| 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, 1994
AUTHOR: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DATE: FEBRUARY 1995
CROATIA
Three years after the Republic of Croatia declared
independence, one-quarter of its land continued to be occupied
by rebel Serbs. No progress was made in 1994 in implementing
the Vance Peace Plan, and the United Nations Protective Force
(UNPROFOR) continued its peacekeeping activities in four U.N.
protected areas (UNPA's). A March cease-fire created a
2-kilometer-wide zone of separation and led to a dramatic
decrease in violence. In December the Government and the rebel
Serbs agreed upon a package of economic and confidence-building
measures, the implementation of which began with the opening of
the Zagreb-Belgrade highway to civilian traffic on December 21.
Croatia is a constitutional parliamentary democracy with a
powerful presidency. President Franjo Tudjman, elected in
1992, serves as Head of State and commander in chief of the
armed forces, chairs the influential National Defense and
Security Council, and appoints the Prime Minister, who leads
the Government. President Tudjman's party, the Croatian
Democratic Union (HDZ), holds the majority of seats in both
houses of Parliament. Government influence weakens the
nominally independent judiciary. The enormous constitutional
powers of the presidency, the military occupation of large
sections of the country, and the overwhelming dominance of one
political party tend to stifle the expression of diverse views.
The Ministry of Defense oversees the military, while the
Ministry of the Interior oversees the police. Both police and
military personnel were responsible for abuses, including
physical abuse of prisoners and detainees.
In the Serb-controlled UNPA's, the well-armed police and
military forces of the self-proclaimed "Republic of Serbian
Krajina" ("RSK") continued their pattern of egregious human
rights abuses against both Serbs and non-Serbs, including
physical violence and "ethnic cleansing." Of the 44,000 Croats
who before the conflict lived in what is now UNPA Sector South,
only 800 to 900 remain. In Sector North, only 1,000 Croats of
an original population of 112,000 remain.
Croatia has a mixed economy in which industry is largely state
owned, and agriculture is mostly in private hands. The
Government's stabilization program, introduced in 1993,
continued to keep inflation low, but little progress was made
on either privatization or free market reforms. The continuing
division of the country, the massive refugee problem, and the
threat of renewed war all limited economic recovery.
While the use of violence by security forces against Serbs in
government-controlled areas declined, cases of disappearance
and harassment continued near the frontline areas. Ethnic
Serbs continued to suffer from ever-present, subtle, and
sometimes open discrimination in such areas as the
administration of justice, employment, housing, and the free
exercise of their cultural rights. In fewer numbers than in
previous years, Serbs were also victims of anonymous threats,
vandalism, and--more rarely--physical attacks. Many Serbs left
Croatia during the year as a result of the combined economic
discrimination and physical threats, although the total number
was impossible to determine. The Government made only token
efforts to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators of the more
egregious abuses committed in 1992 and 1993 and continued to
discriminate against non-Croats in the granting of
citizenship. Early in the year, the Government also
discriminated against Muslim refugees from Bosnia, using
arbitrary detention and forced repatriation.
In the Serb-controlled portions of the UNPA's, there was no
improvement in the human rights situation. The police and
military forces of the "RSK" continued to use violence,
intimidation, harassment, and displacement against nonethnic
Serbs to achieve the goal of ethnic cleansing. All residents
were subjected to a totally controlled legal system operating
in an atmosphere without any of the basic human rights of
freedom of expression, assembly, press, religion, movement, or
the right to change their government.
RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including
Freedom from:
a. Political and Other Extrajudicial Killing
There were no substantiated reports of politically motivated or
other extrajudicial killings in government-controlled parts of
Croatia. However, opposition and human rights groups
criticized the failure of Croatian authorities to bring to
justice the parties responsible for several cases from previous
years, particularly those of Serbs killed in 1991 and 1992.
Those allegedly implicated in the killings include personnel in
the Defense and Interior Ministries, but the Government
insisted the charges were baseless.
Reports of political killings in the Serb-occupied UNPA's also
decreased, although a disproportionate number of homicide
victims in the "RSK" were non-Serbs. More than one-third of
the reported 68 homicide victims in the Serb-controlled UNPA's
were non-Serbs, according to local (Serbian) police. Out of an
estimated remaining Croatian population in Serb-controlled
territory of perhaps 4,000, 16 ethnic Croats (or one out of
every 250) were murdered during the year. Serbian forces
allegedly committed several murders along the confrontation
line, including the mass murder of five men in May in Sector
West, and the killing of a fisherman near the Dalmatian coast
in August. Police apprehended no suspects. A Dutch citizen
fighting in the Croatian armed forces died while in custody of
Serbian forces several days after his capture near the front
lines in April.
