Introduction

A significant part of the case law of the BiH Constitutional Court and the Human Rights Chamber deals with appeals, i.e., applications, related to the process of returnees. Here, we primarily refer to the procedures where appellants, i.e., applicants, submitted a request for repossession of their pre-war home, or a request for reinstatement to their pre-war employment, whereas courts or administrative authorities denied them that right fully or partially, or delayed the completion of the procedure. In this respect, the BiH Constitutional Court noted the following:

“In the period between 1991 and 1995 the war in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina caused mass displacements and expulsions of population on the grounds of ethnic origin. Members of a certain ethnic group who refused to leave voluntarily were forced by military and paramilitary forces of a majority ethnic group to leave their homes [evidence].

“In addition to the expulsion of population by force, which oftentimes caused serious violations of the international humanitarian law (see, in addition to the UN ECOSOC Report, also the case law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia), a lot more subtle ways were being employed to make the lives of members of a certain group more difficult, in order to force them to leave their homes and places where they lived. Such measures also included the termination of employment to employees who had a certain ethnic background: employees were dismissed, or were put on lay-off lists (and they were never reinstated to work). In certain cases it was clearly noted that the reason was their ethnic or political affiliation, yet in a majority of cases no reasons whatsoever were mentioned. In some cases, during the war, members of certain ethnic groups had been dismissed for failing to show up for work, although the employees may have been deported, may have fled, or may have not come to work for fear of persecution. However, even after the war there were cases of dismissals, demotions, cases where persons were not allowed to advance in service, or where they were prevented from getting employed on the grounds of ethnic origin or affiliation with some political group, trade union or labour organisation promoting the rights of workers [evidence].”²³⁴⁸

At the end of February 2003, the competent international organisations (OHR, OSCE, UNHCR and CRPC), who were in charge of the Property Laws Implementation Plan (PLIP), recalled that the re-instatement of property rights of refugees and internally displaced persons is but one of the elements of Annex 7 to the Dayton Peace Agreement.²³⁴⁹ Annex 7 to the Dayton Peace Agreement had not been implemented by the time the PLIP was introduced. Admittedly, it is an important step in the process of implementation, yet it is but one of many elements for a sustainable return of refugees and displaced persons. Annex 7 to the Dayton Peace Agreement shall be enforced in full once all the people are able to return to their homes, once they have the same chance for employment, education and integration into the social protection systems. Responsibility for this lies on the local communities.