Download the report: Registration of the Fact of Birth of a Child in the Birth Registry Book by Nikola Bodiroga PhD

Year 2014 marks the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. On this occasion, worldwide efforts will be focused on increasing awareness and improving action to address the problem of statelessness.

UNHCR's special features page on statelessness contains the most up-to-date data relating to statelessness, including nationality legislation, international law and doctrine on statelessness, case law, information on accessions to the statelessness conventions and country specific statelessness reports

For more than one year after the adoption of recommendation issued by the Commissioner for Protection of Equality for discriminatory acting of the Belgrade City Administration towards the Roma living in the container settlements formed after the forced evictions, the consequences of discriminatory acting have not been eliminated.

To remind, the Commissioner acted upon the complaint of Praxis for establishing the legal regime in container settlements by the City Administration, which does not apply to other categories of citizens. By this legal regime, the City Administration has stipulated that if the Roma residing in container settlements “do not adopt rules of good manners towards the representatives of the institutions of the City of Belgrade”, and “do not show an interest in the efforts of the City to socialize the individuals and their families”, or if they “have guests in the containers”, they might be again forcibly evicted from the accommodation provided to them. At the same time, the provisions of the house rules imposed on the residents of container settlements by the city authorities incited prejudices and stereotypes about the Roma.

Instead of changing the house rules, which applied to the residents of container settlements and adopting the new rules, the City Administration, in “agreement” with the residents of settlements, adopted “Rules for better and healthier life”, which reworded the previous house rules. At the same time, apart from the obligation of adopting the “rules of good manners towards the representatives of the institutions of the City of Belgrade, the reasons for eviction from mobile housing units remained the same and forced evictions of the Roma living in these settlements continue.

For more than one year after the adoption of recommendation issued by the Commissioner for Protection of Equality for discriminatory acting of the Belgrade City Administration towards the Roma living in the container settlements formed after the forced evictions, the consequences of discriminatory acting have not been eliminated.

Specifically, last year Praxis filed a complaint with the Commissioner for Protection of Equality for establishing the legal regime in container settlements by the City Administration, which does not apply to other categories of citizens. By this legal regime, the City Administration has stipulated that if the Roma residing in container settlements “do not adopt rules of good manners towards the representatives of the institutions of the City of Belgrade”, and “do not show an interest in the efforts of the City to socialize the individuals and their families”, or if they “have guests in the containers”, they might be again forcibly evicted from the accommodation provided to them. At the same time, the provisions of the house rules imposed on the residents of container settlements by the city authorities incited prejudices and stereotypes about the Roma.

Based on these discriminatory provisions, the City Administration has evicted at least 11 families (44 persons), and the above-stated recommendation of the Commissioner should have eliminated the consequences of discrimination. However, more than a year has elapsed and the City Administration has just partially acted upon the recommendation.

Instead of changing the house rules, which applied to the residents of container settlements and adopting the new rules, the City Administration, in “agreement” with the residents of settlements, adopted “Rules for better and healthier life”, which reworded the previous house rules. At the same time, apart from the obligation of adopting the “rules of good manners towards the representatives of the institutions of the City of Belgrade, the reasons for eviction from mobile housing units remained the same and forced evictions of the Roma living in these settlements continue.

For more than one year after the adoption of recommendation issued by the Commissioner for Protection of Equality for discriminatory acting of the Belgrade City Administration towards the Roma living in the container settlements formed after the forced evictions, the consequences of discriminatory acting have not been eliminated.

Specifically, last year Praxis filed a complaint with the Commissioner for Protection of Equality for establishing the legal regime in container settlements by the City Administration, which does not apply to other categories of citizens. By this legal regime, the City Administration has stipulated that if the Roma residing in container settlements “do not adopt rules of good manners towards the representatives of the institutions of the City of Belgrade”, and “do not show an interest in the efforts of the City to socialize the individuals and their families”, or if they “have guests in the containers”, they might be again forcibly evicted from the accommodation provided to them. At the same time, the provisions of the house rules imposed on the residents of container settlements by the city authorities incited prejudices and stereotypes about the Roma.

Based on these discriminatory provisions, the City Administration has evicted at least 11 families (44 persons), and the above-stated recommendation of the Commissioner should have eliminated the consequences of discrimination. However, more than a year has elapsed and the City Administration has just partially acted upon the recommendation.

