Serbia and Montenegro

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2004
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
February 28, 2005

The state union of Serbia and Montenegro (SaM) is a constitutional republic consisting of the relatively large Republic of Serbia and the much smaller Republic of Montenegro.* The two republics hold most real authority, while the state union Government's responsibilities are essentially limited to the Foreign Ministry, the military (VSCG, formerly the VJ), human and minority rights, and foreign and domestic economic and commercial relations. Serbia has a parliamentary system of government run by Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica. Boris Tadic was elected President in two rounds of elections on June 13 and June 27 that were deemed generally free and fair. A new multiparty government was formed in March. The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, the judiciary was inefficient and often subject to political influence and corruption.

The SaM military reports through the Defense Minister to the Supreme Defense Council (VSO), whose voting members are the Presidents of SaM, Serbia, and Montenegro. The military is responsible for external defense. In Serbia, the police are responsible for law enforcement and maintenance of order as part of the Interior Ministry (MUP). The Security Intelligence Agency (BIA) is under the control of the Serbian Government as a whole, effectively giving control to the Prime Minister. Civilian authorities generally maintained control of the security forces. Some members of the security forces committed human rights abuses.

The economy was in transition from a system based on social ownership to a market-based environment with a mix of industry, agriculture, and services. Exclusive of Kosovo, the population of the Republic of Serbia was 7.5 million, and the population of SaM was 8.2 million. The SaM gross domestic product grew by 6 percent during the year. Average wages were projected to outpace inflation. Income distribution and economic opportunity were uneven. Poverty and unemployment were highest in southern and eastern Serbia and among the refugees from the wars in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH) and internally displaced persons (IDPs) from Kosovo.

The Government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in some areas. Police at times beat detainees and harassed citizens. Police effectively investigated high-level killings committed during and after the Milosevic era; however, impunity and corruption were problems. Prolonged pretrial detention was a problem. Courts remained backlogged and administratively paralyzed, and lengthy trials persisted. The war crimes court, a department of the Belgrade District Court established in 2003, began hearing war crimes cases during the year. The media was generally independent; however, journalists practiced some self-censorship because of their vulnerability to private libel suits and indirect political manipulation.

There were incidents of arbitrary arrest and detention. The judiciary continued to be susceptible to political influence. Poor cooperation between the judiciary and other government branches slowed the implementation of legislative reforms.

Two persons in Serbia indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) surrendered to the Tribunal. The Government transferred many documents to the ICTY and gave waivers for witnesses to testify; however, the ICTY remained dissatisfied with overall SaM cooperation, in particular because it believed that key indictee General Ratko Mladic was at large in Serbia.

In March, there were a number of incidents of societal violence and discrimination against religious minorities following widespread anti-Serb violence in Kosovo. Violence and discrimination against women and ethnic minorities were problems. Trafficking in women and children remained a problem which the Government took steps to address.

RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Section 1
Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom from:

a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life

There were no political killings; however, on May 15, police shot and killed an armed poacher along the administrative boundary line with Kosovo. Police, accompanied by a representative of the NATO-led Kosovo force (KFOR), investigated the shooting and determined that it was justified.

The trial of the suspects in the March 2003 assassination of Prime Minister Djindjic was ongoing at year's end. Djindjic was allegedly killed by members of the Red Berets--an autonomous state security police unit from the era of former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) President Slobodan Milosevic--in collusion with the Zemun organized crime clan.

There were some developments in police investigations of political killings from previous years. The trial of two former police officers and five others (including two who remained at large) for the 2002 killing of former Belgrade police chief Bosko Buha was dismissed in November for lack of evidence.

On February 2, the retrial of former State Security Service (RDB) chief Radomir Markovic began for the 1999 attempted killing of Serbian Renewal Movement leader Vuk Draskovic, which resulted in the deaths of four persons. The retrial was ongoing at year's end, and Markovic remained in prison.

On February 23, the trial of nine persons began for the killing of former Serbian President Ivan Stambolic and the 2000 attempted killing of Vuk Draskovic. The trial, in the Belgrade Special Court for Fighting Organized Crime, was ongoing at year's end.

Domestic courts and the ICTY continued to adjudicate cases arising from crimes committed during the 1991-99 conflicts in Croatia, BiH, and Kosovo, including the ICTY prosecution of former FRY and Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic (see Sections 1.e. and 4).

There were no deaths from landmines during the year.

b. Disappearance

There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances.

During the year, SaM and Serbian Government authorities continued efforts to cooperate with neighboring countries and international organizations seeking to identify missing persons and investigating graves discovered in Serbia; however, progress was slow.

During the year, the Government exhumed two sites containing 77 bodies from the Croatia and BiH conflicts, identifying 21 of the bodies and returning them to families (9 within SaM and 12 to BiH). The Government also identified 181 bodies previously exhumed from mass graves dating to the Kosovo conflict and repatriated them to Kosovo. The Government, in cooperation with international organizations and the International Commission on Missing Persons, had not completed identification and repatriation of the additional remains by year's end.

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

SaM and Serbian laws prohibit such practices; however, police at times beat detainees and harassed citizens.

The Leskovac-based Human Rights Committee reported that there were fewer reports of torture and police abuse in the Leskovac area than there were in 2002 and 2003, but that there was little progress in addressing past abuses.

The MUP Inspector General confirmed six cases of torture by police during the 2003 state of emergency but stated that the perpetrators had not been identified.

By year's end, the few lawsuits filed by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) on behalf of individuals who claimed they were tortured as detainees during the 2003 state of emergency had been withdrawn at the victims' request because the perpetrators could not be identified.

Police most often beat and physically abused persons during arrest or initial detention; low-level criminals were most often the victims of such abuse. In June, a man stopped for an identity check requested the name or identification number of the officer who stopped him. The officer reportedly then put the man in a police car and hit him approximately 10 times on the head. The Humanitarian Law Center (HLC) sent a letter about the incident to the MUP Inspector General, who said he had no information on the case. The MUP did not subsequently investigate the case.

The Leskovac-based Human Rights Committee reported that, in one case, 33 persons from Belgrade were mistreated after being taken to the police building in Vlasotinac.

There was one report that police threatened to have a person prosecuted after he said he would sue them after being mistreated. In another case, a man in Zrenjanin, who claimed police officers beat him in his cafe on January 13, filed a complaint on February 19 and then initiated a private prosecution on August 24 because there had been no response to his original complaint. The municipal prosecutor then filed charges against the police officers (Zoran Gogic and Dragan Bojanic) for mistreatment while on duty and against the cafe owner for interfering with an official in performance of his duty. Unlike in previous years, there were no reports that police used beatings or threats of beatings to deter detainees from filing claims of abuse on prior occasions.

