This report aims to provide an overview of problems besetting internally displaced persons in Serbia during displacement and offer recommendations on how these problems could be solved.

According to the official data, there are 225,877 IDPs from Kosovo and Metohija. Montenegro, which was a part of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro until June 2006, provided shelter for 18.019 of them. The majority of IDPs are ethnic Serbs (68 percent), followed by Roma (12 percent), and then Montenegrins (8 percent).

Internal displacement of people within and out of Kosovo occurred on two occasions: in 1999, following the withdrawal of Serbian security forces when more than 200.000 left Kosovo or remained displaced within the province; after violence against ethnic minorities and international administration, when 4.100 fled their homes seeking refuge mainly inside Kosovo. IDPs from Kosovo are scattered throughout the territory with three different administrative frameworks - Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo. According to UNHCR data, in the six years since the end of the conflicts, only 12.700 persons from minority groups have returned to Kosovo (6,000 Serbs, 3,300 Egyptians, 1,400 Roma and 1,150 Bosniacs). IDPs mostly return to rural Serb-dominated parts of Kosovo. The main reasons for such a small number of returnees primarily include the poor security situation, lack of freedom of movement, bleak economic prospects and the uncertainty surrounding the final status of Kosovo.

Since they haven’t crossed an international border, the main responsibility for internally displaced lies on their state, which is the Republic of Serbia. The international community has a limited mandate with regard to IDPs and is able to act only through provision of aid via UN agencies and other international organisations (with state consent). The key document outlining the rights of IDPs is the UN Guiding principles of internal displacement. In the absence of a specific government body in Serbia that would have concrete responsibilities to protect and support IDPs, some of these activities have been undertaken by the Commissariat for Refugees. In 2002 the Serbian government adopted the National strategy for resolving the problems of refugees and internally displaced. However, the National strategy implementation is only focused on refugees, while envisaging return to Kosovo and Metohija as the only option for IDPs. Such position of Serbian authorities has prompted the largest international organisations to limit their activities only to proposing measures in the framework of return possibilities.

Internally displaced have a right to access social services in Serbia, but in practice they face serious problems. For instance, in order to obtain a legally recognised status, an IDP should acquire an “IDP card”. However, many of the displaced lack one or more key personal documents needed to process the IDP card. Due to this documentation problem, some internally displaced, especially among Roma community, cannot get their citizenship certificate and are de facto stateless in their own country. Same problems occur with registration of temporary residence. In this respect the most difficult is the situation of people living in unrecognised collective centres: they cannot obtain a residence registration because they have no legal ground for using the factual address. In its policy of closure of collective centres, the government does not take into account these unofficial facilities, given that the strategy only encompasses centres officially established by the state.

Internally displaced face serious problems related to property restitution. A large number of apartments and houses that had belong to the IDPs are currently under the jurisdiction of the Housing and Property Directorate (HPD) and the Housing and Property Claims Commission, established in 1999 by an UNMIK resolution with the view of resolving property disputes. After the HPD concludes its mandate in 2006, a decline in real estate prices could be expected, since the IDPs would most likely rush to sell off their properties in Kosovo; this is likely to jeopardize their situation in the community of displacement. The general poverty of the displaced people is further aggravated by poor access to the Serbian labour market. Besides the already existing competition and a deficit of vacancies, the displaced face an additional problem when they cannot prove their qualifications, since they do not have their working booklets. This situation leads to about 35 to 45 percent of IDPs relying exclusively on the illegal labour market. Many elderly displaced face poverty, given that they have not been receiving their full pensions for years, and have no means to fend for themselves or engage in the black market. Roma displaced are particularly vulnerable due to their general lack of professional qualifications and low level of integration into society.

With regard to health care, problems are also manifold: for instance, it is more difficult to obtain adequate health care in east and south Serbia, where there is a lack of specialised health institutions, while travelling to the north of Serbia often entails such cost that IDPs cannot afford.

As concerns access to educational institutions, displaced children have the right to free of charge elementary education; however, schooling for Romany children whose mother tongue is Albanian is impossible in central and north Serbia, because the schools with Albanian language teaching are located only in the south of Serbia (Bujanovac, Preševo and Medveđa).

The decision on the final status of Kosovo and Metohija will have a direct impact on the situation of the internally displaced in Serbia proper. Therefore the authorities in Serbia, as well as all other parties in status negotiations, should pay extra attention to the interests and rights of the displaced people. It is necessary to undertake am array of different necessary measures in order to enhance possibilities for exercising the rights of IDPs, as well as outline clear jurisdictions and responsibilities of institutions with regard to the displaced, give them precise and clear status and recognise their rights guaranteed to all citizens of Serbia, in keeping with the UN Guiding Principles of Internal Displacement.

Introduction

In the 1990s, during armed conflicts following the break-up of former Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, over 4 million people left their homes, of which over 1.5 million sought refuge within the borders of their respective states, thus becoming internally displaced persons. Today, nearly six years after the end of conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo and Macedonia, there remain 600,000 IDPs in the region, who are neither able to return to the places they fled from nor integrate in the host community they sought refuge in. Serbia hosts over 205,000 internally displaced persons from Kosovo.

This document seeks to provide overview of the problems faced by internally displaced persons during displacement in Serbia and recommend possible solutions.

The decision on the final status of Kosovo and possible decision on the future of the State Union[1] will directly affect the position of IDPs and determine the nature of programs implemented by international organizations and donors intended for this segment of the population. In the upcoming period, leading international organizations are expected to continue to scale down humanitarian assistance and phase out their overall operations in S&M. International isolation, wars and massive population movements have caused the overall impoverishment of society, institutional exhaustion and a decline in the quality of social services. Given these conditions, Serbia and Montenegro still lacks the social welfare capacities that would effectively substitute for the decreasing international humanitarian aid. People’s needs for social assistance, health care and education still exceeds the level of services the country is capable to provide.

