DOCSLIB.ORG

Material Reparations for Human Rights Violations Committed in the Past>

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Material Reparations for Human Rights Violations Committed in the Past> Material Reparations for Human Rights Violations Committed in the Past> Court Practice in the Republic of Serbia Humanitarian Law Center Material Reparations for Human Rights Violations Committed in the Past: Court Practice in the Republic of Serbia 1 Material Reparations for Human Rights Violations Committed in the Past: Court Practice in the Republic of Serbia Publisher Humanitarian Law Center For the Publisher Nataša Kandić Translation Vesna Bogojević Proof Editing Jonathan Boulting Graphic design Dejana & Todor Cvetković Printing Publikum Print run 2 300 Belgrade, January 2012 ISBN 978-86-7932-045-2 CIP - Каталогизација у публикацији Народна библиотека Србије, Београд 341.384(497.11) 341.231.14-058.64(497.11) MATERIAL Reparations for Human Rights Violations Committed in the Past : Court Practice in the Republic of Serbia / [editor Nataša Kandić]. - Belgrade : Humanitarian Law Center, 2012 (Belgrade : Publikum). - 128 str. ; 21 cm Izv. stv. nasl.: Materijalne reparacije za povrede ljudskih prava u prošlosti. - Tiraž 300. - Napomene i bibliografske reference uz tekst. ISBN 978-86-7932-045-2 a) Репарације b) Права човека - Кршење c) Права човека - Заштита - Србија COBISS.SR-ID 188770060 Table of Contents I Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 5 II Reparations on the basis of court decisions ................................................................ 5 I. The legal basis for the right to reparation through the courts ........................ 6 2. Characteristics of court proceedings for the realization of material reparations .............................................................................................. 7 2.1. The burden of proof .............................................................................................. 7 2.2 Interpretation of the statute of limitations at the expense of victimsa .................................................................................... 8 2.3. The attitude of state bodies towards victims .................................................. 11 2.3.1. Wrongful conduct of judges .............................................................................. 11 2.3.2. Non-recognition of victims by the Attorney-General ............................... 12 2.4. The amount of compensation ............................................................................. 12 2.5. The long duration of court proceedings ........................................................... 13 2.6. Fear of filing law suits............................................................................................ 13 III Cases where the HLC represented victims ................................................................ 14 1. Case: the SljivovicaandMitrovo Polje Camps ...................................................... 14 1.1 The arrest of refugees and deportation to camps ........................................... 14 1.2 Treatment of prisoners in the camps .................................................................. 15 2.1.1. The Case of Enes Bogilovic and Musan Dzebo ............................................. 18 2.1.2. Other cases where the HLC represents former inmates 3 of Sljivovica and Mitrovo Polje ......................................................................... 22 2.2. Illegal detention and torture of Kosovo Albanians ......................................... 23 2.2.1. The case of Ekrem Nebihu and Sylejman Bajgora ........................................ 24 2.2.2. Other cases where the HLC represents Kosovar Albanians as victims of illegal detention and torture in Serbian prisons ....................................... 30 2.3. Torture against Sanjak Bosniaks: 1992-199630 ....................................................................... 32 2.3.1. The case of Fehrat Suljic ..................................................................................... 32 2.3.2. Other cases in which the HLC represented Bosniak victims of torture from Sanjak ....................................................................................... 37 2.4. Crimes against Bosniaks in the village of Kukurovici (Municipality of Priboj) ......................................................................................... 38 2.4.1. The case of Musan Husovic .............................................................................. 39 2.4.2. Other cases in which the HLC represents victims of the crime in the village Kukurovici ................................................................................... 41 2.5. The case of a war crime against Albanian civilians in Podujevo/Podujevë ............................................................................................. 42 2.6 The case of Sjeverin ................................................................................................. 47 2.7. Forced mobilization of refugees from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina ........................................................................................ 53 2.7.1. The case of Dusan Stanic et al ......................................................................... 