Human Rights Watch/Helsinki

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki was established in 1978 to monitor and promote domestic and international compliance with the human rights provisions of the 1975 Helsinki Accords. It is affiliated with the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, which is based in Vienna, Austria. Holly Cartner is the executive director; Erika Dailey, Rachel Denber, Ivana Nizich and Christopher Panico are research associates; Ivan Lupis is the research assistant; Anne Kuper, Alexander Petrov and Lenee Simon are associates. Jonathan Fanton is the chair of the advisory committee and Alice Henkin is vice chair.

Human Rights Watch began in 1978 with the founding of its Helsinki division. Today, it includes five divisions covering Africa, the Americas, Asia, the Middle East, as well as the signatories of the Helsinki accords. It also includes five collaborative projects on arms transfers, children's rights, free expression, prison conditions, and women's rights. It maintains offices in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, London, Brussels, Moscow, Dushanbe, Rio de Janeiro, and Hong Kong. Human Rights Watch is an independent, nongovernmental organization, supported by contributions from private individuals and foundations worldwide. It accepts no government funds, directly or indirectly.

The staff includes Kenneth Roth, executive director; Cynthia Brown, program director; Holly J. Burkhalter, advocacy director; Robert Kimzey, publications director; Jeri Laber, special advisor; Gara LaMarche, associate director; Lotte Leicht, Brussels Office Director; Juan Méndez, general counsel; Susan Osnos, communications director; Jemera Rone, counsel; Joanna Weschler, United Nations representative; and Derrick Wong, finance and administration director.

The regional directors of Human Rights Watch are José Miguel Vivanco, Americas; Sidney Jones, Asia; Holly Cartner, Helsinki; and Christopher E. George, Middle East. The project directors are Joost R. Hiltermann, Arms Project; Lois Whitman, Children's Rights Project; Gara LaMarche, Free Expression Project; and Dorothy Q. Thomas, Women's Rights Project.

The members of the board of directors are Robert L. Bernstein, chair; Adrian W. DeWind, vice chair; Roland Algrant, Lisa Anderson, Peter D. Bell, Alice L. Brown, William Carmichael, Dorothy Cullman, Irene Diamond, Edith Everett, Jonathan Fanton, Jack Greenberg, Alice H. Henkin, Harold Hongju Koh, Jeh Johnson, Stephen L. Kass, Marina Pinto Kaufman, Alexander MacGregor, Josh Mailman, Andrew Nathan, Jane Olson, Peter Osnos, Kathleen Peratis, Bruce Rabb, Orville Schell, Sid Sheinberg, Gary G. Sick, Malcolm Smith, Nahid Toubia, Maureen White, and Rosalind C. Whitehead.

Addresses for Human Rights Watch

485 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10017-6104

Tel: (212) 972-8400, Fax: (212) 972-0905, E-mail: hrwnyc@hrw.org

1522 K Street, N.W., #910, Washington, DC 20005-1202

Tel: (202) 371-6592, Fax: (202) 371-0124, E-mail: hrwdc@hrw.org

10951 West Pico Blvd., #203, Los Angeles, CA 90064-2126

Tel: (310) 475-3070, Fax: (310) 475-5613, E-mail: hrwatchla@igc.apc.org

33 Islington High Street, N1 9LH London, UK

Tel: (171) 713-1995, Fax: (171) 713-1800, E-mail: hrwatchuk@gn.apc.org

15 Rue Van Campenhout, 1040 Brussels, Belgium

Tel: (2) 732-2009, Fax: (2) 732-0471, E-mail: hrwatcheu@gn.apc.org

Gopher Address: gopher.humanrights.org port 5000

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki expresses its appreciation to organizations, groups and individuals active in Croatia's human rights movement, to other non-governmental and refugee organizations, and to members of Croatia's political and ethnic and national communities for their assistance with this report. Human Rights Watch/Helsinki also acknowledges the cooperation of the Croatian government with requests related to information contained in segments of this report.

II. CITIZENSHIP 5

GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 5

CRITERIA FOR FAIRNESS 7

CROATIA'S LAW ON CITIZENSHIP AND ITS APPLICATION 8

III. TREATMENT OF SERBS AND OTHER MINORITIES IN CROATIA 16

A NOTE ON THE 1995 DECREE ON THE TEMPORARY EXPROPRIATION AND CONTROL OVER CERTAIN PROPERTY 20

IV. EVICTIONS FROM STATE-OWNED HOUSING 22

RELEVANT LEGISLATION 22

The October 1991 Decree 22

The Law Concerning the Temporary Use of Apartments 23

Controversy Regarding the Use of Military Apartments 25

Other Legislation Related to Housing 27

ABUSES OF THE LAW 27

Case #1 29

Case #2 35

Case #3 36

Case #4 36

Case #5 37

Case #6 39

PROTESTS BY HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS AND THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE 41

V. TREATMENT OF REFUGEES 47

THE SITUATION OF REFUGEES IN CROATIA 47

FORCED REPATRIATION AND FORCED MOBILIZATION INTO THE BOSNIAN CROAT ARMED FORCES 50

VI. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE PRESS 58

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL STANDARDS 59

CROATIA'S PRESS LAWS AND OTHER REGULATIONS 61

BROADCAST MEDIA 63

PRINT MEDIA 64

Danas 66

Novi Danas 67

Slobodna Dalmacija 68

Feral Tribune 69

Glas Slavonije 72

Vjesnik 73

TRIALS OF JOURNALISTS 73

VII. PARDON AND PROSECUTION OF ALLEGED SERBIAN INSURGENTS 77

RELEVANT LEGISLATION 78

The Amnesty Law: Procedures for Obtaining a Pardon 78

The "Law of Forgiveness" 78

Punishment for Subversion and Terrorism 82

VIOLATIONS OF DUE PROCESS DURING TRIAL AND PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND DETENTION 84

VIII. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AND CRIMINAL ACTIVITY PERPETRATED BY MEMBERS OF THE CROATIAN ARMY AND POLICE 90

GENERAL SITUATION 90

REPRESENTATIVE CASES 91

Split 91

Sisak 92

Other Cases 93

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION 96

IX. HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORING IN CROATIA 99

X. CONCLUSIONS 101

XI. RECOMMENDATIONS 103

TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA 103

TO THE UNITED STATES AND MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 110

APPENDIX A 112

APPENDIX B 152

APPENDIX C 157

APPENDIX D 163

Although the behavior of the police force improved, and physical attacks against Serbs and their property had declined from late 1992 to 1994, police abuse and attacks against Serbs and their property have increased in 1995, primarily in relation to recent military offensives that re-captured the formerly Serb-controlled areas of western Slavonia and Krajina.4 The government continues to impedefreedom of the press and expression. Although Croatia's Interior Ministry has taken steps to check abusive behavior of the police, the behavior of the military police has worsened dramatically in the past three years. Indeed, organs of the Defense Ministry are responsible for many of the human rights abuses in Croatia today. The Ministry of Defense has repeatedly refused to respect the judgments of the courts, and members of the Croatian Army and military police show increasing disdain for the rule of law and the civilian authorities. Gojko _u_ak, Croatia's Defense Minister, and Mate Lau_i_, the chief of Croatia's military police, have not taken serious steps to correct the behavior of Croatia's military police. Although domestic human rights organizations, opposition politicians and some members of the Croatian government and ruling Croatian Democratic Union (Hrvatska Demokratska Zajednica - HDZ) have publicly protested against the behavior of Croatia's Defense Ministry, Croatian President Franjo Tudjman has not taken firm steps to correct abusive behavior within branches of his government.

In some instances, abuses of civil and political rights in Croatia are indirectly or directly associated with the wars in Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina.

· Continued tensions between Croatian and Serbian forces in parts of Croatia, rebel Serbian control of one-third of Croatia's territory and fighting between Muslims and Croats in Bosnia in 19935 has been accompanied by animosity, harassment and discrimination against Serbs, Muslims and other non-Croats who are law-abiding citizens of Croatia. Refusal of citizenship, job dismissals and other forms of discrimination have socially, economically and politically marginalized thousands of non-Croats who have lived in Croatia for many years or decades. Lack offree broadcast media sources and harassment of the independent press has served to perpetuate inter-ethnic tensions.

· Some Serbs, former Yugoslav Army (Jugoslavenska Narodna Armija -JNA) personnel and others continue to be forcibly evicted from their respective homes, usually without respect to the persons' right to due process and often with the acquiescence of the local authorities and Croatia's Ministry of Defense.

· The influx of Bosnian Croat refugees from central Bosnia who were displaced by Bosnian government and Muslim forces in 1993 was followed by the worsening treatment of Bosnian Muslim refugees living in Croatia at that time.

· The prolonged war has resulted in lax discipline among Croatian Army troops and the military police, who are largely responsible for most abuses perpetrated against persons in detention. There is little evidence of efforts to check abuses by these military forces.

