AMNESTY IN THE B&H FEDERATION

THE WORLD WILL NOT FALL APART IF THE LAW IS BYPASSED

AIM Sarajevo, 5 May, 1998

Recently the Communal Council of Vogosca (one of the reintegrated Sarajevo communes) revoked juror's mandate of Milovan Poropat from Vogosca in the Cantonal Court in Sarajevo. In the brief explanation of his act the President of the Communal Council of Vogosca, Eset Muracevic said that Milovan Poropat was not suitable to be a juror because he was a soldier of the Army of Republic of Srpska! Muracevic did not allow the fact that the Law on Amnesty was one of the first laws promulgated after the Dayton Accords, confuse him in the least. For, the "enemy" was everyone who did not belong to his party - Party of Democratic Action (SDA).

Else, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, Poropat was a candidate on the joint list for the mentioned function, and after divesting Poropat of the mandate, the Communal Council of Vogosca appointed another candidate (again from the joint list, as it had no other choice), but this time a lady that had no chance of participating in the war as a soldier. Commenting on the mentioned events, Muracevic said "that it was not the end of the world that another candidate, also from the joint list, was appointed, but that it was a fact that Poropat was a member of the aggressor's army and not a fabrication. It was a product of his real war biography". True, it was not the end of the world - as Muracevic said - but it was the end of the Law on Amnesty which his party leader Alija Izetbegovic, had signed.

Interestingly, no one mentioned this affair, except for the Union of the Social-Democrats of Bosnia and Herzegovina - UBSD (whose member Poropat is) and the communal organizations of Vogosca (where Poropat lives) and Ilidza (where the UBSD has an active member in the Council for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms). What is even more interesting the violation of the Law on Amnesty in this case was recorded only by the Sarajevo daily "Oslobodjenje", and only on its city pages, and the "Tribina" (Forum) which gives letters to the editor. The basic organizations of the UBSD of Ilidza and Vogosca exchanged letters concerning the "Poropat case" with President of the Communal Council of Vogosca Eset Muracevic. A lonely battle of one opposition party in letters to the editor against the ruling authorities which undertook to implement in practice the Peace Agreement, was doomed to fail before it started.

Whether the "Poropat case" is a rare instance of the violation of the Law on Amnesty in the B&H Federation is hard to say because the media space is obviously closed for such instances. Already in 1996, in accordance with the obligations undertaken by the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords, the Federal Parliament had adopted a Declaration, i.e. the entity Law on Amnesty "of all refugees and displaced persons against whom criminal proceedings have been instituted in connection with war operations". In accordance with Article 6 of the Annex thereto (Agreement on the Refugees and Displaced Persons) amnesty was granted for all criminal acts, except for those considered "to be grave violations of the international humanitarian law", or more precisely, all acts that are not considered war crime according to standards of the Hague Tribunal for War Crimes, or criminal acts which are not connected with the war conflict. This Law, which "specifically regulates amnesty and procedure for granting it", was adopted six months after the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords, at the time many thought it was too early for something like that.

As a matter of curiosity, it should be mentioned that on the very day the act on amnesty was adopted, a shell was thrown on a Sarajevo tramcar from the positions held by the Army of the Republic of Srpska, killing one and wounding 15 people. However, despite such turn of events, the amnesty came into force. At that time some analysts were inclined to claim that such a law, adopted under the pressure of the international community, was yet another proof that Bosnia and Herzegovina was under the protectorate. On the other hand, others argued that there could be no return of the refugees and displaced people, and consequently no reintegration of Bosnia and Herzegovina, without to soonest possible adoption of such a law.

Let us recall that during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina "general military mobilizations" have been declared several times which applied to all citizens, especially men from 18 to 65 years of age. Those who managed to secure the powerful document called "appointment to working duty" - which signified that the person in question was appointed to one of the rare firms which were still working - could easily avoid the mobilization call-up. That was probably one of the most absurd elements of the Bosnian and Herzegovinian defence system - such a large number of men employed in civil services which were absolutely needless in war time and when the entire country was paralysed. (At the same time, an enormous number of women were on "waiting lists" - either unnecessary or redundant.) Those who succeeded in obtaining these papers were mostly people close to the ruling political parties or someone in power and, as it turned out later, they were quite numerous. Those few who did not manage to get the "working appointment papers", but neither wanted to answer the mobilization call-up, were mostly court-martialed in the then Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

These were mostly citizens of Serbian nationality living on the territory controlled either by the SDA or a religious group that condemned military activities, i.e. the use of arms, such as the Adventist religion. For such cases the envisaged punishment ranged from one year in prison to death penalty, but it is known for a fact that, fortunately, the latter was never pronounced. Very few were those who served their sentence to the end because in most cases the Red Cross intervened offering the convicted person a choice of either serving his full sentence and after that continuing life on the same territory or being exchanged for prisoners "from the other side" (who wanted the same).

After this came the Dayton Agreement and obligations resulting from it. Laws on amnesty were adopted in both entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but were not quite identical. The Federal Law regulated all criminal acts committed before December 14, 1995. These included criminal acts of "inciting to resistance" from Article 201 of the Criminal Law, which was not the case in the Law on Amnesty of the Republic of Srpska. The Federal Law was also applicable to persons who had avoided the draft, as well as those who had deserted from their combat units, which again, was not the case with the Law of the Republic of Srpska.

In other words, while acting in the interest of the local (SDS) authorities, the legislator in the Republic of Srpska tried to obstruct the return of such persons (majority of drafted men in the Republic of Srpska were minority members of so that this served as another form of ethnic cleansing), the legislator in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, also in the service of the ruling structures, tried to protect himself, because according to most people, there were too many who secured "work duty appointments" in this entity, but also too many draft evaders or those who deserted from their units and fled abroad. At the same time, in this way the Federal side scored points with the international community for being more cooperative and inclined to reconciliation, which is the reason why there are no records on possible violations of the Law on Amnesty in the B&H Federation, and it can be assumed that there are few.

The Helsinki Committee for Human Rights for Bosnia and Herzegovina didn't receive a single complaint in this connection. At the same time, in its regular annual report for 1997, the Office of the Federal Ombudsman didn't explicitly mention a single case of violation of this law in any of the Federation's Cantons. It therefore seems unjustified that not a single institution or party - except for the UBSD - reacted to the earlier mentioned Poropat case, all the more as one of the participants in the debate about the dismissed juror openly said that since Poropat's replacement was ignored it meant that "all citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina who stayed in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and once were members of the Army of Republic of Srpska, are second class citizens".

"But, that could mean that all citizens, refugees from the Republic of Srpska, members of the B&H Army, will also be second-class citizens when they return to the Republic of Srpska", wrote that same author concluding that the citizens of Vogosca were not aware what they have voted for by revoking Poropat's mandate.

It is generally agreed that the Dayton Peace Agreement is far from perfect, but at the time of its adoption represented a compromise and acceptable solution. As such it should be positively interpreted and implemented, as it is too late to change it. In any case, amnesty is the integral part of the conclusion of every war so that it should not be turned into a problem, but rather implemented. Avoiding its implementation on the territory of the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina would be running one's head into a noose which, as a rule, begins in one entity and ends in another. Naturally, the question is whether the ruling national cliques, which have (joint) responsibility for the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, actually want some kind of "semi-amnesty" which would depend on the national or party suitability.

Rubina CENGIC

(AIM SARAJEVO)