Avis actualisé du MG-S-ROM sur le retour des Roms au Kosovo3 et en Europe du sud-est

adopté par le MG-S-ROM suite à sa 27e réunion à Séville (Espagne)

Le Comité d’experts sur les Roms et les Gens du voyage (MG-S-ROM),

Rappelant son avis sur la Recommandation 1633 (2003) de l’Assemblée parlementaire du 6 avril 2004 sur les retours forcés des Roms originaires de «l’ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine», y compris du Kosovo, en Serbie-Monténégro, en provenance d’Etats membres du Conseil de l’Europe, et son avis sur la Recommandation 1708 (2005) sur l’Assemblée parlementaire sur la situation actuelle au Kosovo, ainsi que la réponse du Coordinateur du Conseil de l’Europe pour les activités concernant les Roms à cette même recommandation de l’APCE, qui datent tous deux de juillet 2005 ;

Gardant à l’esprit la position prise en juin 2006 par le HCR sur les besoins persistants des individus au Kosovo en matière de protection internationale, selon laquelle « les Roms et les Serbes ont besoin de la protection internationale et leur retour au Kosovo ne saurait être que volontaire » ;

Gardant à l’esprit l’appel que le Commissaire aux droits de l’homme du Conseil de l’Europe a fait aux gouvernements en Europe afin d’éviter les retours forcés au Kosovo et d’accorder aux personnes originaires du Kosovo, au minimum, l’autorisation de résider dans le pays jusqu’à ce que les conditions au Kosovo leur permettent d’y retourner en toute sécurité, ainsi que la déclaration du Commissaire suivant sa visite au Kosovo en mars 2009 : « Ces expulsions doivent encore être évitées et, dans la situation actuelle, je ne pense pas qu’il faille exercer de pressions sur les autorités locales pour qu’elles acceptent ces retours forcés » ;

Considérant les accords de réadmission signés entre l’Union européenne et plusieurs gouvernements des Balkans et prenant note également de l’appel lancé en octobre 2007 par le Forum européen des Roms et des Gens du voyage, d’un moratoire d’au moins deux ans sur la mise en œuvre des parties des accords de réadmission concernant le retour ;

Rappelant les conclusions de la Conférence régionale sur les solutions durables pour les réfugiés roms, les personnes déplacées à l’intérieur de leur propre pays et les personnes rapatriées dans les Balkans, organisée par le Conseil de l’Europe, en particulier son Assemblée parlementaire, et les autorités serbes, au Parlement de Serbie (Belgrade) les 29 et 30 octobre 2007, qui disent notamment que « Pour que les solutions soient durables, le retour de tous les réfugiés et personnes déplacées, y compris les Roms réfugiés et déplacés à l’intérieur de leur pays, devrait être volontaire et réalisé dans la sécurité et la dignité, sans crainte de harcèlement, de discrimination, de détentions arbitraires et de menaces physiques et matérielles» ;

Gardant à l’esprit les conclusions des Tables rondes internationales sur les enjeux et les perspectives d’intégration durable des Roms, Ashkali et Egyptiens du Kosovo dans les pays d’accueil et au Kosovo même, organisées à Vienne en octobre 2008 et à Pristina en février 2009 par le Projet sur les relations ethniques (PER) avec le soutien du Bureau pour les institutions démocratiques et les droits de l’homme de l’OSCE, qui énoncent entre autres que « les politiques de retour forcé appliquées par les pays d’accueil sont inefficaces et inapplicables dans la mesure où de nombreux rapatriés de force quittent le pays très vite après leur retour » ;

Considérant le fait que de nombreux Roms du Kosovo ont passé déjà plus de dix ans dans les pays d’accueil où ils ont commencé une nouvelle vie, et que leurs enfants sont scolarisés dans les écoles de ces pays et peuvent avoir perdu tout lien avec la langue de la région d’origine de leurs parents et prenant note des bonnes pratiques de certains Etats membres, tels que l’Allemagne et la Suisse, qui délivrent des titres de séjour dans certaines circonstances au cas par cas et sur la base des lois nationales portant sur l’asile et la migration de chaque pays d’accueil;

Gardant à l’esprit que les rapatriés peuvent être considérés comme des « étrangers » et donc soumis à la discrimination ;

Considérant le fait que certains Roms d’Europe du sud-est ont, de facto, un statut d’apatride pouvant les empêcher de jouir des mêmes droits que les autres citoyens dans leur pays d’origine s’ils n’acquièrent pas la nationalité de cet Etat;

Gardant à l’esprit l’obligation des autorités pertinentes selon la Résolution 1244 du Conseil de Sécurité des Nations Unies de mettre en application les principes du pluralisme et du respect des droits de l’homme et des libertés ainsi que la prééminence du droit et leur responsabilité de promouvoir et faciliter un retour sûr et digne des réfugiés et des personnes déplacées à l’intérieur de leur pays ;

Gardant à l’esprit le document de l’UNMIK sur la “politique de réadmission” daté du 1er janvier 2008 en tant que procédure uniforme pour la mise à exécution des retours forcés vers le Kosovo qui s’appuie sur l’origine du Kosovo et non pas l’ethnicité;

Considérant la DECISION N. 575/2007/CE DU PARLEMENT EUROPEEN ET DU CONSEIL portant création du Fonds européen pour les réfugiés pour la période 2008- 2013 dans le cadre du programme général « Solidarité et gestion des flux migratoires» ;

Rappelant que, dans le cadre du processus de réadmission, tous les programmes d’intégration pertinents devraient être financés;

Tout en reconnaissant qu’il y a eu certaines améliorations au Kosovo et en Europe du sud-est en ce qui concerne les communautés roms, le MG-S-ROM est d’avis que :

- suivant les droits fondamentaux de chaque personne et suivant l’avis concordant, entre autres dans les Etats membres de l’UE, qu’un Kosovo multi-ethnique doit être préservé, les réfugiés et les personnes déplacées à l’intérieur de leur pays, y compris les Roms, originaires de Kosovo doivent avoir la vraie possibilité d’y retourner ;

- étant donné la situation encore fragile au Kosovo, toute demande d’asile des Roms du Kosovo doit être soigneusement examinée au cas par cas par les autorités nationales conformément au droit national et international. Tous les demandeurs d’asile doivent avoir accès à une procédure d’asile équitable et efficace, et notamment au droit de faire appel pour les demandeurs dont la demande d’asile a été rejetée ;

- les Etats membres ne doivent pas créer une situation de déplacement secondaire en envoyant les Roms du Kosovo dans d’autres régions d’Europe du sud-est, surtout compte tenu des ressources limitées actuellement disponibles pour une bonne intégration des nouveaux rapatriés. Les nouveaux retours dans cette région pourraient saper les efforts déployés actuellement par les autorités pour intégrer les populations roms locales et les demandeurs d’asile et réfugiés roms du Kosovo déjà présents sur leur territoire ;

- les gouvernements d’Europe du sud-est devraient accélérer le processus de mise en œuvre des programmes, stratégies et plans d’action visant à mieux intégrer leurs communautés roms, et notamment les réfugiés, rapatriés ou personnes déplacées. Ils devraient allouer des ressources budgétaires à la mise en place de cadres institutionnels et de mécanismes adéquats pour faire face aux problèmes des réfugiés, personnes déplacées et rapatriés roms, ainsi que renforcer les capacités administratives et institutionnelles au niveau national et local ;

- le processus de retour des personnes sur la base des accords de réadmission devrait être mené avec transparence, notamment en informant ces personnes sur les conditions du retour, conformément aux normes internationales en matière de droits de l’homme ;

- les autorités des Etats membres et les organisations participant au retour des Roms au Kosovo devraient prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires pour veiller à ce que les retours soient menés essentiellement sur base volontaire, sans heurt, progressivement et dans la dignité, en coopération avec les autorités pertinentes selon la Résolution 1244 du Conseil de Sécurité des Nations Unies.

Source: Conseil de l’Europe: Comité des Ministres : Documents CM : CM(2009)99 8 juin 2009¹

European Commission on refugees and IDPs

As of March 2008 there were 1,840 refugees/asylum seekers in the country, of whom the vast majority are Roma and Ashkali refugees from Kosovo who entered the country as of 1999. Only 28 have received recognised refugee status so far and none during the reporting period. Most applicants have been granted humanitarian protection for up to 12 months. The government needs to ensure that the ending of temporary protection status is based on independent, impartial evaluation of the human rights situation in Kosovo. Concerns persist regarding the independence of the government commission that hears appeals against first instance decisions on refugee status. The Administrative Court replaced the Supreme Court as the last instance for asylum cases. It has not yet issued any decision on an asylum case.

European Commission: The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2008 Progress Report

Romano Them’s comments.

Asylum procedures in Bosnia and Herzegovina are largely in line with international standards. The number of asylum applications has increased substantially compared with 2006, mainly as a consequence of refugees from Kosovo losing their temporary admission status in September 2007.

A new Law on movement and stay of aliens and asylum entered into force in May 2008. The necessary implementing legislation remains to be adopted. The roles and tasks of the Ministry of Security and the Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees, both of which are responsible for dealing with asylum-seekers and refugees, have been clarified. As regards improving the capacity to manage evidence of persons with recognised refugee status or other forms of international protection, greater efforts are needed to develop software requirement specifications for a database which will be part of the migration management project. The Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees is to be connected to the migration information system. The use of the asylum module of the migration information system needs to be enhanced. The capacity of the Ministry will need to be upgraded in order to implement the new legal framework adequately.

Bosnia and Herzegovina still lacks an appropriate permanent asylum reception centre. However, a temporary centre was opened in May 2008. The design for a new permanent centre has been completed and the construction project is in its final stage. The centre is expected to become fully operational in 2011. However, Bosnia and Herzegovina has not yet assumed full responsibility for managing and financing the existing asylum centres.

Overall, some progress has been made in the field of asylum.

…

Out of the approximately 3 000 refugees originating from Kosovo whose temporary admission status was withdrawn in September 2007, 870 persons submitted an asylum request. The Foreigners Affairs Service of Bosnia and Herzegovina has taken measures to finalise the status of those still residing on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

European Commission: Bosnia and Herzegovina 2008 Progress Report

In March 2008 there were more than 16,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) from Kosovo and around 8,500 displaced persons (under the government Decree on the care of displaced persons from 1992) from Croatia and from Bosnia and Herzegovina in Montenegro.

Some 300 IDPs have already returned to Kosovo. The question of how to deal with IDPs who do not want to leave the country remains unsolved. Construction of accommodation facilities for displaced Roma from Kosovo was initiated in early June 2008, but further financial support will be needed for the planned construction of ten buildings. Access to identity documents and permanent status, education and social services for many of them remains problematic, as do the prospects for their integration or return. Montenegro has received 15 asylum applications since its independence and granted refugee status in one case.