Should there be progress in cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia and the negotiations on Serbia and Montenegro accession to the EU, an increase in foreign investments and further economic growth may be expected to occur. This should, if not serve as a substitute, then at least alleviate the consequences of the withdrawal of international humanitarian organizations and improve the position of both refugees and IDPs. The reduction of poverty among refugees and IDPs would contribute to political stability in the country and the region, which is a prerequisite for further reforms and development. On the other hand, there is a risk that shifting from humanitarian aid to income-generation and development projects may affect the neediest among the IDPs who are not able to take part in these activities while they are still in need of aid for food and other basic necessities.

Background and Context

Internal displacement of people within and out of Kosovo occurred in two occasions: in 1999, following the withdrawal of Serbian security forces when more than 200,000 left Kosovo or went into displacement within the province; after violence against ethnic minorities and international administration, when 4,100 fled their homes seeking refuge mainly inside Kosovo. IDPs from Kosovo are scattered across the territory of one country with three different administrative frameworks - Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo. This means that access to public and social services varies significantly depending on the location of displacement. The situation is further complicated by the fact that there is little coordination between the different administrations.[2]

According to the official data, there are 225,877[3] IDPs in Serbia and Montenegro, of whom 18,019 in Montenegro. The ethnic structure of the displaced population shows that the majority are Serbs (68 percent), followed by Roma (12 percent), and then Montenegrins (8 percent). Initially, most IDPs stayed in areas bordering Kosovo, but as return prospects failed to improve, they moved again towards central and northern Serbia.

According to UNHCR data, in the six years since the end of the conflicts, only 12,700 minority members returned to Kosovo (6,000 Serbs, 3,300 Egyptians, 1,400 Roma and 1,150 Bosniacs).[4] IDPs mostly return to rural Serb-dominated parts of Kosovo. The main reasons for such a small number of returnees include the poor security situation[5], in the first place, lack of freedom of movement, bleak economic prospects and the uncertainty surrounding the final status of Kosovo. No one could be expected to make the final decision to return without knowing if the territory he/she returns to will be independent, autonomous or enjoy some other status. The security situation and unresolved status of Kosovo not only hinder any large-scale return, but also cause donors to lose interest for supporting return programs.[6]

Causes of problems

Since IDPs did not cross the state border, and in the absence of a binding international protection system, the primary responsibility for IDPs lies with their home country - Serbia and Montenegro, which must secure full equality of IDPs with other citizens. In practice, IDPs face numerous difficulties in exercising their basic civil, economic and social rights, including access to personal documents, property rights, health care and social welfare assistance, adequate accommodation etc. Without special protection measures in place, the legal equality IDPs supposedly enjoy often means that they are actually unable to exercise their human rights, do not have of access to social services and thus sink deeper and deeper into poverty.

The Implementation Program for the National Strategy for Resolving Problems of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons in Serbia of 2002 focuses solely on refugees, whereas the only option envisaged for IDPs is the return to Kosovo. In Montenegro, the emphasis is placed on facilitating their return to Kosovo, moving on to Serbia or third countries, although foreign governments and international agencies have discontinued such programs in S&M. In addition, competencies and responsibilities with regard to IDPs are not clearly articulated at both the State Union level and the level of the constituent Republics, which has created a legal and institutional void and resulted in further neglect of the needs of the displaced.

As the Serbian authorities focus solely on the return of the displaced to Kosovo, activities of major international organizations are limited to proposing measures related to return. If any different initiative is proposed, Serbian authorities usually respond by arguing that integration projects may be considered only after conditions for the return to Kosovo are created. Due to the standpoint according to which the freedom to choose between return and integration may only become an option after conditions for return are created and not before, IDPs have for six years been unable to permanently resolve their status: they can neither return nor integrate in the host country.

IDPs in Serbia do have access to social services, but despite some improvements in this area, they still have serious difficulties in obtaining personal documents. According to an ICRC report, the conditions for IDPs in Serbia and Montenegro worsened in 2005, compared to 2003 and 2004. The factors contributing to this worsening are as follows: erosion of assets, inability to access and to sell off property in Kosovo, difficulties in accessing social services, the closure of collective centres, and the scaling back of humanitarian assistance.[7] Among the displaced population, Roma IDPs are confronted with the worst conditions. Positive steps have been taken through the adoption of the National Strategy for Integration of Roma in 2004, as well as the adoption of national action plans targeting Roma. These programs should now be backed up by concrete actions to the benefit the displaced Roma, first and foremost their registration.

As the policy of openly advocating for integration of the displaced is considered as an highly sensitive political issue, insisting on access to rights and respect for a life with dignity represents an avenue for international and non-governmental organizations to through their contacts with the Serbian authorities initiate measures for improving the access to rights of IDPs in their places of displacement. “Integration and return are not mutually exclusive but complementary and there is an urgent need to find durable solutions for the most vulnerable among the displaced. Experience from other contexts has shown that the quicker displaced persons are integrated back into productive lives, the more likely they are able to exercise a free choice which can mean return, even if it means facing new challenges.“[8]

In order to assess the existing legal and institutional framework with respect to IDPs’ and their access to rights in practice, the IDP Interagency Working Group (comprising UNHCR, UNDP, UNOCHA, OHCHR, OSCE, ICRC, NRC, DRC, IFRC and Group 484) in October 2004 published an analysis of legal framework and practice regarding the position of displaced persons against the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.[9]

The decision on the future status of Kosovo will directly affect the displaced, their citizenship status in particular, but also all other rights deriving from it. In the worst case scenario, the new status may lead to new displacements and the decision on the new status may be reached without participation or consent of the Serbian Government. IDPs in Serbia and Montenegro already experience numerous problems in exercising their rights because of the conflicting political agendas reflected in the lack of cooperation between UNMIK and the Republic of Serbia and mutual non-recognition of official documents.

