The present report on obstacles and perspectives for the repatriation of refugees from Serbia to Croatia aims to give an overview of the repatriation process during 2005, to highlight positive steps and progress, as well as identify remaining problems that should be resolved in order to further enhance this process.

The settlement of the refugee crisis, triggered by the wars in Former Yugoslavia during the nineties, began after the signing of the Dayton Agreement in 1995; this process developed much more rapidly in Bosnia and Herzegovina, partly due to the presence of the international community, whereas in Croatia repatriation was much slower, only picking up pace during 2000.

As a consequence of war during the nineties, about 400.000 former Croatian residents, mainly ethnic Serbs, fled the country. Most of them sought refuge in Serbia, in several waves of displacement.[1] Another several tens of thousands of them fled to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro.

According to the Croatian Government, around 120.000 refugees[2] have so far returned to Croatia, while figures from non-governmental organisations working on repatriation to Croatia and UNHCR tell about 70.000 and 80.000 returnees respectively.[3] Based on the latest census, Serbia currently houses 141.680 refugees; after data processing, refugee status was confirmed for 106.931 of them, predominantly from Croatia.[4]

Return to Croatia is mainly concentrated in rural areas of the country, where returnees have basic living conditions; urban returns, however, depend on many other important factors, primarily housing and employment.

The root causes of problems linked to repatriation of refugees to Croatia should be sought above all in the political sphere, especially in the insufficient political will to resolve those issues, both in Croatia and in Serbia. We are often witnesses of various political manipulations with refugees, obstructions of return or simply lack of action by institutions responsible for protection of refugees in the country of exile and those in charge of supporting returnees in the country of origin.

The broadest legal framework consists of relevant human rights conventions, especially the Universal Declaration, the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Framework Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Minorities adopted by the Council of Europe. The most important documents on the regional level are the Dayton Peace Agreement and the set of bilateral international agreements concluded between and ratified by interested states. An important act is also the Succession Agreement, Annex G, concluded between the successor states of former SFRY, in Vienna in 2001 and ratified in 2004.[5] Moreover, there is the domestic legislation of states in the region, which has been harmonised with international standards, as well as the documents such as the Croatian Government Programme on the return of refugees, or its programme for housing of former tenancy right holders.

The most recent act binding the states in the region to work on a final resolution of the refugee crisis is the Sarajevo Declaration, signed by the governments of SaM, Croatia and BiH on 31st January 2005.[6] Based on this act the Croatian Government adopted a programme of resolving the problems of returnees, entitled the «Road Map».[7]

The legal framework therefore presents no obstacles for the repatriation to proceed in a satisfactory and acceptable manner. In practice, however, there are numerous problems hindering this process. One of the key hindrances is the lack of accompanying political, administrative and budgetary measures.

Although the overall conditions for the repatriation of refugees from Serbia to Croatia have improved during 2005 and a number of obstacles for return, including human rights violations, have been completely or largely removed, several key areas still remain where further progress is needed: property rights (restitution of property, tenancy rights, housing solutions), acquired rights (convalidation of previous employment status, payment of owed pensions), citizenship (including personal documents), employment, security of returnees, as well as ensuring non-discrimination through proper implementation of the Law on Minority Rights.[8] Although not numerous, the incidents aimed at returnees, members of the Serb minority community in Croatia, still have serious consequences; it is particularly disturbing that the perpetrators usually remain unidentified.

Moreover, no projects or clear strategy exist currently for the economic development and revitalisation of returnee areas, while the capacities of local self-governments are inadequate for the reception of returnees. On the other hand, relevant institutions in Serbia are not putting enough effort in providing potential returnees with information on repatriation programmes and the possibilities they offer; nor are they properly supporting and encouraging return. There is no evidence of their tendency to coordinate with the Croatian Government the enhancement of the repatriation process.

Therefore the work should be stepped up among all stakeholders on removing the remaining obstacles for the return to Croatia: speed up the rebuilding of destroyed houses, more efficiently resolve the remaining requests for reconstruction and the proceedings in second instance in the reconstruction cases, as well as generally improve the work of the judiciary.

It is also necessary to organise a meeting of responsible bodies of the governments of Serbia and Croatia, so that they could agree on coordinated measures aimed at enhancing the repatriation process and thereby contribute to the implementation of aims set forth in the Sarajevo Declaration. This entails an urgent agreement on the common matrix of the individual states’ “Road Maps” and the resolution of remaining problems stated in the conclusions. At the same time, the Croatian Government “Road Map” should incorporate currently missing elements, primarily in the area of efficient administrative and budgetary support of repatriation needs.

The European Commission, OSCE and UNHCR should maintain a permanent dialogue with the governments signatories of the Sarajevo Declaration, in terms of fulfilment of obligations envisaged in this act; besides, a more active participation of the civil sector is needed in the monitoring and follow-up of progress in the implementation of these agreements. Constant dialogue, partnership and joint projects by NGO sectors in Croatia and Serbia are also very important for enhancing and supporting the process of repatriation on all levels of society.

Introduction

This report aims to give an overview of the process of repatriation of refugee Serbs to Croatia during 2005, outline the overall process, its results and characteristics, as well as identify remaining obstacles and propose ways to resolve them.

The report will focus particularly on the aspects of the Sarajevo Declaration, signed on 31^st January 2005 by SaM, Croatia and BiH, as a political framework through which the problem of refugees should be justly and durably resolved by the beginning of 2007.

Since the report primarily deals with the return of refugees from Serbia to Croatia, we shall give special attention to the Croatian Government document called the “Road Map”, which further elaborates the Sarajevo Declaration into a strategy of repatriation to Croatia.

Equally, the report will clearly present the obstacles in this process, as well as offer recommendations on how they could be resolved.

I Brief history, basic data, key problems and context

In the last decade of the twentieth century, the former SFRY had slid into turmoil of wars and large-scale ethnic conflicts, during which over four million people were forced to seek refugee away from their places of origin.

This occurred primarily in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, as well as in Kosovo during late nineties.

The main characteristic of these forced migrations and ethnic cleansing was the plight of minorities: the minority communities were moving towards the areas where the majority population was of the same nationality, firstly within the same republics, and later across the borders of these states.

All warring parties applied the same concept of ethnic cleansing and the so-called “humane exchange of population”.

Media campaigns and hate-speech marked the beginning, followed by threats, intimidation and harassment. In cases where this was insufficient, the next steps were murders, arbitrary arrests, pillage, arson and a whole array of worst human rights violations, including armed conflicts of major proportions. As a consequence, large-scale movement of entire ethnic communities began: they were leaving their places of origin en masse. The effects of the humanitarian catastrophe triggered by these forces migrations are present to this day.

Resolving the refugee crisis, with all its aspects, began after the signing of the Dayton Agreement in November 1995; the Annex 7 of the Agreement regulates the return of refugees to their homes and the relate obligations held by the states parties.[9] Likewise, financial and material assistance by the international community was envisaged towards stabilising the refugee crisis in the region.

The Dayton Agreement was most effectively implemented in Bosnia and Herzegovina, directly by the international administration through a Special Representative of the UN Secretary General, who had at his disposal all instruments required for the implementation of the Annex 7. Bosnia and Herzegovina has almost finalised the process of repatriation, at least when the countries in the region are concerned.

In the Republic of Croatia, however, this is not the case. The implementation was in the hands of local authorities and the process of repatriation of refugee Serbs from Croatia only began to pick up pace after year 2000. Throughout this period, Croatia has been monitored by the OSCE mission: their reports clearly outline how painful the repatriation process has been.

Over the past five years the situation has gradually improved, but it is nevertheless burdened with problems, although the return of Serbs to Croatia has been and still remains an important precondition for Croatia to access Euro-Atlantic integration. This has contributed to a certain progress in the respect for human rights.

This progress manifests itself in an improved freedom of movement, better access to personal documents and increased security of returnees; much has been done with regard to property repossession, while the reconstruction has begun of destroyed housing units and infrastructure. Notwithstanding these positive changes, there are still unresolved issues, on the outcome of which depend the durable solutions for refugees from Croatia who wish to return to their places of origin.

As a consequence of war during the nineties, about 400.000 former Croatian residents, mainly ethnic Serbs, fled the country. Most of them sought refuge in Serbia, in several waves of displacement. A smaller number of them, several tens of thousands, went to BiH and Montenegro.

The first wave of refugees came at the beginning of armed conflicts in 1991; the second and the largest one occurred in August 1995, when Serbia was flooded with over 200.000 people within just a few days. According to the first refugee census conducted by the Commissariat for Refugees of Serbia and the UNHCR, in 1996,[10] at the peak of the crisis Serbia housed 537.937 refugees, while 28.338 of them sought refuge in Montenegro. This number includes both those with refugee and the so-called “expellee” status, as well as persons who were without status at that time.

Refugees in Serbia have been living in dire social conditions, which still last for many of them. Based on the unofficial data at our disposal, about 50.000 of them have resettled to Western countries (Canada, USA, Australia, some EU states).

According to the Croatian government data, about 120.000 refugees have so far returned to Croatia.[11] This information is based on state records, but in practice it can be challenged.

The data collected by SDF Zagreb and non-governmental organisations working on the return to Croatia say that there are no more than 70.000 returnees.[12] These discrepancies are interpreted as a substantial difference between state records and the actual situation in the field.

The latest census has shown that Serbia still houses 141.680 refugees, while the data processing led to the recognition of status for 106.931 of them, mainly from Croatia[13].

