Lehigh Preserve Institutional Repository

The Erased of Slovenia: Fighting for Retribution Oliver, Katherine 2014

Find more at https://preserve.lib.lehigh.edu/

This document is brought to you for free and open access by Lehigh Preserve. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of Lehigh Preserve. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ERASED OF SLOVENIA: FIGHTING FOR RETRIBUTION Katherine Oliver

“We were locked in this country. I felt literally like a prisoner. I couldn’t go anywhere.”

“I’ve lived here for so many years, I had permanent residence registered in Ljubljana, my children were citizens and Slovenes through their father…and I had a regular job…I couldn’t know that I was going to lose my rights if I didn’t take citizenship. And how many rights I lost!”

“Apparently, I had been erased on 26 February 1992 and didn’t know it until 1994 when I wanted to transfer ownership of a car.”

—“The Erased: Information and Documents.”

Slovenia had long been lauded for being residing in the country. The Erasure resulted the most successful post-Yugoslavia country. in the removal of names from official databases, The first former communist country to join ultimately giving these individuals the status of the European Union (EU), followed by impres- illegal aliens, even though many had lived and sive economic growth, the Republic of Slovenia worked in Slovenia for years. Along with the was viewed as an excellent example of a thriv- removal of their legal status was the loss of all ing, prosperous EU member. Slovenia did en- their rights: social, economic, and political. All joy success in many areas, and those victories of this transpired in 1992. should be neither forgotten nor diminished. For two decades the government of Slo- However, the booming economy and flourish- venia has allowed a portion of its population, ing state of the Republic overshadowed grave collectively known as the Erased, to reside in injustices within the country; one of the most Slovenia without basic human rights. Occa- notable was the issue of the Izbrisani (Erased) sionally the government has commented on people. the unconstitutionality of their status yet has Six months after gaining independence, done little to fix the situation. Now, with the the Slovenian government performed a mass European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Erasure of at least 25,000 inhabitants legally involved, Slovenia is being pressured to 99 compensate the individuals who became vic- began erupting more frequently within the tims of Erasure two decades ago. As the Repub- republics. The tension and issues escalated, lic of Slovenia designs the compensation plan, eventually resulting in republics severing their the government must devise a strategy that relationship with Yugoslavia. It was in this hos- encompasses all those affected by Erasure— tile environment that the Socialist Republic of those who have gained status, those without Slovenia seceded in 1990 (“Case of Kuric´…,” it, those who have left the country, and those 2010, p. 5). who have passed away—and that remunerates It was not until June 25, 1991, however, those who suffered with appropriate compen- that this separated republic officially became sation for what they lost during the years they the independent Republic of Slovenia. On this were erased. same day, the new republic enacted the Citizen- I begin by briefly outlining Slovenia’s ship of the Republic of Slovenia Act. According history and transition to an independent state. to Article 39 of this act, continuous Slovenian Next I detail key pieces of legislature that en- citizenship was provided to any individual who abled the government to refuse thousands of held it while Slovenia was part of Yugoslavia— individuals their basic rights. In an effort to in other words, all persons born in Slovenia. highlight the injustices suffered, I recount sto- The following article, Article 40, permitted in- ries shared by Erased individuals. I examine dividuals from other former SFRY republics to Slovenia’s inefficient and incomplete attempts apply for Slovenian citizenship if they met the at remedying the situation before focusing on requirements. In order to be eligible to apply, the intervention of the ECHR and the resulting Article 40 stated that an applicant must have legislation in Slovenia. Finally, I outline the had permanent residence status on or before improvements that have been made as well as December 23, 1990 (the day they voted on in- the measures that still need to be implemented dependence), must be living in Slovenia (i.e., to create a more complete and satisfying form earn a living in, dwell in, and fulfill obligations of retribution. to the state [Medved]), and must apply within a six-month period from the day the act was is- History: Yugoslavia through sued (no later than December 25, 1991). Under Slovenian Independence these specifications two groups of people were immediately barred from acquiring citizen- Socialist Federal Republic of ship: those who became permanent Slovenian Yugoslavia residents after December 23, 1990, and those who lived and worked in Slovenia but did not In 1963, after the acquisition of new have permanent residence. Aside from those al- land and several name changes, the land in ready holding Slovenian citizenship, acquiring the southern part of central Europe, formerly citizenship