C Explanatory
memorandum, by Mr Jürgen Herrmann
1 Introduction
1. On 25 November 2005, the Parliamentary
Assembly decided to refer to the Committee on Legal Affairs and
Human Rights, for report, the motions concerning the “Precarious
situation of national minorities in the Vojvodina province of Serbia
and Montenegro” (
Doc. 10715, Reference No. 3147) and the “Violation of the human
rights of the Romanian ethnic minority in Serbia” (
Doc. 10726, Reference No. 3148). At its meeting in January 2006,
the committee appointed Mr Jürgen Herrmann (Germany, EPP/CD) rapporteur.
2. On 17 May 2006 in Budapest, the Sub-Committee on Rights of
Minorities held an exchange of views on this issue at which several
representatives of national minorities took part,
Note as well as
Mr Petar Ladjevic, Secretary of the Council of the Republic of Serbia
for National Minorities, Mrs Anastasia Crickley, member of the Advisory
Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National
Minorities, Mr Gobor Zoltan, deputy to the ombudsperson of the Autonomous
Province of Vojvodina, and Mr Stefano Valenti, Special Representative
of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to Serbia and
Montenegro (still one single country at that time).
3. On 27 and 28 September 2006, the rapporteur undertook a fact-finding
mission specifically on the situation of national minorities in
Vojvodina. Following this visit to the region, the rapporteur asked
the committee, on 6 November 2006, to change the title of the report
so as to ensure the most objective approach to the issue.
4. On 26 and 27 September 2007, he again went to Serbia to make
a fact-finding visit chiefly concerned with the situation of the
Romanian ethnic minority.
5. The various stages followed bear witness to the diligence
shown by the rapporteur in preparing this report, whose subject
matter is complex.
1.1 Context
6. It should be noted that a major
institutional change has occurred in the country visited. The referendum on
Montenegro’s independence, which took place on 21 May 2006, was
followed by the declaration of independence adopted by the Parliament
of Montenegro on3 June 2006. The Republic of Montenegro thereupon
found a new place in the international and European community as
an independent sovereign state.
Note The state union of Serbia and Montenegro
ceased to exist. This institutional change has had significant implications
for the statutory framework in which protection is secured to Serbia’s
minorities.
Note
1.2 Interpretation of the terms
of reference
7. The rapporteur would point
out that his terms of reference stem from two separate motions for resolutions
which were merged by the Bureau with a view to the drafting of a
report by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. The two
questions are obviously connected thematically as the subject in
either case is the rights of national minorities, but they are geographically
distinct and raise specific issues.
8. That is why the rapporteur elected to deal with them separately,
both by making specific visits and in the formal presentation of
his report.
9. The split between Serbia and Montenegro has not affected the
rapporteur’s terms of reference, since the two regions concerned
lie entirely in Serbian territory.
10. The rapporteur has not addressed the question of the rights
of minorities/communities in Kosovo – clearly outside the scope
of his terms of reference – but draws attention to the opinion prepared
by Mr Pieter Omtzigt, Rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs
and Human Rights.
Note
2 Statutory framework for
the protection of national minorities in SerbiaNote
11. The Republic of Serbia is a
party to the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection
of National Minorities (in force since 1 September 2001) and to
the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (in force
since 1 June 2006).
12. From 2002 onwards, Serbia and Montenegro developed quite a
comprehensive normative framework for the rights of minorities which
earned them many positive reactions from the international community.
13. In 2002 a federal outline law on protection of the rights
and freedoms of national minorities was enacted. Furthermore, national
councils for national minorities, and a Council for National Minorities
at the level of the Republic of Serbia, were instituted. Unfortunately,
these innovations, described as “promising” by the Committee of
Ministers,
Note have by no
means developed their full potential because certain legislative
provisions are wanting (see paragraph 26 ff. below).
14. The 2003 Charter of the State Union on Human and Minority
Rights and Civil Liberties (“the charter”) was viewed by international
organisations as a sound and adequate instrument. The European Commission for
Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) moreover delivered a highly
positive opinion on this text.
Note
15. Admittedly the instrument, formerly an integral part of the
Constitutional Charter of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro,
was deprived of its validity by the separation of Serbia and Montenegro.
At the same time, the Ministry for Human and Minority Rights ceased
to exist. An agency for human and minority rights has replaced this
entity.
16. The expediency of replacing a ministry with an agency may
be questioned. Indeed, not all Council of Europe member states have
a ministry dedicated to the rights of minorities, far from it, but
Serbia is a country where minorities have a very singular configuration.
At all events, an agency’s representativity and authority do not
equal a ministry’s, and the symbolism here is such as to hint at
a desire to de-emphasise the question of human and minority rights.
It might be advisable to consider the possibility of assigning a
minister of state, or even a minister without portfolio, responsibility
for enforcing the rights of minorities at the political level.
17. The 2002 federal outline law on protection of the rights and
freedoms of national minorities was transposed unchanged into the
domestic legal system and is now in force in Serbia.
Note This
could have been an opportunity to amplify and/or update it, but
that did not eventuate. Indeed, since it is basically an outline
law, many supplementary legislative provisions are still needed.
The law provided for many constructive initiatives, such as the
establishment of a fund for the advancement of national minorities’
social, economic, cultural and general development (Section 20).
No such fund has been instituted to date.
18. Moreover, whereas the Advisory Committee of the Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (Advisory Committee)
welcomed the formation of a working group to draft an anti-discrimination
law, this has still not been enacted to date.
Note As
the European Commission observed in its report of November 2007, in
practice discrimination is commonplace and ethnic minorities are
among its most frequent targets,
Note so it is especially
important for a suitable legislative text to be promulgated with
all dispatch. The rapporteur trusts this may soon become a reality,
since a draft law exists. The Venice Commission is studying it at
present and one of its members, Mr Ledi Bianku, has concluded that
the draft is one of the most comprehensive legislative texts on
protection against discrimination.
Note The
rapporteur invites the competent authorities to amend the text so as
to take account of the observations made by the Venice Commission
in its opinion, and to have the law passed at an early date.
The new constitution of 2006
19. The new constitution, adopted
at a special sitting by the Serbian National Assembly on 29 September 2006
and approved at referendum on 29 and 30 October 2006, was the subject
of a Venice Commission opinion.
Note The
Venice Commission notes at the outset that “many aspects of this
constitution meet European standards”, but also that certain provisions
are “unclear or contradictory”. This is plainly the outcome of over-hasty
drafting, a state of affairs complained of by several of the rapporteur’s
contacts during the first visit to the country.
20. Where the protection of minorities is concerned, the Venice
Commission notes that the linguistic rights of minorities are less
well protected than in the 1990 Constitution. In fact, the use of
Roman script, more commonly employed among the minorities, no longer
receives legal protection under the constitution.
Note
21. The rights of minorities are dealt with in Part II of the
constitution, in Articles 75 to 81. The Venice Commission makes
a positive appraisal of Article 22 (protection of human rights,
minority rights and fundamental freedoms) and praises Chapter 3
of the constitution (rights of persons belonging to a national minority).