This is the number of people who in the meantime have neither taken Serbia&Montenegro citizenship, nor obtained Croatian personal documents. About 4000 of them still live in the remaining 90 collective centres in Serbia.[14]

Registered return to Croatia is mainly focussed on rural communities, where people can provide for themselves by engaging in agriculture. Croatian government has certain programmes for enhancing the growth of the agriculture; these benefits are often used by returnees. However, besides working the land and providing some artisan and crafts services, there are barely any other options for returnee employment.

Due to the absence of employment opportunities and the lack of economic perspectives, the young workforce is still in exile, where they have odd jobs and sources of income, although they have been formally registered through returnee lists in Croatia.

An illustrative example is the area under the co-called “special state care”, i.e. the region of Serb Krajina, where to date there are no cases of ethnic Serbs working in public administration and state institutions. There is a well known case of the attorney Ninko Mirić, who has been applying for the position of a Municipal Court judge for years, but whose application has always failed to succeed due to reasons other than those prescribed by law. The same discriminatory practice prevails in schools, health care and other public services.

It is therefore necessary, as well as conducive to the repatriation process, to change such situation and start practical implementation of the Constitutional Law on national minorities in this region of Croatia, with clear and measurable indicators of success.

II Causes of repatriation related problems

The root causes of problems related to the repatriation of refugees to Croatia should be sought in the political sphere, especially in the lack of political will to resolve these problems. This goes for all parties able to influence the resolving of the refugees’ problems, both in Croatia an in Serbia; we often are witnesses to various political manipulations with refugees, obstruction of return or simple absence of action by institutions in charge of protection of refugees in the country of asylum and the country of origin.

Conversely, the memories of war are still vivid, the inter-ethnic distance still highly present, while in many communities the policy of ethnic engineering is in place.

This trend is particularly visible in the areas under “special state care”, including examples where the passive stance of state bodies and their lack of action cause direct confrontation between Serb returnees and Croatian settlers.

One such example has recently been recorded in Kistanje, in the hamlet of Bezbradice, where a Croatian settler from Kosovo has brought a large flock of goats into the local school and continues to keep them inside. Returnees have voiced their protest against this act, which also represents a health hazard that prevents them from using the school building; on the other hand, the goat owner continues to threaten the returnees and sets dogs on them. The authorities are not reacting and such lack of action only fuels the potential for conflict.

Another important cause of the return problem is the slow reconstruction of housing units and infrastructure. Although the process has advanced considerably, the resolution of complaints lodged against decisions on reconstruction still take inappropriately long, as do the cases where the complementary proof in the proceeding has been requested. There are several thousands such cases.

Return to towns is especially challenging: reasons should be sought in the well known problems regarding the implementation of the housing provision programme. Namely, the restrictive provisions with regard to real property ownership have almost entirely halted the housing provision for scores of returnees. Besides, there are still unresolved issues regarding the restitution of private property.

The recognition of employment status between 1991 and 1995 also represents a serious problem in the Krajina area. Although this has been regulated by the Law on Convalidation, there is a substantial problem of deadlines, immediately linked to the delays in proceedings and the prolongations of decisions even in cases of those who had managed to meet the almost impossible time limits.

The deadline for applications for the convalidation of employment expired on 31^st March 1999: it should by all means be re-opened.

There are almost no examples that the employment was convalidated in the pension insurance branch offices with the largest number of beneficiaries (refugee Serbs), such as Šibenik, Zadar, Gospić, Sisak and Karlovac.

III Institutional and legal framework

The broadest legal framework consists of relevant human rights conventions, above all the UN Universal Declaration and the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as the Framework Convention for the Protection of Rights of National Minorities, adopted by the Council of Europe. Among treaties between the countries, the most important are the Dayton Agreement and a set of international bilateral agreements concluded between respective states and ratified in their parliaments. Another significant document is the Succession Agreement, Annex G, concluded between successor states of former SFRY in Vienna, in 2001 and ratified in 2004 (Croatia was the last country to ratify it).

Moreover, there is the domestic legal framework in the countries of the region, which has been harmonised with international standards, as well as the acts such the Croatian government programme on the return of refugees, and the programme on housing provision for the former tenancy rights holders.

The most recent act binding the states in the region to work towards a definitive solution of the refugee crisis is the Sarajevo Declaration, signed by governments of Serbia and Montenegro, Croatia and BiH on 31^st January 2005. Based on this document, Croatian government has adopted its programme for resolving the issue of returnees, entitled the “Road Map”.

On the normative side, there are no obstacles for the repatriation to be implemented in a satisfactory and acceptable way; in reality, however, there are numerous problems blocking this process. One such problem, and the most apparent one, is the fact that the necessary political, administrative and budgetary measures have not been put in place to accompany the implementation.

For instance, the housing provision programme envisaged 1000 beneficiaries in 2006, although the number of applications is at least five times higher. Besides, there are no funds available for the implementation of infrastructure and development programmes, nor has a time plan been proposed for their resolution.

This is of immediate concern to a large number of rural communities where it is necessary to complete the electricity and water supply lines; based on late 2005 information, there were at least 140 such villages.

The housing provision programme for the former tenancy rights holders is particularly problematic. It has been set very restrictively and in some elements even discriminatory: based on very realistic calculations, only about 5% of former tenancy rights holders would be able to count on such option and only in the areas under “special state care”, not in the whole of Croatia.

Another problem with the housing provision is the stipulated time limit, which envisaged the deadline for applications until 2005. Given that return cannot be considered a once and for all completed process, this timeframe should have bee set far more flexibly, if not left entirely open.

Likewise, there are no clear implementation measures for returnees and refugees opting for the lease model, nor is there a deadline for resolving those cases. This category of people is as a rule socially vulnerable and therefore they cannot afford to buy an apartment.

As concerns the purchase of former socially owned apartments, it is also necessary to treat the returnees opting for such purchase equally as all other Croatian citizens.

It is exceptionally important to recognise the right to employment status and pension insurance to those people who had been residing during the war in the UN administered areas of Croatia. In the Croatian “Road Map” there is no mention of this and a new deadline should be opened for the recognition of former employment record. The unpaid pensions between 1991 and 1998 present a specific problem in this respect.

It is of utmost importance to implement the provisions of the Constitutional Law on the Rights of National Minorities, especially those dealing with proportionate employment of minority citizens in the state institutions and public services.

IV Problem analysis

1. Citizenship and personal documents

Meanwhile, most refugees have obtained their personal documents (citizenship certificates, travel documents, birth certificates and other): therefore the situation in this field could be considered satisfactory. Problems have nevertheless occurred in several aspects.

Firstly, in some Croatian municipalities the registry books have either been destroyed or taken away: some of those are still in the process of being returned from Serbia to Croatia. It remains unclear why the return of removed registry books to their respective offices in Croatia has been delayed for so long and why this is still going on; it is well known where these books are located and who controls them. The arguments used by the relevant authorities in Serbia to justify this are at the very least incomprehensible.

The absence of registry books in some Croatian municipalities and towns has led to enormous problems, primarily for the refugees from these towns and municipalities, because it practically blocked the solution of their basic status issues. Only later the procedure for subsequent inscriptions was developed, which resolves the problem to a certain extent, but is much more time consuming.

Another set of problems is related to the inscriptions into registry books of births, marriages and deceased between 1991 and 1995. In Croatia, this problem was resolved in keeping with the Law on Convalidation; the consequences of such solution will undoubtedly last for a longer period of time in the future.

Practically all who were born or got married, divorced, conducted probate proceedings or have been involved in a legal action where registry book certificates are required, have been exposed to huge problems in administrative procedure and took a long time to resolve their respective cases.

During past several years, however, there has been a significant improvement in the attitude of officials and state services, as well as higher professionalism in issuing these documents in Croatia.

In 2005, only via SDF Belgrade and in collaboration with partner organisations in Croatia, 2931 documents have been obtained for refugee Serbs from Croatia and personally handed over to them. Most of the documents were citizenship certificates, birth certificates and verifications of subsequent inscriptions, as well as 11 passports and 29 identity cards. Simultaneously, with assistance of SDF Belgrade there were 177 travel certificates issued by the Croatian consulate in Belgrade for returnees without documents travelling to Croatia.

Another serious problem is the unique personal citizen’s identification number (JMBG): it can no longer be obtained through power of attorney, which entails substantial problems for people who need their ID number in order to regulate other legal or administrative affairs. Namely, pursuant to Croatian regulations, the ID number carries a tag of confidentiality and is a matter of exclusive relationship between the state and the citizen, while in Serbia it is treated as public information.

During the same period, a particular SDF project implemented in partnership with DRC helped transport 479 people to Croatia, in the scope of three-day visits aimed at obtaining their personal documents; this has helped resolve their status problems. While implementing this project, professional collaboration was established with the relevant border and police authorities in the Republic of Croatia.

With regard to documents and status based rights, we have observed a specific problem of citizens who had lived in Croatia for many years, founded a family and acquired property, until they were forced to go into exile without having obtained Croatian citizenship. These people are predominantly Serbs who have been registered in registry books in BiH, although they have not been living there: according to Croatian regulations, they had the right to request the status of permanent foreign resident and subsequently enter the procedure for obtaining full citizenship based on their long-term residence. Such people have property and acquired rights in Croatia, and their existence is linked to Croatia rather then to BiH.

In keeping with Article 115 of the Law on Foreigners, a possibility should be allowed for this category of citizens to obtain full citizenship without setting time limitations.[15] However, the prescribed deadline for this procedure expired on 30^th June 2005. We believe that it should be re-opened, because many people have not been able to take the given opportunity for various reasons; we should avoid putting them in a position of applying for citizenship under the same conditions as the people who had never before resided in Croatia.

2. Property

During 2005 there was a significant improvement in the property restitution to refugees, especially in the areas under “special government care”.