in the newly independent Republic known as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and of Slovenia was voluntary (Jalušicˇ and Dedic´). Slovenes, officially became the Socialist Fed- It seems, though, that the consequences eral Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). Although of not obtaining citizenship were not well com- seen as one large republic, the SFRY comprised municated, and many inhabitants who did not six smaller republics: Bosnia and Herzegovina, apply did not do so because they were unaware Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Montenegro, and of what foregoing citizenship would cause Serbia. Serbia itself contained two autonomous them to lose (“The Erased: Information…”). provinces, Vojvodina and Kosovo. Individuals Sixteen years earlier, in 1976, the Citizenship living in the SFRY retained dual citizenship— Act of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia had citizenship of the republic in which they were granted both citizens and non-citizens equal born as well as Yugoslav citizenship. Josip rights, with the exception of a few citizen- Tito, Yugoslavia’s President for Life, strived to ship-only rights, like voting (Medved, p. 308). maintain unity within this ethnically heteroge- Equal rights for all legal inhabitants for the neous region by suppressing any nationalistic past 16 years may have contributed to people’s demonstrations. After Tito’s death in 1980, eth- beliefs that because they were legal, foregoing nic tensions that had been building for years the acquisition of Slovenian citizenship would 100 have no impact on their status and standard of fell under the jurisdiction of the Aliens Act— living (“Constitutional Court Decision...”). In an act, according to Slovenia’s Constitutional the 1999 Constitutional Court ruling (“Consti- Court, that was intended to control the status tutional Court Decision...”), the Court explic- of foreigners entering Slovenia after indepen- itly stated that SFRY foreigners had the right dence. In this instance, however, the govern- to presume that their residence and way of life ment applied it to foreigners legally living would continue in the new Republic. This was in Slovenia prior to independence (“Case of especially true for inhabitants with permanent Kuric´…,” 2010, p. 31). The “type” of foreigner residency, because this alone ensured many that persons were dictated which article of the civil, social, economic, and some political Aliens Act they were subjected to. Non-SFRY rights. One Erased woman wrote: foreigners holding permanent residence per- We didn’t apply for citizenship in 1991. mits were protected by Section 82. Section My husband was working all the time, I 82 ensured permanent residence permit va- had a job and three daughters to take care lidity for these foreigners if the permit was in of, and because we both knew we had their possession at the time of the Aliens Act permanent residence and employment enactment and if it was issued through the with unlimited contracts, we thought ac- Movement and Residence of Foreigners Act. quiring Slovenian citizenship wasn’t Meanwhile, foreigners immigrating from SFRY necessary. We weren’t aware of possi- republics were governed by Section 81, which ble consequences. We never talked to only afforded them two months after December anyone about citizenship and why we 25, 1991, before legally becoming aliens (“Case should apply for it (“The Erased: Informa- of Kuric´…,” 2010, p. 27). Many of these SFRY tion…”). citizens had been living in Slovenia for years Another possible reason for the decision prior to independence—some for as long as 15 to forego obtaining citizenship was the Yu- years. Still, on February 26, 1992, the Ministry goslav law stating that upon the acquisition of the Interior transferred former SFRY per- of citizenship in one republic, citizenship in sons who had yet to apply for Slovenian citi- another republic was revoked. The desire to zenship, or whose applications were rejected, retain citizenship in one’s republic of origin from the Register of Permanent Residence to may have contributed to the Erased choosing the Register of Aliens without a Residence Per- not to apply for Slovenian citizenship (“Case of mit; in other words, they were erased. All of this Kuric´…,” 2010, p. 5). Regardless of why they was done without the knowledge of the people chose not to apply, this woman and her family to whom it was happening (“Case of Kuric´…,” were certainly not alone in their assumptions 2010, p. 7). that life without Slovenian citizenship would Interestingly, during the drafting of the carry on as normal. Aliens Act, the Slovenian government did recognize that SFRY foreigners who did not Erasure want citizenship were in a unique situation and would therefore need a special provision The six-month window to apply ended on to guide their transition in the independent December 25, 1991. According to the Ministry country. The legislators decided that it was of Interior, nearly 171,000 permanent residents not in their power to regulate the legal states from other former Yugoslav republics applied of citizens from other countries. Instead, the and were awarded Slovenian citizenship. In legislators agreed that the legal status should contrast, 2,400 applicants were denied, and a be decided between the republics in a bilater- reported 11,000 individuals left Slovenia (“Case al agreement. Unfortunately, due to wars rag- of Kuric´…,” 2010, p. 6). The remaining foreign ing between ex-Yugoslavian countries, among Slovenian inhabitants consisted of foreigners other issues, the bilateral agreements never from outside the SFRY and former SFRY citi- came to fruition and SFRY foreigners were left zens, two populations that both failed to apply erased and without a solution (“Constitutional for or secure Slovenian citizenship. After De- Court Decision...”). cember 25, 1991, these remaining individuals The results of Erasure vary extensively. 