DOCSLIB.ORG

Claimants' Memorial

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Claimants' Memorial IN THE MATTER OF INVESTMENT DISPUTE UNDER THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS AND UNDER THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO AND THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS ON RECIPROCAL PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS RAND INVESTMENTS LTD., WILLIAM ARCHIBALD RAND, KATHLEEN ELIZABETH RAND, ALLISON RUTH RAND AND ROBERT HARRY LEANDER RAND (CANADA) AND SEMBI INVESTMENT LIMITED (CYPRUS) CLAIMANTS – v – THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA RESPONDENT MEMORIAL 16 January 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 3 A. Preliminary statement ......................................................................................................... 3 B. Summary of Claimants’ claim ............................................................................................ 3 C. Organization of the Request for Arbitration ..................................................................... 11 II. THE PARTIES .......................................................................................................................... 13 A. Claimants .......................................................................................................................... 13 B. Respondent ....................................................................................................................... 18 III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 19 A. Pre-privatization history of BD Agro ............................................................................... 19 B. Privatization of BD Agro .................................................................................................. 20 C. Operation of BD Agro after privatization ......................................................................... 24 D. 2008 restructuring of beneficial ownership ...................................................................... 26 E. Privatization Agency’s 2011 final control ........................................................................ 28 F. Full payment of purchase price ......................................................................................... 31 G. Ministry of Economy’s instructions to Privatization Agency that there was no justification to terminate privatization agreement ................................................................................ 34 H. Changes in BD Agro’s management................................................................................. 35 I. 2013 Legal Opinion by the Privatization Agency’s outside counsel that there was no legal basis to terminate Privatization Agreement ...................................................................... 36 J. Privatization Agency’s arbitrary refusal to allow for transfer of nominal ownership of Beneficially Owned Shares ............................................................................................... 39 K. Attempts to find strategic partners for BD Agro .............................................................. 41 L. Plan to reorganize BD Agro’s debt ................................................................................... 41 M. Ministry of Economy’s initiation of supervision procedure over Privatization Agency and Privatization Agency’s unwillingness to make any decisions until its conclusion ........... 43 N. The pre-pack reorganization plan ..................................................................................... 46 O. Ministry of Economy’s unlawful instructions to Privatization Agency ........................... 48 P. Ombudsman’s unlawful intervention and “recommendation” to terminate Privatization Agreement ......................................................................................................................... 49 Q. Privatization Agency’s unjustified about-face .................................................................. 55 R. Serbian Government’s continuing false promises ............................................................ 58 S. Ombudsman’s insistence that the Privatization Agreement be terminated ....................... 58 T. Meeting of the Privatization Agency deciding to terminate the agreement ...................... 59 U. Unlawful declaration of termination of Privatization Agreement .................................... 61 V. Direct expropriation of Beneficially Owned Shares ......................................................... 69 W. Revocation of the reorganization plan .............................................................................. 71 X. Bankruptcy of BD Agro .................................................................................................... 72 IV. JURISDICTION ........................................................................................................................ 73 A. Claimants’ claims meet the jurisdictional requirements of the Treaties ........................... 73 1. Jurisdiction ratione personae ................................................................................. 73 2. Jurisdiction ratione materiae .................................................................................. 