Institutional and legal framework [10]

Status of internally displaced persons is granted to those persons who were displaced from their homes but remained within the borders of their own states. Although their position is similar to that of refugees, with whom they share similar problems, there is a big difference when it comes to treatment of IDPs and refugees. Refugees enjoy protection under the UN Convention on Refugees and its Protocols, as well as protection of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other international organizations. Where IDPs are concerned, responsibility for their protection lies entirely with the national authorities of their home country. The mandate of international community with respect to IDPs is limited to provision of assistance through UN agencies and other international agencies (with the consent of the respective national authorities). UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement is the international document establishing the rights of internally displaced persons. This document was promoted in 1998[11] by Francis M. Deng, Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons, for the purpose of protecting the rights of IDPs.

According to the Guiding Principles, internally displaced persons are persons or groups of persons who have been forced to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, as a result of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized state border.

Although they do not constitute a binding instrument, The Guiding principles are based upon and reflect binding international conventions and covenants and emphasize the responsibility of national governments for providing protection to internally displaced persons. In addition, The Guiding principles offer some practical guidance primarily to governments, international and national institutions and organizations, NGOs and other organizations dealing with internally displaced persons.

„Internally displaced persons shall enjoy, in full equality, the same rights and freedoms under international and domestic law as do other persons in their country. They shall not be discriminated against in the enjoyment of any rights and freedoms on the ground that they are internally displaced. “

Principle 1, UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement

Although this document does not have force of law nor does it constitute a binding instrument, in contrast to the Convention, it sets forth important standards of treatment of internal displacement by national governments and creates a framework for issues governing the position of IDPs, which includes guaranteeing respect for human rights of IDPs. Since IDPs are nationals of Serbia and S&M, their rights, duties and position are governed by the same Serbian laws governing the position of other citizens who are not in displacement. Governmental institutions in charge of providing protection to IDPs have been established at both the State Union and Republic level. The institution responsible for IDPs at the State Union level is the Ministry of Human and Minority Rights, established by the Constitutional Charter of the State Union of S&M. Its function is to oversee realization of the human and minority rights of IDPs in accordance with domestic and international legislation.

However, limited resources available to this Ministry are probably one of the reasons why it has not been able to deal with the problems of IDPs in a more meaningful way. Another important institution of the State Union is the National Council of the Roma set up in accordance with the Law on Protection of Rights and Freedoms of National Minorities in May 2003. This is a key institution for resolving the rights of the Roma, who are highly represented among IDP population. Other organizations dealing with IDPs in Serbia include the Serbian Commissariat for Refugees and the Coordination Centre for Kosovo. The Commissariat is mainly responsible for securing accommodation to IDPs in collective centres and issuance of IDP cards. The Coordination Centre is the key organization focused on resolving problems related to Kosovo and its task is to coordinate the activities related to humanitarian aid for displaced persons as well as to secure conditions for their return to Kosovo.

Problem analysis[12]

Status-based Rights

IDP card

In the absence of a government body in Serbia with a specific mandate to protect and assist internally displaced persons, the Serbian Commissariat for Refugees has taken on some of these responsibilities. To be able to enjoy the legal status of an IDP, a displaced person must get an IDP card issued by the Commissariat for Refugees through its officers in Serbian municipalities – refugee commissioners.

IDP card is issued upon presenting birth certificate and ID card. Possession of IDP card is a requirement for accommodation in collective centres and access to other accommodation programs[13], humanitarian assistance and health care.

Displaced persons should enjoy the same rights as all other citizens of Serbia. However, owing to an institutional and legal void (e.g. unresolved issue of temporary residence permits) and complicated bureaucratic procedures, the displaced are confronted with a number of difficulties in exercising their rights and accessing services, including obtaining personal documents, realization of property rights, and access to health care or social benefits. According to the ICRC, the risk of discrimination against IDPs by the resident population requires an intervention by the authorities. These interventions should not only lead to legal recognition of their status but reinforce respect for IDPs’ rights in practice.[14]

It should be noted that the returnees from West Europe originating from Kosovo cannot enjoy the status of IDPs after being deported to Serbia. The position of Serbian authorities is that rejected asylum seekers and persons who lost temporary protection in West European countries should not be granted the status of IDPs. For that reason these people find themselves in a sort of vacuum – they have been denied international protection and Serbia refuses to provide them with the special assistance enjoyed by displaced persons. (For more details see the section on especially vulnerable groups.)

Citizenship and Access to Personal Documents

Owing to documentation difficulties, some IDPs, especially Roma, cannot obtain proof of citizenship, which practically renders them stateless.[15] Many displaced persons lack one or several of the required documents which prevent them from exercising their human rights. Producing necessary documents and navigating through administrative requirements is not a simple or easy job even for Serbian citizens. For persons who are already in a disadvantaged position because of being displaced, these obstacles may become insurmountable and further limit their access to medical and other services they used to receive and are still entitled to receive.[16]

To get an IDP card making them eligible for assistance (in food, accommodation, health care etc.), IDPs must present ID and proof of temporary residence registration. The fact that many displaced persons living in unofficial collective centres or illegally built settlements cannot regularize their status due to a lack of proof of legal residence is particularly worrisome.

Many IDPs do not have documents proving their status or identity or employment records. In many cases this is due to the logistical and financial difficulty involved in obtaining or being re-issued documentation from Kosovo municipal offices relocated from Kosovo to southern Serbia. Until the second half of 2005, displaced persons had to travel to towns inside Serbia in order to have birth certificates or excerpts from land registries issued by civil registry offices dislocated from Kosovo. Thanks to Praxis and efforts by other non-governmental and international organizations, the Ministry of State Administration and Local Self-Government issued an order in July 2005 enabling displaced persons to apply and receive birth certificates from dislocated civil registry offices by mail, instead of having to travel to those locations to collect them.