A Law on ID cards was adopted in November 2007. The government adopted a Regulation on the content of and manner of keeping records in the field of asylum. Laws on citizenship and registers of temporary and permanent residence were adopted in February 2008. A Law on employment and work of foreigners was adopted in March 2008.

Approximately 2,000 IDPs and displaced persons had made claims for resident status by the end of 2007. IDPs and displaced persons do not enjoy the economic and social rights of citizenship and their socio-economic situation remains a cause for serious concern. IDPs, mainly Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians originating from Kosovo, often lack ID documents or birth certificates and risk statelessness. Montenegro has yet to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on the avoidance of statelessness in relation to State succession.

European Partnership priorities to repeal all discriminatory provisions in key fields affecting refugees and displaced persons and to provide conditions for integration of those who choose to remain in Montenegro have not yet been fulfilled.

…

The specific needs of Roma refugees from Kosovo have yet to be addressed.

…

Overall, there has been progress on strengthening the framework for minority protection. However, implementation is still lagging behind in some fields, in particular regarding the Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian population. The conditions of IDPs and displaced persons remain a cause for serious concern.

European Commission: Montenegro 2008 Progress Report

The number of refugees from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina has decreased in recent years, mainly due to naturalisation. According to the UNHCR, there are around 97 000 refugees and 206 000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Serbia. The number of centres has been reduced. However, some 2 100 refugees and 5 500 IDPs are still accommodated in 60 centres and 99 specialised institutions. The conditions in those centres are very poor. The amendments to the Law on refugees and a national strategy on refugees and IDPs have not yet been adopted. IDP groups, in particular the Roma, continue to face serious difficulties obtaining identification papers and thus access to basic social services, including health care.

In January 2008, the Re-admission Agreement between Serbia and the EU entered into force. The agency for human and minority rights published a handbook for returnees. However, the national strategy on returnees and re-integration has not yet been adopted.

European Commission: Serbia 2008 Progress Report

Montenegro: “Human rights standards improved. Implementation must follow” says Commissioner Hammarberg (PR)

Strasbourg, 8.10.2008 – “Montenegro has taken many positive steps in recent years to upgrade its legislation, but implementation remains weak and standards do not yet find their way into the courtrooms in a consistent way”, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, concludes in a report published today. The report reflects the findings from his official visit to the country from 2 to 6 June 2008.

Assessing the country’s human rights situation, the Commissioner proposes a set of practical recommendations for improvements in relation to the judiciary, police behaviour, media freedom, the treatment of refugees, the integration of the Roma minority, children’s rights and the rights of persons with disabilities.

“Corruption and lack of effective investigations and prosecutions for certain types of crimes, including war crimes, are impediments to any effective implementation of human rights standards” the Commissioner says. “It is therefore important to improve the functioning of the judiciary and to make it more effective and efficient.”

Commissioner Hammarberg recommends establishing an independent mechanism capable of conducting impartial and effective investigations of cases of police ill-treatment. Moreover, he stresses the need to enhance the legal and medical guarantees for every detainee and improve the conditions of prisoners, including their right to family life.

Minority protection needs to be stepped up by reviewing the current legal framework and increasing minority representation in the public sector. In particular, the Commissioner urges the authorities to improve the living conditions and access to rights of the Roma population.

The status of refugees in the country must be regularised, accompanied by concrete integration opportunities.

Pointing to practical measures to ensure better respect for the rights of persons with disabilities, the Commissioner stresses the importance of developing a comprehensive social policy that also addresses the stigma surrounding these persons and their families. “The authorities should intensify de-institutionalisation efforts by developing community- and alternative-care solutions. The establishment of an independent body to conduct frequent and comprehensive inspections of healthcare facilities would also be an important measure.”

“While the media are free in general, subtle pressures and several unsolved incidents have resulted in self-censorship and uncertainty among the profession”, the Commissioner says, calling for better respect of media freedom. He recommends the authorities decriminalise defamation and ensure a fully independent media self-regulatory system.

On child rights, Commissioner Hammarberg recommends strengthening the existing Ombudsman structure, reactivating the Council for Child Rights and increasing the education offered in rural areas, all measures to make child protection more effective. He reiterates the need to respect children’s rights also when they are in conflict with the justice system. “Detaining children should only be a last resort and always for the shortest appropriate period of time as well as geared to their development needs.”

The report further emphasises the need to improve women’s protection and increase their participation in decision-making processes, to increase support to trafficking victims and better respect for the constitutional rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Link to the report and the Government’s comments

Report by the Commissioner for Human Rights Mr. Thomas Hammarberg on his visit to Montenegro (2 – 6 June 2008)

Extracts (Refugees and IDPs)

During the armed conflicts in the region, Montenegro has proven to be a generous host for many refugees and displaced persons. However, more than a decade later, many of them still do not have their status in the country regularised. Some, like the Roma refugees from Kosovo, are in double jeopardy as they lack both status and documentation. This issue needs to be addressed urgently.

…

The Commissioner paid an on-site visit to the Konik area on the outskirts of Podgorica, where ca. 2,200 Roma are living in appalling conditions in two camps. The two camps Konik 1 and 2 mainly host Roma who fled from the war in Kosovo. Roma in the Konik shanty town outside of these camps comprise both displaced and domicile Roma. Roma residing within and surrounding the Konik official camps often lack access to water, electricity, heating and adequate sanitation facilities.

…

The majority of Roma either do not hold official Montenegrin civil registration ID documents or are in an unregularised position owing to their status of “internally displaced” from Kosovo. Such persons may find themselves forced into informal or seasonal forms of employment, which fall outside the protection of the relevant labour standards and employment laws. Lack of formal education is cited as an important obstacle in their integration into the regular work force. In addition, disincentives exist for employing “displaced” Roma from Kosovo and all non-residents in unregularised position¹⁶: special work permits are required and additional fees are imposed on the employers.

Legal assistance is provided in the Konik camps (I and II), to assist the Roma in obtaining civic documentation and help them with issues regarding their legal status in Montenegro The Ministry of Minorities and Human Rights, the Bureau for the Care of Refugees together with UNHCR and NGOs are trying to address this issue with the neighbouring states.

….

Montenegro hosts 8,529 refugees from Croatia and Bosnia and 16,195 from Kosovo. Persons from Kosovo are still officially accounted for as “displaced persons” despite Montenegro’s declaration of independence in June 2006¹⁷. A major problem stems from their state-defined status of being “displaced persons”. These persons are not granted the rights of refugees as enshrined in the 1951 Geneva Convention and its protocols, but instead are categorised as “displaced” under the “1992 Government decree on Care of Displaced Persons”. Owing to this status, they face obstacles to accessing employment, social welfare, health insurance and property rights. The Government has not yet opened sufficient concrete avenues for the legal integration of such displaced persons from Kosovo, Croatia and Bosnia, and the Law on Asylum, the Law on Montenegrin Citizenship and the draft Law on Foreigners do not fully and effectively address this issue.

…

With financial and technical support from UNHCR, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Public Administration manages a database of Croatian and Bosnian “displaced” persons and issues temporary displaced status cards, while the Bureau for Care and Refugees manages the database of Kosovo IDPs (i.e. refugees) and has the competence to issue special IDP cards. Although the Government adopted the “2005 – 2008 National Strategy for Resolving the Problems Faced by Displaced persons“, the overall situation of these persons appears not to have changed significantly in that period.

118. The Government believes that the Law on Montenegrin Citizenship and the Law on Asylum and the draft Law on Foreigners¹⁸ ensure all persons on their territory with sufficient legal protection. The Commissioner notes a number of shortcomings with the said laws. The law on Montenegrin Citizenship retains strict naturalisation criteria including access to guaranteed income, and a fixed abode. This strictness in the law is limiting the possibility for effective integration of the displaced (refugee) populations¹⁹: for a vast majority of so-called “displaced persons” the regular naturalization criteria of the Law on Citizenship would apply, but the strict requirements represent a serious challenge for many as they remain without right to ownership and full right to work. The draft Law on Foreigners appears to be satisfactory neither in terms of the legal status of so-called “displaced persons” not considered residents nor in terms of the restricted access to social services to citizens only – thus excluding non-citizens. The Commissioner reemphasises the principle that the said laws should ensure the human rights protection of all persons belonging to minorities on the Montenegrin territory, irrespective of their status.

119. The Commissioner welcomes the indication from the Office for Asylum within the Ministry of Interior Affairs and Local Administration that the status of individuals will be re-examined in accordance with Article 75 of the Law on Asylum, and subsequently refugee status granted as appropriate according to the law. For those persons who do not obtain refugee status, it would be possible to have foreigner status with a granted stay. The Commissioner emphasises the importance to regularise without delay the status of these persons to pave the way for their effective integration into society.

i. Displaced Roma, Ashkali, Egyptians (RAE) – Access to civil registration and personal documents

120. The “displaced” (refugee) Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian populations form the most marginalised, destitute and vulnerable segment of the displaced populations from the former Yugoslav republics. Approximately 24% of persons who fled from Kosovo are Roma, Ashkali or Egyptian. Many of them are either de facto stateless, or at risk of being so, resulting from a protracted combination of various problems: the absence of any means to prove their citizenship; the administrative chaos created by the conflict in Kosovo; arbitrary or discriminatory practices by civil servants; and the lack of awareness and understanding of the means and importance of registering and documenting themselves and their children. An additional problem is their inability to exercise their original citizenships and the lack of a mechanism and procedure to obtain Montenegrin citizenship. Some encounter severe difficulties in obtaining birth certificates from their places of origin in Serbia or Kosovo. Their problems are compounded by the lack of recognition of official documents between Serbia and UNMIK, in addition to their short validity time and hefty fees.

121. The Commissioner deeply regrets that at the time of visit there were no Government-sponsored projects to address the lack of documentation among the RAE population in Montenegro.

122. Without citizenship and ID documents many RAE refugees experience severe problems in registering their new born children. These children then run the risk of being stateless or de facto stateless – thus perpetuating the problem. The Commissioner recommends the Government take a more proactive role in promoting civil registration to ensure documentation for all persons born on its territory and ensure active, open and transparent access to competent bodies in this regard.

123. The Commissioner stresses the importance and urgency for the Government to solve the issue of status for IDPs and refugees and facilitate the issuance of identification documents. Appropriate measures need to be considered for those whose documents are not currently available or do not exist. The Ombudsman should also consider continuous monitoring of the situation of these most vulnerable groups.