It nevertheless feels that the provisions of Article 76 allowing
positive discrimination in respect of national minorities should
be broadened and not restricted to “extremely unfavourable living
conditions” alone, and that those made in Article 22 should not
be applicable solely to citizens.
22. The Venice Commission stresses that it is now for the authorities
to ensure that the rights enshrined in the constitution become effective.
The rapporteur also urges the authorities to take steps in this
direction so that, unlike many provisions of the charter, the rights
secured by the constitution do not come to naught.
23. The rapporteur personally welcomes the explicit prohibition
of direct or indirect discrimination laid down in Article 21 of
the constitution.
24. The rapporteur also welcomes the long-awaited appointment
Note of the Serbian Ombudsperson (Civic Defender)
on 29 June 2007. He stresses the importance of this institution’s
effective operation, and shares the concerns raised by the Venice
Commission which regrets that the institution should be “supervised”
by the National Assembly and not protected against unjustified dismissal
at its behest.
Note It might also be envisaged that
the ombudsperson could appoint deputy ombudsmen dedicated to specific
areas. In the case in point, it would be worthwhile to consider
appointing a deputy ombudsperson in charge of questions relating
to the rights of minorities (there is a specific deputy to the Civic
Defender for the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina).
25. The rapporteur is concerned to note a certain regression in
the protection of the rights of minorities under Serbian legislation,
and calls upon the authorities to remedy it so as to guarantee at
least an equal level of legislative protection to what existed prior
to the separation of Serbia and Montenegro.
The National Council for National
Minorities and the national councils for national minorities
26. An important point has been
highlighted during the visit of the rapporteur to Serbia. It appears
that certain legislative and regulatory instruments are lacking
in order to organise properly the work of the national councils for
national minorities. For example, although the national councils
exist since a 2002 law, there still is no law regulating the finances
or the election of the boards of those councils. As they will soon
reach the end of their first mandate, it is urgent that the Serbian
authorities adopt the necessary missing pieces of legislation. In
its opinion, the Advisory Committee already urged the government
to address the issue of funding of the councils as a matter of priority.
Note In September 2006 the rapporteur
was assured by the authorities that there was the will to adopt
the necessary laws and regulations as soon as possible.
27. The rapporteur is concerned to observe that to date, some
of the national councils for national minorities are reaching the
end of their term and that, in the absence of legislative provisions
on the election of their members, some councils cannot be reconstituted.
Note This plainly detracts from the
effectiveness of the arrangements for representation of national
minorities in Serbia. The rapporteur urges the authorities to consider
adopting needful legislation as a priority, and asks the appropriate
departments (that is, the Ministry for Local Self-Government and
Administration) to take account of the observations made by the
Council of Europe experts concerning the draft law on the election
of the national councils for national minorities.
28. The rapporteur furthermore notes with regret that the National
Council for National Minorities was convened only once during the
year 2006 and not at all in 2007.
Note While
commending the Serbian Government for having set up a body of this
kind in the interest of minorities, he is convinced that by meeting
only once in 2006 the council cannot be capable of functioning effectively.
In view of the strong demand expressed by the representatives of
the national councils for national minorities to organise more frequent
meetings, and having been informed by the authorities that the National
Council for National Minorities can meet at the request of only
one third of its members, the rapporteur is genuinely amazed that
there was no meeting this year. Indeed, since the National Council
for National Minorities is composed of 14 members (7 members from
the national councils for national minorities, 6 ministers and the
prime minister), the members of the national councils for national
minorities amply attain the one third of the members required to
initiate the convocation of a meeting.
29. The rapporteur takes the view that the powers of the national
councils for national minorities should be increased and defined
more precisely. For one thing, these councils should be able to
perform a function of review in respect of the executive’s decisions
concerning minorities; besides, their powers should be precisely defined
to guard against misuses of a political nature. The national councils
in fact receive funds and are empowered to apportion them as they
see fit. The funds received obviously do not suffice to finance
everything, and the apportionment is marked by political interests.
30. The rapporteur wishes to mention another example of a situation
which ought to be improved: following a governmental resolution
of 11 May 2006 to increase the participation of members of ethnic
minorities in public administrations, the vacancy notices must be
published in the newspapers in the minority language.
Note Now, according
to the authorities (this is not explicitly stipulated in the resolution
of 11 May 2006), it rests with the national councils for the various
minorities to decide the paper in which the publication should be
made and to finance the translation of the vacancy notices. For
want of resources, it would appear that many vacancy notices are
finally not published in the papers in question. It would be advisable
to define both the powers and the obligations of the national councils,
and above all to give them adequate means to fulfil their functions.
In the absence of adequate resources, the rapporteur suggests that
the Agency for Human and Minority Rights take charge of the publication
of the vacancy notices in newspapers in minority languages as prescribed
in paragraph 8 of the aforesaid resolution.
3 Political representation
of national minorities
31. Serbia’s electoral law does
not prescribe any minimum threshold which the lists of the political
parties representing the national minorities must achieve to obtain
seats in parliament. This is a most effective measure and conducive
to ensuring that these parties, which by their very nature can only
gain the votes of a minority group, are actually represented within
the Serbian legislature.
Note
32. In the parliamentary elections of January 2007, after an active
campaign, the political parties representing the minorities won
eight seats and formed a parliamentary group. One representative
was even appointed vice-speaker of the parliament.
Note The
European Commission welcomes this positive development in representation
of the members of minorities in parliament.
Note
33. The rapporteur would also emphasise that he met some parliamentarians
from national minorities who belong to general political parties.
He believes this is an important element to take into consideration
in order to gain an accurate picture of the representation of members
of minorities in Serbia’s political bodies.
34. Furthermore, the rapporteur congratulates the government which,
through its Agency for Human and Minority Rights, has initiated
research on inter-ethnic relations to enhance the integration of
minorities in Serbian society.
Note However, it would seem that the
research findings were not made public in detail. The rapporteur
considers that the lack of publicity for these results, if it is
substantiated, demonstrates a lack of transparency – which always
raises queries as to the nature of results capable of generating
tensions. In order to dispel these doubts, the rapporteur invites
the Agency for Human and Minority Rights to make its research findings
public in their entirety, in a spirit of determination to strengthen
mutual trust between the authorities, civil society and the members
of minorities.
4 Relations between Serbia
and the kin-statesNote
35. The Republic of Serbia has
signed agreements with several kin-states of members of national
minorities present in its territory. Such agreements exist with
Romania, Hungary and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.
There again, the practice does not always seem consistent with the
declarations of intent made on paper.
36. As the Romanian minority is specifically part of his terms
of reference, the rapporteur has chosen to illustrate his remarks
by examining the relations between Serbia and Romania.
