Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION TAKES UP REPORT OF REPUBLIC OF CROATIA
03 August 1998
Share
AFTERNOON
HR/CERD/98/34
3 August 1998
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this afternoon started its consideration of a report from the Republic of Croatia, expressing concern about the independence of the judiciary and the freedom to disseminate racial hate speech.
Introducing Croatia's third periodic report as a State party to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Antun Palaric, Assistant Minister of Public Affairs, said that there was no racial discrimination in Croatia.
Members of the Committee, however, citing reports from United Nations missions to the region, maintained that there had been wide spread dissemination of racial hate speech by certain groups belonging to the Croat majority.
Mario Jorge Yutzis, the Committee expert from Argentina who served as rapporteur for the report, said that while Croatia's cooperation with the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia was commendable, there was slowness in executing some of its recommendations.
As one of 150 States parties to the Convention, Croatia is obligated to submit periodic summaries to the Committee. A Government delegation attended the meeting to present the document and answer questions.
The Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 4 August, to continue its discussion with the Croat delegation.
The third periodic report of Croatia on the elimination of racial discrimination (document CERD/C/290/Add.1) states that Croatia condemns racial discrimination and is undertaking all legislative, judicial and executive measures in order to eliminate such practices. It says that one of the first priorities of Croatian policy is the normalization of inter-ethnic relations, particularly relations between Croats and a part of the Serbian ethnic and national community or minority of Croatia. The Government has established a number of confidence building measures in order to ensure not only an absence of revenge, but also peaceful co-existence and understanding in the aftermath of the armed conflict. In particular, a wide programme of measures has been elaborated through the International Conference on the former Yugoslavia and other fora in order to re-establish confidence.
The report says that the Government has undertaken effective measures, particularly in the area of education, vocational training, culture and public information aimed at fighting prejudices which may cause racial discrimination. In Croatia, there were 65 political parties of which 13 had seats in Parliament.
Presentation of Report
ANTUN PALARIC, Assistant Minister of Public Administration of the Republic of Croatia, introducing his country's report, stated that there were no cases of racial discrimination in his country. The Republic was a multi-ethic society comprising various minority groups living harmoniously.
Croatia had emerged from the dramatic fragmentation of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and became a member of the United Nations in May 1992, Mr. Palaric went on to say. In Croatia, there were Serbian, Montenegran, Slovenian and Macedonian nationalities living together with Croatians.
Mr. Palaric stated that Croatia had introduced a multi-party system soon after the adoption of the Constitution in 1990. The State was based on democratic values with members of Parliament elected under strict international supervision. The President and members of Parliament could remain in power for only two terms.
Mr. Palaric noted that the right to equal treatment before tribunals and all other organs administering justice was guaranteed by the Constitution which set forth the principle of equality of all citizens, including foreigners. Anyone might file a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court if authorities violated the rights provided for by the Constitution, he said.
Mr. Palaric affirmed that the Constitution ensured equality among all ethnic groups and prohibited segregation of any nationalities. The use of ethnic language was allowed in the administration and judiciary. Serbians, for example, enjoyed all rights and were an integral part of the population. In some municipal administrations, Serb magistrates were a majority as a result of universal suffrage.
Discussion of Report
MARIO JORGE YUTZIS, Committee expert from Argentina, serving as country rapporteur for the Croatian report, said, among other things, that more than 200,000 death had occurred in the former Yugoslavia which had been prompted by an ideology of ethnic cleansing similar to that of the Holocaust. He said that Croatia emerged from such horrible circumstances.
Mr. Yutzis said that the report was presented in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee. He said that contrary to what the report stated, there was doubt over the independence of the judiciary. He brought up specific cases of dismissals of judges by the executive. For example, on 29 January 1997, the Chairman of the Supreme Court was dismissed; and in April of the same year, nine prosecutors were also dismissed on ethic grounds. He said concern was expressed about these cases by various organizations and individuals. He considered the cases as "ethnic cleansing of the judiciary".
Mr. Yutzis said there was considerable concern about the manner in which individuals were prosecuted for war crimes. Some individuals were indicted without sufficient evidence; and others were kept in detention despite lack of evidence incriminating them.
With regards to missing persons, Mr. Yutzis observed that not much progress had been made concerning disappeared persons in the former Yugoslavia in general and in Croatia in particular.
Mr. Yutzis noted that the legislative provisions which permitted the practice of the proportional representation of ethnic groups, on the basis of which Croatia was internationally recognized, had been partially discarded casting doubts on the full enjoyment of rights by other ethnic groups.
With regards to Croatia's cooperation with the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia which was based in the Hague, Mr. Yutzis said that there had been delays in executing the warrants and recommendations of the Court.
Members of the Committee cited reports from United Nations missions to the region which said there had been wide spread dissemination of racial hate speech by certain groups belonging to the Croat majority in the country.
Additional queries were put by other Committee members. One expert regretted that the report did not explicitly recognize the Committee's recommendations of August 1993. Committee members asked the following questions: Did the Government take measures against hate speech? Were the citizenship rights of individuals who fled the country restored? What did the Government do to avoid discrimination by police officers? Was there free access to legal assistance for those who could pay for it? What measures were taken to arrest war criminals? Did the Government undertake to prohibit propagation and dissemination of racial hatred? What were the restrictions imposed on foreigners in entering and leaving the country? And why did Serbs leave Croatia to be refugees?
