Pismo za ustavne promjene

The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (the so-called Dayton Agreement) was initialed in Dayton and officially signed in Paris on December 14, 1995 between the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and the Republic of Croatia, thus ending the international armed conflict. They testified and confirmed this with their signatures, in the order of signing: for the Presidency of the European Union Felipe Gonzalez, for the French Republic Jacques Chirac, for the Federal Republic of Germany Helmut Kohl, for the Russian Federation Viktor Chernomyrdin, for the United Kingdom John Major and for the United States William Clinton.

The Dayton Agreement established much-needed peace and, through its text and annexes, provided opportunities for integration, democratization and the Euro-Atlantic path of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is important to note that at the end of 1995, when peace was established, there was not a single final verdict of international courts on committed genocide and the most serious forms of war crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina, violation of the European Convention on Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, systemic discrimination, etc.

It is indisputable that the Constitution of BiH, which as Annex 4 is an integral part of the Dayton Agreement, must be changed. Amendments to the BiH Constitution are no longer a matter of will, desire or compromise of local political parties, but have become an international legal obligation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, arising from the final judgments of international courts, rendered from 2007-2020., as well as the judgment of the Constitutional Court and the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In February 2007, the verdict of the UN International Court of Justice from The Hague in the process of BiH vs Serbia and Montenegro was passed, by which, in addition to the historically significant verdict that genocide against Bosniaks was committed in Srebrenica by the army and police of Republika Srpska, Serbia  was convicted for not preventing the genocide against Bosniaks in Srebrenica, and then a line of verdicts of the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights is in five separate verdicts (2009 verdict in favor of Sejdić-Finci v. BiH, 2014 verdict in favor of Azra Zornić v. BiH, 2016 verdict in favor of Ilijas Pilav v. BiH and Samir Šlaka v. BiH, and 2020. verdict in favor of Svetozar Pudarić v. BiH) assessed that the Constitution of BiH is discriminatory, practically towards all citizens of BiH, from all nations and orders of others, which guarantee all rights from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights rights and fundamental freedoms. It is important to point out that the European Court of Human Rights issued, as of December 1, 2020, 395 verdicts against Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), with the lawsuit filed by individuals or more. Even after more than a decade, the ruling parties have not implemented the verdicts. The verdicts passed in Strasbourg, which are obligatory for the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, represent the international legal basis for changes to the Constitution of BiH. The ethnic principle in the current constitutional and political system of the country is imposed by flagrant violations of all human rights, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide.

In the context of the aforementioned, our civil organizations have harmonized the Principles for Amendments to the Constitution of BiH, which we attach, and which have been supported by almost 10,000 citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina to date. The activity of gaining support from the citizens of BiH with these principles will continue in the coming period (www.izmjeneustava.com).

Unfortunately, the diplomatic activities that have taken place in and around BiH in recent months, by representatives of the administrations of the USA, EU, Russian Federation and other countries represented in the PIC, seem to be completely contrary to the basic provisions of the Dayton Agreement and its conventions, and on the scene we have unprincipled attitudes, messages, instructions, suggestions, and activities that undermine the Dayton Agreement. Representatives of predominantly ethnic political parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina are encouraged by international representatives as if they were the exclusive representatives of ethnic groups-peoples (which is an anti-Dayton construction) and bypassing the usual democratic and state currents and institutions, thereby consciously supporting the collapse of Bosnia and Herzegovina's institutions, its sovereignty and independence.We are completely outraged that BiH politicians, who deny genocide, violate the Dayton Accords, promote apartheid and secession, instead of being sanctioned through the Office of the High Representative for such cases, are accepted by international officials as respectable partners, explaining that it is an expression of political will in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Milorad Dodik and SNSD are in the lead of these activities. 