37. Two texts principally govern relations between Serbia and
Romania: a treaty of friendship, co-operation and good neighbourhood
between Romania and Serbia (signed on 16 May 1996) and a bilateral
agreement between the Government of Romania and the Federal Government
of the Republic of Yugoslavia on co-operation in the field of protection
of national minorities (signed on 4 November 2002).
38. The rapporteur has been informed that the implementation of
these texts is unsatisfactory. The Minister for Foreign Affairs
of Romania has visited Serbia and requested the convening of the
joint intergovernmental commission for national minorities provided
for in Article 11 of the bilateral agreement, whose mission is to further
the implementation of the agreement.
39. Despite a positive response from the Serbian authorities to
this request, the joint intergovernmental commission has still not
met. Apparently the implementation of the bilateral agreements with
Hungary and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” presents
the same problem.
40. The rapporteur strongly encourages the Serbian authorities
to address the issue and appoint persons qualified to sit on the
joint intergovernmental commissions. It is necessary to hold such
meetings to keep the bilateral agreements alive.
41. Co-operation between state of residence and kinstate, under
bilateral agreements, is of genuine value for guaranteeing stability
in Europe, and deserves to be taken seriously. The rapporteur calls
upon the Serbian authorities to intensify their good-neighbourly
relations with the kin-states by fully implementing the agreements which
they have signed.
5 Multi-ethnic character of
Vojvodina
42. The Vojvodina region is composed
of a “multi-ethnic society”, being ethnically, culturally, and linguistically
diverse. According to the last census in 2002, the population of
the region is composed of around 26 ethnic groups, of which 65.05%
Serbs, 14.28% Hungarians, 2.79% Slovaks, 2.78% Croats, 2.45% Yugoslavs,
1.75% Montenegrins, 1.43% Roma, 1.5% Romanians, 0.97% Bunjevci,
0.77% Rusyns, and 0.58% Macedonians.
Note
43. In the course of history, the ethnic map of the region has
undergone very substantial changes. During and after the Second
World War, the composition of the population has been modified first
by the decimation of the Jewish population, then by the expulsion
of a large number of Germans and Hungarians, and finally by the
arrival of new settlers (around 200 000 people), principally Serbs
and Montenegrins. In the aftermath of the 1990s Balkan wars, the
region was the destination of a very large number of refugees from
Croatia and Bosnia.
44. Furthermore, and consequently, a significant decrease in the
number of members of national minorities has been observed between
the 1991 and the 2002 census. In 1991, 339 491 Hungarians used to
live in Vojvodina whereas there were only 290 207 in 2002. The same
applies to the Croats, 74 808 in 1991 and 56 546 in 2002.
5.1 Autonomy of the province
45. The Autonomous Province of
Vojvodina enjoys the status of territorial autonomy in the Republic
of Serbia.
46. The Assembly of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina is the
highest representative organ of province and consists of 120 representatives,
but it has no legislative powers. The Executive Council of the Autonomous Province
of Vojvodina is the executive organ of the province. For its actions
it is accountable to the Assembly of the Autonomous Province of
Vojvodina. The rights and duties of the executive council are laid
down by the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and by the statute
of the autonomous province as its supreme legal act.
47. Historically, the province enjoyed much more autonomy between
1974 and 1990 than now, which leads to regular calls for greater
autonomy. In this context, in the past years the executive council
has undertaken a wide range of intensive activities aimed at regaining
the competencies of the province.
Note The
2002 “Omnibus Law”
Note has
given back to the province some of the competencies lost under Milosevic,
but its competencies remain limited; it has no authority over the
police, or over the judiciary, for example.
48. More autonomy has been regularly solicited for Vojvodina by
parties of minorities, as was the case in the framework of the adoption
of the new Constitution of the Republic of Serbia.
Note Believing
that the new constitution did not bring the promised degree of autonomy,
some parties advocated a boycott of the constitutional referendum
(the turnout for which was relatively small).
Note Furthermore, the
question of minority rights was the subject of discussions during
the campaign for the 21 January 2007 parliamentary elections.
Note Now
the question of autonomy is again being addressed by the parties
of the minorities in the context of the next presidential elections
in January 2008; the Hungarians’ party announced in November 2007
that it would field only one candidate in the presidential elections,
supporting greater autonomy for Vojvodina.
Note
49. In this context, it is interesting to note that Article 12
of the new Constitution of the Republic of Serbia provides for the
citizens’ right to provincial and local autonomy. However, as the
Venice Commission points out in its opinion, “While this is welcome
in principle, it seems regrettable that the content of this right
is not made concrete in the constitution which leaves it nearly
entirely to the legislature to define the scope of these rights.”
Note The Venice Commission further considers
the guarantees for the financial autonomy of autonomous provinces
(Article 184) “rather weak”.
5.2 The situation back in 2004
50. Back in late 2003 and 2004,
a number of reports raised serious concerns as regards ethnically
motivated incidents in Vojvodina. The incidents reported were quite
alarming but nobody was killed. In this context, the European Parliament
adopted, on 16 September 2004, a resolution on “harassment of minorities
in Vojvodina” stating that “there has been recent proof of ongoing
violence against Serb citizens of Hungarian ethnic origin, which
has occurred in several towns in the province of Vojvodina, such
as desecration of tombstones in many towns; a proliferation of anti-Hungarian
graffiti; burning of the national flag of the Republic of Hungary;
physical aggression by the police against a mayor representing the
Hungarian minority”.
Note
51. The intervention of the international community has been perceived
as highly positive and most effective by a number of actors in the
region. As stated by the Centre for Development of Civil Society
(CDCS) in one of its reports “The interventions of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe of 3 October 2004,
NoteNoteNoteNote of the Special Representative
of the UN Secretary-General of 19 October 2004, monitoring of the
OSCE (end of October 2004) and the EU (beginning of February 2005),
the report of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of
16 December 2004, the visit of the High Commissioner for National
Minorities to Vojvodina on 16 February 2005, the extraordinary session
of the Committee to the European Parliament for South-Eastern Europe
on 6 June 2005 have all brought positive changes regarding the number
of incidents and the attitude of the authorities towards them.”
Note
52. Even though the different sources present different data (including
the Serbian Ministry of the Interior, who apparently provided at
least two different sets of data)
Note –
making it difficult to provide reliable statistics as regards the
incidents – inter-ethnic incidents were a reality
Note and the reaction of the
international community was necessary. But the rapporteur would
like to stress that it was not only the Hungarian national minority
which was targeted, but also the Croatian, Slovakian, Roma, Albanian,
etc. The Hungarian community is better organised than the other
minorities, and this guarantees greater concessions at international
level to the Hungarians’ interests. It seems that as a result the
attention of the international community has focused excessively
on the Hungarian minority, which does not appear as a “special”
target within the different national minorities. All minorities
should have received equal attention from the international community.
53. Considering the multi-ethnic characteristic of Vojvodina,
and of Serbia as a whole, as well as the history of the region punctuated
by ethnically motivated conflicts under the Milosevic era and forced
expulsion of groups of population, ethnically motivated violence
is a source of particular concern which should be tackled by the
authorities in a most rapid and effective manner.