Reports by relevant international organisations also state that this process is drawing to a close. In the OSCE Croatia mission report it is said that about 55 real property units remain to be returned to their owners and the conclusion is that these issues could be resolved very soon. The available data indicates that about 19.500 housing units have been allocated to other persons for use against the will of their rightful owners.[16]

The problem of establishing the real state of affairs lies in the methodology of measuring the implementation of this process. Namely, the number of housing units that have not yet been returned to owners was measured against the number of property repossession claims submitted. Hence, the property was not automatically restored to its owners: the return was only done based on the individual applications.

On the other hand, the return of a real property unit, apartment, house or business premises does not in itself represent a solution to the overall problem: these buildings are often devastated, damaged on purpose or due to neglect by temporary users and therefore require substantial means in order to render them usable or habitable again.

Such attitude by temporary users has led to a situation where serious funding is needed to return these properties to a functional state, especially in the area under “special government care”. The level of damage was determined by county commissions, but compensation payments have not yet begun: consequently, most properties have been returned to their owners - returning refugees - in a non-functional condition.

The same has occurred with compensation for temporary use of property, determined by the relevant body of the Croatian government, pertaining to the period from 2002 until the day when the property was returned to its owner. Although these were relatively symbolic amounts of monthly compensation, set at 1 EUR per square metre per month, the payments have not yet been finalised.

During 2005 a very disturbing event was recorded: if it should become a rule, this could create a serious obstruction to the return of refugees. That is the case of Stevo Zabrdac from Daruvar, whose house had been given by Croatian authorities for use to a temporary occupant.

When the temporary occupant moved out from the house, he filed a complaint before a court and requested compensation for the investments he made in the house. The court ruled that Stevo Zabrdac should compensate the temporary occupant about 7.000 EUR for the alleged investments. Since the owner does not have the money to pay, there is a danger that his house could be sold at the auction.

The OSCE mission reacted to this worrying practice and judgments in Croatian courts and recommended to the Croatian government to enact a regulation that would oblige Croatian courts to refuse such claims by temporary occupants, which are in fact a blatant manipulation. It is absurd that a temporary occupant would make an investment without the owner’s consent and subsequently request compensation. If the grounds for such compensation would exist, it should be sought from the state that had given the building to the temporary occupant, rather than from the rightful owner who only suffered damages in the process and was not compensated for the use of his property. The encouraging fact is that the higher court has overturned this completely unfounded ruling.

Another problem that is little discussed and even less present in public, yet concerns quite a few people is the issue of exchange of property mainly during 1990, 1992 and 1993.

Namely, in Croatian towns several hundred Serb nationals have exchanged houses and apartments in the areas of Krajina and BiH. These transactions are problematic because they occurred in situations where people could not take free and informed decisions and when the market value of these properties was such that exchanges were as a rule to the detriment of Serb parties - refugees from Croatia. Republic of Croatia has recognised these transactions on its soil, but invalidated them for the areas of BiH, more precisely Banja Luka.

The issue of properties destroyed in terrorist actions outside combat activities also remains untouched: these are houses of Serb owners in some Croatian towns that have been mined, burned to the ground or completely flattened. This was a particularly frequent occurrence on the Dalmatian coast, especially in the town of Zadar, where over 150 business premises owned by Serbs had been destroyed in early 1991, before the outbreak of the conflict. None of those owners was able to get compensation; some of them were even given bills by the utility company for the removal of the debris that was defacing the streets of the town.

Croatia has a Law regulating the right to compensation, but only if these violent acts result in human casualties. Cases such as the one above should certainly be resolved in a just and fair manner, because the state is partly responsible for these incidents.

In cases related to reconstruction, compensation of damages and housing provision the procedures are very complicated and sometimes even halt the resolution of obvious cases, such as, for instance, the case of Dušan Cijuk.

He had a house in Zadar that was destroyed in 19991 and a house in Gračac, which was destroyed in 1995. Formally, he had his permanent residence in Zadar. He was unable to obtain reconstruction and compensation in Zadar based on the Law on the responsibility of state for terrorist acts, while in Gračac he was denied this because he had permanent residence in Zadar. Hence a man who had suffered enormous material damages on two locations was unable to obtain compensation for damages precisely because of that.

Similar problem occur with people who used to have a socially owned apartment and a house of their own and whose houses have been destroyed in the war. From the large number of such cases we shall give one very characteristic example.

Bogdan Matić from the small town of Gospić had a tenancy right on a socially owned apartment as a physician-surgeon in the local hospital; his permanent residence was registered at this address. A few streets away, in the same town, he had a private house that was completely destroyed in 1991. He lost the tenancy right to the apartment, as well as the right to purchase it, while his request for house reconstruction was denied because his latest residence had been registered to the apartment address. The fact that his house had undoubtedly been destroyed and his right to the apartment lost was of no help in this case.

One of the indisputably largest property related problems is the issue of tenancy rights.

It concerns a vast number of people and huge financial resources, but the resolution of this problem is still pending. There are estimated overall 50.000 apartments under the tenancy rights ownership, although our data gives a figure of at least 30.000 apartments that are the subject matter of this dispute. These are housing units in towns: the lack of solution for this problem constitutes a serious obstacle for the more significant return of refugees to Croatian towns.

In 1996 Croatia enacted a Law in which the category of tenancy rights is no longer recognised. All apartments from which refugees left into exile have meanwhile been sold to other owners, or leased as state property to other tenants. Prior to that, a legal procedure was conducted by which tenancy rights were taken away from refugees on the basis of their absence from these apartments exceeding 6 months.[17] This meant that later they were unable to partake in the process of purchasing these apartments - a procedure widely available to other Croatian citizens under very favourable conditions.

Under pressure to resolve this issue, Croatian government has later adopted a programme on housing provision for former tenancy rights holders.[18] This programme prescribes very restrictive criteria and is practically not being implemented. There are only a few cases where individuals were provided with accommodation under this programme, although 4450 people who had apartments in war-affected areas have applied for the programme. From this number, 2700 of them still lives in Serbia as refugees. The programme puts this category of former tenancy rights holders in a disadvantaged position in comparison with other citizens who used to have tenancy rights: in case of purchase of apartment, these people would now be required to pay over 60% of market value for the flat, while others had only paid up to 10% at the time.

The process of reconstruction in Croatia has progressed, although a substantial number of unresolved applications still remains, as well as unaddressed complaints against decisions on reconstruction; there are 13.126 complaints pending at second instance procedure and 3.037 cases in the first instance. Such amount of unresolved cases creates a serious obstacle to the return of refugees.

This must also mention the developments related to the purchase of properties owned by refugee Serbs from Croatia, which has been handled (and still is) by the Croatian state agency for real property trade - the APN.[19]

In 2005, this issue was addressed at the very top of the Croatian state and political establishment, although a few years before it had already become clear that these were very suspicious and potentially criminal dealings. Namely, a connection was uncovered between various factors in Croatia, the APN, some real estate agencies in Serbia and some agencies registered in Republika Srpska. This connection has grown into a sizeable network of organised crime whose victims were refugees - owners of property in Croatia. These illicit dealings spanned from payment of unrealistically low prices, although the actual contracts were made for higher amounts, to the sale of property using illegal powers of attorney and without the knowledge of actual owners. This was particularly frequent in Dalmatia, in the regions of Banija and Western Slavonia, while the powers of attorney by which this was done have been certified by courts in Serbia.

The investigation of these issues that was opened in Croatia has revealed that people from at least four agencies in Serbia and one in Banja Luka had been involved; some of them have been arrested and are currently in prison. However, there is a lack of information about how these cases were dealt with in Croatia.

While writing about the APN case and the illegalities linked with the sale of property owned by Serbian minority in Croatia, the Split daily “Feral Tribune” quoted the words of Saša Lalić from the NGO “Association for civil alternatives and ethnic relations” from Vukovar, who had collected substantial documentation about this - “this is organised crime that involves many institutions in both countries and they have taken advantage of the fact that the property of displaced, uninformed and impoverished people was being sold”.

Milorad Pupovac, the political leader of the Serb community in Croatia and a Member of Parliament, who should be given credit for making this affair shift from the media to the judiciary, says: “After the initial drive, the investigation is slowly loosing pace and we are afraid that it will not yield the results we had expected based on the starting point.” [20]

The magnitude of crime related to the sale of refugee property by APN is corroborated by the information from the state prosecutor’s office that in responsible district prosecutor’s offices in Sisak, Petrinja, Zagreb, Vukovar, Kutina, Knin, Osijek, Nova Gradiška, Ogulin and Benkovac, there were 13 persons against who criminal charges were brought for fraud, while district prosecutors in Sisak, Petrinja and Zagreb have brought charges against several persons for criminal offences related to this affair.

In Serbia, a criminal procedure was launched before the Novi Sad District Court against Stevo Pavić, the owner of MiS Agency; he was found guilty and sentenced to 9 years in prison on several charges related to dealings with APN. One of Pavić’s victims, a man from the town of Petrinja whose house had been sold without his knowledge and with a forged power of attorney, reported the fraud to the APN, but the agency continued to maintain business relations with Pavić until he was arrested in Serbia.

Besides this type of fraud, there was also the one linked to “double contracts”, where one contract was concluded for the agency and the other for the person issuing the power of attorney.