Serbian obstructionism continued to block the excavation of the
mass grave sites in the UNPA's. In the case of the mass grave
of presumed murdered Serbs exhumed in Sector West in October
1993, the Croatian Government has still not brought any charges.
b. Disappearance
There were few new cases of disappearances reported. At year's
end, the Government reported more than 2,500 cases of missing
persons still unresolved from the 1991-1992 war. This figure
was down from over 7,000 cases at the beginning of the year.
Progress was made in removing names from the list of the
missing as a result of prisoner and body exchanges.
c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment
The Constitution prohibits torture or cruel or degrading
punishment, but government forces continued to commit such
abuses. There were credible reports that security forces
frequently beat and mistreated prisoners during detention and
interrogation, particularly early in the year. The best
documented cases typically involved Serbian or Muslim
prisoners. Helsinki Watch indicated in February that the
authorities at Lora prison in Split had engaged in the torture
and beating of prisoners who were former Yugoslav National Army
(JNA) reservists. Six Serbs captured in early July, however,
who the Croats claim had infiltrated across the front lines,
reported no beatings or mistreatment to the European Community
Monitoring Mission which visited them.
Detention facilities generally meet accepted standards of
cleanliness, nutrition, and amenities. Jails are crowded, but
not to excess, and family visits and access to counsel are
available.
Prison conditions in the Serb-controlled UNPA's, however, are
reliably reported to be abysmal. Harsh treatment of non-Serbs
is commonplace, and the Serbian "authorities" do not punish
abusers. Two journalists who were detained in December by
local police and paramilitary forces were beaten, as well as
subjected to psychological torture, such as death threats.
d. Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, or Exile
The Constitution contains provisions to protect the legal
rights of all accused, but the Government does not respect
these rights in practice. The Government frequently abuses
pretrial and investigative detention. Most cases of arbitrary
arrest or detention involved Muslim residents and refugees in
Croatia early in the year, while Croatian and Bosnian
government troops were fighting in neighboring Bosnia and
Herzegovina. There were no large-scale police sweeps nor
attempted forced repatriations such as took place in late 1993,
but refugee organizations continued to report instances in
which police arbitrarily detained Muslim refugees from Bosnia
and Herzegovina and threatened them with forcible expulsion.
Police normally seek arrest warrants by presenting evidence of
probable cause to an interrogating magistrate. Police may
arrest a suspect without a warrant if they believe he might
flee, destroy evidence, or commit other crimes. If police
arrest a suspect without a warrant, they have 24 hours in which
to justify their decision before the local interrogating
magistrate.
After arrest, persons must be given access to an attorney of
their choice within 24 hours; if they have no attorney, the
interrogating magistrate will appoint one 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 may be appealed, either
immediately or later during 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 of
investigative detention. While this is typically the case,
there were instances in which detainees did not have adequate
access to legal counsel.
In practice, arrestees are almost always bound over for
investigation unless it is clear no case against them exists.
Once the investigation is complete, persons are usually
released on their own recognizance 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
him from leaving the country.
In the Serb-controlled areas of the UNPA's, virtually no
safeguards exist against arbitrary detention, and Serbian
forces continued to use detention to intimidate non-Serbs.
Many cases involved residents of the Bihac pocket in western
Bosnia and Herzegovina, who had to transit Serb-held territory
to reach the outside world. In August Serbian forces arrested
a Catholic priest as he fled the fighting in the Bihac pocket
and held him for several weeks without charge before his
release could be negotiated. Serbian forces also commonly
arrested Croatian civilians in the separation zone created by
the March cease-fire agreement, charging that they were
illegally attempting to enter the "RSK."
The Constitution prohibits exile, and it is not practiced.
e. Denial of Fair Public Trial
The 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.
Judicial tenure is permanent. The House of Counties nominates
persons for membership on the High Judicial Council, and the
House of Representatives elects members to 8-year terms. The
11 judges of the Constitutional Court are elected to 8-year
terms in the same manner.
The judicial process is not free of ethnic bias or political
influence. The Government has not yet established the
Provisional Court of Human Rights, mandated by a 1992
constitutional law on minorities. The emergency measures
established in 1991 are still being applied, despite a number
of appeals by the U.N. Special Rapporteur that these be
abolished. The orders provide for the suspension of certain
remedies in legal proceedings and give the six-court military
legal system jurisdiction over a large number of cases
involving civilians.
Although the Constitution provides for the right to a fair
trial and a variety of due process rights in both civilian and
military courts, in practice, the prosecuting attorney has
leeway in deciding whether to bring a case against an
individual, and, in cases considered "political," both the
indictment and the conduct of trials are sometimes subject to
outside influence. In the case of nine members of the
Dalmatian Action Party arrested on suspicion of having plotted
the bombing of their own political party offices in September
1993, the local military court took jurisdiction. Two trial
sessions were held, the latest in April. Observers believe
that, as the case looked increasingly weak, the prosecution
decided to suspend action. The prosecution did not dismiss the
charges, however, which observers decried as an attempt to keep
the defendants in legal limbo in order to hamper their
political activities.