54 IV Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 59 Annex I: ................................................................................................................................... 61 Report by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe Following his visit to Serbia on 12-15 June 2011 Annex II .................................................................................................................................... 101 Concluding remarks of the Human Rights Committee on the Implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Annex III ................................................................................................................................... 111 Concluding remarks of the UN Committee for the Prevention of Torture on the Implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Annex IV .................................................................................................................................. 123 European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes 4 I Introduction Reparations are measures applied by post-conflict societies designed to correct different types of damages suffered by victims1 as a result of certain criminal offenses committed by previous governments and their institutions. The goal of reparations is justice for victims. For most victims, reparations are the most tangible manifestation of a society’s efforts to remedy the injuries they have suffered. Reparations are divided into material and symbolic, and can be individual or collective. They are realized directly through the application of a law (administratively) or through the courts. By reviewing the legislative regulations and court procedures in the lawsuits filed by the Humanitarian Law Center (HLC), this Report will discuss the realization of material reparations through the courts. II Reparations on the basis of court decisions In Serbia, the only mechanism that provides the right to financial support to victims of past human rights violations (hereinafter, “the victims”) is the Law on War Invalids.2 This law, however, applies only to victims who are citizens of 5 Serbia, against whom violence was committed by members of a hostile party in an armed conflict. It therefore exempts the victims of crimes committed by members of the Serbian Ministry of the Interior (MUP, i.e. police forces), the Yugoslav National Army (JNA) and the Yugoslav Army (military), regardless of whether they are citizens of Serbia or not.3 In the absence of a reparation program, victims often attempt to realize their right to material compensation in court proceedings against the Republic of 1 The term „victim“ indicates a person who, individually or collectively, has suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, financial loss or substantial impairment of fundamental rights, through actions or omissions that constitute gross violations of international criminal law or serious violations of international humanitarian law. The term “victim“ includes, where applicable, immediate family or dependent family members of direct victims and persons who have suffered injuries in an effort to assist victims in distress or to prevent victimization (Basic Principles and Guidelines on the right to legal remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 2005. Resolution No. 60/147 of December 16, 2005, provision 8). 2 “Službeni glasnik RS” (“Official Gazetta of RS”) No. 52/96. 3 For more on administrative reparations in Serbia, see: Vodič kroz reparacije (A Guide through Reparations), HLC: 2010. Serbia, invoking on those occasions the responsibility of the state for the actions of its armed forces. As a rule, human rights organizations initiate the proceedings by filing a lawsuit on behalf of the victims. The victims themselves rarely file on their own, be it out of fear or mistrust of the courts, or because legal services are costly. I.The legal basis for the right to reparation through the courts4 The Constitution
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Advance Unedited Version Distr.: General 14 December 2015
    1 . /HRC/WGAD/2015 A Advance Unedited Version Distr.: General 14 December 2015 Original: English Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its seventy-fourth session, 30 November – 4 December 2015 Opinion No. 48/2015 concerning Djuro Kljaic (Serbia) 1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of the Commission on Human Rights, which extended and clarified the Working Group’s mandate in its resolution 1997/50. The Human Rights Council assumed the mandate in its decision 1/102 and extended it for a three-year period in its resolution 15/18 of 30 September 2010. The mandate was extended for a further three years in resolution 24/7 of 26 September 2013. 2. In accordance with its methods of work (A/HRC/30/69), on 26 January 2015 the Working Group transmitted a communication to the Government of Serbia concerning Djuro Kljaic. The Government has not replied to the communication. The State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 3. The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases: (a) When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him) (category I); (b) When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal
    [Show full text]
  • UNDER ORDERS: War Crimes in Kosovo Order Online