The public prosecutor filed charges against the three police officers involved in the August 2003 beating of a man each day during his 30-day detention; the man has also filed a private criminal complaint against the officers. The hearing on the man's other police brutality claim from 2001 was postponed because the accused officers did not appear.

During the year, there were developments in cases in which police in previous years reportedly used beatings to coerce confessions. The public prosecutor, claiming that there were insufficient grounds to believe that the acts occurred, dismissed the criminal complaint that the HLC filed in 2003 against unidentified officers of the Cacak Police Department. The HLC complaint claimed that, in May 2003, the officers threatened and hit Zeljko Popovic in an attempt to coerce a confession of robbery. After the complaint was dismissed, the HLC pursued the case as a private prosecution and requested further investigation. On October 6, an investigating judge held a hearing on the private prosecution, which remained pending at year's end. In October 2003, the public prosecutor indicted Popovic for stealing; the case had not been brought to trial by year's end.

Two Vranje policemen involved in the 2002 beating of Nenad Tasic were sentenced to 7 months and 5 months in prison, respectively; however, the court overruled the public prosecutor's decision that the two officers be prohibited from working as policemen in the future. The Supreme Court was reviewing the case at year's end. In April, the First Municipal Court in Belgrade ordered the Government to pay Tasic $10,000 (600,000 dinars) in a civil compensation suit filed by the HLC. On November 29, the Belgrade District Court confirmed the compensation award.

There were developments in the case of a Romani man, Nebojsa Majlic, whom Leskovac police allegedly clubbed in 2002. After the assault, Majlic was charged with interfering with police performance of duty; his trial began during the year and was ongoing at year's end. In 2003, the Human Rights Committee filed a criminal complaint against the police who abused Majlic; however, at year's end, the trial of the police had not begun.

Prison conditions generally met international standards; however, conditions varied greatly from one facility to another, and some guards abused prisoners. The Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia (HCS) noted that some prisons offered clean, secure environments for inmates; however, in others--most notably the Belgrade Reformatory Hospital housing psychiatric prisoners--inmates were forced to live in filthy, inhumane conditions. The quality of food varied from poor to minimally acceptable, and health care was often inadequate. Guards were inadequately trained on the proper handling of prisoners.

There were some deaths in prison due to natural causes and suicides. Some inmates complained that other inmates subjected them to intimidation and occasional assaults. Inmates could report such problems to prison staff or to a district court; authorities generally responded by placing inmates in separate cells and at times taking disciplinary measures such as placing offenders in solitary confinement.

Men and women were held separately. Juveniles were supposed to be held separately from adults; however, in practice, this did not always happen. Pretrial detainees were held separately from convicted prisoners.

The Government permitted the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and local independent human rights monitors, including HCS, to visit prisons and to speak with prisoners without the presence of a warden.

There were attacks on and threats against witnesses and potential witnesses in domestic prosecutions.

d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention

The Constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, and the Government generally observed these prohibitions.

The approximately 23,000 police officers in Serbia are part of the MUP's Sector for Public Security. The Sector is divided into seven directorates: uniformed police (including traffic and patrol officers), criminal investigations, organized crime, analysis, special operations units (including gendarmes and the special antiterrorist unit, or SAJ), human resources and training, and border police. The police are divided regionally into 33 secretariats. All municipal and rural units are branches of the republic police. Effectiveness of the police was uneven and generally limited. Many police personnel, including some high-level officials, are holdovers from the Milosevic regime. While most police officers were Serbs, the force included Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), ethnic Hungarians, a small number of ethnic Albanians, and other ethnic minorities. The Multiethnic Police Force in southern Serbia was composed primarily of ethnic Albanians and Serbs.

Corruption and impunity in the police force were problems, and there were only limited institutional means of overseeing and controlling police behavior. In 2003, an Inspector General with enforcement authority was installed in the MUP; however, at year's end, he still had little ability to conduct investigations. On September 24, Finance Minister Mladjan Dinkic announced that several MUP officials would be charged with misappropriation of funds during equipment purchase contracting; however, no charges were filed by year's end. In 2003, the SaM Minister for Human and Minority Rights established an "SOS" hotline, which victims could contact to report on police abuse and other cases. The hotline had received 934 fully documented cases on a variety of issues by year's end. In some cases, hotline calls resulted in the Government resolving the caller's problem. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses community called the hotline after several individuals entered their Kingdom Hall in Loznica on December 2 and demanded $1,350 (1,000 euros) per month in protection money, implying that the police would not interfere. The Human and Minority Rights Ministry brought the problem to the attention of the MUP, which called in the perpetrators, and the threat was not repeated. During the year, the Government and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) trained police, including on community relations.

According to the MUP Inspector General (IG), during the year, the IG recommended initiating disciplinary proceedings against 15 MUP employees, transferring 13 employees, reducing the pay of 34 employees, and referring 23 cases of illegal or improper activity for follow up by chiefs of regional secretariats. Chiefs of regional secretariats brought disciplinary proceedings against 12 employees, transferred 2 employees, filed misdemeanor complaints against 1 employee, and recommended reduction of pay for 8 employees. In addition, the IG filed 71 criminal complaints against 83 employees on charges including abuse of position, taking or giving bribes, forgery, corruption, fraud, making a false report or statement, mistreatment while on duty, causing serious bodily injury, causing minor bodily injury, extortion, unscrupulous work, revealing official secrets, mediation of prostitution, and unauthorized possession of a weapon.

Courts occasionally ordered the Government to pay compensation for police abuses. In April, the First Municipal Court of Belgrade ordered the Government to pay $10,000 (600,000 dinars) in a civil compensation suit for the beating of Nenad Tasic (see Section 1.c.).

Amendments to the law in May preserved the 2-year limit on detention from indictment to the conclusion of first instance trial for most cases, but increased the limit to 4 years for crimes that carry up to the maximum penalty (40 years in prison). The amendments also increased from 1 year to 2 years the maximum detention permitted after an appellate court vacates the judgment of a trial court. These amendments were brought in response to defense delaying tactics designed to free defendants. A person wrongfully detained could demand rehabilitation and compensation from the Government.

The police were authorized to make an arrest without a judge authorized warrant in certain circumstances, including well-founded grounds of suspicion that the person committed a capital crime; however, arrests were generally made only with warrants. An investigating judge must approve any detention of more than 48 hours, and this requirement was employed in practice. Amendments to the law in May provide detainees the right to initiate urgent action by an investigating judge to determine the legality of their detention and to have the investigating judge order the detainee's release if the detention was found to be illegal. Arrested persons must be informed immediately of their rights, but there were reports that police officers at times failed to do so and also failed to inform detainees that what they said could be used against them. Bail was allowed but rarely used; detainees facing charges that carried possible sentences of less than 5 years were often released on their own recognizance.

