Serbian Xenophobia, Racism and Chauvinism Impose Secession and Independence for Voivodina, Sanjak

In four previous articles, entitled "Albanians and Muslims Still Targeted by Serbs in Occupied Voivodina and Sanjak – HRW Report", "Tyrannized Voivodina and Sanjak Ready to Secede from Dangerous, Racist state Serbia", "Hateful Acts of Racism Performed by Serbs in Voivodina, Revealed in Devastating HRW Report" and "HRW Report Demonstrates Need for Voivodina and Sanjak to Secede from Totalitarian Serbia", I focused on Voivodina and Sanjak which are not proper Serbian territories but have been peremptorily given to Serbia because of French pro-Serbian favoritism back in the 1910s and 1920s.

After many decades of tyranny which took various shapes, the Slovenes, the Croatians, the Bosnians, the Macedonians, the Montenegrins and the Kosovars achieved their national goal of independence and freedom. Unfortunately, the Voivodinians and the Sanjakis still live under Serbian racism and terrorism.

Due to mails from several readers asking about the terminology employed, I want to specify here that the two aforementioned terms do not indicate nations or ethno-religious groups but merely the inhabitants of Voivodina and Sanjak, who in their outright majority passionately desire the removal of the illegal Serbian settlers and the subsequent secession – liberation of their homelands from Serbia, the dictatorial realm of belligerent, rancorous and merciless administrations.

In fact, the pathetic Serbian nationalism, which has permanently been harbored there, is currently rising dangerously again. This is what a devastating HRW Report reveals about the unrepentant Serbia, a medieval and rancorous realm of excruciating tyranny, merciless murder and unfathomable racism that the perfidious French statesmen and diplomats want to help adhere to the EU.

To better illustrate the tragic events that signal further secessions from the Balkan Hell ‘Serbia’, I republish the entire HRW Report "Hostages of Tension - Intimidation and Harassment of Ethnic Albanians in Serbia after Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence". Following the publication of the Report’s earlier parts that shed light on the background of the new explosive crisis, and the attacks in February 2008 in and outside Vojvodina, in the present article, I republish details about the official response to the most preoccupying and totally events. In forthcoming articles, I will complete and further comment.

Hostages of Tension - Intimidation and Harassment of Ethnic Albanians in Serbia after Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence

http://hrw.org/reports/2008/serbia1108/

Response of the Police

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/serbia1108/7.htm#_Toc212362283

In several cases, the police sought to protect Albanians and other minorities in the aftermath of Kosovo’s declaration of independence, especially after the occurrence of a first attack against a particular individual or business. In most cases documented in this report, the premises of the victims with whom Human Rights Watch spoke were kept under observation by police patrols in the days or even weeks following a first attack.

While the deployment of police patrols after initial attacks to prevent further incidents is commendable, Human Rights Watch is concerned by the absence of a pro-active strategy to protect minorities. Given the experience of 1999 and 2004, it was not difficult to predict that the aftermath of Kosovo’s declaration of independence might produce violence directed against minorities, and particularly ethnic Albanians. In most of the locations where trouble occurred, the numbers of ethnic Albanians was relatively small. Preventive deployments might have prevented trouble, especially where specific individuals and businesses had been previously attacked during 1999 and 2004, as was the case for some business owners in Novi Sad.

In one case, a victim explicitly stated that the police had said they were under instructions to act only if someone’s physical integrity was jeopardized during the protests.100 This allegation was dismissed by major general Mladen Kuribak, the head of the Uniformed Police Directorate, when Human Rights Watch met him on April 24, 2008, to discuss the policing of attacks on minorities. In this meeting and in subsequent written enquiries, Human Rights Watch asked about the reasons for not intervening when attacks took place during demonstrations, such as those on the flower shop and bakery in Novi Sad described above. Major general Kuribak said that there was no instruction from Belgrade’s headquarters for police officers to remain passive in cases of attacks on property rather than individuals.101 However, he said that during the demonstrations, when there are few police officers available, it was not feasible for them to intervene robustly in cases where property alone was attacked.102 He reiterated this message in a letter in response dated September 19, 2008 to further enquiries from Human Rights Watch, explaining that the police did their utmost to ensure order during the demonstrations but that due to the extremely large number of protesters, there were insufficient officers available to protect every object at risk.103

Even if the police are given the benefit of doubt on this issue, at the very least the police presence at protests when vandalism occurred should have provided excellent eye witness accounts–by the police themselves–that could have contributed, where legally warranted, to charges against the alleged perpetrators.