…

Recommendations

Roma

36. Tackle the human rights situation of the Roma in a comprehensive way and fully implement the Government’s 2007 Strategy for the Improvement of the Position of Roma Population.

 37. Resolve the precarious living conditions of Roma in informal settlements particularly in the Konik area, in close cooperation with international partners.

38. Support and facilitate birth and citizenship registration of both domicile and displaced Roma from Kosovo, in order to minimise the risk of statelessness.

Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)

39. Open concrete possibilities for the local integration of “displaced persons” from Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina opting to remain in Montenegro, and grant them a proper legal status which will facilitate their integration in Montenegrin society.

40. Regularize the status of the “internally displaced persons” from Kosovo residing on Montenegrin territory through: (1) citizenship, (2) long term residence with all of the rights of citizens other than voting rights, or (3) prima facie refugee status.

41. Promulgate the necessary regulations and operating instructions necessary for full implementation of the Law on Asylum.

 Comments by the Montenegrin government

 IX. Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)

PARAGRAPHS 116, 117, 118

Montenegrin Law on Citizenship is fully in line with the new Constitution of Montenegro (it was enacted after the adoption of Constitution), and also with the relevant European and international instruments related to citizenship. Law on Asylum, prepared in cooperation with the experts from UNHCR and Council of Europe, is in line with relevant European and international instruments on asylum, and in accordance with that, it grants the rights to the people who are looking for or already have asylum in Montenegro. Proposal of the Law on Foreigners, which is expected to be adopted soon, is fully in line with relevant instruments for entering and staying of foreigners in Montenegro.

Montenegrin Law on Citizenship allows refugees who have certain period of continuous residence in Montenegro to get Montenegrin citizenship, but permanent residence permit is not the prerequisite that for obtaining Montenegrin citizenship.

PARAGRAPH 119

All refugees (from Bosnia and Hercegovina and Croatia) have adequate documents by which they prove their status and rights. It was determined, without any doubt, that majority of refugees from Bosnia and Hercegovina and Croatia are not people without citizenship, as they have citizenship of those countries, and even their documents (passports and personal IDs).

In this relation, Office for Asylum of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Public Administration will re-examine the current status of these people in accordance with Article 75 of the Law on Asylum. For those that need protection according to the conditions from this Law, it will give them refugee status and all the subsequent rights, including the right to obtain identification document and travel papers. For persons that do not obtain the refugee status, it would be possible to have foreigner status with a granted stay.

The full report together with the comments of the Montenegrin authorities are available here.

MRG: Pushing for Change? South East Europe’s Minorities in the EU Progress Reports

As the countries of South East Europe move towards EU accession, the European Union’s annual country Progress Reports offer a unique opportunity to improve the daily lives of the region’s marginalized minorities.

The Reports, and the priorities they identify, carry significant political weight, which creates implementation obligations on governments aspiring to bring their countries into the EU. They also provide an important advocacy tool for human rights and minority rights activists. But close examination of these Reports and consultation with minority groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia, shows a wide divergence between the EU messages and the realities that minorities face in their day-to-day lives.

This report considers three crucial areas for minorities: participation in public life, employment and education. Lack of equality in these areas serves to keep minorities disadvantaged over generations: if this goes consistently unaddressed, the seeds for future conflict can begin to grow. Given that one of the main concerns of the EU in this region has been inter-ethnic conflict prevention, it is vital that more attention is given to reporting on minorities.

The greatest weakness of the Reports is that EU officers do not engage with minorities themselves in a systematic and structured manner while the Reports are being written. Here, alongside in-depth analysis of the Reports and comparisons with treaty body monitoring, grassroots minority rights organizations give their views and show how the EU Reports could be strengthened to effect real change.

1 July 2008

UNODC: Crime and its impact on the Balkans and affected countries

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) is mandated to analyse drugs and crime situations around the world. The present report is a contribution to that objective, looking at a region stigmatised for its role in heroin trafficking, human trafficking, and other forms of organised crime. It is based on data gathered though Member States’ responses to the United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (CTS) and the United Nations Annual Reports Questionnaire (ARQ), as well as a desk review of the published literature. It is hoped its findings will assist Member States and the international community in the search for solutions to transnational crime issues.This report argues that the crime situation in South East European countries is improving. There are several possible reasons for this development. The region is ‘normalising’, as it completes the transition to democracy and market economy and as it recovers from the conflicts of recent years. This normalisation has been supported though extensive interventions to enhance cooperation on crime matters and to address deficiencies in local criminal justice systems. Equally important, many of the crime problems experienced in the Balkans are related to demand outside the region, and developments in these areas have also contributed to declining opportunities for organised crime.

Despite these improvements, there remain significant challenges ahead. The region continues to be the premiere transit zone for heroin destined for West Europe, human trafficking remains an issue, and problems persist with regard to corruption, rule of law, and judicial reform. But an objective analysis of the key indicatorsleads to the conclusion that things are getting better, and while the potential for reversals remains, it seems that an era of lawlessness is passing.

Indeed, the crime issues in South East Europe appear to be directly tied to this recent past. As in many transitionand post-conflict countries, the dividing line between criminal enterprise and legitimate commerce had become blurred and hazy. All indications are that this line is becoming firm and clear again. In time and with the appropriate international support, it is likely that the prominent role the Balkans has played in European organised crime will come to be regarded as a passing phase.

Low vulnerability to crime

Long term prospects are good because the social conditions in South East Europe are not the sort generally associated with high crime regions. In essence, the Balkans do not represent a favourable environment for crime:

- The demographic makeup does not favour the development of street crime. For most countries, only 7% to 8% of the population falls into the group at highest risk of becoming involved in common crime: males between the ages of 15 and 25. This is not likely to change in the near future. Bosnia and Herzegovina and Moldova report some of the lowest rates of lifetime births per woman in the world (1.2). In proportion to the general population, Bulgaria has the smallest child population in Europe. Emigration of young males in search of work further reinforces this demographic profile.

31 March 2008

The full report is available here.

Silom ako je potrebno: Povratak manjina na Kosovo nakon nezavisnosti

Povratak manjina na Kosovo je deficitaran. Brige o bezbednosti i loši ekonomski izgledi, naročito za kosovske etničke manjine, sprečavali su Rome i ostale Nealbance od povratka na Kosovo.UNHCR je sa obzirom na stalne potrebe za međunarodnom zaštitom pojedinaca sa Kosova obezbedio relativnu zaštitu protiv masovnih prisilnih povrataka ljudi ove grupe na Kosovo. 

Ovo bi moglo lako da se promeni sa nezavisnošću Kosova. Kosovska vlada je pod voćstvom međunarodnih organizacija zbog očekivanog “velikog priliva” prisilno vraćenih ljudi nakon odlaska UNMIK-a razvila politiku ponovog primanja i strategiju reintegracije. U prvoj vrsti ciljaju na etničke manjine Kosova, naročito Rome.

U dokumentu, objavljenom u prošlom novembru, je misija OSBE-a na Kosovu ocenila projekat povratka na Kosovo kao jednog od najskupljih na svetu a koji u isto vreme nema puno uticaja na vraćanje nealbanske populacije na Kosovo.

UNHCR je nakon 2000-te godine registrovao 17,938 tako zvanih povratka pripadnika manjina. Povraci manjina definisani su kao povraci osoba koje “pripadaju bilo kojoj etnički grupi osim većinskoj na mestu / u zajednici povratka” (UNMIK: Revidirani priručnik održljivih povrataka). Kosovski Srbi pretstavljaju najveći deo ovih povratka. Romi su tek na trećem mestu sa manje od 2 500 dobrovoljnih povratnika.

Dok UNHCR insistira da je njihova statistika osnovana na informacijama, proverenim na terenu, posmatrači ipak sumnjaju u njihovu istinitost. Navodno se većina tako zvanih povratnika na Kosovo vraćaju samo da prodaju svoje imanje i ubrzo opet odlaze.

Po rečima srpskog Ministra za Kosovo i Metohiju se realan broj povratnika kreće samo oko 3000 ljudi. Ministarstvo takođe tvrdi da je oko 20 000 ljudi napustilo Kosovo nakon NATO intervencije. Kosovo je još uvek jedan od glavnih regiona izvora tražilaca azila u Evropi

Od propalih povrataka…

Brige o bezbednosti zajedno sa nedostatkom poverenja u kosovske institucije i njihovu spremnost da zaštite kosovsku nealbansku populaciju su glavni razlozi zbog kojih se Nealbanci slabo vraćaju. Ekonomski izgledi su naročito mračni za Rome koji su uvek bili marginalizovani u kosovskom društvu. Danas jedva da nema Roma zaposlenih u kosovskim javnim institucijama. Međunarodne organizacije na Kosovu nisu mnogo bolje.

Evropska komisija primetila je u Izveštaju o napretku na Kosovu (2007):

“Situacija socijalno povredljivih osoba, naročito iz romskih, aškalijskih i egipćanskih zajednica, invalida, povratnika i interno raseljenih lica, ostaje razlog za brigu.”

“Generalno, bilo je malo napretka u poboljšavanju situacija romskih, aškalijskih i egipćanskih zajednica koje se još suočavaju sa veoma teškima uslovima života i diskriminacijom, naročito na područjima obrazovanja, socijalne zaštite, zdravstva, okućenja i zapošljavanja.”

Slične izjave dolaze i od američkog State departmenta koji u Izveštaju o praksama ljudskih prava u Srbiji (uključujući Kosovo) iz 2006 piše:

“Postoji zvanična i društvena diskriminacija prema kosovskim srpskim, romskim, aškalijskim i egipćanskim zajednicama u vidu zapošljavanja, socijalnih službi, upotrebe jezika, slobode kretanja, prava na povratak i ostalih osnovnih ljudskih prava… Tekom godine su se nasilje i ostali zločini prema manjinama i njihovom vlasništvu smanjili ali ovaj problem još postoji.”

Prema Godišnjem izveštaju 2007 organizacije Human Rights Watch je bilo kroz čitavu godinu na Kosovu prijavljenih 200 “međuetničkih zločina”. Iako su većinu žrtava ovih zločina pretstavljali Srbi, su Romi takodje trpeli etnički motivisane zločine.

Sam proces povratka bio je loše sproveden. I u ovom slučaju je najeksplicitnija Evropska komisija:

“Kosovo nema baze podataka za primenjivanje i nadgledanje procesa povratka. Zvanični odnosi između Ministarstva za povratak i beogradskog Koordinacionog centra za Kosovo  ne postoje, što sputava process povrataka.” 

“Ljudski resursi Ministarstva za povratak i zajednice te njihovi opšti kapaciteti i budžet nisu dovoljni za nastavak implementacije dokumentovanih projekata povratka.