The legal system in the Serb-controlled UNPA's remained a sham,
with its procedures and practices increasingly open to outside
interference by those in power.
f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or
Correspondence
The Constitution declares the home inviolable. Only a court
may issue a search warrant, stating the justification for the
search of a home or other premises. Police may enter a home
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, the
authorities often failed to adhere to these constitutional
requirements.
Military or civil police carried out evictions by force,
involving several hundred families, ethnic Serbs and Croats as
well as Muslims. In Split, 230 families were reported to be
seeking through the courts to remove soldiers who had seized
their apartments. Almost all of these cases involved
apartments previously owned by the JNA, over which the Ministry
of Defense asserted ownership. Referring to property laws
which remove tenancy rights as a result of any 6-month absence
or if the tenant is ruled to have acted against the interests
of Croatia, the Ministry of Defense granted soldiers tenancy of
occupied flats. The soldiers then frequently took residences
by force of arms, either evicting the current tenants or
forcing them to cohabitate.
During the year, human rights organizations became increasingly
effective at calling public attention to forced evictions, and
their members turned up in large numbers at the announced time
of the eviction. But in at least two cases, police beat and
injured human rights monitors seeking to obstruct an eviction.
In May the Defense Ministry issued public orders to remove any
soldiers who had illegally forced their way into an apartment,
using force if necessary. But military police never carried
out these orders, reporting privately to observers that their
commanders had told them to refrain from arresting the
soldiers. The tenants of these apartments were typically
Serbian families or the spouses and children of Serbs in the
JNA who had left Croatia. At a July 12 press conference,
President Tudjman justified the forced evictions by linking
them to the Serbian aggression against Croatia and eviction of
one-quarter million Croats.
The Constitution guarantees the secrecy and safety of personal
data, but it was unclear if such guarantees were adhered to in
practice.
Serbian authorities in the UNPA's showed no compunction about
interfering with the privacy rights of the inhabitants of those
areas, particularly non-Serbs. UNPROFOR continued to provide
24-hour patrols of several minority villages to protect the
inhabitants from armed bands. The practice of forcibly moving
Serbian refugees or soldiers into the homes of non-Serb
residents continued as well, which was clearly designed to
pressure the non-Serbs to leave. One couple in Sector West was
forced to live in their pantry after Serbian soldiers took over
the remainder of the house and Serbian refugees moved into
their outbuildings. Inhabitants were even denied the right to
talk on the telephone, with the authorities putting severe
restrictions on international observers who provided mobile
telephones to villagers during visits to permit them to call
relatives on the other side of the line.
g. Use of Excessive Force and Violations of Humanitarian
Law in Internal Conflicts
On March 29, the Government and the leadership of the "RSK"
signed a comprehensive cease-fire agreement in Zagreb, the
capital, which successfully reduced the amount of shelling to
almost zero and the number of shooting incidents by about
99 percent. There were only a handful of fatalities during the
year from shooting incidents involving cease-fire violations.
However, occasional shelling did occur from Bosnian Serb
positions bordering Croatia, most commonly onto the Slavonian
city of Zupanja and onto the area around the Dubrovnik
airport. These attacks caused substantial property damage but
no reported fatalities.
In October and November, the "RSK" military began a
concentrated campaign of bombardment and ground attacks against
the territory held by the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina
in a region known as the Bihac pocket. The Krajina Serbs
coordinated these attacks with Bosnian Serb and rebel Muslim
forces. The bombings included both artillery and air attacks
and were frequently directed against civilian population
centers such as Bihac town, Cazin, and Velika Kladusa. Targets
included the civilian hospital in Bihac. Numerous civilian
casualties resulted from the attacks. In addition, the "RSK"
used restriction of humanitarian aid as a weapon against the
population of the Bihac pocket, completely shutting off access
to government-controlled portions of the pocket for U.N. aid
convoys from May until late December.
With small steps toward normalization along the confrontation
line under the March 25 cease-fire, the extent of previous
mine-laying during the conflict was increasingly evident.
UNPROFOR troops, as well as soldiers and civilians from both
sides, were victims of unmarked and uncleared minefields. A
particularly dangerous situation arose in August when the
forces of Bosnian Muslim rebel leader Fikret Abdic were
defeated by the Bosnian army and tens of thousands of people
left the Bihac pocket, forcing their way into the separation
zone to demand entry into government-controlled Croatia. The
Government refused to grant entry, and the refugees refused to
turn back and leave the heavily mined area. Despite efforts by
UNPROFOR to clear the immediate area of mines, several refugees
were injured by mine explosions.
