COMMITTEE ON PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF MIGRANT WORKERS BEGINS REVIEW OF REPORT OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families this morning began its consideration of the initial report of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the efforts of that country to give effect to the provisions of the International Convention on the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

Presenting the report, Saliha Djuderi, Acting Assistant Minister in the Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, provided an update on the state of affairs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, noting that constitutional reform processes had begun, with slight progress regarding Brèko District, whose status had now been defined constitutionally, and strong progress made in the process of the reform of the areas of security and the judiciary, including the police. Bosnia and Herzegovina was also continuing its progress towards European Union integration and, despite the considerable difficulty presented by the current constitutional structure, they were trying to speed up the process of harmonization of the legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the acquis communitaire of the European Union.

Providing complementary information on the report, Dragutin Èegar, also with the Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees, highlighted that Bosnia and Herzegovina was among the few European countries to have acceded to and ratified the Convention. In the preparation of the initial report, Bosnia and Herzegovina had set up a working group consisting of 35 members from across the country, containing representatives of both Entities, as well as of the Brèko District. Representatives of the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions and Trade Unions of the Entities and of Brèko District, representatives of the Association of the Private Employers of the Republika Srpska and others also participated in the working group. In particular, there had been good cooperation with representatives of the non-governmental sector, who had been instrumental in designing and drafting the report from the very beginning.

Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Committee Expert Azad Taghizadet said the Committee recognized the difficulties facing Bosnia and Herzegovina, in particular owing to the complex structure of the State. That presented difficulties as it meant that a number of questions related to migrant workers, such as employment, were regulated by subsidiary structures of the State and that subsequently in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Brèko District and the Republika Srpska the situation of migrants was not exactly the same. Was there a generally accepted mandatory programme that reflected the policy of Bosnia and Herzegovina in questions of implementation of the Convention? He also wondered whether there was an agency responsible for protecting the rights of Bosnia and Herzegovina citizens working outside the country.

José Brillantes, the Committee Expert serving as co-Rapporteur for the report, wondered which Government Ministry had the responsibility for migrant workers? He understood that the responsibility had been transferred from the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees to the Ministry of Security, but that would seem to be contradicted by the delegation's composition. He also asked whether there was a national strategy for combating irregular migration; and whether the Government regulated recruitment agencies for migrant workers.

Also in the delegation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was Emina Keèo-Isakoviæ, the Permanent Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the United Nations Office at Geneva and another member of the Permanent Mission, as well as representatives of the Ministry of Justice, the Prosecutor's Office, the Ministry of Security and the Employment Institute of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as a representative of the Ministry of Labour of the Republika Srpska,

The delegation will return to the Committee at 10 a.m. on Friday, 24 April to provide further responses to the questions raised this morning.

Bosnia and Herzegovina is among the 41 States parties to the Convention and as such it must present periodic reports to the Committee on how it is implementing the Convention’s provisions.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon it will begin its consideration of the initial report of the Philippines (CMW/C/PHL/1).

Report of Bosnia and Herzegovina

During the reporting period, there were 190,397 non-citizens registered, including for short stays, according to reports from the field centres for non-citizens. According to the initial report of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CMW/C/BIH/1), on average, around 200 applications for permanent residence are submitted yearly in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 80 per cent of which are granted. As for illegal immigration, the figures from 2000 indicated that Bosnia and Herzegovina had become a centre for well-organized international crime dealing with smuggling of people. In the first quarter of 2001, a report on immigration and asylum described the situation in the field, identified the causes that led to the current situation, and proposed remedial measures. In May 2001, the Council of Ministers adopted the report, and a series of proposed measures based on the report were implemented. According to the figures supplied by the State Border Police of Bosnia and Herzegovina, this more than halved the number of migrants seeking to enter western European countries illegally via Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2001 as compared with 2000. The declining trend is clear in 2002, and figures from 2003 indicate a continuation of this tendency.

Over the last three years there has been an increase in illegal emigration of Bosnia and Herzegovina citizens to European Union countries, France being the major destination. These networks of Bosnia and Herzegovina citizens have been considerably reduced in scope by the work of the Bosnia and Herzegovina State Border Police and the ordinary police. It is important to recall that the operation of the Prosecutor’s Office and the Bosnia and Herzegovina Court as well as the new offence of “human smuggling” which has been introduced into the Bosnia and Herzegovina Criminal Code was already in conformity with the Palermo Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air and was further improved last year, have created good prerequisites for the criminal prosecution of human smugglers and their accomplices in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Scores of charges are brought yearly on the basis of reports on crimes of human smuggling. It is also interesting to note that the police in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina has so far recorded only one case indicating trafficking in persons for the purpose of labour exploitation, i.e. a slavery-like relationship, where the victim was an immigrant from Kosovo working in a fellow countryman’s pie shop in Gorazde.