101 Some people succeeded in obtaining tempo- Estimates of just how many people were rary residence permits and continued their erased vary, but the ECHR contends that in all relatively normal lives. Some went without sta- 25,671 former SFRY citizens lost their perma- tus for a brief period, and others were without nent residence status as a result of the Erasure status for years. Regardless, the consequences (“Case of Kuric´…,” 2010, p. 10). Some ethnic of being erased were apparent in their daily Slovenes became victims of the Ministry of In- struggles. For instance, one family, originally terior’s actions, but a majority of those affected from Bosnia and Herzegovina, learned of the were individuals originating from former Yu- entire family’s erasure—including the young- goslav republics. As aliens, these people were est daughter who was born in Slovenia—in no longer legally living in the country. They 1993, when police officers showed up at their lost social, economic, and political rights. Their house and demanded their passports. After identity cards, drivers’ licenses, passports, and losing their passports, visas were necessary for any other sources of identification were nulli- them to stay in the country. These visas, how- fied and sometimes even destroyed by officials. ever, were valid only for a few months before With their records gone, these people were ef- needing to be renewed. Thus, from 1993 un- fectively erased. til they gained citizenship in 2007, this family bore the heavy financial burden associated with Post Erasure: Legal History the constant renewal of visas. To make matters worse, the family had only one source of in- Many members of government refused come after the mother was fired from her job to acknowledge this grave human rights vio- in 1992 because she was not a citizen and her lation, with some even supporting it because work permit expired. Although she registered the Erased “consciously forfeited [their rights], as unemployed, she received no social aid be- and that for this reason the determination of cause she was a foreigner in the country. The the Aliens Act must be thoroughly followed” family was eventually able to obtain citizenship (Pistotnik, p. 227). Yet there were members but not until they provided certificates from of government pushing for the return of the Bosnia and Herzegovina proving that they had Erased’s rights. Although there were several no criminal record there. The youngest daugh- instances of the Slovenian government demon- ter, who had been born in Slovenia and never strating support for the Erased, none had a traveled to Bosnia and Herzegovina, was also greater potential for improving their plight expected to provide such documentation. than the Constitutional Court decisions made Another man recounts how his lack of on their behalf. status or proper documentation prevented him The first of these decisions came in 1999, from continuing his education. Another dis- almost four years after the first complaint was cusses the difficulties many Erased faced when filed against the Aliens Act (Pistotnik, p. 228). searching for jobs because many employers The Constitutional Court found that several ar- were afraid to employ illegal foreigners. Con- ticles in the Aliens Act, including Sections 13 sequently, they struggled to pay their bills and and 16, but in particular Section 81, lacked le- lost pensions, either because they could not gal basis and violated the Constitution, thereby find employment or because they were em- making the actual act of Erasure illegal (“Case ployed illegally. Health insurance was often of Kuric´…,” 2010, pp. 31–32). The Court ex- revoked, and one man went without health- plained that placing the Erased under the juris- care for ten years. Adding to his troubles was diction of the Aliens Act—a move that should the necessity to reach the Bosnian Embassy never have happened because they were not in Italy to obtain proper documentation, but aliens at the time of independence—subject- because he no longer had valid documents, he ed them to worse conditions than non-SFRY was not allowed entry into Italy. Securing his foreigners. While the Aliens Act outlined the documents over the phone was not an option transition of non-SFRY foreigners after inde- because he no longer had a permanent address, pendence and provided them with continued a consequence of Erasure. There was nothing permanent residence permits (“Constitutional he could do (“The Erased: Information…”). Court Decision...”), Section 81 only stated that 102 SFRY foreigners had a two-month period be- the Interior to amend the unconstitutional tween the application deadline and when they sections within six months as well as to inform fell under the jurisdiction of the Aliens Act. all persons already with permanent