Croatian citizens, originally from Bosnia and Herzegovina,
reported that the Government forcibly mobilized them to fight
in the Bosnian Croat paramilitary forces during the first few
months of the year.
For 5 weeks in the summer, Croats displaced from the Serb-
occupied areas of Croatia blocked all checkpoints into the
UNPA's, protesting the ineffectiveness of UNPROFOR in
reintegrating the occupied territories into Croatia and in
assisting the return of the displaced to their homes. They
also accused UNPROFOR of supplying the Serbs with
nonhumanitarian supplies, including fuel. UNPROFOR accused the
Government of being behind the blockades and violating its
international legal obligations. While it was not clear that
the Government actually organized the blockades, the protesters
clearly enjoyed government sympathy and support. After the
Government negotiated an inspection procedure to verify that
UNPROFOR personnel were not transporting any contraband into
the UNPA's, the blockade was lifted.
In the Serb-occupied UNPA's, expulsions, in the form of ethnic
cleansing, continued to be used aggressively and with the
blessing of local "officials" against Croats, Hungarians,
Slovaks, Czechs, and other non-Serbs. Throughout the year
UNPROFOR and other international agencies organized the transit
of a slow but steady stream of non-Serbs out of the UNPA's.
Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:
a. Freedom of Speech and Press
The Constitution provides for 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. In practice, government influence on the media
through state ownership of most print and broadcast outlets
limits these freedoms. In addition, government intimidation
induces self-censorship. Politicians, political activists, and
journalists are often reluctant to criticize the Government in
public forums for fear of harassment, job loss, intimidation,
or being labeled a traitor to war-torn Croatia.
The Government controls all national television broadcasting
and all but one national radio station, and retains a
controlling interest in two of four news dailies and some
weeklies. The sale of a majority of shares in the leading
newspaper, Vjesnik, to a local bank appeared to increase rather
than reduce government influence at the paper. The chairman of
the bank's board of directors is an HDZ Member of Parliament,
and the editor in chief of the paper was replaced in December
by a less experienced journalist, who despite claiming no party
affiliation, had close links with the HDZ. 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 HDZ. Each of the opposition parties is allocated 4
minutes of television time per week. Access to the print media
is minimal, with occasional coverage of press conferences and
interviews. Two nationally publicized instances of physical
threats against journalists by local politicians generated
media debate but no action by the Government.
A few newspapers continue to guard their independence,
including the daily Novi List in Rijeka, the weekly Globus, the
intellectual bimonthly journal Erasmus, the satirical weekly
Feral Tribune, and the weekly Arkzin, published by "the Antiwar
Campaign." A new weekly, Pecat, with an independent editorial
line began publishing in September. Even some extremist
publications, with a virulently antigovernment slant, could be
purchased at newsstands, although they had very small
circulation. The highly popular Feral Tribune, whose material
continued to push the boundaries of good taste, was
reclassified for tax purposes as a pornographic magazine and,
therefore, subject to a 50-percent turnover tax. The Minister
of Culture admitted that this reclassification was a result of
Feral's continuing attacks on the Government. International
papers and journals remained available throughout
government-controlled areas, including Serbian periodicals
which subscribers continued to receive by mail.
Croatia has four major television channels, as well as regional
stations in Zadar, Split, Vinkovci, and Osijek. Zagreb-based
Channels One, Two, and Four are part of the official Croatian
Radio and Television enterprise (HTV), headed by a well-known
HDZ member. Zagreb Channel Three, 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.
Parliament in July passed a broadcasting law providing for the
allocation of radio and television frequencies to new, private
outlets, but the Government has not yet implemented it.
Private local radio stations operate under provisional licenses
in Croatia, but their legal status is open to question until
the media law is implemented. The broadcasting law mandates
that one parliamentary member of the Council for Croatian
Television be a minority representative, but this person has
not yet been appointed. A seven-member council of government
and nongovernmental representatives, established by Parliament
in 1993 to protect the freedom of the press, has yet to meet
because Parliament failed to appoint a chairman until late in
the year.
In the Serb-controlled portions of the UNPA's, freedom of
speech and press virtually does not exist. With martial law
still in effect, there are no guarantees of press and other
freedoms, and the authorities control the tone and content of
the media. Serbian papers, usually published in Belgrade, are
generally available, although the supply is sometimes
sporadic. There is one small paper published weekly or
biweekly in Serbian in Sector North.
A few low-powered local radio "stations" broadcast from
Serb-held territory in some of the UNPA's, and Croatian radio
and television signals are received in these areas as well.
The Serbian Television Krajina, whose studios are in Petrova
Gora and Knin, broadcasts daily. Two other Serbian mobile
studios operate out of Beli Manastir and Plitvice.