In a letter to the police sent in August 2008 (see Annex 1), Human Rights Watch asked for further information in relation to the specific cases detailed in this report. The response did not contain any comment on specific allegations or information about the status of investigations into specific cases. It simply said that the police together with prosecutors had taken the necessary steps to establish the facts, had arrested people caught damaging property, and were continuing in their efforts to identify perpetrators. However, Human Rights Watch remains concerned that the police appear to have done little to identify or vigorously pursue perpetrators, despite in some instances being physically present when attacks took place.

Based on data provided by district prosecutors, it appears that police investigations failed to determine the identity of perpetrators in the vast majority of the attacks. According to the head of the Uniformed Police Directorate, as of April 24, 2008, 10 perpetrators had been convicted and fined for incidents arising from Kosovo protests and involving damaging property. In each case, the underlying act was qualified as a misdemeanor (an administrative offence) rather than a criminal offence.104 None of the 10 perpetrators was charged in relation to incidents documented by Human Rights Watch in this report. In some cases, where investigations failed to identify suspects, formal charges were brought against "unknown perpetrators" were laid. In many of the cases cited in this report, it is not clear whether a complete investigation was conducted.

The failure to identify perpetrators, even in cases where security cameras or police witnessed the attacks, prevents victims from seeking legal redress through criminal charges or civil suits for compensation. This result in further hardship to the victims, allows individual perpetrators to escape punishment, and contributes to an atmosphere of impunity for attacks against minorities or their property.

According to an international official, "nothing happens [in Serbia] without a clear order from Belgrade."105 In the light of this, it is critical for the police chiefs in Belgrade to clearly communicate to the municipal police forces (through the appropriate chain of command) that protecting minorities and thoroughly investigating offences against them should be a priority.

Response of the Justice System: Misdemeanor Judges and District Prosecutors

Due to the previous history of violent attacks against minorities being primarily dealt with as misdemeanors, Human Rights Watch contacted all of the misdemeanor judges as well as the district prosecutors responsible for the cities and towns included in this report.106 As described above, misdemeanor judges are not members of judiciary, but rather administrative agencies in charge of misdemeanor proceedings, based on information forwarded by the police. The police make an initial determination as to whether a particular case should be treated as a misdemeanor (and forwarded to misdemeanor judges) or a criminal charge should be filed (and forwarded to district prosecutors).

According to the responses that Human Rights Watch received in May and June from all the misdemeanor judges we contacted, none had received cases from police related to the post-February 17 incidents.107 The head of the Uniformed Police Directorate told Human Rights Watch in April 2008 that 10 people had been convicted and fined for misdemeanors relating to Kosovo. 108 Those 10 individuals must therefore have been dealt with by misdemeanor judges elsewhere in Serbia.

One of the misdemeanor judges noted that cases such as those Human Rights Watch documented represent either the criminal offense of incitement to ethnic hatred (Article 317 of the Serbian criminal code) or the civil offense of destroying or damaging someone else’s belongings (Article 212 of the Serbian criminal code).109 In a civil case for destruction of property, the proceedings must be always initiated by a private lawsuit.110 The victims interviewed by Human Rights Watch were unaware that they had to initiate civil proceedings. Such claims would in any event have required them to know the identity of the alleged perpetrators.

