated into the Federation Army. Meanwhile the war-time records documenting the operations and staffing of the HVO were transferred to the Croatian State Archives during the war and have remained there since. In its March report AI called upon the Federation and Croatian authorities to ensure that the HVO archive be returned to the custody of the Federation Defence Ministry, given the importance of this documentation in investigations into war-time human rights violations and criminal prosecutions of alleged perpetrators.

Policing

European Union Police Mission takeover

AI continued its dialogue with policy officials and field staff of the EUPM, following its establishment in early January when it took over supervision, mentoring and training of the local police forces from the IPTF. In late March AI received a reply from the Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, Javier Solana, in response to the publication of its report on "disappearances". The Secretary General welcomed the AI report, but reiterated that the priorities of the EUPM were the fight against organized crime and the security of returnees. AI had urged the EUPM previously to give higher priority and visibility to outstanding and current human rights violations and sustained scrutiny of police investigations into these. AI continues to have concerns about the lack of effective supervision and scrutiny by the EUPM and other international organizations of investigations by local police and judiciary into war-time human rights violations, the apparent problems that hamper communication and cooperation between them and the insufficient resources devoted to these issues. Furthermore, despite repeated assurances on the smooth transfer of the entire collection of documentation on individual investigations from UNMIBH to the EUPM, many dossiers appear not to have been handed over, forcing EUPM staff to start work on important cases from the beginning.

Screening mechanism

Comprehensive background checks carried out by UNMIBH/IPTF personnel, Tribunal investigators and many other organizations revealed that hundreds of police officers could be held criminally liable for direct responsibility or complicity in war crimes and other criminal offences, but that they continued to enjoy impunity for such acts. During its deployment, particularly from 2001 onwards UNMIBH operated a non-prosecutorial mechanism whereby the IPTF Commissioner had the power to remove (de-authorize) from service those police officers suspected of serious violations of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law. By the end of its mandate (December 2002) over 60 police officers had been de-authorized for suspected liability in war crimes. With the establishment of the EUPM in January 2003 the de-authorization process was in effect halted, though it was clear that continuing investigations into war crimes by both the domestic criminal justice system and the Tribunal would reveal many new cases of serving police officers who had been involved in war-time violations (see the ViŠegrad case described above). The presence of potential perpetrators of war crimes in the police force – apart from enhancing the climate of continuing impunity for grave human rights violations – seriously undermined the prospects of thorough and impartial police investigations into war crimes. According to AI’s information, the issue of the continuation of de-authorizations was apparently being reconsidered by EUPM in mid-2003. However, AI remained concerned that by and large the earlier de-authorizations by UNMIBH had not led to criminal prosecutions of the suspected former police officers by the relevant police and judicial authorities, as they were obliged to do under national and international law.

Right to return in safety and with dignity

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) field mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in the first six months of 2003 some 28,000 returns were registered throughout the country, including over 25,000 minority returns, bringing the total number of returnees since the war close to one million (almost half of the estimated 2.2 million persons forcibly displaced during the war). In late May, the implementation rate for the repossession of private and socially-owned housing reached 82 per cent country wide. However, at the same time, UNHCR expressed concerns about the estimated 350,000 persons who remained internally displaced, and who had little or no prospects for a durable solution through either return to their pre-war homes or effective resettlement. In particular the agency stressed the need for donor funding for the reconstruction of housing, infrastructure, schools and health facilities to continue and to be more targeted to the needs of vulnerable displaced individuals. UNHCR furthermore recommended that the international protection needs of Bosnian refugees abroad continue to be assessed on an individual basis, singling out witnesses to war crimes proceedings and severely traumatized individuals as categories of persons requiring special attention.

Insufficient conditions for returnees in the place of their return continued to mar the sustainability of their return. In particular, the lack of access to employment was a major factor in people’s decision not to remain in their pre-war community. Employment opportunities were scarce in general, reflecting the weak economic situation and the forced transition to a market-led economy through mass privatization, however those in ethnic minorities in addition faced discrimination when trying to find employment or get rehired in their pre-war jobs, and had virtually no access to legal remedies or any other form of redress.

