Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF CROATIA
04 August 1998
Share
MORNING HR/CERD/98/35
4 August 1998
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this morning completed its consideration of a report from the Republic of Croatia after hearing explanations from a Government delegation on measures taken by the country to combat racist offenses.
Formal, written recommendations on the report will be issued towards the end of the Committee's three-week session, which concludes 21 August. Mario Jorge Yutzis, the Committee expert who served as rapporteur for the report, said in preliminary concluding remarks that Croatia had omitted to mention how it implemented article 4 of the Convention on the prohibition of racial propagation.
Committee experts Ion Diaconu, Michael Sherifis, Ivan Garvalov, Yuri Rechetov, Agha Shahi and Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr asked the delegation questions on, among other issues, the situation of the Serb community in the country and the return of refugees and internally displaced persons.
As one of 150 States parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Croatia is obligated to provide periodic reports to the 18-member Committee on its national efforts to implement the treaty.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will start its consideration of the fourteenth periodic report of Cyprus.
Discussion of Report
Committee experts continued to raise questions on issues such as the suspension in September 1995 of the law on minorities; the status of the Convention within domestic law; measures to deter police violence against persons belonging to minorities or ethnic groups; absence of a demographic breakdown of the various minorities; a series of decisions that invalidated certain laws; the status of cultural autonomy; the law on return of refugees to their homes; the difference between ethnic and national minorities; and Croat-Serb-Muslim relations within the country.
ANTUN PALARIC, Assistant Minister of Public Administration of Croatia, responding to the questions posed by Committee experts yesterday afternoon and this morning, said that the federation between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina had not been successful and the absence of a common authority had made it impossible to maintain.
The Croatian Government had always attempted to prevent racial discrimination from taking place, Mr. Palaric said. There were no cases of racial discrimination in schools and hospitals, for instance.
With regards to the suspension of some articles of the law, he said that once occupied territories were liberated and the transitional local administration came to an end, the laws governing those regions were either revised or written off. As a member of the Council of Europe, Croatia had ratified and implemented all human rights conventions. It devoted special attention to ethnic or national communities or minorities’ exercise of their human rights, as well as to the methods and means for their exercise.
The Government had withdrawn all charges and warrants for criminal acts following a general amnesty law declared earlier by the authorities, Mr. Palaric continued. Only 66 persons were so far indicted for war crimes, out of which 27 persons had disputed the indictment. Crimes related to war were not affected by the general amnesty law.
During the Communist era, judges were appointed on the basis of their allegiance to the Communist party instead of criteria on merit, he said. Out of the nine judges in the Supreme Criminal Court, seven were Serbs. The Government had had to restructure the judiciary and had appointed judges selected on the basis of their capacity in the field.
The implementation of the programme on returnee refugees adopted recently was slowed down because of lack of personnel to handle the demands for documents in Croatian consulates and embassies, the Assistant Minister said. However, the Government had given priority to settling the issue of refugees and facilitating their return to their homes.
The question of missing persons had been more or less dealt with by the Government through investigations and other legal means, Mr. Palaric went on to say. In August 1996, the Government had produced a list identifying the persons who were detained and missing. As of March 1996, the total number of forcibly taken, imprisoned and missing persons in Croatia amounted to 2,810. The majority of the missing persons had been imprisoned, forcibly taken or went missing in the territory under the United Nations administration.
MILLE PESORDA, Head of Department for the Cooperation with UNESCO at the Ministry of Culture of Croatia, said that the Constitution provided for free speech and press like any other democratic county. If the situation of the freedom of the press was found to be unsatisfactory, it might be attributed to Communist elements which still persisted and not because of Government control. Except for one newspaper which was owned by the Government, the rest belonged to private individuals and companies. The Government was not exercising any form of pressure whatsoever against the freedom of the press.
MILVIA MARKOVIC, Head of Department for International Cooperation at the Ministry of Education and Sports of Croatia, said any racial tension could be attributed to certain groups which were outside governmental control. The Government was however trying to build confidence among the various ethnic groups to defuse tensions and misunderstandings. To that end, it was also restructuring its educational system to respond to the actual needs of the respect and promotion of human rights. There was no racial discrimination in the educational system and in schools.
Mr. Palaric said that his Government believed that Croatia was home for various ethnic groups and that their harmonious coexistence was primordial for the peaceful development of the country.
MARIO JORGE YUTZIS, the Committee expert who served as country rapporteur for the Croatian report, said he was impressed by the political will of the delegation in dealing with the questions of the experts. However, he said that the actual implementation of the Convention in the Croatian context was of concern to the Committee. The report did not contain any mention of the application of article 4 of the Convention which was the condemnation by States parties of all propaganda and organizations which were based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons. The position of the Government on this issue was not clear.
Mr. Yutzis said that although there were specific laws governing the transition of property in Croatia, their application had been of great concern. The commission set up to deal with properties belonging to displaced Serbians from their homes had not yet started its work. He also said that there were a number of United Nations bodies that underlined the need for education on human rights in Croatia.
