Serbia 2016 Report – The Humanitarian Law Center’s Contribution

1. Prosecution of War Crimes

1.1. Lack of cooperation with the ICTY

More than one year after the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) issued an indictment for contempt of court and an arrest warrant against three officials of the Serbian Radical Party, hasn’t complied with the order to arrest the three individuals. Petar Jojic, Jovo Ostojic and Vjerica Radeta are charged with threatening, intimidating, bribing and otherwise tampering with the witnesses in the case against Vojislav Seselj.1 By not acting upon the ICTY’s requests Serbia fails not only to implement its obligations towards the ICTY and its own law, but also towards the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between Serbia and the EU (SAA). The SAA states that “Respect for democratic principles and human rights (…) respect for principles of international law, including full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (…) shall form the basis of the domestic and external policies of the Parties and constitute essential elements of this Agreement”.2

The lack of cooperation with the ICTY was highlighted in the latest ICTY’s Annual Report to the UN General Assembly with the finding that “Serbia remains obligated to cooperate in transferring custody of individuals to the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.”3

1.2. Domestic prosecutions of war crimes

The key issue in the prosecution of war crimes in Serbia lies in the lack of political will. The Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor (OWCP) deals with political pressure and threats, while government officials provide public support to the convicted individuals and present them as role models to future generations.4 Evidence and information in the possession of non-governmental organizations relating to the responsibility of high level military officials relating to the war crimes committed in face an avalanche of condemnation, denial, and threats coming from the highest levels of political authority.5

1 “Petar Jojić, Jovo Ostojić, and Vjerica Radeta charged with Contempt of Court”, press release, ICTY, 1 December 2015, available here. 2 Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States of the one Part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other Part, Article 2. 3 Report of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY, pg. 12, section 47. 4 “Victims Mocked by Government Reception for Lazarević”, press release, Humanitarian Law Center, December 2015, available here. 5 “Serbia’s Leaders Find New ‘Enemies Within’”, article, Balkan Insight ,February 2015, available here .

In February 2016 the Government of Serbia adopted the National Strategy for the Prosecution of War Crimes for the period 2016-2020. The Strategy does recognize some key shortcomings in the work of the institutions regarding war crimes prosecution and stipulates certain good solutions to overcome them. Yet, it fails to determine the key measures to reach the primary goal, which is the more efficient prosecution of war crimes. For example, numerous parts of the draft are not precise and concrete enough, leaving space for reinterpretation of the obligations of the public authorities and of the expected results; the Strategy does not stipulate concrete measures to correct the chronic problems in the work of the Witness Protection Unit. The most problematic part of the strategy is the one which states that the capacities of the institutions specialized for war crimes shall be limited by government austerity measures. There is reason to fear that the strengthening of the OWCP and other institutions and thus the effectiveness of prosecution of war crimes will remain under the direct influence of the executive, that is, the Ministry of Justice, because of the austerity measures. It is of crucial importance to regularly monitor the implementation of the Strategy in order to assure that its implementation is consistent with measures provided for in other relevant documents, especially with regard the capacities of specialized institutions.

The result of twelve years of trials before the courts in Serbia is only 50 finally convicted individuals, despite the existence of hundreds of unresolved cases. Only one indictment for war crimes has been confirmed since November 2015 (not a single one during 2015). There are still no indictments against high ranking officers, and command responsibility has not yet been applied in a single case.

Despite the EC’s recommendation that “measures should be put in place to preserve the extensive judicial experience acquired in processing (…) complex cases”6, Serbia continued to weaken the capacities of courts by frequently changing the constitution of the trial chambers. In November 2015 Judge Bojan Mišić was reallocated from the Department for War Crimes to the first instance Criminal Department of the Higher Court in . This was done through the annual allocation of judges for the year 2016 which was issued by the President of the Higher Court in Belgrade. At the time of the decision on reallocation, Judge Mišić was a member of trial chambers in five cases of war crimes. Bearing in mind the fact that there are six judges in the Department for War Crimes, these frequent changes of judges are delaying the proceedings, since the new judges have had to get acquainted with the cases, and affecting the quality of the trials.

