| The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001. Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date. This site is not updated so external links may no longer function. Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein. |
TITLE: CROATIA HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES, 1993
DATE: JANUARY 31, 1994
AUTHOR: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
CROATIA
The Republic of Croatia declared its independence from the
former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1991. The
Yugoslav National Army (JNA), assisted by paramilitary forces
from Serbia/Montenegro and from Serb-inhabited areas of
Croatia, then attacked Croatia, ultimately establishing control
over a quarter of Croatia's territory. A cease-fire went into
effect in January 1992. The February 1992 peace plan,
negotiated by former U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and
approved by the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) as Resolution 743,
aimed at normalizing life in the Serb-occupied areas through a
multistage process including demilitarization, the return of
displaced persons, reconstitution of police forces based on
prewar ethnic proportions, and negotiations leading to
reintegration of the areas into Croatia. The United Nations
Protection Force (UNPROFOR) was deployed in March to serve as
peacekeepers and implement the Vance Plan. The areas of
Croatia seized during the war were designated U.N. Protected
Areas (UNPA's) and identified as Sectors North, South, East,
and West. Adjacent to some UNPA's are "Pink Zones,"
Croatian-controlled territory in which UNPROFOR has a limited
peacekeeping role.
The UNSC extended UNPROFOR's mandate six times in 1993,
including Resolution 801, which for the first time identified
the UNPA's as "integral" parts of the Republic of Croatia. The
most recent UNPROFOR mandate extension, UNSC Resolution 871,
expires on March 31, 1994. Little progress was made in
implementing the Vance Plan in 1993. The 15,000-troop UNPROFOR
mission was not able to prevent the outbreak of armed conflict
between Croats and Serbs in January and September, as well as
the almost daily shelling of Zadar and other areas along the
Dalmatian coast from the Serb-controlled areas of the UNPA's.
Apart from the above exceptions, UNPROFOR's presence
significantly abated the fighting in the UNPA's. UNPROFOR,
however, was unable to demilitarize the UNPA's or begin
repatriating persons displaced from their homes in the UNPA's.
Although JNA forces left Croatia by the end of 1992, the UNPA's
(except for part of Sector West) were under the control of
heavily armed, aggressive Serbian elements, defying UNPROFOR
and continuing the "ethnic cleansing" of non-Serbs.
Two major outbreaks of fighting occurred in 1993. The Croatian
army in January launched an offensive to reestablish road
connections between northern and southern Dalmatia by seizing a
key area around Maslenica. In September Croatian forces
launched a second offensive to capture several Serb-held
villages near Medak, allegedly in retaliation for Serbian
mortar fire against the town of Gospic. They destroyed 11
Serbian villages and killed at least 67 Serbs, including
civilians. In October the Government suspended several
officers pending an investigation. Serbian forces responded
with rocket and artillery attacks against Karlovac, several
Zagreb suburbs, and the Sisak oil refinery, killing many
civilians. (See also Section 1.g.)
The Constitution provides for a parliamentary system headed by
a president invested with considerable powers. Dr. Franjo
Tudjman, elected President in August 1992, is in the second
year of a 5-year term. He serves as the Chief of State, chairs
the influential National Defense and Security Council, and
appoints a Prime Minister who leads the Government. Dr.
Tudjman's party, the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), holds a
majority of seats in both houses of Parliament.
The Ministry of Defense oversees the armed forces, which
include an army, a small air force, a small navy, and a
national guard reserve. The President is armed forces
commander in chief. The Ministry of Interior manages the
police. The once formidable Office for the Defense of the
Constitution was disbanded in 1993. Some of the office's
functions were incorporated into the Interior Ministry, and
some were subsumed by a new National Intelligence Service. The
armed forces were guilty of violations of humanitarian law
during the year. Law enforcement agencies were criticized for
severe human rights abuses.
In the occupied UNPA's, "authorities" of the self-proclaimed
and internationally unrecognized "Republic of Serbian Krajina
(RSK)" controlled all military and police functions. The
Krajina Serb forces, numbering some 15,000-18,000 men, were
organized into an army and various "police" forces, with large
amounts of weaponry at their disposal. These forces were
heavily augmented from time to time by "volunteers" provided by
the Government of Serbia/Montenegro and by Serbian criminal
warlords from other parts of the former Yugoslavia. In the
immediate aftermath of both the Maslenica and Medak pocket
incidents, the authorities in Serbia were reliably reported to
have dispatched substantial numbers of "volunteers" to Sectors
North and South to fight against the Croats. The firing of the
FROG rockets on Croatian cities in September is almost certain
to have been carried out with at least the implied consent of
Serbian authorities. More fundamentally, Sectors North and
South, as well as the southern portion of Sector West, are
economically cut off from trade or supply with or from any
source except Serbia--via the northern corridor--or, for
certain items, the Bosnian Serbs. All these forces were
directly involved in a continuing pattern of serious human
rights abuses against non-Serbian populations as well as other
Serbs.
According to statistics compiled by the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), as of October 1993, there
was a total of 247,000 Croatian and other non-Serbian displaced
persons coming from areas under the control of the "RSK" and
254,000 Serbian displaced persons and refugees from the rest of
Croatia, an estimated 87,000 of whom were inhabitants of the
UNPA's.
The aftereffects of the 1991 war, the massive refugee burden,
the spillover from the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the absence
of significant international financial assistance, the loss of
export markets in the former Yugoslavia, and other factors
continued to stymie Croatian economic recovery. The Government
made little progress toward privatization and a free market
economy. Inflation ran at 25 to 30 percent per month until a
stabilization program was introduced in October, and the
average standard of living stood at less than 50 percent of its
pre-1991 level.
There were continued serious human rights abuses in areas of
Croatia under government control in 1993, although physical
violence against Serbs declined. Abuses occurring near
frontline areas were aimed at citizens of Serbian nationality
and included killings, disappearances, physical abuse, illegal
detention, harassment, destruction of property including house
bombings, loss of employment, and summary eviction from
dwelling units. Other human rights problems included
limitations on freedom of the press, arbitrary detention, and
discrimination against minorities, especially Serbs.
In the Serb-controlled portions of the UNPA's, there was no
evident commitment to ending human rights abuses against
Croats, Hungarians, Slovaks, and other non-Serbs. Some of the
Krajina Serb "authorities" continued to be among the most
egregious perpetrators of human rights abuses against the
residual non-Serb population, as well as Serbs not in agreement
with nationalistic policy. Human rights violations included
killings, disappearances, beatings, harassment, forced
resettlement, or exile--all part of the systematic campaign of
"ethnic cleansing" designed to ensure Serbian dominance of the
areas.
Following the UNSC's establishment of a War Crimes Commission
in 1992 to investigate possible war crimes, the UNSC in
February 1993 passed a resolution to create a War Crimes
Tribunal. By year's end, all the judges had been sworn in, and
a chief prosecutor had been appointed. The Tribunal is to
assess the culpability of alleged perpetrators of atrocities
and to issue a comprehensive report on violations of human
rights and humanitarian law. From September 1992 through June
1993, the United States Government submitted to the United
Nations eight separate reports summarizing thousands of
instances of killings, torture, rape, impeding deliveries of
food and medical supplies to civilian populations, mass
forcible deportations of civilians, and other violations of
humanitarian law. In addition, the U.S. Government provided
the United Nations with 400 refugee reports totaling over 1,000
pages. Illustrative examples of these abuses appear in
appropriate sections of this report.
This section of the Country Reports addresses human rights
within the territory of Croatia. Croatian responsibility for
human rights abuses on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina
is addressed in the report on Bosnia and Herzegovina.
RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including
Freedom from:
a. Political and Other Extrajudicial Killing
Compared to 1992, there were fewer substantiated reports of
politically motivated or other extrajudicial killings in 1993.
One controversial murder case was resolved on October 13 when
four policemen were convicted of the 1991 killing of Croatian
Party of Rights (HSP) Vice President Ante Paraga. They
received jail sentences of from 5 to 7 years. However, the
December 1992 murder of former trade union leader Milan
Krivokuca remains unsolved despite reported continuing police
investigation.
Killings continued to occur in the UNPA's as part of the
Belgrade-backed Serbs' program of "ethnic cleansing." In
Sector South, for example, an elderly Croat woman who refused
to flee the area was found with a meat hook through her neck
and hand. Krajina Serb elements are credibly reported to have
planted a bomb which killed 3 Croatian policemen and wounded 18
others on September 8 in Pakrac.
In October a U.N.-sponsored forensic team, with the cooperation
of the Croatian Government, excavated a mass grave site in
Sector West thought to contain corpses of Serbs murdered during
the 1991 fighting. Nineteen bodies were exhumed. All but two
suffered gunshot wounds to the head. The Government opened
criminal investigations, but by year's end no charges had been
submitted to the court. The same forensic team attempted to
excavate a mass grave at Ovcara near Vukovar but was prevented
from doing so by Serbian obstructionism. (Some critics claimed
that if UNPROFOR had asserted the right of the forensic team,
the excavation would have been allowed.) This site is believed
to hold the remains of over 170 wounded Croatian soldiers who
had been taken from Vukovar hospital when the city fell and
summarily executed by JNA troops.
b. Disappearance
There were fewer reported new cases of missing persons in 1993,
but there was little progress in solving previously reported
cases. The Croatian Government's Office for the Victims of the
War lists 7,857 persons "missing or forcefully disappeared in
the territory of Croatia" as of the end of 1993.
c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment
The Constitution prohibits torture or cruel or degrading
punishment. In practice, Croatian detention facilities
generally meet accepted standards of order and amenities. It
appears that treatment of combatants may also generally meet
international standards. Croatian prisons generally appear to
meet international standards of cleanliness and nutrition.
Prisoners receive regular meals, adequate if not appetizing.
Jails are crowded but not to excess Family visits and access
to counsel are available. Medical care is provided. There
were allegations of mistreatment and physical abuse of some
prisoners by guards.
Conditions in prisons within the Serb-controlled UNPA's are
reliably reported to be abysmal. Harsh treatment of non-Serbs
is commonplace and unpunished. There were reports of torture
and abuse in Serb-run prisons in the UNPA's. In a prison
compound in Knin, for example, 10 Croat prisoners were secretly
kept in a basement, without the knowledge of Red Cross
officials, and forced to sleep on concrete floors. One
released prisoner reported being beaten upon his arrival at the
prison and then being registered with the Red Cross 8 days
later. Prisoners at the compound were always kept inside and
fed only twice daily.
d. Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, or Exile
The Constitution contains provisions to protect the legal
rights of all accused, but there were credible reports of abuse
of pretrial and investigative detention. For example, nine
members of the Dalmatian Action Party, including the husband of
the party president, were placed in investigative detention
after being accused of bombing their own party office on
September 28. One of these detainees later was beaten by other
prisoners. All were released by the end of November.
Under Croatian law, police normally seek arrest warrants by
presenting evidence of probable cause to an interrogating
magistrate. A suspect may be arrested without issuance of a
warrant if police believe the suspect might flee, attempt to
destroy evidence, or commit other crimes. If the suspect is
arrested without a warrant, the police have 24 hours to inform
the local interrogating magistrate and must justify its
decision to arrest without a warrant.
After arrest, persons must be given access to an attorney of
their choice within 24 hours; if they have no attorney, one
will be appointed by the interrogating magistrate from a list
of public defenders. The interrogating judge must, within 3
days of the arrest, decide whether sufficient cause exists to
hold the arrestee in custody pending further investigation.
The judge must justify the decision in writing, including the
length of detention ordered. These decisions are appealable,
either immediately or later in the detention period. The usual
period of investigative detention varies from a few days to a
few weeks but by law may be as long as 2 years. Accused
persons have the right to have their attorney present during
the entire investigation as well as during any appeal against
investivative detention. In practice, arrestees are almost
always bound over for investigation unless it is clear no case
against them exists. Once the investigation is complete, the
usual practice is to release the accused persons on their own
reconizance pending trial, unless the crime is a major offense
or the accused is considered a public danger. There are no
provisions for posting bail, although police will sometimes
retain the accused's passport to prevent them from leaving the
country.
In the Serb-controlled areas of the UNPA's, virtually no
safegurds exist against arbitrary detention. The use of
detentions to intimidate non-Serbs continued in 1993. Even
politically moderate Serbs in the UNPA's were subjected to
arrest and harassment. Three such individuals, who were active
in an UNPROFOR-brokered dialog with the Croatian Government,
were imprisoned for a second time in 1993.
Exile is constitutionally prohibited. However, the Croatian
Helsinki Committee (a local oragnization with no links to
Helsinki Watch) asserted that since 1991 as many as 10,000
houses, many owned by Croatian Serbs, have blown up or razed.
In some cases, the residents were killed. In most cases,
Croatian Serbs fled the country (see Section 5).
Exile, in the form of "ethnic cleansing," was employed
aggressively and with the blessing of UNPA Serbian "officials"
against Croats, Hungarians, Slovaks, Czechs, and other
non-Serbs. For example, on July 19, 4 Croatian women were
expelled from Sector South, and, during the week of August 6,
16 Croats were forced out of Sector East. UNPROFOR estimates
that fewer than 400 Croats remain in Sector South. The leader
of the Democratic Union of Hungarians from Croatia stated on
June 28 that 8,000 citizens of Hungarian nationality had been
forced to flee to Hungary, largely from Sector East, while
another 2,000 had been displaced to other parts of Croatia
because of Serbian "ethnic cleansing."
e. Denial of Fair Public Trial
The Croatian legal system consists of municipal and district
courts, a Supreme Court, and a Constitutional Court. The High
Judicial Council (with a president and 14 members from all
parts of the legal community) appoints judges and public
prosecutors. The House of Parishes nominates persons for
membership on the Council, and the House of Representatives
elects members to 8-year terms. The judicial process is not
yet free of ethnic bias or political influence.
A defendant has the constitutional right to a fair trial by a
competent court, to attend the trial, and to be represented by
an attorney. The defendant must be informed of the charges and
the evidence against him and may not be forced to admit guilt.
Illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible. Counsel is
provided to indigent defendants.
In practice, the prosecuting attorney has leeway in deciding
whether to bring a case against an individual. In cases
considered "political," both the bringing of charges and the
conduct of trials may be subject to outside influence. The
arrest of leading members of the Dalmatian Action Party (see
Section 1.d.) and the case brought against Croatian Party of
Right (HSP) leader Dobroslav Paraga raised questions about the
Government's motivation. Paraga and other senior party
officials were brought to trial in 1993 for alleged activities
endangering the Croatian State committed in 1991 and 1992. The
charges arose from the fact that, when the war broke out, in
the absence of an organized Croat army at the time, various
groups formed paramililtary organs to fight the Serbs. One of
the most active of these was the HSP's "Croatian Liberation
Movement" or HOS, which operated in Slavonia (headquartered in
Osijek) and contributed to the defense of Vukovar. When
Croatia established its army, these groups were required to
become part of the Croatian army or disarm. Refusing to do so,
some HOS fighters continued to maintain their separate identity
(if not actual military operations) well into 1992. To compel
the dissolution of the HOS paramilitary forces, the Government
brought Paraga and his chief lieutenants to trial, even though
Paraga in the meantime had lost control of the "offical" HSP.