The interference of neighboring countries, the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Serbia, in internal affairs in Bosnia and Herzegovina has become a rule of conduct. The tacit approval of such actions by the international community, especially the EU, of which Croatia is a member, is just another confirmation of the existence of double standards for us in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Given that the current situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is extremely complex, on the verge of an incident, as civil society organizations with ethnic determinants, which believe that BiH must be organized as a European democratic state based on fundamental human rights and freedoms we want to address public issues, and as citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, we are looking for clear and precise answers:

1. 1. Violations of the Dayton Agreement are committed on a daily basis, without any reaction from the international community! Have the witnesses (guarantors) of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina withdrawn from the Dayton Agreement, ie has the Dayton Agreement been suspended?
2. 2. Why are the same civil rights and provisions of the European Convention on Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms not applicable to the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina as to all citizens of each of the European countries? Are EU member states, members of the EU parliament aware that fundamental human rights and freedoms are currently being defended in Bosnia and Herzegovina and that, if not defended in Bosnia, those forces that will suspend fundamental human rights and freedoms in EU member states will be encouraged. Are they aware of that scenario and what will it mean for the present and the future of the European Union?
3. 3. Why are the verdicts of the International Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ignored and circumvented? Why do international negotiators, Mathew Palmer and Angelina Eichhorst, offer the bearers of these verdicts (Sejdić, Finci, Zornić, etc.) inter-solutions and false compromises, which have nothing in common with European and world democratic standards in their countries? Do their governments know what they are doing here and whome they are working for at all? Are these their personal views or do they follow the instructions of their governments?
4. 4. Can the results of genocide, ethnic cleansing, the implementation of the most serious forms of crimes against humanity and international law, and the policies that promote it, and are peacefully implemented in BiH today, be accepted as a real political situation or should we move towards Euro-Atlantic integration, what the absolute majority of BiH citizens strive for?
5. 5. Why do the signatories of the Dayton Agreement, Serbia and Croatia, do not regulate their countries according to the concepts they offer and advocate in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Are the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, primarily Bosniaks because of their Islamic component, unworthy to be equal citizens with others? Why didn't the international negotiators give these remarks to the officials in Serbia and Croatia with whom they also meet?
6. 6. Is it possible to negotiate at the political level with those who deny and do not accept the verdicts of the UN courts and the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the verdicts of the courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Would international diplomats negotiate with such in any other case in the world?
7. 7. Why is the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, after almost 30 years of international recognition, unable to initial and define the borders with Croatia and Serbia? How is it possible that Croatia became a member of the EU without fulfilling the condition to initial and define the borders with BiH? Why doesn't the EU stand up for that? According to which standards and principles did the European Union ignore this legal fact, and does that mean that the borders of BiH, as a UN member state, are unstable and changeable?
8. 8. Analyzing the current situation in BiH and the behavior of international officials and diplomats, we ask to be publicly answered whether the highest officials of the EU, as well as permanent members of the UN Security Council have a "secret agreement", because everything points to the conclusion that dubious compromises and agreements are being prepared behind the scenes, the price of which should be paid by the citizens of BiH and the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

We will ask friendly groups in the EU Parliament to allow us to present our demands to the relevant committees in order to address on behalf of some BiH citizens we represent, from all ethnic groups and explain to EU parliamentarians what is happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina, meaning that demolition of fundamental European democratic principles and human rights and freedoms is on the scene.

The only way to wash away the stain from the last catastrophic diplomatic appearances is to have the most important international officials to publicly address and deny our allegations and doubts. If they are not announced, then it is clear that the global world and European order, through the UN and the EU, which implies the implementation and application of the UN Charter and the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, is collapsing in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which means that it will no longer apply in any world, and therefore nor in a European country.

We will kindly ask a friend of our civil society organizations, Professor Emir Ramic, Chairman of the Institute for Research of Genocide Canada to deliver our questions and requests to relevant canadian political and academic  officials.

For hundreds of years, Bosnia and Herzegovina has been a multi-confessional and multinational country in which the richness of diversity has been an advantage. The unity of diversity is still largely the way of life in it today. The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina must contain, promote and enable this, and it must be a step forward and a starting point for international negotiators who want to help Bosnia and Herzegovina, to which they are obliged by the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 

 

Stipe Prlić President of Croatian National Council   hnv.sa@bih.net.ba

Zoran Jovanović President of Serbian Civic Council - Equality Movement sgvprbih@bih.net.ba

Miro Lazović President of Forum of BiH parliamentarians 1990 lazovicmiro@gmail.com

Nedžad Mulabegović President of Council of the Congress of Bosniac Intellectuals vkbi@vkbi.ba