<<previous | index
In addition to a comprehensive
set of recommendations to the Croatian government, Human Rights Watch addressed
detailed recommendations to the international community including to the E.U.
and the OSCE on their role in advancing refugee return to Croatia in its September 2003 report, Broken Promises. Those recommendations, and the need
for continued international engagement to progress on return, remain equally
important today. Facilitating refugee return to Croatia, however, is
fundamentally the responsibility of the Croatian authorities. Only the Croatian
government has the power to resolve the issues that currently inhibit return
and to live up to its obligations and commitments. The recommendations that
follow are therefore directed toward the Croatian government. Human Rights
Watch encourages Croatias international partners, particularly the E.U. and
its individual member states, to make Croatias implementation of the below
recommendations an integral part of their bilateral relations with the Croatian
government.
To the Croatian Government:
On the Repossession of Property:
- Temporary occupants who refuse housing care (stambeno
zbrinjavanje) or temporary alternative accommodation offered by the
government should be evicted after prompt proceedings meeting due process
standards;
- Croatia should fully implement the legislation,
adopted in July 2002, which denies entitlement to alternative housing care
to temporary occupants who own vacated property in Bosnia and Herzegovina
or Serbia and Montenegro;
- Owners of temporarily occupied property should
receive just compensation from the state for continued deprivation of the
use of property, as provided by law, as well as compensation for
deprivation of the use of property in the past;
- Courts should use expedited procedures for resolving
repossession cases, irrespective of whether these have been initiated by
the state prosecutor or the property owner; verdicts reached under the Law
on Areas of Special State Concern should be promptly executed;
- Temporary occupants use of Serb houses for business
purposes should be promptly ended;
- Temporary occupants who use the property only
occasionally, while living and working elsewhere, should be deemed
multiple occupants and evicted without prior provision of alternative
accommodation; the Law on Areas of Special State Concern should be amended
accordingly;
- Wherever members of a family lived in the same
household before the war and now occupy two or more Serb houses, it should
be considered a case of multiple occupancy and the temporary occupants
should be evicted without prior provision of alternative accommodation;
the Law on Areas of Special State Concern should be amended accordingly;
- Temporary occupants who are determined to be
financially or otherwise able to make other housing arrangements should be
subject to eviction without prior provision of alternative accommodation.
On Looted and Damaged Properties:
- The government of Croatia should introduce looting
and property damage as ex-officio prosecutable criminal offenses tailored
for the specific circumstances of occupied property, rather than acts
prosecutable in civil proceedings;
- State prosecutors should prosecute temporary
occupants who intentionally damage or loot property that has been
allocated to them;
- If reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a
temporary occupant damaged or looted the property allocated to them, the
government should consider that person ineligible for state-provided
housing care even before the conclusion of the judicial proceedings.
On Tenancy Rights to Socially Owned Properties:
- Where apartments have not been privatized, original
tenancy rights holders should be given an opportunity to repossess them,
and they should be offered an opportunity to obtain a protected lease or
purchase the apartments on terms comparable to other privatizations;
- Where the apartments have not been privatized
because they were destroyed after the termination of the pre-war tenancy
rights, the pre-war rights holders should be beneficiaries of the building
reconstruction or should be entitled to a similar apartment in another
location;
- Where the post-conflict occupant has purchased the
apartment, the former tenancy rights holder should be entitled to a
property of equivalent value;
- If the former tenancy rights holder does not choose
any of the solutions from the above, he or she should be given fair
compensation.
On War Crimes Prosecutions:
- Authorities should show a greater commitment to
apprehending and trying fairly war crimes suspects irrespective of their
ethnic origin;
- Given the high number of dropped charges and
acquittals in war crimes cases against Serb returnees in recent years, the
authorities should wherever possible pursue provisional release as an
alternative to detention of indictees pending trial;
- As part of the governments ongoing statewide review
of outstanding war crime indictments and supporting evidence, those
indictments for which the state prosecutor does not have a prima facie
case should be dropped.
On Employment and Pensions:
- The government should closely monitor employment
practices in state institutions and enterprises. Pertinent ministries
should intervene in cases in which discrimination on ethnic grounds is
apparent and develop a proactive strategy for recruitment and hiring of
qualified minority candidates;
- The government should end discriminatory practices
and ensure fair employment opportunities for Serb returnees in the state
administration and state-owned enterprises;
- Croatia should vigorously implement the July 2003
amendments to the Labor Law, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of
ethnic origin, among other grounds;
- With respect to pensions, the government should
establish a new deadline for submitting requests for the validation of
work completed between 1991-95 in areas under the control of de-facto Serb
authorities;
- The government should relax the requirements for
proving 1991-95 employment status, by unequivocally eliminating the
requirement that only witnesses who have validated their own employment
status can testify that the applicant was employed in the same company.
Witness statements should be considered to create a rebuttable presumption
of the applicant's wartime employment.
|