Detainees had access to counsel in principle; however, this right was sometimes not respected in practice. There were reported cases of police pressuring attorneys to have only limited private contact with defendants or contact that was not truly private. There were also cases in which a suspect was interrogated without an attorney present, but the record of the interrogation stated that an attorney was there. Family members were normally able to visit. No suspect could be detained for more than 3 months without the authorization of an investigating judge or detained for more than a total of 6 months without being charged; these rights were respected in practice. The law prohibits the use of force, threats, deception, and coercion, as well as use in court of evidence acquired by such means; however, police sometimes used these means to obtain statements. A suspect's attorney must be present during any statement to police in order for that statement to be admissible in court. There were no reports of statements made under threat or force being used in court. Unlike in the previous year, there were no reports of incommunicado detention.

There was one report of police detaining a journalist for an "informative talk" (see Section 2.a.).

Prolonged pretrial detention was a problem. The law prohibits excessive delays by authorities in filing formal charges against suspects and in opening investigations; however, such delays continued regularly. Due to the inefficiency of the courts, cases often took an excessively long time to come to trial, and once started, trials often took an excessively long time to complete (see Section 1.e.).

e. Denial of Fair Public Trial

The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, the courts remained susceptible to corruption and political influence.

The courts were highly inefficient--cases could take years to be resolved--and there were no official channels for alternative dispute resolution. During the year, the Government and the judiciary made little progress in implementing the extensive organizational reforms mandated in the 2001 laws on courts, judges, and public prosecutors. The National Assembly passed an amendment providing for nomination of prosecutors by the Supreme Judicial Council--replacing nomination by the Government--and their confirmation by the National Assembly.

There were reported attempts by officials to undermine politically sensitive prosecutions, including by applying pressure on prosecutors. Journalist Misa Vasic reported on a phone call in which a private attorney allegedly sought to persuade Zemun clan crime figure Dejan "Bagzi" Milenkovic to testify falsely that the chief prosecution witness in the Djindjic assassination case was involved in another murder. In the phone call, allegedly recorded by the former head of the organized crime police (UBPOK), the attorney asserted that Interior Minister Jocic and BIA Chief Radomir "Rade" Bulatovic supported a deal in which Dejan "Bagzi" Milenkovic, also a defendant in the Djindjic assassination, would be given state witness status in exchange for the false testimony (see Section 2.a.). The weekly Vreme, which carried Vasic's report, later carried purported excerpts from the transcript of the phone call.

On July 1, the SaM Council of Ministers halted all ongoing trials at SaM military courts until political leaders resolved questions about the jurisdiction and role of the military judiciary; the military courts remained closed the rest of the year and were scheduled to be disbanded as of January 1, 2005. In addition to the military court system, the only other SaM court, the Court of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, was established with the appointment of judges in May and June. The court is responsible for coordinating jurisprudence in the state union, resolving jurisdictional disputes between Serbian and Montenegrin institutions, ruling on petitions brought by citizens who claimed violation of rights guaranteed by the SaM Constitutional Charter, and settling disputes that SaM's joint customs office is unable to resolve. The court was fully established during the year, but no cases were brought before it.

The Serbian court system is made up of municipal and district courts, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Court. Special courts for war crimes and organized crime were established within the Belgrade District Court. The Constitutional Court rules on the constitutionality of laws and regulations and relies on the authorities to enforce its rulings. The law mandates the establishment of an administrative appeals court and a second instance appeals court to lighten the burden of the Supreme Court; however, during the year, the National Assembly postponed their establishment until 2007 because preparatory work for the courts had not been done.

The High Judicial Council, staffed by Supreme Court justices, nominates judges for approval by the National Assembly. The High Personnel Council disciplines and, with the National Assembly's concurrence, dismisses judges; however, there were no dismissals during the year.

The Judges' Training Center organized educational programs offered throughout the country. International organizations and local NGOs, including the HLC and the Belgrade Center for Human Rights (BCHR), also conducted training for judges during the year.

Trials are generally public, but they are closed during testimony of a state witness (defendants against whom charges were dropped or not filed in exchange for testimony). There are no juries. The law provides that defendants are presumed innocent and have the right to have an attorney represent them at public expense, if needed, and to be present at their trials. The courts also must provide interpreters, if required. Both the defense and the prosecution have the right to appeal a verdict. Defendants have the right to access government-held evidence and question witnesses. All these rights were generally respected in practice.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Milan Sarajlic, who was charged with accepting payments from the Zemun organized crime clan, was released from jail due to poor health. During the year, it was determined that he was not mentally fit to stand trial, and no trial was scheduled.

On March 9, the Special War Crimes Court opened with its first trial (the Vukovar/Ovcara case; see below); the Court provides the same rights to defendants as do regular courts.

There was a semi-independent War Crimes Prosecutor--appointed by the National Assembly--and a small War Crimes Investigative Service within UBPOK, as well as specialized court chambers and a dedicated detention unit for the War Crimes Court.

On March 17, Aleksandar "Sasa" Cvjetan was sentenced to 20 years in prison for killing 19 ethnic Albanians in Kosovo in 1999. In December, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial to establish certain questions of fact and procedure, including whether Cvjetan's attorney was present during the defendant's confession.

In September, the Supreme Court overturned the 2003 convictions of four people in the Sjeverin war crime case because the trial did not specify which defendants committed which criminal acts. The Supreme Court ordered a retrial, which had not begun by year's end.

The ICTY transferred two lower level figures involved in the Vukovar massacre (also known as the Ovcara case) for government prosecution. Serbia's Special Prosecutor for War Crimes greatly expanded the investigation beyond information provided by the ICTY and, in January, indicted eight persons. On March 9, the trial of six of the indictees began, the first trial to be held in the Special War Crimes Court. Indictments against another 12 persons were added in May. Two indictees became state witnesses and another died when he jumped from a window while attempting to escape, leaving 17 persons on trial. The trial was ongoing at year's end.

During the year, trials in absentia began for Milorad "Legija" Ulemek and Dejan "Bagzi" Milenkovic for the Djindjic assassination; however, Ulemek surrendered before the trial was completed. SAJ squad member Dejan Demirovic was being tried in absentia for participating in the killing of 19 ethnic Albanians in Podujevo, Kosovo, in 1999. The trials were not completed at year's end, and no issues of defendants' rights arose.

There were no reports of political prisoners.

f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence

The Constitution prohibits such actions; however, the Government at times infringed upon these rights in practice. The law requires the MUP to seek a court order before monitoring potential criminal activity and requires that police must only enter premises with a warrant, except to "save people and property"; however, occasionally police did not respect these provisions in practice.

Most observers believed that the authorities selectively monitored communications and eavesdropped on conversations, read mail and e-mail, and wiretapped telephones.