Although it is indisputable that the court president determines the annual allocation of judges’ in accordance with the Law on Organisation of Courts and Court Rules, in doing so, his decisions must not be contrary to the Law on War Crimes, which stipulates that the time of allocation of judges in the Department for War Crimes is explicitly for six years.

6 Serbia 2015 Report, pg. 19, European Commission, november 2015.

The efficient prosecution of war crimes entails adequate witness protection and victims' support. Witness protection system was subject to criticism in seven previous European Commission's Reports on Serbia (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015) and four European Parliament's Resolutions on Serbia (2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014), as well as other relevant international authorities (Council of Europe, UN Committees). Despite all of this, nothing has been done in Serbia regarding the reform of the witness protection mechanisms, which would provide a secure environment and encouragement for delivering information about the crimes committed. On the contrary, witnesses are being intimidated and deterred from testifying, and there is also an instance of a lawsuit filed against a former protected witness due to alleged threats he sent to the prosecutor for war crimes.7 The lack of support coming from the institutions, which are responsible for the prosecution of war crimes and the lack of adequate protection by respective bodies, send a message to other potential witnesses that the information they possess is not welcome.

A particularly vulnerable group of witnesses is composed of the victims of sexual abuse. As there are no special measures to protect victims of sexual violence, they are subject to the usual procedural witness protection measures. Owing to the nature of these crimes and the consequences they have for victims, Serbia should adopt special measures to protect victims of sexual abuse, including i) the prohibition on accepting the earlier sexual conduct of the victim as evidence in the proceedings; ii) a rule of evidence whereby corroboration by other evidence is not necessary for proving rape; and iii) the rule that the consent of the victim is not grounds for a defendant's exemption from liability, if the victim feared for herself or a person close to her.

1.3. Regional Cooperation in War Crimes Prosecution

Bearing in mind the regional nature of the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, cooperation between the institutions responsible for the prosecution of war crimes represents a prerequisite for establishing justice for crimes committed during 1990's. Victims and perpetrators are in different states today and the prosecution is thus impossible without cooperation - transfer of documents, exchange of information, and joint investigations. The proof of this is the operation in which suspected perpetrators of the kidnapping in Štrpci were arrested and which was preceded by cooperation between the prosecutions and police authorities of B&H and Serbia.8 Yet, based on regional cooperation, the OWCP processed only the more simple cases with a small number of defendants. In order to make regional cooperation in the prosecution of war crimes fruitful, it is necessary to have it improved by amending the existing cooperation agreements in order to establish joint investigation teams and provide information regarding the proceedings initiated against the citizens of the other state and enforcement of the agreements signed.

7 “Former protected witness accused”, Radio Free Europe, November 26th 2015, available here (in Serbian language only). 8 “Serbia, Bosnia Arrest 15 in War Crimes Swoop”, article, Balkan Insight, December 5th 2014, available here.

Recent developments in relations between Serbia and with regard to the implementation of the principle of universal jurisdiction represents the clear sign of the urgency for strengthening the mutual understanding, cooperation and assistance. If ignored, they can result in slowing down the dynamic and the scope of mutual cooperation and even to its ceasing.

Regarding the cooperation with Kosovo, more needs to be done. As the OWCP don't have direct contact with the representatives of the Kosovo judiciary, it gathers all the evidence and information on the crimes committed in Kosovo through the EULEX mission. The cooperation with EULEX mission should be improved and strengthened, but in addition, cooperation with the Kosovo Public Prosecutor’s Office (PPO) should be established. Direct contact between the Serbian and Kosovo prosecutors' offices is crucial for prosecuting the crimes committed during and in the context of the war in Kosovo 1998-1999, and for searching for missing persons and the overall normalisation of relations between the two countries. The OWCP should initiate - and the Ministry of Justice should support this initiative - the signing of a formal agreement with the Kosovo PPO concerning the transfer of proceedings against foreign nationals to their countries’ institutions, informing the prosecutors in the region of all the cases they are working on that involve citizens of other countries, and the transfer of evidence in those cases. This is in line with the EU acquis, and some recommendations are already included in the Chapter 24 Screening Report: Serbia will need to remain fully committed to the continued normalisation of relations with Kosovo and implementation of all agreements reached in the dialogue, including by cooperating with EULEX as appropriate. This applies in particular to the steps towards judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Serbia will need to establish full cooperation in criminal matters with Kosovo as per IBM agreement. The same level of judicial cooperation in criminal matters needs to be achieved with Kosovo as with other neighbours.

