United Nations
SECURITY COUNCIL
405 East 42nd Street, New York,
NY, 10017, USA

Although Serbia (former FRY), Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation BiH and Croatia concluded on 21.11.1995 "AGREEMENT ON CIVILIAN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PEACE SETTLEMENT" - Annex 10 - (hereinafter termed as: "CONTRACT"), there is still instability. BiH is under protectorate, and according to the official communications, it should have been ended as early as March 2007, by way of transferring the competences from the OHR to BiH authorities and to the EU Office. However, unexpectedly and without explanation, the public found out, that political directors of Steering Board of some informal group of people "PIC" had established in Brussels what prerequisites would have to be fulfilled previously. Those prerequisites were titled "AGENDA 5+2", and appear to be so called "impossible condition", so, speaking from our experience, they will most probably never be carried through. Most probably, this will cause even more instability.

For the above cited reasons, it is about questions, events and information of the utmost public importance. Therefore, we suggest, that you distribute and put on notice this material along with Annex, as UN SC materials, to all UN SC members for their information and in order to give the requested answers.

Fund for the Development of Democracy

Annex

1. In order to remedy the consequences of recent war, Serbia (former FRY), Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Federation BiH, as contracting parties, concluded the "AGREEMENT ON CIVILIAN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PEACE SETTLEMENT". That "Contract" was concluded on 21.11.1995, and enclosed to the Dayton Agreement as Annex 10.

2. Since it was about extensive and complex tasks, under Article II, titled "Mandate and Methods of Coordination and Liaison", they provided for a "high representative", as a person that would monitor, facilitate and coordinate stipulated activities. Because of the prestige of the UN SC, the contracting parties requested from UN SC to, by virtue of its resolution, appoint a High Representative, who shall be the final authority to interpret the "Contract".

3. Accepting the request and desire of the contracting parties, UN SC passed on 15.12.1995 the Resolution 1031, by which it appointed Carl Bildt, to be the first High Representative under terms and powers laid down in the "Contract"

4. According to the information available, subsequent high representatives were since then no longer being appointed by the UN SC by virtue of its resolutions, as the contracting parties had laid down in contract and requested from the UN SC, but instead, some self-styled and informal group of persons, titled ambassadors or political directors of the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council (PIC), started appointing subsequent high representatives self-styled and arbitrarily. The said group - PIC - elected itself by itself on 9.12.1995 in London, granting itself unlimited powers by itself. That informal group - PIC - is neither provided for in the Dayton Agreement, nor was it ever approved, nor accepted, by Serbia, Republic of Srpska and other parties to the "Contract".

5. From then on, acting self-appointed, arbitrarily and without any control or liability whatsoever, that group held numerous meetings (e. g. in Florence, Vienna, Brussels, Madrid, New York, Sarajevo etc.). The most important and the most fateful meeting for the territory of the former Yugoslavia was held in Bonn, on 10.12.1997. On that occasion, the cited self-styled and informal group, proposed by itself and adopted by itself "CONCLUSIONS", that are fateful and binding for the stability and economy of BiH, and especially for Serbia, Republic of Srpska and Kosovo and Metohija. The High Representatives, starting especially from Paddy Ashdown, Christian Schwarz-Schilling, and now Valentin Inzko, have considered these "conclusions" to be binding for taking their decisions, because they were reckoning, that those conclusions gave them unnatural power and supremacy over domestic and international legal order.

6. Interpreting and applying aforesaid "conclusions" in a self-stylish manner, the high representatives usurped the competences of: the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH, the Constitutional Court of BiH as well as of other public authorities on the territory of BiH and its entities. They did it by their decisions, which they published in official journals - and by which they amended constitutions of the entities, passed and altered laws, deposed elected functionaries and civil servants - banned them from unemployment benefits, banned them from participation on elections, blocked their bank accounts, deprived them from all civil rights (capitis deminutio maxima) and personal documents, all this, as in the inquisition times, without the right to an appeal and similar. All this was done, although the Constitutional Court of BiH cites in its decisions article II/2 of the BiH Constitution, that guarantees direct application of international standards, such as: "The rights and freedoms set forth in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Protocols shall apply directly in Bosnia and Herzegovina". Illegality and absurd are even bigger, since the BiH Constitution, with cited article, is an integral part of the "Dayton Agreement" (Annex 4).