residence Because Section 81 failed to provide guidelines permits that their permanent residence status for when or how the Erased could apply for sta- would be retroactively extended to February tus after this two-month period, an unconstitu- 25, 1992 (“Case of Kuric´…,” 2010, p. 33). tional “legal void” had been created, effectively Meanwhile, the Slovene National Party leaving them without directions or options (SNP) asked the National Assembly to reject the (“Case of Kuric´…,” 2010, p. 32). Moreover, the Constitutional Court’s decision that Erasure government’s failure to regulate the Erased’s was unconstitutional and to forego attempts to statuses violated Article 14 of the Constitution, remedy the situation. The SNP argued that laws which promises equal rights and fundamental attempting to remedy the situation were sup- freedoms to all those in Slovenia, regardless of porting opponents of Slovenian independence. personal circumstance (i.e., national origin, Moreover, the SNP would not acknowledge race, sex, social status, etc.) (“Case of Kuric´…,” Erasure as an actual act, claiming that no one 2010, p. 31; Republic of Slovenia…). In a fourth was erased but rather that they willingly chose ruling, judges found Article 40 of the Citizen- to stay out of the register of citizens of the Re- ship of the Republic of Slovenia Act discrimina- public of Slovenia. However, not only does that tory and at odds with the Constitution because claim ignore the many applicants who were of the stricter regulations it applied to Erased rejected but also it fails to recognize that the people in comparison to other foreigners. For decision to forego citizenship was the result of instance, the authorities judging applications a lack of communication between the govern- had the power to arbitrarily decide whether an ment and the people about the consequences applicant was a threat to Slovenia (Pistotnik, associated with remaining without citizenship. p. 230) and were, therefore, arbitrarily accept- In attempts to disregard the Erased people and ing and rejecting applications. their plight, the SNP urged the Constitutional Consequently, in July 1999, the National Court to reconsider the constitutionality and Assembly passed the Act Regulating the Legal legality of the ARLSC, which would ensure the Status of Citizens of the Former SFRY Living in Erased remained without permanent residence the Republic of Slovenia (ARLSC). A successful permits. Coming to the SNP’s aid, the Party of ARLSC application would provide a permanent the Slovene Nation began collecting signatures residence permit to former SFRY citizens who for a referendum against the return of perma- were registered as permanent residents on De- nent residence status for the Erased (Pistotnik, cember 23, 1990, and who had been living in p. 234). Slovenia since that date. It also allowed for- After deliberation, the Ministry of the eigners with continued Slovenian residence Interior proposed two legislative solutions to since June 25, 1991, the ability to obtain per- fix the ARLSC’s unconstitutional violations: manent residence. The act went into effect the Technical Act and the Systemic Act, both in late September, and from that time people of which were ultimately rejected by the Na- had three months to apply for permanent res- tional Assembly (Pistotnik, p. 248). For SFRY idence. In all, 12,199 persons were eventually foreigners who held permanent residence pri- granted permanent residence permits under or to Slovenia’s independence as well as those this act (Pistotnik, p. 230). who acquired it under the ARLSC or the Aliens Four years later, in April 2003, the Con- Act, the Technical Act outlined the new provi- stitutional Court ruled that some articles in the sions and procedures to reacquire permanent ARLSC were unconstitutional. The Court cited residence. The Systemic Act focused on provid- the failure to grant retroactive status and reg- ing a permanent, regulated status to the Erased ulate permanent residence permits for those still without any legal status, to the Erased deported from Slovenia; the ambiguity of the with temporary residence permits and their term, “in fact residing”; and the short 3-month children, and to the Erased granted permanent application period as unconstitutional. The residence because of familial ties (Pistotnik, Constitutional Court ordered the Ministry of p. 236). The period between the Systemic Act’s 103 proposal and ultimate rejection lasted about a home and his correspondence” and that gov- year and was marked by repeated referendums ernment cannot interfere with that (“Case of and stalled voting, all initiated by the opposi- Kuric´ …,” 2012, p. 60). The Slovenian govern- tion. During that time, the Erased were in lim- ment opposed these findings, however, and re- bo as the implementation of the Constitutional sponded in 2011 by requesting that the lawsuit Court’s 2003 decision to provide retroactive be taken to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR status was delayed. Gaining retroactive status for another ruling. The following year, in 2012, is critical because it proves prolonged inhabi- the Grand Chamber reached the final verdict: tance in the country, which aids in meeting the Articles 8, 13, and 14 of the European Con- eligibility requirements for gaining citizenship. vention on Human Rights had been violated. Retroactive