1.4. Recommendations

In order to improve the prospects of establishing criminal justice in relation to war crimes Serbia need to implement following measures:

- Full cooperation with the ICTY; - Continuous public support for the institutions that prosecute war crimes in Serbia, for the former members of Serbian forces and other witnesses who are willing to assist in the prosecution of these offenses by offering valuable information; - Implement fully and in good faith the National Strategy for the Prosecution of War Crimes for the period 2016-2020; - Prosecute and try individuals for crimes against humanity and command responsibility; - Implement fully and in good faith all the measures envisaged within the section 1.4. of the Chapter 23 Action Plan;

- Implement additional measures in order to step up the witness and victims protection mechanisms in Serbia, such as: establishing clear mechanisms for the control and supervision of the work of the Witness Protection Unit (WPU), ensure continuous training of all institutional representatives who are in contact with victims and witnesses on witness and victim support, enhance the protection of victims of sexual violence in accordance with international standards and practice in this field; - Ensure the quality of trials by adopting necessary amendments to the laws and by-laws guaranteeing greater permanency of judges in the Special Department for War Crimes of the Higher Court in Belgrade - Improve regional cooperation with the prosecutorial offices in Croatia and BiH by establishing joint investigation teams and providing information regarding the proceedings initiated against the citizens of the other state; - Establish direct cooperation between the OWCP and the Kosovo PPO.

2. Providing the victims and their families with the right to reparations

The status of civilian victims of war has not been improved in previous year. Moreover, there were clear signs that Serbia doesn’t intend to assume the obligation to align with the EU acquis in this field.

Retrograde and discriminative Law on Civilian Invalids of War is still in force9, denying the right to the assistance and support to large number of victims who live in Serbia (e.g. families of missing persons, victims of sexual violence, victims who suffer from the psychological consequences of the violence sustained, victims with physical disabilities of less than 50%, victims of Serbian armed forces etc.). The Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Policy initiated a new bill in late 2014, which retains the majority of discriminatory provisions from the existing Law.10 More than a year after the new Bill has been initiated its text is still being kept secret from the broader public. According to the insight the HLC had, the latest version of the Bill does not improve the existing legal framework, but rather deteriorates the already disadvantaged position of civilian victims of war in Serbia.11 Such a solution is an example of institutionalized discrimination against a large category of Serbian citizens and is in contrast with the obligations that Serbia undertook by Chapter 23 Action Plan, which envisages the harmonization of domestic legal provisions with the notion of a victim in international human rights protection agreements.

9 Law on Civilian Invalids of War, “Republic of Serbia Official Gazette” no. 52/96, Article 2, available here. 10 “To Withdraw Discriminatory Bill on Rights of Civilian Victims of War”, press release, Humanitarian Law Center, December 2015, available here. 11 For more details read the HLC's press release „New Text of the Bill on Civilian Victims of War further Degrades their Status“, February 8 2016, available here.

The legal framework for victims’ right to compensation, as well as the Law on Civilian Invalids of War, has been criticized by the UN Human Rights Committee,12 the Committee for the Prevention of Torture13, the Committee on Enforced Disappearances14 and the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe.15 Furthermore, the inconsistency with the EU Acquis in this area has also been pointed out by the EC Serbia 2015 Report and the EP Resolution on Serbia for 2015.

2.1. Compensation Lawsuits

Neither the victims of war who are not citizens of Serbia have access to effective and just compensation. Their efforts to achieve the right to material compensation in court proceedings against the Republic of Serbia are facing with obstacles which are connected to the reluctance of courts to connect Serbia with the responsibility for grave human rights abuses during the wars. These cases are governed by the general rules of civil procedure, in which the victim is in the position of a prosecutor who must bear the burden of proof entirely. In most cases, the courts dismiss the victims’ compensation claims because of an alleged Statute of Limitations, interpreting the relevant legal norms to the detriment of the victims. In the rare cases where the claims are granted, they result in minimum compensation amounts. The procedures in these cases last on average five years.