Academic freedom is generally respected in Croatia. However,
there is apprehension within the academic community concerning
the centralizing effects on faculty and programs of the
university reform law. When it became apparent that the new
government Council for Higher Education could not review all
the revised academic programs prior to the start of the 1994-95
school year, the Government delayed introduction of the new
curriculums.
b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association
The Constitution provides that all citizens have 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. The Government requires permits for
rallies but grants them routinely. Political parties, refugee
associations, women's groups, and others held peaceful rallies
and demonstrations without hindrance or incident. These
gatherings included events which both supported and criticized
government policies. All citizens enjoyed these rights,
including members of the Serbian and Muslim communities.
In Serb-controlled areas, however, these rights were not
respected. In the fall, local media reported that several men
were arrested in the Serb-held town of Benkovac when they
protested a recent military mobilization by local Serbian
authorities.
c. Freedom of Religion
There is no state religion. The Constitution provides for
freedom of conscience and religion and free public profession
of religious and other convictions. All religious communities
are free to conduct public services and to open and run social
and charitable institutions. Roman Catholicism, Eastern
Orthodox Christianity, and Islam are the major faiths in
Croatia, and there is also an active Jewish community. The
majority of practicing Croats are Roman Catholic, and the
Government provides an option of Catholic religious education
in schools.
There are no formal restrictions on religious groups. The main
mosque in Croatia is in Zagreb, where it serves not only as a
religious center but also as a social aid office for the large
Bosnian Muslim refugee population. Croatian Protestants from a
number of denominations, as well as foreign clergy, actively
practice and proselytize. Some foreign religious organizations
seeking to provide social services reported bureaucratic
obstacles to their establishment in Croatia, but it was unclear
if this had any connection to their religious character. A
Baptist church seeking to purchase property for a new church
site also reported problems receiving the necessary approvals.
The close identification of religion with ethnicity had earlier
caused religious institutions to be targets of violence. The
investigation into the bombing of the Serbian Orthodox eparchy
in Karlovac on December 24, 1993, led to no arrests. During
the night of December 20, a bomb exploded inside the Orthodox
church of the eastern Slavonian city of Osijek, causing some
damage. Police have not arrested any suspects. The Serbian
Orthodox Cathedral in downtown Zagreb remained open, and
several other Orthodox churches and monasteries operated freely
in government-controlled Croatia. Although the majority of
Orthodox clergy left at the start of the war in 1991, a few
priests and nuns, most of them retired, remained to carry out
religious duties. International human rights monitors said
these clergy reported generally good relations with their
Catholic neighbors.
Most Catholic churches in the Serb-occupied UNPA's have been
destroyed. In Sector East, only one active Catholic priest (a
Slovak) remained.
While most requests for conscientious objector exemption from
military service were granted, a human rights organization
voiced concern over the denial of conscientious objector status
earlier in the year to some who refused mobilization to fight
in the Bosnian Croat paramilitary forces against the Bosnian
government army. Serbian human rights groups also claimed that
the authorities withheld conscientious objector status from
ethnic Serbs who were called up for service, including several
who were awaiting final rulings on their citizenship status and
were therefore not obligated for military service. There is no
provision for conscientious objector status in the
Serb-occupied areas.
d. Freedom of Movement Within the Country, Foreign
Travel, Emigration, and Repatriation
Although the Constitution states that anyone who is lawfully in
Croatia has the right freely to move and choose a residence,
the Government places certain restrictions on this right. All
persons must register their residence with the local
authorities. There are no reports that anyone has been refused
the right to register a change of residence, except in cases
where the lodging arrangements are irregular (i.e., an
unauthorized sublet). One purpose of the law, which is a
holdover from the previous system, is to ensure that landlords
are properly declaring rent, and to ensure that individuals
with "residence rights" to "socially owned" apartments are not
earning illegal rental income.
Citizens have the right to travel abroad, to emigrate, and to
return home. Under exceptional circumstances, the Government
may legally restrict the right to enter or leave the country if
necessary to protect the "legal order, health, rights, or
freedoms of others." There is no evidence of government abuse
of this authority. There are no reports of authorities
refusing entry or exit to any Croatian citizens, except in
infrequent cases of military personnel denied leave when
requested.
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 confrontation lines.
Journalists, as well as others, must request permission to
enter the conflict zones.
The Government imposed no significant legal restrictions on the
movement of refugees, displaced persons, or national minorities
resident in Croatia. Many refugees, however, were housed in
remote locations with little or no means of public transport.
There were several confirmed cases of forcible return of
refugees to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Government tried to
enforce strictly a policy of admitting no new refugees unless
transit to a third country was assured. In practice, large
numbers of refugees, primarily Muslims forced from Serb-held
northern Bosnia by ethnic cleansing campaigns, entered Croatia
and stayed, although the number was much lower than in 1992 or
1993.