Return related violence

According to UNHCR, in the period from January to May there were over 100 violent incidents against returnees and displaced persons and their property, memorials or religious objects. In at least two cases these resulted in the death of minority returnees, for example in the case of Rabija ÆauŠeviæ, an 80-year-old Bosniak woman who had returned to Bosanska Dubica in the northern part of the RS, and who was killed inside her home on 1 January 2003. In March, a Bosniak man, Smail Hrnjièiæ, who was renovating another Bosniak returnee’s flat in west Mostar, was killed by an explosive device planted in the flat. Although police investigations were immediately launched into both incidents, the perpetrators of both attacks remained at large.

Human rights violations in the context of "anti-terrorism" measures (update)

On 22 January AI issued an urgent action in the case of Sabahudin Fijuljanin, a Bosniak man who had been arbitrarily detained without adequate access to a lawyer by SFOR since late October 2002. Although the Chamber issued an interim ruling on 11 January that he should be immediately transferred to the jurisdiction of the Federation authorities, SFOR reportedly refused to accept several requests to this effect by the Federation. Following mass appeals by AI membership to the NATO Headquarters, Sabahudin Fijuljanin was transferred to the Federation police on 30 January. To AI’s knowledge he never received any compensation for the violation of his human rights by SFOR.

In May, AI launched an action urging the implementation of another Chamber decision in a similar case, regarding the unlawful transfer of six Bosnian nationals of Algerian origin to US custody in January 2001. The Chamber had ruled in the case of four of them, (Saber Lahmar, Hadz Boudella, Lakhdar Boumediene and Mohamed Nechle) in October 2002 that the Bosnian State and Federation authorities had violated the men’s right to liberty and security of person and the right not to be arbitrarily expelled. The authorities had been ordered to use diplomatic means to protect the right of the applications while in US custody, in particular protecting them from the death penalty and unfair trial, and to pay the men compensation. (See also EUR 01/002/2003). In April the Chamber issued similar decisions in the cases of the remaining two men, Bensayah Belkacem and Mustafa ait Idir. To date the authorities have implemented the Chamber’s decision only to the extent that they requested and obtained permission in June to visit the men, who remain in detention in US armed forces Camp Delta in Guantámo Bay in Cuba. However, a scheduled consular visit was reportedly cancelled. AI was further concerned that the Bosnian family members of some of the detained men were unable to communicate with them as messages sent through the International Committee of the Red Cross allegedly went missing or arrived only after extensive delays.

Trafficking in women and girls

Some positive developments were noted in the prosecution of perpetrators of serious human rights abuses against women and girls in the context of trafficking and forced prostitution. For example, in March the Tuzla Cantonal Court found the owner of a local nightclub guilty of enslavement and sentenced him to three and a half years’ imprisonment. The case marked the first judgment in the Federation for enslavement as those tried in trafficking cases had previously always been charged with the lesser offence of procurement. In May, five Bosnian Serb men were handed over to the custody of the State Court, which started an investigation into their alleged involvement in trafficking of women and girls who had been forced to engage in prostitution in a chain of nightclubs in Prijedor.

Meanwhile, local human rights and women’s organizations criticized the lack of implementation of the National Action Plan against trafficking, which had been adopted in December 2001. These concerns were reinforced by a report issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Bosnia-Herzegovina in June, which found that the State Commission and a special law enforcement body, the so-called Strike Force, charged with implementation of the National Action Plan were not given adequate support by the state government, and that the Bosnian law enforcement agencies had been marginalized by the international community and were not given sufficient resources and training in order to carry out their extensive duties under the plan. There were also severe shortcomings in the provision of shelter to vulnerable victims as there was lack of coordination and clarity on the responsibilities of the various levels of domestic government, the international community and non-governmental organizations.

Furthermore, gaps and ambiguities in the domestic legal framework hampered effective prosecutions. For example, the definition of trafficking in the newly adopted State Criminal Code differed fundamentally from that of the 2000 UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, as it does not recognize that consent given by victims of trafficking cannot be used in defence by perpetrators. The delayed adoption of the new Law on Asylum and amendments the Law on the Movement and Stay of Foreigners further restricted the prevention of trafficking and protection for victims who continued to be treated largely as illegal migrants.