An illustrative example is the case where the property of the owner M.M from Okučani was sold, with one contract stating the price of 168.000 Croatian Kuna and the other 123.000 Kuna. Both contracts were concluded on the same day between the same parties and concerning the same property. The owner was shown the contract with the lower price, based on which the payment was made. In another case, D.P. from Donji Kuruzari near Kostajnica, having seen the APN advertisement, had personally gone to offer her property for sale; after half a year of waiting she went to the APN to inquire about her case. There she was given advice to find a real estate agency to mediate in the sale and that this agency would ensure swift action. She was also given contact telephone numbers. After having contacted the real estate agency, her case was resolved within a week, but according to the illegal practice described above.

The speed with which Pavić conducted his transactions was unbelievable: for instance, in the case of Dupor family from Karin, the time between issuing the power of attorney and the actual payment was only two days. Given that in Croatia the usual procedure of property sale takes at least several months, such speed indicates a well organised and motivated group of people who engaged in the above dealings. This team involved a substantial number of refugees from Croatia.

Lately there seems to be a respite in uncovering these illicit actions; not enough attention is being paid to those cases. We believe it is necessary to keep this problem in public focus, as well as to annul the sale via power of attorney, because they carry the potential for criminal action directed against refugees.

3. Acquired rights

Within the scope of acquired rights, here we shall primarily discuss the righs to pension insurance and rights regulated by the labour legislation, as well as tackle the problems that arise in exercising these rights.

We would particularly like to stress the following issues:

Convalidation of employment years
Payment of pensions in arrears
Problem of farmers - insurance beneficiaries in Croatia who have acquired 11,5 employment years prior to war, but were later left in a position of not being eligible for pensions, because the minimum employment period for pension rights is set at 15 years

Convalidation of employment is an obligation that Croatia has undertaken and regulated by the Law on Convalidation from 1997.[21] This Law regulates various forms of convalidation for citizens who used to live and reside in the former RSK, i.e. as the Law stipulates the “temporarily occupied area”; with regard to the years of service, it envisages a deadline for the filing of claims by interested parties, which had expired on 31^st March 1999.

The first and basic problem of this law is that it had allowed an extremely short and almost impossible deadline for the employment convalidation claims. During this period, for a large number of refugees it was impossible to travel to Croatia, yet most branch offices of the pension insurance fund have requested personal presence of the claimant and submission of claim using a specially prescribed form. Hence a disproportionably small number of people actually applied for convalidation; most citizens did not in fact have access to this right.

Another problem is that this small number of claims is being resolved at an incredibly slow pace, especially for those who have fulfilled legal requirements for pension and who are being retired without all of their years of service being take into account when calculating the basic pension amount.

The third problem is that a highly complicated procedure has been introduced even for those claimants who have applied on time and whose cases are being resolved: this practically makes it impossible for them to exercise their right. For instance, an institute of a “qualified witness” was introduced, as an essential element for recognising the years of service. The qualified witness is defined as a person whose employment years have already been recognised, but such people practically do not exist.

Consequently, there are enormous obstacles for exercising this right; therefore a new subsequent deadline should be set, the procedure should be simplified and the responsible services in Croatia should begin using available documentation on registration and payments into the so-called “para-fund”, which is recognised as relevant by the Law on Convalidation. Similarly, all other available legal options for submitting proof should be used for the administrative procedure, not only resort to the “qualified witness” who in these circumstances most often does not exist.

Many questions arise related to the payment of pension arrears.

Pursuant to Croatian regulations, it is beyond doubt that unpaid pensions encompass those who have not been paid to Croatian pensioners since 4^th August 1995 until the right to pension was renewed with the Croatian pension fund. However, there are individual differences in this field. Although some pensioners have renewed their right to pension in 1997, some in 1998, some of them later, we believe this request to be completely realistic.

Croatia had recognised the category of the “para-fund” and introduced it into its legislation, thereby removing the possibility of payment of pensions between 1991 and 1995 and introducing the possibility of recognition of employment years in the territory of Krajina. Hence there is no possibility to deny this right to pensioners who had fled Croatia in the period between 1995 and the date of renewal of their pension claim.

Given that pensions constitute property, the request for payment can be filed by legal heirs of pensioners who have died in the meantime. The same applies to the payment of pension arrears that the Croatian pension fund began paying this year to its beneficiaries based on the decision by Constitutional Court.

The manner in which the Fund’s decision on compensation for pensioners was formulated practically allowed the discrimination of Croatian refugee pensioners.

In 1980 Croatia introduced the compulsory pension insurance of farmers; a number of people who were later forced to flee Croatia only had 11,5 years of employment based on this regulation. These are primarily people who are now elderly and who have no way of realising their right to pension. Many of them have died in the meantime.

Croatia has recognised the mission 3,5 years of service to ethnic Croatians belonging to this category of beneficiaries in order to attain the necessary pension minimum of 15 years of employment.

We believe that all pension beneficiaries above 65 years of age (men) and 60 years of age (women) regardless of their ethnicity should be recognised the same right, in accordance with the principle of equality of all citizens before Law, as well as due to humanitarian reasons, because these people have not come to the present living conditions through their own fault. In case they are under 65 / 60 years of age, they should be allowed to pay contributions for their years of service until they have attained the legal minimum.

This measure would certainly foster the return of a group of people currently living in precarious situation; moreover, it would regulate in a just manner the position of an especially vulnerable group of elderly people who can no longer engage in work.

4. Security of returnees

The introduction to this text already spoke about some aspects of returnees’ security. It would be useful to reiterate that the overall security has improved compared to the situation during the nineties, when there were many reports - especially by the Croatian Helsinki Committee - about numerous incidents and violence against returnees.[22] In today’s Croatia the freedom of movement, safety of life and person as well as related security aspects have been largely improved.

Nevertheless, in some part of Croatia lack of personal security still represent a serious obstacle for return. The first and foremost reason, an objective one, is the ethnically based incidents, acts of violence and discrimination directed against members of Serb community in Croatia and their national institutions. The other reason is partly subjective in nature and involves fear among refugee men (those who used to belong to the military structures of RSK) that they might be arrested and prosecuted.

During 2005 there were 65 incident registered against Serbs in Croatia and against their national institutions such as the Serbian Cultural Society “Prosvjeta”, places of worship and the priests of the Serbian Orthodox Church as well as students in the Orthodox Church seminary.[23] Four such cases had a lethal outcome, but the investigation has so far failed to determine what exactly happened.

In Karin, Obrovac municipality, in spring 2005, a Serb Dušan Vidić was killed, an old man of over eighty. Although the police issued a statement that this was murder, it still has not been clarified how this had happened.

Karin is an especially problematic place for the return of refugee Serbs, because it is populated mainly by Croatian refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina; numerous incidents have been happening there even in earlier days. The killing of Dušan Vidić has brought great fear and reluctance to return to Karin. A particular reason for concern is a very slow and ineffective investigation.

Towards the end of 2005, a dead body of a returnee from Serbia was found in Benkovac: it was again an old man of over seventy, by the name of Mlinar, who allegedly committed suicide by hanging himself. The same man had been complaining for months about being harassed by certain people and even reported the incidents to the police. Croatian media wrote about this for a while, even exposing some sensitive details of the harassment related to forced sodomy, only a month before the alleged suicide.

It remains unknown, since the police never issued any statement with regard to this, if measures have been taken against the persons who had been harassing Milinar or if this abuse could be seen as driving him to suicide. Some official statements prior to the suicide insisted on Mlinar’s “psychological instability” as well as on minimising the veracity of what he had been telling the media.

In western Slavonia, in Pakrac area, during autumn 2005, dead bodies of two returnees were found near the village in which they had been living. The official explanation was that they were killed accidentally in a mine field, but this statement was not corroborated with enough solid argument, although such possibility exists.

Other incidents had lesser consequences, but they nevertheless have a serious influence on making an informed decision on return.

We would like to point out an incident that happened in the town of Šibenik, when a group of several people, in the centre of town and in broad daylight broke into the Orthodox Patriarchal palace acting violently and aggressively: having found nobody inside the building, the group broke two windows. This was one of the rare cases in which some of the perpetrators were found; it was stated that they were minors and were tried for the damage of property under 75 Euro. This is the lightest possible charge for the offence committed, although what they have done in fact constitutes the spreading of religious, ethnic and racial hatred.

A similar case happened immediately after this in Drniš, about twenty kilometres from Šibenik, where two men in broad daylight stormed into the courtyard of an Orthodox church in the centre of town, insulted the priest and broke the glass on the main door with a stone. Despite circumstances favourable for the investigation, the perpetrators were never found.

In the same district, in the village of Đevrske, at approximately the same time, an incident occurred in a local café owned by a returnee. A Croatian settler from Kosovo walked into the café, insulted the guest on ethnic basis, threatened them and then fired a shot through the café window. The police intervened, detained the perpetrator, but let him go soon afterwards. It was not stated if he was ever charged and for what offence.

In the neighbouring village of Kistanje, close to the Krka monastery where the Serbian Orthodox Church seminary is located, there were numerous occasions where Croatian settlers from Kosovo would stop the students on their way to the monastery, insult them, mistreat them and throw rocks at them. It remains unknown if ever any of the perpetrators had to face consequences for these acts.

In the same village, in the hamlet of Bezbradice, a Croatian settler from Kosovo has been harassing returnees for months. Namely, he has usurped the local school in the centre of the hamlet and illegally placed inside a large flock of goats; when the returnees complain about the disturbance caused by this lack of hygiene and stench that spreads from the school, he sets shepherd dogs on them. Despite the many complaints filed and interventions against the usurper, such situation still persists and the authorities are not doing anything to ensure bearable living conditions for the returnees.

In Ivoševci, a village near Kistanje, the elderly couple Korolija, both over eighty, were attacked, beaten and robbed during the night. This village has already been plagued by nocturnal threats and stone throwing on the houses of these and other returnees, which have been reported to the police. None of these incidents have ever been clarified nor its perpetrators discovered.

