IV. ACTIVITIES OF THE CHAMBER

A. Sessions of the Chamber

In 1999 the Chamber held a total of 11 plenary sessions and 11 sessions of each of its two panels in Sarajevo. During its sessions, the Chamber considers the cases before it, both in private deliberations and public hearings. In 1999, the Chamber held 7 public hearings to consider issues on the admissibility and merits of a number of cases.

B. Rules of Procedure

Annex 6 provides that the Chamber "shall develop fair and effective procedures for the adjudication of applications" and that such procedures "shall provide for appropriate written pleadings and, on the decision of the Chamber, a hearing for oral argument or the presentation of evidence" (Article X, para. 1). Initially, the Chamber decided its procedure ad hoc, and on the basis of provisional Rules of Procedure adopted in July 1996, in line with the principles set forth in the Dayton Agreement. The Chamber's Rules of Procedure (attached to this Report as Annex E), adopted in December 1996 and modified in May and September 1998, are intended to give effect to those principles. They are modeled to a large extent on the rules of procedure of the former European Commission and Court of Human Rights, although substantial adjustments have been made to provide for the special composition and circumstances of the Chamber.

The Rules provide for a combination of written and oral procedure and for consideration of issues of both admissibility and merits. The Rules also provide for, among other matters, the giving of priority to particular applications, provisional measures, procedure at hearings, amicable resolutions, the award of monetary relief, proceedings for review by the plenary Chamber of decisions of the panels, and relations with the Human Rights Ombudsperson. There are a number of possible outcomes to proceedings before the Chamber, such as a decision rejecting the application as inadmissible, a friendly settlement of the case, a decision to strike the application off the case list, or a decision on the merits. The Chamber's decisions on the merits are delivered at public hearings.

C. Cooperation with Other Institutions and Organizations

The Human Rights Chamber cooperates on several different levels with a number of international and national institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It also regularly distributes compilations of all the Chamber's decisions widely throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina to international organizations, national ministries, embassies, international and national NGOs, national courts and other interested institutions. In this way, the Chamber's body of case law fulfills an educational role especially for national lawyers, the courts and the public regarding application in Bosnia and Herzegovina of the European Convention on Human Rights and other international instruments and the development of the rule of law.

The Chamber's relationship with the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson for Bosnia and Herzegovina (one part of the Human Rights Commission along with the Chamber) continued in a cooperative manner throughout 1999. As provided for in Annex 6, the Ombudsperson continued to refer some cases to the Chamber. Lawyers of the Ombudsperson's office also appeared at public hearings of the Chamber on several occasions providing legal opinions on some of the cases before the Chamber and intervened in several cases as an amicus curiae. On a less formal basis, the staff of the Ombudsperson and the Chamber communicated on a regular basis on administrative matters of mutual interest to both institutions and on a number of specific cases.

Cooperation with the Office of the High Representative (OHR) during 1999 encompassed issues related to funding, implementation of decisions and relations with the Agents of the respondent Parties. The OHR took the initiative with members of the Peace Implementation Council to secure international funding for the Chamber and it continued this role in 1999. The OHR also pursued a strategy with the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina that would enable it to contribute to the Chamber as is the State's obligation under the Dayton Peace Agreement. Despite the OHR's best efforts, this strategy has not been very successful as the State still has not demonstrated a serious commitment to providing adequate funding for the Chamber. The OHR remained very active during 1999 in its efforts to ensure that the authorities complied with the decisions of the Chamber. In this respect there has been some progress. It appears, however, that an intensive effort was required on the part of OHR in almost every case in which compliance was ultimately achieved. During 1999, the relationship between the Chamber and the Agents developed into one of professional cooperation with some assistance from OHR. Finally, the Chamber participates in a Coordination Group for the institutions, a monthly meeting chaired by OHR, which brings together representatives from the Ombudsperson's office, the OSCE and the Commission for Real Property Claims to facilitate cooperation, information sharing and joint initiatives.

The Chamber continued throughout 1999 to work closely with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Coordinated through the Human Rights Department of the mission in Sarajevo, OSCE field officers were active in 1999 in monitoring compliance of the Chamber's provisional measures, distributing information about the Chamber and its decisions, providing information to the Chamber on specific cases and referring potential applicants to the Chamber. In 1999, the OSCE also focused on several specific Chamber decisions including the Đ.M. decision and the Zahirović decision and engaged local administrative authorities and the courts to have those decisions fully implemented.

A new situation emerged in 1999 relating to the decisions issued by the Commission for Real Property Claims (CRPC). The decisions of the CRPC, like the decisions of the Chamber, are final and binding and the authorities are obligated under the Dayton Peace Agreement to fully implement them. Many people who had been issued a decision by the CRPC submitted applications to the Chamber complaining that the authorities had not implemented the decision and thus had violated their right to regain physical possession of their home. For the present, the Chamber has decided not to consider these cases but at the same time it also has decided not to issue decisions striking them out. The Chamber has the discretion to review its decision with respect to these cases in the light of new information that comes to its attention in the future.