The Government also continued into early in the year to
relocate refugees from coastal tourist facilities to inland
areas. Often this policy met with resistance from refugee
groups who did not want to be uprooted and separated from the
people with whom they had spent the last 2 years. In one
highly publicized case, police and military recruits forcibly
loaded the largely Muslim refugee population of the Savudrija
camp in Istria onto buses and sent them to three other
facilities. The authorities then turned over the Savudrija
camp to the mainly Bosnian Croat residents who had been living
at the Pineta tourist resort, which was being returned to its
Slovenian owners.
The authorities in Serb-controlled areas continued to enforce a
coercive regime, including curfews and strict travel
limitations near the front lines. Threats against the
non-Serbs in protected villages effectively confined them to
their homes. Serbs who crossed over from government-controlled
Croatia were eagerly welcomed for propaganda purposes.
At year's end, an estimated 20,000 of these refugees remained
on Serb-occupied territory in Croatia, although some 6,000 men
from this group had been mobilized by Krajina Serb and rebel
Muslim forces to fight in the Bihac pocket in neighboring
Bosnia and Herzegovina. Up to 5,000 refugees were believed by
the UNHCR to have left the camps, apparently for territory
taken by the rebel Muslim forces, but information on their
numbers or whereabouts was sketchy at best. When the Croatian
Government refused to permit entry, the Serbian authorities
provided temporary shelter to some, while abetting the movement
of some 15,000 others into a no man's land in a cease-fire zone
near Karlovac.
Section 3 Respect for Political Rights: The Right of Citizens
to Change Their Government
Croatia is a multiparty democracy in which all citizens 18
years of age and older have the right to vote by secret
ballot. The President, elected for 5 years, exercises
substantial power, authority, and influence but is
constitutionally limited to two terms. Parliament is composed
of the House of Representatives and the House of Zupanije or
Counties, and the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) holds a
majority in both houses. Its leader, President Franjo Tudjman,
was reelected in 1992. Serbian authorities in the UNPA's
refused to allow residents in the areas they control to
participate in the Croatian election.
Although there are no legal restrictions on participation by
women or minorities in the political process, they are
represented in only small numbers in Parliament, the executive
branch, and the courts. Nine women hold seats in Parliament,
including one who is the president of the House of Counties and
two who led opposition parties. Federal election law requires
representation for minorities in Parliament, with proportional
representation for any minority that makes up more than
8 percent of the population. The Federal Election Commission
designated 13 Serbs to "represent" the Serbian community in
Croatia, which comprises 11 percent of the population, in the
138-seat House of Representatives. The Social Democratic Party
(the reformed Communist party), which had received 5.4 percent
of the popular vote, obtained 7 of these 13 seats, and the
Serbian People's Party, constituted to represent the Serbian
community's interests, which had received over 1 percent of the
vote, obtained 3 seats.
The "RSK" held elections in December 1993, which neither
UNPROFOR nor any other international body recognized as
legitimate. No international or other unbiased observers were
present, and the "RSK" authorities clearly manipulated the
vote. After "RSK" authorities declared that no candidate had
received the necessary 50 percent of the votes to win the
"presidency" (which reportedly required the annulment of many
ballots), they called for a second round of voting in January.
With Belgrade's control of local media outlets, the results of
the second round reversed those of December, and Milan Martic,
the candidate supported by Serbian President Milosevic, "won"
the "presidency." The "parliament" had a strong plurality of
rival Milan Babic's party members. No minorities are
represented in either the "parliament" or the "government."
Section 4 Governmental Attitude Regarding International and
Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Violations
of Human Rights
Human rights groups in Zagreb, Split, Rijeka, and Osijek worked
to prevent human rights abuses in their respective localities
and brought their concerns to the attention of local and
national authorities as well as domestic and international
media. Principal areas of activity were problems of forced
evictions (see Section 1.f.), citizenship rights and employment
discrimination (see Section 5), and conscientious objectors
(see Section 2.c.).
Government officials continued to refer to certain prominent
human rights organizations and activists in highly critical
terms in public statements and interviews. Police also failed
to arrest any perpetrators in cases involving personal threats
or attacks against them or their property. But over the course
of the year, government authorities began to address more
seriously some of the primary concerns of human rights
organizations, such as citizenship rights and evictions,
engaging in a public dialog particularly on the latter issue.
Police were also ordered to refrain from using force against
demonstrators at the sites of planned evictions. Despite the
increased dialog, however, human rights groups remained highly
critical of the Government's human rights record.
The situation in Split continued to be most hazardous for human
rights monitors due to threats from local extremists. Local
police beat one monitor as he attempted to prevent a forced
eviction. Human rights workers in Zagreb also reported
receiving threats against themselves and their families. The
home of Slobodan Budak, a prominent human rights lawyer and
deputy chairman of the Croatian Human Rights Committee, was
severely damaged by a bomb on the day before he was to cochair
a conference on human rights and the issue of forced evictions.