(..)

Opštinski timovi nisu ispravno opremljeni za implementaciju politike povrataka. Kosovo nema baze podataka za implementaciju i nadgledanje procesa povratka.

(..)

Interno raseljene osobe iz svih zajednica suočavaju se sa stambenim problemima zbog nedovoljnih budžetskih alokacija. Takođe se susreću sa problemima registracije u javnim evidencijama.

(..)

Kosovo još nema strategiju reintegracije i budžeta za tražioce azila, odbijene sa strane zapadnih evropskih zemalja. Generalno, nema gotovo nikakvog napretka. Proces povratka ostaje glavni izazov.”

Kako pokazuje zajednički izveštaj OSBE-a i UNHCR-a (OSCE / UNHCR report) za 2003. godinu, Romi su bili u nepravednom položaju i u  slučaju pomoći kod rekonstrukcije. Projekat delimične rekonstrukcije romske mahale u Mitrovici, koji je bio dobro pokriven u medijima, nakon šest godina pruža veliki kontrast brojnim romskim naseljima i kućama koji nisu bili renovirani.

Romi pretstavljaju veliki deo 21 000 interno raseljenih osoba koje su rasejane između kolektivnih centara i privatnih smeštaja preko celog Kosova. U 2007. je vršilac dužnosti kosovskog Ombudsmana, Hilmi Jašari, napisao u godišnjem izveštaju (annual report):

“Mnogo Srba, Roma, Aškalija i Egipćana još živi u kontejnerima i kolektivnim centarima u Gračanici/Gracanice i u opštini Fushe Kosove/Kosovo polje na centralnom Kosovu te u Štrpcu/Shterpce i Prizrenu na jugu. Ove naseobine ukljućuju raseljene osobe iz 1999. godine i ostale koji su napustili domove tokom izgreda u martu 2004.” 

… do prisilnih povratka

Uprkos svim ovim nerešenim izazovima su kosovske institucije pod voćstvom UNMIK-a razvile ambicijozan plan za bavljenje masovnim prisilnim vraćanjem tzv. Povredljivih grupa na Kosovo nakon nezavisnosti:

Politika ponovog primanja  (Readmission Policy), koja je usvojena od Vlade Kosova 31. oktobra 2007, opisuje proces u kome UNMIK, i, nakon tranzicionog razdoblja koje bi trebalo da se završi kosovskom nezavisnošću, Vlada Kosova, ponovo prime osobe sa Kosova ili njihove najbliže rođake, koji su bili zatečeni da ilegalno ulaze ili borave na teritoriji druge zemlje. Strategija za reintegraciju vraćenih osoba (Strategy for Reintegration of Repatriated Persons), koja je primljena sa strane Vlade Kosova 10. oktobra 2007, uključuje detaljan plan za reintegraciju prisilno vraćenih ljudi, počevši od njihovog prijema na prištinskom aerodromu (ili čak ranije) do dolaska na konačnu destinaciju i reintegracije na Kosovo. 

Oba dokumenta pretstavljaju značajan okret zu kategoriji prisilnih povratka na Kosovo. Doduše, fokus je na repatriaciji tzv. povredljivih grupa: etničkih manjina uključujući Rome, Aškalije i kosovske Egipćane, starije ljude, decu bez pratnje, žrtve trgovine belim blagom i teško bolestne ljude; ljude koji su u prošlosti uživali relativnu zaštitu od prisilne repatriacije na osnovi UNHCR-ovog stava (UNHCR’s position) da pruža stalnu međunarodnu zaštitu pojedincima sa Kosova. Štoviše, izgleda da će ovaj stav postati prevaziđen nakon prenosa odgovornosti sa UNMIK-a na Vladu Kosova.

Oboje, politika ponovog primanja i strategija reintegracije, uključuju izvesna poglavlja koja se nanose na situaciju tzv. povredljivih grupa. Ove su u IOM-ovom Rečniku termina sa podrućja migracija (Glossary on Migration) definisane kao ” bilo koja grupa ili sektor društva koji je izložen većem riziku od diskriminatornih praksa, nasilja, prirodnih ili ekoloških katastrofa, ekonomskih poteškoća nego ostale grupe u zemlji” ili “bilo koja grupa ili sektor društva (kao što su žene, deca ili postariji) koji je u vremenima konflikta ili krize izložen većem riziku.”

Pripadnici etničkih manjina, iako se smatraju za deo povredljivih grupa, nisu tretirani na ovakav način ali postoje pojedinačni delovi u Strategiji reintegracije koji se na eksplicitni ili implicitni način odnose na Rome. Zajedno sa Aškalijama i kosovskim Egipćanima su stoga identifikovani kao jedan glavnih ciljeva planova repatriacije.

Ovo je slučaj u procesu registracije gde je naglašeno da “neki od povratnika nikad ranije nisu bili registrovani kod kosovskih nadležnih oblasti” stoga su ove oblasti zatražile da se povratnike informiše o važnosti registracije i procedura vezanih za nju: “Ovo je od posebne važnosti za grupe, izložene socijalnoj isključenosti i marginalizaciji, kao što su Romi, Aškalije i Egipćani, štoviše kad se vrate nakon više godina boravka u inostranstvu.”

Ovo je takođe slučaj u odnosu na obrazovanje gde Strategija reintegracije naglašava potrebu za osnovanjem časova jezika za decu koja “imaju poteškoće u komunikaciji i razumevanju njihovog maternjeg jezika ili jezika u kojem se školuju”. Dokumenat se takođe nanosi na potrebu za osnovanjem “posebnih razreda” ili “posebnih škola” za decu sa “posebnim potrebama” šta bi takođe moglo da se nanosi na romsku decu.

Najdirektnija referenca se međutim nalazi u fusnoti dokumenta koja se nanosi na procenjenih 100 000 ljudi sa Kosova koji žive u inostranstvu bez legalnog statusa: “Samo u Nemačkoj živi oko 53 000 ljudi sa Kosova bez legalnog statusa od kojih navodno oko 38 000 pripada romskoj, aškalijskoj ili egipćanskoj manjini.”

UNHCR smatra da su kosovski Romi u manjinskoj situaciji i kao takvi još trebaju međunarodnu zaštitu, stoga ne bi trebali da budu prisilno vraćeni na Kosovo. U junu 2006. je UNHCR ublažio zaštitu kosovskih Egipčana i Aškalija ali ipak odlučio da prisilni povratak ostane privremen ili na individualnoj proceni njihovih situacija.

Postojala su razmatranja u kojoj meri bi UNHCR mogao konačno da popusti pritiscima vlada zemalja domaćina koje su istovremeno glavni doprinosnici budžetu UNHCR-a, da se u potpunosti skloni zaštita izbeglica sa Kosova. U svakom slučaju Politika ponovog primanja i Strategija reintegracije krče put za izostavljanje pozicije UNHCR-a, bilo kakva ova bila.

Svakako je zanimljivo primetiti da oba dokumenta sa poteškoćama objašnjavaju da je UNMIK-ova politika prisilnih povratka osnovana na stavu UNHCR-a. Dokumenat o ponovom primanju objašnjava, da je UNHCR (UNSCR 1244 (1999)) ovlašćen da nadgleda bezbedan, dostojanstven i slobodan povratak izbeglica i interno raseljenih osoba. Već na sledećem koraku se ispostavlja da su kosovske vlasti uzele u obzir “stav” UNHCR-a i obavezale se na poboljšanje bezbednosne situacije i ponovo primanje ljudi sa kosovskim poreklom na osnovi međunarodnih standarda.

Slična primedba nalazi se par stranica dalje. Još par stranica dalje ponovljeno je da će UNMIK da se drži stava UNHCR-a kroz razdoblje tranzicije što logično diže pitanje šta će se desiti kasnije.

Još jedan nagoveštaj  nalazi se  u delu koji detaljno opisuje proces ponovog primanja. Tu je rečeno da treba u molbu za ponovo primanje uključiti i narodnost. Fusnota dalje objašnjava da će ova informacija da bude potrebna samo kroz period tranzicije, uz činjenicu da se UNMIK drži stava UNHCR-a, međutim nakon punog prenosa odgovornosti za ponovo primanje na kosovske vlasti, ova informacija neće više da bude potrebna. Ako je ovako zbog sprečavanja diskriminisanja prisilno vraćenih ljudi na osnovi njihove narodnosti, ovo istovremeno znači da ne može više da im se pruža posebna zaštita.

Strategija reintegracije ne ostaje kod nejasnih izjava nego ne ostavlja ni senku sumnje da će nakon samostalnosti autoritet UNHCR-a biti nesiguran.

“Do današnjeg dana je UNMIK-ova politika ponovog primanja u slučajevima prisilne repatriacije osoba koje potiću sa Kosova i ne ispunjavaju više uslova za boravljenje u njihovim trenutnim zemljama domaćinima, sprečavala vraćanje ovih tri grupa [kosovskih Srba, Roma i Albanaca u manjinskoj situaciji]. … Jednom kad bude mandat UNMIK-a istekao, situacija može da se promeni i zemlje domaćini ne moraju više da  prate preporuke UNHCR-a tako tesno kao danas.”

Sa kosovskim proglašenjem nezavisnosti masovni val prisilnih povratka Roma na Kosovo postaje bliska realnost.

Od odbijanja azila…

Tačna informacija o broju kosovskih Roma koji žive u inostranstvu bez rešenog statusa stalnog boravljenja ne postoji. Ovo se ne tiče samo ratnih izbeglica nego takođe ljudi koji su napustili Kosovo dugo pre rata da bi pobegli od siromašnosti i diskriminacije: “Mnogo povratnika je živelo u inostranstvu deset ili više godina pre nego što su im odbili molbu za azil,” objašnjava Strategija reintegracije.

Zapadna Evropa

Najveća grupa kosovskih Roma van Srbije navodno živi u Nemačkoj. Prema nedavnim brojkama (UNHCR januar 2007), je u Nemačkoj na osnovu tzv. Statusa tolerancije (“Duldung”) živelo 24 000 Roma, 8 200 Aškalija i 1 800 kosovskih Egipćana. Ovaj status obezbeđuje samo privremenu zaštitu od prisilnog vraćanja ili isterivanja i može da se ukine kad god nadležne vlasti procene da osnova na kojoj je bio podeljen više ne postoji.