The given examples show that the concentration of incidents lies in the area of Northern Dalmatia, where the return of Serb refugees is the most intensive. Incidents are certainly neither organised nor incited by the authorities, but the concern remains about the passive attitude of their bodies in identifying and prosecuting the perpetrators, which acts as a stimulus for offenders and extremists.

Below is a chronological overview of incidents that occurred in 2005, based on the list compiled by SDF and published in the newspaper «Identitet» issue 96, dated March 2006.

1. Blagaj near Slunj, 2^nd January 2005: two unidentified persons broke a window and the electricity box in the home of returnee Čedomir Skeledžija, verbally abused and threatened him (chetnik...why did you come back), he barely prevented them from breaking into the house and inflicting more damage. Somewhat earlier his neighbours had fled to Serbia again because of similar attacks.

2. Đevrske, 6^th January 2005: on Christmas Eve three people walked into a local café, began insulting, cursing and provoking... which lasted for along while. Police knows who they are (they are from Vodice) but nobody wants to testify due to fear.

3. Đevrske, 20^th January 2005: two young men from the neighbouring Croatian village Rupe came into the place, shouted, threatened, damaged two cars, broke into a café and partly damaged it.

4. Vukovar, 20^th February 2005: in the street and without cause, unknown assailants have beaten up a 3^rd grade high school student of Serb nationality.

5. Jagodnja Donja near Benkovac, 10the February 2005: returnee Zdravko Zečević came to visit his property and inquire about housing reconstruction. Without any apparent cause he was assaulted by a local Croatian resident Ivica Žepina. The latter kept kicking the returnee with his feet and fists on the head and ribs and kept saying: «Give me a spike to kill him… run away to your Gipsy camp.» He threatened Zečević not to tell anyone what had happened because he would “get more” if he did; therefore the case was never reported to the police.

6. Biljane Donje, near Benkovac, night between 15^th and 16^th February 2005: the just reconstructed and refurbished house of the returnee Danica Škorić was looted; the case was reported to the police, but the investigation has so far yielded no results. (Such cases are a regular occurrence in this village.)

7. Zagreb, 13^th March 2005: while coming back from a football match the fans injured (assaulting with baseball clubs when they saw Belgrade license plates on the car) six persons, of which five were journalists and one woman was a judge of the Serbian Supreme Court; they have been travelling.

8. Sisak, Greda settlement, night of 29/30 March 2005: 71-year-old Mileva Domjanković was strangled; the killer, former police officer Darko Vlahovec, was arrested. He stated that the victim had annoyed him with «Serbian songs she was listening to ». Vlahovec was convicted on 2^nd November 2005 and sentenced to 11 years imprisonment.

9. Zagreb, 28^th April 2005: just before Easter, the 14-year-old R.Z. was beaten up; he was an altar boy in the local Serbian orthodox church. His assailants stripped him naked in the woods, whipped him with nettles, beat him and abused for one hour. He ended up with a broken nose, numerous haematoma and a ruptured eardrum. He managed to run away, spent several days in hospital and is now afraid to go to school. Results of the investigation are unknown.

10. Knin, nigh of 18/19 April 2005: the church of the Holy Virgin Shroud was broken into for the third time within one year; it’s been constantly drawn with fascist symbols. There are no results of investigation.

11. Civljane, 10^th May 2005: head of Civljane municipality, Ante Gudić, without apparent reason has beaten up a local Serb Boris Vuković – the police are still processing the case.

12. Benkovac, 13^th May 2005: the 16-year-old D.S. from Slavsko Polje near Vrginmost was beaten up, because she spoke with a Serbian accent and refused to work after midnight. Her assailant was Milan Marić – the case is still in the investigation stage and has not been resolved.

13. Karin, 18^th May 2005: the 84-year old Serbian man Dušan Vidić was found killed (his throat slit). This murder and the manner in which it was committed have caused great fear among returnees. There are no results of the investigation.

14. Benkovac, May 2005: the returnee Vojin Košević was physically attacked. The police found the assailant, but released him the following day with the explanation that he had been drunk.

15. Stari Jankovci near Vinkovci, 21^st May 2005: the car owned by Svijetlana M. of Serbian nationality from Vinkovci was hammered and smashed. The perpetrator Stipan B. has threatened her and her mother – «I am an Ustasha, I’ll kill you all, go to Serbia to the Chetniks ».

16. Trpinja near Vukovar, 22^nd May 2005: the town hall was mined, producing large material damage, perpetrator unknown.

17. Borovo, 22^nd May 2005: city hall was mined, producing large material damage, perpetrator unknown.

18. Vukovar, 22^nd May 2005: the apartment of a Serb owner was mined, producing large material damage, perpetrator unknown.

19. Bijelina near Benkovac, 30^th May 2005: the family of returnee Todor Medić was provoked and attacked. The assault happened during the night, one window was broken. In fear, the Medić family went back into exile. The case was reported to the police, but the investigation has given no results.

20. Ivoševci near Kistanje, 6^th June 2005: elderly Serbian couple Korolija, Đuro (81) and Ruža (78) were assaulted. The unknown assailants first demanded a payback of an alleged debt, then entered the house and beat the couple up. Đuro was taken to the Knin hospital, then to a hospital in Šibenik, while Ružica was given medical assistance. The police investigated the scene, but the results of the investigation are unknown.

21. Gračac, the night of 6/7 June 2005: the local siege of the Serbian Orthodox Church was broken into and building material was stolen.

22. Bijelina near Benkovac, 24^th June 2005: unidentified perpetrators entered into the courtyard of the house and used a large stone to break the window and shutters of returnees Svetozar and Sofija Škorić. The neighbouring house of Nada Škorić was also broken into. These cases have been reported to the police, but there are no results of the investigation.

23. Smoković near Zadar, 25^th June 2005: the house of Mirko Prostran was broken into and looted, the case was reported to the police, but there are no results of the investigation.

24. Smoković near Zadar, 26^th June 2005: the house of Davor Oliverić was broken into and looted, the case was reported to the police, but there are no results of the investigation.

25. Islam Grčki near Benkovac, 26^th June 2005: the house of Đuro Todorović was broken into and looted, the case was reported to the police, but there are no results of the investigation.

26. Ostrovica near Benkovac, 19^th July 2005: in their home, the returnee couple Čedo (80) and Miljka (71) Medić were attacked. They sustained serious and life threatening injuries (they were pounded with stones, trampled and threatened with slaughter). The investigation yielded no results.

27. Zagreb, 24^th July 2005: a three member family from Serbia was attacked (an 80-year-old, his 74-year-old wife and their 47-year-old daughter). Four assailants smashed their car and beat up the old man. The assailants remain unknown.

28. Đevrske near Knin, 20^th August 2005: three Croatian settlers from Kosovo who moved to the neighbouring village of Kistanje, broke into a local café during evening hours, in this exclusively Serb village. One of them kept breaking the glassed and fired several shots from a pistol. All three were arrested and their relatives came to present their excuses to the café owners. It remains unknown if the perpetrator was duly processed.

29. Rijeka, Delnice, 21^st August 2005: football fans attacked two buses of the Belgrade “Lasta” company. The bus in Rijeka was stoned, the wipers were torn off and passengers were threatened. On the same day in Delnice another bus was attacked near the “Ravna Gora” motel by a group of people who said they were a “group of Ustasha”. This group of young people climbed into the bus, beat and mistreated the passengers, shouting threats and insults.

30. Zagreb, 22^nd August 2005: Novak Dejanović, a citizen of Serb nationality, was assaulted by a physician Janko Wurth in a health facility in Trnava quarters, when Dejanović came to have his blood pressure taken. Without any cause whatsoever, Wurth said to him: «May the Hitler screw you. All you Serbs should have been killed. If he didn’t manage, then we’ll expel you all the way to China and bring people who want to work.» Wurth later threatened a woman journalist who was following the case; the incident was condemned by the Physicians’ Chamber and the City Health Department.

31. Glavina Donja near Imotski, 28^th August 2005: in the home of the Serb Nikola Kadijević, a hand grenade was thrown during the night into the courtyard next to the wall of the house, leaving a crater half metre wide. At the time of explosion, there were 12 people in the house, but nobody was hurt. About ten days before there was a surge in anti-Serb graffiti in the village. The police conducted an investigation, but there is no information on the perpetrators.

32. Šibenik, 29^th September 2005: A group of young men jumped over the fence into the courtyard of the Serbian Orthodox diocese in the centre of town shouting - “Kill the Serb” and “Hang all Serbs on trees”. They tried to smash the entrance door; they threw around the tables, chairs and banks in the yard and tried to break in the building through doors and windows, while 5 nuns were inside. The assailants gave up only upon arrival of a police patrol. Several days later they were identified and detained; a misdemeanour procedure was launched against them for disturbing public order.

33. Split, 24^th September 2005: during the night the entrance door and several windows were broken in the premises of the town and district council of the Serb national minority. The damages amount to several thousand Croatian Kuna. This attack was de facto a culmination in a series of repeated assaults, threats and pressures against the council and its activists (among other things, the lady representing the tenants - co-owners of the building, organised a signing of petition for the removal of the council and publicly stated that Serbs should be driven out and all their property smashed). The attack was reported to the police, but the results of the investigation are unknown.

34. Split, 3^rd October 2005: some time after midnight, a group of 30 young men organised a pogrom-like procession, sounding car horns, revving the engines, smashing beer bottles, shouting and banging, to the seventh-floor apartment of a Serb tenant in a building in the Split district of Trstenik; they shouted “Let’s take Serbs into concentration camps”. They asked that the main door be opened so they could deal with “the spy”. The person who reported the incident was told by police they would investigate and inform on results, but they never contacted him again.