Discrimination of people with mental disabilities

In January Lydia Shuleva, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Labour and Social Policy, wrote to AI in connection with the organization’s report Bulgaria: Far from the eyes of society; Systematic discrimination of people with mental disabilities (AI Index: EUR 15/005/2002) published in October 2002. She acknowledged that the institutions for children and adults with mental disabilities, for which the ministry is responsible, were a serious problem and that the government had made its resolution a priority. Furthermore, she described the government’s efforts to improve the existing legislation in the field of social care and assistance, to introduce new regulations regarding the provision of services and care and to invest considerable resources in improving material conditions in social care homes. AI urged the Deputy Prime Minister to demonstrate more publicly the government’s political will to deal with the discrimination of people with mental disabilities in Bulgaria. The organization also expressed concern that some of the measures already implemented did not appear to have been sufficiently well conceived and directed at the declared objectives of providing adequate living conditions and care, as well as greater integration into the community for people with disabilities currently cared for in institutions.

As an example of a measure which failed to address even the basic needs of people in institutions Amnesty International described the transfer of 70 men from Dragash Voyvoda who had been moved to other institutions in the system in September 2002, following a decision to close down this social care home. The remaining 70 residents were to be cared for by the same number of staff in Dragash Voyvoda before eventually being transferred to a refurbished facility in a similarly remote and inappropriate location. Amnesty International urged the Deputy Prime Minister to reconsider further transfers of residents from one institution to another, particularly as other closures of social care homes had been planned for 2003. The organization appealed to the authorities to take every opportunity to implement in practice their declared objective of deinstitutionalization; reintegrate people with disabilities into the community in such a way that they would be adequately cared for and supported by community-based services.

In April representatives of Amnesty International and the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee visited four of the five institutions to which the men of Dragash Voyvoda had been transferred.(1) They established that the living conditions for former Dragash Voyvoda residents in the new institutions could be described as only marginally better. All of the men remained without rehabilitation or any therapy other than drugs. Such conditions and treatment are in violation of Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which prohibit torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It was also established that at least 18 of the 70 men had mental health disorders and yet had been sent to institutions established to care for people with intellectual disabilities. A letter from the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of 11 February specified that all 70 men had been diagnosed as "mentally retarded(2) who could not be adequately cared for in Dragash Voyvoda"(3).

Placing people with different needs in the same institution, coupled with neglecting to ensure people’s physical safety and mental well-being and adequate care and services, had tragic consequences for one former Dragash Voyvoda resident. Vasil Malinov, a 32-year-old man with severe learning disabilities, paraplegic and mute, was moved to Batoshevo. He was placed in aroom with four other men, some of whom reportedly suffered serious mental illness. Mixing people with hugely different needs in social care homes is not uncommon in Bulgaria and Batoshevo was no exception in this respect. Around 100 residents of Batoshevo were housed in two buildings which were locked during the night when a nurse and an orderly were reportedly the only staff on duty. On the morning of 18 March the staff found Malinov, looking bruised and battered. He was sent to a near-by town where the doctor reportedly prescribed cold compresses for contusions to the chest. Vasil Malinov was then returned to the same room where three days later he was found dead. In June AI published a report, Bulgaria: Where are the men of Dragash Voyvoda? (AI Index: EUR 15/005/2003) urging the government to address the appalling situation in institutions such as Dragash Voyvoda and the homes to which some of its residents have been transferred. The organization reiterated to the Bulgarian authorities its recommendation that only those measures which lead to the full reintegration of people with mental disabilities into society as appropriate, would be in line with international human rights standards and best professional practice.

There were other incidents in social care homes which appeared to have resulted from lack of adequate legal and professional procedures and practices to safeguard residents from abuse. On 16 April the Ministry of the Interior reported that two weeks earlier a 41-year-old man from the social care home in Podgumer, near Sofia, had died in a hospital. An autopsy reportedly established that the death occurred as a result of aspirated blood which caused bronchopneumonia. A police investigation established that the man had been strangled by another resident. On 24 June surgeons in Sofia amputated the hand of a 3-year-old boy from the social care home "St. Ivan Rilski". The operation was carried out in order to remove dead tissue in the right hand, apparently caused by tying with a rope. The boy who reportedly suffers from cerebral palsy had been placed in the institution at birth and was described by the doctors as undernourished. The social care home staff initially denied tying the boy to the bed. Later, however, it was reported that a nurse had tied the boy’s hand with a piece of rope to the bed in order to prevent him from putting it in his mouth. Four nurses and orderlies were reportedly suspended from duty and five other staff members.