Paraga, new official HSP leader Ante Djapic, and HOS commander
Ante Djopic all were acquitted of the charges against them late
in 1993.
Observers have criticized cases of government prosecution of
Serbs under Section 236(f) of the Criminal Code, which
prohibits "rebellion," arguing that some have been convicted on
insufficient evidence. Tens of such trials took place in 1993,
with many of the accused tried in absentia. Virtually all the
accused were found guilty after trials before military courts.
Many of these summary convictions, however, have been quietly
expunged.
According to the U.N. Special Rapporteur of the Commission on
Human Rights, an ethnic Serb working for the United Nations was
arrested on September 1 on a charge of "armed rebellion,"
despite his having previously received clearance from the
Croatian police. The Special Rapporteur reported that no
indication of the specific accusation against him was given and
that his lawyer was denied access to any evidence or witnesses
against him. He was tried in camera by a military court and on
October 24 was released after being granted an "amnesty" for
his alleged activities.
The Special Rapporteur's field staff investigated the case of a
Croatian citizen of Serbian origin, arrested on December 12,
1992, in Zagreb on charges of having tortured Croatian
prisoners of war (POW's) in the Glina camp. On February 18,
the District Court of Zagreb found him guilty and sentenced him
to 12 years' imprisonment. although no substantial evidence was
produced against him. Furthermore, in spite of being convicted
as a civilian, he was exchanged under duress as a POW before
his appeal could be heard by the Supreme Court.
The six-court military legal system tries cases involving
members of the armed forces and national security matters.
Civilians may be tried in this forum on certain security
charges. Defendants have the same legal rights as those tried
in civilian courts.
Observers have decried the legal system in Serb-controlled
UNPA's as a sham, describing kangaroo courts which serve those
in power as operating with bias and prejudice and outside of
any semblance of the rule of law.
f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or
Correspondence
The Constitution declares homes inviolable. Only a court may
issue a search warrant, and justification for the search of a
home or other premises must be stated. Police may enter
without a warrant or the owner's consent only if necessary to
enforce an arrest warrant, apprehend a suspect, or prevent
serious danger to life or important property. In practice,
Croatian authorities do not always adhere to these
constitutional requirements. Throughout 1993, military police
carried out illegal evictions from state-owned apartments
without prior legal proceedings and in some instances using
excessive force. The Croatian Defense Ministry insisted that
it had inherited ownership of these properties, while tenants
often insisted on their right to the dwelling based on purchase
or sublease. The Housing Commission of the Ministry of Defense
often refused to address individual complaints. The military
police also apparently ignored court rulings for the
reinstatement of tenants. While authorities of the Housing
Commission acknowledged that illegal evictions took place, they
stated that many illegal evictions were committed by displaced
persons from the UNPA's who "take matters into their own hands"
and that the authorities "must demonstrate understanding for
those whose families have suffered from the Serbs," especially
"when it is well known that the tenants are active on the enemy
side."
The Constitution guarantees the secrecy and safety of personal
data, but it is unclear if such guarantees are adhered to in
practice.
Serbian "authorities" in the UNPA's showed no compunction in
interfering with the rights of non-Serbs. In Sector South,
UNPROFOR had to provide 24-hour protection for a small Croatian
village after local Serbian "authorities" announced they could
no longer "protect" the inhabitants from the depredations of
armed bands. A series of arrests of politically moderate UNPA
Serbs in September, ordered by certain Krajina Serb leaders,
reportedly included scores of violations of privacy rights,
including fire-bombings. Another serious abuse was the
practice of forced resettlement which the Krajina Serbs
continued to utilize in Sector East. They housed so-called
Serbian refugees with local non-Serb or mixed marriage families
against the occupants' will. After often severe harassment by
their "guests," the rightful occupants moved out, thus
"abandoning" their property to the Serbian immigrants. Ethnic
Croats remaining in the Serb-controlled areas of the UNPA's,
along with some Serbian native residents of these areas,
reportedly have become targets for the many gangs of criminals
which have emerged among the Serbian immigrant population in
the UNPA's, particularly Sector East.
g. Use of Excessive Force and Violations of Humanitarian
Law in Internal Conflicts
The January 1992 cease-fire between Croatian forces and the JNA
and other Serb-led forces was accompanied by a peace plan
negotiated by former U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance. This
plan aimed at normalizing life in the Serbian-occupied areas
through demilitarization, the return of displaced persons, the
reconstitution of police forces, and negotiations for the
reintegration of these areas into Croatia. The UNSC deployed
UNPROFOR as peacekeepers in four U.N. Protected Areas (UNPA's),
which were under the control of Serbian military and
paramilitary forces. No progress was made in implementing the
Vance Plan during 1993, and no general and complete cease-fire
was agreed upon.
Exchanges of fire and shelling between the Croatian army and
Serbian forces in the Krajina area continued along the
cease-fire lines at a low level throughout 1993. Krajina Serb
artillery attacks were a daily fact of life for many Croatian
communities near the cease-fire lines thoughout 1993. Two
major outbreaks of fighting occurred, with widespread loss of
civilian lives and destruction of property. In January the
Croatian army attacked Maslenica, in order to try to
reestablish a transportation link between the northern and
southern Dalmatian coast and attempted to drive Krajina Serbian
forces outside of artillery range of the area so that a bridge
to the coast road could be built. The Serbian forces responded
by stepping up their shelling of the bridgehead the Croats were
trying to secure and of neighboring Croatian areas. When the
fighting spread to the Peruca area, the Serbs critically
damaged the Peruca dam by setting off charges they had placed
in the dam many months earlier. Although the fighting caused
civilian, principally Serbian, casualties, there are no
reliable figures on either side.
The U.N. Special Rapporteur received reports of the deaths of
seven elderly ethnic Serb civilians who were found dead
following an attack by Croatian government forces against the
village of Mirlovic Polje in the UNPA Sector South on September
6. Four of the victims were reportedly executed, and three
were apparently burned to death.
In September, following reportedly sustained Serbian mortar
fire on Gospic from several Serb-held villages in the Medak
area, Croatian forces launched an attack to seize three such
villages whose inhabitants were predominantly Serb. This area
is situated in a "Pink Zone" near UNPA Sector South. After
negotiating a cease-fire and the withdrawal of Croatian forces,
the field staff of the U.N. Special Rapporteur reported that 67
bodies were recovered, while another 25 persons were missing.
Medical experts reported that several victims were shot at
close range. Some of the bodies were mutilated and showed
signs of possible torture, including serious burns. Most of
the victims appeared to be civilians, including a number of
elderly persons. At least nine were women, seven of them
elderly. None of the victims were children, and it was assumed
that they had been evacuated before the attack occurred.
Witnesses to the Croatian attacks reported that Croatian armed
forces shelled civilian targets and, upon entering the
villages, continued systematically to destroy the villages with
explosives, including grenades and mines. While denying the
charge of atrocities, Croatian authorities relieved the
military district commander and two subordinate commanders of
their positions and launched their own investigation. The
results had not been made public by year's end.
After this Croatian attack, Krajina Serbian forces dramatically
increased rocket and artillery attacks on several Croatian
cities and towns. They shelled downtown Karlovac for several
days, killing 7 and wounding 23 on September 10; they hit the
Zagreb suburb of Lucko, nearby Samobor, and Jastrebarsko with
rockets on succeeding days. They also shelled the Sisak oil
refinery on September 9. During this largely indiscriminate
shelling, dozens of civilians were killed, scores were injured,
and many houses and buildings were destroyed.