35. Kistanje, 9^th October 2005: a group of twenty young persons, Croatian settlers from Kosovo, verbally abused young religious students from the Krka monastery, shouting religion-based and ethnic-based insults and threats. It is unknown if an investigation was ever conducted and what its results were.

36. Zagreb, 14^th October 2005: around midnight, a group of about 15 members of the Bad blue boys’ fan club, at the main Zagreb railway station attacked the train Ljubljana – Thessaloniki. The car on which Belgrade was marked as the destination was hit with stone blocks, garbage cans and then set on fire with two Bengal fires. Three passengers sustained light injuries. A complaint was filed and the criminal investigation began against six persons.

37. Zagreb, 5^th November 2005: during the night a car belonging to a visitor from Serbia and Montenegro and baring the registration plates of SaM, was set on fire. The car was parked at the parking lot of the hotel in which the guest was staying.

38. Drniš, 12^th November 2005: during the afternoon a group of young men stoned the orthodox church of the Assumption of the Holy Virgin, in the centre of town, insulting the priest by shouting - “Don’t ring the bells, this is not Serbia”, cursing his “Serbian and chetnik mother”. The priest withdrew to the bell-tower and reported the incident to the police. Investigation was launched, but so far without results.

39. Jagma near Lipik, 11^th November 2005: an explosive device caused injuries to the returnee Milan Paunović, born in 1949. He went into the forest to prepare firewood; this was a part of the forest he had been working with family and friend for the past several days. Suddenly he came across the explosive device and lost his arm.

40. Jagma near Lipik, 13^th November 2005: an explosive device killed the returnee Bogdan Stanković, born in 1944. Stanković was in the forest preparing firewood that he had piled up together with his family. He managed to load half of the wood when the explosion occurred and killed him. He was later found by his family members and the police immediately came to the scene of the explosion.

41. Adica/Vukovar, 18^th November 2005: the orthodox church of Sveta Petka was damaged during reconstruction. The assailants threw rocks at it, the façade was engraved with the letter “U” and the lighting around the church was smashed. The church door was forced open again on 25^th November and some damage was inflicted.

42. Split, 26the November 2005: during the night someone broke into the premises of the Serbian Cultural Society “Prosvjeta”. Computer equipment was taken away; flammable liquids were sprayed and lit, causing a part of the floor to burn up. Members of “Prosvjeta” are very concerned, every night someone pisses outside their door and the children shout “down with Serbian gang” under their window. The stolen computer contained a list of members and their addresses. According to the spokesperson of the Split police department, this case is treated as simple burglary.

43. Donja Bačuga near Petrinja, end of November and beginning of December 2005: the returnee Stevan Slijepčević had been permanently harassed and threatened with hanging. Several masked persons dressed in black broke into his house on a few occasions. They requested him not to permit the tearing down of a small chapel that had been built on his property while he was in exile in the late nineties. The chapel was built by Croatian settlers from BiH; since it was built without a permit and on private property relevant authorities have issued a decision on its removal. Results of the investigation are still unknown.

44. Split, 10the December 2005: windows in the premises of the Serbian Cultural Society “Prosvjeta” broken again. Perpetrators unknown.

45. Zadar, 11/12 December 2005: the orthodox church of St. Iliac was stoned, its door was damaged. Based on the press reports, the head priest does not intend to file a complaint.

46. Drniš, 18^th December 2005: glass above the main door of the Church of Assumption of the Holy Virgin was broken again. In front of the door an automatic rifle bullet was left, unfired. The case was reported to the police.

47. Zemunik Gornji near Zadar, 19/20 December 2005: the just reconstructed house of Petar Erceg was violently attacked. The basement and the ground floor doors were broken down; windows and shutters were smashed and the tools stolen. The police investigated the scene. Perpetrators are still unknown.

48. Split, 22/23 December 2005: another attack on Serbian “Prosvjeta” society. Windows smashed damages above 1500 Kuna. Police came to the scene. Investigation is ongoing, perpetrators unknown.

49. Šibenik, 23^rd December 2005: during the night there was an arson attempt in front of the orthodox diocese in the centre of town. A fire was set up but was localised after a swift action by the fire department. According to witnesses, while the fire was raging one could hear voices chant “Kill, kill the Serb” and “Hang Serbs on trees”.

These are only the most representative examples; according to the official police register, there were 65 cases of violence against Serbian minority. In 27 cases police had identified the perpetrators, but claims that these cases are ordinary violent behaviour and burglary and do not constitute ethnically motivated offences.[24] (The analysis of the above 49 cases undoubtedly shows that most incidents happened in Dalmatia, all 29 of them. Of those, most numerous are incidents against returnees in the Benkovac area - there were thirteen of them in the town or surrounding villages.

Interestingly enough, there are almost no incidents in the areas of Kordun and Lika (only one incident was registered in each region) but there is a visible increase in incidents in towns such as Split, Zadar and Šibenik. These incidents are mainly directed against cultural institutions and the Orthodox Church.

It is equally visible that incidents and destruction target mainly the reconstructed properties of returnees, which could suggest a conclusion that the main aim of these acts is to obstruct and discourage return by spreading fear.

As mentioned earlier, the behaviour of the Croatian police is also indicative. Large number of incidents remains with unknown perpetrators; where the perpetrators are found, their offences are usually minimised into regular misdemeanours.

It would be necessary for Croatia to have a different penal policy and to have courts and prosecution offices adopt a different practice. It is particularly important to step up the effectiveness of the police in Zadar county, because it seems highly risky for Serb returnees.

Reports and analyses show that not all minorities in Croatia are equally at risk; incidents such as those described here do not happen against other minority communities, or at least not in the same proportion. Besides, it should be stressed that incidents against returnees to Croatia are left almost without reaction in Serbia: occasionally there is information about cases that have happened, but this issue is far from being in the public focus.

Another reason related to security, which constitutes an obstacle to return, is the fear of arrest among men who have been involved in the war and have become refugees. This fear is fuelled by many unjustified arrests so far, because they were always followed by a media release stating the name, nationality and grounds for arrest for each person. On the other hand, once the arrests were proven unjustified and people were released, no public statement would follow.

Rumours about an arrest spread quickly and generate fear. There are certain lists of people who have been convicted, who have been indicted or are under investigation, as well as lists of people wanted by Interpol. These lists are publicly available on the website of the Documentation and Information Centre “Veritas”, as well as in the Croatian consulate in Belgrade, where a dedicated phone number serves to provide information.[25]

According to the recommendations of the OSCE observer mission, the lists have been revised and made public, after removing the names of people included in the Law on Abolition from 1996. The list now contains less then 1000 names, not all citizens of Croatia, as well as state a number of former members of the Croatian armed forces who are wanted by Croatian authorities on war crime charges.

The problem is, however, that quite possibly there are other, non-transparent lists unavailable to the public; arrests are made also based on these lists. Lately there have been a lot less such cases, but they usually happen at times when Croatia faces requests to surrender its own citizens to the Hague Tribunal or when war crimes proceedings are being opened against former members of the Croatian armed forces.

People who are suspected of having committed a criminal offence should by all means be brought to justice, but we believe that there should also be a clear and transparent procedure for this, in order to avoid this fear being a constant obstacle to return. Lists of potential culprits have to be transparent, while the issue of existence or non-existence of secret suspects lists should be finally resolved, so as to remove this obstacle for the return of refugees. If such lists do exist, they should be made public, and people whose names are on them should be given an opportunity to respond to those charges. Although the situation in this respect has largely improved, additional efforts should be made in order to make it fully satisfactory.

5. Political participation

The overall political position of the Serb national community in Croatia has been significantly improved during 2005 compared to the previous period, especially to the situation during the 1990-ties.

It is important that Serb political representatives (three members in the Croatian Parliament) participate in the ruling coalition. Consequently, they have an opportunity to partake in some bodies of the government as assistance ministers or members of other operative bodies.

The political representation in local and regional self-governments has also been improved, while the latest local elections in Croatia held in 2005 showed the gradual growth of political potential of the Serb community in Croatia.

All this has undoubtedly contributed to an improved position of the Serb community in the public opinion and the media. Problems of the Serb community as well as the problems of returnees are now being openly discussed. Some questions related to crimes against Serbs during the nineties have been opened, which was a taboo topic in Croatia before. This is gradually changing the public view on these issues, but also sets a trend of reducing ethnic distance.

Occasionally, however, problems arise that threaten to hamper this trend. A particularly negative example of this is the establishment of the so-called RSK Government in exile in February 2005. This event somewhat disturbed the Croatian public again and at least partly served as a trigger or pretext for some of the incidents that happened in Croatia.

The disturbing factors also include the incidents that happened in Serbia against the Croatian minority, such as the attack on the editorial offices of the “Hrvatsko slovo” magazine in Subotica or the assault on the Croatian Embassy staff in Belgrade.

The political position of the Serb community in Croatia can be viewed from three different aspects, bearing in mind that this overall insight does not ensure full precision.

In Eastern Slavonia and Baranja, in the areas that were peacefully reintegrated into Croatia in 1997, this position is regulated by the Erdut Agreement, which gives certain benefits within minority rights, political association of municipalities, some elements of the education policy and the like.[26]

In the area of special state concern, the situation of the Serb community is different, because this are was subjected to ethnic cleansing, followed by the settlement of Croats from other part of Former Yugoslavia, as well as the change in ethnic structure and the subsequent return refugees.

The position of Serbs living in other part of Croatia, especially in large towns, differs from the above two by lifestyle and types of problems they face. There the problems of the Serb community are similar to those that beset the majority Croatians.