5.3 Measures undertaken and
current situation
54. Reportedly, the authorities
did not react quickly and strongly enough against the incidents
to show a real willingness to tackle anti-minority incidents. It
has been noted, and it is most regrettable, that the authorities have
only been responding slowly and under international pressure to
the incidents.
Note In
particular the reaction of the police and the judiciary have been
criticised as inadequate.
55. The authorities began to show their intention to tackle the
problem only in late 2004, when in September the Prime Minister,
Vojislav Koštunica, visited several towns in Vojvodina and had discussions
on this issue with representatives of the police, the judiciary
and the public administration. The committees for security and interethnic
relations of the Serbian Parliament held a joint meeting in the
presence of political leaders of national minorities on 10 September
2004 in Subotica.
56. Indeed, tangible results of a better understanding of the
problem at the political level have been noted, as well as a positive
change in the police attitude, which worked more efficiently.
Note Consequently,
a substantial decrease of anti-minority incidents has occurred since
the end of 2004, a tendency which has been confirmed throughout
2005 and 2006.
Note It
shows that a more rapid and firm reaction at political level would
probably have avoided the escalation of the incidents throughout
2004. At that time, the authorities certainly failed to react in an
appropriate manner. It seems, however, that the reaction at the
judicial level and in terms of prosecution was much slower and complaints
were made to the rapporteur that even if the work of the police
has improved considerably, the investigations are still often blocked
at the level of the prosecutor.
57. The deputy ombudsperson of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina
stated before the Sub-Committee on Rights of Minorities of the Committee
on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on 17 May 2006 in Budapest that “the
length of police investigation against perpetrators of harassments
and assaults, the number of cases where the police is not able to
find the perpetrators at all, the way of presentation of such cases
on the national television indicate that the Republic of Serbia
contributes to the constant appearance of similar cases by non-action
or dilatory actions”; while emphasising that “compared to the year
2004, the effectiveness of the police in identification of the perpetrators
of these assaults increased in 2005”.
Note The rapporteur
finds it encouraging that several persons have been convicted of
extremist behaviour and incitement to racial or religious hatred.
Note
58. Generally speaking, some concrete improvements with regards
to minority rights were made prior to 2004 and have already been
welcomed.
Note
59. One should consider as significant the institutional changes
and legal regulations launched in 2002 in the spheres of decentralisation,
minority protection, and minority policy conditions (omnibus law,
minority law, establishment of national councils for national minorities,
modifications of the Serbian and Vojvodina parliamentary electoral
laws taking into consideration the principle of positive discrimination
with regard to minorities)
Note as
well as the establishment of the institution of the province ombudsperson.
Note Those
measures established by the Republic of Serbia are extremely positive
in the field of the protection of minority rights and all representatives
of national minorities the rapporteur met praised the highly positive
step of the institution of national councils for national minorities.
60. On 17 September 2004, a decree on the establishment of the
National Council for National Minorities of the Republic of Serbia
was passed. Accordingly, it aims at ensuring continuous communication
between the representatives of the national councils for national
minorities.
61. Although a substantial part of this favourable legal framework
already existed at that time, 2004 has been the scene of an escalation
of inter-ethnic violence in Vojvodina. This worrying reality shows
that important work must be undertaken at the level of improving
tolerance between communities. It is particularly worrying to note that,
although the number of incidents has decreased, inter-ethnic violence
still exits and occurs mainly between young people, as it has been
reported by many of the rapporteur’s interlocutors during his visit
to Novi Sad.
Note There
is a great need for educational measures towards better acceptation
of the different communities. In its opinion, the Advisory Committee
already stressed that initiatives aimed at promoting a spirit of
tolerance and intercultural dialogue need to be further reinforced.
Note
62. In September 2005, the project for the Promotion of multiculturalism
and tolerance in Vojvodina – which aims at improving inter-ethnic
relations – was launched by the Vojvodina Secretariat for Legislation, Administration
and National Minorities. The targets of this initiative are mostly
schoolchildren and the project includes a media campaign for multiculturalism.
The rapporteur welcomes this initiative as a step in the right direction,
hoping that it will be followed by further projects on a larger
scale. The rapporteur stresses the importance of this type of scheme
in view of the tensions that may exist between members of different minorities.
Indeed, it is disturbing to observe, in particular, a certain distrust
towards displaced Roma. The rapporteur notes for instance certain
intolerant reactions on the part of members of minorities about
using the abandoned houses in Vojvodina for the readmission and
accommodation of people due to be expelled from the European Union
in the coming months.
Note In
this context, the authorities should nevertheless take care to abide
closely by the provisions of Article 16 of the Framework Convention
while fostering mutual respect and tolerance among members of minorities.
Note
63. Furthermore, efforts have been undertaken to increase the
proportion of members of national minorities in especially sensitive
state services such as the police, prosecution and the courts, in
which they remain by far under-represented.
Note These efforts were welcomed by the
NGOs the rapporteur met during his visit to Novi Sad, which also
stated that no systematic discrimination towards members of minorities
can be noticed in this field. However, one regrets that there is
apparently a real lack of civil servants speaking the language of
the minority even in municipalities in which they represent a very
large majority of inhabitants. The rapporteur is aware of the building
of a multi-ethnic police force in south Serbia and thinks that such
an initiative could also be an appropriate solution for Vojvodina.
The rapporteur furthermore congratulates the ombudsperson of Vojvodina
who has published recommendations aimed at increasing the representation
of minorities in public administration.
64. As regards minority language education, the opinion of the
Advisory Committee noted various positive measures, highlighting
the situation in Vojvodina as a positive example, but also concluding
that there are gaps in some areas in the provision of teaching in
or of certain minority languages. Therefore it urged the authorities to
take more proactive measures to analyse the level of demand and
review the situation, with a view to ensuring that the domestic
legislation pertaining to the teaching in or of minority languages
is fully implemented.
Note In
this respect, the rapporteur was told that there is a lack of well-qualified
teachers for minority languages. At the same time, ongoing positive
initiatives to tackle this problem were reported, such as the creation
of a teachers’ faculty in Subotica.
65. As regards education issues generally, NGO representatives
expressed to the rapporteur their regrets that young members of
national minorities seem to have an increasingly bad command of
the Serbian language, while Serbian young people generally do not
speak any minority languages (even if they live in a city with a
numerically very large minority). They put forward the idea of developing
bilingual schools, which would allow the communities to get to know
one another better and also be an effective tool in promoting a
spirit of tolerance.