In other instances, violations of civil and political rights are associated with Croatia's communist past and its status as a republic of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Socijalisti...ka Federativna Republika Jugoslavia -SFRJ). Claiming that Croatia is in transition from a socialist to a capitalist economy, the Croatian government has sometimes used this as justification for deliberately hampering the development of a genuinely free press in Croatia through a variety of mechanisms. The granting of citizenship has been denied arbitrarily to some non-Croats, despite the fact that these persons have lived in Croatia for decades. The ownership of property which formerly had belonged to Yugoslavia's communist party, the Yugoslav Army or other federal organs of the former SFRJ was transferred to the Croatian government, which then arbitrarily forced the eviction from their state-owned homes of persons formerly affiliated with organs of the previous regime.

To its credit, the Croatian government continues to cooperate with international and to a lesser extent, domestic human rights groups and delegations concerned about human rights in Croatia. In March 1993, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, the Special Rapporteur for the Former Yugoslavia of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, established a field office in Zagreb. Local and national government officials - including high-ranking members of the Croatian government - frequently meet with human rights activists to discuss theirgrievances. International and domestic human rights groups are generally allowed to function without direct government interference in Croatia.

it is for each state to determine under its own law who are citizens ... [but] the citizenship law of a State shall be recognized by other states only insofar as it is consistent with international conventions, international customs and the principles of law generally recognized with regard to citizenship.6

Following the precedent of the 1930 Hague Convention on Nationality, article 1(3) of the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) states that:

Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting in any way the legal provisions of State parties concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization, provided that such provisions do not discriminate against any particular community.7

Max van der Stoel, the High Commissioner on National Minorities of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), has recommended that, "in view of articles 1(3) and 5(d) of the CERD, any discrimination on the ground of nationality or ethnicity should be avoided when enacting orimplementing legal provisions concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization."8

The Council of Europe has also stated that "citizenship should not be granted arbitrarily and in violation of the principle of non-discrimination, a rule found in most human rights treaties."9 The Council recognized that article 15(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights grants everyone the right to citizenship and states that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her citizenship.10 The Council also points out that children have the right to acquire citizenship under article 24(3) of the U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 7(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.11 All of these legal principles are aimed at avoiding statelessness among the world's population, a condition which the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness seek to abolish.12

Despite the general principles set forth by the international community and regional European bodies, international law does not address the issue of citizenship in detail. For this reason, Human Rights Watch/Helsinki has adopted a position identifying principles that we believe should be embodied in new citizenship laws and proposals.13 We believe that the newly formed states that have emerged from the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRJ) have an obligation to adopt and apply citizenship laws that treat in a fair and non-discriminatory manner individuals who moved to or otherwise lived in therespective republics of the SFRJ when it was a unified state.14 Unfortunately, citizenship laws and proposals in some of the republics of the former SFRJ - including Croatia - have been applied in ways that discriminate against ethnic and national groups which are not the majority group in the respective republic.

It should be noted, however, that following domestic and international crticism, the Croatian government sometimes reversed earlier denials of citizenship to non-Croats who were long-term residents of Croatia. In general, reports concerning the denial of citizenship based solely on the applicant's ethnicity declined in 1994, but denial of citizenship to Serbs who remained in formerly Serb-held areas of western Slavonia and Krajina in mid-1995 have recently been reported and may be a problem in the future.

The most liberal citizenship law is the "zero option," which grants citizenship to all people living in the republic either at the time independence was declared or when the law was adopted. It generally sets out a certain period during which individuals either may apply for citizenship or automatically become citizens provided they do not officially reject citizenship in a given state.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki views with concern various laws and proposals under consideration in states of the former SFRJ that could exclude fromcitizenship in the state in question many individuals with significant links to that state. Those excluded are individuals who, while the SFRJ was a unified state, took up residence in a former Yugoslav republic that did not coincide with his or her ethno-national identity and now find themselves resident in a new state in which their ethnicity/nationality is not the dominant one. We believe that most individuals who migrated from one republic to another could not have foreseen the change in the SFRJ's political status and that they lived in any given republic with the expectation that their residence would not be interrupted by the issue of their citizenship.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki believes that the denial of citizenship to persons who have extensive social and cultural ties to the community but who are members of the minority population in each of the respective republics of the former SFRJ is discriminatory against the minority group in question. It also leads to the social and economic marginalization of the minority population, forcing people to leave one republic and emigrate to a republic in which they would be part of the majority but which they do not otherwise consider their home.

Denial of Croatian citizenship to some Serbs, Muslims and members of other ethnic groups renders them illegal aliens in their own country. Denying citizenship to deserving individuals would violate their voting rights guaranteed in Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Moreover, the allocation of property and other social and economic rights often hinges upon citizenship. Citizenship laws that exclude otherwise deserving individuals would create categories of people whose civil and political rights would be routinely violated and whose eligibility for medical, welfare, educational and other benefits would be denied.

Some Serbs who fled from western Slavonia and Krajina during or after the Croatian Army offensives in these areas in May and August 1995 may at some point in the future want to return to Croatia. The Croatian government should not unnecessarily hamper these Serbs' applications for Croatian citizenship, if they choose to apply for such status and return to their homes in Croatia in the future.

The granting of citizenship in Croatia has been marred by long delays, ethnic discrimination, arbitrary decisions and a lack of fair and consistent procedure founded in law. Since mid-1992, the government's administrative organs have taken steps to reverse decisions that arbitrarily denied many people Croatian citizenship.

Non-Croats who have lived in Croatia for decades do not automatically receive citizenship. A child of Croatian parents who was born and raised in Canada and has never visited Croatia can more easily obtain Croatian citizenship than can a Serb, Muslim or Albanian who was born in a one of the other republics of the former SFRJ but has lived in Croatia for decades. The denial of citizenship to long-term residents of Croatia who are not of Croatian nationality arbitrarily strips such persons of rights they had previously enjoyed. The former Special Rapporteur for the U.N. Commission on Human Rights for the former Yugoslavia18 has rightly pointed out the following:

The Croatian authorities have repeatedly justified the policy of ethnic differentiation in the conferment of citizenship by comparing Croatian legislation with the legislation of other States which they say make similar distinctions on the basis of descent. It is, however, imperative to distinguish the citizenship law of a State dealing with immigration under ordinary circumstances, where the applicant may have no social attachment to the territory concerned, as opposed to a new State where denial of citizenship on the basis of ethnic or national origin affects those who have previously enjoyed citizenship of the predecessor State and lawful residence on the territory concerned.19

The Croatian government has defended its decision to deny some non-Croats and those not born in Croatia citizenship. The Croatian government has claimed that each of the former SFRJ republics should be allowed to decide whether or not to grant citizenship to former SFRJ citizens living in the republic in question and that this matter should be settled by bilateral agreements between the states of the former SFRJ.20 This pre-supposes that a person denied citizenship in one republic could obtain citizenship in another republic of the former SFRJ. While this may be a valid assertion in many cases, such an approach does not take into account the residency, ownership of property and family ties of the person in question. For example, a Serb born in Serbia in the 1940s who had emigrated to and lived in Croatia since the 1950s could be denied Croatian citizenship and granted Serbian citizenship, despite the fact that all his or her personal and professional ties are in Croatia, not in Serbia.

Those persons who have been denied Croatian citizenship but otherwise have lived, worked and owned property in Croatia for most of their adult lives are now considered illegally employed and ineligible for welfare benefits and pensions, and their ownership of property is precarious. They cannot be employed in the civilservice and are not always entitled to the medical services or free education available to citizens. Given their precarious residency and socio-economic status, such persons - most frequently non-Croats - are forced to leave Croatia.

The Employment Law for Foreigners requires that all non-Croatian citizens obtain a work permit in order to work in Croatia. Those persons denied Croatian citizenship who are not granted work permits can be dismissed from their jobs, despite the fact that they may have been employed in a given enterprise for many years. The Croatian government has on at least four occasions extended the date by which persons were to apply for work permits or risk dismissal from their jobs. The Central Employment Agency in Zagreb decides in each case whether a person is to obtain a work permit. According to Croatian law, a work permit can only be issued to a foreigner if he or she retains specific qualifications which cannot otherwise be filled from among Croatia's citizens. The high unemployment rate among Croats who have citizenship is a factor in government decisions to grant work permits to non-Croats who do not possess Croatian citizenship.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki interviewed scores of people - almost exclusively non-Croats - who had lived in Croatia for more than the past ten years but still were refused citizenship, often without reason. Human Rights Watch/Helsinki retains copies of more than sixty notices issued by the Ministry of Interior in Zagreb in which the applicants' requests for Croatian citizenship were denied. Most of those denied citizenship were born in one of the republics of the former SFRJ other than Croatia. Articles 8 and 26 of the Croatian citizenship law are most frequently cited as justification for the denial of citizenship.

The denial of citizenship is based on allegations that the person did not meet the requirements set forth in Article 8, clause 1, of the citizenship law which states:

Croatian citizenship may be acquired by assimilation by a foreigner who submitted the application for Croatian citizenship and fulfills the following conditions:

1. That he [or she] has reached 18 years of age and is able to work.

2. That he [or she] is permitted to give up his [or her] foreign citizenship, or that he [or she] has proof that this permit will be given in case he [or she] is granted Croatian citizenship.