In addition to the deliberate shelling of the villages in the
Medak pocket, the Special Rapporteur received reports that
Croatian forces also engaged in deliberate shelling of civilian
areas in the villages of Baljci, Vrlika, and Biljane Gornje.
Krajina Serb forces continued a deliberate and indiscriminate
campaign of artillery attacks on major Croatian cities and
economic targets throughout 1993. There were numerous civilian
deaths and injuries and extensive damage to schools, hospitals,
and refugee camps, as well as houses and apartments. Gross
violations of human rights remained commonplace in the UNPA's.
Krajina Serb forces, operating with impunity and under the
direct guidance of Krajina Serb "authorities," were directly
implicated in a continuing series of murders, rapes, bombings,
and arson. The Serbian terrorist and wanted war criminal,
Zeljko ("Arkan") Raznjatovic, a member of the Belgrade
Parliament, operated in Sector East with the open support of
local "authorities," setting up terrorist training facilities
and a gas station and casino complex and traveling to and from
Serbia with no hindrance. On October 9, a party of 16 armed
"VIP (very important persons) guards" from Arkan's units forced
their way across the bridge from Serbia into UNPA Sector East.
UNPROFOR peacekeepers who were guarding the crossing were
beaten when they confronted the intruders, and three were
injured. UNPROFOR's protest to Serbia was not answered.
In the areas under the control of the "Republic of Serbian
Krajina," the organized and massive "ethnic cleansing" of
Croats and other non-Serbs is largely a fait accompli. A
climate of hostility and abuse against the few remaining ethnic
minorities exists, and they continue to leave the UNPA's.
Serbs who show any inclination toward or involvement in
reconciliation with Croats are considered spies and traitors
and are subject to harassment and intimidation by Serbian
"authorities."
In Sector South and the Pink Zones, home to 44,000 ethnic
Croats in 1991, there were reportedly only 1,161 ethnic Croats
by year's end.
On September 21, two former high-ranking members of the Knin
authorities were accused of cooperation with Croats and
arrested because of their participation in a social
reconstruction project cosponsored by the United Nations and a
nongovernmental organization. A Serb who was the manager of
the project was also arrested.
In UNPA Sector East, most of the Croats have been driven out,
and ethnic Hungarians, Slovaks, and Gypsies were threatened.
The Croatian population has dropped from 46 percent of the
total in 1991 to approximately 6 percent, whereas the Serbian
population increased from 34 percent to approximately 73
percent. The Hungarian population of the area dropped by
approximately 44 percent. There were reports of murder, rape
and pillage, as well as brutal beatings against the remaining
non-Serbs and the forcible recruitment of non-Serbs into the
armed forces. In several reported cases, those who refused
recruitment were beaten, imprisoned, and even killed.
Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:
a. Freedom of Speech and Press
The Constitution guarantees freedom of thought and expression,
specifically including freedom of the press and other media of
communication, speech and public expression, and free
establishment of institutions of public communication. The
Government continued significantly to limit the exercise of
certain of these rights. It used its ownership interest in
print media and its near monopoly over distribution to limit
media independence. The official Croatian news agency
sometimes issued distorted reports about the fighting in
Bosnia. In the Serb-controlled portions of the UNPA's, freedom
of speech and press virtually does not exist.
The Constitution states that "any call for or incitement to
war, or resort to violence, national, racial, or religious
hatred, or any form of intolerance shall be prohibited and
punishable." There is an active and vocal political opposition
which conducts a broad-ranging and open public debate in the
print media and occasionally in the electronic media.
Critics have charged, however, that local variations of slander
and false information statutes constitute an infringement of
free speech. One of the most prominent such cases in 1993
resulted in the conviction of an individual who claimed that
large numbers of Serbian civilians were being held in Croatian
POW camps. The defendant received a 6-month suspended sentence
after an on-site investigation by the Russian Ambassador and a
government team determined the charge was false.
The Croatian Helsinki Committee alleged that Croatian
authorities brought politically motivated legal proceedings
against top officials and activists of two minor opposition
parties, which the Committee feared demontrated a tendency to
inhibit political pluralism. Under various pretexts, these
cases were brought before the Military Solicitor's Office,
which resulted in a significant restriction on defendants'
rights. The head of the Military Solicitor's Office is also
the chairman of a political party, which means that he is
conducting trials of the chairmen or activists of rival
parties. Members of the Dalmatian Action Party were arrested
and accused of planting explosives on their own property.
Contacts with the detainees were not allowed, and the Helsinki
Committee reported that some of them were physically abused
(see Section 1.d.).
The Government controls all national television broadcasting
and all (save one) national radio stations and retains a
controlling interest in two of the four news dailies. Although
these state-controlled or heavily state-influenced media,
particularly the press, frequently carry reportage critical of
the Government, government control nonetheless ensures an
overall editorial slant generally favorable to the Government
and the ruling HDZ. The emergence of more independent mass
media is hampered mainly by the absence of a clear commitment
by the Government and the ruling party to that objective.
A few newspapers continued to guard their independence. Novi
List, a daily published in Rijeka, was privatized in 1993 and
asserted a strongly independent editorial line. The highly
popular, independent, semitabloid weekly Globus continued to
feature articles based on investigative journalism. The weekly
Nedjeljna Dalmacija retained widespread respect for its
independent orientation. A new intellectual bimonthly journal
entitled Erasmus, launched in May and financed in part by the
International Media Fund and the Open Society Foundation,
provided another forum for topical public debate of sensitive
political issues.
The irreverent satirical weekly, Feral Tribune, was
resurrected, although Feral's editor reportedly received a
lecture at the Ministry of Culture for the tabloid's
persistently crude, grossly personal attacks on Croatia's
President. In early 1994, the editor in chief, a reservist who
had already undergone military training, was confined to
barracks for several weeks after failing to respond to a
military callup. He appealed his induction and was released,
and the Government stated that an exemption from further
military service might be granted. Nevertheless, some
observers felt that the mobilization order was politically
motivated as it happened immediately after the Feral Tribune
ran a piece attacking Tudjman.
The Government's politically inspired decision to compel the
reprivatization of the respected Split daily Slobodna Dalmacija
generated criticism. The new owners fired a number of
prominent Slobodna journalists and shifted the paper's
editorial stance closer to the Government's position on certain
issues.
The President of the Croatian Journalists' Society complained
about the gap between the principle and practice of press
freedom and said that, while Croatia accepted the principle of
freedom of speech and information, in practice journalists were
attacked for their views when they differed from state
policies. For example, there were reports that military police
assaulted several journalists covering an attempted eviction,
dragging a female reporter away by her hair and hitting a
cameraman in the face. The President of the Society said that
privatization of the media was not leading to greater media
freedom. State purchase of shares allowed the Government to
continue to have a "controlling" voice in media. He also said
that the Government exploited the extremely weak financial
position of most newspapers to manipulate and pressure them.
His remarks were nonetheless reported by all the government-
controlled papers.
The International Federation of Journalists in March suggested
that Croatia's admission to the Council of Europe should be
delayed because it was "very concerned" about freedom of the
press in Croatia. The Federation specifically mentioned the
privatization process and the question of the approriateness of
having well-known ruling party members in charge of state
television and newspapers.
In May the Parliament responded to criticism from opposition
party spokespersons of the lack of media freedom by appointing
a five-person multiparty commission to investigate the
situation and report to the legislature at its next session.