66. One should also underline the role played by the media. Indeed
media coverage is an important factor in the global approach and
perception of problems. In this case, it seems that the certain
media played an undermining role in the recognition of the anti-minority
violence by almost ignoring the incidents for several months and
sometimes even by relaying the information with a nationalistic
undertone. The authorities should make a real effort to ensure that
the media report in a most objective way, respecting their duty
to inform and warn the public, without contributing to an anti-minority
atmosphere. For this purpose, they should ensure by all legal means,
and via law pursuits when necessary, that the law against hate speech
is adequately implemented. Concerns have also been expressed as
to the lack of independence of the directors of television programmes
in minority language in Vojvodina.
Note
67. The media should shoulder their own special responsibility
to promote a climate of intercultural tolerance and respect, as
set out in Recommendation No. R (97) 21 of the Committee of Ministers
on the media and the promotion of a culture of tolerance.
68. In this context, the rapporteur notes with satisfaction that
the Agency for Human and Minority Rights has concluded an agreement
with the television companies and the national councils for minorities
on the content of programmes concerning the minorities in order
to foster a spirit of tolerance.
6 Vlach/Romanian ethnic minority
69. Several questions arise concerning
the Romanian ethnic minority in Serbia. The rapporteur noted disputes
over the very definition of the Romanian ethnic minority, as well
as regional inequalities in the effective exercise of the rights
of national minorities.
6.1 Definition of the Romanian
ethnic minority in Serbia: Vlachs/Romanians
70. The contours of the Romanian
ethnic minority are extremely hard to discern clearly.
Relevant issues
71. Firstly, it appears very difficult
to quantify the proportion of the Serbian population originating
from the Romanian ethnic minority. Indeed, the various censuses
show huge differences. While the 1991 census recorded 42 331 Romanians
and 17 807 Vlachs in Serbia,
Note 34
576 and 40 054 were the respective figures recorded at the 2002
census.
Note The
rapporteur notes the unsubstantiated allegations of several of his informants
that the censuses were tampered with.
Note
72. The Romanian ethnic minority is settled in quite distinct
regions of Serbia’s territory. Its principal homeland is Vojvodina
and eastern Serbia, to be more exact in the Timoc, Morava and Danube
valleys. The Vlachs are settled almost exclusively in eastern Serbia.
73. The Vlachs are an ethnic group present in Serbia and other
adjacent countries, culturally and linguistically related to the
Romanians.
74. Some believe that the Vlachs are part and parcel of the Romanian
minority, others that they are a separate minority. The fact that
the Vlachs have organised themselves independently from the Romanian minority
by founding their own National Council for the Vlach Minority shows
that some of the Vlachs do not regard themselves as belonging to
the Romanian minority.
75. The rapporteur observes that the process of instituting the
National Council for the Vlach Minority was long and arduous. Indeed,
for a long time the Serbian Government refused to register such
a council because it was indistinguishable from the national council
for the Romanian minority already in existence. The statutes proposed
for the registration of a national council for the Vlach minority,
as well as bearing the same name in Romanian as the council for
the Romanian minority, provided that the Vlach minority’s language/the
council’s working language should be literary Romanian. This led
the government to believe that they were one and the same minority,
and the law does not permit the formation of more than one national
council for one minority (a national council for the Romanian minority
had already been registered).
76. Language is a subject on which the different sensibilities
of the “Romanian” ethnic minority clash. Some consider that since
the Vlach language has no written form, the only written language
common to the Romanian ethnic minority is literary Romanian. They
see this as evidence that the Vlachs are members of the Romanian minority.
Others, however, are making attempts to codify the Vlach language
in order to assert this minority’s independence and distinctiveness
a little more strongly.
77. Finally, shortly before the rapporteur’s visit to eastern
Serbia, a vote among the members of the future national council
for the Vlach minority allowed its statutes to be amended with the
inclusion of the provision that the language would be “Serb and
the ‘mother’ tongue”. Following this amendment, the National Council
for the Vlach Minority could be legally registered on 31 July 2007.
Within this national council, two tendencies are represented, one
that considers the Vlach minority altogether independent from the
Romanian minority, the other taking the opposite view that it is
the same minority.
78. The rapporteur heard all parties and was able to discern that
the vote on amendment of the statutes was markedly contested among
the members of the Vlach minority, some of whom demanded reconsideration
of the decision. According to the information supplied to the rapporteur,
it would moreover appear that a decision to that effect (reaffirming
that the written language of the minority is literary Romanian)
was taken within the National Council for the Vlach Minority. But
the authorities have informed the rapporteur that the consequence of
going back on this amendment of the statutes would be the removal
of the National Council for the Vlach Minority from the registers.
To date, however, the rapporteur has not been informed of a move
in that direction.
Position of the governments concerned
79. The position of the Romanian
authorities in this respect is very clear-cut, President Basescu
having, moreover, described the division as an “error” and called
upon the two associations to unite.
Note He considers that Romania can offer its
protection to the Romanian ethnic minority and thus to the Vlachs
as well. Moreover, he regards the division as detrimental to the
protection of the Romanian ethnic minority’s interests as it weakens
their representation. Clearly, the Romanian authorities are doing
everything to induce the members of the Vlach minority to organise
under conditions of union with the members of the Romanian minority
in Serbia while respecting each individual’s freedom to choose his
own identity.
Note
80. The rapporteur points out that this stance of the Romanian
authorities is of some interest since the Romanian minority would
undergo a very large potential numerical increase if the Vlachs
joined it. In this way, the Romanian ethnic minority would come
close in numbers to the Hungarian minority (Serbia’s largest at present),
or even outstrip it.
81. The Serbian Government for its part wishes to be as non-committal
as possible on this issue. Some of the rapporteur’s contacts told
him of their convictions that it is altogether in the interests
of the Serbian authorities for the Romanian ethnic minority to remain
divided so that it keeps smaller proportions, and that they would
do everything to preserve an artificial division within it. Others
have gone so far as to claim that the authorities’ passiveness towards
the Vlach minority is tantamount to tacit assimilation. Remarks
of the same kind have reached the rapporteur concerning the Croat
minority and the Bunjevci minority, or again the Ukrainian minority
and the Rusyn minority.
Note
82. However, the rapporteur could not find any real interference
by the authorities regarding this question. He does not consider
abusive the conditions for registering an independent National Council
for the Vlach Minority. At his explicit request during his meetings
on the spot, the Serbian authorities assured the rapporteur that
they would not object to the Vlachs’ joining with the Romanians
under the umbrella of the National Council for the Romanian Minority
if they decided to form a single large Romanian ethnic minority.
The authorities do not encourage this amalgamation (that is not
their role), neither do they prevent it.
83. It should also be observed that the 2002 census mentioned
both the Romanian minority and the Vlach minority. The Advisory
Committee saw this as a positive factor bearing witness to the authorities’
equal recognition of the identity of the two minorities within the
meaning of Article 3 of the Framework Convention.
Note
Position of the rapporteur: recapitulation
of the principles
84. Consequently, the rapporteur
thinks that the position of the Serbian authorities in the matter
is reasonable a priori and has not hampered the freedom of the members
of national minorities to recognise themselves as such or to refrain
from doing so, in accordance with Article 3 of the Framework Convention, whose
provisions must stand as the basic reference here. The rapporteur
therefore calls upon the authorities to take positive steps on behalf
of the minorities, including the Vlach minority, and to ensure the
abolition of all discrimination against its members.