status also ensures that individu- Article 13 states that people whose constitu- als are compensated for the correct number of tionally guaranteed rights and freedoms have years they were erased. Through their actions, been violated are guaranteed an effective rem- the opposition succeeded yet again in postpon- edy. Article 14 prohibits discrimination on any ing any real improvement for the Erased. grounds, including national minority (“Case of In 2007, a Constitutional law geared to- Kuric´…,” 2012, pp. 71–72). Not only did the ward the plight of the Erased was drafted. If Grand Chamber rule in favor of the applicants passed, Amnesty International argued that it but also it ordered Slovenia to pay €20,000 in would have preserved discrimination against respect of non-pecuniary damages to each of the Erased, allowed authorities to remove ret- the six remaining applicants. In addition, the roactive status already granted, and failed to re- Grand Chamber granted Slovenia one year to instate permanent residence status to all those decide on the amount each applicant should erased (“Slovenia: Draft…”). Erased supporters receive in respect of pecuniary damages, warn- saw the law as one more way to avoid carrying ing that if Slovenia did not settle this matter out the Constitutional Court’s 2003 decision to in a timely fashion, the Grand Chamber would give out retroactive status. After much debate, intervene and decide the amount for her. By the law died at the completion of Parliament’s early 2014, the government had yet to de- term, once again leaving Erased individuals cide upon an amount for pecuniary damages, with no real progress in their fight to gain legal so the ECHR decided instead. The amount of status and rights. compensation ranged from €29,000 to €72,700 and was based on the length of their Erasure European Court of Human Rights and circumstances (European Court…, p. 4). Although these amounts are probably greater After more than a decade of unsatisfacto- than what most of the Erased will receive, they ry results, Milan Makuc and ten other Erased are certainly not equivalent to what was lost. individuals decided that the Slovenian govern- ment was not the solution to their problems. Compensation Plan Therefore, on July 4, 2006, they filed a lawsuit with the ECHR (Pistotnik, p. 255). Their law- In November 2013, Slovenia passed the suit outlined their unlawful removal from the Act Regulating Compensation for Damage to Register of Permanent Residence and their re- Persons Erased from the Permanent Popula- sulting statelessness. It explained the discrimi- tion Register. It states that Erased individuals nation they faced and that, in spite of the Con- will receive €50—an increase from the €30 stitutional Court’s decisions, Slovenia had still outlined in the original draft—for each month not created an “effective legal remedy” (“Case they were erased. The payment plan1 depends of Kuric´…,” 2010, p. 2). After another four on the amount the individual will receive and years, the applicants finally received a ruling in July 2010. The ruling held that Slovenia had 1 violated Article 8 of the European Convention Total compensation less than €1,000 is to be paid all at once within 30 days of the administrative unit’s deci- on Human Rights (“Kuric v. Slovenia”). Arti- sion. For amounts over €1,000, the first installment is due cle 8 provided that each person has the right within one month of the decision, and the rest will be paid “to respect for his private and family life, his in annual installments. 104 be distributed in installments (five install- pensates Erased individuals who have already ments maximum), with the first installment legalized their status; this excludes approx- coming within 30 days of the administrative imately 13,000 currently illegal inhabitants unit’s decision. (The administrative unit refers (“Case of Kuric´…,” 2010, p. 10). Two problems to the local authority where an Erased person arise from this: 1) adequate justice is not forth- applies.) The act also provides for the possi- coming when only a fraction of the victims are bility of receiving up to three times the deter- compensated and 2) the act ignores one of the mined amount if a case is brought to court. main issues in the fight for the Erased—thou- In comparison to earlier drafts of the act, the sands of individuals are still without basic hu- final version amended the requirements for man rights. Compensation is important in this receiving compensation to be more inclusive, situation, but ensuring that everyone recovers thereby potentially increasing the number of his or her rights remains a primary goal. Sec- Erased who will benefit. Still, the conditions ond, the amount awarded—equivalent to only set forth prohibit thousands of Erased from €600 annually—is nowhere nearly equivalent being compensated. In particular, those who to what the Erased have lost in terms of sala- applied for status after the 2010 Act Amending ry, pension, child benefits, or social assistance, the Act Regulating the Legal Status of Citizens to name only a few financial losses. Slovenia is of Former Yugoslavia Living in the Republic facing difficult economic times right now, but of Slovenia (which provides retroactive status proper compensation that better reflects the to those already with permanent residence losses of Erased individuals ought to be awarded. permits) and