Staff training in Rusokastro and Fakia

Recognizing that staff training is critical to improvement of care and services for people with mental disabilities, AI, with support from the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, organized a training program in two institutions in the Burgas region - the Social Care Home for Men with Mental Disabilities in Rusokastro and the Social Care Home for Children with Mental Disabilities in Fakia. The training took place from 7 to 11 April in Rusokastro and Fakia, near Burgas, and participants included a psychiatrist, two specialists in providing services to people with challenging behaviour, a social worker as well as staff of the AI’s International Secretariat and the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee. This was also an opportunity for AI to assess further training needs in the two institutions

A meeting organized and facilitated by AI in Burgas with the mayors of two municipalities responsible for the two institutions and the director of the regional authority for social support, convened at the end of the training, demonstrated the commitment of all local stakeholders to a program of mental health care reform which would be in line with international human rights standards and best professional practices.

A representative of a UK-based charity who visited Fakia in late April wrote to AI: "I visited Fakia shortly after we spoke and was very impressed at the work undertaken by your organisation. I have been visiting this home for several years, yet this time it was more of a pleasure to go around."

Ill-treatment of Roma

There were several reports that Roma had been ill-treated by police officers. In a number of incidents the officers also allegedly resorted to their firearms in circumstances which are not permitted by internationally recognized principles.

On 15 March at around 4pm in the mountains close to Lukovit, two Romani men, A.A. and K.M., who had gathered firewood in the forest and were carrying it in two carts, were stopped by two police officers and seven or eight forest guards. A third man who had been with A.A. and K.M. managed to avoid being apprehended. A police officer reportedly hit K.M. with his rifle butt making him fall to the ground and lose consciousness. Later K.M. was handcuffed and allegedly beaten all over his body. An officer reportedly poured water over him and prodded him with an electric baton. In the meantime A.A. was ordered to unload the wood and to dig a pit which he was told would serve as "a grave for the two of you". After he finished a police officer reportedly beat A.A. The carts were then set on fire and the officers started pushing K.M. towards the flames but stopped when they heard a car approaching. Two other Romani men, S.M. and V.R. from Lukovit, who had been alerted about the situation by the man who managed to escape, had driven to the site. As they stopped the car they were reportedly assaulted by the officers and guards who broke the windshield with rifle butts and batons. They reportedly pulled S.M. out of the car while V.R. drove off. S.M. was allegedly hit on the head and shot in the shoulder with a rubber bullet. Shortly afterwards another car arrived containing S.N., L.T. and V.V. Even before the car came to a halt they were shot at, injuring S.N. in the arm. After the car stopped, S.N. and L.T. were reportedly pulled outside, beaten and then deliberately shot at in the back with rubber bullets. Forensic medical certificates issued to V.R., S.N., L.T. and K.M. described injuries consistent with the allegations of ill-treatment and shooting. A complaint about the incident has been filed with the Pleven Military Prosecutor.


General and political developments

In February Croatia formally applied for full membership to the European Union (EU), pending complete implementation of its outstanding commitments under the Stabilization and Association Agreement, with a view to joining the EU in 2008. In March the EU Commission issued its 2003 report on Croatia which welcomed positive developments in the strengthening of the country’s democracy and improved regional relations, but criticized inter alia the lack of cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (Tribunal), continuing problems with the return and reintegration of Croatian Serb refugees and the slow pace of judicial reform.

Despite sustained pressure by the United States of America (USA), Croatia refused to sign an impunity agreement undertaking not to surrender US nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes to the new International Criminal Court (ICC). In May AI had written wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, reminding the government of Croatia’s obligations under international law and as a state party to the Rome Statute establishing the ICC (which Croatia ratified in May 2001). In June the Parliamentary Speaker of the Council of Europe denounced the economic and political pressure exerted by the USA on Croatia and other countries in the region to sign such agreements. In June AI also wrote to the Justice Minister, on the subject of Croatia’s draft implementing legislation of the Rome Statute, urging her to provide adequate time for consultation with civil society, including the AI membership in Croatia which had lobbied its government to promote the prompt enactment of effective legislation. As a result the authorities delayed the schedule for adopting the legislation to allow members of civil society and international experts to provide comments.