    UNDER ORDERS: War Crimes in Kosovo Order online Table of Contents Acknowledgments Introduction Glossary 1. Executive Summary The 1999 Offensive The Chain of Command The War Crimes Tribunal Abuses by the KLA Role of the International Community 2. Background Introduction Brief History of the Kosovo Conflict Kosovo in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Kosovo in the 1990s The 1998 Armed Conflict Conclusion 3. Forces of the Conflict Forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Yugoslav Army Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs Paramilitaries Chain of Command and Superior Responsibility Stucture and Strategy of the KLA Appendix: Post-War Promotions of Serbian Police and Yugoslav Army Members 4. march–june 1999: An Overview The Geography of Abuses The Killings Death Toll,the Missing and Body Removal Targeted Killings Rape and Sexual Assault Forced Expulsions Arbitrary Arrests and Detentions Destruction of Civilian Property and Mosques Contamination of Water Wells Robbery and Extortion Detentions and Compulsory Labor 1 Human Shields Landmines 5. Drenica Region Izbica Rezala Poklek Staro Cikatovo The April 30 Offensive Vrbovac Stutica Baks The Cirez Mosque The Shavarina Mine Detention and Interrogation in Glogovac Detention and Compusory Labor Glogovac Town Killing of Civilians Detention and Abuse Forced Expulsion 6. Djakovica Municipality Djakovica City Phase One—March 24 to April 2 Phase Two—March 7 to March 13 The Withdrawal Meja Motives: Five Policeman Killed Perpetrators Korenica 7. Istok Municipality Dubrava Prison The Prison The NATO Bombing The Massacre The Exhumations Perpetrators 8. Lipljan Municipality Slovinje Perpetrators 9. Orahovac Municipality Pusto Selo 10. Pec Municipality Pec City The “Cleansing” Looting and Burning A Final Killing Rape Cuska Background The Killings The Attacks in Pavljan and Zahac The Perpetrators Ljubenic 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Serbia 2013 Human Rights Report
    SERBIA 2013 HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Republic of Serbia is a constitutional, multi-party, parliamentary democracy. In May 2012 the country held presidential, parliamentary, and local elections that international observers stated respected fundamental rights and freedoms. The Serbian Progressive Party finished with a plurality of votes in the parliamentary election and led the governing coalition. Voters elected President Tomislav Nikolic in the May 2012 runoff election. Security forces reported to civilian authorities. Authorities maintained effective control over the security forces. Security forces did commit human rights abuses. The most serious human rights problems during the year included discrimination and societal violence against minorities, especially Roma. Harassment of journalists and pressure on them to self-censor was also a significant problem, as were corruption in healthcare, education, and multiple branches of government, including police, and an inefficient judicial system that resulted in lengthy and delayed trials and long periods of pretrial detention. Other problems reported during the year included physical mistreatment of detainees by police; harassment of human rights advocates, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) groups and individuals, as well as groups and individuals critical of the government; lack of durable solutions for large numbers of displaced persons; societal and domestic violence against women, children, and persons with disabilities; and trafficking in persons. The government took steps to prosecute officials, both in the police and elsewhere in the government, when the public took notice of such abuses. Nevertheless, many observers believed that numerous cases of corruption, police mistreatment, and other abuses went unreported and unpunished. Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom from: a.
    [Show full text]
  • Polugodisnje Izvjesce Engleski.Indd
    Centre for Peace, Non-Violence and Human Rights, Osijek Documenta – Centre for Dealing with the Past Civic Committee for Human Rights MONITORING OF WAR CRIME TRIALS REPORT JANUARY / JUNE 2009 Th e report edited by: Mladen Stojanović, Robert Adrić and Katarina Kruhonja June 2009 Publisher: Centre for Peace, Non-Violence and Human Rights, Osijek On behalf of the publisher Miljenko Šmit Th e report edited by Mladen Stojanović, Robert Adrić and Katarina Kruhonja Translation Suzana Lazarević Ljiljana Bračun Print and Layout Grafi ka, Osijek Circulation 100 Osijek, 2009. ISSN 1847-0653 All texts may be used with the reference to the source. Th e project is being implemented with the fi nancial support provided by: Th e Delegation of the European Commission to the Republic of Croatia Th e OSCE Offi ce in Zagreb Th e National Foundation for Civil Society Development Th is publication is funded by the European Union. Th e contents of these documents are the sole responsibility of the Centre for Peace, Nonviolence and Human Rights and can under no circumstances be regarded as refl ecting the position of the European Union. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS KEY OBSERVATIONS 5 Insuffi cient personnel capacities and technical conditions 5 Political context and consequences by political decisions 6 Misapplication of the institute of parliamentary immunity 7 Dual citizenship and extradition 7 Decisions on trial expenses compensation 8 Status of the victim in criminal proceedings 9 Trials in absentia and re-opened trials against persons validly sentenced in absentia 10