2.2. Recommendations

In order to improve the victims protection mechanisms Serbia need to implement following measures:

- Withdraw the Bill on the Rights of Veterans, Disabled Veterans, Civilians Invalids of War and their Families from adoption procedure and draft a new version of the text which would be alligned with the international standards in the protection of victims rights and based upon the existing models16; - In the area of compensation lawsuits Serbia need to allign with the international standards (including the EU17) in providing the victims with an adequate compensation for sufferings they have sustained during the wars, to accelerate the procedures, to interpret the statutes of limitation prescribed by law in accordance with international standards in the

12 Report of the Human Rights Committee A/66/40 (Vol. I), p. 56. 13 United Nations Committee against Torture, “Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Serbia”, June 3rd 2015. 14 United Nations Committee on Enforced Disappearances, “Concluding observations on the report submitted by Serbia under article 29, paragraph 1, of the Convention”, March 16th 2015. 15 Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Report by Nils Muižnieks, following his visit to Serbia from 16 to 20 March 2015, July 8th 2015. 16 See: Model law on the rights of civilian victims of human rights violations committed during and in connection with the armed conflicts in the period 1991-2001, HLC and Center for Advanced Legal Studies, April 2015, available here. 17 Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims.

field of reparations for civilian victims, and to ensure thet the amounts of compensation should reflect the gravity of the injuries inflicted.

3. Establishing the truth about the past

3.1. Search for missing persons

Although Serbia is one of the signatories of the Declaration on the role of the state in addressing the issue of persons missing as a consequence of armed conflict and human rights abuses (issued in August 2014), it has not yet demonstrated its resolve to determine the fate of persons who are still listed as missing or to discover the locations of mass graves on its own territory.

Over 900 bodies of missing Kosovo Albanians have been exhumed from four mass graves found on the territory of the Republic of Serbia. These people were killed during the armed conflict in Kosovo and their bodies were transferred and buried in secret locations in Serbia, in order to conceal evidence of crimes. No one in Serbia has been charged for the concealment of bodies of Kosovo Albanians in the period 1999-2002, while the ICTY has convicted nearly the entire political, military and police leadership of the Republic of Serbia for the concealment of bodies. The ICTY has determined that the Serbian army and police were responsible for the collection of bodies in Kosovo, and that the police were responsible for their concealment.18

The laws on the military and military courts (in force during the 90’s), as well as official military orders, required that all cases of crimes, discovery of bodies and their treatment be documented by special organs within the military. Irrefutable evidence exists that these cases were indeed documented.19 Therefore, the archives of the Serbian army and police represent one of the key sources of information about the circumstances relating to the disappearance of civilians in Kosovo, the locations of the remaining mass graves in Serbia and other sites containing mortal remains of victims. These archives have remained secret to date and responsible institutions have been actively opposing all efforts to make them accessible to the public as well as all initiatives directed at the establishing of responsibility of members of the army and police for crimes committed during the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia.20

18 See ICTY Trial Chamber Judgment in the case of Vlastimir Djordjevic (23 February 2011), paras. 553, 985, 988, 2118, 2119 and 2121; ICTY Trial Chamber Judgment in the case of Sainovic et al (13 September 2010) paras. 1356 and 1357. 19 See ICTY Exhibit No. P1011, Report of the Commission for the collection of materials, on the battlefield sanitization performed on the territory of Kosovo and Metohija 1998-1999, Sainovic et al Case. 20 Humanitarian Law Center, “Minister of Defence Declared Documents on Activities of the 37th Motorized Brigade of the Yugoslav Army in Kosovo Top Secret”, press release, June 2015, available here.

In addition, Serbia has still not adopted a law on missing persons, despite the constant demands of associations of families of the missing and examples from neighboring countries where such a law has been adopted (, Kosovo).