4. That he [or she] is familiar with the Croatian language and Latin alphabet.

5. That it can be assumed from his [or her] behavior that he [or she] respects the laws and customs of the Republic of Croatia and that he [or she] accepts Croatian culture.

When point 521 of Article 8 is cited as justification for rejection of citizenship, the rejection notice does not specifically state how an applicant's behavior reflects disrespect for the laws, customs and culture of Croatia. The clause is ambiguous and open to misuse and the application of subjective criteria to deny a person citizenship. In cases of rejection under Article 8, the rejected applicant can initiate administrative proceedings before the Administrative Court of Croatia within thirty days after receipt of the rejection notice.

Article 10 of the law allows for a foreign citizen to become a Croatian citizen if he or she is married to a Croatian citizen and has been granted permanent residency on the territory of Croatia. However, in many cases, some members of a family are granted citizenship while others are not. Human Rights Watch/Helsinki spoke to many such families in the past three years. The following scenario is typical. Jelena,22 a Croatian woman, and Zvonimir, one of her two sons who was born in Zagreb, apply for and receive Croatian citizenship. However, Haris, her Bosnian-born Muslim husband, and Du_an, her other son who was born in Serbia, are denied citizenship despite the fact that they have spent most of their adult lives and childhoods in Croatia. In such cases, families are in danger of being separated, given the illegal status of some of their members.

Others have applied for citizenship but have not been informed of a decision for months and in some cases over one year, leaving them uncertain about their status in Croatia. In other instances, persons who have fled or originally are from rebel Serbian-controlled areas of Croatia cannot travel to these areas to obtain their birth certificates and other identity and residency documents. Without such documents, some people have been refused Croatian citizenship.

Still others who do not have or have been denied Croatian citizenship have been expelled from the country. Z.L., a Serbian resident of Split, was issued a notice by the division of administrative affairs of the police in Split. According to the police notice, the residency of Z.L., "a citizen of Serbia," was revoked. The notice stated that Z.L. was to leave Croatia by May 5, 1993, and that he did not have the right to return until May 5, 1995.23 The notice stated that Z.L.'s residency in Croatia was being revoked at the request of the division for operative affairs of the Split police, which cited article 42, clause 1(3) of Croatia's Law on the Movement and Residency of Foreigners as justification for the request.24 Z.L.'s expulsion may have been a consequence of his having lodged a complaint against the military, after soldiers broke into his apartment.

Z.L. had a right to appeal the decision, which his lawyer did on April 1, 1993. According to the lawyer's appeal, Z.L. had lived in Croatia since 1964 and worked at the police station until 1987, when he retired. His deceased wife was a Croat and his two daughters were born and continue to reside in Split. All of Z.L.'s immediate relatives in Split are Croats. Despite the fact that Z.L. considers Croatia to be his home and has lived there for twenty-nine of his fifty-eight years, he was expelled from Croatia.25

The citizenship law does not adequately set out the procedures that the Ministry of Interior must follow in accepting or rejecting a person's application for citizenship. In many instances, the decision as to whether or not a person's application will be denied is made at the whim of the issuing administrative officer at the local police station. Particularly in cases where the person is a long-time resident of Croatia but is not a Croat by ethnicity, the denial or granting of citizenship has been arbitrarily decided. Human Rights Watch/Helsinki spoke to some individuals who, after having been denied citizenship, complained to a higherofficial. In some cases, the superior officer overturned the decision of the administrative personnel, claiming that the administrative officer had no grounds to deny the applicant citizenship.

Croatia established at least three alien reception centers where people who received expulsion or banishment orders, whose residence permits had been revoked or who resided without the authorization of Croatia but have not been expelled are detained pursuant to the Law on the Movement and Residence of Aliens.26 Those held in the Dugo Selo center near Zagreb did not receive a judicial or administrative decision confining them to the center for a specified period of time.27 According to the Office for Migration in the Interior Ministry, an alien is assigned to an alien reception center in the absence of an agreement with the embassy of the country of which the alien is a citizen to transfer him or her to that country.28 However, some of the aliens in the reception centers are not citizens of another country, but citizens of the former SFRJ who had been living in Croatia for many years with members of their family and real property, but had been denied Croatian citizenship.29

On May 24, 1993, Croatia's Constitutional Court examined challenges and revisions to the citizenship law proposed by a variety of opposition political parties. In its ruling, the court did not support a broad interpretation of the law which would have been more favorable to non-Croats applying for citizenship. However, it did rule that Article 26 of the citizenship law - which allowed the Ministry of Interior to deny citizenship to an applicant who otherwise met the legally prescribed requirements needed for the acquisition of citizenship - allowed the Ministry of Interior to deny citizenship without reason and that such action was unconstitutional. Article 26, which may have been intended to address exceptional cases involving national security questions, had been used to deny scores of non-Croats Croatian citizenship.

Croatia's Constitutional Court ruled that the Interior Ministry had to define the circumstances under which the granting of citizenship to an applicant would be detrimental to the interests of Croatia by defining what it considered to be "the interests of the state." The Court pointed to Article 206(3) of Croatia's Law on General Administrative Procedure which requires that all written judgements must give a reason for the decision.

On December 8, 1993, the Constitutional Court again examined the citizenship law and struck down Article 26 altogether. The Court stated that persons denied citizenship were guaranteed the right to appeal.

Although the Constitutional Court's decision may mitigate the arbitrariness of the Interior Ministry's decision-making process, the Court did not directly address the ability of the Defense Ministry to reject an applicant's request for citizenship without reason. Article 32 of Croatia's citizenship law states that "military matters concerning Croatian citizenship are dealt with by the Minister of Defense." The law fails to define or cite examples of "military matters concerning Croatian citizenship," nor does the law specify whether a person has a right to appeal the Defense Ministry's decision if his or her application for citizenship is denied in such a case. It is unclear whether the December 1993 judgment of Croatia's Constitutional Court guaranteeing persons the right to an appeal is afforded to those denied citizenship by the Defense Ministry. Although the Defense Ministry rarely engages in citizenship questions, in the absence of court instructions similar to those issued for the Interior Ministry, the vague reference to "military matters concerning Croatian citizenship" in Article 32 leaves a loophole through which an application for citizenship can still be arbitrarily denied by the state.

However, following the re-capture of the so-called Krajina region from rebel Serbian authorities in August 1995, Croatian soldiers have burned Serbian villages and destroyed property belonging to Serbs. As of mid-August 1995, these crimes apparently are being conducted with impunity and appear aimed at preventing the return of those Serbs who had lived in the area but who fled during the offensive. Following the re-capture of the western Slavonia area in May 1995, Croatian forces harassed, threatened and robbed Serbs who chose to remain in the area. Persons held in detention also were beaten or otherwise mistreated following their capture.32 Graves containing the remains of those killed during the fightinghave yet to be exhumed by independent forensic experts and the identities of all those killed during the offensive have yet to be released by the Croatian government.

Federal election law provides for the representation of all minorities in parliament,33 with proportional representation guaranteed for any minority that comprises more than 8 percent of the population.34 According to the 1991 census, Serbs comprised approximately 11.5 percent of the population in Croatia and were the only non-Croatian ethnic group in Croatia that met the 8 percent criteria for parliamentary representation.35 Thirteen of the 138 seats in House of Representatives of Croatia's parliament were allotted to members of Croatia's Serbian population.36 The Federal Election Commission designated thirteen Serbsto "represent" the Serbian population, some of whom are listed as political independents and other whom are members of political parties.37

Current estimates indicate that approxiamately 200,000 Serbs fled from western Slavonia and Krajina during the Croatian Army offensives in mid-1995, and those Serbs currently remaining in government-controlled areas of Croatia are believed to comprise only 4 percent of Croatia's population. If a significant number of Serbs do not return to Croatia or if the Croatian government obstructs their repatriation,38 Serbs will no longer be guaranteed proportional respresentation in parliament. Current proportional respresentation of Serbs in Croatia'sparliament is based on 1991 census figures and guaranteed Serbian representation in parliament in the future remains uncertain.

Although the scope of attacks against Serbs decreased and efforts were made to increase minority representation in parliament between 1992 and 1994, gangs or individual extremists continue to single out Serbian civilians and their property for attack in Croatia apart from any military operation. According to the Croatian government, numerous buildings belonging to Serbs living in Croatia have been damaged or destroyed by explosives, arson or other deliberate means. A total of 7,489 such buildings were damaged or destroyed during 1992, and a total of 220 were destroyed from January to March 1993.39 The police regularly come to the scene of the crime and write a report. The police claim to investigate the crimes, but the perpetrators are rarely found. According to government sources, by late 1993, criminal proceedings had been initiated against 126 Croats, thirteen Serbs and eight persons belonging to other ethnic groups for the destruction of such property.40 Although Croatian government agents may not always be responsible for such attacks, prosecution of such crimes continues to be lax.