Presentation of Report

SALIHA DJUDERI, Acting Assistant Minister in the Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, hoped this two-day meeting would be fruitful, so that the conclusions of this Committee could act as a guideline for the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina in implementing the Convention.

Turning to the state of affairs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ms. Djuderi said that at this moment, concerning constitutional issues, slight progress had been made with regard to Brèko District. It concerned the Constitution as an integral piece of the Dayton Peace Accords. The Dayton Peace Accords had established the two entities – the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska – with a high degree of administrative independence. The Brèko District had also been established with a high degree of functional independence and the latest amendments to the Constitution had defined its status constitutionally; it would retain a great degree of autonomy, with Bosnia and Herzegovina as the overall sovereign entity.

The constitutional reform processes had begun, Ms. Djuderi continued. Strong progress had been made in the process of the reform of the areas of security and the judiciary, including the police. Bosnia and Herzegovina was also continuing its progress towards European Union integration. It should be noted that the current constitutional structure presented considerable difficulty in fulfilling those goals. They were trying to speed up the process of harmonization of the legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the acquis communitaire of the European Union. It was also worth noting that Bosnia and Herzegovina gave the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms constitutional rank.

DRAGUTIN ÈEGAR, of the Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees, highlighted that Bosnia and Herzegovina was among the few European countries to have acceded to and ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. They believed this to be positive, since in most cases the majority of countries worldwide, in particular those that were better off and had the greatest number of migrant workers – and among them, Bosnia and Herzegovina – did not pay due attention to this issue. In that way certain countries, notably those with large numbers of migrant workers, contributed – directly or indirectly – to the deepening of gaps in the exercise of the rights of migrant workers and members of their families with respect to vital questions, primarily relating to their employment, creating conditions for the provision of housing, education for their children, health care, freedom of movement, of assembly, and the right to join trade unions.

In the preparation and drafting of the initial report, Bosnia and Herzegovina had tried to reply as much as possible according to the Committee's guidelines and had therefore set up a working group consisting of 35 members from across the country, containing representatives of both Entities, as well as of the Brèko District. They had sought to ensure representation from the competent State-level and Entity-level ministries directly dealing with labour and employment issues, particularly for foreign workers, as well as those from the competent administrative organizations and agencies. Representatives of the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions and Trade Unions of the Entities and of Brèko District, representatives of the Association of the Private Employers of the Republika Srpska and others also participated in the working group. Mr. Èegar also wished to emphasize, in particular, the good cooperation with representatives of the non-governmental sector, who had been instrumental in designing and drafting the report from the very beginning by participating in seminars and by way of a specially organized public hearing.

Questions Raised by Committee Experts

AZAD TAGHIZADET, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Bosnia and Herzegovina, began by noting that the representative composition of the delegation sent by Bosnia and Herzegovina showed that the State party took seriously its obligations under the Convention, which the Committee welcomed.

Of course, the Committee recognized the difficulties facing Bosnia and Herzegovina, in particular the complex structure of the State, which raised specific issues. While overall migration questions were dealt with by the federal Government, other questions related to migrant workers, such as employment, were regulated by subsidiary structures of the State. In the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Brèko District and the Republika Srpska the situations were not exactly the same. He understood that there was a coordinating structure at the State level. However, Mr. Taghizadet wondered if they had worked out any generally accepted mandatory programme that reflected the policy of Bosnia and Herzegovina in questions of implementation of the Convention?

Still on the issue of coordination, was there any overarching body to gather information and statistics on migrants and migratory flows, as well as to analyse them, Mr. Taghizadet asked?

Turning to issues surrounding emigrants, Mr. Taghizadet recalled that some 1.5 million of the citizens of the country were abroad. The Committee would appreciate more information about what structures worked with them and which body was responsible for protecting the rights of those Bosnia and Herzegovina citizens. Also, what was the situation with regard to voting for migrants outside of the country, as well as the procedure for returning to the country, which as everyone knew presented difficulties.

Mr. Taghizadet also asked for details of the procedures for obtaining work permits and what documents were required. In addition, how were work permits and residence permits coordinated, i.e., were the various authorizations and conditions coordinated between the different State structures, both horizontally and vertically?

Another area of concern was that of education, and Mr. Taghizadet asked how the rights of children of migrant workers to education were guaranteed, including details of the languages of instruction and what the procedure was for gaining access to education for such children.