Impunity for war-time human rights violations

International prosecutions

There were some major developments in proceedings against the so-called "Vukovar Three" with the transfer to the Tribunal’s custody of two suspects who had for years remained at large in Serbia. They had been indicted for crimes against humanity and war crimes by the Tribunal in connection with the mass executions of some 200 people of mainly Croat nationality, taken from Vukovar hospital in November 1991 after the town fell to the former Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) and Serb paramilitaries. In late April, one of the suspects, Miroslav Radiæ, who had been an officer in the JNA, gave himself up to the Serbian authorities who transferred him to the Tribunal’s custody in May. On 13 June, another suspect, Veselin Šljivanèanin, also a former officer in the JNA and in the subsequent Yugoslav Army, was arrested by Serb police and transferred to the Tribunal in early July. The third member of the group, Mile MrkŠiæ, had already been transferred in 2002.

In April, Croatian police arrested Ivica Rajiæ, who had been publicly indicted by the Tribunal for war crimes against the non-Croat population in central Bosnia in 1993; after extradition proceedings before the local courts, he was transferred to the Tribunal in late June. Reports subsequently emerged that he had been in hiding in the Split area for years, having been shielded from arrest by contacts in the military who had provided him with false identity papers. An investigation into these criminal activities was reportedly launched by the Ministry of the Interior.

The Tribunal Prosecutor repeatedly criticized Croatia’s failure to arrest and transfer retired Croatian Army General Ante Gotovina, charged with command responsibility for crimes against humanity and war crimes against the Krajina Serb population during and after Operation Storm in 1995. Ante Gotovina went into hiding immediately prior to the publication of his indictment in July 2001 and the Croatian authorities have claimed that he left the country since, although Tribunal spokespersons have dismissed these allegations. In early June, the NATO troops conducted a raid in Prozor in central Bosnia in an unsuccessful attempt to apprehend the suspect. Also in June, Croatian President Stipe Mesiæ reportedly proposed to transfer Ante Gotovina to the Tribunal in exchange for a revision of his indictment and after the suspect had been given the opportunity of making a statement to Tribunal investigators, an arrangement which the Tribunal refused.

Domestic prosecutions

Scores of trials for war crimes continued or started before local courts, the majority of these involving Serb defendants, although there was a growing number of arrests and trials against Croat perpetrators. According to the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE), the only remaining international organization maintaining a large field monitoring presence in Croatia, out of the 27 arrests which took place in the first six months of the year, 21 were of Serbs. In the same period, local courts convicted 13 Serbs and four Croats of war crimes.
AI continued to have concerns that some proceedings did not meet internationally recognized standards of fairness, in particular in proceedings conducted in absentia. In April Mirko Graorac, a Bosnian Serb who had been serving a 15-year prison sentence in Croatia for war crimes allegedly committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina, was transferred to the Republika Srpska entity in that country. AI had monitored proceedings against him before the Split County Court which had shown serious violations of fair trial standards. Mirko Graorac was detained in a prison in Banja Luka to serve the remainder of his sentence; he has requested to be retried by a Bosnian court.

In late March, the Rijeka County Court convicted three Croatian Army officers, including retired General Mirko Norac, after a trial for war crimes against Serb civilians in the Gospiæ area in 1991. They were sentenced to prison terms of up to 15 years. Two other defendants in the case were acquitted. The case marked one of the first convictions for war crimes among the few trials of relatively high-level Croat perpetrators. One of the acquitted defendants was remanded in custody again in May as criminal proceedings against him were opened for violent attacks against Serb returnees to Gospiæ from 1996 to 1998, as a result of which five people reportedly were killed.