78 i 3. Jurisdiction ratione temporis .................................................................................. 84 B. Claimants’ claims meet the jurisdictional requirements of the ICSID Convention .......... 85 1. “Legal dispute” ....................................................................................................... 85 2. “Arising directly out of an investment” .................................................................. 86 3. “Between a Contracting State and a national of another Contracting State” ........ 87 4. “Which the parties consent in writing to submit to the Centre” ............................. 88 V. ACTIONS OF THE MINISTRY OF ECONOMY, THE PRIVATIZATION AGENCY, AND THE OMBUDSMAN ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 91 A. The Ministry of Economy’s actions are attributable to Serbia because it is a State organ 91 B. The Privatization Agency’s actions are attributable to Serbia .......................................... 92 C. The Ombudsman’s actions are attributable to Serbia because the Ombudsman is a State organ ................................................................................................................................. 99 VI. SERBIA VIOLATED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TREATIES ........................... 100 A. Serbia unlawfully expropriated the Claimants’ investments .......................................... 100 B. Serbia impaired Sembi’s investment by arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory measures ......................................................................................................................... 109 C. Serbia failed to provide fair and equitable treatment to the Claimants’ investment ....... 113 D. Serbia violated the umbrella clause ................................................................................ 114 E. Serbia acted in a sovereign capacity ............................................................................... 116 VII. CLAIMANTS ARE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR THEIR LOSSES ........... 125 A. Serbia must provide full reparation for breaches of its obligations under the Treaties .. 125 B. The full reparation standard requires payment of fair market value plus interest .......... 126 1. The full reparation standard requires payment of fair market value..................... 126 2. The full reparation standard requires payment of interest .................................... 128 3. The interest shall be calculated pursuant to Serbian law ...................................... 128 4. Alternatively, the Claimants are entitled to interest equal to 6-month average EURIBOR + 2%, compounded semi-annually ..................................................... 131 C. Valuation of BD Agro and its assets ............................................................................... 133 1. The Mrgud Valuation implies equity value of over EUR 71 million ................... 134 2. The First Confineks Valuation appraises BD Agro’s fair market value at EUR 57.2 million .................................................................................................................. 135 3. The Second Confineks Valuation appraises BD Agro’s fair market value at EUR 56.4 million........................................................................................................... 137 4. Dr. Hern estimates the fair market value of BD Agro between EUR 53.3 million and EUR 81 million..................................................................................................... 138 D. Value of Claimants’ interest in BD Agro’s equity .......................................................... 145 1. Value of Sembi’s interest in BD Agro’s equity .................................................... 145 2. Value of the Canadian Claimants’ interest in BD Agro’s equity ......................... 146 3. Loss resulting from Mr. Rand’s receivables against BD Agro being rendered worthless ............................................................................................................... 152 VIII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF ...................................................................................................... 154 ii I. INTRODUCTION A. Preliminary statement
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report to the Government of Serbia on the Visit to Serbia Carried out by The
    CPT/Inf (2012) 17 Report to the Government of Serbia on the visit to Serbia carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 1 to 11 February 2011 The Government of Serbia has requested the publication of this report and of its response. The Government’s response is set out in document CPT/Inf (2012) 18. Strasbourg, 14 June 2012 - 2 - CONTENTS Copy of the letter transmitting the CPT's report ............................................................................4 I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................5 A. Dates of the visit and composition of the delegation ..............................................................5 B. Establishments visited...............................................................................................................6 C. Consultations held by the delegation and co-operation received .........................................7 D. Immediate observations under Article 8, paragraph 5, of the Convention establishing the CPT ......................................................................................................................................8 E. National Preventive Mechanism ..............................................................................................8 II. FACTS FOUND DURING THE VISIT AND ACTION PROPOSED ..............................10 A. Establishments under the authority of the Ministry of Interior.........................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Serbian Institutions