those who remain illegal are not eligible for compensation. This exclusion and Possible Solutions other provisions of the act—such as the lack of uniformity in determining how much com- As discussed previously, Slovenia has pensation each applicant receives2—illustrate taken some important steps in its attempts to some of the flaws within this piece of legis- redress the problem of Erasure. Unfortunate- lation (not discussed further in this article). ly, its efforts are still lacking in some crucial Nonetheless, the act also contains some posi- areas. This section outlines potential solutions tive elements, including government contribu- for some of the problems still without reso- tions to compulsory health insurance, priority lution: the necessity of providing legal status consideration in social assistance programs, for all Erased individuals, the importance of state scholarships, rights to public funds, pri- creating a more just compensation plan, and ority treatment in solving housing problems, how the creation of a temporary commission access to education, and access to programs to oversee such procedures would be beneficial aiding in the integration into Slovenian life. and more efficient. This act went into effect in June 2014 and pro- Arguably the main issue remaining from vided applicants a three-year window (from the Erasure is the illegal status still associated June 2014) in which they will have to apply for with thousands of individuals and the rights compensation. However, if individuals acquire they have lost as a consequence. In the past, permanent residence status or citizenship after Slovenia has created acts (like the ARLSC and June 2014 under the stipulations outlined in Act Amending the Act Regulating the Legal the act, they have three years from the date of Status of Citizens of Former Yugoslavia Liv- acquisition to apply (Council of Europe, Secre- ing in the Republic of Slovenia) meant to aid tariat General). Erased individuals in regulating their status. Although this act is undoubtedly a step However, these measures were often poorly toward progress, there are still many issues advertised and had requirements difficult for that need to be addressed. First, it only com- the Erased to meet because of the barriers ac- companying their status as Erased. By creating an all-encompassing piece of legislation, the 2Applicants apply in the territories where they last held permanent residence, and administrative units in Slovenian government could efficiently pro- these different areas decide how much compensation an vide thousands of Erased individuals with le- applicant receives. gal status, thereby providing them with all the 105 rights they have been stripped of over the past porary residence status, the act should ensure two decades. This is both possible and reason- the approval of their permanent residence ap- able, as evident by the success of other nations plications, retroactive to February 26, 1992. in similar predicaments. For example, Estonia Additionally, the ability to acquire retroactive and Latvia, former USSR countries, dealt with permanent residence status should be available similar issues when the USSR was dismantled, to those Erased who no longer live in Slovenia. and both were left with Russians and Russian After years of living abroad, these individuals speakers within their borders. In Estonia, like may no longer desire permanent residence Slovenia, automatic citizenship was granted to status or Slovenian citizenship, but many of individuals who held it before the Soviet occu- the individuals who fled Slovenia are still re- pation, along with their offspring. There was a garded as stateless persons. This title carries a clear divide between Estonians and Russians, stigma and difficulties of its own, such as no and Russians found it difficult to become cit- legal protection, little access to social services, izens because of the language requirement. and unfavorable employment opportunities The Estonian government passed legislation (“Statelessness”). Thus, providing them with designed to minimize the hurdles present in legal status is important. Furthermore, gain- the application process. It implemented mea- ing legal status would put them under the ju- sures to improve Estonian language education, risdiction of the new compensation act, and to expedite the application process, and to help they would become recipients of its benefits. elderly people obtain citizenship as well as to Including the Erased who live abroad in the make it easier for some children to gain citizen- compensation plan would be costly, so it may ship (“Left Behind…”). Moreover, even without be something the government tries to avoid. It citizenship, life as a stateless person in Estonia is imperative, however, that all those who were does not seem incredibly difficult. As the U.S. erased, regardless of whether they remained in Department of State noted, “Many residents the country or not, be included in the new leg- preferred Russian citizenship of statelessness islation and compensated justly. to Estonian citizenship” (“2011 Human Rights Retroactive status, which both the Coun- Reports: Estonia”). Latvia, in a similar position cil of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights to that of Estonia after the dissolution of the and the European Commission against Racism USSR, granted all would-be