In March two former Croatian Army soldiers were indicted for war crimes against Serb civilians in Paulin dvor near Osijek in December 1991 after an investigation had been conducted against them. The bodies of 18 of the victims had reportedly in 1997 been illegally transferred and buried in a mass grave near Gospiæ, where they were exhumed by Tribunal investigators in May 2002; they were reportedly positively identified in June (see also AI Index: EUR 01/002/2003). Trial proceedings against the two officers started in June, after the Tribunal Prosecutor had forwarded extensive documentation on the case to the Osijek Court in late May. During the course of the period under review, local human rights groups collected further evidence on war-time human rights violations, including scores of killings and "disappearances" of Croats and Serbs in Osijek in 1991 and early 1992, and presented this information to the state public prosecutor. In subsequent media interviews, it became clear that these crimes had been known to high-ranking local military and political officials, who had failed to take any action to prevent them or initiate investigations against those responsible.

In June, a court in Serbia opened an investigation against six former commanders and members of Serb paramilitary forces for the mass executions of non-Serb prisoners after the fall of Vukovar (see above). Four of the suspects had been arrested by Serb police in a major crackdown on former members of the security services with connections to organized crime networks, following the murder of Serb Prime Minister Zoran Djindjiæ in March.

Witness protection

Victims and witnesses testifying in war crimes proceedings remained without adequate state protection from harassment, intimidation and threats in the absence of a comprehensive government witness protection program. AI continued to receive reports of intimidation and harassment, in particular of former members of the police and military who were acting as prosecution witnesses in criminal proceedings for war crimes in the Šibenik and Split areas. In no cases were those responsible for intimidation or attacks against witnesses identified and brought to justice. The murder in August 2000 of former Croatian Army officer Mile Levar, who had previously provided information on war crimes against Serbs in Gospiæ to Tribunal investigators, remained unresolved and his family filed a civil case for damages caused by the inaction of the state authorities in late May.

Unresolved "disappearance"

The Head of the Croatian Government Commission on Missing Persons stated in February that his office was still searching for over 1,200 missing persons. Many of these individuals were victims of "disappearances", for which perpetrators continued to enjoy impunity. Meanwhile, cooperation between the Croatian Government and neighbouring Serbia and Montenegro continued on exhuming the bodies of victims which had been buried in Serbia and returning them to Croatia for identification and final burial. According to the Government Commission at the end of June a total of 200 bodies of Croat victims, who had been recorded as missing persons, had been exhumed. Most victims had been killed in late 1991 during the armed conflict in eastern Slavonia, after which their bodies had been thrown in the river Danube; they had been subsequently recovered and buried in Serbia.

In March a mass grave was exhumed in Cetingrad near the border with Bosnia-Herzegovina, which contained Bosniak victims who were killed in the Bihaæ region, during the conflict between the Bosnian Government Army and armed forces loyal to the self-proclaimed local political leader, Fikret Abdiæ. The Bosnian Commission for Missing Persons was reportedly still searching for dozens of persons, including 28 members of the Bosnian Government Army, who had "disappeared" in late 1994.

Right to return and reintegration

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) some 3,000 Croatian Serbs returned in the first five months of the year, which was about half the number registered in the same period in previous years. However, many such returns were in practice not sustainable: field research conducted by UNHCR in the key return area around Knin in southern Croatia revealed that only about 60 per cent of returnees remained in the place of return. Those returning continued to face major difficulties in repossessing private property, as a result of flawed legislation - which disproportionately protected the current occupants - and its slow and inconsistent implementation by the responsible authorities.

Tens of thousands of potential returnees, who before the war had lived in rented socially-owned apartments in urban centres, remained without a solution for the loss of their tenancy rights during the war, mostly as a result of unfair legal proceedings conducted in absentia. In response to persistent pressure by local and international organizations, notably the OSCE, the government committed itself to provide some form of social housing to this category of returnees, but refused to recognize the legal rights of the former tenancy holders. This solution failed to offer redress for the human rights violations committed against former tenancy rights holders, and reinforced the discriminatory treatment of Serb returnees to Croatia.