    “It is My Dream to Leave This Place” Children with Disabilities in Serbian Institutions Copyright © 2016 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 978-1-6231-33603 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide. We scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice. Human Rights Watch is an independent, international organization that works as part of a vibrant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all. Human Rights Watch is an international organization with staff in more than 40 countries, and offices in Amsterdam, Beirut, Berlin, Brussels, Chicago, Geneva, Goma, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, Nairobi, New York, Paris, San Francisco, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, Tunis, Washington DC, and Zurich. For more information, please visit our website: http://www.hrw.org JUNE 2016 ISBN: 978-1-6231-33603 “It is My Dream to Leave This Place” Children with Disabilities in Serbian Institutions Map .................................................................................................................................... I Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1p Life in Institutions .................................................................................................................... 6 Obligations ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • THE WARP of the SERBIAN IDENTITY Anti-Westernism, Russophilia, Traditionalism
    HELSINKI COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN SERBIA studies17 THE WARP OF THE SERBIAN IDENTITY anti-westernism, russophilia, traditionalism... BELGRADE, 2016 THE WARP OF THE SERBIAN IDENTITY Anti-westernism, russophilia, traditionalism… Edition: Studies No. 17 Publisher: Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia www.helsinki.org.rs For the publisher: Sonja Biserko Reviewed by: Prof. Dr. Dubravka Stojanović Prof. Dr. Momir Samardžić Dr Hrvoje Klasić Layout and design: Ivan Hrašovec Printed by: Grafiprof, Belgrade Circulation: 200 ISBN 978-86-7208-203-6 This publication is a part of the project “Serbian Identity in the 21st Century” implemented with the assistance from the Open Society Foundation – Serbia. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Open Society Foundation – Serbia. CONTENTS Publisher’s Note . 5 TRANSITION AND IDENTITIES JOVAN KOMŠIĆ Democratic Transition And Identities . 11 LATINKA PEROVIĆ Serbian-Russian Historical Analogies . 57 MILAN SUBOTIĆ, A Different Russia: From Serbia’s Perspective . 83 SRĐAN BARIŠIĆ The Role of the Serbian and Russian Orthodox Churches in Shaping Governmental Policies . 105 RUSSIA’S SOFT POWER DR. JELICA KURJAK “Soft Power” in the Service of Foreign Policy Strategy of the Russian Federation . 129 DR MILIVOJ BEŠLIN A “New” History For A New Identity . 139 SONJA BISERKO, SEŠKA STANOJLOVIĆ Russia’s Soft Power Expands . 157 SERBIA, EU, EAST DR BORIS VARGA Belgrade And Kiev Between Brussels And Moscow . 169 DIMITRIJE BOAROV More Politics Than Business . 215 PETAR POPOVIĆ Serbian-Russian Joint Military Exercise . 235 SONJA BISERKO Russia and NATO: A Test of Strength over Montenegro .
    [Show full text]
  • Third Section
    Communicated on 25 June 2014 THIRD SECTION Application no. 5591/10 Milica ĐORĐEVIĆ and others against Serbia and 3 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are all represented by the Belgrade Center for Human Rights, a non-governmental organisation based in Serbia. A. The relevant background An attempt was made on 31 June 2001 to hold a rally intended by its organisers to promote the equality and visibility of lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender population in Serbia (the “Belgrade Pride Parade”) in central Belgrade. This event was violently disrupted and the rally had to be stopped. The next attempt to hold such a rally was made in 2009 (see below). A “Pride Parade” was held in central Belgrade on 10 October 2010 with official permission. While the parade itself was held without incidents, the police had to confront numerous violent opponents who tried to disrupt it. It was reported that more than 100 police officers were injured. No “Pride Parades” have been permitted since. The applications concern the applicants’ attempts to hold “Pride Parades” in 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2013. B. The circumstances of the present cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 2 ĐORĐEVIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA AND OTHER APPLICATIONS STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS 1. Pride Parade in Belgrade in 2009 (Application no 5591/10) (a) Introduction The applicants in this case are Ms Milica Đorđević, Mr Dušan Kosanović, Ms Majda Puača, Ms Marija Savić and Ms Dragana Vučković.