By year's end, no report had been issued, but local press
reports indicated a seven-member council for protecting the
press was established in December.
International papers and journals remained available throughout
government-controlled areas.
Croatia has three major television channels, as well as
regional stations in Zadar, Rijeka, Split, and Osijek.
Zagreb-based Channels One and Two are part of the official
Croatian Radio and Television (HTV) enterprise. The third,
OTV-Youth Television, with a signal that reaches only the
capital district, has an uncertain legal status and operates at
the sufferance of the Government. Channel Two's popular, late
night HTV show, "Frame by Frame," continued to carry interviews
with major public figures as well as extensive replays of
Western television coverage of events in the former Yugoslavia.
HTV also began a periodic prime-time program featuring live,
face-to-face debates between senior government and opposition
figures, in which some of the most sensitive political issues
of the day were hotly debated.
There are private local radio stations operating under
provisional licenses in Croatia, but their legal status is open
to question in the absence of a national media law. Croatian
radio on at least eight occasions refused to broadcast
informational programs prepared by UNPROFOR. However, regular,
lengthy, unedited interviews of senior UNPROFOR figures were
prominently featured in the government-controlled and
independent press throughout the year.
Privatization of television and radio was a hotly debated topic
in 1993 and has yet to be implemented. A government draft
broadcast law providing for the allocation of radio and
television broadcast frequencies to new, private outlets is
pending in Parliament.
The House of Representatives' Committee for Human Rights and
National Minorities expressed its dissatisfaction with
television broadcasts on minorities. Members of the Committee
who represent minority groups in Parliament criticized the
television program for minorities "Prizma," which they
considered to be unfocused and of no use to minorities. They
proposed to Parliament that a minority representative be
included on the television administration board.
The Croatian Helsinki Committee in July issued its first
document about media freedom in Croatia, criticizing the
Government's policy regarding freedom of the media. The
document, presented to the Prime Minister, alleged that higher
taxes were imposed on private newspapers than on dailies owned
by persons connected to the Government. It said that the
Government's monopoly of distribution, sales, and printing of
newspapers hindered the development of a pluralistic press and
was an indirect form of censorship. For instance, it cited
different treatment of different papers regarding sales and
distribution and the lack of access to television advertising
as methods used to restrict the independence of newspapers. It
criticized the Government's failure to change the law that
establishes the State's monopoly on Croatian radio and
television and prevents the development of pluralistic private
electronic media. It pointed out that the Government violated
the Information Law, which prohibits a person with immunity
from charges of libel from being a chief editor, when both the
chief editor of the daily Vjesnik and the Director General of
Croatian Television are parliamentarians who are thereby immune
from libel suits. Finally, it criticized the Government's
failure to implement the law calling for democratic
institutions, such as the constitutionally mandated Court for
Human Rights and the Council for the Protection of Public
Information, established by the Information Law passed in April
1992. Among its recommendations, the Committee said the
process of privatizing the dailies Slobodna Dalmacija, Glas
Slavonije, and Vecernji List and the weekly Danas should be
reexamined. It also recommended the establishment of oversight
and coordination bodies to prevent discrimination, correct
irregularities, and secure equal treatment for all publications
on the market.
In the Serb-controlled areas of the UNPA's, martial law remains
in effect, and there are no guarantees of press and other
freedoms. Radio, television, and newspapers published
elsewhere in Croatia are available in the Croatian-controlled
portion of Sector West. In the Serbian-controlled UNPA areas,
Serbian papers, usually published in Belgrade, are generally
available, although the supply is sometimes sporadic. Lacking
a functioning civil government, these Serb-controlled UNPA
areas are effectively under martial law. There is one small
paper published weekly or bi-weekly in Serbian in the
Serb-controlled area of Sector North.
There are a few low-powered local radio stations broadcasting
from Serb-held territory in some of the UNPA's, and Croat radio
and television signals are received in these areas as well.
The Serbian "TV Krajina," whose studios are in Petrova Gora and
Knin, broadcast daily. Two other Serbian mobile studios also
operate out of Beli Manastir and Plitvice.
Academic freedom is generally respected in Croatia, but ethnic
considerations reportedly led to some dismissals of academics
of Serbian nationality. A recently enacted university reform
law established a revised curriculum and created a government
Council for Higher Education. There is apprehension within the
academic community about the effects of this measure on faculty
and programs.
b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association
The Constitution provides that all citizens shall be guaranteed
the right to peaceful assembly and association for the
protection of citizens' interests or the promotion of social,
economic, political, national, cultural, and other convictions
and objectives. Citizens may freely form, join, and leave
political parties, trade unions, and other associations. In
practice, the rights of peaceful assembly and association are
respected in Croatia. Permits are required for rallies but are
granted routinely.
During 1993, political parties, refugee associations, women's
groups, and others held peaceful rallies and demonstrations
without hindrance or incident. These rights are also granted
to other citizens, including members of the Serbian and Muslim
communities. In Serb-controlled areas, however, these rights
are not respected.
c. Freedom of Religion
There is no state religion. The Constitution guarantees
freedom of conscience and religion and free public profession
of religious and other convictions. All religious communities
are equal before the law and separate from the State.
Religious communities are free to conduct public services and
to open and run schools and social and charitable institutions.
Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and Islam are
the main faiths in Croatia. The majority of practicing Croats
are Roman Catholic. The Government provides an option of
Catholic religious education in schools. There is also an
active Jewish community in Croatia. The main mosque in Croatia
is located in Zagreb, where it serves not only as a religious
center but also as a social aid office. There are no formal
restrictions on religious groups. Croatian Protestants from a
number of denominations as well as foreign clergy actively
practice and proselytize in the country.
Religion was so closely identified with ethnicity that
religious institutions continued to be targeted. An Orthodox
Church in Osijek was damaged by an explosion. The regional
governor immediately deplored the attack and promised state
financial assistance to repair the damages. The Serbian
Orthodox cathedral in downtown Zagreb remained open, and
several other Orthodox churches and monasteries operated freely
in government-controlled northern Croatia. Although the
majority of the Orthodox clergy left at the start of the war in
1991, a few Orthodox priests, most of them retired, remained to
carry out religious duties.
Most Catholic churches in the Serbian-controlled UNPA's have
been destroyed. On December 24, the unoccupied residence of
the Serbian Orthdox Eparchy in Karlovac was blown up. The act
was immediately condemned by Cardinal Kuharic, the Croatian
Government, and the public. The identity of the perpetrators
is unknown. An investigation continued at year's end.
d. Freedom of Movement Within the Country, Foreign
Travel, Emigration, and Repatriation
The Constitution states that anyone who is lawfully in Croatia
has the right freely to move and choose a residence. Citizens
have the right to travel abroad, to emigrate, and to return
home. The right to enter or leave the country may be legally
restricted under exceptional circumstances, if necessary to
protect the legal order, health, rights, or freedom of others.
There are restrictions on freedom of movement for all
journalists and all male citizens from age 18 through 55, in
the cities and areas close to the demarcation lines (Osijek,
Karlovac, Zadar, and Sisak). The press has reported on such
restrictions. Journalists, as well as other individuals, must
request permission to enter the conflict zones. All males of
draft age must also request permission from the local
municipality draft board to travel abroad.
The Government imposed no significant restrictions on the
movement of refugees, displaced persons, or national minorities
already resident in Croatia, although there were several
confirmed instances of refoulement of Muslim refugees.
Regulations imposed in 1992 limiting the admission of new
Bosnian Muslim refugees to those with assured passage to third
countries remained technically in effect. In practice,
however, large numbers of new refugees from Bosnia, both Croat
and Muslim, entered and remained in Croatia in 1993.