7. All the courts: Constitutional Court of BiH, administrative, district and even the European Court of human courts have established, that, against such decisions of the High Representatives, there is no possibility of filing objection, appeal, claim, appelatio with the Constitutional Court, Application with the European Court of Human Rights and similar(!). All the instances, including even the European Court of Human Rights, declared the lack of jurisdiction for such decisions of the High Representative. For example, the Constitutional Court of BiH asserts in one of its decisions, that it is about an institution of the international character.

However, such situation constitutes a direct violation against the European Convention of human rights (i. e. its Art. 6 and 13, granting right to fair trial and to an effective remedy), and it also contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (art. 2. and 14.), and these are the fundamental rights of international coercive law (ius cogens) as universally accepted principles.

8. Such wrongful and and illegal behavior of the High Representatives, and infringements of the basic human and civil rights of targeted persons and citizens of BiH, created even divisions, problems, insecurity and instability, leading fast to spreading the hatred and dissolution of BiH. That was the reason for the VENICE COMMISSION to react, and published its alarming report: "Opinion on the Constitutional Situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Powers of the High Representative" (of 12.3.2005). Numerous irregularities in the High Representatives' activity were enumerated in the report, and the Resolution 1384 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the COE was cited:

"13. The scope of the OHR is such that, to all intents and purposes, it constitutes the supreme institution vested with power in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this connection, the Assembly considers it irreconcilable with democratic principles that the High Representative should be able to take enforceable decisions without being accountable for them or obliged to justify their validity and without there being a legal recourse. "

Finally, under para. 84, the Venice Commission states, that the High Representative derives his powers from the "Contract", i. e. Annex 10 to the Dayton Agreement, so under para. 100 the Commission concludes: the practice of using the Bonn Powers does not correspond to democratic principles.

9. Probably in order to soften extorted negative reactions, three months later political directors of the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council (PIC), on their session held in Sarajevo on 22. and 23.6.2006 informed the public, that it is everybody's interest, that Bosnia and Herzegovina assumes full responsibility for its own affairs, that the shutting down the Office of the High Representative was expected by 30. June 2007, when the powers of the OHR are to be taken over by BiH public authorities and partially EUSR (Special EU Representative's Office).

10. The expected winding-up of operations of the OHR neither occured, nor is it going to happen, judging by Christian Schwarz-Schilling, who astonished the public on 23.03.2007, as he published his binding, anachronistic DIRECTIVE - conveying to disobedient citizens and institutions as follows:

"Each and every action taken by any institution or public authority in Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to establish domestic mechanism of controlling those decisions of the high representative, that he took according to his international mandate, shall be considered by the high representative as jeopardy of implementation of civil aspects of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and shall by itself be considered as a behavior jeopardizing such implementation. This directive is effective immediately and shall be at once published in the Official Journal of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Official Journal of the District of Brčko, Official Journal of the Federation Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the Official Journal of the Republic of Srpska. Sarajevo 23. March 2007. Dr. Christian Schwarz-Schilling - the High Representative" (Source text: »Svaku radnju koju preduzme bilo koja institucija ili organ u Bosni i Hercegovini u cilju uspostave domaćeg mehanizma kontrole odluka visokog predstavnika donesenih prema njegovom međunarodnom mandatu, visoki predstavnik će smatrati pokušajem da se ugrozi provedba civilnih aspekata Općeg okvirnog sporazuma za mir u Bosni i Hercegovini, i sama po sebi će se smatrati ponašanjem kojim se ugrožava takva provedba. Ovaj Nalog stupa na snagu odmah i odmah se objavljuje u Službenom glasniku Bosne i Hercegovine, Službenom glasniku Brčko Distrikta Bosne i Hervegovine, Službenim novinama Federacije Bosne i Hervegovine i u Službenom glasniku Republike Srpske. Sarajevo, 23. marta 2007. Dr. Christian Schwarz-Schilling – Visoki predstavnik«.)