stateless persons and Intolerance support (“Case of Kuric´…,” the status of “non-citizen.” Although non-cit- 2010, pp. 39–40), should be a necessary out- izens do not enjoy the rights of full citizens, come of this new legislation. Retroactive status such as voting or holding some professions, would serve as proof of the Erased’s continued their social and economic rights are well pro- residence in Slovenia, thereby making them tected (“Latvia…”). Slovenia should, therefore, eligible to receive full compensation for the study the methods and legislation employed by pension, healthcare, and other social services these two countries and use them as models for they lost during their Erasure. New legisla- improving its current stateless persons’ predic- tion should also grant the option of acquiring ament. citizenship if an individual so wishes. If the From what the government has suggest- individual has remained in the country since ed in the past, an act with a foundation similar Erasure, then citizenship would have been a to that of the Systemic Act—which was never valid option had he or she not been erased. For passed—seems most appropriate. The System- most individuals it will probably be difficult to ic Act was intended to provide legal, retroactive provide proof of their continued residency be- status to those without legal status, to those cause they will not have legal documents, so with temporary residence permits and their the government should refrain from imposing offspring, and to those without retroactive per- stringent demands and instead work with these manent residency (Pistotnik, p. 236). If some- individuals to help satisfy the requirements. one already has permanent residence status, Another major roadblock to obtaining the new act should retroactively extend it to residence permits is the difficult application February 26, 1992. For all those without any process. The Peace Institute of Slovenia ar- legal status or who have only obtained tem- gues that the administrative fee and conditions 106 necessary to complete an application are too Compensation for Damage to Persons Erased intense for Erased individuals who most likely from the Permanent Population Register, the do not have the finances or resources. To list maximum amount that could be awarded is just a few requirements, an applicant must only €36,000 (Council of Europe, Secretariat pay €96, provide a criminal record from his or General), and an individual who has been erased her country of origin, and provide an address, for 21 years will only receive €12,600 (without which is something they do not legally have going to court). This amount is significantly (“The Erased: Information…”). Neza Kogov- smaller than what should be considered a just sek Salamon, head of the Peace Institute of amount. To highlight the disparity, consid- Slovenia, noted in an interview that some con- er that the average annual Slovenian wage in ditions, such as proof of attempted return to 2002 was €13,701, and in 2011 it was €22,046 Slovenia by those deported, can be incredibly (“Organisation For Economic Co-operation difficult to meet, which is why the rejection and Development”). Thus, the total amount rate for applications from the Erased is high. that an average individual potentially could New legislation, then, should simplify the have earned in 21 years far exceeds the €12,600 conditions necessary for Erased individuals to he or she will be paid. This, of course, does not satisfy application requirements. In fact, both include the 21 years of pension, healthcare, the Peace Institute and Amnesty International and social aid that were also lost. Put simply, go so far as to suggest that either legal status the difference between what the Erased will re- be returned unconditionally or that the only ceive and what they deserve is substantial. condition be that an Erased person has regis- The government’s job, if done correctly, tered for a permit at the proper location (“The will be laborious and intense. That is why I Erased: Information…”). I think there should propose that it organizes a temporary commis- be some restrictions in approving applications sion specializing in dealing with issues of the to ensure that only the Erased are benefiting Erased. The leaders of this commission could and that foreigners are not abusing the system, comprise government members and individu- but the process should be reconstructed and als knowledgeable about Erasure and could be simplified. appointed by the Constitutional Court. Such a Lack of proper documentation is another commission would ensure that decisions be- way that the application process can be delayed ing made are executed in a timely manner, a or can end in rejection, and it is an inevitable quality that has been remiss in the past. Fur- consequence of illegal inhabitance. Offices re- thermore, having a group of dedicated indi- ceiving applications should, therefore, be more viduals would expedite the task of solving the lenient in this regard and consider certain doc- ongoing problems of Erasure. In the past, the uments previously considered invalid—like Ministry of the Interior had planned to imple- passports or identity cards—as proper docu- ment certain measures to aid the Erased in the mentation. All in all, fewer and less stringent application process. These measures included requirements from the government will