As of October, according to government figures, there were
about 246,000 displaced Croats in Croatia and about 278,000
refugees from Bosnia, of whom about 190,000 were Muslim and the
rest ethnic Croats. Together, the refugees and the displaced
persons number about 520,000, of which 80 percent,
approximately 410,000, were lodged in private homes, and 20
percent, about 110,000, were in collective facilities such as
camps, resort hotels, old army barracks, and schools. On the
average, each day an additional 100 displaced persons and
refugees are added, a slight majority of whom are Muslims and
the rest Croats. An estimated 20,000 to 30,000 Bosnian Muslim
refugees were not registered with the Croatian authorities;
they were mostly men of draft age.
There were incidents of harassment and abuse, including
clandestine deportations by Croatian police into HVO hands, and
bombings of Muslim refugee centers, although these rarely
resulted in significant damage. There were allegations that
the police and other Croatian authorities frequently refused to
register newly arrived Muslim refugees from Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
To refurbish some tourist hotels in Dalmatia which had housed
Bosnian Muslim refugees for nearly a year, the Government
offered some 2,000 of these refugees either settlement in third
countries or relocation to facilities elsewhere in Croatia.
According to U.N. observers, many refugees were not happy at
having to leave the hotels, although there were no recorded
instances of forcible eviction. Some of them resettled abroad,
alleging that their departure from Croatia had not been
voluntary. U.N. officials indicated that none of these
refugees were forced to depart Croatia.
The Government's treatment of Muslim refugees and other Muslims
temporarily resident in Croatia became an issue as a result of
a government investigation and raid on certain Middle Eastern
relief agencies in Croatia in August. The police discovered
evidence that some persons were involved in activities
incompatible with their aid work status. This investigation
led to the deportation of scores of Bosnian and other Muslims,
which ended after the Government was criticized for illegally
deporting refugees.
On July 29, the field staff of the U.N. Special Rapporteur
received reports that Bosnian refugees in Zagreb, Samobor,
Split, Pula, Varazdin, and the island of Obonjan were being
expelled from Croatia to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Some 1,500
refugees were arrested in camps around the country towards the
end of July. Almost 500 were detained for alleged criminal
activity, and 120 were deported to Bosnia and Herzegovina, in
contravention of refugee conventions and commitments made by
the Government to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. In
one verified case, the civilian police arrested a large number
of refugees in Zagreb. The Croatian authorities explained that
they were conducting a police operation against "illegal"
refugees without documents. However, most of those arrested
had been previously registered by the Croatian authorities,
while others had appropriate UNHCR documents. Fifty-two
refugees were taken to the border with Bosnia and Herzegovina
where they were handed over to the Bosnian Croat (HVO) military
police and detained. The detainees, who were predominantly
Muslim, were told that they would be exchanged for Croats
detained by Bosnian government forces. There were reports of
abuse and torture in the detention center, as well as dangerous
labor on the front lines.
There continued to be isolated incidents of individual
expulsions by the Croatian police, especially in the area
adjacent to Herzegovina. For instance, on August 28, a Bosnian
Muslim was reportedly arrested by Croatian police in Trogir and
handed over to the HVO military police, although his documents
were in order. In general, however, the Government stopped
repatriating refugees after the UNHCR and foreign governments,
including that of the United States, publicly protested such
actions.
In the UNPA's, Serbian threats against the remaining non-Serb
population have produced a de facto coercive control situation
for those people. Practices in the UNPA's include strict
curfews, prohibition on the movement of clergy, strict limits
on travel between towns and the front lines, and forced
resettlement.
Despite the establishment of UNPA's in March 1992, the goals of
the Vance Plan were still not met by the end of 1993. Hostile
Serbian elements, sustained by links with the Serbian
Government in Belgrade, still control over one-fourth of
Croatia.
Section 3 Respect for Political Rights: The Right of Citizens
to Change Their Government
Croatia held multiparty presidential and parliamentary
elections on August 2, 1992. The Croatian Democratic Union
(HDZ) of incumbent President Dr. Franjo Tudjman won decisively,
and he was returned for a 5-year term. The President exercises
considerable power, authority, and influence but
constitutionally is limited to two terms. In April President
Tudjman appointed a new Prime Minister, Nikica Valentic, the
fifth since the spring of 1990.
In elections for the second chamber of the Parliament (the
House of Zupanije or Parishes), held in February, the HDZ again
won a majority of the seats, and five other parties also won
seats. These elections were generally regarded as free and
fair. Serbian "authorities" in the UNPA's refused to allow
residents to participate in these elections, just as they had
in the August 1992 balloting.
"RSK" authorities held elections in the UNPA's in December
which neither UNPROFOR nor any other international body has
recognized as legitimate. There were no international or other
unbiased observers present, making it difficult to judge the
degree of freedom in these elections or the presence of fraud.
In the key December race for the "RSK" presidency," no
candidate reportedly won more than 50 percent of the vote, so
runoff elections were scheduled for January 23, 1994.
There are no legal restrictions on participation by women or
minorities in the political process, but they are represented
in small numbers in Parliament, the executive branch, and the
courts. Six women hold seats in Parliament, including one who
serves as a vice president of the House of Representatives and
two others who lead opposition parties.
The federal election law provides for representation of all
minorities in Parliament, with proportional representation
guaranteed for any minority that makes up more than 8 percent
of the population. The Federal Election Commission designated
13 Serbs to "represent" the Serbian minority, who comprise 11
percent of the population. Eight of those 10 were elected as
members of the Croatian People's Party. The remaining three
parliamentarians were members of the Serbian National Party,
which was constituted to promote the particular interests of
Croatia's Serbs.
Section 4 Governmental Attitude Regarding International and
Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Violations
of Human Rights
Peace groups in Zagreb, Rijeka, and Osijek worked to prevent
forcible evictions and other human rights abuses in their
respective localities and brought their concerns to the
attention of the local and national authorities. Similar human
rights groups in Split, however, were harassed and intimidated
by local extremists, and some of their members had their
personal property vandalized or destroyed. A Croatian Helsinki
Committee was formed in 1993, and its members met on several
occasions with government officials to discuss human rights
concerns. The Serbian Democratic Forum in Zagreb and its
affiliate in Rijeka continued to document violations of human
rights against Serbs in Croatia. Other local human rights
nongovernmental organizations include, for example, the Human
Rights Committee of the Union of Serbs in Croatia. Both the
Serbian National Party (SNS) and the Social Democratic Union
(SDU) have human rights committees. All these have been
publicly and vociferously critical of the Government on
occasion, for example, on the subject of alleged ethnic
discrimination in the assignment of housing, as well as in
other areas where they felt human or civil rights were not
fully observed.
Senior government officials, including the President, have met
with international human rights experts and the local Helsinki
human rights group. The Government cooperated in the
excavation of suspected mass graves of Serbian victims of
atrocities and in discussions of the treatment of Muslim
refugees in Croatia. The Parliament's Human Rights Committee
also actively considered human rights and other social issues.
The Committee Chairman has defined the Committee's role as that
of "analyzing legislative proposals for their democratic
content before they are presented for legislative approval."
The Committee, for example, was instrumental in building into
the new law on registration of political parties criteria
demanding that any new groups seeking registration show they
are founded on "democratic values." It has also examined in
detail allegations that evictions from state-owned housing were
based on ethnic considerations. The Chairman also told the
press earlier in 1993 that, like the UNHRC itself, his
committee's mandate did not extend to consideration of
individual cases of alleged human rights abuse, although, he
said, more than 300 requests for such investigations had
reached the Committee since its founding in November 1992.