4 August 1998
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this morning completed its consideration of a report from the Republic of Croatia after hearing explanations from a Government delegation on measures taken by the country to combat racist offenses.
Formal, written recommendations on the report will be issued towards the end of the Committee's three-week session, which concludes 21 August. Mario Jorge Yutzis, the Committee expert who served as rapporteur for the report, said in preliminary concluding remarks that Croatia had omitted to mention how it implemented article 4 of the Convention on the prohibition of racial propagation.
Committee experts Ion Diaconu, Michael Sherifis, Ivan Garvalov, Yuri Rechetov, Agha Shahi and Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr asked the delegation questions on, among other issues, the situation of the Serb community in the country and the return of refugees and internally displaced persons.
As one of 150 States parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Croatia is obligated to provide periodic reports to the 18-member Committee on its national efforts to implement the treaty.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will start its consideration of the fourteenth periodic report of Cyprus.
Discussion of Report
Committee experts continued to raise questions on issues such as the suspension in September 1995 of the law on minorities; the status of the Convention within domestic law; measures to deter police violence against persons belonging to minorities or ethnic groups; absence of a demographic breakdown of the various minorities; a series of decisions that invalidated certain laws; the status of cultural autonomy; the law on return of refugees to their homes; the difference between ethnic and national minorities; and Croat-Serb-Muslim relations within the country.
ANTUN PALARIC, Assistant Minister of Public Administration of Croatia, responding to the questions posed by Committee experts yesterday afternoon and this morning, said that the federation between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina had not been successful and the absence of a common authority had made it impossible to maintain.
The Croatian Government had always attempted to prevent racial discrimination from taking place, Mr. Palaric said. There were no cases of racial discrimination in schools and hospitals, for instance.
With regards to the suspension of some articles of the law, he said that once occupied territories were liberated and the transitional local administration came to an end, the laws governing those regions were either revised or written off. As a member of the Council of Europe, Croatia had ratified and implemented all human rights conventions. It devoted special attention to ethnic or national communities or minorities’ exercise of their human rights, as well as to the methods and means for their exercise.
The Government had withdrawn all charges and warrants for criminal acts following a general amnesty law declared earlier by the authorities, Mr. Palaric continued. Only 66 persons were so far indicted for war crimes, out of which 27 persons had disputed the indictment. Crimes related to war were not affected by the general amnesty law.
During the Communist era, judges were appointed on the basis of their allegiance to the Communist party instead of criteria on merit, he said. Out of the nine judges in the Supreme Criminal Court, seven were Serbs. The Government had had to restructure the judiciary and had appointed judges selected on the basis of their capacity in the field.
The implementation of the programme on returnee refugees adopted recently was slowed down because of lack of personnel to handle the demands for documents in Croatian consulates and embassies, the Assistant Minister said. However, the Government had given priority to settling the issue of refugees and facilitating their return to their homes.
The question of missing persons had been more or less dealt with by the Government through investigations and other legal means, Mr. Palaric went on to say. In August 1996, the Government had produced a list identifying the persons who were detained and missing. As of March 1996, the total number of forcibly taken, imprisoned and missing persons in Croatia amounted to 2,810. The majority of the missing persons had been imprisoned, forcibly taken or went missing in the territory under the United Nations administration.
MILLE PESORDA, Head of Department for the Cooperation with UNESCO at the Ministry of Culture of Croatia, said that the Constitution provided for free speech and press like any other democratic county. If the situation of the freedom of the press was found to be unsatisfactory, it might be attributed to Communist elements which still persisted and not because of Government control. Except for one newspaper which was owned by the Government, the rest belonged to private individuals and companies. The Government was not exercising any form of pressure whatsoever against the freedom of the press.
MILVIA MARKOVIC, Head of Department for International Cooperation at the Ministry of Education and Sports of Croatia, said any racial tension could be attributed to certain groups which were outside governmental control. The Government was however trying to build confidence among the various ethnic groups to defuse tensions and misunderstandings. To that end, it was also restructuring its educational system to respond to the actual needs of the respect and promotion of human rights. There was no racial discrimination in the educational system and in schools.
Mr. Palaric said that his Government believed that Croatia was home for various ethnic groups and that their harmonious coexistence was primordial for the peaceful development of the country.
MARIO JORGE YUTZIS, the Committee expert who served as country rapporteur for the Croatian report, said he was impressed by the political will of the delegation in dealing with the questions of the experts. However, he said that the actual implementation of the Convention in the Croatian context was of concern to the Committee. The report did not contain any mention of the application of article 4 of the Convention which was the condemnation by States parties of all propaganda and organizations which were based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons. The position of the Government on this issue was not clear.
Mr. Yutzis said that although there were specific laws governing the transition of property in Croatia, their application had been of great concern. The commission set up to deal with properties belonging to displaced Serbians from their homes had not yet started its work. He also said that there were a number of United Nations bodies that underlined the need for education on human rights in Croatia.