The return is primarily concentrated in the areas of Krajina, Lika, Dalmatia, Kordun and Banija. It is in this part of Croatia that the returnees face the most problems, from political to economic, while the discrimination against them is most visible. Therefore it would be important for Croatia to start implementing its Constitutional Law on Minorities and Minority Rights in this part of the country, where it is almost never applied. This law also envisages proportional representation of minority community members in state services, administration and judiciary.

In the judiciary system there are no members of the Serb community, none of them are in the police either, including the local administrations in towns and municipalities where Serbs have the majority in executive power; they are only symbolically represented in health care, education, utility companies and the like.

There is an indicative example of a physics teacher in Knin who had been rejected three times when he applied for the vacancy; the school in question did not have a physics teacher and has not been able to hire one despite the open competition for the job. The explanation for such an attitude towards this man was that he had been engaged as a professor on the “enemy side”, although no criminal charges have ever been brought against him and that all diplomas and certificates from the “enemy side” have been recognised by the Law in Convalidation. In the fourth competition for the vacancy, a professor from another part of Croatia was persuaded to apply, be selected for the job even if he would not come and take the job, only to avoid formal problems with the unwanted professor and allow the school to advertise for the job until somebody “appropriate” applies.

Equally drastic are the cases in the field of judiciary. For instance, Ninko Mirić, a pre-war judge with all necessary qualifications, has been applying for the position of the judge in the Vojnić district court, but this application has not been resolved even though there are not formal legal impediments. In the police precincts in the area where the Serbs constitute a local majority, there are no Serb policemen. In the Donji Lapac municipality, where Serb parties have been holding power for the second consecutive term, there are no Serbs in the local administration, apart from those appointed by the elected parties.

Such practice should urgently be changed, especially since it is in contravention of the high state acts such as the Constitutional Law on the Right of National Minorities. A change in this practice would certainly lead to more returns of people and provide a possibility of good employment for the educated and most vital refugees from Croatia, as well as stabilise the situation of the Serb community in Croatia, its safety and legal security.

The insistence of political representatives of Serbs in Croatia on these issues is more important than the issues of language, script, names of towns and villages or some other cultural issues envisaged by the Law.

6. Infrastructure

Returnees to Dalmatia, Lika, Kordun and Banija face serious problems related to infrastructure. These areas have had poor infrastructure even before the war; given the war and destruction (several thousand houses were burned down, massive lootings were done, the villages were left abandoned for years and the existing infrastructure was destroyed and later neglected) a number of villages and other settlements are still without basic infrastructure for everyday life. According to the data by SDF Croatia, there are more than one hundred such villages; this also constitutes an obstacle to the return of refugees.

In communities closer to urban centres and where the return happened on a more massive scale, necessary measures have been taken to create basic conditions, the electric grid was repaired, roads paved and public transport established. Where the return has not been so massive and where communities are farther away from municipal centres, the situation remains unchanged compared to 1995.

A striking example is the village of Trnavac in the Plitvice Lake area, where 5 families have returned out of the 30 who lived there before the war. The village is still without electricity although the first returnees arrived in 1998; the introduction of the grid needs only 26 transmission pillars, which disappeared while the village stood empty of its original inhabitants after the exodus.

Similar examples can be found in other municipalities, particularly Obrovac, Gračac, Benkovac and Lapac. A better infrastructure would certainly have a positive effect on the return of the pre-war population.

7. Economy and employment

The greatest obstacle for return is the bleak economic situation in the returnee areas, especially for younger and educated people. In these areas the economy and production almost do not exist. Returnees mainly engage in agriculture in a very conventional way, smaller number of them works in crafts and services as well as some traditional fields characteristic for the area, such as wood processing, stone processing industry and the like. The pre-war industry has almost ceased to exist; only a few pre-war factories still work, employing primarily Croatians who came from other parts of former Yugoslavia and other areas of Croatia.

Due to such lack of employment possibilities, the age structure of returnees is highly unfavourable, since it includes mainly elderly people, pensioners and those over 50 year of age who are still not eligible for retirement; younger people and children make a very small proportion.

There is a visible lack of development projects and funds that would allow the use of local potentials: it is necessary to promote and support this development through state policies. Croatia already has certain support measures in agriculture and support to small farmers, but this is by far insufficient to encourage a more massive return.

With a comprehensive policy of economic development and by using comparative advantages of Croatia as a tourist country, as well as relying on high environmental values of these parts, the returnee areas could find their place in organic food production, tourist services and development of small and medium size enterprises related to this sector.

The best results in the overall development can be achieved through a strategy of active support to employment accompanied by measures that remain to be developed. They would include education related to transitional societies, re-qualifications of people, training in the field of small business, creating business plans and informing people on the possibility to use business funds available through the EU pre-accession funds, establishing expert teams and the like, including supervision and assisting in the area of consulting and marketing.

V Role of the state, local actors, international and intergovernmental organisations and local NGOs in the process of reintegration

In the introduction to this text we have stressed the political aspect of exile and the resolving of the refugee crisis in the countries of Former Yugoslavia. The political aspect cannot be avoided, because this huge problem arose in the sphere of politics and it is in this sphere that it should be resolved.

The already mentioned Sarajevo Declaration was signed by foreign ministers of Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, who thereby stated the highest political will to resolve the refugee crisis and to attribute highest political importance to the return of refugees. The Sarajevo Declaration is a statement of will, after which the states parties were obliged to formulate return programmes and undertake a series of concrete measures in order to ensure results in the field.

Regardless of the declared will of the states for the return of refugees, a look at the concrete steps taken shows that not much has been done on its implementation. The real will for sustainable repatriation does not seem to match the one stated in declaratory documents.

All measures created after the Sarajevo Declaration can be found in documents that the states were obliged to produce - the so called “road maps”. In mid 2005, Croatia produced a document entitled “The Road map”, which specified measures intended to support repatriation.

However, in order to ensure the return of refugees, a series of synchronised and well designed actions is needed; various stakeholders have to be involved and financial means for the implementation need to be secured. One of the problems lies in the process of designing the Road Map. Namely, the process did not involve civil society institutions in Croatia, or the specialised agencies; the document was not subjected to public or expert debate among interested stakeholders. This was probably one of the reasons for numerous unclarities, inconsistencies and deficiencies in the Road Map.

The Road Map does not envisage the change of laws and regulations in order to support return - not even those that obviously impede the process. The document is not clear about what kind of political, administrative and budgetary measures need to be undertaken in order to achieve the set goals. Therefore it is necessary to adopt the recommendations of the international community with regard to the Road Map, involve experts and NGOs in the implementation, as well as additionally specify implementation measures, both temporally and geographically; particular attention should be paid to the planning of integration models for returnees.

It would be necessary for the Croatian Government to adopt obligatory guidelines for lower and local levels of authority with regard to implementing repatriation projects. At the same time, it is essential for the Government to have its own Working Group as a standing operational body, composed from people of various sectors, with a broad programmatic focus and with necessary authority that guarantees effectiveness. It would also be useful if Croatian Government would institutionalise the collaboration with the other two governments in monitoring the repatriation process.

All this will greatly depend on the level of pressure that the non-governmental sector, international organisations and political factors will exert on the governments signatories of the Sarajevo Declaration to enhance their engagement on implementing the repatriation. Currently, the estimates are that the implementation has so far been unsatisfactory, slow and ineffective. This report is also a testimony of that.

In Serbia, there is a visible absence of initiative to enhance the process of repatriation to Croatia. There are no preparatory, promotional or other activities by the state that would be seen as aimed at such direction, almost as if the Sarajevo Declaration never happened.

The Serbian Commissariat for Refugees, as an operational body mandated to resolve refugee issues, has remained passive when it comes to repatriation. This passive attitude is illustrated by the promotion campaign conducted in Serbia in 2005 by the OSCE mission in Croatia together with the Croatian Government: billboards and posters placed in all bigger towns invited the refugees to return to Croatia. Due to many reasons this campaign looked rather unconvincingly in the messages it tried to send out; instead of the desired goal it had a completely different effect.

The lack of coordination was apparent between the Commissariat for Refugees of Serbia and the OSCE Croatian mission, who had created the messages and commissioned the billboards. At the beginning of the campaign, the Commissariat gathered a number of refugee associations opposed to return and supported them in a protest against the billboards; this does not reflect the spirit of the Sarajevo Declaration and the promotion of durable solutions, but is nevertheless logical in the overall political context.

Simultaneously, the Commissariat for Refugees of Serbia is focussed on the changes and amendments to the current Law on Refugees, which are primarily aimed at regulating housing and related property issues of concern to integration; the Draft Bill still contains a very narrow definition of “refugee”, encompassing only people who fled from former Yugoslav republics; it also includes the individuals who no longer have refugee status because they have taken up Serbian citizenship (and SaM). The process of drafting the Bill lacked in transparency and did not sufficiently involve other stakeholders engaged in refugee issues (primarily NGOs and international agencies); there are different opinions in the public about the quality and potential achievements of this legal act.[27] Meanwhile, the Ministry of Interior of Serbia, with assistance of UNHCR and other relevant international agencies, is preparing a Law on Asylum, which should regulate the issue of refugees in general. The essential difference between the two laws should be the fact that the Law on Asylum would regulate refugees form the co-called “third countries” and should therefore not be applied to refugees from Former Yugoslavia who have acquired their status pursuant to the existing Law on Refugees. The proposed approach in the Draft Bill is deeply problematic, although the justification by the Commissariat invokes the possibility of “positive discrimination” in the process of integration of refugees; given the one-sidedness of the proposed measures and the possibility of fuelling unrealistic expectations among refugees, the application of the Law could in fact additionally slow down and hamper the repatriation processes.