The Government did not fulfill its promise to open to the public all secret files on persons collected under former regimes. The few files actually delivered to individuals who requested them had been cleansed of documents that might have contained sensitive reporting on the individuals. One individual who received a file was warned that he would be charged with revealing government secrets if he made the file public.

Unlike in the previous year, there were no evictions of Roma from squatter settlements.

Section 2
Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:

a. Freedom of Speech and the Press

SaM and Serbian law provide for freedom of speech and of the press; however, although the media frequently criticized the Government without reprisal, implied political pressure from various sources, an uncertain regulatory environment, and vulnerability to libel suits placed constraints on free expression by journalists, editors, and other members of the media. Unlike in the previous year, there were no reports of pressure on the media by senior government officials.

The country had a mixture of privately owned and fully or partially government-owned media outlets. The Government published the daily Borba and owned one of the most important printing houses in the country, also named Borba. The oldest nationwide daily, Politika, was co-owned by German media giant WAS and the Government, but run by several shareholding companies.

The Government funded a Hungarian language newspaper, and state owned media outlet Radio-Television Serbia (RTS) provided some Hungarian language programming. Radio stations owned by municipal governments also provided minority-language programming. Tanjug was a state-owned news agency that many television stations relied on for news information.

State-controlled RTS was a major presence in television and radio. Aside from the three RTS channels, the Government had considerable influence, although not formal control, over some other major television stations, including TV Politika and TV Novi Sad, as well as Radio Belgrade's three stations. RTS's coverage was generally objective; however, there occasionally appeared to be a slight bias toward the Government. Management personnel could be politically influenced, since the Government appointed editors-in-chief. On March 18, the Government replaced RTS Director General Aleksandar Crkvenjakov with government loyalist Aleksandar Tijanic. Minister of Culture and Information Dragan Kojadinovic claimed that Crkvenjakov was removed for inadequate coverage of the March outbreak of anti Serb violence in Kosovo; however, the media reported Tijanic's upcoming appointment several days before the escalation of violence in Kosovo. The RTS Board of Governors resigned in protest of Tijanic's appointment.

Two major private TV stations, BK and TV Pink, have shown editorial bias in favor of the Government. After the Government in 2002 granted RTV B-92 a temporary license to broadcast republicwide pending the final allocation of frequencies, the media outlet set up new transmitters to make itself a national channel that could compete with TV Pink and BK. Unlike in the previous year, editor-in-chief of RTV B-92 Veran Matic did not report receiving any further warnings from officials that his media outlet would not receive radio or television frequencies if it did not change its reporting. Approximately 300 television stations and 700 radio stations that operated independently operated under temporary licenses or without any legal basis.

On October 8, the Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM) protested the decision of Trstenik Municipal Council to donate ownership of Television Trstenik--part of the local public company RTV Trstenik--to the Serbian Orthodox Church. ANEM claimed that this move, which was cancelled during the year, violated the provisions of the law on privatization of broadcasters.

Radio stations owned or organized by municipalities pressured local journalists not to report on municipal government problems.

There was one instance of police calling in a journalist for an "informative talk." In October, UBPOK called in journalist Misa Vasic for an informative talk at the request of the Belgrade District Public Prosecutor. Vasic was called in after he wrote about a phone call in which a private attorney reportedly offered a defendant state witness status in the Djindjic assassination case in exchange for false testimony. In the call, the attorney allegedly asserted that two senior government officials supported the deal (see Section 1.e.).

Hrvatske Rijeci, a magazine for the Croatian minority, received five threatening phone calls with anti-Croatian content between January 13 and 14.

On March 27, a RTV B-92 news team discovered a bomb under its van, which had been parked in the southern Serbian town of Raska while the team was in Kosovo reporting on a surge of violence against Serbs. Police did not identify the perpetrators, and the investigation appeared to be inactive at year's end.

The law creates a regulatory framework designed to foster free and independent media and mandates formation of an independent Broadcast Council to transform RTS into a public broadcasting service and to allot radio and TV frequencies; however, the law had not been implemented by year's end. Some observers believed that the continued lack of clear guidelines created an atmosphere unfriendly to free expression. Some media outlets clearly attempted to curry favor with the Government in hopes of receiving favorable treatment once new media reform laws are fully implemented.

Libel remained a criminal offense. Although no suits were filed by the Government, the low threshold defining libel enabled individual government officials, as well as former members of the Milosevic regime, to win private cases against media outlets that criticized them. Libel can result in jail terms, and courts have the power to issue "conditional sentences" that silence offending journalists with the threat that any further offense will lead to immediate imprisonment. On March 16, a Sabac city court convicted Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty correspondent Hanibal Kovac of criminal defamation and gave him a 2-month suspended prison sentence for a September 2003 report accusing Cedomir Vasiljevic, a senior official in the Serbian Radical Party (SRS) and former Serbian Government minister during the Milosevic regime, of participating in the violent takeover of an administrative building in 1999. In May, journalist Ljiljana Jokic Kaspar was sentenced to 6 months in prison, with the sentence suspended for 2 years, for reporting that Miroslav Savic had served in the reserve complement of the Red Berets, which, after Savic's reported service, was implicated in the 2003 killing of Prime Minister Djindjic.

At year's end, the prosecutor had taken no action on the 2003 defamation lawsuits filed by then MUP Minister Dusan Mihajlovic against Dinkic and Barac. The 2003 libel suits filed by then Government communications director Vladimir "Beba" Popovic against NIN, Vreme, and RTV B-92 were thrown out during the year. In June, Democratic Party member Radisav Ljubisavljevic withdrew his 2002 libel suit against RTV B-92.

According to the HLC and the BCHR, journalists sometimes practiced self-censorship because of possible libel suits and fear of offending public opinion, particularly on subjects relating to wars in the former Yugoslavia.

Unlike in the previous year, the Government did not prohibit any television or radio stations or newspapers. However, the Government did prohibit the distribution of the book "Military Secrets" on the grounds it revealed military secrets. On March 26, Military Police officers seized the remaining 251 copies of the book despite a Military Police warrant which only authorized them to take 1 copy of the book.

The Government did not restrict access to the Internet; however, there were reports that the Government selectively monitored e-mail correspondence (see Section 1.f.).

The Government did not restrict academic freedom. The Government reversed attempts by the Education Minister to restrict course content and to replace academic personnel based on political considerations. On September 16, the Education Minister was forced to resign. Svetlana Djordjevic, the author of a book enumerating human rights abuses she witnessed Serbian government and military officers commit in Kosovo in 1999, received a series of threats beginning in 2003, after publication of her book. Some of the threats contained symbols associated with the Red Berets and its former leader, Milorad Ulemek, on trial for the assassination of Prime Minister Djindjic and other crimes.

b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association

The Constitution provides for freedom of assembly, and the Government generally respected this right in practice.

c. Freedom of Religion

The SaM and Serbian constitutions and laws provide for freedom of religion, and the state union and republic Governments generally respected this right in practice. There is no state religion in SaM; however, the Serbian Orthodox Church received some preferential treatment, including funding for construction of a large church in Belgrade. The armed forces continued to offer only Serbian Orthodox services; however, members of other faiths may attend religious services outside their posts.