    [Show full text]
  • UNDP RS NARS and Indepen
    The National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia Serbia AND INDEPENDENT BODIES SERBIA THE REPUBLIC OF OF ASSEMBLY NATIONAL NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA AND INDEPENDENT BODIES 253 NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA AND INDEPENDENT BODIES NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA AND INDEPENDENT BODIES Materials from the Conference ”National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia and Independent Bodies” Belgrade, 26-27 November 2009 and an Overview of the Examples of International Practice Olivera PURIĆ UNDP Deputy Resident Representative a.i. Edited by Boris ČAMERNIK, Jelena MANIĆ and Biljana LEDENIČAN The following have participated: Velibor POPOVIĆ, Maja ŠTERNIĆ, Jelena MACURA MARINKOVIĆ Translated by: Novica PETROVIĆ Isidora VLASAK English text revised by: Charles ROBERTSON Design and layout Branislav STANKOVIĆ Copy editing Jasmina SELMANOVIĆ Printing Stylos, Novi Sad Number of copies 150 in English language and 350 in Serbian language For the publisher United Nations Development Programme, Country Office Serbia Internacionalnih brigada 69, 11000 Beograd, +381 11 2040400, www.undp.org.rs ISBN – 978-86-7728-125-0 The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations and the United Nations Development Programme. Acknowledgement We would like to thank all those whose hard work has made this publication possible. We are particularly grateful for the guidance and support of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, above all from the Cabinet of the Speaker and the Secretariat. A special debt of gratitude is owed to the representatives of the independent regulatory bodies; the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection, the State Audit Institution, the Ombudsman of the Republic of Serbia and the Anti-corruption Agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Serbia by Miloš Damnjanović
    Serbia by Miloš Damnjanović Capital: Belgrade Population: 7.098 million GNI/capita, PPP: $13,420 Source: World Bank World Development Indicators. Nations in Transit Ratings and Averaged Scores 2017 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 National Democratic 4.00 4.00 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 4.00 4.25 Governance Electoral Process 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.50 Civil Society 2.75 2.75 2.50 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 Independent Media 3.75 3.75 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.50 Local Democratic 3.75 3.75 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 Governance Judicial Framework 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 and Independence Corruption 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 Democracy Score 3.79 3.79 3.71 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.68 3.75 3.82 NOTE: The ratings reflect the consensus of Freedom House, its academic advisers, and the author(s) of this report. If consensus cannot be reached, Freedom House is responsible for the final ratings. The ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the highest level of democratic progress and 7 the lowest.
    [Show full text]
  • On-The-Deeds-Of-Weak-Institutions
    Miša Brkić On the Deeds of Weak Institutions Publisher Centre for Applied European Studies Kneginje Ljubice 14, Beograd For publisher Srđan Đurović Print run 300 Design Koan studio Printed by Tipografik plus ISBN 978-86-916585-1-9 On the Deeds of Weak Institutions Belgrade 2013 This book is published by the Centre for Applied European Studies supported by the Open Society Foundation – Serbia. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of these orga- nizations. CONTENT On The Causes Of Systemic Corruption In Serbia A Short Summary 7 Introduction 17 The Raseta Affair 30 The “Nacionalna Stedionica” Affair 38 The “MOBTEL” Affair 56 The “KNJAZ MILOŠ” Affair 67 Military Affairs 76 The Satellite Affair 76 The Bulletproof Vest Affair 83 The Swedish Trains Affair 91 On The Causes Of Systemic Corruption In Serbia A Short Summary The blossoming of corruption is not a feature of transition exclu- sively in Serbia. However, what is nevertheless distinguishing for Serbia among transition countries is that transition agony never seems to end as well as a total absence of sanctions that could have compensated at least a small portion of public funds expropriated by transition corruption. The corruption deals were particularly characteristic of the pro- cess of privatization of social and state property and major public procurements. The causes of this situation are numerous, although, quite deliberately, political elites tend to usually find these causes in inappropriate regulations. The weaknesses of valid regulations have certainly enabled some cases of corruption which were unable to be properly sanctioned. However, one should bear in mind that regulations that were effective in the first decade of transition (2000 – 2010) did not provide a space for systematic corruption which is present in Serbia today.