Although some non-Croats report discrimination in the workplace, most Serbs in Croatia interviewed by Human Rights Watch/Helsinki representatives in the past three years claimed that the denial of citizenship was their main problem. Serbs in the Rijeka area have taken their grievances to the Croatian government in Zagreb and report that they were favorably received and that steps were taken to address some of their concerns. As described in the following section, Serbs are also the main victims of arbitrary evictions by military authorities.

Moreover, the news on state-owned Croatian Television (Hrvatska Televizija - HTV) is often presented in ways which exacerbate rather than ameliorate inter-ethnic strife and discrimination (for example, by exaggerating abuses perpetrated against Croats by Serbian or Muslim forces, or by not reporting or understating abuses perpetrated by Croatian troops.)Publications containing jingoist and rascist materials are published by independent groups in Croatia. Although not directly supported by the government, state-controlled enterprises provide financial aid to these publications by advertising in them. For example, the state-controlled or -managed firms of Croatia Insurance, Tobacco Factory Zadar,Tanker Commerce Zadar, et. al., advertise in Hrvatski vjesnik, an independent, right-wing paper based in the town of Vinkovci in eastern Croatia.41

In addition to Serbs, other minorities living in Croatia also have been attacked or discriminated against in Croatia, usually in regard to the granting of citizenship. Some have also been mistreated in detention. For example, according to Amnesty International, Dñemal Muratov_c was arrested in his home town of Slavonski Brod on February 7, 1994, and allegedly was severely beaten for two days during interrogation. On February 10, he was transferred to another police station in Djakovo and then to the police station in the town of Poñega (formerly Slavonska Poñega). On February 11, a police doctor visited Muratovi_ and reportedly confirmed injuries consistent with beating, including damage to the kidneys and a burst ear-drum. The doctor recommended a full medical inspection and immediate treatment. Muratovi_'s relatives and lawyer reportedly were not allowed to arrange for their own doctor to examine him.42

Muratovi_, a Croatian citizen of Bosnian Muslim origin, is a truck driver who regularly drove humanitarian aid into Bosnia for a Muslim charity. Muratovi_ and a Croat neighbor who was towing his car after it broke down were arrested together, apparently on suspicion of car theft. The Croat neighbor was released after several hours. Muratovi_'s wife also was brought in for questioning on the first day of his detention and was released after several hours. She and a lawyer subsequently had access to Muratovi_.43

Such a decree revokes a persons' right to ownership without due process. It punishes all Serbs who remained in "enemy" territory during the war, although they may not have committed any domestic or internationally-recognized crime. Insofar as a person is guilty of a crime, he or she should be held accountable for his or her actions. Collective punishment of a group because of their ethnicity or residency during war is discriminatory. Since the Croatian government re-asserted control over the Krajina area in early August 1995, Croats displaced or expelled from Serb-held territory in Bosnia and Croatia and from the FRY are being resettled in homes belonging to Serbs in the Krajina area. Coupled with the destruction of Serbian property and the resettling of Krajina since early August 1995, the new decree collectively punishes Serbs from Krajina and seriously hampers their ability to return to their homes, should they chose to do so in the future.

In the past few years, persons residing in apartments formerly owned by the Yugoslav Army have been evicted by members of the Croatian Army, the military police or by unidentified persons in uniform, without recourse to due process. Despite pleas from local human rights and civil liberties groups in Croatia, the government has not taken vigorous steps to provide legal protections to those being evicted nor has the government taken steps to stop and prevent abuse during such evictions. When public pressure against such evictions increases, the military police often refrain temporarily from further evictions. But such evictions resume after protests cease or diminish in frequency.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki does not take a position on who is entitled to housing owned and operated by the state. We are, however, concerned that state agents are violating the right to due process in such property disputes and are using violence during many evictions. Military authorities should not discriminate by granting or withdrawing housing rights on the basis of ethnicity and/or presumed political views. Nor should military authorities abuse their power by forcefully evicting their perceived "enemies" for the benefit of their perceived friends and allies. The military authorities have also eroded the rule of law in Croatia by refusing to comply with judicial orders restoring housing rights to evicted occupants.

In October 1991, the Croatian government issued a decree transferring the ownership of property belonging to the Yugoslav Army or the Yugoslav Defense Ministry (Savezni Sekretarijat za Narodnu O(d)branu - SSNO) to the Croatiangovernment. The Croatian Defense Ministry was given the responsibility of managing and administering such property.44

The Law Concerning the Temporary Use of Apartments

The fiercest fighting between Croatian troops and Serbian and Yugoslav Army forces occurred during the latter part of 1991, resulting in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. Faced with an influx of displaced persons and little housing, the Croatian parliament passed a law allowing for the "temporary use of apartments owned by public enterprises or persons or the Republic of Croatia, that is, [those apartments] over which the Republic of Croatia has the right to use and administer, and which are otherwise empty, vacated or abandoned."45 The Law Concerning the Temporary Use of Apartments stipulates that the apartments in question are to be used for the housing of displaced persons, refugees and members of the Croatian armed forces and their families.46 Article 2 allows for the temporary use of the following apartments:

· empty apartments for which no one has obtained tenant rights (stanarsko pravo);

· vacated apartments for which tenant rights exist and for which it can be determined that the residents of the apartment and members of their household have vacated the premises and removed their belongings; and

· abandoned apartments for which tenant rights exist and for which it can be determined that the residents of the apartment and members of their household have permanently abandoned [their apartments].

The law, therefore, allows the government to utilize apartments formerly owned by the Yugoslav Army or Defense Ministry - commonly referred to as "military apartments" ("vojni stanovi" - to house displaced persons and refugees, provided that these apartments are empty or have been vacated. The law does not allow for the use of apartments occupied by persons who have legal ownership of, or hold tenant rights to, the apartment.

The Law Concerning the Temporary Use of Apartments establishes a commission charged with the administration of the apartments in question. The members of this commission include one representative from the Croatian government's Office for Displaced Persons or the Center for Social Welfare. The Croatian Army, the police and the Fund for Housing (fond za stambene gospodarstva) each have one representative on the commission.

Former Yugoslav Army-owned apartments which became the property of the Croatian government and over which the Croatian Defense Ministry has control are administered by a commission appointed by the ministry. Similarly, apartments belonging to the Ministry of Interior are administered by a commission appointed by that body. Remaining apartments that are not the property of the Ministries of Defense or Interior are administered by a commission appointed by the Croatian government, on the basis of recommendations offered by the Ministry of Justice and Public Administration. Each of the commissions are to decide how and for whom an apartment is to be allotted on a temporary basis. However, the vast majority of the apartments from which persons are being evicted are administered de facto exclusively by the Croatian Army.

Article 9 of the law states that the temporary use of an apartment cannot exceed one year and that, should a displaced person or refugee be able to return to his or her home, the occupier would be required to vacate the apartment. Article 12 makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine, for a person to enter an apartment without a permit from the relevant commission allowing for the temporary use of the apartment. Article 13 of the law requires that the Croatian government establish a commission to monitor and regularly inform the government about the enforcement of the law.

It is important to stress that, according to Croatia's Law Regarding the Temporary Use of Apartments, before an apartment can be allotted to a displaced or other person, the apartment must be empty. The law does not allow for the eviction of persons still living in Yugoslav Army-owned apartments. Indeed, Croatian law expressly states that due process must be afforded to those who face eviction.48

Controversy Regarding the Use of Military Apartments After July 24, 1991

In most cases, tenants of apartments formerly owned by the communist state or socialist enterprises have been allowed to buy their apartments and obtain legal ownership, an opportunity which many have taken. However, the tenants of apartments owned by the Croatian government - including apartments formerly owned by the Yugoslav Army or Defense Ministry - generally have not been permitted to purchase, and thereby obtain legal ownership of, their apartments.

Some parts of the Croatian government and legal community - including the Ministry of Defense and local military housing commissions which allot the military apartments to displaced persons and refugees - dispute the right of tenants to reside in military apartments if their tenant rights were issued by the Yugoslav Army after July 1991. They base this on two Croatian government decrees. A July 1991 decree forbade the disposal of real property on the territory of the Republic of Croatia.49 As described above, the October 1991 decree transferred ownership of property formerly owned by the Yugoslav Army and Defense Ministry to the Croatian government. Both decrees effectively forbid the sale, exchange, donation, transfer of the right to use or administer, leasing and temporary use, mortgage and similar transactions of real estate in Croatia that was previously owned by the former SFRJ.50 The decrees are seen by some as effectively annulling the rights of tenants if their apartments were allotted by the Yugoslav Army after July 24, 1991; in other words, after July 24, 1991, the transfer of Yugoslav Army-owned property and any action taken by the Yugoslav Army in Croatia is no longer considered valid. Citing these decrees, proponents of this argument claim that the Croatian government has a legal right to evict persons frommilitary apartments if their tenant rights to the apartment in question were issued after July 24, 1991.