Major local human rights groups include the Croatian Helsinki
Commission, the Antiwar Campaign, the Dalmatian Solidarity
Committee, the Dalmatian Committee for Human Rights, and the
Center for Peace and Human Rights. The Serbian Peoples' Party
and the Social Democratic Union have human rights committees.
The Serbian Democratic Forum, another local human rights group,
focused primarily on the concerns of the Serbian community.
All of these groups have publicly criticized the Government's
human rights policy. International human rights organizations
were also active in Croatia.
The Government cooperated with international investigations of
war crimes carried out by the U.N. Commission of Experts,
permitting free access to refugees for gathering eyewitness
testimony, even in cases in which Croats were the likely
perpetrators of the witnessed atrocities. The Government
pledged its cooperation with the International Tribunal for the
Prosecution of War Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague.
Serbian forces did not permit the formation or functioning of
local human rights groups and impeded the work of international
human rights groups. Many international relief organizations
refrained from undertaking operations in the Serb-occupied
territories rather than accept the Serbs' demand that they
acknowledge the "RSK" as an independent state. Only U.N.
personnel and the European Community Monitoring Mission can
observe human rights practices in these areas.
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. With the exceptions noted
below, these rights are observed in practice. 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 citizenship with
respect to race, color, sex, language, religion, or national or
social origin. Under these measures, these rights have been
observed in practice.
Women
The law does not discriminate by gender. In practice, however,
women generally hold lower paying positions in the work force.
The majority of high school and elementary teachers, nurses,
and clerical workers are female.
Although the Government does not collect statistics, informed
observers state that violence against women, including spouse
abuse, is common and that the number of incidents has increased
in the last few years. Alcohol abuse is commonly cited as a
contributing factor. Centers for the psychological and medical
care of abused women are open in several cities, and there is a
24-hour hot line in a Zagreb medical center. A number of local
institutions and voluntary agencies offer social, medical, and
other assistance to abused women and to those traumatized by
war experiences. Family crisis associations are also active.
Although the number of female-led organizations has increased
since the war, most are devoted to antiwar or humanitarian
causes and are poorly organized and poorly funded. There is no
national organization of women devoted to the protection of
women's rights.
Children
The Government has made a strong commitment to the welfare of
children. Schools provide free meals for children, day
nurseries are available in most communities even for infants,
and medical care for children is free. There is no documented
pattern of societal abuse or discrimination against children.
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 enjoy the same protection as
other self-identified ethnic groups in the country. In
practice, however, there continues 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. Serbs continue to be
particularly vulnerable to attack because of the Government's
reluctance rigorously to protect their rights. Attacks against
property owned by Serbs, or even Croats with Serb-sounding
names, continued in 1994, though at a lesser rate than in
previous years. Serbs in Croatia also continued to receive
anonymous threats by mail, phone, and facsimile (fax), but in
fewer numbers than in previous years. Many Serbs left
government-controlled Croatia during the year as a result of
the combination of economic discrimination and physical
threats.
The makeup of the police force, which consists almost
exclusively of ethnic Croats, some with little experience or
training in police work, contributed to the problem. As in
previous years, the vast majority of cases involving violence
against Serbs went unpunished. In one case in Split, an
eyewitness informed the police of the identities of the
vandals--all members of the Croatian army, but the police made
no arrests. In another case, members of the police force
abducted a recently retired ethnic Serbian policeman,
interrogated him for information about Serbian extremist
groups, and beat him severely before releasing him.
Particularly in the early months of the year, the Muslim
community in Croatia also suffered from harsh ethnic
discrimination. Croatian attacks against Muslims occurred
particularly on the Dalmatian coast where there was a large
population of Muslim refugees side by side with Croatian
soldiers on leave from the front lines in Bosnia and
Herzegovina (where they had been fighting against the mostly
Muslim Bosnian army). International refugee organizations took
great pains to provide what protection they could to the Muslim
refugees and rushed through hundreds of cases for resettlement
to third countries. With the signing of the Muslim-Croat truce
and federation agreement in March, Croatian violence against
Muslims declined drastically. Muslims report continued
widespread discrimination in many areas, such as citizenship
and employment rights.
The Government's practice of discriminating in the issuance of
citizenship papers toward ethnic minorities, particularly Serbs
and Muslims, drew sharp criticism. Human rights groups have
numerous documented cases in which the Interior Ministry denied
citizenship papers to long-term residents of Croatia (i.e.,
resident in Croatia long before the country declared its
independence). They estimated that the Interior Ministry
denied over 13,000 applications for citizenship, the large
majority ethnic Serbs or Montenegrins or persons who had held
positions of importance in former Yugoslav federal
institutions, particularly the JNA.