Displaced persons may now also be issued by mail a document stating that they have not been registered in birth registries which enables them to file an administrative action for subsequent registration or a law suit for recognition of identity. In the case of a law suit, it is not clear which court has jurisdiction to hear such disputes because some regular courts refer these cases to courts from Kosovo now sitting in Serbia. To clarify the jurisdiction for hearing law suits for recognition of identity, Praxis approached the Serbian Supreme Court seeking their opinion regarding this issue.[17]

Despite certain progress made, the complicated bureaucratic procedure[18] and evident lack of willingness on the part of some municipalities to help and facilitate document issuance still makes the position of IDPs difficult. Many municipal clerks complain of not being able to efficiently process the large number of applications received by mail stating that they lack personal and technical capacities to do this job. To remedy this problem, the city of Nis developed a project proposal for electronic entry of data from birth registries.

An additional problem, aside from dislocated registry offices, is that some municipal registries from Kosovo were never transferred to Serbia or were destroyed. The IDPs from these municipalities are confronted with severe difficulties because they cannot get some important documents that would enabling them access to other rights, such as the right to obtain new ID, the right to receive social welfare assistance, child allowances and the like. Much credit goes to non-governmental organizations for helping address these problems. Through its offices in Kosovo, Praxis obtains excerpts from pension files, certificates on diplomas issued, driver’s licenses etc. As there is no recognition of the official documents between authorities in Serbia and UNMIK (diplomas on UNMIK forms as well as well as pension forms called M4), Praxis recommended to Serbian authorities, UNMIK and local governments in Kosovo to agree on mutual recognition of official documents and to exchange copies of birth registry books and pension records.[19]

Roma IDPs are particularly affected by denied access to personal documents. The Norwegian Refugee Council estimates indicate that between 20 and 30 percent of Roma have never been registered in registry books. Those attempting to register have to perform a very time-consuming and complicated procedure of "subsequent registration". Specialized organizations reveal that these cases are very rarely solved successfully. As stated above, lack of documents renders Roma stateless.

The amendments to the Law on Republic Administrative Fees in July 2005 were a positive step forward. According to the amended law, administrative fees related to access to documentation were reduced by 70 percent for IDPs. This measure may be interpreted as a result of persistent efforts made by non-governmental organizations, including Group 484, towards reducing fees for IDPs or exempting them from payment of fees.

Freedom of Movement

Initially, people displaced from Kosovo often remained in southern and central Serbia, close to the border with Kosovo, but as the prospects of return worsened, many of them moved north, closer to central Serbia and Belgrade, in search of better economic opportunities.

Most IDPs have registered a temporary residence that must be renewed every three months with the police department in the place of temporary residence. Requirements for temporary residence permits are as follows: possession of ID, proof of ownership or apartment lease contract, the so-called green card (a form issued by the police authorities which includes data from ID, information on sex and occupation, place of residence and address IDP wishes to register, name of landlord, date of arrival and departure).

Refugees and IDPs living in unofficial collective centres or illegal settlements can not register temporary residence since they do not have a legal address. Not being able to register residence at their current address, they usually register a false address with relatives or friends.

The bureaucratic procedure for a change of temporary residence is complicated. Some municipalities require proof of de-registration in the previous location before allowing IDPs to register in new location. If a displaced person wishes to change his/her temporary residence, the commissioner for Refugees in the place of their current residence must seek approval from the commissioner in the new place of residence. To get an approval from the commissioner in the new place of residence, an IDP needs to present a statement signed by his/her host declaring that s/he is willing to provide accommodation and food to the IDP during displacement. An IDP may also be lodged in a collective centre upon arrival in a new municipality of residence. In that case, s/he hast to request to be issued a proof of residence in a collective centre by the commissioner at the municipality in which s/he wishes to register a new residence.[20]

Until July 2003, police authorities refused to issue de-registration documents to displaced persons from Kosovo who wished to could not register address in Serbia. As of July 2003 when the Ministry of Interior put an end to this practice, displaced persons can register as residents in any Serbian municipality without a problem.

According to ICRC, about 0.2 percent of IDPs (400 persons) have registered as permanent residents of several Serbian municipalities. Registration of permanent residence does not affect their status as IDPs, and they do not lose their IDP card. It affects, though, their right to receive minimum financial assistance delivered to those IDPs who were employed in the industry sector in Kosovo. In September 2003, the Government of Serbia rendered a decision according to which the IDPs who had worked in the industry sector in Kosovo are entitled to financial compensation for the salaries they lost in Kosovo. Once they register permanent residence in Serbia, these IDPs lose this right. The National Employment Bureau revoked this right on the basis of interpretation of conclusions of the Government of Serbia.[21]

Accommodation

Since the Serbian authorities insist on return as the only option for IDPs, there are no housing programs intended for this segment of the population. Although IDPs are not included in the Implementation Program for the National Strategy, the collective centres housing IDPs are also being closed down. While free or subsidized housing units are being built for refugees and the local population, IDPs have not benefited from these activities. UNHCR has recently started to extend its program of one-time assistance for refugees (PIKAP) to IDPs, but aside from that, no other assistance has been provided to them. All IDPs can do is move to another collective centre, usually in some distant area, until it is also closed down.

At the beginning of 2003, Serbia had 402 official collective centres with 21,704 refugees and 10,868 IDPs living in them. As of November 2005, 99 collective centres were still open accommodating 9,379 persons of whom 5,679 were IDPs from Kosovo.[22]

Unofficial Collective Centres

The problem of unofficial collective was exacerbated dramatically following the exodus from Kosovo in 1999. As the existing collective centres were already occupied by refugees from Bosnia and Croatia, those displaced persons who could not get a place in the centres entered abandoned workers’ shacks, warehouses, and hangars which were thus converted into so-called unofficial collective centres. Many of these collective centres lack running water and sewage systems. Their residents also face constant problems with regard to paying for electricity and other bills. As they are using land belonging to other people and being pressured by owners to move out, they live in constant fear of being left with no shelter whatsoever.