The response from the district prosecutor of Novi Sad indicated that there was only one relevant criminal complaint (an alleged violation of Article 317) filed by the police with respect to the attack on a bakery in Bac (not documented by Human Rights Watch).111 The alleged perpetrator in that case is a minor.112

The Sombor district prosecutor informed Human Rights Watch that he requested that the investigative judge in Sombor open investigations in three cases of ethnically derogatory vandalism since Kosovo’s declaration of independence in February 2008.113 The district prosecutor also requested a judge to open a criminal investigation of three individuals based on suspicion that they may have been distributing leaflets calling for the boycott of the Albanian-owned bakery Dva Brata described in this report. By September 1, 2008, no decision had been made by the judge about opening the case.114 The district prosecutor has told Human Rights Watch that the delay was because there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against any named individuals.115

In Kragujevac, the district prosecutor informed Human Rights Watch that his office has received four criminal complaints against unidentified perpetrators for the crime of property damage.116 One of the cases opened was related to the attack on the "Avala" burek shop, which Human Rights Watch documented in this report. In all four cases, the complaints were filed without knowledge of the perpetrators’ identities, and, at the time of writing, the perpetrators had not yet been identified in the course of police investigations.

Human Rights Watch also wrote to the Chief Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia, Slobodan Radovanovic, on June 2, 2008, requesting national statistics regarding attacks against Albanians and other minorities in the aftermath of Kosovo’s declaration of independence. The letter specifically requested information related to cases in this report in locations where, at that time of writing, local prosecutors had not yet responded to Human Rights Watch’s requests for information.

On June 19, Human Rights Watch received a written response from the Office of the Chief Prosecutor, which stated that as of June 17, 2008, no criminal charges had been brought with relation to incidents of violence against minorities in the aftermath of Kosovo’s independence declaration in Subotica (or in the other towns under the responsibility of the Subotica district prosecutor, including Backa Topola and Senta).117

In Zrenjanin, there were no criminal cases opened related to the victims interviewed by Human Rights Watch.118 One criminal complaint received related to an arson attempt of a minority-owned kiosk, which took place on March 26, 2008.119 The letter from the chief prosecutor stated that on April 16, 2008 "the criminal complaint was thrown out because of a lack of elements of the crime under the district jurisdiction."120

In Negotin, the district prosecutor opened a criminal case under Article 317 against an unknown perpetrator in the case of the owner of a commercial premises interviewed by Human Rights Watch.121

The Chief Prosecutor also provided information on another incident in Negotin (not documented by Human Rights Watch), in which a minor smashed the windows of a minority-owned bakery. The victim decided not to press charges after speaking with the father of the minor.122

In Kikinda, eight cases of minority-owned property destruction were reported to the police and formal investigations opened. In all eight cases, the perpetrators have not been identified, as of the date of the correspondence.123 The Chief Prosecutor’s written response did not specify whether the investigations were ongoing.124

Based on the information that Human Rights Watch has obtained, it appears that no criminal indictments have been filed or misdemeanor proceedings brought in the cases involving the victims whom Human Rights Watch interviewed. In some of the cases we documented, there were criminal charges brought against "unknown perpetrators."

We interviewed only a proportion of the total number of victims, whose businesses were attacked and damaged in February 2008, and were unable to obtain comprehensive statistics on prosecutions in the criminal courts. But it is notable that despite contacting the Chief Prosecutor of Serbia, and prosecutors across Vojvodina, we learned of only one active criminal case against a named perpetrator (a minor). A handful of other cases had been discontinued for lack of evidence, or were opened against "unknown perpetrators."

With the near complete lack of criminal prosecutions, and a few as ten perpetrators convicted across Serbia with misdemeanors, none of them in areas where attacks on minorities were concentrated, it is evident that the violence in February went largely unpunished. After the violent incidents in March 2004 a similar situation occurred—few persons were charged and then only with misdemeanors (although there were a handful of criminal prosecutions for other attacks on minorities in 2004 and 2005). This demonstrated then and demonstrates now the reluctance of authorities to bring the full weight of the criminal justice system to bear on those who use violence against minorities, and more broadly, to adequately address the phenomenon of anti-minority violence in Serbia.

Notes

100 Human Rights Watch interview with an owner of a bakery in Subotica, April 10, 2008.

101 Human Rights Watch interview with major general Mladen Kuribak, the head of Uniformed Police Directorate, Belgrade, April 24, 2008.

102 Human Rights Watch interview with major general Mladen Kuribak, the head of Uniformed Police Directorate, Belgrade, April 24, 2008.

103 Letter from major general Mladen Kuribak, the head of Uniformed Police Directorate in Belgrade to Human Rights Watch, September 19, 2008.

