Discrimination Ejected from Entity Constitutions

by Senka KURTOVIC

Oslobodjenje, Sarajevo, Federation Bosnia-Hercegovina, B-H, July 4, 2000

The president of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia-Hercegovina, Prof. Dr. Kasim Begic, on Tuesday in Sarajevo, according to the regulations governing the work of the Court, announced the decision of the Court regarding the constitutional character of nations everywhere in Bosnia-Hercegovina (BH) and listed the reasons for the decision. Showing to the journalists enormous piles of documents and materials, Dr. Begic emphasized that the case evaluating whether entity constitutions were in agreement with the Constitution of BH was a voluminous case which had to establish the constitutional or unconstitutional character of more than 20 articles in the entity constitutions. The first public hearing was held in October 1998 and continued in January 1999. The first working meeting in the case was held in June 1998 and another seven meetings were held before the decision was made. In that period, the Constitutional Court of BH made three partial decision. In January it assessed the constitutional character of 10 contested articles, in February it made another partial decision, which assessed the constitutional nature of another four articles from the Constitution of the Republic of Srpska. Dr. Begic emphasized that these two decisions were important because they addressed important questions. For example, it was established that the Constitutional Court has the right to issue verdicts, and it established limits on the right to self-organization of entities. A third, partial decision, made by the Constitutional Court at its meeting held on June 30 and July 1, addressed the constitutional character of articles 1 in the Constitution of the Republic of Srpska (RS) and article 1.1 of the Constitution of the Federation Bosnia-Hercegovina (FBH). It was established that these two articles violate the BH Constitutions because the RS Constitution emphasizes that the Republic of Srpska is "a state of the Serb people" while the Constitution of FBH states that "Bosniaks and Croats are constituent peoples". It was also established that parts of the preamble of the RS Constitution violate the BH Constitution. Regarding the reasons for the decision about unconstitutional character of these articles, Dr. Begic stated that according to the BH Constitution only the BH state continues its existence in international law and has all attributes of a state. Dr. Begic also added that the BH Constitution defines BH as a state made up of two entities, which do not have sovereignty nor the right to self-organize, but have clearly established authorities, listed by the Constitution. Therefore, a mention of the sovereignty of the entities (as states) in the name of the entity violates the BH Constitution, emphasizes Dr. Begic, since the BH Constitution is the guarantor of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state BH. The president of the Constitutional Court emphasized that the judges followed the same argumentation in making the decision about the constituent character of nations, since both contested articles included identical elements of discrimination. "Both constitutions placed one nation (nations) in preferred position while other were turned into ethnic minorities. The status of some members cannot be basis for discrimination of others," said Dr. Begic. He added that every constitutional court, including the BH Constitutional Court has two basic tasks; to be the guardian of the Constitution and institutional guarantor of human rights. Dr. Begic believes that the BH Constitutional Court with its decisions fulfilled both of its basic tasks. The president of the BH Constitutional Court removed all doubts regarding the legal validity of the decision of the BH Constitutional Court. "These decisions will be published in official publications of BH and they become legally valid on the day of publication," added Dr. Begic. To the question of journalists regarding his comment on the decision of judges from the Croat and Serb peoples to vote against the decision about the constituent character of all three nations, Dr. Begic clarified: "the Constitutional Court is the highest judicial body. It is both above entities and nations. There are no representatives of ethnic groups of entities in the BH Constitutional Court. Decisions are made by simple majority of votes, and this one was made in that manner. The Court is the guardian of the BH Constitution and a sort of control of other institutions." Dr. Begic stated that the BH Constitutional Court does not have means to implement its decisions, but he emphasized that the respect for the decisions of the Constitutional Court and their implementation are legally binding and that that is the basis of the rule of law.