Serbian "authorities" in the UNPA's continued to obstruct
investigations into alleged violations of human rights by their
forces. In one egregious incident, Serbs prevented the
excavation of the suspected mass grave at Ovcara by a team of
United Nations experts.
When refugees were arbitrarily arrested and held for
repatriation during the summer, U.N. officials were initially
denied access to those arrested (see Section 2.d.)
In areas where fighting or military operations were taking
place, both Croatian and Serbian forces denied access to
international observers, although the field staff of the
Special Rapporteur was able to monitor human rights violations
both in areas under Croatian government control and those
controlled by the Serbs.
Section 5 Discrimination Based on Race, Sex, Religion,
Disability, Language, or Social Status
The Constitution specifies that all citizens shall enjoy all
rights and freedoms, regardless of race, color, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, property, birth, education, social status, or other
attributes. It adds that members of all nations and minorities
shall have equal rights in Croatia. One article provides for
special "wartime measures" but states that restrictions shall
be appropriate to the nature of the danger and may not result
in the inequality of citizens in respect of race, color, sex,
language, religion, or national or social origin.
Women
Violence against women reportedly increased in 1993. In
general, it was part of the larger picture of increasing
societal and family tensions as a result of economic
disruptions and the unsettling effect of the continued conflict
in occupied areas of Croatia. Women (and children) were
especially subjected to violence at the hands of men, including
demobilized soldiers, acting out their frustrations and
stresses. Womens' groups, however, are devoting more attention
to this issue, but there are social inhibitions against making
"family" issues a subject for the courts.
A center for the psychological and medical care of abused women
was founded in Varazdin for 30 women and their families. A
similar center was scheduled to be opened in Makarska,
Dalmatia. A center for urgent psychiatric and medical aid for
the victims of abuse was opened in Zagreb's Medvescak Medical
Center and includes a 24-hour "hot line" which reportedly is
well used. The French humanitarian organization "Medecins du
Monde" will also finance a program in Croatia for abused
mothers and their children.
The Croatian health service reportedly has established new,
special protocols to insure comprehensive and effective
treatment of female victims of rape, spousal abuse or other
violence which apply both to hospitals and to outpatient
clinics throughout the Republic. There are a number of other
centers and programs offering psychological and medical care
for abused women and others who have been traumatized or
tortured in the course of the war, offered both by local
institutions, voluntary agencies, and international
organizations. The list of agencies that are part of a working
group for social services and psychosocial services for those
affected by the war has some 48 entries, including the "Society
for Psychological Assistance," "Women's Help Now,"
"Evangelische Frauenarbeit," "The Center for Women War
Victims," "Marie Stopes International," and "Biser." In
November Tresnjevka opened its center to assist abused women.
Women do not face legal barriers or discrimination in
inheritance, marriage, family laws, and property rights.
Gender-based support groups are relatively new, but Zagreb and
several other large cities have started family crisis
associations. An association of the "Women of Vukovar," who
have missing relatives from the war in the east, and "Mothers
for Peace" are active and operate without hindrance.
Spousal abuse is present in Croatian society and is a subject
of considerable public interest, freely discussed. One of the
more popular late-night call-in radio programs here, for
example, frequently features abused spouses (or their
neighbors) calling in to present their problems. Local
newspapers in late 1993 reported in detail the case of the wife
of one of President Tudjman's physicians, who divorced her
husband following a beating so severe that several of her ribs
were broken. The police reportedly respond willingly to calls
from neighbors regarding domestic disputes, for example if the
neighbors indicate the likelihood that physical harm will
occur. A well-established procedure for prosecuting cases of
spousal abuse exists and is apparently effectively used, with
the usual result being payment of large damages by the abusing
spouse.
Educational and job opportunities are generally available
without regard to sex. Mothers are entitled to special
protection at work. "Special protection" means employed
mothers whose children become ill may, upon presentation of a
doctor's certificate to that effect, take paid leave (not
counted against their own vacation time) to care for the sick
child. Working mothers receive 180 days of paid leave after
the birth of a child and may take up to an additional 30 months
of unpaid leave without jeopardy to their employment. Pregnant
women, mothers of handicapped children, and nursing mothers
cannot be transferred to other work without their consent.
Mothers of handicapped children also have the right to work
only half-time (at half-pay, however) without jeopardizing
their employment. All these provisions are well established,
accepted by employers, and routinely observed.
Children
There is no documented pattern of societal abuse or
discrimination against children. Schools provide free meals
for children. Day nurseries are available in most communitites
even for infants and, while their primary purpose is to support
working single-parent mothers, they also provide an early
education and societal base for the children. Medical care for
children is free, as are prescription medications. They
receive obligatory periodic medical examinations without
charge. Children younger than 15 years are prohibited from
employment and, as noted in Section 6.d., safeguards apply to
the employment of children above that age.
National/Racial/Ethnic Minorities
Other sections of this report address serious human rights
abuses suffered by persons based on their nationality,
including cases of government abuse of ethnic Serbs.
Constitutionally, Croatian Serbs enjoyed the same protection as
other self-identified ethnic groups in the country. In
practice, however, there continued to be ever-present, subtle,
and sometimes open discrimination against Serbs in such areas
as the administration of justice, employment, housing, and the
free exercise of their cultural rights.
The U.N. Special Rapporteur received several reports of the
killing of Serbs and allegations that the Croatian authorities
failed to conduct a proper investigation or to prosecute those
responsible. For instance, it was reported that an elderly
Serb woman was murdered and mutilated in her apartment in Sisak
on July 30. The police did not conduct a full investigation
nor inform the family of any results. The neighbors of the
victim were afraid to disclose information about the identity
of the perpetrators, especially after the police approached
them. There are credible reports of organized Croatian gangs,
such as the so-called Black Legions, which single out Serbian
civilians for criminal attacks.
Government sources report criminal proceedings were initiated
against 126 persons of Croatian ethnic origin, 13 ethnic Serbs,
and 8 persons from othe ethnic groups. Nevertheless, the
Special Rapporteur stated that the authorities have not
demonstrated a serious willingness to suppress such acts.
In 1993 the police force was made up almost exclusively of
ethnic Croats. The vast majority of cases involving violence
against Serbs and mistreatment of Serbian prisoners went
unpunished. Meanwhile, the Government filed thousands of
criminal charges against Serbs accused of "war crimes."
The founder of the Serbian National Party, Milan Dukic, claimed
that one of the main problems was that the Croatian and Serbian
communities saw each other in terms of negative stereotypes
fostered by media and nationalists on both sides.
Criticism continued of the Government's performance in issuing
citizenship papers, new passports, and residence permits. The
Interior Minister insisted that there had been no
discrimination based on nationality in the processing of
550,000 applications for Croatian citizenship. However, many
who are not ethnic Croats felt that the delay in processing
their cases or the refusal to grant them citizenship was due to
discrimination. There were credible reports that citizenship
applications of persons not born in Croatia, or who held
significant positions in such federal institutions as the JNA,
were occasionally delayed or refused for reasons of
nationality. Foreigners and stateless persons may obtain
asylum, unless it is sought in connection with the commission
of criminal offenses or violations of international law.