    [Show full text]
  • Equality in Practice EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST Despite This, Evident Inequality and Discrimination Persists in All Areas of Ser- IMPLEMENTING SERBIA’S EQUALITY LAWS
    The Equal Rights Trust is the global centre for excellence in equality law. Our vision is an equal world and our mission is to eliminate discrimina- tion and ensure everyone can participate in society on an equal basis. We work in partnership with equality defenders to secure the adoption and implementation of equality laws. In 2009 the Republic of Serbia adopted the Law on the Prohibition on Discrim- ination (LPD), which, alongside other important pieces of equality legislation and underpinned by a Constitutional protection for equality, establishes an almost comprehensive regime for the protection of the rights to equality and non-discrimination. Equality in Practice EQUAL RIGHTS TRUST RIGHTS EQUAL Despite this, evident inequality and discrimination persists in all areas of Ser- IMPLEMENTING SERBIA’S EQUALITY LAWS - bian life. Just short of the LPD’s tenth anniversary, this study finds evidence of rightsnumerous to equality flaws in and the non-discrimination implementation of in Serbia’s practice. equality and non-discrim ination framework. These flaws are limiting the effective realisation of the inter alia, evidence of aThis lack study of public identifies awareness the key of equality factors thatlaw andare concepts,preventing high Serbia’s court frameworkcosts, frag- mentedon equality legal from aid provision,providing effectivephysical andprotection. structural It finds, barriers preventing access Equality in Practice to courts, procedural delays, mistrust in the judiciary, and weaknesses in the current legislative framework. The study notes that none of these issues are insurmountable and concludes by making a series of recommendations to the state to this end. By following these recommendations, it is hoped that the aspiration evident in the LPD of an equal Serbia, may begin to come to fruition.
    [Show full text]
  • One Year in Office of the Cabinet of Aleksandar Vucic - Reviewed by Istinomer 1
    One year in Office of the Cabinet of Aleksandar Vucic - Reviewed by Istinomer 1 Content One year in Office of the Cabinet of Aleksandar Vucic Reviewed by Istinomer ........................................................................................ 4 Economic Results of Government of Republic of Serbia ........................................ 5 Inflation ..................................................................................................................... 7 Number of Jobless in Serbia ..................................................................................... 7 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ............................................................................... 9 Imports & Exports .................................................................................................. 10 Commitments that marked One year in Office of the Cabinet of Aleksandar Vucic Fulfilled Election Campaign Promises ................................................................... 11 We Will Arrest Saric .............................................................................................................11 New Smelter by Year's End ................................................................................................11 Broken Election Campaign Promises .................................................................... 12 We Will Unveil Agreement with Airline Etihad Airways ........................................................12 Belgrade Waterfront Project Will Be Advertised on CNN ....................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • HUMAN RIGHTS in SERBIA 2016 Belgrade Centre for Human Rights
    HUMAN RIGHTS IN SERBIA 2016 Belgrade Centre for Human Rights Series Reports 28 Series Reports HUMAN RIGHTS IN SERBIA 2016 LAW, PRACTICE AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS Publisher The Belgrade Centre for Human Rights Kneza Miloša Str. 4, Belgrade, Tel/fax. (011) 308 5328, 344 7121 e-mail: [email protected]; www.bgcentar.org.rs For the publisher Dr. Vesna Petrović Editor Dr. Vesna Petrović Translation Duška Tomanović Cover illustration Marcos Moreno, Refugees – Serbia, 09.01.2017 www.marcosmoreno.com ISBN 978-86-7202-175-2 Prepress and printing Dosije studio, Belgrade HUMAN RIGHTS IN SERBIA 2016 LAW, PRACTICE AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS Belgrade Centre for Human Rights Belgrade, 2017 The translation of this report was supported by the OSCE Mission to Serbia. The views herein expressed are solely those of the authors and contributors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the OSCE Mission to Serbia Contents Abbreviations. 13 Preface . 19 Research Methodology . 21 Realisation of Human Rights in Serbia 2016 – Social and Political Setting . 23 SUMMARY . 29 International Human Rights Bodies and Serbia. 29 Human Rights in National Legislation. 29 Constitutional reform . 30 Legal Remedies Provided by the Serbian Legal System. 31 Activities of State and Independent Authorities Charged with Protecting Constitutionality and Human Rights . 32 Judiciary and Human Rights Protection – Reach of the Judicial Reform . 33 Suspension of the Rule of Law and Serbia’s Legal Order – the Savamala Case . 36 Independent Regulatory Authorities. 37 Right to Life . 38 Prohibition of Ill-Treatment and Status of Persons Deprived of Liberty . 39 Right to Liberty and Security of Person .
