<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

Response of the National Authorities

Kosovo’s declaration of independence, though it was internationally anticipated, was met by public shock and disbelief in Serbia. According to one independent journalist, “the government did not do anything to prepare public opinion for this eventuality. Unfortunately, the crowds took it out on the reporters, many of whom were attacked during the night of the February 21 rally in Belgrade.”¹²⁵ In addition to national and international journalists, the building serving as the headquarters of B92, an independent news organization, which is perceived as “unpatriotic” in ultra-nationalist circles, was also a target.¹²⁶

The mass protests and rallies which took place across Serbia in the days following Kosovo’s declaration of independence provided an outlet for frustration and anger. During the February 21, 2008, rally in Belgrade, key Serbian politicians delivered patriotic, and sometimes nationalist, speeches. The then Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica said that “The people of Serbia together and loudly said what they think about Kosovo and Metohija and what they think of the brutal violence which is launched against Serbia.”¹²⁷ Then Minister of Infrastructure Velimir Ilic’s justification of the violence on February 21 (“We have broken a few windows, they have broken our state”¹²⁸) was widely reported.

Several days later, Kostunica changed his rhetoric, saying that: “Violence and destruction most directly harm the fight for state and national interest. All who favor a false Kosovar state are glad when they see violence in Belgrade.”¹²⁹ Similarly, Ilic demanded that police investigate and establish “what really happened that night” and arrest “those who embarrassed Serbia.”¹³⁰

While eventually ostensibly rejecting violence, the apparent emphasis of these leaders on the negative practical consequences for Serbian interests rather than on the principle that violence was an illegitimate form of protest.

Serbia’s new government, which took office in July 2008, took a welcome first step to give more prominence to minority rights on the day it was formed, by establishing a new Ministry of Human and Minority Rights to replace the Serbian National Office of Human and Minority Rights.  However, despite the upgrading of the agency responsible for minority rights, the government has yet to take concrete steps to address the long-standing weaknesses identified in this report, and take more proactive stand to condemn, investigate and prosecute the attacks on the Albanian and other minority-owned businesses, which occurred in the aftermath of Kosovo’s declaration of independence.

Official Condemnation of Attacks on Minorities

While some in the government condemned the attacks on ethnic Albanians and other minorities, others remained silent, notably the then Prime Minister Kostunica. President Boris Tadic, who earlier called for restraint during the first night of violent protests in Belgrade,¹³¹ publicly spoke out against about the Sombor bakery boycott, demanding that the police establish who was behind the boycott, condemning the “chauvinist actions” and affirming the rights of all citizens of Serbia, regardless of ethnic or religious background.¹³²

Petar Ladjevic, the then Director of the Serbian National Office of Human and Minority Rights, visited the town of Zrenjanin on February 23, 2008 and spoke to some of the ethnic Albanian owners of the businesses that were attacked.¹³³ He also called on the Albanians and Gorani “not to fear, because the government of Serbia will protect them” and classified the attacks as a “violation of human rights.”¹³⁴

During a meeting with Human Rights Watch, Serbia’s Ombudsman, Sasa Jankovic, emphasized the importance of strong and unequivocal condemnation of violence by government officials, regardless of their political affiliations or views on Kosovo. ¹³⁵ Many victims with whom Human Rights Watch spoke, as well as Serbia’s Ombudsman, felt that the government statements were not categorical enough and that the overall message was ambiguous.

Human Rights Watch also spoke to officials from the Vojvodina Ombudsperson’s office in Novi Sad on April 8, 2008. The officials shared their thoughts on the attacks which took place in Novi Sad and other locations in Vojvodina, arguing that a “permissive atmosphere” was created after public political statements, which were understood by some radical youth groups as a green light to commit attacks “against minorities, but also general acts of destruction of private and public property.”¹³⁶

Serbia’s Ombudsman was active in responding to the wave of attacks that took place after Kosovo’s declaration of independence. On March 4, 2008, he visited Sombor, where he participated in the solidarity action of buying bread in the boycotted Albanian-owned bakery. He also visited a man in Subotica who had reported that his house was attacked with explosives a couple weeks after his home was vandalized with racist graffiti, and who reported that he was receiving threatening calls.¹³⁷ Mr. Jankovic also publicly condemned anti-Albanian violence on multiple occasions.

Compensation for Damage to Property

As well as criminal prosecution, compensation for damage to property is also required following the attacks on minority businesses and homes.

Petar Ladjevic, then Director of the National Office for Human and Minority Rights made a statement to the TV station B92 on March 2, 2008, in which he promised to follow-up on the incidents, including on the issue of compensation for those owners who were not insured, whose damages he said would “be paid by the municipality.”¹³⁸

Some owners with whom Human Rights Watch spoke were not insured, and were interested in compensation, but did not know whom to turn to or how to go about claiming compensation.

Human Rights Watch spoke to Mr. Ladjevic in order to clarify his comments regarding compensation. He referred to aggregate information he had obtained from the police, indicating that in only one case did the damage resulting from the attacks exceed 120 Euros, and none of the owners had sought compensation.¹³⁹ The first point is contradicted by the damage estimates given to Human Rights Watch by property owners in at least twelve cases.

Mr. Ladjevic informed Human Rights Watch that victims would need to apply for compensation for damages to their municipalities rather than the national government of Serbia, which would only be responsible only if the damage was done during authorized¹⁴⁰ demonstrations.¹⁴¹ However, the legal basis of this is not clear to Human Rights Watch. For example, it does not appear to be legally clear that owners can apply for any compensation when the damage does not arise from authorized demonstrations. Human Rights Watch is unaware of any provision of Serbian law that would allow for claims against municipal authorities for criminal damage not linked to such demonstrations.

Under Serbia’s Law on Obligatory Relationships, the state is obligated to compensate victims who suffer material damage during public protests. The relevant articles of the law are in the section entitled, “Responsibility for Terrorist Acts, Public Demonstrations or Manifestations.” Article 180 reads:

(1) For damage caused by death, serious bodily injury or by damage or destruction of property owned by a physical person, due to acts of violence and terror, and on the occasion of public demonstrations or manifestations, the state whose organs were responsible under the laws in force to prevent such damages are responsible. (3) The state has the right and the obligation to request compensation for the payment [of damages] from the person who caused the damage. (4) That right is limited by the statute of limitations on seeking damages.

According to this law, those individuals whose businesses and homes were attacked during or in the immediate aftermath (“on the occasion of”) public demonstrations could be entitled to compensation by the state whose bodies “were responsible to prevent such damages.”

In the Novi Sad cases arising out of public demonstrations, and one case in Subotica, and one in Kikinda, it appears that according to this law the state might be directly financially liable to the victim, while the state could later sue the perpetrator of the crime for compensation. This information was not clearly communicated to individual victims interviewed in this report, if the information was communicated at all, and so the victims were not well-situated to enforce the rights that the law guarantees them.

For those whose property was not damaged during public demonstrations, it appears that no avenues are open to them beyond bringing civil claims against those who caused the damage, which would require the identification of those responsible. But those we interviewed have not been informed about the possibility of bringing civil claims.

The failure of the authorities to communicate with ethnic Albanians and other minorities whose businesses and homes had been attacked was not limited to the matter of compensation. As discussed above, the police and prosecutors did not adequately report on the progress of investigations, if there was any, to the victims and the local communities. Such communication is essential to assure that the victims feel safe and protected and to deter future attacks.