JOSÉ S. BRILLANTES, the Committee Expert serving as co-Rapporteur for the report of Bosnia and Herzegovina, continuing with observations and questions for the delegation, welcomed the fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina was one of the few countries in the world to have acceded to the three core international conventions in the area of migrant workers – the United Nations Convention, as well as ILO Conventions Nos. 97 and 143.

Mr. Brillantes understood from the report that the responsibility for migrant workers had been transferred from the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees to the Ministry of Security. He was therefore a bit confused about the composition of today's delegation, and the fact that the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees was leading the delegation and not the Ministry of Security. Had the transfer gone smoothly? He would appreciate some clarification.

Mr. Brillantes asked whether there was a national strategy for combating irregular migration. Also, what was high-risk migration, as mentioned in the report, and was that still a risk facing Bosnia and Herzegovina?

More information would also be appreciated on the “Ilareia” and "Hera" programmes mentioned in the report, as well as on whether migrant workers had equal access to health care as other citizens.

Mr. Brillantes asked if the Government regulated recruitment agencies for migrant workers as well as information on the fee structures for such recruitment, if any.

Finally, Mr. Brillantes asked what the effects of the global economic crisis had been on migration flows both into and out of the country.

Other Experts then asked questions and for more details on a number of issues, including more details on a reportedly heavy traffic in women and girls in Bosnia and Herzegovina and why the prosecution rates for such crimes were so low; clarification of the categories of "non-nationals" and "non-citizens" as those terms were used in the report, and whether "non-citizens" were equivalent to migrants; waiting times for appeals by migrants against expulsion orders; what "withdrawal of citizenship" exactly entailed; whether work permits were free, and whether they could be revoked or annulled; and what the situation of migrant workers was with regard to trade union membership.

Other concerns expressed by Experts included that migrants could be treated differently depending on where they were in the country; an apparent contradiction in the report as to whether there were, or not, any special regulations providing for employment of non-citizens and stateless persons; details of regional cooperation in combating human trafficking; what efforts were being made to strengthen ties with Bosnia and Herzegovina's émigré community abroad; a low level of complaints by migrant workers taken to the courts, and whether that indicated a high level of complaisance or merely a lack of awareness by migrants of their rights; and, finally, noting that a high level of cases brought by migrants had been "resolved", asked for further information about what such "resolutions" entailed.

Response by the Delegation

Responding to questions put by Experts, with regard to the complex State structure in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the delegation explained that the General Framework Agreement for Peace contained the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which defined the two Entities. That Constitution was applicable throughout the territory, but guaranteed a good deal of autonomy for the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska. Brèko District also had its statutes, while in the State there were an additional 10 cantons that could have their own constitutions. However, that did not prevent the applicability of the provisions of international treaties throughout the country. It was true that the situations were not strictly the same at all the levels, but that did not mean that the main framework for the protection of human rights was not regulated in the same way throughout the country. Moreover, there had been decisions taken at the State level ordering lower levels to harmonize their laws.

It was true that, in areas such as education, health care and social welfare, those were treated differently in different parts of the country, the delegation said.

Regarding the transfer of powers from the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees to the Ministry of Security, the delegation said that the Ministry of Human Rights had been set up in 2000, whereas the Ministry of Security had been set up in 2003. The powers that had been transferred regarded only the movement and stay of aliens, while other powers, such as the responsibility for the monitoring, promotion and protection of human rights, remained with the Ministry of Human Rights. That Ministry was responsible for preparing reports to human rights bodies. Persons could also lodge complaints of violations of their human rights either directly with the Ministry or with the Human Rights Ombudsman.

Concerning protections for children of migrant workers, and in particular birth certificates, the delegation said that after the war the Government had identified certain groups which had difficulty in obtaining identification documents, largely minorities, and particularly the Roma. There had been no problems in past years with migrant workers in trying to obtain appropriate documentation for their children. Since the establishment of the Ministry of Security, that process had been brought fully in conformity with the law.

With respect to education of children of migrant workers, there were no specific problems regarding enrolment of such children, although there was no specific legislation within Entity legislation in that regard. Primary education was free and most children, including those of migrant workers, had not had any problems with regard to access to primary and secondary education. At higher levels, it was a completely different question, given budgetary constraints. However, that did not mean that children of migrant workers could not apply including for scholarships. They had not received any complaints from migrant workers with regard to access to education for their children.