U aprilu 2005 nemačka savezna vlada potpisala je sa UNMIK-om Memorandum rezumevanja (Memorandum of Understanding) o prisilnom povratku do 500 Aškalija i kosovskih Egipćana na Kosovo. Uzimajući u obzir UNHCR-ov stav o stalnoj potrebi za međunarodnom zaštitom pojedinaca sa Kosova, Romi su bili izuzeti iz prisilne repatriacije sa izuzetkom izvesnih grupa kriminalnih prestupnika. Ova procedura bila je revidirana 1. marta 2006 imajući u vidu sprovođenje prisilnih repatriacija Roma, Aškalija i kosovskih Egipćana. U 2007, Nemačka je bila prva zemlja koja je prisilno vraćala ljude na Kosovo: čitavih 896 od ukupno 3 125 prisilno vraćenih ljudi došlo je samo iz Nemačke.

U novembru 2006, je nemačka konferencija Ministarstva za unutrašnje poslove usvojila regulatornu proceduru za neregistrovane strance, tzv. “Bleiberechtsregelung”. Prema studiji (survey) Berlinskog ureda za integraciju, deset posto celokupnog broja “tolerisanih” imigranta u Nemačkoj bilo je do u mogućnosti da steknu dozvolu za boravljenje na osnovu ove uredbe, sa znatnim brojem još nerešenih molbi (podatak iz septembra 2007).

Studija takođe pokazuje da su izbeglice iz grupe kosovskih Roma umeli da iskoriste ove nove uredbe te ponekad mogli da regulišu svoj status, ali studija ne daje celovit pregled opšte situacije u Nemačkoj.  Izbegličke organizacije (Refugee organisations) kritikovale su preterane zahteve, koji su u određenim slučajevima sprečili ili odgodili pozitivna rešenja.

Sledeća velika grupa kosovskih Roma živi u Švajcarskoj. U prvoj reakciji (reaction) na kosovsko proglašenje nezavisnosti, portparol Saveznog ureda za migracije, Jonas Montani, rekao je da Švajcarska neće da promeni politiku prema tražiocima azila sa Kosova. U nekoj drugoj prilici njegova kancelarija razmatrala je da kosovski Srbi nemaju mogućnosti traženja unutrašnje zaštite u Kosovskoj Mitrovici. Njegove izjave bile su potvrđene sa strane šefa odeljenja Ministarstva za unutrašnje poslove u kantonu Vaud, Filipa Leuba, koji je u intervjuju (interview) rekao da kosovski Romi i Srbi na Kosovu još nisu bezbedni.

U više slučaja, na primer u Danskoj, kosovski Romi nisu prepoznati kao izbeglice na osnovi Ženevske konvencije (1951), stoga im se pruža samo privremena zaštita zbog humanitarnih razloga. Svi ovi ljudi su sada u opasnosti da ih se prisilno vrati na Kosovo.

Jugoistočna Evropa Jugoistočna Evropa pruža gostoprimstvo velikom broju kosovskih Roma. Ova brojka smanjila se tokom godina jer je sve više ljudi uspelo da ode u Zapadnu Evropu. Sa obzirom na pravni status treba da razlikujemo dve situacije; situaciju u Srbiji i Crnoj Gori gde su romske izbeglice smatrane kao interno raseljene osobe (internally displaced persons), i situaciju u zemljama kao što su Makedonija i Bosna gde su kosovski Romi smatrani kao izbeglice (refugees) jer su prelazili državne granice.

Srbija

Do kraja 2007. godine UNHCR je procenio da su oko 11 posto od 206 100 interno raseljenih osoba sa Kosova koje žive u Srbiji, Romi. Ova brojka može da bude i viša jer puno kosovskih Roma nije registrovano u Srbiji. U zajedničkom izveštaju (joint report) iz marta 2007, UNHCR i Praxis procenili su da se broj kosovskih Roma u Srbiji kreće oko 40 000 ljudi.

Kosovski Romi nisu bili naročito dobro primljeni kod srpskih vlasti i trebali su da se suočavaju sa mnogostrukom diskriminacijom. U 2007, američki State Department (US State Department) primetio je:

“Lokalne vlasti su bile često nesklone obezbeđivanju smeštaja za njih sa nadom da će Romi da napuste zajednicu ako im se ne obezbedi smeštaj… . Ako su se Romi uprkos svega smestili, to je često bilo u zvaničnim kolektivnim centarima sa minimalnim ugodnostima, ili, češće, u privremenim logorima u blizini većih gradova.”

Srpski savet za izbeglice (Serbian Refugee Council) kritikovao je, da se “Program implementacije nacionalne strategije za rešavanje problema izbeglica i interno raseljenih osoba u Srbiji 2002. godine fokusirao isključivo na izbeglice, dok je jedina opcija, ponuđena interno raseljenim osobama, da se vrate na Kosovo.”

Isto mišljenje nalazi se takođe u Nacionalnom akcionom planu usvojenom u kontekstu Decenije za ukljućivanje Roma (Decade for Roma Inclusion).

Crna Gora

U novembru 2007. Crna gora je obezbedila smeštaj oko 16 000 interno raseljenim licima, koja su po rečima UNHCR-a uglavnom Romi.

Bez obzira na činjenicu da su bili do nezavisnosti Crne gore građani iste zemlje, interno raseljene osobe sa Kosova nisu imale pristup civilnim, političkim, ekonomskim i socijalnim pravima. Kao što je ukazao Amnesty International, civilna registracija bila im je odbijena, i bio je UNHCR, ne crnogorske vlasti, onaj koji im je pružao smeštaj, zdravstvene usluge i socijalne ugodnosti.  .

Nakon nezavisnosti je Crna gora u junu 2006 primila novi zakon o azilu koji je stupio na snagu 25. januara 2007. U teoriji, ovaj zakon bi dozvoljavao interno raseljenim osobama iz grupe kosovskih Roma da traže azil; međutim crnogorska vlada fokusirala se je na njihovo vraćanje na Kosovo ili na upućivanje u Srbiju ili u druge zemlje.

U februaru 2007., crnogorsko Ministarstvo unutrašnjih poslova otvorilo je sa kosovskim nadležnim institucijama pregovore o vraćanju izbeglica.

Makedonija

Od samog početka Makedonija je bila nesklona priznavanju statusa izbeglica kosovskim Romima sa obzirom da su bili u nadležnosti Srbije i Crne gore. Konačno su bili prepoznati na osnovu statusa “Osobe sa privremenom humanitarnom asistencijom”, koji je istekao u septembru 2003, terajući ljude koji su hteli da ostanu da traže azil pod novim zakonom (law).

Međutim, samo oko 28 pripadnicima romske, aškalijske i egipćanske zajednice sa Kosova bio je odobren azil u Makedoniji što je broj koji se skoro nije promenio u poslednje tri godine.

Romske izbeglice u Makedoniji, uključujući Aškalije i kosovske Egipćane, možemo da razdelimo u dve grupe: prvu, veću grupu pretstavlja većina primera – to su ljudi koji su dobili privremenu zaštitu; a drugu grupu pretstavljaju ljudi kojima je molba za azil odbijena ili su još u postupku.

Makedonska procedura određivanja statusa izbeglica kritikovana je sa strane Evropske komisije (EU Commission) i američkog   Department of State zbog brojnih nedostataka. State Department takođe je primetio negativne predreasude prema Romima.

UNHCR je u svom Globalnom pozivu 2006 izjavio: “Prizivnim telima još nedostaje znanje i nezavisnost koji su potrebni za efektivno funkcionisanje uprkos UNHCR-ovoj pomoći da se ovo reši.”

Makedonske vlasti se nisu trudile da integrišu romske izbeglice sa Kosova, i, u 2008., UNHCR još  nastavlja da ih obezbeđuje osnovnom zaštitom, uključujući zdravstvenu opskrbu.

U 2007, UNHCR je  u Global Appeal 2008 – 2009 primetio:

“Izdržljiva rešenja za ove izbeglice su nerazdvojivo vezana za budući status pokrajine. Mogućnosti za lokalnu integraciju ostaju ograničene…. UNHCR će da asistira tražiocima azila i izbeglicama koji žele da se vrate dobrovoljno.”

Već u 2005. su makedonske vlasti sa kosovskim privremenim institucijama stupile u pregovore o repatriaciji izbeglica. Makedonski sekretar u Ministarstvu za rad i socijalnu politiku, Aco Janevski, izjavio je na konferenciji za štampu (press conference):  “Mi ne želimo da isteramo kosovske izbeglice ali normalno je da vršimo pritisak u vezi sa njihovim povratkom u zemlju izvora sa obzirom na interes makedonskih građana.”

Ako su ovi pregovori ikad bili prekinuti, verovatno će da se nastave nakon kosovske nezavisnosti.

Bosna i Hercegovina

Kao Makedonija, Bosna i Hercegovina takođe je bila glavna tranzitna zemlja za kosovske Rome. Prema tvrđenju Udruženja za ugrožene ljude, u BiH je u godinama 1998 i 1999 ušlo između 12 000  i 15 000 kosovskih Roma.

Prema podacima UNHCR-a u BiH još se nalazi 800 hiljada romskih izbeglica sa Kosova. Većina ih živi u kolektivnim centarima u Bosanskem Petrovcu, Mostaru i Sarajevu. Međutim, Udruženje za ugrožene ljude procenjuje da značajan broj kosovskih Roma nije registrovan i ocenjuje realan broj na oko 1000 osoba.

Kao Makedonija,  BiH isto nije imala zakon o azilu za vreme masovnih dolaska sa Kosova i obezbedila je ljudima privrmeni prijem na osnovi Instrukcija za privremeni prijem izbeglica iz Savezne republike Jugoslavije u BiH (Instruction on the Temporary Admission to Bosnia and Herzegovina of Refugees from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), izdatih 20. maja 1999.

Ovaj status bio je regularan do septembra 2007. Američki Department of State primetio je u Izveštaju o ljudskim pravima 2006  (Human Rights Report 2006): “Do oktobra [2006] vlada ovih izbeglica nije integrisala u lokalnu zajednicu ili im sredila stalni status u zemlji.” 

Uprkos insistiranju predstavnika međunarodne zajednice, uključujući Veće evropskog komisara ljudskih prava (Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights), Tomasa Hamerberga, da obezbede održljivo rešenje za kosovske romske izbeglice, su bosanske vlasti u septembru 2007 napravile kraj režimu privremene zaštite.

Prema tvrdnjama Evropske komisije se ova odluka tiče oko 3 000 osoba, uključujući 700 kosovskih Roma koji su sad prinuđeni da traže azil ili napuste zemlju. Prema UNHCR-u (Global Appeal 2008-9) se je većina stanovnika kolektivnih centara prijavila za azil. Kako god, njihovi izgledi za uspeh su navodno loši.

U pismu Evropskom forumu Roma i Travelera u maju 2007 bosanski Ministar za ljudska prava i izbeglice Safet Halilović izjavio je da ima njegova vlada ambiciju da vrati sve izbeglice sa Kosova na mesta gde su ranije živeli jer ne želi da podržava politiku etničkog čišćenja (sic!). 