2,857 people (1,765 IDPs and 1,092 refugees) are living in premises they have illegally occupied, usually barracks originally constructed for workers, mostly in Belgrade (2,042) and Kraljevo (292).[23] The government does not take into consideration these unofficial collective centres in its policy of closing down collective centres; the policy applies only to official collective centres. “In view of the fact that conditions in unrecognized collective centres are often worse than in recognized ones, and refugees and IDPs situated in them face additional legal problems that are making them more vulnerable to poverty, this is not a prudent policy»[24]

Property Issues

IDPs and returnees to Kosovo also face obstacles in obtaining restitution of their property rights lost owing to the armed conflict. IDPs usually cannot benefit from the property they left behind in Kosovo and progress in the reconstruction of ethnic Albanian homes has not ended the widespread illegal occupation of the property belonging to IDPs.[25] In the years following displacement, IDPs spent all their assets and little has been done to enable those among them who have property in Kosovo to sell it or be compensated for it.

The Housing and Property Directorate (HPD) and Housing and Property Claims Commission were established by UNMIK in 1999 with the task to settle residential property-related disputes. A total of 29, 000 claims for restitution of property have been filed with the HPD, of which 27,000 by persons who left their property after March 24, 1999. As of June 2005, the HPD issued 28,000 decisions. Almost 40 percent of the decisions have been enforced, either through repossession (only four percent), voluntary settlements, or by temporary administration of the property by the HPD until the return of owners. This property is given to HPD for temporary administration because if it is illegally re-occupied again after the temporary occupants have been evicted, the HPD would not have a mandate to decide on these cases any more. In such cases the owners would have to request a new eviction through local courts, which are known to be extremely inefficient. As of May 2005, there were 7,000 unresolved property claims in local courts.[26]

There is a great deal of uncertainty as to what will happen to property claims once the HPD completes its mandate in 2006, since they are currently administrating a large portion of apartments and houses belonging to IDPs. Withdrawal of the HPD would probably cause a drop in real estate prices as IDPs would seek to urgently sell their property. HPD and UNMIK are currently studying a rental scheme which would be administered by a local institution and provide social housing to persons in need and pay the owners of the property (i.e. the IDPs) for the use of it. How this scheme is going to be implemented still remains unclear.

HPD does not have a mandate to resolve land or commercial property issues. People wanting to repossess land or commercial properties have to go through local courts. Execution of property-related court decisions tends to be very slow. Only 22 per cent of rulings were fully enforced in the first half of 2004 while half of the remaining cases had been awaiting execution for more than a year. Repossession of land or commercial property is essential for the sustainability of the return process. Having a place to live is not enough for a returnee if s/he does not make any profit out of his/her property or business.

As for the reconstruction of damaged and destroyed property in Kosovo, the lack of funds for reconstruction and lack of interest among foreign donors pose a big problem. On the other hand, many IDPs are not aware of the possibilities and the procedure for applying for reconstruction assistance. IDP Global Project presented results of a study which showed that 83 percent of IDPs interviewed had never heard of the Municipal Working Group, the main mechanism examining housing and reconstruction projects.[27]

Employment

Limited access to employment is the primary cause of poverty among IDPs and refugees. An additional problem IDPs face, aside from the fierce competition for scarce jobs, is their being unable to prove their qualifications because they do not have employment booklets. The employment booklets, indicating qualifications, years of service etc. are necessary for claiming pension, registering with employment agency and applying for unemployment benefits. To get a new booklet, IDPs are required to present documents which have usually been also lost or destroyed. The displaced persons who worked for state-owned companies in Kosovo receive merely symbolic compensation for their salaries lost after losing jobs in 1999.

Some municipal authorities, e.g. those in Nis and Bor, do not issue employment booklets to IDPs because they do not meet the requirement of being residents of these municipalities stipulated by the Labour Law and Rulebook on employment booklets. The same authorities, however, do issue booklets to those IDPs who present statements in which their employers declare their willingness to hire them.[28]

Numerous international organizations have been implementing income-generation programs aimed at providing assistance to refugees and IDPs with employment and encouraging individual economic activities through micro-credits, soft loans and professional development. In the absence of national framework for these activities, micro-credit schemes are implemented according to instructions and with permissions from the National Bank of Serbia.

Between 35 and 45 percent of IDPs in Serbia almost completely depend on the grey economy without having access to social insurance, pension or health insurance in case of an accident at work.[29] Working in informal sector makes IDPs and refugees extremely vulnerable to fraud or exploitation. In addition, they are exposed to hostility from the local vulnerable population. In that context, both foreign donors and their local partners have recognized the necessity of also including the local vulnerable population in income-generation and loan programs provided to refugees and IDPs.

Social Welfare Benefits

Without adequate jobs, many displaced families barely make ends meet. Single parents, the families of missing persons, residents of collective centres, Roma, mentally disabled persons and children, are particularly vulnerable and severely affected by the phasing out of food aid and other forms of assistance.

With humanitarian assistance being discontinued, the material needs of IDPs remain unaddressed. Recent data is lacking on the numbers of IDPs living below the Minimum Social Security Level (MSSL) ³¹and number of IDPs living between the MSSL and the official poverty level. According to ICRC, very few IDPs actually live below the MSSL level. Among Roma IDPs, however, this number is significantly higher. They are underrepresented on the lists of Family Financial Support (MOP) as compared to local residents. A large number of IDPs, Roma in particular, cannot apply for any kind of assistance due to a lack of documents. These problems need to be addressed urgently.