While there is no formal registration requirement for religious groups, any group planning to hold gatherings is required to register with local police. Religious groups also could register as citizen groups with the MUP to gain the status of juridical person necessary for real estate and other administrative transactions.

The Belgrade Islamic community reported continued difficulties in acquiring land and government approval for an Islamic cemetery in the city.

The Supreme Court ruled against a tent church used by the Protestant Evangelical Roma Church in its long-running dispute with the southern town of Leskovac, in which the tent church was singled out from among 463 illegal structures in the area for demolition. On April 30, building inspectors, police, and a demolition team arrived to demolish the church; however, worshippers prevented the demolition, and the city agreed to allow relocation of the church. At year's end, church leaders and city officials were working on details of the agreement.

Religious education in primary and secondary schools continued during the year. Students are required either to attend classes from one of the seven "traditional religious communities" or to substitute a class in civic education. The proportion of students registering for religious education grew during the year and caught up with the proportion of students choosing the civic education option. Some Protestant leaders and NGOs continued to object to teaching religion in public schools and to proposals to classify some of the Republic's religions as traditional.

There was no progress noted during the year on restitution of previously seized religious property.

Representatives of the Union of Jewish Communities of SaM reported an increase in anti-Semitism. There were no reports of physical violence against Jewish persons; however, there was anti-Semitic graffiti and vandalism at a few Jewish cemeteries. According to representatives of the Union of Jewish Communities of SaM, anti Semitic hate speech often appeared in small circulation books. The release of new books (or reprints of translations of anti-Semitic foreign literature) often led to a spike in hate mail and other expressions of anti-Semitism.

There have been a number of continuations in the Savic case, in which an author of anti-Semitic literature was tried for spreading racial/national hatred. The latest continuance, granted in 2003 due to the reported ill health of the defendant, was ongoing at year's end.

Religion and ethnicity are closely related in SaM; in many cases, it was difficult to identify discriminatory acts as being either primarily religious or primarily ethnic in motivation (see Section 5). Minority religious communities reported continued problems with vandalism of church buildings, cemeteries, and other religious premises. Many of the attacks involved spray-painted graffiti, rock throwing, or the defacing of tombstones; however, a few cases involved much more extensive damage. The police response was often inadequate.

After the December 2003 parliamentary elections--in which the SRS took a plurality of seats--there was an upsurge in vandalism and violence against minority ethnic and religious groups in the northern Serbian province of Vojvodina (see Section 5). Among the incidents that targeted religious sites or adherents were: The January 19 desecration of a Hungarian Catholic cemetery in Novi Sad; the January 19 desecration of a Reformist church in Sombor; the January 24 desecration of a Croatian Catholic cemetery in Subotica; the desecration of another Subotica graveyard, where Croats and Bunjevci (both Catholic groups) are buried, on the night of March 26-27; the desecration of 21 gravestones in the Catholic and Orthodox graveyard in Novi Becej between May 1 and 2; and an attack in Novi Sad on two Christian Adventist ministers. In this last incident, police had not arrested the perpetrators or filed a criminal complaint by year's end, although the identity of the attackers was known. In this incident and in most cases, police tried to minimize their seriousness, attributing them to drunk individuals and youths without performing thorough investigations.

In reaction to widespread violence by ethnic Albanians against Serbs and their personal and religious property in Kosovo on March 17, there were protests and violence in Serbia beginning on the night of March 17-18, including violence against Muslim religious sites belonging primarily to the Bosniak and Romani communities.

During the night of March 17-18, the Belgrade mosque was looted and set on fire by 300 to 500 youths, reportedly mostly from Belgrade's sports clubs, who went to the mosque after demonstrating in front of the Serbian Government building. Government and political leaders condemned the attack, and the Interior Minister fired the police commander of the Stari Grad municipality (within Belgrade), where the mosque is located, for inadequate police response. Police arrested 110 persons for the attack. After a radio station carried the home address of a Muslim boy who was injured when he fell from the roof of the mosque, an explosive device was thrown at his house.

The same night as the attack on the Belgrade mosque, the mosque in the southern Serbian city of Nis was destroyed by arson. Thousands of rioters surrounded the building to prevent police and firefighters from entering it. Eleven persons were charged in the attack with "joining together for violent activity," which carries a sentence of up to 5 years in prison.

Attacks also took place against Muslim property in Serbia's northern province of Vojvodina in reaction to the Kosovo events. HCS noted 40 attacks between March 17 and 21 against property owned by Albanian and Bosniak Muslims in Vojvodina. Also, in the western Serbian town of Mali Zvornik, attackers broke mosque windows with stones on March 20.

There was also an attack against at least one non-Muslim religious site, apparently in reaction to the events in Kosovo. On the evening of March 18, a Protestant Bible Cultural Center in Nis was burned by a mob of 30 that threw Molotov cocktails; police, who appeared to be trying to minimize the incident, did not identify any suspects or make any arrests by year's end.

There were no developments during the year in the 2003 criminal complaint filed by the HLC against Momir Vujic for abusing his Muslim neighbor on ethnic grounds for 3 years.

For a more detailed discussion, see the 2004 International Religious Freedom Report.

d. Freedom of Movement Within the Country, Foreign Travel, Emigration, and Repatriation

The Constitution provides for these rights, and the Government generally respected them in practice.

The conflicts that occurred in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo led to widespread displacement of persons. There were approximately 216,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) from Kosovo in Serbia, mainly Serbs, Roma, and Bosniaks.

During the March anti-Serb violence in Kosovo, more than 350 persons--mostly Serbs, but also Ashkali and Roma--left Kosovo for Serbia. About half of these IDPs later returned to ethnic enclaves in Kosovo, not necessarily to their own homes. Most Serb IDPs from Kosovo rented inadequate lodgings or were housed with host families or relatives in Serbia proper; however, approximately 9,000 remained in collective centers that foreign observers found to be inadequate for any purpose other than emergency shelter.

During the year, the ICRC ceased supporting IDPs because the Government was not screening them and assuming responsibility for assisting those in need at the agreed rate. The Government continued to pay salaries to IDPs who were in the Kosovo Government before June 1999. The Government did not forcibly return IDPs or resettle them under dangerous conditions. There were government efforts to promote voluntary and safe return or resettlement by IDPs.