Group of Five Led by Intuition, interview with Petar Kunic, an expert on constitutional law, regarding the decision of the BH Constitutional Court, Reporter, July 26, 2000
Is the BH Constitutional Court Verdict About Constituent Character of All Three Nations in Entities Really Regular?, how was the decision made?, Hrvatska Rijec, October 21, 2000

In Focus

Roads for Bosnia-Hercegovina

by Sejad LUKICIN

Oslobodjenje, Sarajevo, Federation Bosnia-Hercegovina, B-H, September 1, 2000

"I am happy that the year 2000 begins with such an infrastructure development project... We want it to be the year of development and to continue as it started." With these words the Federation Prime Minister, Edhem Bicakcic, announced on January 5 the construction of the highway Zenica-Sarajevo. And he was right, the year 2000 is passing in accordance with his predictions. It is full of big promises and equally large deceptions. Nine months later it is abundantly clear that there will be no highway. Even Bicakcic admitted that after a meeting of the Government of the FBH in Mostar. True, the Prime Minister tried to hide the breaking of the contract with the French company Buig, with whose chief executive director Michel Cot he had laid the cornerstone. Bicakcic said that the highway would be built; the construction may start in October, we'll build it ourselves. However, having in mind the size of the Federation budget and the profitability of the domestic companies, that will be tough. In that case, what are the reminders about the highway for? As if that were the only Potemkin's village built in BH. Bicakcic is not the only politician with an inclination for easy promises. But the breaking of the contract with Buig, which was favored exactly by the Federation Prime Minister, reveals all the poverty in which this state lives. Those with better memory will recall that the construction of the highway was described as "the most important project in the Federation and the whole BH". That was a start, an opening of public infrastructure projects, a missed opportunity to find employment for 2,000 persons. Of course, the project never moved from the corner stone and a photo opportunity in front of TV cameras. The French failed to bring the promised funds. There were no new jobs, but the number of jobless has increased during the last nine months. In the meantime we've had scandals in the privatization of hotels in Sarajevo, for which Bicakcic these days blames cantonal clerks. The politicians "opened" a road near Sarajevo. At first they claimed that it was a "highway" and then that it wasn't. That was done at night, perhaps so that Alija Izetbegovic who opened the road did not see what sort of roads to the future of BH he was bringing to the people. The year 2000 has passed, as Bicakcic said in January. In photo opportunities, promises, wrong assessments and without new roads. Is that what the Federation Prime Minister had in mind for us?

Sniper Tried to Kill Edin Garaplija

by I.S.

Oslobodjenje, Sarajevo, Federation Bosnia-Hercegovina, B-H, September 28, 2000

Faruk Balijagic, the attorney representing Edin Garaplija, better known to the public because of his participation in "the Herenda case", claims that last Friday unidentified persons tried to kill his client.

"Late in the evening, Edin Garaplija phoned me and told me that he had noticed a sniper infra-red target-search beam coming from the neighboring buildings. Immediately afterwards he was evacuated from that apartment together with his family and moved to a different location where he will stay until the beginning of the trial scheduled for October 5 in the Supreme Court of the Federation Bosnia-Hercegovina (FBH)," Faruk Balijagic, one of Garaplija's attorneys said for Oslobodjenje.

As is well known, Edin Garaplija was sentenced to thirteen years in prison. However, in July 2000 the BH Human Rights Court after an appeal struck down the verdict and ordered a new trial. At the time Garaplija was serving his sentence in the Zenica prison.

Balijagic and the other Garaplija's attorney Josip Muselimovic, have sent invitation to the hearing in front of the FBH Supreme Court to numerous international media and non-governmental organizations, as well as the prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal, requesting that some of her collaborators attend the hearing "to make sure that there are no attempts to prevent discussion of war crimes". The attorneys claim that Garaplija as a high official of the AID [Bosniak intelligence service] had the task to check the group Seve and document its crimes so that possible criminals could be later prosecuted.

"However, during the investigation, the state leadership decided to prosecute Garaplija and his coworkers. All of them were sentenced to harsh prison terms," said Balijagic.

According to Balijagic, the trial in front of the FBH Supreme Court will be very interesting since Garaplija will for the first time be allowed to present his defense.

"He did not do that earlier since he was ordered to protect state interests as an agent of a secret political police and to keep quiet about the case," said Balijagic and added that he and his colleague stuck to the legal circumstances when putting together their appeal. He points out certain mistakes made in the process of identification of Garaplija by Nedzad Herenda. Herenda was first shown photographs and then Geraplija and Refik Muran in person. The crucial part of the verdict is related to the physical maltreatment of Herenda, for which, according to Balijagic, no evidence was offered in the trial record. It remains to be seen what the FBH Supreme Court will decide. Objectively, there are three options: the Supreme Court could annul the verdict and order a retrial, acquit Garaplija and reject the indictment, or confirm the verdict.

Translated on October 24, 2000