Regarding the right to work, the Law on Employment in Bosnia and Herzegovina Institutions set out the requirements throughout the country, and regulated the conditions in the Entities. The Work and Employment Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina was also responsible for Entity and cantonal ministries, and institutions of the Brèko District, as well as for gathering and coordinating employment statistics for the whole country. They also monitored the implementation of ILO conventions.

The delegation reported that the total annual quota for work permits in Bosnia and Herzegovina was 2,580, while the annual quota for new employment of aliens in Bosnia and Herzegovina was 835.

Concerning international labour activities, the fourth employment conference of employment agencies in southeast Europe was currently being held in Sarajevo, the delegation said.

Employment statistics – which would show changes in labour flows since the global economic crisis started – were available and would be provided to the Committee. These were extremely up-to-date, as statistics for March 2009 would be available at the end of this month.

Aliens were not unequally treated in Brèko District because, although they lacked legislation itself in this area, that meant that the State Law on Non-Citizens’ Movements, Residence and Asylum were applicable, the delegation explained.

Regarding issuing of work permits, applicants had to present a number of documents including a health certificate, a certified copy of their passport and a proof of residence; a work permit would be issued if there were no unemployed persons registered in that district, or if those who were unemployed could not take that job, the delegation said.

To obtain a residence permit, there were two main avenues. First, one could apply to a diplomatic or consular mission abroad. That method was little used, however. The second was for foreigners to apply upon their arrival in the country to the competent office for alien affairs within the Ministry of Security. There had been complaints that the procedure required excessive paperwork, but after reviewing the process it had been found that no changes could be made. Among documents required were the work permit, a health certificate, accommodation insurance, and health insurance. There also had to be an absence of reasons excluding the issuance of the permit, such as being on a United Nations list or having committed a crime. The fee was about 5 euros for the permit and around 50 euros for the sticker.

Appeals could be made to decisions on issuance of permits, within two weeks of the decision taken, and the applicants could remain in the country legally until that appeal was decided, the delegation added.

On the issue of the Bosnian Diaspora, official State statistics said there were 1.35 million persons, whereas the World Bank set the figure at closer to 1.5 million. At any rate, those living outside the country represented either one third or more of the country. The Bosnian Diaspora was a highly educated and trained work force with some 40 per cent of them holding a post graduate degree. Remittances of those living abroad were so large, that one third of the foreign trade debt of Bosnia and Herzegovina was covered by them, and the families left behind were largely dependent on those remittances.

The Bosnian Diaspora was also one of the best integrated in the world in their host countries. Some 95 per cent of them had resolved their status in their host countries, with regard to work and residence permits and the education of their children. Many of them had become citizens of their host countries.

As for organization of these communities, the delegation said that there were a number of associations and clubs, but that had presented some problems because those clubs and associations were done on ethnic lines. As for assistance from the Government to the members of the Diaspora, the Ministry of Human Rights had some competency, as well as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, only 1 per cent of children of Bosnians abroad had access to education in their mother tongue.

Regarding voting for those living abroad, the delegation said that the Government was not satisfied with the percentage of those currently participating. In 1996, some 450,000 members of the Diaspora had participated in elections, whereas in 2006 only 20,000 had voted. It had therefore been decided to amend the elections law to enable the members of the Diaspora to vote more easily, including through providing for electronic voting.

As for associations of migrant workers in the country, there were 23 associations of foreign nationals within Bosnia and Herzegovina and 10 more minority associations. Those associations also included foreign migrant workers.

Further Questions by Experts

AZAD TAGHIZADET, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Bosnia and Herzegovina, said that he understood that there was a difference at different levels of the State structure with regard to the registration of foreigners and their rights to education, etc. He would therefore appreciate further details of those differences. He would also appreciate details of how a migrant worker in an irregular position could regularize their position, in each of the Entities and in the Brèko District?

Regarding holding of irregular migrants, how were such decisions taken and what facilities existed to hold them, Mr. Taghizdet asked.

Which social rights were enjoyed by migrant workers and to what degree were they equal to those of citizens, in particular with regard to social security and social protection. Did migrant workers pay into an unemployment scheme that they could benefit from, for example, Mr. Taghizdet asked?

How were the rights of Roma migrant workers provided for, he asked?


An Expert asked, concretely, how did they ensure the promotion and respect for the cultural identity of migrant workers.

On nationality, the delegation had spoken about countries such as Germany or Austria where migrants had to give up their nationality if they were to obtain German or Austrian nationality. What was the position of Bosnia and Herzegovina with regard to such situations? Were those persons still considered to be citizens, an Expert asked?


For use of the information media; not an official record

CMW09008E