104 Human Rights Watch interview with major general Mladen Kuribak, April 24, 2008.

105 Human Rights Watch phone interview with an international official working in Serbia, May 19, 2008.

106 Written queries were faxed to the misdemeanor judges and district prosecutors of Zrenjanin, Novi Becej, Novi Sad, Kikinda, Sombor, Subotica, Kragujevac, Negotin and Bor between May 6 and 16, 2008.

107 All misdemeanor judges were also re-contacted by Human Rights Watch in June 2008.

108 Human Rights Watch interview with major general Mladen Kuribak, head of the Uniformed Police Directorate, Belgrade, April 24, 2008.

109 Written response from the Subotica misdemeanor judge Ljubo Simic to Human Rights Watch correspondence May 15, 2008.

110 Written response from the Serbian chief prosecutor Slobodan Radmanovic to Human Rights Watch, June 21, 2008.

111 Written response from the Serbian chief prosecutor Slobodan Radmanovic to Human Rights Watch, June 21, 2008. The Bac case was not covered by Human Rights Watch during its research.

112 Written response from the Novi Sad district prosecutor Branka Atanackovic to Human Rights Watch, May 23, 2008.

113 Human Rights Watch phone conversation with the Sombor district prosecutor Slobodan Dimitrijevic, May 20, 2008.

114 Written response from the Sombor district prosecutor Slobodan Dimitrijevic, May 16, 2008 and phone conversation on September 1, 2008.

115 Human Rights Watch phone conversation with the Sombor district prosecutor Slobodan Dimitrijevic, September 1, 2008.

116 Human Rights Watch phone conversation with the Kragujevac district prosecutor Darko Polojac, June 2, 2008.

117 Letter from Slobodan Radovanovic, Chief Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia, June 19, 2008, in response to a communication from Human Rights Watch dated June 3, 2008.

118 Ibid.

119 Ibid.

120 Ibid.

121 Ibid.

122 Ibid.

123 Ibid.

124 Ibid.

Response of the National Authorities

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/serbia1108/8.htm#_Toc212362285

Kosovo’s declaration of independence, though it was internationally anticipated, was met by public shock and disbelief in Serbia. According to one independent journalist, "the government did not do anything to prepare public opinion for this eventuality. Unfortunately, the crowds took it out on the reporters, many of whom were attacked during the night of the February 21 rally in Belgrade."125 In addition to national and international journalists, the building serving as the headquarters of B92, an independent news organization, which is perceived as "unpatriotic" in ultra-nationalist circles, was also a target.126

The mass protests and rallies which took place across Serbia in the days following Kosovo’s declaration of independence provided an outlet for frustration and anger. During the February 21, 2008, rally in Belgrade, key Serbian politicians delivered patriotic, and sometimes nationalist, speeches. The then Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica said that "The people of Serbia together and loudly said what they think about Kosovo and Metohija and what they think of the brutal violence which is launched against Serbia."127 Then Minister of Infrastructure Velimir Ilic’s justification of the violence on February 21 ("We have broken a few windows, they have broken our state"128) was widely reported.

Several days later, Kostunica changed his rhetoric, saying that: "Violence and destruction most directly harm the fight for state and national interest. All who favor a false Kosovar state are glad when they see violence in Belgrade."129 Similarly, Ilic demanded that police investigate and establish "what really happened that night" and arrest "those who embarrassed Serbia."130

While eventually ostensibly rejecting violence, the apparent emphasis of these leaders on the negative practical consequences for Serbian interests rather than on the principle that violence was an illegitimate form of protest.

Serbia’s new government, which took office in July 2008, took a welcome first step to give more prominence to minority rights on the day it was formed, by establishing a new Ministry of Human and Minority Rights to replace the Serbian National Office of Human and Minority Rights. However, despite the upgrading of the agency responsible for minority rights, the government has yet to take concrete steps to address the long-standing weaknesses identified in this report, and take more proactive stand to condemn, investigate and prosecute the attacks on the Albanian and other minority-owned businesses, which occurred in the aftermath of Kosovo’s declaration of independence.