    [Show full text]
  • Serbia in 2001 Under the Spotlight
    1 Human Rights in Transition – Serbia 2001 Introduction The situation of human rights in Serbia was largely influenced by the foregoing circumstances. Although the severe repression characteristic especially of the last two years of Milosevic’s rule was gone, there were no conditions in place for dealing with the problems accumulated during the previous decade. All the mechanisms necessary to ensure the exercise of human rights - from the judiciary to the police, remained unchanged. However, the major concern of citizens is the mere existential survival and personal security. Furthermore, the general atmosphere in the society was just as xenophobic and intolerant as before. The identity crisis of the Serb people and of all minorities living in Serbia continued. If anything, it deepened and the relationship between the state and its citizens became seriously jeopardized by the problem of Serbia’s undefined borders. The crisis was manifest with regard to certain minorities such as Vlachs who were believed to have been successfully assimilated. This false belief was partly due to the fact that neighbouring Romania had been in a far worse situation than Yugoslavia during the past fifty years. In considerably changed situation in Romania and Serbia Vlachs are now undergoing the process of self identification though still unclear whether they would choose to call themselves Vlachs or Romanians-Vlachs. Considering that the international factor has become the main generator of change in Serbia, the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia believes that an accurate picture of the situation in Serbia is absolutely necessary. It is essential to establish the differences between Belgrade and the rest of Serbia, taking into account its internal diversities.
    [Show full text]
  • “They” Wanted Them, and “He” Did Not
    “THEY” WANTED THEM, AND “HE” DID NOT “THEY” WANTED THEM, AND “HE” DID NOT: ABOUT THE CONTEXT, ORGANIZATION AND FORM OF THE FORCIBLE CONSCRIPTION OF REFUGEES IN SERBIA IN 1995 Borislav Radović Borislav Radović The training camp of the Serbian Volunteer Guard is situated in Erdut. Big barracks with spacious grounds were renovated and transformed into a contemporary facility comparable with the best international centers of this kind...It is busy like in a bee-hive every morning since 6 o’ clock, when a new working day begins. There are morning calisthenics, breakfast and inspection. The trumpeter plays the Serbian anthem and a new day starts. A strenuous training awaits them…Sunday is a day off. They attend the mess in the church, play sports on various playgrounds, go out…but everything as deserved, because disrespect of the rules of this stoic school of humanity can bring the old Serbian measure: 25 strokes on the buttocks, in front of the entire ranks.1 This is not a promotional flyer for some slightly bizarre fitness-center, but a falsely idyllic description of the decor of one of the darkest episodes of the contemporary Serbian history. In this “stoic school of humanity” occured acts and treatments so inhuman that even today they represent a genuine nightmare for those who experienced them. 1 “Kako je nastala Srska dobrovoljačka garda: Ponovo u stroju”, Srpsko jedinstvo, broj 10, jun, 1995, p. 13. 11 THE CONTEXT The main reason of poverty in Serbia is too much money the citizens have.2 The events we will speak about took place in the summer of 1995.
    [Show full text]
  • EUR 48/16/92 EXTERNAL 20 March 1992 APPEAL for VUKOVAR HOSPITAL PATIENTS DETAINED by the YUGOSLAV NATIONAL ARMY in NO
    AI Index: EUR 48/16/92 EXTERNAL 20 March 1992 APPEAL FOR VUKOVAR HOSPITAL PATIENTS DETAINED BY THE YUGOSLAV NATIONAL ARMY IN NOVEMBER 1991 Following the fall of Vukovar on 18 November 1991 to Yugoslav National Army (JNA) forces, about 440 patients and 320 hospital staff from Vukovar hospital were reportedly detained by JNA troops. About 400 civilians were in the hospital grounds at the time, where they had taken refuge; many of these were also arrested. Among those detained were Dr Vesna Bosanac, aged 42, a specialist in paediatrics, the acting head of Vukovar hospital during the three-month siege of the town by JNA forces, and her assistant, Dr Juraj Njavro. Although it had been agreed that the evacuation of Vukovar hospital would be supervised by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the JNA reportedly broke this agreement and ejected ICRC representatives from the hospital. Dr Bosanac, Dr Njavro and a number of other doctors and patients from Vukovar hospital were released on 10 December 1991 in prisoner exchanges. Dr Njavro and several other doctors subsequently made statements about the ill-treatment and harsh conditions they and other prisoners had experienced in JNA detention (see below). However, 185 patients (including wounded members of the Croatian Army) and 38 auxilliary staff from Vukovar hospital have reportedly remained detained. The Croatian authorities have established through contacts with the JNA and through the ICRC that some are detained in various detention centres in Serbia, mainly in Sremska Mitrovica and Niš prisons. The whereabouts and fate of others remains unknown, and it is feared that some may have been killed following their capture by JNA and Serbian paramilitary forces.