… do vraćanja izbeglica

Dopis (note) iz 17. decembra 2007 nemačkog Saveznog ministra unutrašnjih poslova Uve-ta Širmana ministrima saveznih država potvrđuje ideju da će usvojenje politike ponovog primanja sa strane Vlade Kosova voditi ka velikoj promeni u politici repatriacije kosovskih etničkih manjina.

Širman objašnjava glavne promene, uveđene primanjem politike ponovog primanja. Po njegovoj interpretaciji će se sa njenim uvođenjem 1. januara 2008 poništiti memorandumi i odgovarajući dopisi potpisani između UNMIK-a i nemačke savezne vlade u godinama 1999, 2003 i 2007. 

On je aludirao pre svega na propisanu kvotu za prisilne repatriacije pripadnika etničkih manjina sa Kosova. Sledstveno, etničko poreklo osobe neće više biti važno i “skeniranje” etničkih manjina će da postane zastarelo. Ipak priznaje da još postoje određena ograničenja za prisilno vraćanje Roma na Kosovo, ako uzmemo u obzir činjenicu da UNMIK nastavlja da bazira svoje odluke na stavu UNHCR-a.

On se nada da će prenos operacionih nadležnosti ponovog primanja sa UNMIK-a na kosovsko Ministarstvo unutrašnjih poslova pomoći ovoj proceduri jer će kosovske nadležne institucije uzimati u obzir geografsko poreklo osobe koja treba da se vrati.  Poziva se na reči Nemačke kancelarije u Prištini koja očekuje da ljudi neće više biti vraćeni na kosovsku granicu sa argumentum da nisu sa Kosova.

Kad bude Nemačka stavila ove promene u praksu, možemo da očekujemo da će vlade drugih zemalja pratiti njihove korake.

Nekoliko praktičnih i ostalih razmišljanja

Prisilni povraci na Kosovo dižu broj praktičnih razmatranja, variirajućih od raspolaganja sa odgovarajućim smeštajem, zdravstvenim kapacitetima ili školskim prostorijama do kapaciteta kosovskih institucija za bavljenje sa “velikim prilivom” prisilnih povratnika. U tom kontekstu je najiskaznije da Akcioni plan koji bi trebao da prati strategiju nije ispunjen na vreme.

Budžet za implementaciju Strategije reintegracije predviđen je za povratak do 5000 ljudi, ali iz dokumenta je primetljivo da nedostaju finansijska sredstva za primernu implementaciju svih predloženih mera. Jasno je, dakle, da će veći deo troškova reintegracije pasti na ramena već depriviligovanih zajednica.

U slučaju Roma, a najzad i drugih zajednica, su u pitanju mnogo bitnija pitanja. To se tiče na primer pitanja dokumentacije, kako ličnih karti tako i vlasništva, ali i problem bezbednosti, zaštite i slobode kretanja.

Strategija reintegracije upozorava, na primer, na probleme koji bi mogli da potiču od neuspelog pokušaja da se donese adekvatna dokumentacija:

“Nedostatak bilo kojeg starog dokumenta ili stalne adrese na Kosovu rezultiraće u neuspešnoj kvalifikaciji za socialnu pomoć. Može da spreči dostup do obrazovanja i zaposlenja i postane realna prepreka u reintegraciji manjinskih grupa.”

UNHCR je išao dalje i upozorio na rizik da Romi, Aškalije i kosovski Egipćani ostanu bez države:

“Osim ako je zakonodavstvo nakon rešenja statusa Kosova dalje usavršeno, će određeni delovi populacije biti izloženi riziku da ostanu bez države. Ovo se odnosi naročito na najpovredljive etničke zajednice, uključujući Rome, Aškalije i Egipćane, koji, zbog svoje socijalne marginalizacije, nisu bili u mogućnosti (ili nisu želeli) da se registruju kao stanovnici Kosova.” (UNHCR: Global Appeal 2008 – 9)

Strategija reintegracije takođe prepoznaje probleme vezane za nedostatak zvaničnih prava vlasništva nekretnina:

“Značajan broj potencialnih prisilno vraćenih osoba pripada manjinskim grupama, stoga postoji mogućnost da su živeli u neformalnim uslovima držanja imovine (na primer, nisu zvanično  registrovali vlasništvo svojih prebivališta) pre nego što su napustili Kosovo. Radi toga mogu nakon povratka da se suočavaju sa poteškoćama kod traženja smeštaja, rekonstrukcije njihovog imanja i/ili dožive negativne posledice zbog simovinskog statusa (sankcije za nezakonitu građevinu, manjak dostupa do osnovne infrastrukture, manjak adresa etc).”

Dokumenat uključuje čitav odsek o tzv. Humanitarnim transportima od čega potiče da će prisilni povratnici morati da prime određena ograničenja slobode kretanja. Dokumenat takođe razmatra marginalizaciju i socijalnu isključenost Roma, Aškalija i kosovskih Egipćana, čemu bi trebalo nameniti još više pažnje nakon njihovog višegodišnjeg boravka u inostranstvu.

Na poteškoće sa kojima se suočavaju prisilni povratniki se obrača i sedmi godišnji izveštaj (seventh annual report) kosovskog Ombudsmana gde stoji da “postoji mnogo slučajeva u kojima su ljudi koji su mogli, probali da se vrate u svoje bivše zemlje domaćine na bilo koji, obično ilegalni način.”

Prisilni povraci Roma i drugih etničkih manjina na Kosovo posledično dižu veliki broj pitanja ljudskih prava, počevši od poštovanja međunarodnih konvencija vezanih za azil i slobodu kretanja, kao na primer princip ne-vraćanja kako je opredeljen u 33. članu Ženevske konvencije iz 1951. godine, trećem članu Evropske konvencije o ljudskim pravima i 19. članu Poglavlja o temeljnim ljudskim pravima u Evropskoj uniji, do obezbeđivanja političkih, ekonomskih in socijalnih prava. 

Rezolucija 1244 iz 1999. godine (UN Security Council Resolution 1244) reafirmiše pravo svih izbeglica i raseljenih osoba da se bezbedno vrate u svoje domove.  Plan implementacije standarda (Standards Implementation Plan), usvojen u 2004. godini uslovio je rešenje kosovskog statusa sa obezbeđenjem bezbednog i dostojanstvenog povratka izbeglica.  U 2006. je UNMIK-ov revidirani priručnik za održljivi povratak (UNMIK’s Revised Manual for Sustainable Returns) uveo pravo na slobodnu odluku o mestu povratka. Prinuđivanje izbeglica povratku je implicitno priznavanje poraza međunarodne zajednice da stvori uslove za bezbedan povratak manjina na Kosovo.

26 februar 2008

Romano Them

Economic and Social Council: Specific Groups and Individuals: Mass Exoduses and Displaced Persons

Report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Walter Kälin

Addendum: Mission to Serbia and Montenegro

“Thousands of IDPs continue to live in very difficult conditions in collective centres and irregular settlements, among them elderly, ill, disabled, severely traumatized individuals, witnesses in war crime investigations and trials, female-headed households and families of missing persons, i.e. the most vulnerable among IDPs whose situation has not been satisfactorily resolved. Displaced Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians live under miserable conditions in irregular settlements. The time has come to find a dignified solution for these various vulnerable populations as a matter of priority. They are unlikely to return to their places of origin, even in the event of dramatic changes or to become capable of living on their own. Competent authorities at all levels, in coordination with international agencies and donors, should urgently seek durable solutions for these persons, including alternative housing and appropriate institutional arrangements such as social housing, placement with foster families or in homes respecting their right to human dignity and develop, with the support of the international community, a comprehensive plan of action in this regard.”

9 January 2006

The report is available here.

 

By force, if necessary – Minority returns to Kosovo after independence

Minority returns to Kosovo have been scarce. Security concerns and the poor economic outlook, in particular for Kosovo’s ethnic minorities, have prevented Roma and other non-Albanians from returning to Kosovo. The UNHCR’s position on the continued needs for international protection of individuals from Kosovo has provided a relative protection against large-scale forced returns of people from these group to Kosovo.

This could well change with Kosovo’s independence. The readmission policy and reintegration strategy developed by the Kosovo government under the guidance of international organisations prepare for a “big influx” of forcibly repatriated people to Kosovo after UNMIK’s departure. Kosovo’s ethnic minorities, and the Roma in particular, are a privileged target.

In a document published last November, the OSCE mission in Kosovo qualified return projects to Kosovo as among the most cost-intensive in the world. This notwithstanding, they have had little impact in terms of bringing back Kosovo’s non-Albanian population to Kosovo.

The UNHCR has registered 17,938 so-called minority returns since 2000. Minority returns are defined as returns of persons “belonging to any ethnic group other than the majority at the place / community of return” (UNMIK: Revised Manual on Sustainable Returns). Kosovo Serbs make up for the largest share among these returns. Roma come only in third place with less then 2,500 voluntary returnees.

While the UNHCR insists that its statistics are based on information that have been verified on the ground, observers nevertheless doubt about their truthfulness. Allegedly, many of these so-called returnees only return to Kosovo to sell off their property and leave again soon after.

According to the Serbian Ministry for Kosovo and Methojia, the real number of returnees stands at around 3,000 people only. The Ministry also argues that some 20,000 people have left Kosovo since the end of the NATO-intervention. Kosovo is still one of the main regions of origin of asylum seekers in Europe.

From failed returns …

Security concerns together with a lack of trust in Kosovo’s institutions and their willingness to protect the rights of Kosovo’s non-Albanian population are among the first reasons why Kosovo’s non-Albanian populations have been reluctant to return. The economic outlook is particularly bleak for Roma who have always been marginalised within Kosovo’s society. Today, there is hardly any Roma employed by Kosovo’s public institutions. International organisations in Kosovo do not fare much better.

The European Commission noticed in its 2007 Progress report on Kosovo:

“[T]he situation of socially vulnerable persons, particularly of the Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian communities, disabled persons, returnees and internally displaced persons, remains a cause for concern.”

“Overall, there has been little progress in improving the situation of the Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian communities which continue to face very difficult living conditions and discrimination, especially in the areas of education, social protection, health care, housing and employment.”

These statements are also voiced by the US Department of State that writes in its 2006 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Serbia (including Kosovo):

“Official and societal discrimination persisted against Kosovo’s ethnic Serb, Roma, Ashkali, and Egyptian communities with respect to employment, social services, language use, freedom of movement, the right to return, and other basic rights …. During the year violence and other crimes directed at minorities and their property lessened but remained a problem.”