Official Condemnation of Attacks on Minorities

While some in the government condemned the attacks on ethnic Albanians and other minorities, others remained silent, notably the then Prime Minister Kostunica. President Boris Tadic, who earlier called for restraint during the first night of violent protests in Belgrade,131 publicly spoke out against about the Sombor bakery boycott, demanding that the police establish who was behind the boycott, condemning the "chauvinist actions" and affirming the rights of all citizens of Serbia, regardless of ethnic or religious background.132

Petar Ladjevic, the then Director of the Serbian National Office of Human and Minority Rights, visited the town of Zrenjanin on February 23, 2008 and spoke to some of the ethnic Albanian owners of the businesses that were attacked.133 He also called on the Albanians and Gorani "not to fear, because the government of Serbia will protect them" and classified the attacks as a "violation of human rights."134

During a meeting with Human Rights Watch, Serbia’s Ombudsman, Sasa Jankovic, emphasized the importance of strong and unequivocal condemnation of violence by government officials, regardless of their political affiliations or views on Kosovo. 135 Many victims with whom Human Rights Watch spoke, as well as Serbia’s Ombudsman, felt that the government statements were not categorical enough and that the overall message was ambiguous.

Human Rights Watch also spoke to officials from the Vojvodina Ombudsperson’s office in Novi Sad on April 8, 2008. The officials shared their thoughts on the attacks which took place in Novi Sad and other locations in Vojvodina, arguing that a "permissive atmosphere" was created after public political statements, which were understood by some radical youth groups as a green light to commit attacks "against minorities, but also general acts of destruction of private and public property."136

Serbia’s Ombudsman was active in responding to the wave of attacks that took place after Kosovo’s declaration of independence. On March 4, 2008, he visited Sombor, where he participated in the solidarity action of buying bread in the boycotted Albanian-owned bakery. He also visited a man in Subotica who had reported that his house was attacked with explosives a couple weeks after his home was vandalized with racist graffiti, and who reported that he was receiving threatening calls.137 Mr. Jankovic also publicly condemned anti-Albanian violence on multiple occasions.

Compensation for Damage to Property

As well as criminal prosecution, compensation for damage to property is also required following the attacks on minority businesses and homes.

Petar Ladjevic, then Director of the National Office for Human and Minority Rights made a statement to the TV station B92 on March 2, 2008, in which he promised to follow-up on the incidents, including on the issue of compensation for those owners who were not insured, whose damages he said would "be paid by the municipality."138

Some owners with whom Human Rights Watch spoke were not insured, and were interested in compensation, but did not know whom to turn to or how to go about claiming compensation.

Human Rights Watch spoke to Mr. Ladjevic in order to clarify his comments regarding compensation. He referred to aggregate information he had obtained from the police, indicating that in only one case did the damage resulting from the attacks exceed 120 Euros, and none of the owners had sought compensation.139 The first point is contradicted by the damage estimates given to Human Rights Watch by property owners in at least twelve cases.

Mr. Ladjevic informed Human Rights Watch that victims would need to apply for compensation for damages to their municipalities rather than the national government of Serbia, which would only be responsible only if the damage was done during authorized140 demonstrations.141 However, the legal basis of this is not clear to Human Rights Watch.

For example, it does not appear to be legally clear that owners can apply for any compensation when the damage does not arise from authorized demonstrations. Human Rights Watch is unaware of any provision of Serbian law that would allow for claims against municipal authorities for criminal damage not linked to such demonstrations.

Under Serbia’s Law on Obligatory Relationships, the state is obligated to compensate victims who suffer material damage during public protests. The relevant articles of the law are in the section entitled, "Responsibility for Terrorist Acts, Public Demonstrations or Manifestations." Article 180 reads:

(1) For damage caused by death, serious bodily injury or by damage or destruction of property owned by a physical person, due to acts of violence and terror, and on the occasion of public demonstrations or manifestations, the state whose organs were responsible under the laws in force to prevent such damages are responsible. (3) The state has the right and the obligation to request compensation for the payment [of damages] from the person who caused the damage. (4) That right is limited by the statute of limitations on seeking damages.