Human rights groups complain that the Interior Ministry almost
always based its denials on Article 26 of the Law on
Citizenship, which permits it to deny citizenship papers to
persons otherwise qualified to be citizens of Croatia if it
judges there are reasons of national interest to do so. In
December 1993, the law was amended to strike language that the
reasons for denial should not be explained. But no language
was added to say that the reasons for denial must be explained,
and human rights organizations reported that the police
continued to refuse citizenship applications without full
explanation.
The Law on Citizenship clearly distinguishes between those with
a claim to Croatian ethnicity and those without. The "Croatian
people" are eligible to become citizens of Croatia even if they
did not have previous citizenship of the former Socialist
Republic of Croatia, as long as they submit a written statement
that they consider themselves Croatian citizens. Those who do
not belong to the Croatian people must satisfy more stringent
requirements through naturalization in order to obtain
citizenship, even if they were previously lawful residents of
Croatia as citizens of the former Yugoslavia. While an
application for citizenship is pending, the applicant is
considered an alien in Croatia and is consequently denied
rights such as social allowances, including medical care,
pensions, free education, and employment in the civil service.
Serbs and other ethnic minorities also suffered from economic
discrimination. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights
noted in his report that "it appears that Serbs and Muslims are
always the first to be dismissed...." While the difficult
economic situation in Croatia continued to cause high
unemployment for all sectors of society, the Special
Rapporteur's concern was amplified by a large number of
credible reports that Serbs bore a disproportionate burden in
layoffs by a broad variety of employers. Throughout the year,
human rights organizations continued to receive inquiries from
Serbs who had been fired from their jobs as far back as 1992.
While in many cases it was impossible to determine the
proximate cause for the firing of an employee, there were cases
in which the employee's ethnicity was the stated reason. In
one case, a doctor of mixed background was removed from a job
in a military clinic because his ethnic background was deemed
unsuitable for treating wounded Croatian soldiers. In another
case, an ethnic Croatian teacher was fired after a pupil
proclaimed her a "Chetnik" (Serbian extremist), referring to
her husband, an ethnic Serb who fled Croatia in 1991. In some
cases, despite court orders which confirmed the employee's
right to employment or reinstatement to a previous position,
the employer still refused to rehire workers who had been out
of work since 1992.
The Roma minority continued to face societal discrimination and
official inaction when complaints were filed. The Croatian
Roma Party claimed that, although the officially registered
number of Roma in Croatia was 120,000, the actual figure was
closer to between 250,000 and 300,000 because many Roma do not
bother to register. The population of Bosnian Roma refugees in
Croatia was difficult to estimate since the Roma population was
so fluid. Other minority groups--Slovaks, Czechs, Italians,
Hungarians--did not report any significant discrimination.
The abysmal treatment of non-Serb minorities in the Serb-
occupied UNPA's is discussed in other sections of this report.
People with Disabilities
There is no specific legislation mandating access to buildings
or government services for people with disabilities. However,
people with disabilities face no discriminatory measures, and
education and job opportunities generally are available.
Section 6 Worker Rights
a. The Right of Association
The Constitution provides that 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 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. Unions may affiliate internationally.
The Constitution provides for the right to strike except in the
armed forces, police, government administration, and public
services. Strikes by teachers, textile workers, and others
occurred frequently, in part over the repeated failure of
government-owned or government-run institutions or industries
to pay wages on time. Few strikes could be termed successful,
as the Government hewed closely to the austerity program it
implemented in October 1993 as part of its economic
stabilization program.
b. The Right to Organize and Bargain Collectively
Collective bargaining is protected by law and practiced
freely. Because of inflation and government austerity
measures, the major public service unions found themselves
engaged throughout the year 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 "socially owned" enterprises have been "transformed" or
nationalized as a first step towards privatization. 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. Croatia's trade union
federations allege that union membership frequently constitute
grounds for employment discrimination through transfers to
lower paid jobs, suspensions, disciplinary proceedings,
dismissals, and forced retirements. They also allege that
management interferes in union elections. The unions have
taken some cases to court.
There are no export processing zones.
c. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor
The Constitution prohibits forced or compulsory work, and there
were no documented instances of it. The Ministry of Labor and
Social Welfare enforces this prohibition.
d. Minimum Age for Employment of Children
The minimum age for youth employment is 15 years, which the
Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare enforces. 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 years of age 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 continuing efforts to encourage the
Government to honor its commitments. The minimum gross monthly
wage was roughly $92 (536.91 kuna).
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.
The Government sets health and safety standards, and the
Ministry of Health is charged with enforcing them. In
practice, industries are not diligent in meeting standards for
worker protection, and the Ministry does not enforce them
effectively.
(###)
[end of document]
Return
to 1994 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.