According to the Annual Report 2007 of Human Rights Watch, 200 “inter-ethnic crimes” were reported in Kosovo throughout the year. While Kosovo Serbs were the main victims of these crimes, Roma also suffered from ethnically motivated crime.

The return process itself has been badly managed. Here again, the European Commission is most explicit:

“Kosovo has no database to implement and monitor the return process. No official relations exist between with the ministry for return and the Belgrade-supported Co-ordination Centre for Kosovo, thus hampering the return process.”

“The human resources of the Ministry for Return and Communities and its overall capacity and budget are insufficient to proceed with the implementation of documented return projects.

(..)

The municipal teams are not properly equipped to implement the return policies. Kosovo has no database to implement and monitor the return process.

(..)

Internally-displaced persons from all communities face housing problems due to insufficient budgetary allocations. They also encounter problems in being registered in the civil records.

(..)

Kosovo still lacks both a reintegration strategy and a budget to deal with the asylum seekers rejected by western European countries. Overall, almost no progress was made. The return process remains a major challenge.”

As a common OSCE/UNHCR report from 2003 shows, Roma have been disadvantaged also in terms of reconstruction assistance. The highly mediatised project of the partial reconstruction, after six years, of the Roma Mahala in Mitrovica stands against many other Romani settlements and houses which have not been rebuilt.

Roma are present in high numbers among the 21,000 IDPs who are scattered in collective centres and private accomodation throughout Kosovo. In 2007, the acting Kosovo Ombudsperson, Hilmi Jashari, wrote in his annual report:

“[M]any Serbs, Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians continue to live in containers and collective centres in Gracanica/Gracanice and the Municipality of Fushe Kosove/ Kosovo Polje in central Kosovo, as well as Strepce/Shterpce and Prizren in the south. These settlements include displaced persons from 1999 and others who fled their homes during the riots of March 2004.”

… to forced returns

In spite of these unresolved challenges, Kosovo institutions, under the guidance of UNMIK, have developed an ambitious plan to tackle with large-scale forced returns of so-called vulnerable groups to Kosovo after independence:

The Readmission Policy, which was adopted by the Kosovo Government on 31 October 2007, describes the process whereby UNMIK and, after a transition period which is termed to end with Kosovo’s independence, the Kosovo government, accept to readmit persons from Kosovo or their next of kin, who have been found illegally entering or residing on the territory of another state. The Strategy for Reintegration of Repatriated Persons, which was approved by the Kosovo Government on 10 October 2007, devices a detailed plan how to reintegrate forcibly repatriated persons in Kosovo starting from their reception at the Pristina airport, and even before, to their arrival at destination and reintegration in Kosovo.

Both documents presume a landslide shift in terms of forced repatriations to Kosovo. Indeed, the focus is on the repatriation of so-called vulnerable groups, ethnic minorities including Roma, Ashkalija and Kosovo Egyptians, but also old people, unaccompanied children, victims of trafficking, and people with serious diseases, people who have in past enjoyed a relative protection against forced repatriation on the basis of the UNHCR’s position on the continued need for international protection of individuals from Kosovo. What is more, it appears that this position will become or actually be made redundant after the transfer of competencies from UNMIK to the Kosovo government.

Both, the readmission policy and the reintegration strategy, include particular chapters referring to the situation of so-called vulnerable groups. These are defined with reference to the IOM’s Glossary on Migration as “[a]ny group or sector of society that is at higher risk of being subjected to discriminatory practices, violence, natural or environmental disasters, or economic hardship, than other groups within the State” or ” any group or sector of society (such as women, children or the elderly) that is at higher risk in periods of conflict and crisis.”

Members of ethnic minorities, though considered as part of the vulnerable groups, are not dealt with in such a manner, but there are several sections in the Reintegration Strategy, which, in an explicit or implicit way, refer to Roma. Together with the Ashkalija and Kosovo Egyptians they are thus identified as one of the principal targets of repatriation plans.

This is for instance the case as regards  to the registration procedure where it is underlined that “some of the repatriated persons have never been registered with the responsible authorities in Kosovo before”, and authorities requested to inform about the importance of registration and this-related procedures, where it is said: “This is of special importance to groups particularly vulnerable to social exclusion and marginalization such as Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians, even more so when they return after several years of residence abroad.”

This is also the case in relation with education where the Reintegration Strategy emphasises the need to establish language classes for children who “have difficulties in communication and understanding in their native language or the chosen language for education”. The document also refers to the need of establishing “special classes” or “special schools” for children with “special needs” which might well be intended towards Roma children.

The most direct reference is however found in a footnote of this document, which says, referring to the estimated 100,000 people from Kosovo staying abroad with no legal residence title: “Germany alone has some 53,000 Kosovans presently living in Germany without a legal status, of which some 38,000 are claimed to belong to the Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian minorities.”

The UNHCR has considered Kosovo Roma, together with Serbs and Albanians in a minority situation as still in need of continued international protection and argued that they should not be forcibly repatriated to Kosovo. In June 2006, the UNHCR has eased the protection for Kosovo Egyptians and Ashkalija, but nevertheless made their forcible repatriation to Kosovo provisional on an individual assesment of their situation.

There have been speculations in how far the UNHCR would finally give in to pressures by the governments of host countries, who are also the main contributors to the UNHCR’s budget, to lift the protection for refugees from Kosovo alltogether, but even before, the Readmission Policy and Reintegration Strategy pave the way for an ommission of the UNHCR’s position, whatever it would be.

It is indeed interesting to notice that both documents take great pains to explain that UNMIK’s policy on forced returns has been based on the UNHCR’s position. In the document on readmission it is explained that the UNHCR, on the basis of UNSCR 1244 (1999), has the mandate to supervise the safe, dignified and free return of refugees and IDPs. But in a next step it is then pointed out that the Kosovo authorities have taken into account the “views” of the UNCHR and committed themselves to improve the security situation and prepare to readmit people originating from Kosovo on the basis of international standards.

A similar remark is found a few pages later, and another few pages later it is repeated that UNMIK will continue to follow the UNHCR’s position during the transition period, which raises the logical question what comes after.

Another hint is found, when the readmission procedure is described in detail. Here it is said that readmission requests should include information on the ethnicity of a person. In a footnote it is further explained that this information will only be requested during the transition period, given the fact that UNMIK follows the UNHCR’s position. However, after the full transfer of competencies for readmission to the Kosovo authorities, such information will not be provided any longer. If this is obviously done in order to avoid that the forcibly repatriated suffer discrimination upon their return on the basis of their ethnicity, it entails at the same time that they can no longer be granted protection on the same basis.

The Reintegration Strategy does not confine to vague statements, but leaves no doubt that the UNHCR’s authority will be hollowed out after independence:

“Up to date, the UNMIK readmission policy regarding the involuntary repatriation of persons who originate from Kosovo and do not or no longer fulfil the conditions of residence in their current host countries has prevented the repatriation of these three groups [Kosovo Serbs, Roma and Albanians in a minority situation]. … Once the mandate of the UNMIK has expired, the situation may change and host countries may not anymore follow the UNHCR recommendations as closely as they are at present.” (our Italics)

With Kosovo declaring its independence, a massive wave of forced repatriations of Roma to Kosovo has thus become a close reality.

From denying asylum …

There is no precise information about the number of Kosovo Roma staying abroad without or with no permanent residence title. This not only concerns war-time refugees, but also people who left Kosovo much before the war in order to escape poverty and discrimination: “Many repatriated have been living for ten or more years in a foreign country before their asylum application was rejected,” the Reintegration Strategy explains.

Western Europe

The largest group of Kosovo Roma outside Serbia reportedly stays in Germany. According to recent figures (UNHCR January 2007), there were 24,000 Roma, 8,200 Ashkali, and 1,800 Kosovo Egyptians in Germany under the so-called toleration status (“Duldung”). This status provides merely a temporary protection against forced repatriation or expulsion, and can be lifted whenever the competent authorities consider that the grounds upon which it was granted have ceased to exist.

In April 2005, the German Federal Government signed a Memorandum of Understanding with UNMIK providing for the forced repatriation of up to 500 Ashkalija and Kosovo Egyptians to Kosovo. Taking into account the UNHCR position on the continued need for international protection of individuals from Kosovo Roma were exempted from forced repatriation with the exception of some groups of criminal offenders. This procedure was revised on 1 March 2006 with a view of facilitating forced repatriations of Roma, Ashkalija and Kosvo Egyptians. In 2007, Germany was the first country to forcibly repatriate people to Kosovo: Out of 3,125 forcibly repatriated persons 896 came from Germany alone.

In November 2006, the German conference of Ministers of Interior adopted a regularisation procedure for undocumented foreigners, the so-called “Bleiberechtsregelung”. According to a survey realised by the Berlin Office for Integration, ten percent of the total number of “tolerated” immigrants in Germany had been able to obtain a residence permit on the basis of this rule by the end of September 2007 with a substantial number of decisions still pending.

The survey also shows that Kosovo Roma refugees have made use of this new rules and, in some places, have indeed been able to regularise their stay on that basis, but the survey does not provide a comprehensive overview for all of Germany. Refugee organisations have criticised that excessive requirements have in some cases prevented or delayed positive decisions.

Another large group of Kosovo Roma lives in Switzerland. In a first reaction to Kosovo’s declaration of indepedence, the spokesperson of the Federal Office for Migration, Jonas Montani, said that Switzerland would not change its policy towards asylum seekers from Kosovo. In a second time, his office would consider whether Kosovo Serbs do not have an internal flight option in Kosovska Mitrovica. His statements were confirmed by the head of the department of Interior of the canton Vaud, Philippe Leuba, who said in an interview that Kosovo Roma and Serbs are not yet considered as safe in Kosovo.

In many cases, such as in Denmark, Kosovo Roma have not recognised as refugees on the basis of the 1951 Geneva convention and granted only temporary protection for humanitarian reasons. All these people are currently at risk of being forcibly repatriated to Kosovo.

Southeast Europe

Southeast Europe has hosted a large number of Kosovo Roma. This number has however dwindled with the years as more and more people made it to Western Europe. With regards to their legal status two situations need to be distinguished; the situation in Serbia and Montenegro, where the Kosovo Roma refugees were considered as internally displaced persons, or IDPs, and the situation in countries such as Macedonia and Bosnia, where the Kosovo Roma are to be considered as refugees, since they have crossed state borders.

Serbia

By the end of 2007, the UNHCR estimated that some 11 percent of the 206,100 IDPs from Kosovo staying in Serbia are Roma. This number may well be higher since many Kosovo Roma did not register in Serbia. In a joint report from March 2007, the UNHCR and Praxis estimated the number of Kosovo Roma in Serbia at up to 40,000 people.

