VI. COOPERATION WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS

The Human Rights Chamber continued its cooperation with several international and national institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. With the assistance of the Council of Europe, it also continued to distribute compilations of the text of all decisions issued by the Chamber in English and the national language throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina to judges, lawyers and prosecutors, international organizations, national ministries, embassies, international and national NGOs and other interested institutions. In this way, the Chamber's body of case law fulfills an educational role 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.

Human Rights Ombudsman for Bosnia and Herzegovina: Unlike in previous years, the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman did not refer any cases to the Chamber during 2000 as is provided for in Annex 6 to the Dayton Peace Agreement. Lawyers of the Ombudsman's office appeared at some public hearings of the Chamber to provide legal opinions on some of the cases before the Chamber and intervened in several cases as an amicus curiae. In December 2000, a new Law on the BiH Ombudsman was imposed by the High Representative. The Chamber has raised concerns about the possible interpretation of this law insofar as it may make the relationship between the Human Rights Chamber and the BiH Ombudsman different from that which exists under Annex 6 to the Dayton Peace Agreement. The Chamber expects that any discrepancies between the new BiH Ombudsman Law and Annex 6 will be clarified soon.

Office of the High Representative (OHR): Cooperation with the OHR during 2000 related to issues such as funding, implementation of Chamber decisions and relations with the Agents of the respondent Parties. The OHR remained very active during 2000 in its efforts to ensure that the respondent Parties complied with the decisions of the Chamber. These efforts proved to be much more effective with the Federation than with the Republika Srpska. Towards the latter part of the year, the OHR was successful in securing agreement among the three signatories to Annex 6 to the Dayton Peace Agreement to extend the mandate of the Human Rights Chamber for an additional three years, through 31 December 2003.

Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE): Coordinated through the Human Rights Department of the mission in Sarajevo, OSCE field officers continued to play an active role in distributing information about the Chamber and its decisions throughout the country, providing information to the Chamber on specific cases and referring potential applicants to the Chamber. In particular, a mechanism for providing relevant information on very short notice in specific cases in which the Chamber is considering to issue provisional measures was successfully put in place. When provisional measures are ordered, the field officers monitor compliance by the relevant local authorities.

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 of those who had been issued a decision by the CRPC submitted applications to the Chamber during 1998 and 1999 complaining that the authorities had not implemented their CRPC decisions and thus had violated their right to regain physical possession of their homes. In 1999, the Chamber had decided not to consider these cases but reserved its discretion to review its decision in the light of new information that might come to its attention in the future. In 2000, the Chamber assessed its position on this issue on the basis of new information it received and decided to consider some of these cases. In February 2001, the Chamber issued its first decision on two cases from Mostar. In those cases, the applicants not only had been issued decisions by the CRPC in their favor, but they also had attempted to have them enforced under each Entity's Law on Implementation of the Decisions of the Commission for Real Property Claims of Displaced Persons and Refugees imposed by the High Representative on 28 October 1999. Under those laws, the competent administrative organ is obliged to issue a conclusion authorising the execution of CRPC decisions within 30 days of the date of the request for such enforcement. The failure to do so, the Chamber concluded in the two cases, was contrary to law and thus justified the Chamber's finding of a violation of the applicants' right to respect for their homes and right to the enjoyment of their possessions under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Chamber also ordered the Federation to pay compensation to the applicants. The Chamber expects this precedent-setting case to have an impact on the thousands of CRPC decision holders in a similar situation.

United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH): The United Nations, particularly the UN International Police Task Force (IPTF), has been engaged in efforts to secure compliance by the Republika Srpska with the Chamber's first decision ever delivered-Matanovic v. the Republika Srpska. In that decision, the Chamber ordered the Republika Srpska to undertake an investigation into the disappearance in 1992 of a priest and his parents. Evidence had been presented in the case that indicated that they were still alive after the entry into force of the Dayton Peace Agreement. Unfortunately, successive governments in the Republika Srpska have been unwilling to undertake a thorough investigation and the decision remains in noncompliance. The IPTF has continued to persevere in its efforts to ensure that the Republika Srpska undertakes a thorough investigation into the disappearance despite the passage of time and other obstacles, and remains optimistic that it will succeed.

Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina: The main task in which the Human Rights Chamber and the Constitutional Court cooperate is ensuring that the same case is not considered before both courts. The staff of the Chamber and the Constitutional Court also meet regularly to discuss other legal and procedural issues of mutual concern.