Opponents of the aforementioned position point to internationally-brokered agreements signed by the Croatian government to support their claim that the evictions of persons who received rights to occupy military apartments after July 24, 1991, is illegal. Two agreements negotiated by the European Union (formerly the European Community - EC) are cited to support this position, i.e., the so-called Brioni Declaration signed by Croatia and Slovenia on July 7, 1991, and a November 1991 agreement signed by the Yugoslav Army and the Croatian government.

The Brioni Declaration was signed by Slovenia and Croatia eleven days after both republics declared their independence from the former SFRJ. According to the terms of that agreement, Slovenia and Croatia agreed to suspend, for a period of three months, all declarations and acts passed by the Croatian and Slovenian parliaments that were related to those states' secession from the SFRJ. The Brioni Agreement would allow for the suspension - until October 7, 1991 - of Croatia's July 24, 1991, decree forbidding the transfer and administration of property formerly owned by the Yugoslav Army or Defense Ministry. The suspension of such laws and decrees would ensure that those who obtained tenant rights to military apartments between July 24 and October 7, 1991, could not be evicted by the Croatian government.

Proponents of this argument also assert that, according to Article 4 of the November 22, 1991, agreement between the Yugoslav Army and the Croatian government, the latter agreed "to guarantee the safety and inviolability of private property and the right to the unhampered use of apartments" (emphasis added) by members of the JNA who chose not to leave Croatia. The agreement also states that the decision of former Yugoslav Army personnel to remain in Croatia resulted in the termination of their service in the Yugoslav Army and guaranteed them the same civil liberties afforded all other citizens of the Republic of Croatia. In this case, the Croatian government's signature to this agreement forbids the eviction of persons living in military apartments and exempts the application of the July 1991 decree forbidding the transfer of property formerly owned by the SFRJ to tenants of military apartments.

To date, the applicability of the July 1991 decree remains controversial; while some members of the Croatian government cite the decree to justify evictions, others argue that such evictions are illegal.

Other Legislation Related to Housing

Irrespective of whether or not a person retains tenant rights to his or her apartment, Croatia's Law on Housing Relations allows for the revocation of those rights under certain circumstances.51 For example, Article 99 of the law states that persons may lose the tenant rights to their apartments if they have not lived in the apartment for over six months. However, it is important to note that, according to Article 105 of the Law on Housing Relations, only a court of law can revoke a person's tenant rights; an administrative or government agency - such as the local military housing commissions responsible for the eviction of persons from military apartments - does not have that authority.

The Ministry of Defense often has tried to justify its evictions of persons from "military apartments" by citing amendments to the Law on Housing Relations, which allow for the eviction of persons from their apartments if that person is "an enemy of the state." For example, amendments and revisions to the Law on Housing Relations issued on April 17, 1992, state that a person who has taken part in, or continues to take part in, acts of hostility against the Republic of Croatia, can lose the tenant rights to his or her apartment(s).52 However, such amendments continue to provide for due process and explicitly state that only a court of law can legally nullify an agreement regarding the use of such a housing unit(s).

In other cases, the local military housing commissions revoke a tenant's rights to occupy a military apartment, despite the fact that only a court of law can rescind such rights. The revocation of a person's tenant rights by the local housing commissions is used to justify his or her eviction. A written notice is sent by the local military housing commission to the tenants in question, notifying them that their right to occupy their military apartment has been rescinded. The notice also specifies the day and time by which they must vacate the premises or be forcibly evicted, usually by Croatian Army soldiers. Threats, harassment, violence and destruction of property often are used by soldiers to force persons from their homes.

The largest number of military apartments in Croatia are located in the cities of Zagreb, Split, Pula, Zadar, Rijeka and Karlovac.53 In the past three years, Human Rights Watch/Helsinki has received scores of complaints concerning forcible evictions in all of the aforementioned cities. The victims of such evictions are predominantly non-Croats, most often Serbs. Croats whose family members - usually non-Croats - had worked for the Yugoslav Army but had left Croatia also are being evicted from their homes. We have documented several cases involving the excessive use of force during evictions, were present at an illegal eviction and have spoken with government officials about these practices. Croatian human rights organizations, such as the Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights and the Center for Peace, Non-Violence and Human Rights, have worked tirelessly on this issue and have documented scores of additional cases.54 The following select cases illustrate the methods used by the Croatian Army and the military housing commissions to illegally evict persons from their homes.

Case #1:

Evictions from state-owned housing are most frequent in Zagreb and Split. Between February and November 1993, 364 illegally evicted persons or families appealed to the courts in Split.55 The courts ruled on 280 cases, in which all but 60 of those evicted were reinstated in their homes. However, according to the U.N. Special Rapporteur, the military authorities in Split have refused to execute almost all of the court orders.56 The offices of two lawyers who defended the evicted tenants were damaged by explosives planted by allegedly unknown assailants.

The attempted eviction of a mother and her daughter in Split resulted in the death of a bodyguard they had hired to protect them. V.P. and her mother - both Croats - are the daughter and wife of a former Yugoslav Army officer - a Serb - who left Croatia in late August 1991 when the Yugoslav Army was withdrawing from Croatia.57 After Mr. P. had left Croatia, the P. family was harassed58 and Croatian military personnel in uniform repeatedly threatened Mr. P.'s wife, daughter and son with eviction. Ms. P. and her daughter were frequently visited, interrogated and sometimes threatened by Croatian military personnel in uniform during the course of two years.

According to Ms. P. and her daughter, members of the fourth battalion of the Croatian Army had come to their apartment building on the 26th or 27th of July 1993, compiling a list of persons who lived in the apartment building. According to Ms. P.:

All the apartments in the building are military apartments ... They [the soldiers compiling the list] wanted to know how manypeople lived in each apartment. They went only to the Serbs' homes and to the homes of those persons who had left [Croatia] with the JNA [but whose families remained in Split]. These soldiers were not people from Split. They were from Hercegovina.59

According to V.P., Ms. P.'s daughter:

Once they came by when only my brother - who is twenty years old - was at home. They didn't have a warrant to search the place. They searched the dresser, and they said my mother had to come to the police station.

Ms. P. and V.P. went to the police station the following day but V.P. was not allowed to enter the room with her mother. According to Ms. P.:

They told me I wasn't a good Croat; otherwise I would have sent my son into the Croatian Army. Two men questioned me. They were dressed in civilian clothing and they identified themselves only after I insisted. I demanded to see the chief of the station, and then they told me that I could leave. I was never bothered by them again.

On Tuesday, August 10, 1993, while V.P. and her mother were on vacation, Mladen _unji_, a member of the fourth battalion of the Croatian Army, came to their apartment, removed their name from the door and replaced it with a notice stating "Do not enter - dangerous." Ms. P.'s neighbors called the police, but _unji_ had already left by the time the police arrived. V.P. and her mother returned from vacation on Saturday, August 14, but they went to the police before returning to their apartment. V.P. recounted their experience with the civilian and military police on that day:

We went to the first police station and spoke with Mr. Jure Catipovi_, the deputy commander of the station. He called the military police. The civilian police escorted us to our apartmentbuilding in a police car, and we waited for the military police to arrive. It was about 9:00 in the morning. We went to the apartment with the military police, and we knocked on the door. _unji_ was alone in the apartment. He was stripped to the waist but had a gun strapped to his belt. He wouldn't let us into the apartment and told the military police officer that he wasn't going to do anything he told him to do.

Ms. P. continued:

The military police didn't want to argue with him so they took all of us, including _unji_, to the military police station at Lora,60 where we went to meet the commander of the military police. The civilian police officers then left. The commander wasn't there so we were taken to [see] the officer on duty. After we spoke to him, _unji_ went in to be questioned but he obviously knew everyone there - they were friends. He didn't stay inside longer than two minutes. Then they questioned us about things that had nothing to do with the apartment. They asked where we were from, about my husband. We eventually asked about the status of our apartment, and they asked me if it was a military apartment. I replied that it was. They told me that he [i.e., _unji_] had more right to be there than we.

We left the room and asked to speak to the commander but they said he wasn't in, that it was a Saturday. We left, intending to go back to the civilian police, at which point we saw soldiers driving _unji_ somewhere - we presumed back to our apartment. We went to the civilian police and explained that the military police wouldn't do anything to help us. They were surprised but said that they could not do anything - that _unji_ was a soldier and they could only help us if he attacked us.

V.P. and her mother went to her grandmother's and later in the afternoon returned to the military police headquarters at Lora. According to Ms. P.:

We spoke to a higher-ranking officer, and he asked me for the document giving me the right to occupy my apartment, which was issued twenty years ago. He told me that it was no longer valid. Then he told me that they couldn't do anything until the military court interviewed us.

At about 7:00 p.m., we went to the city court, which is a civilian court. We spoke with the judge on duty. She was good to us, but she told us that this was not within her jurisdiction and told us that we had to go to the military court. She referred us to a lawyer.

Ms. P. and her daughter returned to their apartment in the evening. The military police came twice to their apartment although neither Ms. P. nor her daughter had called them. According to Ms. P.:

At about 9:00 p.m., we returned to our apartment, and we told the [civilian] police that we were there. They came five minutes later to write a report. While the two police officers were still there, two military police officers arrived. It was about 10:00 or 10:30 p.m.. We had not called the military police, so they left. After the civilian police officers left, three military police officers arrived, at about 10:45 p.m.. They had long-barrelled weapons, but I wouldn't let them into the apartment.