allow a toll-free help line for legal assistance, dis- for an easier application process, resulting in seminating important information within Slo- more successful applications and a substantial venia and abroad via media, and training staff reduction in the number of Erased persons members to handle these applications properly without status. (“The Erasing and the Erased”). If adopted by As of early 2014, Slovenia has been in the the commission, these measures could be of midst of an economic slump, which may be one great benefit to the Erased community. Once of the reasons the government is offering assis- an equitable solution has been reached, this tance only to those with legal status, and small commission would be disbanded. amounts at that. In order to compensate the 12,000 or so individuals the Slovenian govern- Conclusion ment ultimately expects to apply for damages, it has set aside €130 million (Council of Europe, Slovenia is facing a critical moment in Secretariat General). As it currently stands, her history. Not only is the world watching due to the restrictions in the Act Regulating how she will solve her financial woes but also 107 she has an opportunity to solve what is argu- gain legal status and are compensated appro- ably the greatest social injustice plaguing the priately. After 23 years, it is time the country country in its young history. Slovenia should fully supports the Erased in their fight for ret- dedicate sufficient resources to the cause, en- ribution. suring that all individuals affected by Erasure

108 REFERENCES

“2011 Human Rights Reports: Estonia.” U.S. Department Jalušicˇ, Vlasta, and Jasminka Dedic´. “(The) Erasure – Mass of State. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Human Rights Violation and Denial of Responsi- Labor, May 24, 2012. www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hr- bility: The Case of Independent Slovenia.” Human rpt/2011/ eur/186348.htm. Accessed February Rights Review. Vol. 92008, pp. 93–108. Accessed 2014. July 2013. “Case of Kuric´ and Others v. Slovenia.” European Court of “Kuric v. Slovenia.” Open Society Foundations. June Human Rights. July 13, 2010. hudoc.echr.coe. 6, 2012. www.opensocietyfoundations.org/litigation int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{“sort”:[“k /kuric-v-slovenia. Accessed July 2013. pdateDescending,RESPONDENTAscending”],”re- “Latvia: The Perilous State of Nationality Rights.” Refugees spondent”:[“SVN”],”documentcollectionid2” International. January 31, 2011. www.refintl.org/ :[“CHAMBER”],”itemid”:[“001-99915”]}. Accessed policy/field-report/latvia-perilous-state-nationali- July 2013. ty-rights. Accessed February 2014. “Case of Kuric´ and Others v. Slovenia.” Grand Chamber, “Left Behind: Stateless Russians Search for Equality in European Court of Human Rights. July 26, 2012. Estonia.” Refugees International. December 9, 2004. hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=0 www.refintl.org/policy/field-report/left-be- 01-111634#{“itemid”:[“001-111634”]}. Accessed July hind-stateless-russians-search-equality-estonia. 2014. Accessed February 2014. “Constitutional Court Decision U-I-284/94.” Republic of Medved, Felicita. “From Civic to Ethnic Community? The Slovenia Constitutional Court. April 2, 1999. Evolution of Slovenian Citizenship,” in Citizenship Council of Europe, Advisory Committee on the Frame- Policies in the New Europe. Rainer Bauböck, Bern- work Convention for the Protection of National hard Perchinig, Weibke Sievers, eds. Amsterdam: Minorities. Third Opinion on Slovenia Adopted on Amsterdam University Press, 2009, pp. 305–38. 31 March 2011. Strasbourg, 2011. Accessed Dec- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop- ember 2013. ment. “Average Annual Wages: Slovenia.” OECD Council of Europe, Secretariat General. Act Regulating Publishing. Accessed November 2013. Compensation for Damage to Persons Erased from Pistotnik, Sara. “Chronology of the Erasure 1990–2007.” the Permanent Population Register. November 22, Journal of the Critique of Science, Imagination, 2013. wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet? and New Anthropology. 2008, pp. 222–60. Accessed command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&Instranet- August 2013. Image=2401522&SecMode=1&DocId= Republic of Slovenia Constitutional Court. Constitution. 2081510&Usage=2. Accessed March 2014. www.us-rs.si/media/constitution. pdf. Accessed Au- “The Erased: Information and Documents.” Mirovni Inšti- gust 2014. tut. www.mirovni-institut.si/izbrisani/en/. Accessed “Slovenia: Draft Constitutional Law Perpetuates Discrimi- July 2013. natory Treatment Suffered by the ‘Erased’.” Am- “The Erasing and the Erased.” Republic of Slovenia, nesty International. November 2, 2007. Accessed Government Communication Office. June 2010. 2013. www.ukom.gov.si/en/media_room/background_ “Slovenian Gov’t to Ask European Court for Extension on information/domestic_policy/the_erasing_and_ Erased.” dalje.com. April 4, 2013. dalje.com/en- the_erased/. world/ slovenian-govt- to-ask-european-court-for- European Court of Human Rights. Registrar of the extension-on-erased/462199. Accessed July 2013. Court. Question of Pecuniary Damage Decided “Statelessness.” Refugees International. Accessed July in Grand Chamber Judgment Concerning the Issue 2014. of “Erased” People in Slovenia. March 12, 2014. Accessed July 2014.

109