    [Show full text]
  • Corrigé Corrected
    Corrigé Corrected CR 2014/10 International Court Cour internationale of Justice de Justice THE HAGUE LA HAYE YEAR 2014 Public sitting held on Thursday 6 March 2014, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia) ________________ VERBATIM RECORD ________________ ANNÉE 2014 Audience publique tenue le jeudi 6 mars 2014, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Tomka, président, en l’affaire relative à l’Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Croatie c. Serbie) ____________________ COMPTE RENDU ____________________ - 2 - Present: President Tomka Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor Judges Owada Abraham Keith Bennouna Skotnikov Cançado Trindade Greenwood Xue Donoghue Gaja Sebutinde Bhandari Judges ad hoc Vukas Kreća Registrar Couvreur - 3 - Présents: M. Tomka, président M. Sepúlveda-Amor, vice-président MM. Owada Abraham Keith Bennouna Skotnikov Cançado Trindade Greenwood Mmes Xue Donoghue M. Gaja Mme Sebutinde M. Bhandari, juges MM. Vukas Kreća, juges ad hoc M. Couvreur, greffier - 4 - The Government of the Republic of Croatia is represented by: Ms Vesna Crnić-Grotić, Professor of International Law, University of Rijeka, as Agent; H.E. Ms Andreja Metelko-Zgombić, Ambassador, Director General for EU Law, International Law and Consular Affairs, Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, Zagreb, Ms Jana Špero, Head of Sector, Ministry of Justice, Zagreb, Mr. Davorin Lapaš, Professor of International Law, University of Zagreb, as Co-Agents; Mr. James Crawford, A.C., S.C., F.B.A., Whewell Professor of International Law, University of Cambridge, Member of the Institut de droit international, Barrister, Matrix Chambers, London, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution and Condition of the Elites in Bosnia-Herzegovina – a Personal View
    Evolution and Condition of the Elites in Bosnia-Herzegovina – A Personal View Ivo Lučić History taught us that Medieval Hum and Bosnia were repre - sented by its noble rulers: from Prince Miroslav to Herzog Stipan, from Ban Kulin to Stipan Tomašević. A numerous lower gentry were active too. The Turkish occupation changed radi - cally the society of Herzegovina and Bosnia. The power was handed in to Turkish pashas, bays, and ‘aga’s, whilst the Christian millets had their own noblemen who acted as guardians of spirit and identity of their communities. The latter included mainly the Orthodox and Catholic priests, but also the local, popular princes of whose presence and activity we find a witness in a 1551 letter from Pope Julius to two princi - pals of Duvno ( Dilecti filiis Comiti ), Grga Lučić and Pavle Vučković; the Pope informs them that he has acknowledged their recommendations and appointed Fr Danijel Glasnović from Split a bishop of Duvno Diocese. The conquered Herzegovinan and Bosnian land turned into an Ottoman (Sultan) property and was ruled by vezirs, bays, and agas. The Christian landsmen cultivated the land they could not own, and were not allowed to build on it, except for wall- stones. They lived hard by cultivating the piece of land they could plough by a pair of oxen. They paid high tax and were not allowed to leave the land without permission. However, they could have been ordered to move, and ‘their’ land con - fiscated, at once. The Christians were allowed to work in min - ing and as artisans serving the needs of the empire.