In the interim, V.P. had called a private agency, called "Bond," asking for a bodyguard. The bodyguard, Maksimilian Markovi_, arrived several minutes before the three military police officers. Markovi_ opened the door and invited the three military police officers to have a seat in the apartment. According to V.P.:

We described to the military police officers what had happened with the apartment, who my father was, and the three military police officers were very polite. They left shortly thereafter. Markovi_ stayed, and he went to fix the lock on our door; we had to break it to get into the apartment because _unji_ had replaced our lock with his.

While Ms. P., her daughter and the bodyguard were in the apartment, _unji_ broke in. According to V.P.:

[Markovi_] had finished the lock at about 12:15 a.m.. Because they were rationing electricity61, he came into the living room with two candles ... and asked for some water, which [my mother] got from the kitchen. It was then that _unji_ came and kicked in the door. He had a huge gun, plus another gun in his holster. He came to us in the living room and started yelling what we were doing in his apartment! Markovi_ told him that there was no need to yell or to get upset. He told [_unji_] that he'd explain everything to him. He showed him all our documents. _unji_ then told Markovi_, "What kind of Croat are you!?! I kill your kind with two fingers. The ,,etniks62 burned three of my houses!"

While he was arguing, my mother and I sneaked out of the apartment and ran across the street to some friends' home to call the police, but we heard shots coming out of the apartment. I ran into the apartment to see what had happened. _unji_ went toward the hallway, and we went after him and he asked me where his lock was. I told him I didn't know. He told Maks to get the phone and call the military police. Maks told _unji_ to call them himself at which point _unji_ shot off a round of bullets into the floor, about half a meter from us. He started yelling and told us to get out. I said OK, and I ran outside barefoot, and then I heard another burst of gunfire which lasted for about thirty or forty seconds. I ran across the street to call the Bond agency.

The second burst of gunfire killed Markovi_. V.P.'s mother had been waiting for the police to arrive outside the apartment building after her daughter ran back into the apartment when she heard the first gunshots. According to V.P.:

Two civilian police officers arrived quickly. The military police came after they did. They disarmed _unji_, and the military police took him away. While they were doing this, they wanted to take us to Lora for questioning, but I refused and told them that I would come in the morning. They finished filing their report at 3:00 a.m., and the military police told us that no one could sleep in the apartment so, at 3:00 a.m., we walked for an hour and a half to my grandmothers's. We didn't want anyone to drive us.

V.P. and her mother went to the military police on Monday, after consulting with a lawyer who instructed them to go to the military police. After they gave their statement to the military police, Ms. P. and her daughter went to the military court, where they also gave a statement to a Mr. B.,63 who promised to accompany them to their apartment the next day. Nevertheless, Ms. P. and her daughter had not returned to their apartment at the time of our interview.

V.P. and her mother reported that _unji_ was in jail and that he had been charged with murder. Human Rights Watch/Helsinki has not been able to confirm whether _unji_ was convicted and if, he had been found guilty, whether and where he was serving a sentence of imprisonment. According to Ms. P. and her daughter, _unji_ was originally from Mostar, Bosnia-Hercegovina, but belonged to the fourth battalion of the Croatian Army.

Although the Croatian authorities properly arrested and charged _unji_, local military police officers appear to have been in complicity with _unji_ in his efforts to remove the P. family forcibly from their home. Indeed, this is a pattern found throughout Croatia - local military commanders encourage or condone forcible evictions by soldiers, and often such evictions are characterized by a lack of due process, discrimination, violence and, in this case, murder.

The murdered bodyguard, Maksimilian Markovi_ was twenty-one years old, married to an eighteen-year-old woman and the father of an eighteen-month-old son. He was a Croat by nationality and had served throughout Dalmatia as a member of the 72nd and 73rd Split brigade of the military police of the Croatian Army. After his death, Markovi_'s father, mother and brother wrote an open letterto members of the fourth Split brigade of the Croatian Army, to which Mladen _unji_ - Markovi_'s murderer - had belonged. The letter was published in the Split-based daily Slobodna Dalmacija.64 In the letter, Markovi_'s family demanded to know from the fourth battalion why it had not taken steps to prevent the "terrorization" of Ms. P. and her daughter. The family condemned the fact that officials of the Croatian Army - including then Croatian Army Chief of Staff General Janko Bobetko - and members of the fourth battalion did not publicly condemn the murder of their son and brother. The family ended their letter by asking the Croatian Army to take measures to ensure that similar tragedies be prevented in the future.

Case #2:

Arbitrary violence is frequently used by Croatian Army soldiers or the military police in many illegal evictions. In some cases, human rights activists working to prevent evictions have been the target of such attacks. On February 2, 1994, the president of the Split-based Dalmatian Committee for Human Rights was severely beaten by uniformed men while trying to prevent an illegal eviction. The attack occurred in the presence of the military and civilian police, which reportedly did not intervene to stop the attack.65

Members of the Dalmatian Committee for Human Rights report that they were physically attacked twice in Split by the same Croatian Army soldier in mid-and late February 1994. The soldier reportedly had moved into an apartment illegally. According to the Dalmatian Committee for Human Rights, on February 26, Mr. Rogo_i_, a member of the Committee, was severely beaten and kicked by the aforementioned soldier in a cafe. Rogo_i_ fainted as a result of the beating, and the attacker eventually was stopped by persons accompanying him.66 To the best of our knowledge, charges were never brought against the soldier who beat Mr. Rogo_i_.

Case #3:

Some evictions have also been accompanied by the use of force against members of the media, thereby obstructing freedom of the press. For example, foreign journalists covering the eviction of a family in Zagreb on December 3, 1993, were prevented by Croatian Army soldiers and members of the military police from approaching the apartment complex in which the family lived. The soldiers attacked a journalist for the Associated Press, "tugging her by the hair and throwing her to the ground." A video cassette was confiscated from a television crew, and a camera operator was struck in the face. Apparently in response to protests from the international community, the Croatian Defense Ministry later ceased its efforts to evict the residents of the apartment in question.67

Case #4:

In 1993, a Human Rights Watch/Helsinki representative and domestic human rights activists arrived at the home of a couple who were being evicted by Croatian Army soldiers in the Dugave section of Zagreb. Ms. I.D., who retained the rights to occupy the apartment, and her husband had worked at the Yugoslav Army's military hospital in Zagreb and were allotted their apartment as its employees. After the Yugoslav Army left Croatia, Mr. and Ms. D. decided to remain in Zagreb and continued to work at the hospital, which has been renamed "New Hospital" (Nova Bolnica). Mr. and Ms. D. received three notices that they were to be evicted by the local military housing commission. Anticipating violence and threats, Mr. and Ms. D. sent their two children to live with relatives in another part of Zagreb.

On June 10, 1993, approximately ten Croatian Army soldiers armed with handguns came to the apartment. Ms. D. asserted that the soldiers arrived in two trucks and with a written order for their eviction. Ms. D. claims that the soldiers verbally threatened her and her husband, demanding that they leave the apartment. According to Ms. D., two civilian police officers arrived at the same time as the Croatian Army soldiers, and the police officers ordered the soldiers to remain outside, claiming that the military did not have jurisdiction to deal with civilians. The soldiers complied and, at the time of our arrival, were standing outside the building and allowed us to enter the apartment. The two police officers remained in the apartment.

Local human rights advocates were in the apartment with Mr. and Ms. D.. These activists had contacted the office of Stipe Mesi_, then the president of the Croatian parliament and an opponent of such evictions, asking him to intercede on behalf of Mr. and Ms. D.. Mesi_ and Ante Djapi_, a member of the parliament's human rights committee, sent a fax to officials at the Ministry of Defense demanding that they halt the eviction. Two unarmed representatives of the local military housing commission - dressed in civilian clothing - then arrived at the apartment to reiterate that Mr. and Ms. D. must leave the apartment. After about two hours of telephone and fax communication between Mesi_ and the Defense Ministry, an order was sent to stop the eviction.

A military police officer named Mario Markovi_ then arrived and asked to enter the home. He politely interviewed the couple, specifically asking if the soldiers had mistreated them in any way. They responded that they were threatened with force by the soldiers if they did not move out. Mr. Markovi_ recorded their statements and asked for the names of the soldiers standing outside. Some of the soldiers had already left, but others gave their names to Markovi_. Markovi_, the two representatives from the housing commission and the police officers then wrote up their reports, exchanged papers and left.

In this instance, the eviction of Mr. and Ms. D. was prevented because high-ranking government officials had interceded at the request of local human rights groups, specifically the Center for Peace, Non-Violence and Human Rights and the Human Rights Commission of the Social-Democratic Union (Socijaldemokratska Unija - SDU).68 The behavior of the two civilian officers and Mario Markovi_, the military police officer, was commendable. However, the Croatian Army soldiers and the representatives of the local military housing commission were rude and insulting and, at first, had dismissed the authority of high-ranking government officials to dispute decrees of the military authorities.