Serbia agreed to take in tens of thousands of Roma from Kosovo who fled to several West European countries. The UNHCR estimated that there were 40,000 to 45,000 displaced Roma living in Serbia proper, as many Kosovar Roma were perceived as Serb collaborators during the Kosovo conflict and so could not safely return there. Living conditions for Roma in Serbia were extremely poor. Local municipalities often were reluctant to accommodate them, hoping that, if they failed to provide shelter, the Roma would not remain in the community (see Section 5). If Roma did settle, it was often in official collective centers with minimum amenities or, more often, in makeshift camps in or near major cities or towns.

The HLC reported that the Government did not allow some Kosovo IDPs to redesignate their official places of residence; this deprived them of health insurance, social welfare, and normal access to schools. The Nis Council for Human Rights reported that the approximately 20,000 refugees and IDPs in the Nis area suffered from "quiet discrimination" in areas such as housing and employment.

The Constitution prohibits forced exile, and the Government did not employ it.

The SaM and Serbian Constitutions provide for the granting of asylum (at the SaM level) or refugee status (at the Republic level) in accordance with the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol, and the Government has established a system for providing protection to refugees. In practice, the Government provided protection against refoulement, the return of persons to a country where they feared persecution. The Government granted refugee status or asylum. The Government cooperated with the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations in assisting refugees and asylum seekers. The Government also provided temporary protection to individuals who may not qualify as refugees under the 1951 Convention/1967 Protocol.

In 2003, Bosnian and SaM authorities signed an agreement and protocol on the return of refugees; however, the agreement had not been implemented by year's end. The UNHCR, OSCE, and the European Union also helped institute a trilateral approach to refugee returns during the year, bringing together SaM, BiH, and Croatia.

There were approximately 282,000 refugees in Serbia from other successor nations of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Of these, most were from Croatia (188,000) and BiH (99,000). During the year, the UNHCR opened an office at the Belgrade airport to assist asylum seekers arriving from abroad. Although progress slowed during the year, the Government, with the support of the UNHCR, continued working to close remaining collective centers housing refugees from BiH and Croatia by setting qualifications to remain housed in collective centers and seeking alternate housing for others.

Section 3
Respect for Political Rights: The Right of Citizens to Change Their Government

The SaM Constitutional Charter provides citizens with the right to change their government peacefully, and citizens exercised this right in practice through periodic, free, and fair elections held on the basis of universal suffrage. SaM and the Serbian Republic each have a parliamentary system of government. On December 22, the Serbian National Assembly, in accordance with the SaM Constitutional Charter, amended Serbian election law to provide for direct election of its representatives to the SaM Parliament; previously, the Serbian Government had appointed its members. In SaM, the SaM Parliament elects the SaM President; in Serbia, the President is elected by direct vote.

On June 13 and June 27, Boris Tadic of the Democratic Party (DS) was elected President of Serbia in a two-round election. The OSCE observation mission reported that international and domestic nonpartisan observers were generally satisfied with polling procedures, although some minor irregularities were recorded. The media provided voters with broad and balanced coverage of the campaign.

The OSCE observation mission to the December 2003 elections for the National Assembly (parliament) of the Republic of Serbia reported the elections were conducted generally in line with OSCE commitments. Broadcast and print media provided extensive and largely balanced coverage of the campaign, and state media generally complied with laws and regulations. The lists of four parties or coalitions included persons indicted for war crimes. The SRS--whose leader Vojislav Seselj faces war crimes charges before the ICTY--won a plurality (82 of 250 seats); however, democratic parties together controlled more than half of the seats. On March 3, a minority coalition of democratic parties formed a government with outside support from the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS).

There was significant corruption in the executive branch of government. On September 24, Finance Minister Mladjan Dinkic announced that several MUP officials would be charged with misappropriation of funds during equipment purchase contracting; however, no charges had been filed by year's end. There was also a widespread public perception of corruption in local governments. The Government's Anticorruption Council, an advisory body, focused primarily on corruption related to privatization.

On November 2, the National Assembly passed the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance. The Law provides for access to information of "legitimate public importance" (with many exceptions) and establishes an independent Commissioner for Information of Public Importance, selected by the National Assembly, to handle appeals when Government agencies reject requests for information. At year's end, the Law was in the early stages of implementation. Transparency International's efforts to get information using the new Law have had poor results.

There were 13 women in the 126-seat SaM Parliament and 23 women in the 250-seat Serbian National Assembly. There was one woman in the 16-member Serbian Cabinet. Women were very active in political organizations; however, they held less than 10 percent of ministerial-level and parliamentary positions in the Serbian and SaM Governments.

There were 7 members of minorities in the 126-seat SaM Parliament and 11 members of minorities in the 250-seat Serbian National Assembly. There were no members of minorities in the 16-member Serbian cabinet and 1 member in the 5-member SaM cabinet. The two largest ethnic groups, Serbs and Montenegrins, dominated the country's political leadership. In March, the law was amended to exempt ethnically based parties from the 5 percent threshold required to enter the National Assembly. Roma continued their historical pattern of low voter turnout; very few ethnic Albanians participated in republic-level elections during the year, but did participate in local elections in Presevo.

In Vojvodina, the Hungarian minority constituted approximately 15 percent of the population, and many regional political offices were held by ethnic Hungarians. In the Sandzak, Bosniaks controlled the municipal governments of Novi Pazar, Tutin, and Sjenica, and Prijepolje.

Ethnic groups have established 11 minority councils.

Section 4
Governmental Attitude Regarding International and Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Violations of Human Rights

A wide variety of independent domestic and international human rights groups generally operated without government restriction, investigating and publishing their findings on human rights cases. Government officials often were cooperative and responsive to their views.

The Government was generally unfriendly toward several human rights NGOs, although it did not interfere with them. For example, police failed to respond adequately when HLC head Natasa Kandic was threatened by an angry crowd in March; HLC's reporting on war crimes and other issues has earned it the Government's disfavor.

The SaM and Serbian Governments made little progress in their cooperation with the ICTY. The ICTY remained dissatisfied with overall SaM cooperation, in particular because it believed that key indictee General Ratko Mladic was at large in Serbia. Serbian authorities claimed that they searched for Mladic during the year but were unable to locate him and did not believe he was in Serbia.

Two ICTY indictees in Serbia surrendered to the Tribunal; however, approximately 16 ICTY indictees with ties to the country remained at large, including key indictee Radko Mladic. The ICTY claimed that Government authorities warned Goran Hadzic, the only Serbian national indicted during the year, of a secret indictment against him in order to enable him to flee and avoid arrest. Hadzic's whereabouts remained unknown at year's end.

SaM and Serbian Governments have made progress in compliance with document requests from the ICTY and in facilitation of the testimony of witnesses. SaM's National Cooperation Council (NCC) transferred hundreds of pages of documents to the ICTY's Office of the Prosecutor during the year; however, a number of requests from the ICTY remained outstanding at year's end. At year's end, the NCC had enabled the testimony of 62 witnesses through the granting of waivers that freed potential witnesses from local prosecution under state secrets laws.