Instead of changing the house rules, which applied to the residents of container settlements and adopting the new rules, the City Administration, in “agreement” with the residents of settlements, adopted “Rules for better and healthier life”, which reworded the previous house rules. At the same time, apart from the obligation of adopting the “rules of good manners towards the representatives of the institutions of the City of Belgrade, the reasons for eviction from mobile housing units remained the same and forced evictions of the Roma living in these settlements continue.

After the meeting that Praxis, the Regional Centre for Minorities and the European Roma Rights Center held with representatives of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality, the Commissioner addressed the Belgrade City Administration pointing out that in determining locations for Roma housing, the creation of segregated settlements should be avoided.

The Commissioner specified the ratified international treaties that guarantee human rights, constitutional and legal principles, as well as the programme and strategic commitments of the Republic of Serbia in the field of minority protection and prevention of segregation and discrimination. Furthermore, the Commissioner pointed out that permanent housing for Roma should not lead to further social exclusion of this group of people, because the Republic of Serbia, as well as the City of Belgrade, was bound by international conventions and national regulations.

Bearing in mind that the 2021 Master Plan of Belgrade and special records and lists attached to this plan include 58 locations in Belgrade intended for social housing and other forms of low-cost residential buildings, the Commissioner expressed the opinion that the construction of social housing in these locations constituted a solid basis for the housing of Roma family and beginning of their future integration. Since the determination of social housing locations is a precondition for the exercise of the rights of Roma to adequate housing, the Commissioner pointed to the City Administration that the aforementioned way of solving housing problems would differ greatly from the previous bad practices that often resulted in the creation of settlements inhabited only by Roma and the segregation of Roma.

Finally, the Commissioner expressed the hope that the Mayor would use all his powers to ensure a sufficient number of adequate locations for the construction of social housing, in accordance with international standards and regulations governing this area.

Download: Letter of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality sent to the Belgrade City Administration

On 29 October 2013, a panel discussion for members of Roma communities was held in Bujanovac within the project “Equal Chances for Better Prospects – Strengthening Roma in Combating Discrimination” implemented by the Office of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality in cooperation with Praxis. The goal of this information and education campaign is raising awareness and empowering the Roma national minority in fight against discrimination. The panel discussion was attended by representatives of the organizations whose activities are directed at protection of and assistance to the marginalized and vulnerable social groups.

After presenting the institution, organization and competences, the representatives of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality acquainted the present with the terms of discrimination and its form. Based on many examples from practice of the institution, they intended to point at differences between the acting that would present discrimination and the one that would not and called on the present to react at violation of the right to equality by filing a complaint to the Commissioner, even when they are not sure whether it is discrimination. If the content of the complaint clearly indicates that it is not related to discrimination but to the violation of another right, an employee in the Office of the Commissioner will refer the submitter of the complaint to the competent body which he/she should address for the protection of his/her rights. Stressing the importance of filing a complaint to the Commissioner and overall fight against discrimination and building of tolerant society, the representatives of the Commissioner pointed out that the procedure is free of charge and formalities and that it may be filed via mail.

Praxis’ representative acquainted the participants with the term and contents of basic human rights and mechanisms for accessing and protecting them. In addition, she pointed at the most frequent problems encountered in practice, stressing thereby the bad systemic solutions or deficiencies in the work of bodies in procedures for exercising the rights related to vulnerable social groups, particularly the Roma.

Through an active participation in the panel discussion, by expressing their own experiences and observations, the present pointed out at impeded and frequently utterly prevented access to human rights. Basically, they are of the opinion that Roma are socially excluded and deprived of rights and very often the victims of discrimination for belonging to Roma national minority. However, the level of awareness about the right to equality is very low among the members of Roma population and discrimination is often minimized and presented as socially acceptable behaviour. The reason for that is most often fear of retaliation of a person who would file a complaint for the violation of the right to equality.

On 8 November 2013, a panel discussion for members of Roma communities was held in Surdulica within the project “Equal Chances for Better Prospects – Strengthening Roma in Combating Discrimination” implemented by the Office of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality in cooperation with Praxis.

At the extremely attended panel discussion, the competences of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality and anti-discrimination protection mechanisms in Serbia were presented. Through an interactive discussion, the concrete cases of discriminatory behaviour towards the Roma were presented, while the representatives of the Roma national minority and non-governmental organizations dealing with protection of their rights were encouraged to file a complaint against discrimination with the Commissioner.