3.2. Revealing the information about war crimes

Serbian institutions, especially the Ministry of Interior (MoI) and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) systematically obstruct public access to documents which contains the information about the war crimes committed during the wars in former Yugoslavia. Over the last few years, these institutions have been unlawfully obstructing access to information of public importance essential for shedding light on past events, including the facts relating to crimes and enforced disappearances. In their attempt to keep these documents out of public view, the MoI and MoD use a variety of arguments and procedures which often run contrary to the relevant laws.21

In 2014 the EU adopted the Guidelines on Freedom of Expression which emphasize that the right to freedom of expression includes freedom to seek and receive information, and that the access to information can serve to promote justice and reparation, in particular after periods of grave violations of human rights.22 According to the Guidelines the freedom of expression is a priority for candidate countries and the European Commission obliged itself to monitor the situation in this area. Accordingly, the EC’s Screening Report and national Action Plan for Chapter 23 stipulates that Serbia “improve the free access to information of public importance rules and their implementation“. This also includes “adopting amendments to the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance based on an analysis of the implementation of the Law on free access to information of public importance to date, in line with the National Assembly Conclusion for 2014.“ However, the said Conclusion of the competent committee of the National Assembly contains only three paragraphs and a page-long explanation, but not a single concrete recommendation for remedying the numerous serious problems in the implementation of the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance pinpointed in the Commissioner’s annual report. The process that preceded the adoption of the final text of the Conclusion clearly demonstrated that there is no willingness on the part of the Government to implement unreservedly and in accordance with EU norms the activity specified in the Action Plan.

21 For moreinformation see: Access to documents related to crimes against international law in the possesion of Serbian institutions: State secret prevails over rights to the truth, Humanitarian Law Center, April 2016, available here. 22 Council of the European Union, EU Human Rights Guidelines on Freedom of Expression Online and Offline, adopted on 12 May 2014, p. 3.

3.3. Recommendations

In order to fulfill the right to know the truth about the past and intensify the search for the missing persons Serbia need to implement following measures:

- Strengthen the cooperation with the institutions responsible for the missing in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo; - Provide all available and relevant information on missing persons to both national and regional stakeholders; - Open the archives of the former Yugoslav National Army and the Serbian Ministry of Interior; - Design and implement public campaigns for encouraging individuals who possess information on secret location of mass graves to chare with institutions; - Adopt the law on missing persons, which would regulate the legal situation of missing persons and their families in the areas of welfare, finance, property, and family rights; - Declassify all documents held by the Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Defence relating to the involvement of members of these two institutions in the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia; - Establish a new institutional mechanism aimed at making the archives containing materials essential for finding the facts about the events of the 1990s available for public inspection.

4. Institutional Reform

Institutional reforms in the form of lustration and vetting have not been carried out in Serbia. As a result, many members and officers of the Serbian police and military who had an important role in organizing, conducting and concealing war crimes committed in Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, still hold positions in the institutions and actively obstruct investigations into war crimes, undermining the efforts to re-establish the rule of law.

Vetting of members of the security services has neither been implemented nor made possible, because the current legal solution does not provide background checks of the wartime past of members of the army and the police, nor can it be used as grounds for permanent removal from service. The fact that about 15% of those indicted for war crimes in Serbia were, at the time of indictment, in active police or military service, illustrates the need for background checks of active members of the army and the police, as well as civil servants. Furthermore, the Law on the army does not require removal from service of a person against whom criminal proceedings are taking

place23, while the recently adopted Law on Police does provide for such a possibility and it should be broadly applied24.

Although progress reports on Serbia do not include lustration and vetting as separate categories, the numerous problems that the EC points to in its reports are in reality a result of the lack of institutional reforms of this kind – e.g. “no concrete steps have been taken to address the serious weaknesses in the witness protection system”25 “law enforcement authorities have been reluctant fully to investigate [witness intimidation] allegations within their own ranks,”26 “the lack of openness and transparency of recruitment procedures and career development within the police remain matters of concern.”27 Reports from other relevant international institutions point out to this problem explicitly: “the Committee recommends that the State party adopt explicit legal provisions that expressly establish: (a) the suspension, for the duration of the investigation, of any State agents, civilian or military, suspected of having committed an offence of enforced disappearance; and (b) a mechanism that ensures that law enforcement or security forces, whether civilian or military, whose members are suspected of having committed an enforced disappearance do not take part in the investigation.”28