    [Show full text]
  • HR.Orders.6P 415-502
    15 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF VIOLATIONS etween March and December 1999, Human Rights Watch con- Bducted more than 600 interviews with victims and witnesses to international humanitarian law violations in Kosovo. The information from these interviews is presented in other chapters of this book in testi- mony cited from interviews and case studies. This chapter uses statistics derived from the interviews to examine the trends and patterns of the crimes committed that may not be evident from narrative information. The num- bers and graphs will deal in a systematic and substantive way with the reports of who was killed, when, where, and by whom. The chapter, prepared in conjunction with the Science and Human Rights Program of the American Association for the Advancement of Sci- ence (AAAS), is the first large-scale data project conducted by Human Rights Watch.1 It hopefully contributes to the growing field of human rights and statistical analysis.2 The interviews were conducted by Human Rights Watch researchers, usually with a interpreter,in Albania and Macedonia between March 28 and June 12, 1999, and in Kosovo between June 12 and December 31, 1999. Interviewees were selected for their knowledge of specific abuses inside the province. All interviews were conducted with a view to eliciting open nar- ratives of what the interviewee had seen or experienced inside Kosovo between March 20 and June 12, 1999, rather than through standardized questionnaires. On return to New York, the interview documents were coded by trained volunteers for violation types, time and place of viola- tions, victims, and perpetrators. A database was created, which is available for public use at http://hrdata.aaas.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Committee Against Torture
    A/59/44 United Nations Report of the Committee against Torture Thirty-first session (10-21 November 2003) Thirty-second session (3-21 May 2004) General Assembly Official Records Fifty-ninth session Supplement No. 44 (A/59/44) A/59/44 General Assembly Official Records Fifty-ninth session Supplement No. 44 (A/59/44) Report of the Committee against Torture Thirty-first session (10-21 November 2003) Thirty-second session (3-21 May 2004) United Nations • New York, 2004 NOTE Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. CONTENTS Chapter Paragraphs Page I. ORGANIZATIONAL AND OTHER MATTERS .................... 1 - 17 7 A. States parties to the Convention ....................................... 1 - 3 7 B. Sessions of the Committee ............................................... 4 7 C. Elections, membership and attendance at sessions ........... 5 7 D. Solemn declaration by the newly elected members ......... 6 7 E. Election of officers ........................................................... 7 8 F. Agendas ............................................................................ 8 - 9 8 G. Pre-sessional working group ............................................ 10 - 11 9 H. Lists of issues ................................................................... 12 - 14 9 I. Thematic rapporteurs ........................................................ 15 10 J. Participation of Committee members in other meetings ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring Prison System Reform in Serbia 2012-2013 and Prison System in Serbia in 2011
    HELSINKI COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN SERBIA Monitoring Prison System Reform in Serbia 2012-2013 and Prison System in Serbia in 2011 Belgrade, January 2014. 1 Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia www.helsinki.org.rs Monitoring Prison System Reform in Serbia 2012 – 2013 and Prison System in Serbia 2011 Publisher: Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia Volume Helsinki files No. 32 For publisher: Sonja Biserko Authors: Jelena Mirkov Subić Mara Živkov Ivan Kuzminović Ljiljana Palibrk Experts who participated in the monitoring: Aleksandra Bezarević, Milena Jerotijević English translation:Translation agency Mya Spomenka Grujičić, Mara Živkov Design: Foton plus Belgrade Print: Diginet Zrenjanin Circulation 500 copies ISBN 978-86-7208-192-3 COBISS.RS-ID 204559884 Belgrade, january 2014. This report has been published thanks to the support of Civil Rights Defenders and the Embasy of the Netherlands in Belgrade, Serbia. 2 3 . Contents: Introduction 7 Prison system reform 9 Prison monitoring 2012-2013 15 I. Quality of life and living conditions 16 II. Security 32 III. Legality of treatment 38 IV. Social resettlement 42 V. Contacts with the outside world 47 VI. Personnel 48 Prison System in Serbia in 2011 49 Educational–Correctional Institution in Kruševac 54 Valjevo Reformatory 68 Penitentiary-Reformatory for Women in Požarevac 79 The prison system in Serbia 93 Systemic recommendations 116 4 5 6 Introduction Over the past ten years, the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia (HCHRS) has conducted dozens of visits to prisons in Serbia with the aim of making an assessment of the human rights conditions for imprisoned and detained citizens.
    [Show full text]