During the year, domestic war crimes indictments and trials continued in Serbia (see Section 1.e.).

There was no autonomous human rights ombudsman at either the SaM or the republic level; however, Vojvodina Province has an ombudsman, who operated independently during the year. The office of the Vojvodina ombudsman made assessments and recommendations during the year concerning the rights of minorities, the rights of the child, gender equality and prisons. Over the 12-month period starting in November 2003, the ombudsman's office received 265 written complaints from citizens, of which it resolved 188, according to the ombudsman's annual report.

There is one government-controlled human rights entity, the Legal Aid Office of the SaM Ministry for Human and Minority Rights, which assisted citizens with human rights complaints.

Section 5
Discrimination, Societal Abuses, and Trafficking in Persons

SaM and Serbian laws provide for equal rights for all citizens, regardless of ethnic group, language, or social status, and prohibit discrimination against women; however, discrimination against women and ethnic minorities was a problem.

Women

Violence against women was a problem, and high levels of domestic violence persisted. Domestic violence is a crime punishable by a prison sentence of from 6 months to 10 years, depending on the seriousness of the offense, and a minimum of 10 years if death results. By one estimate, half of all women suffered physical or emotional abuse. The few official agencies dedicated to coping with family violence had inadequate resources; however, public recognition of the problem has increased. Spousal rape is a criminal offense; however, few victims filed complaints with the authorities. Victim accusations are not required for prosecution of domestic violence cases, and prosecutions of such cases did occur during the year. According to a victims' rights advocate, police response to domestic violence has improved markedly; a number of police officers provided assistance to female victims of violence and detained offenders to protect victims.

Rape was a problem. Rape, including spousal rape, is punishable by 1 year to the legal maximum sentence (currently 40 years' imprisonment) for a simple case, a minimum of 3 years for an aggravated case, and a minimum of 5 years if death results or the victim is a minor. Only a small proportion of rapes are reported because victims fear that they will not be protected, that their attackers may take revenge, or that they will be humiliated in court.

The Center for Autonomous Women's Rights in Belgrade offered a rape and spousal abuse hotline, and sponsored a number of self help groups. The Center also offered assistance to refugee women (mostly Serb), many of who experienced extreme abuse or rape during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. The Counseling Center Against Family Violence operated a domestic violence shelter partly funded by the Government.

Prostitution is illegal.

Trafficking in women for the purpose of sexual exploitation remained a problem (see Section 5, Trafficking).

Sexual harassment was a problem, but there was little awareness of the issue. It is a crime punishable by a fine or up to 6 months' imprisonment for a simple case and by up to 1 year's imprisonment for abuse of a subordinate or dependent. While women's social status was not equal to men's, women served in high-level positions in government, politics, and professional occupations, though they were not well represented in commerce. In urban areas, such as Belgrade, Nis, and Novi Sad, women were represented widely in many professions including law, academia, and medicine. Women were also active in journalism, politics, and human rights organizations. Since regulations now allow women to serve as police officers, the police hired increasing numbers of women officers. Women legally were entitled to equal pay for equal work; however, according to the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, women's average wage was 11 percent lower than the average wage of men.

Traditional patriarchal ideas of gender roles, particularly in rural areas, subjected women to discrimination in many homes. In remote rural areas, particularly among some minority communities, women effectively lacked the ability to exercise their right to control property. In rural areas and some minority communities, it was common for husbands to direct the voting of wives.

During the year, the Government established the Council for Gender Equality, but it was still being constituted at year's end. There is also a parliamentary committee for gender equality. The Vojvodina Government has a Secretariat for Labor, Employment, and Gender Equality.

Children

The Government was committed to the rights and welfare of children. The educational system provided 9 years of free, mandatory schooling. However, economic distress affected children adversely in the education system, particularly Romani children, who rarely attended kindergarten. Approximately 99.8 percent of children attended school, according to one Government survey; however, the Government acknowledged that many transient Roma were missed by the survey. During the year, 48 elementary and secondary schools offered weekly Romani language and culture classes, in which 1,336 students participated.

Free medical care was available in Government clinics, including free medicines from a limited list of covered drugs. Boys and girls had equal access to medical care.

It was estimated that approximately 30 percent of children were abused. While teachers were instructed to report suspected child abuse cases, they often did not do so. Police were generally responsive to complaints, and prosecutions of child abuse cases occurred during the year. Psychological and legal assistance was available for victims, and there was an incest trauma center. Also, victims who were with their mothers could stay in the domestic violence shelter.

Trafficking of children for the purpose of sexual exploitation remained a problem (see Section 5, Trafficking). Some Romani children were trafficked within the Romani community in Serbia and to other Roma abroad to be used in begging and theft rings.

UNICEF worked with eight local NGOs to promote children's rights. A ninth NGO, Beosupport, led the working group for combating trafficking in children, a subgroup of the Serbian Antitrafficking Team. The project "Living Together" is a joint effort of seven local NGOs, coordinated by the Child Rights Center Belgrade, that focused on encouraging youth of different backgrounds to overcome barriers to living together peacefully.

Trafficking in Persons

The law prohibits trafficking in persons; however, trafficking in persons remained a problem. The penalty for trafficking is imprisonment of 1 to 10 years for a single offense, 3 to 40 years for multiple offenses, and 5 to 40 years if a minor is involved or if a victim is killed.

The Government prosecuted trafficking cases during the year; however, sentences issued tended to be lenient. There were at least six trials of traffickers, mostly with multiple defendants, ongoing or completed by October 15; however, poor tracking of cases begun prior to the year made it difficult to determine the actual total. On August 30, the trial of 10 persons began in the Belgrade Special Court for Fighting Organized Crime; the defendants were charged with criminal conspiracy and trafficking of women from Serbia to Italy, where the women were forced into prostitution. The trial was ongoing at year's end. One trial, which began in 2003 on trafficking-related charges against the organizer of a trafficking ring and 12 accomplices, resulted in all 13 defendants being convicted; the maximum sentence, issued to the organizer, was to 3˝ years in prison. The convictions were being appealed at year's end.

During the year, police filed 24 criminal complaints for trafficking against 51 persons. By year's end, two of these criminal complaints had resulted in six individuals being sentenced to between 2˝ and 3˝ years in prison. Another 4 of the cases resulted in indictments, 15 were under investigation by the judiciary, and 3 cases were rejected by the judiciary.

The Serbian Antitrafficking Team, led by Serbian Antitrafficking Coordinator Dusan Zlokas (Chief of the Border Police), incorporated government agencies, NGOs, and international organizations. Government participants are the Supreme Court, Public Prosecutors Office, Interpol Belgrade, the MUP, the Ministry of Labor, Employment and Social Issues, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Finance and Economy, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (SaM level), and the Ministry of Human and Minority Rights (SaM level). During the year, the Serbian Antitrafficking Team added a focus on child trafficking to its mandate. The Government assisted in international investigations of human trafficking and participated in a regional antitrafficking operation.