Kosovo Roma were not particularly welcomed by the Serbian authorities and have faced manifold discrimination. In 2007, the US State Department noted for instance:

“Local municipalities often were reluctant to accommodate them, hoping that, if they failed to provide shelter, the Roma would leave the community … . If Roma did settle, it was often in official collective centers with minimum amenities or, more often, in makeshift camps in or near major cities or towns.”

The Serbian Refugee Council criticised that “[t]he 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.”

The same determination is also manifest in the National Action Plan adopted in the context of the Decade for Roma Inclusion.

Montenegro

As of November 2007, Montenegro provided home to some 16,000 IDPs, who, according to the UNHCR, are in their majority Roma.

In spite of being citizens of the same country, until Montenegro’s independence, Kosovo IDPs were unable to gain access to civil, political, economic or social rights. As Amnesty International pointed out, civil registration was denied to them, and it was the UNHCR – rather than the Montenegrin authorities – which continued to provide accommodation, health care and social benefits.

After Montenegro’s independence, the country adopted, in June 2006, a new asylum law which entered into effect on 25 January 2007. In theory, this law would have allowed Kosovo Roma IDPs to apply for asylum, but the Montenegrin government has focused on their return to Kosovo or departure to Serbia or other countries.

In February 2007, the Montenegrin Ministry of Interior opened negotiations with the Kosovo authorities in view of returning the refugees.

Macedonia

From the very beginning, Macedonia had been reluctant to admit Kosovo Roma refugees considering that they were under the responsibility of Serbia and Montenegro. They were finally admitted on the basis of the “Temporary Humanitarian Assisted Person” status, a status which was phased out in September 2003, forcing those who wanted to stay to apply for asylum under the newly adopted law.

However, only some 28 persons belonging to the Roma, Ashkalija and Egyptian community from Kosovo have been granted asylum in Macedonia, a number which has remained almost unchanged for the last three years.

The Kosovo Roma refugees in Macedonia, including Ashkalija and Kosovo, Egyptians, can be divided into two groups, those the majority of the cases, who have been granted temporary protection, and those whose asylum application has been rejected or who are still in the procedure.

Macedonia’s refugee status determination procedure has been criticised as flawed, by both, the EU Commission and the US Department of State. The State Department has also summoned its negative bias against Roma.

The UNHCR stated in its Global Appeal 2006: “Appeal bodies continue to lack the knowledge and independence that are needed to function effectively, despite UNHCR’s capacity-building efforts to this end.”

Macedonian authorities have made no effort to integrate the Kosovo Roma refugees, and, in 2008, the UNHCR continues to provide basic shelter including health care to them.

In 2007, the UNHCR noted in its Global Appeal 2008 – 2009:

“Durable solutions for these refugees are inseparably linked to the future status of the province. Possibilities for local integration remain limited …. UNHCR will assist asylum-seekers and refugees who wish to repatriate voluntarily.”

Already in 2005, the Macedonian authorities entered negotiations with the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government in Kosovo with a view of repatriating the refugees. The Macedonian Secretary of State in the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, Aco Janevski, said at that time during a press conference:  “We do not intend to expel Kosovo refugees, but it is normal to exercise pressure regarding their return to the country of their origin, taking into consideration the interest of Macedonian citizens.”

If they were ever shelved, these negotiations will probably resume after Kosovo’s independence.

Bosnia-Herzegovina

Just as Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina has been a main transit country for Kosovo Roma. According to the Society for Threatened People, 12,000 to 15,000 Kosovo Roma entered Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1998 and 1999.

According to the UNHCR, there are at present 700 Kosovo Roma refugees in Bosnia-Hercegovina. Most of them live in the three collective centres in Bosanski Petrovac, Mostar and Sarajevo. However, the Society for Threatened people estimates that a substantial number of Kosovo Roma have not registered and puts the actual number at around 1,000 persons.

As in Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina did not have an asylum legislation at the moment of the mass arrivals from Kosovo, and people from Kosovo were granted temporary admission on the basis of the Instruction on the Temporary Admission to Bosnia and Herzegovina of Refugees from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 20 May 1999.

This status was regularly renewed until September 2007. The US Department of State noticed in its Human Rights Report 2006: “By October [2006] the government had not accepted any of these refugees for local integration or permanent status in the country.”

In spite of the insistence of representatives of the international community including the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammerberg, to provide a sustainable solution to the Kosovo Roma refugees, the Bosnian authorities put an end to the temporary protection regime in September 2007.

According to the EU Commission, this decision concerns some 3,000 persons, including 700 Kosovo Roma, who are now forced to apply for asylum or leave the country. According to the UNHCR (Global Appeal 2008-9), most of the residents of collective centres have applied for asylum. However, there chances to succeed are considered as rather small.

In a letter to the European Roma and Travellers Forum in May 2007, the Bosnian Minister for Human Rights and Refugees, Safet Halilović, stated that the ambition of his government is to return all refugees to their place of former residence in Kosovo in order not to support the policy of ethnic cleansing (sic!).

… to repatriating refugees

A note sent by the German Federal Minister of Interior, Uwe Schürmann, to the Ministers of Interior of the Länder, on 17 December 2007, confirms the idea that the adoption of the readmission policy by the Kosovo government will lead to a landslide shift in the repatriation policy towards ethnic minorities from Kosovo.

Schürman explains the main changes introduced by the adoption of the readmission policy. In his interpretation, the memoranda of understanding and referring notes signed between UNMIK and the German Federal government in 1999, 2003 and 2007 will become void with its entering into force on 1 January 2008.

He refers in particular to the quota imposed on the forced repatriation of people belonging to ethnic minorities from Kosovo. Accordingly, the ethnic origin of a person will not matter any longer and the “screening” of ethnic minority members will become obsolete. Still, he admits that there are still some limitations to the forcible repatriation of Roma to Kosovo, given the fact that UNMIK continues to base its decisions on the position of the UNHCR.

He expresses hopes that the transfer of the operational competencies in the field of readmission from UNMIK to the Kosovo Ministry of Interior will facilitate the procedure, since the Kosovo authorities will essentially look at the geographic origin of a person to be readmitted. He refers to the German Liaison Office in Pristina which expects that people will no longer be returned at the Kosovo border on the grounds of the argument that they are not from Kosovo.

Once Germany has put these changes into practice, it can be assumed that other governments will follow its steps.

Some practical and other considerations

Forced returns to Kosovo raise a number of practical considerations ranging from the availability of appropriate accommodation, health care facilities or class rooms to the capacities of the Kosovo institutions to deal with a “big influx” of forced returnees. In this context it is most telling that the Action Plan, which is to accompany the strategy, has not been completed in time.

The budget for the implementation of the Reintegration Strategy is based on the return of up to 5,000 people, but it goes out from the document that the funds for a proper implementation of all the measures proposed are missing. It is therefore clear that the burden share of the costs for reintegrating the refugees will lie on the already deprived communities.

In the case of Roma and eventually also other communities much more fundamental issues are at stake. This concerns for instance the problem of documentation, both personal documents and also property titles, but also the problem of security, safety, and freedom of movement.

The Reintegration Strategy warns, for instance, about problems which might result from a failure to produce adequate documentation:

“Lack of any old document or a permanent address in Kosovo will result in the failure to qualify for social benefits. It may prevent access to education and employment and become a real obstacle in the reintegration of minority groups.”

The UNHCR has gone further and warned of the risk of Roma, Ashkalija and Kosovo Egyptians becoming stateless:

“Unless post-status legislation in the areas of residence and nationality is further elaborated, some segments of the population risk statelessness. This applies particularly to the most vulnerable ethnic communities that include the Roma, Ashkalia and Egyptian groups who, due to their social marginalization, have been unable or unwilling to register as habitual residents in Kosovo.” (UNHCR: Global Appeal 2008 – 9)

The Reintegration Strategy also recognizes problems associated with the lack of formal property titles:

“A considerable number of the potential forced repatriated persons belong to minority groups and are likely to have lived in conditions of informal property tenure (i.e., lacking registered title over the residences they occupied) before they left Kosovo. Therefore, upon their return they may face difficulties in finding accommodation, reconstructing their property and/or experience negative consequences due to their property status (sanctions for unlawful construction, lack of access to basic infrastructure, lack of addresses, etc).”

The document includes an whole section on the so-called humanitarian transports from which it goes out that the forced returnees will have to accept considerable limitations of their freedom of movement. The document also refers to the marginalisation and social exclusion of Roma, Ashkali and Kosovo Egyptians, which it says could be even more important after several years of residence abroad.

The difficulties faced by forced returnees are also addressed in the seventh annual report of the Kosovo Ombudsperson, which states that “[i]n many cases, those who could did try to return to their former host countries by whichever means possible, usually illegally.”

Forced returns of Roma and other ethnic minorities to Kosovo consequently raise a number of human rights issues starting with the respect of the international conventions related to asylum and freedom of movement, such as the principle of non-refoulement enshrined in article 33 of the 1951 Geneva Convention, article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union, to include political, economic, and social rights.

UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) reaffirms the right of all refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes in safety. The Standards Implementation Plan, adopted in 2004, has made refugees returns in safety and dignity a condition for the Kosovo status settlement. In 2006, UNMIK’s Revised Manual for Sustainable Returns has introduced the right to decide freely on the place of return. Forcing refugees to return is an implicit recognition by the international community of its failure to create the conditions for safe returns of minorities to Kosovo.

26 February 2008

Romano Them

Available in pdf

UNHCR Global Appeal 2008 – 2009

The future status of the province of Kosovo remains at the top of the regional political agenda. At the end of July 2007, the discussion on Kosovo’s status moved from the UN Security Council to the Contact Group. A troika was formed to conduct further talks in an attempt to seek a negotiated solution. A report on progress is expected by 10 December 2007.

The implementation of the Sarajevo Declaration (the Sarajevo Process) is expected to continue. The political will of national and regional stakeholders is necessary to resolve the outstanding displacement issues. The countries involved will need to enact coordinated national plans based on clear legal and procedural frameworks to pursue durable solutions, including local integration and voluntary repatriation. Such national plans will require adequate financial support, including from international donors.

Instances of harassment, abuse and sporadic incidents of violence targeting minorities remain of concern. The Roma population in particular is frequently confronted with discrimination, underlining the need to address deep-rooted prejudices and enhance protection for all, including members of minority groups. UNHCR is seeking to prevent and reduce the risk of statelessness, which is compounded by the lack of personal identity documents and other civil records.

Chapters:

Southeastern Europe

Bosnia-Herzegovina

Serbia (including Kosovo)