The Chamber provides publications of its decisions to the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) and other UN organizations in Bosnia and Herzegovina including the United Nations Judicial Assessment Project (JSAP), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). During 1999, the United Nations International Police Task Force (IPTF), a part of UNMIBH, and OSCE field officers intervened repeatedly with local authorities to ensure compliance in the case of Đ.M. decided by the Chamber. As a result of these efforts, ĐM was ultimately reinstated into her home. There is no doubt that this particular case of compliance would not have happened without such efforts. On the request of OHR, in December 1999, the IPTF also intervened in the case of Matanović, the Chamber's first decision on the merits and one that the Republika Srpska authorities still have not implemented.

The IPTF has undertaken to monitor an investigation by Republika Srpska authorities into the whereabouts and fate of the applicants in the Matanović case as ordered by the Chamber.

The Chamber maintained contact with many other international and national institutions and organizations during 1999 on issues related either to a specific case or on general issues concerning the work of the Chamber and the promotion of respect for human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina. These include the Federation Ombudsmen, the Council of Europe, the embassies of various governments, the American Bar Association's Central and East European Law Initiative, the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Republika Srpska.

D. Relations with the Parties to the Dayton Peace Agreement

1999 has been the first year since the Chamber began functioning in 1996 that all three Parties - the State, the Federation and the Republika Srpska - have been represented by their Agents. As a result, cooperation with the Parties has improved measurably on all levels during the year. The Agents are now, for the most part, responsive to the Chamber's requests for information and every public hearing has been attended by the Agent of the relevant respondent Party. In the latter part of 1999, the Chamber also noticed an increase in the efforts of the Agents to keep the Chamber informed of new developments in cases of compliance with decisions. The remaining difficulties concern mainly the actual implementation of decisions and the observance of the time-limits set by the Chamber for the receipt of written observations.

State of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Three Agents - one Bosniak, one Serb and one Croat - represent the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina and, as far as the Chamber is informed, they have still not been officially appointed. Nevertheless, during 1999, the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina was represented at every public hearing at which it was a Party to the proceedings. Written observations have been sent in most, but not all cases in which it was requested to do so. To date, no decision has been issued by the Chamber in which the State was required to undertake positive action. This is due to the lack of competence of the State in almost all areas in which the Chamber deals.

Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

The office of the Agent of the Federation was finally established in January 1999 enabling Mrs. Palavrić, the Federation Agent appointed in 1998, to cope in a more efficient way with the great number of requests forwarded to the Federation by the Chamber. However, given this great number, it is still difficult for the Agent to respond to the requests within the time-limits set by the Chamber. It appears that the delays, at times, are due to her inability to get the relevant information or documents from the local authorities or from some of the ministries. This problem is also evident with respect to the implementation of the Chamber's decisions, although some improvement has been noticed recently. In last year's annual report, the Chamber stressed that none of the JNA decisions had been implemented although the first ones were delivered in November 1997. After lengthy negotiations between the OHR and the Federation, the OHR finally had to impose a law in order to implement these decisions. The law was passed in July 1999 and it seems that the process of implementation has started for the applicants who have addressed the Ministry of Defence. The Chamber is also aware that its decisions are implemented case-by-case upon strong pressure from the international community (accession to the Council of Europe being in part dependent on their implementation), but that the general issues are not addressed. When it is clear from a decision that the violation does not concern only the specific applicant but a number of individuals, nothing is done to redress the violation in general but only in the specific case. For example, in the Zahirović case although Mr. Zahirović was returned to his previous working relation with his employer, his colleagues (more than 50) remain in the same situation and are then obliged to file an application with the Chamber. In that same case the functioning of the judiciary in Canton 10, which was determined by the Chamber not to be independent, has not been reformed which can then give rise to new applications.

Republika Srpska

Although Mr. Savić, the Agent for the Republika Srpska, was reappointed in November 1998, the Chamber was informed of this only in late January 1999. A number of requests for written observations to the Government of the Republika Srpska during the year were never answered and the Chamber had to take decisions without these observations. Despite assurances from the Republika Srpska authorities that an office would be established as it was in the Federation, by the end of 1999 this had not been done. As Mr. Savić was working alone, he clearly had no time to send observations in every case and within the time-limits set by the Chamber. He has, however, been present at every public hearing concerning the Republika Srpska. Despite the excellent cooperation established with the Agent for the Republika Srpska, the Chamber again faced the difficulty this year in the Mahmutović case that none of the witnesses (officials of the Municipality of Prnjavor) summoned to appear during the public hearing attended. Moreover, in a similar case concerning religious discrimination, the authorities did not respect a provisional measure issued by the Chamber, showing their unwillingness to respect fully its decisions. Although there has been some improvement overall with respect to implementation of decisions during the year, active resistance on the part of the responsible authorities is still evident to decisions that may be considered politically difficult to implement. This has been the case in all decisions concerning freedom of religion and especially the Islamic Community decision, issued in June 1999 about which the mayor of Banja Luka stated publicly that the Chamber's decisions will not be implemented. He was finally removed from his office by the High Representative in October 1999, but still there has been no compliance.