    [Show full text]
  • OM BUDSPERSON INSTITUTIONS in SERBIA Introduction
    Update September 2011 OM BUDSPERSON INSTITUTIONS IN SERBIA Introduction Ombudsperson institutions are independent bodies tasked with protecting and promoting citizens’ rights and freedoms, as well as controlling the work of government agencies, the body authorized for legal protection of property rights and interests of the Republic of Serbia and other bodies and organisations, enterprises and institutions which have been delegated public authority. Ombudsperson institutions in the Republic of Serbia exist at the local (city & municipal), provincial and republic levels. At the local level, the ombudsperson institutions are established based on Article 126 of the Law on Local Self governance passed on 26 February 2002. Currently out of 126 cities and municipalities in the Republic of Serbia, about 11 have a local Ombudsman; this number includes 3 city and 8 municipal Ombudsmen. At the provincial level, the first Ombudsman institution in Serbia was established on 23 December 2002, with the decision of the Assembly of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. In 2004, Petar Teofilovic was elected as the first Provincial Ombudsman for the autonomous province of Vojvodina. Currently, Ms Aniko Muskinja Hajnrih is the Provincial Ombudsman of Vojvodina. At the republic level, the Serbian Ombudsman (Protector of Citizens) institution was established on 16 September 2005 with the passage of the Law on the Protector of Citizens. In July 2007, Sasa Jankovic was elected as the first Serbian Ombudsman, also referred to as the Protector of Citizens. Structure At the provincial level, the Ombudsman is elected by a two thirds majority vote of all deputies of the provincial Assembly. The Ombudsman is elected for a term of six years and he/she may be re-elected at most twice in succession.
    [Show full text]
  • Serbian Ombudsman
    THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 42 – 999 / 12 B e l g r a d e Ev.No. 27153 Date: 22 October 2012 MS MARGARET SEKAGGYA Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders UNITED NATIONS Palais des Nations 1211 Geneva 10 SWITZERLAND Subject : Special Rapporteur’s 2013 Report on NHRI and Human Rights Defenders Dear Ms Sekaggya, In response to your invitation to share information on the role of National Human Rights Institutions in promoting and protecting the rights of human rights defenders, please find attached contribution of the Protector of Citizens of the Republic of Serbia in a form of fulfilled questionnaire, which contains all requested information regarding this issue. I hope that you will find this document useful in the process of the preparation of your 2013 report to the Human Rights Council. We are very interested to see the final results of your effort and are looking forward to our continued cooperation. Respectfully, PROTECTOR OF CITIZENS Saša Janković Address: Deligradska 16, 11000 Belgrade Tel: (011) 2068 -100 www.ombudsman.rs e-mail: [email protected] 2 ______________________________________________________________________________ QUESTIONNAIRE ON NATIONAL HUMANS RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS Information Provided by the Protector of Citizens (Ombudsman) of the Republic of Serbia 1. a) Please provide a brief overview of the legislative framework adopted to establish national Human Rights Institution (hereafter the “Institution”) in your country. Please cite the names of any such laws or regulations in full. The Protector of Citizens (PoC) is an independent state institution introduced in the Serbian legal system by the Law on the Protector of Citizens in 2005 (“Official Gazette of RS”, No.
    [Show full text]