11. Apart from the aforesaid C. Schwarz-Schilling's "DIRECTIVE" and other published decisions, such a position was confirmed in the recent interview of the current High Representative Valentin Inzko to BBC, published on 19.12.2020, where Inzko explains: "Job description of the High Representative is defined by the Bonn Powers from 1997, and these elaborate what was written in the Annex 10 of the Dayton Agreement two years before... During the last 10-12 years, we have not used those powers, and the international community does not give me some support to use them." (Source text: »Opis posla Visokog predstavnika definišu Bonska ovlašćenja iz 1997. godine, kojima je razrađeno ono što je u Aneksu 10 Dejtonskog sporazuma zapisano dve godine ranije … Poslednjih 10-12 godina nismo koristili ova ovlašćenja, a i međunarodna zajednica mi ne daje neku podršku da ih koristim«)

12. Instead of announced and expected shutting-down of OHR, and transfer of its powers to the public authorities of BiH and the EU Office - political directors of the PIC Steering Board, on session held in Brussels on 26. and 27. February 2008, published special prerequisites, that have to be fulfilled, prior to shutting the OHR down. They titled these preconditions "Agenda 5+2". Even if some of these preconditions were fulfilled, according to the current circumstances, at least two of those will not be fulfilled in the foreseeable future - what somebody might be planning and wishing. These two are, that the PIC Steering Board confirms:

  1. that the Rule of Law is entranched in BiH and

  2. positive assessment of the situation in BiH on full compliance with the Dayton Peace Agreement.

Although from the REPORT of the Venice Commission etc. can be concluded, that the conditions for abolishing the function of the High Representative were met good 16 years ago, the question remains: do the High Representative and the Steering Board, over which he presides, have interest to abolish his function and illegal "PIC"'s role?

13. If the causes of the current situations in Kosovo and Metohija and in BiH are similar, and if these are being solved in similar or in the same way, then will the results be the same: permanent and growing instability, with growing divisions for religious, regional and other grounds. This is not the goal of the people, who live in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, but the question remains, if the creating and cultivating instability in this area is being used in establishing the positions of the great countries among themselves?

Even our thirty-years long activity, with hundreds of analysis, comments, constitutional and other proceedings is not sufficient to understand what is going on in our area, and why?

Since these events are of wide public -and for us fateful - significance, in the lack of reliable information, we would like you to distribute this material to all UN SC members in order to reply to the following questions:

  1. Apart from Carl Bildt, was the SC also appointing other high representatives by virtue of its resolution - e. g. Paddy Ashdown, Christian Schwarz-Schilling and Valentin Inzko?

  1. Did the SC, by virtue of its resolution, transfer the powers he got from the contracting parties to some other person or body?

  1. Do the high representatives have status of an international body, or are they proxies of the contracting parties, appointed upon the request of the latter by a third person, with authorities and immunities established by the "Contract" (Annex 10)?

  1. Did the SC accept, by virtue of its resolution, conclusions of the London, Bonn, Madrid and other conferences?

  1. Did the SC, by virtue of its resolution, empower the high representatives, to, apart from application of the Peace Agreement, be able to, at their own discretion, apply "Bonn, London, Madrid and other PIC conclusions"?

  1. Did the SC, by virtue of its resolution, establish that the decisions of the high representatives stand above all legal systems, and are not subject to any domestic control, jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court of BiH, subject to control of the UN SC, subject to jurisdiction of the European Court and similar?

  1. Had the SC, by virtue of its resolution, approved the AGENDA 5+2 of the PIC Steering Board of 23.2.2008, that containing 7 requests to be fulfilled by Bosnian authorities prior to shutting the OHR down?

  1. Can Serbia, Republic of Srpska and other contracting parties to the "Agreement on Civilian Implementation of the Peace Settlement" (Annex 10.) participate in proposing and decision making: on altering powers of the high representatives; on electing and deposing the high representatives; on transformation or winding-up the OHR operations and similar?

  1. Do the high representatives have obligation to consult the contracting parties (principals), submit them drafts of plans and and decisions, submit them periodical work reports and similar?

Fund for the Development of Democracy