As stated above, the position of IDPs is worse in 2006 than at the time of displacement. The transfer from the ICRC Cash Assistance Program to social welfare assistance fell short of expectations. All former ICRC Cash Assistance Program beneficiaries in Serbia (6,000 people), may now apply for MOP (Family Financial Support); however, many of the former ICRC CAP recipients did not qualify for MOP, either for failing to meet the strict criteria or for lacking required documents.

There is a widespread agreement that the MOP program is unable to meet the needs of all of those in poverty, even among local residents. Some even expressed concern that if a large number of IDPs were to be given support suddenly, without a corresponding increase in service coverage to local residents, tensions between the two groups would likely increase.[30]

The causes of these tensions may be found in the fact that assistance delivered to refugees and/or IDPs is viewed by local residents as unjustified (as they perceive living conditions of IDPs as not being any worse, if not better, than those of local residents). The well-off families among refugees and IDPs receiving assistance particularly provoke this type of stigmatization. The example of dismissed workers of a textile factory in Gornji Milanovac illustrates this point. The workers protested outside the offices of Red Cross and commissioner’s office against distribution of aid to IDPs. There are also animosities between refugees and IDPs because of differences with respect to access to assistance.

Pension

Many elderly displaced suffer poverty, given that they have not been receiving their full pensions for years. These people are left with no “room to manoeuvre” – they have no other ways to support themselves but through working in the grey economy. IDPs from Kosovo receive pension benefits on the basis of employment booklets which indicate their years of service and payment of pension contributions. Many IDPs left their employment booklets behind in Kosovo. In the absence of such a document, they only receive a provisional pension from the Serbian Pension and Disability Fund, which is significantly lower than that they are entitled to. There is no mutual recognition between the Government of Serbia and Montenegro and UNMIK of the so-called M4 forms (used only to make pension decisions). In addition to that, IDPs are often victims of violation of regulations by their former employers who failed to pay pension and disability contributions on their behalf. These IDPs are now unable even claim their pensions through courts.

Health Care

IDPs have access to free health care in Serbia provided they are in possession of a “treatment certificate” and IDP card. The treatment certificate is issued by the office of the Republic Health Insurance Institute in the municipality where an IDP has residency. The certificate is must be renewed every three months. The IDPs who have problems with documents or do not possess IDP card cannot be issued this certificate. Lack of required documents prevents Roma from receiving regular health care and securing regular health care to their children.

There are also regional differences in access to medical services. Access to medical treatment is more difficult in southern and southeast Serbia where certain specialized medical facilities are not available while travelling north or to Belgrade to get adequate medical treatment incurs costs IDPs can rarely afford.

Education

All children in Serbia and Montenegro, including refugee and displaced, are entitled to primary education free-of-charge, whereas access to secondary schools and universities is conditional on students’ academic achievement. Due to lack of funds, even excellent students are sometimes not able to continue their education at colleges and universities.

The situation is much worse where Roma are concerned. Many Roma from Kosovo speak only Albanian, which makes it almost impossible for them to continue education in Serbia. Albanian language schools can be found only in southern Serbia (Bujanovac, Preševo and Medveđa). Impossibility to integrate into mainstream education has led to isolation of these children. Although physically and mentally healthy, they are frequently referred to ”special schools” and faced with discrimination, like in Subotica, where displaced children were put in separate classes. The only way to integrate these children into the mainstream education is to provide them support classes in Serbian and preparatory classes prior to enrolment.

Access to Justice

The Republic of Serbia has not yet adopted a clear position on the status of courts from Kosovo currently sitting in Serbia. These courts charge high fees to IDPs for adjudications which do not even have legal effect in Kosovo. By doing so, IDPs are misled and exposed to high costs for decisions which cannot be enforced in Kosovo. Not even five years after the establishment of the mandate of the UN administration in Kosovo have the authorities of Serbia (and the State Union) and the international administration in Kosovo reached an agreement on at least temporary and limited judicial cooperation and exchange of information. Such an agreement would enable IDPs to obtain accurate information on jurisdictions of courts in S&M and Kosovo, and the procedure for filing law suits and requesting enforcement of court decisions in order to exercise their rights.[31]

Especially Vulnerable Groups / Specific Problems

Roma IDPs

According to a research conducted by the Centre for Research on Ethnicity[32], the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro hosts 46,238 displaced Kosovo Roma. This number was not included in the total number of Roma[33].

As of July 2003, UNMIK put the number of RAE[34] in Kosovo at 35,608 (1.41 percent of the Kosovo population). Since a large number of Roma left Kosovo after the March 2004 riots, this figure needs to be re-examined.

Ethnic cleansing of Roma in Kosovo started following the withdrawal of Yugoslav army from Kosovo in 1999. Prior to the signing of the Kumanovo Agreement which put an end to NATO intervention, Kosovo had Roma population of approximately 150, 000. UNMIK data for 2003 indicates that the number of Roma who remained in Kosovo is fewer than 40,000.

The six-year experience of the Novi Sad Humanitarian Centre in working directly with Roma population has shown that displaced Kosovo Roma while sharing same problems faced by Roma in other countries in the region - poverty, unemployment, lack of professional qualifications, lack of education, high illiteracy rate, poor living conditions, poor health status, are also confronted with some additional problems during displacement in Serbia and Montenegro. Most of them lack personal documents, do not speak the majority language[35], are unaccepted by the domicile Roma, are poorly informed about possibilities of accessing their civil rights etc. All these problems add to the general problem of Roma integration.

According to Serbia’s Poverty Reduction Strategy, the RAE population is the most vulnerable group in Serbia.

Besides high unemployment and lack of access to various civil rights[36], one of the basic problems concerning displaced Kosovo Roma is non-integration. Roma deportees Roma face similar problems as IDPs.[37]. As of July 2003, the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro signed bilateral agreements on readmission with 13 countries from the EU and the region, stipulating conditions for the return of rejected asylum–seekers and persons whose temporary protection ended. Most of these people are Roma.