On the other hand, baring in mind the approach by Croatia to the BiH refugees that found shelter there, mainly ethnic Croatians from central Bosnia and Bosanska Krajina, it can be concluded that both states tend to support the integration of refugees of the same national structure as the receiving community, rather than support repatriation. Through many media and practical activities conducted by state bodies in all countries within the region, it seems that repatriation is not for them the most favourable solution. The impression is that by synchronised lack of action these countries are in fact limiting the level of repatriation in the region.

International organisations such as the UNHCR, OSCE and the European Community, should exert additional pressure on the signatories of the Sarajevo Declaration in order to make the repatriation a concrete process with realistic results conducive to sustainable return of all refugees who have opted for this solution. Otherwise, this document will remain a wish list. Regardless of the high social price attached to the resolving of the refugee crisis in the region, this work is one of the key conditions for the overall stability in the Balkan countries.

In concrete repatriation related activities the role of local authorities and local self-government structure is crucial. The overall daily life issues related to returnees are resolved in the local communities, from the administrative problems to the issue of economic sustainability or the return. Local self governments in the return areas are still not sufficiently trained and are largely dependent on the instructions by the central government. Therefore their role is less visible in the creation of appropriate return conditions.

In communication and meetings with several municipal leaders from Dalmatia, Lika, Kordun and Banija[28], we have found that good will exists, but that the key returnee-related issues are being decided on central and regional levels. Local self-government budgets are not in line with their new needs stemming from return, but are still being determined according to usual obligations by local self-governments. Given that these are usually poor municipalities where little revenue is collected, their infrastructure investment potentials are very limited.

The NGO sector in the return areas, and Croatia in general, is making an effort to improve the condition of returnees and provides various types of support in this process. Some of the NGOs involved in the return process include the Karlovac Committee for Human Rights, Dalmatian Solidarity Committee, Homo Pula, I Want to Go Home – Knin, Civic Committee for Human Rights – Zagreb and Croatian Helsinki Committee. Activities of these organisations span from the provision of personal documents for refugees to educational and vocational training programmes aimed at empowering returnee communities for economic projects and economic revitalisation. NGO certainly cannot replace the state in providing for refugees and returnees, but their experiences, abilities and the already established cross-border collaboration can largely contribute to the overall efforts aimed at improving both repatriation and integration.

In Serbia, a number of NGOs have been dealing with the repatriation of refugees to Croatia. Many of them are now members of the Serbian Refugee Council. There are also various associations of refugees, usually with limited capacities, relatively poor coordination and sometimes different agendas. It is believed that some of these associations are actively opposing repatriation.

VI Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions

Based on the given analysis we have made the following conclusions:

a) During 2005 overall conditions for return of refugees from Serbia to Croatia have been improved; a certain number of obstacles for return, including human rights violations, has been removed completely or to a significant extent. This primarily relates to the repossession of usurped property, facilitation of administrative procedures, improved efficiency of courts and the beginning of reconstruction of destroyed houses and infrastructure. Nevertheless, a number of unresolved problems and obstacles still remains, which are important for the improvement of the repatriation process.

b) Incidents directed against returnees, members of the Serb minority community in Croatia, although not numerous, still have serious ramifications; of particular concern is the fact that their perpetrators remain unidentified in the majority of cases.

c) The Constitutional Law on Minority Rights in Croatia is not being fully implemented as concerns proportional representation of returnees in the state administration, judiciary and public services; this is another serious obstacle to return.

d) There are no projects or a clear strategy of economic development of the repatriation areas, while the capacities of local self governments are still insufficient for the appropriate reception of returnees.

e) The issue of tenancy rights remains unresolved, together with the issue of housing provisions for the former tenancy rights holders; this process has not yet begun, which is another obstacle to repatriation.

f) The problem of employment convalidation also remains unresolved, as well as the issue of payment of pension arrears to refugees, which is in direct contravention to the basic principle of equality of citizens before the law.

g) Not all dilemmas concerning the lists of potential returnees facing possible arrest have been resolved

h) The repatriation programme of the Croatian Government entitled “Road Map” contains a series of week points possibly leading to a conclusion that the basic aims of the Sarajevo Declaration would not be achieved in the agreed time. The way in which this document defines the repatriation strategy contains points that have not been clarified, as well as general statements, but much less concrete items, identified sources to accompany the process of repatriation, as well as insufficient legal, administrative and budgetary potential to support repatriation.

i) Relevant institutions in Serbia are not investing appropriate efforts to inform potential returnees of repatriation projects and possibilities that come with these projects; they seem to not be doing enough to promote and support the process of repatriation; there is no visible tendency to coordinate the improvement of the process with Croatian Government structures.

Recommendations

With the view of removing the remaining obstacles to the repatriation of refugees from Serbia to Croatia and taking into account the findings of this report, Serbian Refugee Council would like to propose the following steps::

a) Continue and accelerate the work among all interested stakeholders on removing the remaining obstacles to the return of refugees to Croatia, especially in terms of speeding up the reconstruction process of destroyed houses, ensuring amore effective solutions to the reconstruction claims and swift appeals procedure in this process, as well as overall improvement in the work of courts, through an appropriate judiciary reform.

b) Organise a meeting of responsible bodies in the governments of Serbia and Croatia in order to agree and coordinate measures that would improve the repatriation process and thereby contribute to the implementation of goals set forth by the Sarajevo Declaration; this includes the swift agreement of the joint Roadmap and the resolution of the problems stated in the conclusions of this report.

c) The repatriation strategy given in the Croatian Government “Road Map” should be supplemented with missing elements, primarily in terms of effective administrative and budgetary follow-up of the repatriation related needs.

d) The EC, OSCE and UNHCR should maintain a permanent dialogue with governments signatories of the Sarajevo Declaration with regard to the fulfilment of stated obligations; besides, it is necessary to ensure a more active participation of the civil society and NGOs in the monitoring and follow-up of the implementation progress.

e) Maintain a permanent dialogue, partnership and joint projects between NGOs in Croatia and in Serbia, in order to stimulate and adequately support the process of repatriation.

[1] According to the OSCE data, in the period 1991-1995 between 300.000 and 350.000 Croatian citizens of Serb nationality have left Croatia. More information in: »Report on Croatia's Progress in Meeting International Commitments Since 2001«. Source: <www.osce.org/croatia>

[2] Data by the Ministry of Sea, Tourism, Traffic and Development of Croatia, presented in the document entitles: “Return of exiles and refugees to Croatia”. Source: <www.mmtpr.hr>

[3] Besides information from SDF Zagreb <www.sdf.hr> and UNHCR mission in Serbia <www.unhcr.org.yu>, an important source about the number of returnees to Croatia is the OSCE mission in Croatia <www.osce.org/croatia>

[4] The census was conducted from 27^th November 2004 to 25^th January 2005. The data collection was followed by refugee status confirmation. Source: <www.kirs.sr.gov.yu>

[5] The succession agreement can be downloaded from the Croatian Parliament Information Catalogue, < www.sabor.hr>

[6] The text of the Sarajevo Declaration can be downloaded from the web page of the Commissariat for Refugees of Serbia, <www.kirs.sr.gov.yu>

[7] More in: »Return of exiles and refugees in Croatia «. Source: <www.mmtpr.hr>

[8] Constitutional Law on National Minorities of the Republic of Croatia, Narodne novine No. 155/02

[9] Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina can be downloaded from the Office of the High Representative in B&H, <www.ohr.int>

[10] For more information see: Census of refugees and other war affected people in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Popis izbeglica i drugih ratom ugroženih lica u Saveznoj Republici Jugoslaviji). UNHCR, Commissariat for Refugees of Serbia and Commissariat for Refugees of Montenegro. Belgrade, 1996

[11] Source: »Return of exiles and refugees in Croatia «, <www.mmtpr.hr>

[12] More information in the text by Serbian Democratic Forum Zagreb office “Resolution of the refugee problem: the Sarajevo Declaration - Overview and suggestions for the Croatian road map from 29^th 03. 2005”. Source: <www.sdf.hr/izvjestaji>

[14] More information in the section on collective centres on the website of the Commissariat for Refugees of Serbia, <www.kirs.sr.gov.yu>

[15] The Aliens Act of the Republic of Croatia, Narodne novine No.109/03

[16] Background Report on Property Reposssesion,< www.osce.org/croatia>

[17] Law on Property and Other Real Rights of the Republic of Croatia, Narodne novine No. 91/96

[18] For example: Housing provision plan for the former tenancy rights holders

[19] More information about APN at: <www.apn.hr>

[20] “Krađevinski poduzetnici” (The thieving entrepreneurs), Feral Tribune , Croatia, 4th January 2006

[21] Law on Convalidations of the Republic of Croatia, Narodne novine No. 104/97

[22] See reports by Croatian Helsinki Committee at: <www.hho.hr>

[23] Data by Croatian Interior Ministry, stated at the round table of the Coalition for the promotion and protection of human rights, in Zagreb, in early 2006

[24] Identitet, Zagreb, No. 96, March 2006

[25] More information at: < www.veritas.org.yu>

[26] Documents related to the so-called Erdut Agreement can be downloaded from the Croatian Parliament Information Catalogue, < www.sabor.hr>

[27] The text of the Draft Law can be downloaded from the Commissariat for Refugees of Serbia website, <www.kirs.sr.gov.yu>

[28] SDF Serbia is working closely with local authorities, primarily in the field of return to Croatia, given that teh concrete assistance to refugees in the process of return largely delepnd on this cooperation.