The participants stated that they are often the victims of discriminatory acting, particularly in relation to exercise of the right to social protection, that is to say that administration is silent towards their requests or unequal treatment. The field of labour and employment was identified as the key area in which discrimination appears. The presents were thoroughly acquainted with the procedure conducted before the Commissioner and the manner for filing a complaint. The representatives of the Office of Commissioner for Protection of Equality pointed at distinct social distance between the Roma population and non-Roma population, and the fact that Roma are often discriminated for their national affiliation. Despite that, it was stated that the number of complaints for the protection from discrimination filed by members of Roma national minority is worryingly small. Therefore, it was stressed how important it is to take active roles in fight against discrimination by the members of the vulnerable group. In addition, the present said that the procedure upon complaint is free of charge, it is efficient and requests are minimal in regard to the form and therefore the present were referred to availability and simplicity of the procedure upon the complaint, and the instrument for protection from discrimination. The representatives of the Office of Commissioner for Protection of Equality acquainted the present with the course of some procedures conducted before this institution for discrimination against the Roma, and with the most important features of the procedures initiated before the competent court.

By presenting the problems and impediments encountered in practice in relation to access to basic human rights, Praxis’ representative contributed to presenting the concerned issue and initiated a discussion of the participants on observations and experience in this area. Based on the comments and opinions of the participants, it could be concluded that members of Roma community were aware of the prohibition of discrimination and the need to take active measures aimed at additional motivating of the Roma community – both in terms of acquainting with available mechanisms for protection of their rights and in terms of willingness to take concrete steps for improving the living conditions of the whole Roma community. It was also concluded that much needs yet to be done on the elimination of stereotypes and prejudices that still exist towards the Roma.

At the end of the panel discussion, the representatives of the Commissioner and Praxis visited the Roma settlement Gornja mahala whose youngest residents participated in the film project “The Equal” – an omnibus consisting of 8 short films on child rights and problems the children face, supported by the Commissioner for Protection of Equality.

If this Draft Law on Free Legal Aid, third in a row, is adopted, it will lead to a situation where rare individuals will meet the requirements for free legal representation, and even if they do meet the requirements, there will not be no providers of such aid. Due to the provisions regulating the work of future free legal aid providers, and envisaged fines of up to one million dinars, there will hardly be interested lawyers, legal clinics or NGOs willing to provide this type of assistance to citizens under the proposed conditions.

The Draft Law on Free Legal Aid has several key shortcomings: disputable definition of free legal aid beneficiaries and complicated procedure that must be conducted to be eligible for free legal aid, election of social welfare centre as an administration body that decides on requests for free legal aid and penal provisions that represent a threat to all those who so far have provided pro bono legal assistance, and which will not be financed from the budget of the Republic of Serbia according to the new Law.

It is, therefore, expected from the poorest and socially disadvantaged citizens to know whether they have the right to free legal aid under this Law, and then, in accordance with the Constitution, to state which of their rights or freedoms has been violated and to fill a form stating all that?!

Filling out the form will be a problem also for people with disabilities and those who have been forcibly hospitalised or against whom a procedure for deprivation of legal capacity is being conducted.

The Draft Law also stipulates that potential beneficiaries should submit a request for free legal aid to the competent Social Welfare Centre, which shall, within 7 days or 48 hours in urgent cases, adopt a decision on granting or rejecting the request.

Social Welfare Centres are already overloaded with work, and everybody who is familiar with that situation knows well that the centres will not be able to meet the prescribed deadlines and to assess the fulfilment of requirements for providing this aid. In deciding on eligibility for free legal aid, Social Welfare Centres have often been in conflict of interest with respect to potential beneficiaries of free legal aid.

The Draft Law provides for the registration of all providers, stipulating that the state will not pay for primary legal aid (providing legal advice, drafting complaints and submissions). This does not include local self-governments, which are obliged to ensure the exercise of this right by using their own funds.

As regards the providers of secondary free legal aid (in-court representation and mediation), the Draft Law stipulates that the state will fund this type of aid when in the procedure it has been decided in favour of the beneficiary and when the court has made a decision on reimbursement of provided free legal aid at the expense of other party. Therefore, the work of attorneys-at-law will be paid only if these two conditions have been fulfilled.

The penal provisions of this Draft Law will certainly lead to a reduction in the already small number of free legal aid providers in Serbia, because why would anyone take a risk of providing this type of assistance even pro bono if they are threatened with draconian fines of up to one million dinars.