According to research carried out by European Centre for Minority Issues[38] the main factors contributing to non-integration of Roma IDPs and returnees in their current places of residence in S&M include:

- Non-possession of citizenship and/or personal identification documents. Non-possession of citizenship prevents many of the Roma deportees from exercising their civil rights. Those Roma deportees who are citizens of S&M cannot obtain personal documents they are required to produce to be able to access their civil rights (education, healthcare, social welfare) because of lack of financial means. Access to personal documents is further complicated because it often involves travelling of IDPs and deportees to other towns in order to obtain them, which is particularly difficult for Roma who were forced to flee Kosovo. Obtaining proof of citizenship and personal identification documents is difficult not only to displaced and deported Roma but also to many of the Roma who have been living in S&M for several generations. Regardless of their place of residence, their unresolved legal status is a serious obstacle depriving them of access to other civil rights (education, health care, social welfare benefits).

- Resistance from the local population. On arrival in Serbia or Montenegro, many of the displaced Roma met with rebuff by not only non-Roma but also local Roma who view them as competitors. This is particularly the case with displaced Kosovo Roma often perceived and treated as ethnic Albanians as they speak Albanian and cannot communicate in Serbian. Children of Roma deportees are confronted with language barriers upon return to S&M, which often make them give up education started in Western Europe.

- Wish to live elsewhere. Most of the Roma deportees, especially young ones, wish to return to the EU countries they were deported from. The positions of displaced Kosovo Roma with respect to return vary: for those living in Belgrade and Vojvodina return is not the option while those living in southern Serbia would only return if security conditions permit them to.

- Conditions for resettlement. In most cases Roma IDPs and deportees living in S&M were pressured to leave their former places of residence in haste without being able to take any possessions that would help them adapt more easily to the conditions of their new places of residence. The problems is further aggravated when returnees realize that the assistance they were promised to receive upon arrival in their home country by the authorities of the country which deported them on leaving that country is not coming . The fact that many Roma IDPs and returnees share already poor living conditions with a large number of other IDPs and deportees is yet another obstacle to their integration in S&M.

Another major problem where Roma IDPs and deportees are concerned is the low level of education conducive to low level of awareness of possibilities for integration into new communities.

According to Draft Strategy for Integration and Empowerment of the Roma, a clear picture is missing of the wishes of the Roma IDPs - whether they would opt for return to Kosovo or integration in Serbia. The fact is that many of them do not have a single document any more, which generates all other problems.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Protection of IDP Rights in Serbia and Montenegro

In the process of negotiations on the final status of Kosovo, the state authorities of S&M, as well as all negotiating parties, should pay special attention to the interests and rights of IDPs.

The legal and institutional framework in Serbia and Montenegro should be defined in order to secure respect for the rights of IDPs. In the absence of legal and institutional framework, a number of various special measures aimed at improving access to rights for IDPs should be undertaken.

Serbia should carry out a census of population and IDP households’ income/expense analysis. Every effort should be made to get Roma IDPs registered and collect data on their living conditions.

Government bodies should undertake targeted actions and implement recommendations of the Interagency Working Group for IDPs.

Define institutional responsibilities for the internally displaced persons, clearly define their status and enable them, in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, to enjoy the same rights as those guaranteed to the citizens of Serbia and Montenegro.

Roma

The issue of Roma IDPs should be addressed within the effort to resolve

the status of the entire Roma population in S&M. However, specific vulnerability of Roma IDPs caused primarily by non-possession of personal documents and language barrier should be recognized. Their specific problems require special measures to be taken and special state policy in place.

Citizenship and Access to Personal Documents

· A new law on permanent and temporary residence should be passed; other relevant laws and by-laws should be amended in order to address the issue of people currently not having a legal basis to register residence.

· Administrative procedures should be simplified to remove difficulties faced by persons with no documents, including Roma IDPs and members of other marginalized communities. Relevant by-laws should facilitate the procedure for “subsequent registration” of IDPs, reconstruction and obtaining birth certificates

· Authorities of S&M, UNMIK and Kosovo local authorities should mutually recognize and exchange documents

Freedom of movement

· The procedure for changing the place of residence should be streamlined; financial compensation for IDPs formerly employed by Kosovo state and socially-owned companies should no longer be linked to the possession of a residence permit.

Right to Property and Adequate Accommodation

· Ensure that the closure of collective centres is carried out in such a manner as not to impair the rights of IDPs, particularly the right to adequate accommodation.

· Secure decent living conditions for residents of unofficial collective centres and include them in housing programs.

· Implement the plan of housing care for vulnerable groups in Belgrade and legalize, at least temporarily, Roma settlements in accordance with the Action Plan for Roma Housing.

Right to work

· A procedure should be developed for the reconstruction of employment booklets of IDPs, through cooperation between S&M and Kosovo authorities.

· Implement vocational training programs in order to prepare IDPs, in particular Roma, for return and reintegration; implement programs for integration of IDPs in the labour market during displacement.

· Employment programs, along with “affirmative action“ should include the most vulnerable categories, such as single mothers, or members of unemployed households with no earnings.

Social Rights

Right to Pension

· The authorities of S&M and UNMIK should facilitate the procedure for issuing documents necessary for realizing and determining pension benefits for the displaced.

· Government bodies should seek to address the issue of incomplete pension records in a manner not detrimental to IDPs rights (like granting them temporary or reduced pension benefits).

Right to Health Care

· Displaced Kosovo Roma should be included in the health care system through registration and provision of adequate documents.

Right to Education

· The authorities should penalize any practice of segregation of the displaced children in schools and integrate these children into mainstream classrooms with other children.

· Scholarships should be provided to best high school and university students from among IDPs and other extremely vulnerable categories.

· Programs for providing compensatory classes to Roma children should be supported, as they will enable integration of the displaced Roma children into the mainstream education system.

Right to Social Welfare and Humanitarian Assistance

· Facilitate inclusion of the most vulnerable IDPs in the social insurance system by modifying the existing regulations.