HR/CERD/98/34
3 August 1998
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this afternoon started its consideration of a report from the Republic of Croatia, expressing concern about the independence of the judiciary and the freedom to disseminate racial hate speech.
Introducing Croatia's third periodic report as a State party to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Antun Palaric, Assistant Minister of Public Affairs, said that there was no racial discrimination in Croatia.
Members of the Committee, however, citing reports from United Nations missions to the region, maintained that there had been wide spread dissemination of racial hate speech by certain groups belonging to the Croat majority.
Mario Jorge Yutzis, the Committee expert from Argentina who served as rapporteur for the report, said that while Croatia's cooperation with the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia was commendable, there was slowness in executing some of its recommendations.
As one of 150 States parties to the Convention, Croatia is obligated to submit periodic summaries to the Committee. A Government delegation attended the meeting to present the document and answer questions.
The Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 4 August, to continue its discussion with the Croat delegation.
The third periodic report of Croatia on the elimination of racial discrimination (document CERD/C/290/Add.1) states that Croatia condemns racial discrimination and is undertaking all legislative, judicial and executive measures in order to eliminate such practices. It says that one of the first priorities of Croatian policy is the normalization of inter-ethnic relations, particularly relations between Croats and a part of the Serbian ethnic and national community or minority of Croatia. The Government has established a number of confidence building measures in order to ensure not only an absence of revenge, but also peaceful co-existence and understanding in the aftermath of the armed conflict. In particular, a wide programme of measures has been elaborated through the International Conference on the former Yugoslavia and other fora in order to re-establish confidence.
The report says that the Government has undertaken effective measures, particularly in the area of education, vocational training, culture and public information aimed at fighting prejudices which may cause racial discrimination. In Croatia, there were 65 political parties of which 13 had seats in Parliament.
Presentation of Report
ANTUN PALARIC, Assistant Minister of Public Administration of the Republic of Croatia, introducing his country's report, stated that there were no cases of racial discrimination in his country. The Republic was a multi-ethic society comprising various minority groups living harmoniously.
Croatia had emerged from the dramatic fragmentation of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and became a member of the United Nations in May 1992, Mr. Palaric went on to say. In Croatia, there were Serbian, Montenegran, Slovenian and Macedonian nationalities living together with Croatians.
Mr. Palaric stated that Croatia had introduced a multi-party system soon after the adoption of the Constitution in 1990. The State was based on democratic values with members of Parliament elected under strict international supervision. The President and members of Parliament could remain in power for only two terms.
Mr. Palaric noted that the right to equal treatment before tribunals and all other organs administering justice was guaranteed by the Constitution which set forth the principle of equality of all citizens, including foreigners. Anyone might file a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court if authorities violated the rights provided for by the Constitution, he said.
Mr. Palaric affirmed that the Constitution ensured equality among all ethnic groups and prohibited segregation of any nationalities. The use of ethnic language was allowed in the administration and judiciary. Serbians, for example, enjoyed all rights and were an integral part of the population. In some municipal administrations, Serb magistrates were a majority as a result of universal suffrage.
Discussion of Report
MARIO JORGE YUTZIS, Committee expert from Argentina, serving as country rapporteur for the Croatian report, said, among other things, that more than 200,000 death had occurred in the former Yugoslavia which had been prompted by an ideology of ethnic cleansing similar to that of the Holocaust. He said that Croatia emerged from such horrible circumstances.
Mr. Yutzis said that the report was presented in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee. He said that contrary to what the report stated, there was doubt over the independence of the judiciary. He brought up specific cases of dismissals of judges by the executive. For example, on 29 January 1997, the Chairman of the Supreme Court was dismissed; and in April of the same year, nine prosecutors were also dismissed on ethic grounds. He said concern was expressed about these cases by various organizations and individuals. He considered the cases as "ethnic cleansing of the judiciary".
Mr. Yutzis said there was considerable concern about the manner in which individuals were prosecuted for war crimes. Some individuals were indicted without sufficient evidence; and others were kept in detention despite lack of evidence incriminating them.
With regards to missing persons, Mr. Yutzis observed that not much progress had been made concerning disappeared persons in the former Yugoslavia in general and in Croatia in particular.
Mr. Yutzis noted that the legislative provisions which permitted the practice of the proportional representation of ethnic groups, on the basis of which Croatia was internationally recognized, had been partially discarded casting doubts on the full enjoyment of rights by other ethnic groups.
With regards to Croatia's cooperation with the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia which was based in the Hague, Mr. Yutzis said that there had been delays in executing the warrants and recommendations of the Court.
Members of the Committee cited reports from United Nations missions to the region which said there had been wide spread dissemination of racial hate speech by certain groups belonging to the Croat majority in the country.
Additional queries were put by other Committee members. One expert regretted that the report did not explicitly recognize the Committee's recommendations of August 1993. Committee members asked the following questions: Did the Government take measures against hate speech? Were the citizenship rights of individuals who fled the country restored? What did the Government do to avoid discrimination by police officers? Was there free access to legal assistance for those who could pay for it? What measures were taken to arrest war criminals? Did the Government undertake to prohibit propagation and dissemination of racial hatred? What were the restrictions imposed on foreigners in entering and leaving the country? And why did Serbs leave Croatia to be refugees?