85. The rapporteur was struck by the divergences of viewpoint
even among the members of the Vlach minority over the question whether
or not they belong to the Romanian ethnic minority. This argument
causes infighting coloured by contrasting political interests, so
much so that some members of the minority known as “Vlach”, who
are even among the founding members of the National Council for
the Romanian Minority based in Vojvodina, are almost considered
traitors by their peers who advocate a separate Vlach minority.
86. In no circumstances is it for the rapporteur to set himself
up as a judge and rule on this question. He would reiterate the
fundamental principle stated in Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Framework
Convention, that “Every person belonging to a national minority
shall have the right freely to choose to be treated or not to be treated
as such and no disadvantage shall result from this choice or from
the exercise of the rights which are connected to that choice.”
The rapporteur recalls that any attempt to impose an identity on
a person or group of persons is inadmissible.
Note
6.2 Question of the (non-)recognition
of the Romanian Orthodox Church as a traditional church
87. The new law of 2006 on churches
and religious organisations in the Republic of Serbia
Note does not recognise
the Romanian Orthodox Church as a traditional church. The seven
traditional churches recognised under this law are the Serbian Orthodox
Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Slovak Evangelical Church, the
Evangelical Christian Church, the Reformed Church, the Islamic Community
and the Jewish Community. The reasons why the Romanian Orthodox
Church is not on this list can be queried.
Note Moreover,
the Romanian Orthodox Church is not even on the list of religious
denominations set out in Section 17 of the aforesaid law.
88. This new law, when at the draft stage, received a number of
criticisms from the Venice Commission.
Note In substance, the Venice Commission
raised several questions as to the possible discriminatory application
of the criteria stipulated in the registration procedure. It also
expressed anxiety at the possibility of registration becoming a
requirement for basic rights (
inter alia,
acquisition of legal personality) and recalled that the application
of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) could
not be made subject to a registration system.
89. More specifically, where the rights of minorities are concerned,
the Venice Commission notes that certain provisions (Sections 33
and 34) “could provoke some bias in favour of the dominant local
Church and discrimination against local minorities”.
90. The new law, and its application by the Ministry for Religious
Affairs, considered arbitrary
Note or discriminatory in some cases,
have apparently eroded respect for freedom of religion in Serbia.
91. According to information conveyed to the rapporteur by the
Serbian authorities, the Romanian Orthodox Church is recognised
in Serbian law. It would also appear that to quite a large extent
the relations between the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Romanian
Orthodox Church are settled directly by the church authorities themselves,
relations between the Serbian Orthodox Church and its Romanian counterpart
being governed by canon law. The two churches have concluded an
agreement on mutual recognition. In November 2006, the Serbian Orthodox
Church recognised the Dacia Felix diocese professing Romanian Orthodoxy,
while the Romanian Orthodox Church recognised the Serbian Orthodox
diocese of Timisoara in Romania. However, this agreement reportedly
does not give the Romanian Orthodox Church’s diocese jurisdiction
over the Timoc region, placed in the exclusive purview of the Serbian
Orthodox Church. Indeed, this is the region where the members of
the Romanian ethnic minority complain most of not being able to
engage freely in their worship.
92. At present, the Romanian Orthodox Church is therefore represented
by a vicar in Serbia. Some would like it to be possible for a diocese
to be created. The Parliament of Vojvodina has approved a proposal
for amendment to add the Romanian Orthodox Church to the list of
traditional churches set out in the law of 2006.
93. At Negotin in the Timoc Valley, the rapporteur conferred with
a group including Bojan Aleksandrovic, a priest of the Romanian
Orthodox denomination. The Reverend Aleksandrovic complained that
administrative barriers had been raised deliberately to prevent
him from building a church for his parish. He also claimed to have
received death threats and been prevented from lodging a complaint
on the ground that there was no legal basis for such a proceeding.
He considers that the Serbian Orthodox Church is actually the state
church since the construction of a church of another denomination
requires permission from the Serbian Orthodox Church authorities
(as was pointed out to him in writing by the competent ministry).
94. In Belgrade the rapporteur met officials of the Romanian Orthodox
Church (notably the vicar) who expressed complete satisfaction with
the situation of the Romanian Orthodox Church in Serbia which numbers 39
parishes (in addition to certain smaller entities). Contrary to
the positions reported by the press, they consider that the Romanian
Orthodox Church is quite adequately recognised in Serbian legislation,
and cited the regulations on the content and keeping of the register
of churches and religious communities (
Official Gazette
of the Republic of Serbia, 26 July 2006, No. 43/2006),
providing in Article 2 that “With the consent of the Serbian Orthodox
Church, the Romanian Orthodox Church’s organisational unit of Banat
shall be entered in the register” (unofficial translation).
Note
95. There was also question of the situation regarding Romanian
Orthodox religious instruction in schools, the teachers moreover
being paid by the Serbian state authorities. The representatives
of the Romanian Orthodox Church informed the rapporteur that there
were school books in Romanian (and let the rapporteur have some
copies).
96. Furthermore, the representatives of the Romanian Orthodox
Church diocese informed the rapporteur that the Reverend Aleksandrovic
was not recognised by their church (not having completed the requisite training
in the faculty of theology). In eastern Serbia, the position is
that at present no competence exists for the Romanian Orthodox Church,
so that every parish of this faith needs the permission of the Serbian
Orthodox Church authorities. According to the representatives of
the Romanian Orthodox Church in Serbia, the Serbian Orthodox Church
is ready to have masses said in Vlach//Romanian since priests of
Vlach origin have been ordained. However, that would require an
agreement between the two churches. But if things are that simple and
call for a mere understanding between the two churches, the rapporteur
wonders why no solution has yet been found.
97. So, while the rapporteur could observe the apparent cordiality
of relations between the clergy of Serbian Orthodox Church and the
Romanian Orthodox Church of Serbia, he is surprised that so much
latitude of decision is left to Serbian Orthodox Church, whose influence
in the recognition of other churches or religious communities seems
exaggerated. He is also surprised at the importance of the status
evidently granted to canon law in a secular state. He fears this
may point to an incomplete separation of church and state. This situation
would not be worrying per se if
the competences were clearly defined, but in actual fact some uncertainty
seems to prevail. The Venice Commission moreover clearly recommended
that a more precise conception of the legal status of canon laws
and ecclesiastical decisions be provided.
98. As to the practical possibility of attending a mass according
to Romanian Orthodox liturgy and in Vlach/ Romanian, the situation
is very uneven depending on the region considered. “Romanians” living
in Vojvodina have no trouble attending a mass celebrated according
to Romanian Orthodox liturgy and in their mother tongue. The position
is more complex for the members of the Romanian or Vlach minority
dwelling in eastern Serbia. It would appear to be possible at times
in certain villages, but not consistently so. Moreover, any fresh attempt
to hold a mass according to Romanian Orthodox liturgy in a locality
of eastern Serbia is allegedly subjected to strong pressure and
hostile reactions.