Right to Equality Before Law and Non-discrimination / Safety and Security

- The security assessment of certain areas should precede provision of housing for Roma. Municipalities should be obliged by the state and law to provide housing for homeless Roma living on their territory, many of whom are IDPs. Racist protest against building homes for Roma must be punished in accordance with the existing laws and possible future anti-discrimination law.

Access of IDPs to Kosovo courts located in Serbia proper

· Jurisdiction of Kosovo courts sitting in Serbia proper should be precisely determined and cooperation with courts in Kosovo should be established for the purpose of recognition and enforcement of court decisions, primarily those related to the least disputable issues.

[1] At the time of finalizing this Report the referendum on independence was held in Montenegro on May 21, 2006 in which its citizens voted for independence from Serbia, thus marking the end of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. Some of S&M’s institutions, such as the Ministry of Human and Minority Rights, ceased to exist; other continued its operation on the Republic level after having been reconstructed. With the disintegration of the State Union the Charter on Human and Minority ceased to have effect, which created a legal vacuum in the field of human rights. Provisions of the Charter which guaranteed high level of protection of human rights have not been incorporated into Serbian legislation. A special analysis is needed to assess the consequences on IDPs in Serbia and Montenegro caused by dissolution of the State Union.

[2] Norwegian Refugee Council and Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) formerly Global IDP Project, IDPs from Kosovo: stuck between uncertain return prospects and denial of local integration, September 2005.

[3] This figure is a subject of debate. One side argues that this figure is overblown because it exceeds the number of minority members, Serbs in particular who ever lived in Kosovo. The other side estimates the number of IDPs to be significantly higher since many displaced Roma never registered as IDPs. For the time being, Serbian authorities do not plan to carry out a new registration of IDPs in order to resolve this issue. (for more details see: Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) www.internal-displacement.org )

[4] UNHCR, Minority Voluntary Return, April 2005.

[5] UNHCR estimates that 85,000 people in Kosovo are still at risk of displacement.

[6] Global IDP Project, IDPs from Kosovo: Stuck Between Uncertain Return Prospect and Denial of Local Integration, September 2005.

[7] ICRC, The Situation of Internally Displaced Person in Serbia and Montenegro, May 2005.

[8] Walter Kalin, UN Secretary-General’s Representative for the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, June 24, 2005. Belgrade, Press Statement

[9] Principle 19 enabling the displaced persons who left Kosovo after the ethnic violence in March 2004 to be granted the status of IDPs

[10] From: Group 484, Human Rights of Refugees, IDPs, Returnees and Asylum Seekers in Serbia and Montenegro, 2004 Report, April 2005.

[11] The Principles are contained in the annex of the Resolution No. 1997/39 adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights at its 53rd session.

[12] Group 484, “Refugees from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and Internally Displaced Persons from Kosovo in Serbia: Poverty and Access to Rights“, document prepared for the conference “The forgotten Crisis?“, October 2005

[13] Accommodation in social welfare institutions is based on case assessment. Once it is established that a person qualifies for accommodation in such institution, Social Welfare Centre seeks confirmation from the Serbian Commissariat for Refugees that they will cover the cost of accommodation.

[14] ICRC, The Situation of Internally Displaced Person in Serbia and Montenegro, May 2005

[15] ICRC, The Situation of Internally Displaced Person in Serbia and Montenegro, May 2005

[16] Walter Kalin, UN Secretary-General’s Representative on IDPs, June 24, 2005. Belgrade, Press Statement.

[18] Up to 17 types of documentation may be required in order to be considered for Family Financial (MOP) Support. (ICRC, The Situation of Internally Displaced Person in Serbia and Montenegro, May 2005.)

[20] Source: Praxis/Serbian Commissiariat for Refugees.

[21] Data obtained from Sveti Spas (Saint Savior) IDP Association

[22] UNHCR, Collective Accommodation of Refugees and IDPs in Serbia and Montenegro, November 2005.

[23] UNHCR, Collective Accommodation of Refugees and IDPs in Serbia and Montenegro, November 2005.

[24] Elina Multanen, Group 484, Refugees and IDPs in Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper – Ensuring their proper Inclusion, 2003.

[25] Global IDP Project, IDPs from Kosovo: Stuck Between Uncertain Return Prospect and Denial of Local Integration, September 2005.

[29] ICRC, The Vulnerability Assessment of Internally Displaced persons in Serbia and Montenegro, July 2003.

[30] ICRC, The Situation of Internally Displaced Person in Serbia and Montenegro, May 2005.

[31] Group 484, Human Rights of Refugees, IDPs, Returnees and Asylum Seekers in Serbia and Montenegro, 2004 Report, April 2005.

[32] B. Jakšić and G. Bašić, December 2002.: ’Roma settlements, living conditions and possibilities for Roma integration in Serbia’

[33] According to the 2002 Serbian Census, Roma make up 1.44 percent of the population - 108,193 persons, of whom 79,136 live in central Serbia and 29,057 in Vojvodina.

[35] According to the World Bank Research, C. Bodewig and A. Sethi, October 2005: ’Poverty, Social Exclusion and Ethnicity in Serbia and Montenegro: The Case of the Roma’ almost half of the surveyed Roma IDP households did not speak Serbian in 2003.

[36] According to the World Bank Research, C. Bodewig and A. Sethi, October 2005: ’Poverty, Social Exclusion and Ethnicity in Serbia and Montenegro: The Case of the Roma’’ almost 80 percent of Roma IDPs did not apply for the MOP, as compared to 45 percent of non-IDP Roma

[37] Roma who sought asylum in Western Europe after having been returned to Serbia and Montenegro

[38] J. Kijevčanin, Toward Regional Guidelines for Integration of Roma, Serbia and Montenegro: A Comprehensive Analysis, January 2005.