Rights of asylum-seekers and undocumented migrants

In June, the Croatian Parliament adopted a new Asylum Law, but decided to delay its implementation until July 2004, pending the construction of a reception centre for asylum- seekers. AI remained concerned about the ad hoc determination system which had been operated before by the Croatian Ministry of the Interior, which in most cases reportedly did not constitute a full and fair asylum procedure (see also AI Index: EUR 01/002/2003). The organization also had concerns about the detention of asylum-seekers and undocumented migrants, which in many cases amounted to arbitrary deprivation of liberty without access to a judicial body to challenge the administrative decision authorizing the detention.


Police ill-treatment of Roma

On 12 May in Popovice u Jièin, in north-eastern Bohemia, after attending a party in a pub, five officers from the special riot police unit allegedly broke into the home of the DaniŠ family, who are Roma, shouting racist insults. They allegedly beat Lubica DaniŠova, her 17-year-old son Marcel and her daughter who was pregnant. The Czech Television reported that the officers attacked the family because they suspected them of stealing from a restaurant, jointly owned by one of the officers and his mother. On 20 May the Inspectorate of the Ministry of the Interior opened an investigation into the incident. The Inspectorate’s spokesperson MikulaŠ Tomin explained to the Czech Television that their investigation "concerns the violation of freedom of home" and that once all witnesses had been questioned the file of the case would be forwarded to the public prosecutor who would take over the investigation.

Amnesty International was concerned that the police inquiry from its very outset was not focused on investigating this incident as a racially motivated assault, an offence provided for by the Czech Penal Code. The organization has repeatedly expressed concern in the past that the system of investigating police officers who are suspected of an offence is not independent and impartial as required by international human rights standards. Similar concern had been expressed by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the Human Rights Committee.

On 27 June the court in Cheb, west Bohemia, sentenced three police officers to a suspended prison term and acquitted two officers for severely beating Karel Billy, a Romani man. The incident took place on 13 May 2001 in Karlovy Vary. The officers involved, apparently without any motive, stopped Karel Billy and asked him for his I.D. They then took him to a nearby forest, where they reportedly severely beat him, urinated upon him and racially abused him. It was only at the intervention of the doctors who subsequently treated Karel Billy for injuries suffered in the assault that the Inspectorate initiated an investigate into the case. Initially the officers were charged with "abusing the authority of a public official". Following the decision of the court in Cheb Jan Jaøab, Commissioner of the Government of the Czech Republic for Human Rights, reportedly stated that the court's verdict was "truly sad", particularly as the offence had been committed by police officers. Similar sentiments were voiced by representatives of Romani organizations, although some of them said that they had expected the court to be lenient.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child

In January at its 32nd session the Committee on the Rights of the Child (the Committee) concluded its review of the Czech Republic’s report on its efforts to comply with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Committee welcomed amendments to existing legislation and enactment of new legislation, among other things to strengthen protection against trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of children. The Committee noted the country's very good maternal benefits, including satisfactory maternity leave, and excellent health indicators. The Committee also welcomed steps taken by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports against expressions of racism, xenophobia and intolerance, and it noted numerous initiatives to counter discrimination in education, in particular against children belonging to the Roma minority. However, it was concerned that the provisions of Article 2 of the Convention, prohibiting discrimination on any grounds, were not yet integrated into all relevant legislation and thus not sufficiently implemented. It recommended that the Government continue and strengthen its legislative efforts to fully integrate the right to non-discrimination into all relevant legislation concerning children. The Committee was also concerned that there was no legislation explicitly prohibiting corporal punishment, and that such punishment was practised in the family, in schools and in other public institutions, including alternative-care facilities. It recommended action to address ill-treatment and abuse of children.



Background

In the first six months of 2003 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the UN Human Rights Committee considered whether Estonia was fulfilling its international obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child

In January the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child considered Estonia’s initial report on the steps it had taken to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Among its concerns was the issue of ill-treatment and neglect of children. The Committee remained concerned about "the insufficient information on and awareness of ill-treatment and abuse of children within the family, in schools and in institutions, as well as of domestic violence and its impact on children". To this end the Committee made various recommendations, including the explicit prohibition of corporal punishment, the implementation of measures to prevent all forms of physical and mental violence, and the establishment of effective mechanisms and procedures for receiving, monitoring and investigating complaints thereof.