According to this law, those individuals whose businesses and homes were attacked during or in the immediate aftermath ("on the occasion of") public demonstrations could be entitled to compensation by the state whose bodies "were responsible to prevent such damages."

In the Novi Sad cases arising out of public demonstrations, and one case in Subotica, and one in Kikinda, it appears that according to this law the state might be directly financially liable to the victim, while the state could later sue the perpetrator of the crime for compensation. This information was not clearly communicated to individual victims interviewed in this report, if the information was communicated at all, and so the victims were not well-situated to enforce the rights that the law guarantees them.

For those whose property was not damaged during public demonstrations, it appears that no avenues are open to them beyond bringing civil claims against those who caused the damage, which would require the identification of those responsible. But those we interviewed have not been informed about the possibility of bringing civil claims.

The failure of the authorities to communicate with ethnic Albanians and other minorities whose businesses and homes had been attacked was not limited to the matter of compensation. As discussed above, the police and prosecutors did not adequately report on the progress of investigations, if there was any, to the victims and the local communities. Such communication is essential to assure that the victims feel safe and protected and to deter future attacks.

Notes

125 Human Rights Watch conversation with an independent journalist, Belgrade, April 7, 2008.

126 Ibid.

127 Radio Europa Funkhaus (German radio station), "Crni dan u Beogradu sokirao svetsku javnost," ["A Dark Day in Belgrade Shocks the World Public"] http://www.funkhauseuropa.de/sendungen/radio_forum/beitraege/2008/02/crni_dan.phtml (accessed May 25, 2008).

128 Blic, "Ilic: Demokratija je i kada se razbije neki prozor na ambasadi," ["Ilic: It is Democracy when Windows are Broken at the Embassies"] February 20, 2008. You Tube, http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Tv68QA6tQ&feature=related (accessed May 25, 2008).

129 Ibid.

130 B92, "Ilic: Ambasadori dobro prosli," ["Ilic: The Embassies Got By Well"] February 22, 2008, http://xs4.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2008&mm=02&dd=22&nav_category=640&nav_id=286006 (accessed May 25, 2008).

131 Bostjan Videmsek and Dan Bilefsky, "Protesters in Belgrade attack U.S. Embassy," International Herald Tribune http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/22/europe/22kosovo.php (accessed May 25, 2008).

132 Associated Press, "Serbia President Tadic Urges Probe into Calls for Boycott of Albanian-owned Bakeries," March 20, 2008, http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/20/europe/EU-GEN-Serbia-Kosovo.php (accessed May 25, 2008).

133 Centre for Development of Civil Society press release "Saopstenje povodom nedeovoljnog medijskog pokrivanja susreta Petra Ladevica sa Albancima i Gorancima," ["Public Statement About the Inadequate Media Coverage of the Meetings of Petar Ladjevic with Albanians and Gorani"] February 26, 2008.

134 Danas, "Gest neprijateljstva i mrznje," ["A Gesture of Hostility and Hate"] March 3, 2008, http://www.danas.co.yu/20080303/hronika1.html#1 (accessed May 25, 2008).

135 Human Rights Watch interview with Sasa Jankovic, Serbian Ombudsman, Belgrade, April 24, 2008.

136 Human Rights Watch interview with Zoltan Gobor, Vojvodina Ombudsman Office, April 8, 2008, Novi Sad.

137 B92, "After graffiti, a petrol cocktail (bomb)," April 25, 2008.

138 You Tube, "Kome smetaju somborske pekare" ["Whom do the Bakers of Sombor Bother?"] (4th minute of the recording), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMgROVzs74A (accessed May 23, 2008).

139 Human Rights interview with Petar Ladjevic, then-director of the National Office for Human and Minority Rights, Belgrade, April 22, 2008. Ladjevic did not provide a copy of this document to Human Rights Watch.

140 In Serbia, demonstrations are usually authorized by the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MUP).

141 Human Rights Watch interview with Petar Ladjevic, then-director of the National Office for Human and Minority Rights, Belgrade, April 22, 2008.

Note
Picture: After Montenegro and Kosova, Voivodina and Sanjak will secede. Sanjak (in green) will be soon free and united, as the overwhelming majority of its population have always passionately desired.