Although Mr. and Ms. D. were not evicted at that time, Ms. D. was sure that they would be evicted at a later date. Indeed, in November 1993, Mr. and Ms. D. were evicted from their home. Mr. and Ms. D. have appealed to the courts.

Case #5:

According to the U.N. Special Rapporteur, proceedings had been initiated against "enemies of the state" in 3,120 instances by November 1993, under amendments and revisions to the Law on Apartment Relations, which allows forthe termination of tenant rights to such persons, pending a court hearing.69 In many instances, as in the following case documented by local human rights groups in Osijek, non-Croats are summarily evicted from their homes under the pretext that they, or members of their family, are "enemies of the state." They are not afforded the right to due process, although Croatian law guarantees them that right.

According to an ordinance issued by the local military housing commission in Osijek, M.V. was required to leave his apartment and temporarily move into a smaller apartment "which would accommodate the number of persons in his family." The ordinance stated that spacious military apartments were being confiscated from families whose members had joined rebel Serbian forces and who had left behind other family members to care for their property. The ordinance stated that, until a decree specifying the status of such family members was established, the apartment in question was to be used to house refugees and displaced persons; family members currently occupying the apartment would be moved to a smaller military or publicly-owned apartment. Should the refugees or displaced persons return to their homes and vacate the apartment in question, the ability of the original occupants to return to the apartment would again be considered.70

The fact or suspicion that a member of a family is fighting with rebel Serbian forces does not allow for the persecution of family members who have not participated in such hostilities and or broken any laws. The eviction of such persons from their home places guilt on persons by virtue of their association with a member of their family. Insofar as a person is guilty of a crime, the individual in question - and not his or her family members - should be held accountable before a court of law.

Also, the ordinance in question was applied to evict M.V. and his family without legal basis. In fact, the ordinance explicitly states that a law regulating the status of families whose members had joined rebel Serbian forces, but whose other members remained in Croatian government-controlled areas, had not yet been issued. In the absence of a court ruling, a local military housing commission does not have the right to evict a family summarily.

Case #6:

In some cases, persons who have been illegally evicted from their homes seek redress in court and obtain a ruling in their favor, ordering the return of the evicted tenants to their apartments. However, some local military housing commissions and military police officers refuse to respect the ruling of the courts. In his report, the U.N. Special Rapporteur stated that his field staff

had received an official notice dated July 20, 1993, in which the registrar of the Municipal Court of Rijeka testifies that 'the execution of the court order [to reinstate the unlawfully evicted tenant] was not acted upon because the military police did not obey the writ given by the court' on the grounds that they 'have different orders from their superiors.'71

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki has documented a similar case in Osijek. During the shelling of Osijek in 1991, B.B. and his wife, L. - both Croats - left Osijek to stay with relatives in Germany. In early February 1992, during the family's absence from Osijek, M.S, a Croatian Army soldier broke into the B.'s apartment, changed the lock on their door and moved in with his family. M.S. and his family had been forcibly displaced from their home in the village of Laslovo by rebel Serbian forces in 1991 or early 1992 and were living in Osijek as displaced persons.72

When B.B. and his wife returned to Osijek, they asked M.S. to move out of their apartment but he refused. B.B. then filed a claim with the local Secretariat for Housing and Urban Affairs demanding that M.S. move out of their apartment within twenty-five days, as specified by Article 94 of the Law on Housing Relations. In the interim, M.S. sought and obtained from the military housing commission a permit to use the B.'s apartment for a period of one year. The Ministry of Justice and Public Administration declared invalid M.S.'s permit, butthe local military housing commission refused to revoke the permit and M.S. remained in the B.'s apartment.

In June 1992, B.B. and his wife appealed their case to Croatia's constitutional court, which agreed with the Ministry of Justice and ruled that the issuance of the local military housing commission's permit had been illegal. Despite the ruling of Croatia's highest court, the military housing commission still refused to revoke M.S.'s permit.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki spoke with M.S. in July 1993, at which point he continued to occupy the B.'s apartment. M.S. was politically active in Osijek at the time of our visit, lobbying for the rights of displaced persons to housing. M.S. insisted that he had a right to the B.'s apartment by virtue of his affiliation with the Croatian Army and claimed that he had been assured, presumably by the authorities, that he would not be removed from the apartment. M.S.'s main concern focused on returning to his home in Laslovo.

Branimir Glava_, the governor (ñupan) of the Baranja, eastern Slavonia and Srijem regions, and Petar Kljaji_, the head of Osijek's military housing commission and president of the Osijek district (okruñni) court, support - and Kljaji_ is directly responsible for - the evictions of persons from "military apartments" in Osijek. Both men reject the claim that such evictions are illegal. When Human Rights Watch/Helsinki representatives inquired about M.S.'s right to remain in the B.'s apartment, both Glava_ and Kljaji_73 defended M.S.'s right to remain in the apartment. Kljaji_ insisted that, as head of the housing commission that had allowed M.S. to make use of the B.'s apartment, he would do nothing to remove M.S. and his family from the apartment in question. Glava_ implied that the B.'s had been "cowards" when they left Osijek and that those who remained in Osijek - particularly those who fought to defend the city, as had M.S. - had priority to housing. Although Glava_ claimed that B.B. and his family could eventually return to their apartment, he said that they would have to wait until M.S. was ready to leave. According to Glava_:

I don't care what you human rights types think. I have soldiers who were kicked out of their houses by the Serb[ian forces], who fought bravely and defended the city while it was being attacked. They and their families had no place to live so we put them in the apartments and houses of those who left Osijek during its most difficult days. Now these cowards who left the city are coming back, and they want their houses and apartmentsback. I don't care who these people [who are returning] happen to be - I don't care if they're Serbs, Hungarians, Croats or whatever. I'm not going to kick out the soldiers who stayed here to fight to accommodate those who left Osijek and spent their time drinking in European cafes during the war and who now want to come back. They'll have to wait until we can find the soldiers and the displaced persons a decent place to live.

Glava_'s response is not unique; it is typical of residents who remained and continue to live in areas most affected by the war, particularly in the municipalities of Osijek, Karlovac, Pakrac, Slavonski Brod, Gospi_, Ogulin, Zadar, _ibenik and Dubrovnik. The need to care for displaced persons and refugees and the need to provide housing for soldiers and their families who otherwise do not have a home is a necessary task and hardship for the Croatian authorities, particularly the local authorities in the aforementioned areas. However, the eviction without basis in law of those formerly associated with the Yugoslav Army, those who fled their homes temporarily during the war and others is not a justifiable means through which authorities can provide housing for refugees and displaced persons.

On February 12, 1993, Stjepan Herceg, then Croatia's State Prosecutor, sent a letter to Mate Lau_i_, the chief of the military police, protesting the abusive behavior of, and forcible evictions by, members of the military police. The letter states that only the courts can decide whether or not a person has the right tooccupy an apartment or dwelling and that the military police do not have the legal or other authority to evict persons forcibly from their homes. The letter asks Lau_i_ to ensure that the military police respect law and order.74

While some members of the Croatian government have been sympathetic and have intervened to prevent such evictions, often their successes are only temporary. Sooner or later, members of the Croatian Army or the military police arrive and evict the apartment's tenants. The Ministry of Defense and local military housing commissions have turned a deaf ear to the efforts of human rights groups and even some high-ranking members of the Croatian government.

In July 1994, the presence of human rights activists and foreign journalists prevented the Croatian police and soldiers from serving eviction notices on two families, who are Croatian by nationality.75 Indeed, due to the work of local human rights groups in Croatia, many evictions have been postponed. However, some human rights workers who have peacefully protested such evictions and have remained on the premises while evictions were in progress have been arrested and interrogated, and some have been beaten. On September 27, 1994, members of local non-governmental organizations76 and other persons were severely beaten by the police during an eviction.77

Tensions are high between the various groups involved. In some cases, displaced persons have illegally broken into apartments which residents had temporarily evacuated to wait out the war in Croatia. In other instances, local housing commissions are granting permits to those displaced persons who broke into the apartments, legalizing their illegal entrance after the fact. In still other instances, displaced persons who had illegally broken into an apartment are evictedand sent to collective centers for displaced persons and refugees, where accommodations are not as comfortable as in a private apartment.78 Further cases involve evictions of refugees and displaced persons who have fled rebel Serbian-occupied areas and received apartments via friends or in apartment-swaps. These persons are evicted despite the fact that the law on Displaced Persons and Refugees79 forbids their eviction unless alternate housing can be provided.