Non-governmental organisations that provide free legal aid to the citizens of Serbia publicly express their concern that the proposed provisions of this Law will certainly affect the autonomy of the associations of citizens, seriously undermining the future system of free legal aid providers.

Because of all the above, the Law should be urgently returned to refinement. As it is now, it will cause more harm than good!

Download press release: Non-governmental Organisations – Free Legal Aid Providers Strongly Criticise the Draft Law on Free Legal Aid  

Two statelessness-related events took place in Belgrade this April, with an aim to greet Serbia’s recent accession to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and once again remind the public of the problem of persons not recognized as citizens of any country.

First, Greg Constantine’s exhibition Nowhere People opened on 2 April – a series of captivating photos that depicted the unforgettable faces and stories of some of the world’s most vulnerable stateless groups. Each of those moving pictures was followed by an even more moving explanation about deprivation that stateless communities face because of denied nationality. Greg Constantine himself flawlessly introduced their plight with Hannah Arendt’s words equating their state of being “stripped of citizenship” with a state of “being stripped of worldliness”.

On the following day, a seminar on statelessness took place at the Belgrade Faculty of Law. The seminar was initiated by UNCHR as a part of the Refugee Legal Clinic project where the sixth generation of students of this programme had an opportunity to learn about the essence and scope of this problem in the world from experts in this field – Laura van Waas, Senior Researcher and Manager of the Statelessness Programme at the Tilburg Law School, and Mirna Adjami, Senior Statelessness Advisor at UNHCR HQ in Geneva. On the other side, Davor Rako from UNHCR Serbia Legal Protection Unit and Ivanka Kostic, Praxis Executive Director, explained how this problem affects Serbia, introduced Praxis’ and UNCHR’s activities related to persons at risk of statelessness, and, above all, clarified who persons at risk of statelessness in Serbia are.

Among those persons, we can find those who had once been registered in citizenship registry books, but these records were destroyed. Others are facing difficulties in proving the fact of their birth and origin. Even though they mostly do have a connection with a country which is sufficient for acquiring citizenship, and the “only” step separating them from acquiring the nationality is going through various procedures, many do not manage to make that step – to prove their earlier registration in citizenship registry books or their identity and origin.

The plight is even more serious among those who have a connection with more than one country. Their difficulties can be easily shown in the following Praxis case – the case of Behara, her daughter Ajsha and grandson Rahman.

Behara is from Macedonia, but has lived in Serbia since the 1980’s. After the dissolution of former Yugoslavia, she couldn`t acquire Serbian citizenship because of the impossibility of registering her residence. Later she discovered that she was not registered as a Macedonian citizen either. Behara’s daughter Ajsha grew up undocumented. Two years ago, she finally obtained a birth certificate, but remained without citizenship – because of her mother’s unresolved status. While still undocumented, Ajsha gave birth to her son Rahman. The procedure of his registration is still on-going but its outcome and Rahman’s nationality status remain unpredictable. The answer to the question of Rahman’s nationality could be given only after the citizenship of his mother Ajsa is determined, which will be possible only after the determination of her mother Behara’s citizenship. In order to determine Behara’s citizenship, it is first necessary to determine her parents’ citizenship. But they passed away and only their names are known. The final answer to the question about Rahman’s and Ajsha’s citizenship lies somewhere among the four generations of persons with no determined citizenship, connections with the two countries and endless difficulties with proving the citizenship of Rahman’s grandmother and Ajsha’s mother Behara whose undetermined citizenship triggered a whole series. As long as this uncertainty lasts, they are deprived of basic human rights.

Behara, Rahman and Ajsha are only three out of some 3,000 persons identified by Praxis who face similar risks.

Turning back again to the aforementioned seminar, both Laura van Waas and Mirna Adjami have pointed out that a significant part of the fight against statelessness is its identification, as well as the prevention of statelessness among those who are in danger of remaining without a nationality. Similar motivation lies behind Praxis’ attempts to make visible the problems of people like Ajsha, Rahman and Behara – it comes from convictions that the prevention of statelessness and full respect for the right to a nationality will be possible only if all those whose right to a nationality is being violated are made visible and if we keep on striving to find ways to improve the position of all those who are unprotected due to their disputed nationality. Behara’s case depicts how easily one unresolved nationality status may lead to new generations of persons whose basic human rights are denied because of vague nationality and warns us how important it is to react before someone is permanently “stripped of worldliness”.

See the blog on ENS website