The Committee stated there was also insufficient information and awareness of the extent of commercial sexual exploitation and trafficking of children. In particular, the Committee expressed concern that there was no specific law prohibiting trafficking in people. Various recommendations were made by the body of experts to address these concerns.

UN Human Rights Committee

In March Estonia’s second periodic report on the measures the authorities had taken to implement the ICCPR was examined by the UN Human Rights Committee. In its Concluding observations, published in mid-April, the Committee outlined several subjects of concern including police ill-treatment and the use of lethal force. There was concern that acts of ill-treatment were prosecuted as minor offences in Estonia. The UN Human Rights Committee recommended that police officers be effectively prosecuted for such acts and that charges correspond to the seriousness of the acts committed. There was also concern that Estonia’s legislation on the use of firearms allowed the use of lethal force in circumstances not presenting a risk to the life of others. In view of these shortcomings the Committee recommended that Estonia revise the legislation and ensure that the use of firearms be restricted by the principles of necessity and proportionality.

Several of the Committee’s other concerns related to Estonia’s armed forces and the conscription of recruits. It noted in particular that the alternative civilian service to military service was punitive in length and, as a result, conscientious objectors were serving up to twice as long as military conscripts. The Committee called on Estonia to ensure that the alternative civilian service not be punitive in length.

There was further concern about reports that alleged deserters from the armed forces had been kept in solitary confinement for up to three months. Estonia was urged to remedy the situation and ensure that the detention of alleged deserters was in conformity with the relevant articles of the ICCPR.


Prisoners of conscience: imprisonment of conscientious objectors to military service (update to AI Index: EUR 01/002/2003)

In the period under review, Amnesty International adopted as prisoners of conscience nine conscientious objectors to military service, bringing to 43 the number of objectors adopted by the organization since new legislation came into force in 1998. This legislation considerably reduced the length of military service. The length of alternative civilian service, however, remained more than double the length of military service performed by over 50 per cent of army conscripts.

Charged with a civilian service offence, Ilkka Ensio Lispsanen, Mikko Pentti Johannes Saarinen, Otto Kullervo Miettinen, Markus Tapani Mattsson, Henrik Arno Murdoch, Timo Markus Turunen, Pekka Sakari Johannes Kauhanen and Jussi Kalevi Ollikainen received prison sentences of between 176 and 197 days. The ninth, Ari Tapani Koski, received a prison sentence of 67 days. All had refused to perform alternative civilian service.

Amnesty International called for their immediate and unconditional release because the organization considered the current length of alternative service as punitive and discriminatory, and continued to urge the government to bring the length of alternative civilian service in line with internationally recognized standards and recommendations on conscientious objection to compulsory military service.


Deaths during forcible deportation

On 16 January, shortly after the death during forcible deportation of the Argentinian national Ricardo Barrientos (see AI Index: EUR 01/002/2003), an Ethiopian national, Miriame Getu Hagos, died after being taken ill on board an aircraft awaiting departure to Johannesburg from Roissy-Charles de Gaulle airport.(4) Mariame Getu Hagos had reportedly arrived in France from South Africa five days before and was placed in the waiting area at Roissy. After his application for asylum was rejected there were two attempts to deport him and he had apparently become ill during these attempts. He was nevertheless considered well enough to leave and, two days before his death, was accompanied onto the aircraft by three border police officers (PAF - Police aux frontières), placed at the rear and handcuffed. Before take-off he reportedly struggled with the officers and, according to the Ministry of the Interior, was restrained by the "customary techniques" ("techniques habituelles"). It was not, however, clear what such techniques involved. According to the PAF Mariame Getu Hagos had simulated the first attacks of illness. However, a doctor attached to the emergency medical services (SAMU) reportedly stated that the Ethiopian’s condition should have been taken seriously.

On 21 January AI publicly called for a full and impartial investigation of the deaths of Ricardo Barrientos and Miriame Getu Hagos. AI stated: "These deaths, which happened within two weeks of one another, are the first to have occurred on an aircraft during forcible deportation from French territory since 1991, and for that reason alone require urgent in-depth examination". The number of deaths in other European countries made this yet more imperative. Both deaths appeared to have occurred after the deportees were placed at the rear of the aircraft and their hands cuffed behind their backs. It was specifically stated that Ricardo Barrientos had been