Despite the tensions, many displaced persons and refugees with whom we spoke did not approve of the evictions of former JNA personnel or of other refugees and displaced persons and did not feel secure in the temporary apartments in which they lived. According to a man who had been displaced from his home in eastern Slavonia and was currently living in an apartment from which the tenant had been forcibly evicted in Osijek:80

We have problems with housing in this city. There are many displaced persons who were kicked out of their homes in 1991 and 1992 by Serbian forces and others continue to be expelled from their homes in [Serbian-controlled areas of] Baranja and eastern Slavonia. Just fifteen days ago, another ten people were expelled from Baranja - they're in ,,epin now. We need housing. If we don't have housing they start kicking people out of their homes. Those of us who live in these apartments [from which people have been evicted] don't feel any safer. We don't want to leave the apartment because you never know who'll move in while we've gone to buy milk or run an errand.

By the end of 1993, the Croatian authorities had assumed control of approximately 2,000 apartments that formerly belonged to the Yugoslav Army, effectively rendering homeless many of the apartments' former occupants.81 In June 1994, President Tudjman told veterans of the war in Croatia that they were entitled to housing, suggesting this could be provided at the expense of those living in so-called "military apartments," most of whom are non-Croats. According to press reports, President Tudjman was quoted as saying: "Let us prove we are a civilized people, that we will grant all ethnic and minority rights to Serbs who accept Croatia as their homeland. [But] why are there 6,000 apartments with Serbs inside and you, Croatian invalids [i.e., veterans handicapped as a result of the war], haven't got any?"82

Tadeusz Mazowiecki, the U.N. Special Rapporteur, met with Defense Ministry officials in August and December 1993 to convey his concerns about the illegal evictions. On both occasions, he was assured that steps would be taken to improve the situation. During his meeting in December 1993, the Special Rapporteur was informed that

a moratorium had been adopted as of December 10 whereby all evictions would cease for a 20-day period, during which time all individual cases, as well as [relevant] legislation.., would be examined. The Special Rapporteur was also informed that the Ministry of Defense was prepared to undertake concrete measures to compensate those who had been affected by the illegal evictions. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur was informed that a Commission of Control has been established in order to regulate the activities of the Housing Commission established pursuant to the Law on the Provisional Use of Apartments of 4 December 1994.83

Following the December 1993 moratorium, reports of evictions decreased. Toward the end of 1993, some local authorities, such as those of the city council of Pula, decided to stop all evictions until the Administrative Court of Croatia ruled on the lawfulness of each individual case.84

The U.N. Special Rapporteur reported that between March and mid-1994 his staff had not received reports of evictions carried out by Croatian Army soldierson active duty.85 By late 1994, the Special Rapporteur's staff was primarily investigating evictions involving soldiers on active duty which took place prior to March 1994. However, the staff pointed out that although evictions in 1994 decreased, those soldiers responsible for forced or illegal evictions in the past have not been disciplined nor criminally prosecuted for their abuses. Despite Croatian government promises to do so, no financial compensation has been provided to victims of illegal and forced evictions.86 Moreover, as illustrated in the preceding cases, forcible evictions continue in 1995.

In mid-1994, the Croatian government accepted a draft proposal for a law regulating evictions from state-owned housing, but parliament postponed indefinately a vote on the proposal. According to the proposal, the occupants of state-owned apartments that were allotted to them before October 1991 would have the right to buy the apartment. According to the Special Rapporteur, the law does not appear to provide guarantees for the legal tenants.87 The Croatian government also promised to create a Commission of Control that would regulate the activities of the military housing commission but the Special Rapporteur had not been informed of the commission's work as of November 1994.88

On November 22, 1994, the Special Rapporteur was informed by the Croatian Foreign Ministry that Croatia's constitutional court had ruled on July 7, 1993, and March 30, 1994, to confirm the constitutionality and legality of the Decree on the Prohibition of Free Disposal of Real Estate in the Territory of the Republic of Croatia and other relevant decrees of July 24, 1991, and October 2, 1991.89 The consitutional court has also agreed to review, but as of January 1995has not yet ruled on, the constitutionality and applicability of article 94 of the 1985 housing law, which has been used as a basis for forcible evictions without a court decision.90 Following a November 1994 symposium on forced evictions sponsored by the Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights and attended by Croatian government officials, non-governmental organizations and other interested parties, administrative organs of the government decided to stop the evictions based on the July 24, 1991, regulations, until the issue was taken up in parliament.91

Currently, approximately 15,000 occupants of state-owned apartments face eviction. Despite government promises to the contrary, forcible evictions continue in Croatia.

The fighting between Croats and Muslims in central Bosnia in 1993 resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of persons. Many displaced Bosnian Croats came to Croatia as refugees, and some of these refugees attacked Bosnian Muslim refugees currently living in Croatia. The Croatian government did little to protect Bosnian Muslim refugees from attack. Moreover, the anti-Muslim propaganda regularly heard on the state-controlled television and radio throughout 1993 exacerbated tensions between Muslims and Croats in Croatia.

As of March 1995, the Croatian government was providing refuge to 189,000 refugees from Bosnia and 196,000 persons who have been internally displaced as a result of the war in Croatia in 1991 and thereafter.92 Officials of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Croatia told Human Rights Watch/Helsinki representatives that they estimated that an additional 30,000unregistered refugees were living in Croatia in mid-1994. With the notable exception of the forced repatriation of draft-age Bosnian males, UNHCR officials interviewed by Human Rights Watch/Helsinki representatives claimed that the Croatian government's treatment and accommodation of refugees has generally been good. In addition to receiving Bosnian refugees, Croatia continues to accept, and provide aid to, Croats, Hungarians and a very small number of Serbs who have fled or are transported by the U.N. from rebel Serbian-controlled areas of Croatia.

Refugees are required to register with the Social Welfare Center based in the district (op...ina) in which they currently reside. Refugees are granted refugee status usually for three months, at which point they must renew their status. According to Maja Kurent, the Liaison Officer for UNHCR at the Croatian government's Office of Displaced Persons and Refugees (ODPR),93 if a refugee cannot return to his or her home in Bosnia because of continued fighting or fear of persecution, the refugee's status will be renewed. Once the war in Bosnia ends, refugees will be required to return home.

On July 13, 1992, Croatia stated that it could no longer bear the cost of accepting more refugees. However, it said children, the disabled, pregnant women and those with serious medical problems were to be permitted to enter Croatia and were allowed to register as refugees. The admission of other Bosnian Muslim refugees was to be limited to those with assured passage to a third country.94

In practice, however, the Croatian government has continued to accept refugees from Bosnia. These refugees are not issued refugee status but are given transit visas, in theory to transit Croatia en route to a third country. However, because the transit visa is valid only for forty-eight hours and foreign governments refuse or delay acceptance of Bosnian refugees, most of the displaced remain in Croatia. Croatia has agreed to accept these additional refugees temporarily, provided that the UNHCR take responsibility for their care and ensure that they are eventually resettled in a third country.

Many refugees have entered Croatia illegally. In February and March 1993, the Croatian government announced that it would grant refugee status to those Bosnians who had not registered as refugees in Croatia. Although many took the opportunity to legalize their stay in the country, many men chose not to registerwith the local authorities because they feared that they would be forcibly repatriated to Bosnia as draft evaders.

In the summers of 1993 and 1994, the Croatian government issued orders that displaced persons and refugees residing in resort hotels along the Dalmatian coast and in Istria be transferred to other accommodations in order to make the hotels available for tourism and to refurbish resort areas. UNHCR confirmed that the Croatian government could rightfully remove the refugees and displaced persons from the hotels, but it asked the government to help provide alternate accommodations. The Croatian government then transferred many of the refugees to collective refugee centers in the village of Ga_inci (near Djakovo), to the island of Obonjan (near _ibenik) and other refugee settlements.

In June and July 1994, Muslim refugees refused to leave their refugee accommodations in Istria after the Croatian government ordered that most refugees and displaced persons living in the resort areas of Istria be moved to alternate accommodations. The Croatian government responded to the refugees' refusal to leave the area by refusing to supply them with food. Deprivation of food to the refugees as a way of forcing them to accept a change of accommodations is unnecessarily cruel and potentially harmful for their health and security. Governmental authorities also should not create obstacles that would impede relief efforts of the international relief agencies, such as UNHCR. Although the Croatian government may have a legitimate reason to pursue changes in accommodations, it should try to achieve its objective by means that are less dangerous for the life and health of the refugees.

Although the Croatian government does have an obligation not to discriminate between refugees on account of race, religion or country of origin,95 some Croatian refugees and displaced persons (i.e., Croats from both Croatia and Bosnia) have been accorded preferential treatment over Muslim refugees. As the conflict between Bosnian Croats and Muslims worsened in 1993, Muslim refugees in Croatia became targets for discrimination and harassment by some local authorities, individual extremists and recently displaced Bosnian Croats. In some cases in 1993, Bosnian Muslim - but not Bosnian Croat - refugees were moved from hotels along the Dalmatian coast, particularly in the Makarska area. According to foreign relief workers interviewed by Human RightsWatch/Helsinki,96 Bosnian Croat refugees also were told that they had to leave the hotels but those who did not leave were allowed to remain. Conversely, local authorities threatened to revoke the refugee status of Bosnian Muslims if they did not agree to leave the hotels. Those refugees transferred to Obonjan island were harassed and robbed by local criminals,