Article 30 of the Law on Citizenship defines a "Croatian
citizen" as "a person who has acquired this status according to
the laws valid until the taking effect of this Law." The
previous laws on citizenship, valid when Croatia was part of
the SFRY, provided for "republic citizenship" of the "Socialist
Republic of Croatia," but, according to the U.N. Special
Rapporteur, republic citizenship within the SFRY was
essentially symbolic and had little or no legal effect. SFRY
law provided that Yugoslav citizens enjoyed the same rights and
duties throughout the republics, without regard to republic in
which they had citizenship. Furthermore. republic citizenship
did not necessarily coincide with the republic in which an
individual was born or enjoyed permanent residence, even if
that person had always been domiciled in the republic.
Thus, the Croatian Law on Citizenship had the effect of
arbitrarily relegating to the status of aliens all those SFRY
citizens who enjoyed lawful residence in the Socialist Republic
of Croatia but who did not enjoy Croatian republic
citizenship. An exception was made, however, for those deemed
to be members of the "Croatian people." Such ethnic Croats who
were not Croatian citizens under the SFRY laws would be
accorded Croatian citizenship if they submitted a written
statement that they considered themselves Croatian citizens.
This exemption was available not only for Croats who had
registered places of residence in Croatia but also for members
of the "Croatian people" who did not have a place of residence
in the Republic of Croatia or did not have previous SFRY
citizenship. Those who do not belong to the "Croatian people"
must satisfy more stringent requirements through naturalization
in order to obtain citizenship, even if they previously were
lawful residents as SFRY citizens in Croatia.
According to government sources, as of May 12, citizenship had
been denied to 12,708 applicants, 7,500 of whom were ethnic
Serbs. The U.N. Special Rapporteur reported several cases of
procedural obstruction in which the relevant authorities
refused even to consider applications, almost always on the
basis of the ethnic origin of the applicant. Another cause for
concern related by the Special Rapporteur was that, while an
application for citizenship is pending, the applicant is
considered an alien, even if that person previously enjoyed
lawful residence in Croatia as a SFRY citizen, and is
consequently denied rights such as social allowances, including
medical care, pensions, free education, and employment in the
civil service. In practice, since the applicatuon procedure
may take a considerable time, many applicants have been forced
to leave Croatia because of financial pressure.
The leader of the Serbian National Party complained that
citizenship documents were not being granted as quickly to
Serbs as to others. He also alleged that 200 Serbs who worked
in the Zagreb city administration were fired in 1 day under the
pretext of "rationalization."
A delegation of Gypsies complained that local shops
discriminated against them, some snack bars refused to serve
them, and the police did not adequately investigate their
complaints. The Stranke Roma Hrvatske (Croatian Gypsy Party)
in Zagreb reports there are currently about 120,000 persons
officially registered as Gypsies who are resident in Croatia
but say the actual figure for Gypsy residents is probably
closer to 250,000 to 300,000 because "many simply do not bother
to register." They say there is a "large" number of Bosnian
Gypsy refugees in Croatia, but the numbers are very difficult
to estimate since the Gypsy population is so fluid. A great
many Bosnian refugee Gypsies, for example, have continued to
move onward to relatives in Hungary, Romania, or elsewhere.
Religious Minorities
Serious human rights abuses perpetrated against Muslims are
addressed in other sections of this report.
According to the 1991 census, 43,469 persons, 0.9 percent of
the population of Croatia, identified themselvesd as Muslims.
The largest concentrations were in Zagreb, where the 13,100
Muslims comprised 1.4 percent of the population, and in Rijeka,
where 13,340 Muslims comprised 2.3 percent of the population.
The largest percentage was in Dubrovnik, where 2,866 Muslims
comprised 4 percent of the population. The massive influx of
refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina into Croatia since the war
significantly increased the number of Muslims.
Since the intensification of hostilities between Bosnian Croat
and Bosnian government forces in April, the Croatian media
regularly refer to Muslims as "aggressors." Coverage of
atrocities committed in the conflict between the two groups
appeared to be selective and one-sided, with little regard for
the truth. At the same time, incidents of discrimination and
violence against Muslims in Croatia were rarely reported in the
press.
On the Dalmatian coast, Muslim clerics and others in a position
of authority were repeatedly harassed and threatened by local
police and other authorities. In Dubrovnik, Split, and Zagreb,
as well as other areas, shops and homes belonging to Muslims
were reportedly damaged or destroyed, with little police
response.
There were reports that many Muslims were denied citizenship,
although they were either born in Croatia or had lawful
residence there for several years. In the villages of Rajevo
Selo and Gunja near the border with Bosnia and Herzegovina,
almost 200 Muslims were reportedly denied citizenship. The
United Nations verified many cases in which some members of a
family were arbitrarily denied citizenship while others were
not.
People with Disabilities
People with disabilities face few legal discriminatory
measures. Education and job opportunites generally are
available to them The serious war-related injuries of
increasing numbers of combat veterans have attracted growing
attention to their needs. Although no specific legislation has
mandated accessibility for the handicapped, there is a growing
social awareness of this issue.
Section 6 Worker Rights
a. The Right of Association
All workers, except military and police personnel, are entitled
to form or join unions of their own choosing without prior
authorization. There is an active labor movement in Croatia
with three national labor federations and independent
associations of both blue-collar and white-collar members. In
general, unions are independent of the Government and political
parties.
The right to strike is guaranteed in the Constitution and is
limited only in the armed forces, police, government
administration, and public services. Strikes by railroad
workers, teachers, textile workers, and others occurred with
increasing frequency during 1993, largely over the repeated
failure of government-owned or government-run institutions or
industries to pay wages on time. For example, railroad workers
received paychecks from 1 to 2 weeks late throughout the year.
b. The Right to Organize and Bargain Collectively
Collective bargaining is protected by law and practiced freely
in Croatia. Because of the inflation problem and in reaction
to newly introduced government austerity measures, the major
public service unions found themselves engaged throughout 1993
in lengthy negotiations with the Government over wages and job
security. Like fellow unionists, the federations found that
the Government was regularly late in meeting its payroll and in
ensuring payment of minimum wages.
Many Croatian enterprises remain "socially owned," a condition
of blurred ownership and managerial responsibilities which is a
legacy of Socialist Yugoslavia. In the current transition to
privatization and a free market economy, the unions are under
pressure due to job losses, general unemployment in a weakened
economy, and their own struggle to become genuine free trade
unions.
There is no formal body of law or practice dealing directly
with antiunion discrimination issues.
There are no export processing zones in Croatia.
c. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor
Forced or compulsory work is constitutionally forbidden. There
were no documented instances of coerced or forced labor. The
Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare is the agency charged with
enforcing the constitutional ban on coerced or forced labor.
d. Minimum Age for Employment of Children
The minimum age for youth employment is 15 and is enforced by
the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare. Under the
Constitution, children may not be employed before reaching the
legally determined age, nor may they be forced or allowed to do
work that is harmful to their health or morality. Workers
under 18 are entitled to special protection at work and are
prohibited from heavy manual labor. Education is mandatory up
to age 14.
e. Acceptable Conditions of Work
There are national minimum wage standards. Public service
unions are pacesetters for the rest of the work force, and they
were in the forefront of continued efforts to encourage the
Government to honor its commitments. The current minimum gross
monthly wage in Croatia in December was roughly $96 (635,910
dinars). National regulations provide for a 42-hour workweek,
overtime pay, a half-hour daily break, and a minimum of 18 days
of paid vacation annually. It is standard practice to provide
a 24-hour rest period during the workweek.
Health and safety standards are set by the Government and
enforced by the Ministry of Health. In practice, industries
are not diligent in meeting standards for worker protection.
(###)
[end of document]
Return
to 1993 Human Rights Practices report home page.
Return to DOSFAN
home page.
This is an official U.S. Government source
for information on the WWW. Inclusion of non-U.S. Government links
does not imply endorsement of contents.