99. The rapporteur urges the Serbian authorities to cooperate
with the representatives of the two churches in finding a practical
solution whereby freedom of religion is made a reality in eastern
Serbia too. It seems necessary to think about the possibility of
granting a see to the Romanian Orthodox Church, for instance by extending
the territorial jurisdiction of the Dacia Felix diocese.
6.3 Use of the Vlach/Romanian
language in administration, education and the media
100. It has been reported that the
use of the Vlach language in local administrations is not even entrenched in
localities where the members of this minority represent over 15%
of the population. This 15% proportion is prescribed by the national
legislation for the use of a language in administration to be permissible.
Now, the Vlach language is not one of the minority languages on
which Serbia has made an undertaking in accordance with the European
Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Indeed, the rapporteur
considers it necessary to recall that certain of the charter’s provisions
apply to all minority languages including those not mentioned in
the instrument of ratification.
Note By virtue of the principles
stated in Part II of the charter, particularly Article 7, the Vlach
language should benefit from the measures to protect regional or
minority languages.
Note
101. The problem of education in the minority language is twofold:
on the one hand, it is hardly possible to teach in Vlach as this
is an essentially oral language, and besides there is a shortage
of qualified teachers to teach in Romanian.
102. The Serbian authorities and the representatives of the minorities
should combine their efforts to find practical solutions to this
problem. A proactive policy on this would be highly desirable since
teaching in, or of, the mother tongue is undeniably a factor enabling
a minority to remain in existence. Education underpins pluralism,
since language is the essential ingredient of the various cultures.
103. According to the information conveyed to the rapporteur, on
several occasions members of the Vlach/ Romanian minority have collected
signatures in a petition asking for instruction in their language
to be provided, without success.
104. Regarding the media, the members of the Romanian and/or Vlach
minority residing in eastern Serbia are plainly at a great disadvantage
compared to those living in Vojvodina.
105. While the members of the Romanian minority of Vojvodina have
access to a fairly wide range of printed, radio and television media
in Romanian, there is no such offer in eastern Serbia. Residents
of north-eastern Serbia cannot pick up the programmes broadcast
by Vojvodina television. In reply to the rapporteur’s enquiry, his
informants, including the authorities, invoked technical constraints
in that access to the broadcasts from Vojvodina was by cable only.
Certain initiatives have been launched to introduce a news programme
in Romanian in eastern Serbia but have evidently not been successful.
106. The authorities have pointed out that the obligation under
the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages to have
printed media in minority languages does not apply to Vlach which
was not included by Serbia in the instrument of ratification. Here,
the rapporteur reiterates the points made in paragraph 100 above.
107. Having noted the demand raised by the members of the Vlach/Romanian
minority in the Timoc Valley, the rapporteur calls upon the Serbian
authorities and the players concerned to consider means of extending the
availability of Romanian-language televised media in Vojvodina so
that interested persons can also benefit from it in eastern Serbia.
In the current state of technology, this is probably not an unfeasible
demand.
108. Moreover, the rapporteur was informed of the current privatisation
of the printed media in Serbia and is aware that small entities,
particularly those using minority languages, will not be able to
survive a wave of privatisation. The rapporteur invites the authorities
to provide for exceptions so as to ensure the viability of the minority
language media.
109. In conclusion, the rapporteur has been able to ascertain that
the Vlach minority are afraid of losing their identity, their distinctive
traits and their mode of expression, and on that score are fighting
to be recognised independently from the Romanian minority. Yet he
has also observed that two elements of the one minority are working
towards the same end, though employing completely different means.
These divergences can only impair protection of the rights of this
minority, and present the danger of being readily exploitable with
a view to assimilating the members of the minority more and more
with the national majority. The rapporteur has strong fears that
if the internal disputes persist or intensify, a loss of identity
for some of the members of this minority will be virtually inevitable.
On the other hand, if the members of the minority – whether one
wishes to call it Romanian or Vlach is of little account – unite,
they will have a real opportunity to secure respect for the rights
conferred on them by the law and international standards.
7 Concluding
remarks
110. As already noted by the Advisory
Committee in its opinion (mentioned above), the Balkans region remains
marked by inter-ethnic tensions, the dismal legacy of the anti-minority
policy of the Milosevic era. Even today, incidents of an ethnic
nature, with varying degrees of violence and intensity, are recorded
in Serbia. Quite plainly it is still necessary today to rebuild
trust between minorities and the Serbian authorities as well as between
minorities. The authorities should take more measures of a positive
and proactive kind in that direction, and above all ensure that
they are fully and effectively implemented.
111. The situation of national minorities in Vojvodina received
considerable attention from the international community in 2004,
which resulted in better handling of anti-minority violence at the
political level. It was urgent to react as the incidents were increasing
at an alarming rate. However, it should be emphasised that in many respects
national minorities enjoy a far better protection of their rights
in Vojvodina than anywhere else in Serbia. Yet, if such incidents
have decreased, they have not disappeared; the society is thus not
completely out of any danger of nationalistic rhetoric. In the view
of the debates on the status of Kosovo, it is of outmost importance
that the authorities of the Republic of Serbia continue their efforts
as regards national minorities and take all necessary actions to
avoid any fresh escalation of inter-ethnic violence.
112. The rapporteur notes that in many respects (education in and
protection of the mother tongue, worship in the mother tongue, representation
in political bodies and administrations, cultural initiatives, etc.)
the situation of the Vlach minority in eastern Serbia is distinctly
less favourable than for the members of national minorities living
in Vojvodina. Whereas a number of initiatives in Vojvodina have
been considered commendable by the Advisory Committee, it has noted
in particular that the situation of the Vlach minority in north-eastern
Serbia is far less advanced.
113. In 1997 the Parliamentary Assembly already said that it was
“concerned about the critical situation of the Aromanian culture
and language, which have existed for over two thousand years in
the Balkan peninsula”.
Note
114. The rapporteur can only confirm the danger which he was able
to ascertain. Vlach (or “Aromanian”) culture is indeed threatened.
Nobody disputes the very close links between Romanian culture and
Vlach culture but – without entering into discussion of the designation
of these minorities – there are certain distinctive traits, and
it is these that are threatened with extinction.
115. Each regional culture, or culture specific to a given population
group, is a building-block of cultural pluralism and thus enhances
the wealth of our societies.
116. The rapporteur strongly encourages the members of the Vlach/Romanian
minority in eastern Serbia to combine their efforts and overcome
their internal conflicts in their own interest and in order to preserve
the distinctive traits that make up their identity. Here the Serbian
authorities have a duty not to impede but to support initiatives
in that direction.