4.1. Recommendations

In order to ensure the non repetition of the crimes and human rights abuses and to build safe and secure environment for all its citizens, Serbia need to implement following measures:

- Implement fully and in good faith the measures 1.4.1.7. and 1.4.4.2. of the Chapter 23 Action Plan, which prescribes the possible reform of the War Crimes Investigation Service and the WPU with special emphasis on the process of checking the wartime past of a candidates for employment; - Apply the new Law on Police which requires removal from service of a person against whom criminal proceedings are taking place;

23 See Article 77 of the Law on the Army of Serbia (“Official Gazette of the RS”, nos. 116/2007 and 88/2009). In November 2013, the OWCP raised an indictment against Pavle Gavrilović and Rajko Kozlina, active-duty members of the Army of Serbia and former members of the Yugoslav Army’s 549th MtBr. They were charged with committing a against civilians in the village of Ternje/Trnje in Kosovo on 25 March 1999, during which at least 27 Kosovo Albanians were killed. Immediately following the indictment, the HLC urged the Army of Serbia Chief of General Staff to suspend the accused from service in accordance with the Law on the Serbian Armed Forces, which envisages that a member of career military personnel may be removed from duty if criminal charges have been brought against him/her and the crime is “of such a nature that it would be harmful to the interests of the service that such an individual should remain on duty.” The HLC has not received any response to this request to date. The HLC then requested the Ministry of Defence, under the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance, to provide it with information as to whether or not the accused were still active-duty members of the Army of Serbia. The Ministry rejected the request, stating that the information requested is protected, as it constitutes personal information and information “relevant for the defence of the state.” 24 See Article 217 of the Law on Police (“Official Gazette of the RS”, 6/2016). 25 EC Serbia 2015 Report, November 2015, p. 19. 26 EC Serbia 2009 Progress Report, October 2009, p. 20. 27 EC Serbia 2010 Progress Report, November 2010, p. 52. 28 UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances, “Concluding observations on the report submitted by Serbia under article 29, paragraph 1, of the Convention”, March 16th 2015, p.3.

- Adopt similar measures for vetting procedures in other security forces; - Adopt and implement the regulation which will ensure lustration procedures to be applied on persons who are already holding positions in the civilian and security services.

5. Concrete steps towards establishment of RECOM

The RECOM Initiative advocates for the establishing of a regional fact-finding commission about war crimes and other serious violations of human rights committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia in the period 1991-2001. The RECOM Initiative has gained the support of more than 2,000 organizations and individuals from all the successor states of the former Yugoslavia, gathered in the Coalition for RECOM. The RECOM Initiative has also been supported by the presidents of Serbia, Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro and members of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In July 2015 the Serbian Government officially supported the establishment of RECOM29. The final phase of the RECOM Initiative is the ratification of its Statute by all post- Yugoslav countries.

The Coalition for RECOM insists on the Presidents and Presidency members in the successor countries of the former Yugoslavia, who have given declaratory statements of support to the establishing of RECOM, to take concrete measures directed at the establishing of this body.

5.1. Recommendations

Considering Serbia’s crucial role during the wars of the 90’s, as well as its publicly declared standpoints that it will continue to pursue reconciliation in the Western region,30 Serbia should effectuate this standpoint by taking the lead in ratifying the RECOM Statute.

***

The European Parliament Resolution on Serbia’s progress in 2015 recommends upgrading all of the above-listed mechanisms and processes of transitional justice as a key to ending impunity, ensuring justice for victims, establishing the truth about the armed conflicts of the 1990s, and promoting reconciliation and good neighbourly relations in the Western Balkans.

29 “Government backs initiative to establish facts on war crimes”, press release, Government of the Republic of Serbia July 6th 2015, available at: http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php?id=109929 . 30 Government of the Republic of Serbia, “Policy of reconciliation to be continued despite attack in Srebrenica”, July 13th 2015, http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php?id=110126