117. Furthermore, one of the constant problems in Serbia, a crippling
one when it comes to effectively guaranteeing fundamental rights
and freedoms, is inadequacies in the legislative sphere and in the
application of the laws.
118. Indeed, as already noted by the Committee of Ministers, “The
main problems in the protection of national minorities in Serbia…
pertain to the implementation of the relevant norms in practice”.
Note This
finding is still valid today. However, while the Advisory Committee,
in its 2004 opinion, held that these problems were partly due to
poor co-operation between the entities of the state union of Serbia
and Montenegro, today this can no longer be blamed for the non-application
of the standards in practice.
119. The rapporteur urges the Serbian authorities to ensure the
full and effective application of the standards laid down for protection
of national minorities. Trust between the various groups making
up the population of Serbia, and inter-ethnic peace, depend on it.
120. Lastly, and this is an essential point of the rapporteur’s
conclusions, the Serbian authorities have the duty to limit regional
differences in protection of the rights of minorities and to take
appropriate initiatives; the blatant geographical discrimination
that exists is unacceptable.
121. More specifically, the rapporteur invites the competent authorities:
- to pay greater attention to
allegations of interethnic violence and deal with them expeditiously,
firmly and efficaciously, particularly by means of effective police
investigations and judicial proceedings;
- to consider reinstating the position of Minister for Human
and Minority Rights;
- to ensure that the legislation on the rights of minorities,
particularly the laws enacted in 2002, are effectively implemented;
- to establish as speedily as possible the fund for promoting
the social, economic, cultural and general development of national
minorities provided for in Section 20 of the framework law of 2002
on the protection of the rights and freedoms of national minorities;
- to rapidly pass a law against discrimination, taking into
account the comments made by the Venice Commission;
- to adopt as a matter of priority the legislative texts
on the financing and election of the national councils for national
minorities, taking account of the comments by Council of Europe
experts on the draft law on elections;
- to define more precisely the functions and obligations
of the national councils for national minorities while granting
them the necessary funds to accomplish their missions;
- to introduce a mechanism enabling the national councils
for national minorities to supervise the acts of the executive with
regard to the rights of minorities;
- to convene more frequent and regular meetings of the National
Council for National Minorities;
- to envisage appointing a deputy ombudsperson in charge
of questions relating to the rights of minorities;
- to give the autonomous provinces adequate financial guarantees;
- to take positive measures in favour of members of minorities,
including the Vlach minority, and to eradicate all discrimination
against their members;
- to intensify their efforts for the furtherance of initiatives
to promote a spirit of tolerance and intercultural dialogue;
- to step up initiatives to train teachers with the requisite
qualifications for language teaching and teaching in minority languages;
- to continue developing bilingual schools;
- to eliminate the regional differences that exist in effective
safeguards for the rights of minorities (particularly for the use
of minority languages in administration, education in minority languages, freedom
of religion, etc.) by the full application throughout the territory
of the existing legislation in these matters;
- to consider technical solutions which would enable persons
living in eastern Serbia to receive broadcasts in Romanian made
in Vojvodina;
- to provide for exceptions to the media privatisation procedures
for the benefit of the media operating in minority languages, in
order to ensure their viability.
122. The rapporteur also calls upon Serbia and the kinstates concerned
to convene as early as possible the joint intergovernmental committees
provided for in the bilateral agreements concluded by them on co-operation in
the field of protection of national minorities.
Reporting committee: Committee on Legal Affairs and Human
Rights.
Reference to committee: Doc.
10715 and 10726 and Reference No. 3147 of 25 November 2005.
Draft resolution and draft recommendation adopted unanimously
by the committee on 22 January 2008.
Members of the committee: Mrs Herta Däubler-Gmelin (Chairperson),
Mr Christos Pourgourides,
Mr Pietro Marcenaro, Mrs Nino Nakashidzé (Vice-Chairpersons), Mr Miguel
Arias Cañete, Mr José Luis Arnaut, Mr Jaume Bartumeu Cassany, Mrs Meritxell Batet, Mrs Marie-Louise Bemelmans-Videc, Mrs Anna Benaki, Mr Luc
Van den Brande, Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci, Mrs Ingrida Circene (alternate:
Mr Boriss Cilevičs), Mrs Alma Čolo,
Mr Joe Costello, Mrs Lydie Err, Mr Valeriy Fedorov,
Mr Aniello Formisano, Mr György Frunda, Mr JeanCharles Gardetto,
Mr József Gedei, Mr Valery
Grebennikov, Mrs Carina Hägg, Mr Holger Haibach (alternate: Mr Jürgen Herrmann), Mrs Gultakin Hajiyeva, Mrs Karin Hakl (alternate:
Mrs Michaela Sburny), Mr Andres
Herkel, Mr Serhiy Holovaty (alternate: Mr Ivan Popescu), Mr Michel Hunault, Mr Rafael Huseynov (alternate:
Mr Ali Huseynov), Mrs Fatme
Ilyaz, Mr Kastriot Islami, Mr Željko Ivanji, Mrs Iglica Ivanova, Mrs Kateřina Jacques, Mr Karol Karski, Mr András
Kelemen, Mrs Kateřina Konečná,
Mr Nikolay Kovalev, Mr Eduard Kukan,
Mr Oleksandr Lavrynovych,
Mrs Darja Lavtižar-Bebler, Mrs Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger,
Mr Humfrey Malins, Mr Andrija Mandić, Mr Alberto Martins, Mr Dick Marty, Mr David Marshall, Mrs Assunta
Meloni, Mr Morten Messerschmidt, Mrs Ilinka Mitreva,
Mr Philippe Monfils, Mr Felix Müri (alternate: Mr Andreas Gross), Mr Philippe Nachbar (alternate:
Mr Michel Dreyfus-Schmidt),
Mr Fritz Neugebauer, Mr Tomislav Nikolić, Mr Anastassios Papaligouras, Mr Ángel Pérez Martínez,
Mrs Maria Postoico, Mrs Marietta
de Pourbaix-Lundin, Mr John
Prescott, Mr Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, Mr Valeriy Pysarenko (alternate:
Mr Hryhoriy Omelchenko),
Mrs Marie-Line Reynaud, Mr François
Rochebloine, Mr Francesco Saverio Romano, Mr Paul Rowen, Mr Armen
Rustamyan (alternate: Mr Raffi Hovannisian), Mr Kimmo Sasi, Mr Ellert Schram, Mr Christoph
Strässer, Mr Mihai Tudose, Mr Tuğrul Türkeş,
Mrs Özlem Türköne, Mr Vasile
Ioan Dănuţ Ungureanu, Mr Øyvind
Vaksdal, Mr Egidijus Vareikis,
Mr Klaas de Vries, Mrs Renate Wohlwend, Mr Marco Zacchera, Mr Krzysztof
Zaremba, Mr Łukasz Zbonikowski,
Mr Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Mr Miomir Žužul.
NB: The names of those members present at the meeting are
printed in bold.
The draft resolution and draft recommendation will be discussed
at a later sitting.