The country was a transit country, and to a lesser extent a country of origin and a destination country, for trafficking in women and girls for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Serbia was primarily a transit country for internationally trafficked women going to Kosovo, Croatia, BiH, Albania, and Western Europe. The primary source countries for trafficking in persons were Moldova, Ukraine, Romania, Russia, and Bulgaria. According to an NGO study published during the year, there were at least 2,000 trafficking victims in or who passed through Serbia, including women trafficked for sexual exploitation, children in begging rings, and exploited seasonal agricultural laborers.

According to preliminary results of a study by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the Government, NGOs, or international organizations assisted 39 foreign trafficking victims (including 8 minors) in Serbia during the year, while about 15 Serbian victims (including 7 minors) had been assisted in SaM or elsewhere in the region. The study found more victims of labor exploitation than of sexual exploitation among foreign victims; the balance was not clear for Serbian victims. The 24 trafficking complaints police filed during the year involved 35 victims, including 22 minors. Of these minors, 13 (12 females and 1 male) were sexually exploited, 8 (4 males and 4 females), were used for begging, and 1 was forced into marriage. Eight of the 22 minors were Roma (6 used for begging, 2 for sexual exploitation). Only one minor victim was a foreigner (Bulgarian). All adult victims were female: 10 from SaM, 2 from Ukraine, and 1 from Romania.

Serbia did not traditionally serve as a major source country for trafficked women, but poor economic conditions have increased Serbian women's vulnerability to traffickers, particularly for Roma. Trafficking of children by Roma for use in begging or theft rings was a problem.

Recruitment enticements included advertisements for escorts, marriage offers, and offers of employment. Often women knowingly went to work as prostitutes and later became trafficking victims. Women were recruited, transported, sold, and controlled by international organized crime networks. The main points in Serbia for holding and transferring trafficked women were the Belgrade suburbs and Pancevo.

There were no reports of government officials condoning or participating in trafficking in Serbia. During the year, one police officer was indicted for facilitating prostitution; he was suspended and awaiting trial at year's end.

During the year, the government Agency for Coordination of Protection to Victims was established to ensure the correct identification of victims and their subsequent referral to assistance providers. A second trafficking shelter was established during the year exclusively for domestic victims, leaving the original shelter, run by the Counseling Center Against Family Violence, to assist foreign victims. The antitrafficking NGO Astra ran a hotline for trafficking victims. NGOs and volunteers provided legal, medical, psychological, and other assistance to victims. The IOM managed repatriation of victims and assisted in the reintegration of local victims. It also ran a regional clearing center for information on trafficking victims, which operated in government-donated offices in Belgrade. During the year, the MUP formalized temporary residence for victims; in the past, this had been handled unofficially. Authorities encouraged victims to participate in trials of traffickers and did not prosecute victims.

There were numerous public awareness efforts, including broadcast of a locally produced trafficking documentary, education for teens and orphans held at the 150 government social work centers, broadcast of a U.N.-provided antitrafficking public service announcement, introduction of antitrafficking education into the curriculum for high school students, and many local television and radio spots.

Persons with Disabilities

There was no discrimination against persons with disabilities in employment, education, access to health care, or in the provision of other state services; however, in practice, facilities for persons with mental or physical disabilities were inadequate, and addressing this problem was not a priority for the Government. There were specialized schools for persons with disabilities, but no special facilities or assistance was available for higher education. A high unemployment rate and lack of accommodations for persons with disabilities made employment difficult. The law mandates access for persons with disabilities to new public buildings, and the Government generally enforced this provision in practice. As sidewalks were replaced, the Government installed wheelchair ramps at intersections. The Government provided mobile voting for voters unable to come to polling stations due to disability or illness.

There is a government agency for assistance to war veterans with disabilities; however, there was no general assistance office for those with disabilities.

National/Racial/Ethnic Minorities

Minorities constituted 25 to 30 percent of Serbia's population and included Hungarians, Bosniaks, Roma, Slovaks, Romanians, Vlachs, Bulgarians, Croats, Albanians, and others.

The number of antiminority incidents in Serbia's northern province of Vojvodina increased markedly after the SRS won a plurality of votes in Serbian parliamentary elections in December 2003. While the incidents consisted mainly of vandalism targeting cemeteries, homes, churches, and cultural sites, there were also death threats and assaults (see Section 2.c.). For example, on April 9, Bela Csorba, Vice President of the Hungarian Democratic Party of Vojvodina, found a 12-inch kitchen knife wrapped in paper slipped under his door. Attached to the weapon was a note in Serbian, "we will slaughter you." On September 28, an ethnic Hungarian high school student was beaten by a Serb student at whom he smiled on the bus. According to an eyewitness and the victim, the Serb boy said, "no Hungarian has ever smiled at me and none will ever do so!" Other boys joined in the beating, and when friends of the victim tried to help him, they were beaten as well. Police identified the aggressors and filed charges against them.

The pace and seriousness of incidents peaked before republicwide local and Vojvodina provincial elections in September, then declined to a relatively low level. The targets were mainly ethnic Hungarians and ethnic Croats--the two largest minorities in Vojvodina--but other groups have also been affected, including Slovaks, Ruthenians, Romanians, Roma, Ashkali, Jews, and Chinese. The affected minorities complained that police were not sufficiently active in pursuing perpetrators and sometimes blamed the victim; because of these problems, the Vojvodina Province Secretary for Minorities reportedly began meetings with police concerning the attacks and preventive measures to be taken. As a result of these reported meetings, police patrols were increased in some trouble spots, but police response remained inconsistent.

In September, Prime Minister Kostunica formed the Council for National Minorities, which is mandated to monitor minority rights and to consider draft laws and regulations important for exercising those rights. The Council, which the Prime Minister chairs, included the presidents of each of the individual national minority councils, as well as the Ministers of Culture, Education, Administration and Local Government, Religion, Justice, and Internal Affairs. In October, the SaM and Hungarian governments agreed to establish a permanent bilateral commission to address concerns of the Hungarian minority in Serbia (mostly in Vojvodina) and the Serbian minority in Hungary; the Commission held its first meeting on December 8.

There were a few reports of police inattention to the security of the ethnic Albanian population in southern Serbia, in particular failure to respond adequately to the several armed highway robberies between May and July by masked men who claimed to be members of the extremist Albanian National Army (AKSh). The perpetrators demanded money from cars with foreign license plates (presumed ethnic Albanian guest workers returning to Kosovo for the summer holidays). In one incident, robbers shot at a car that refused to stop, killing one passenger and injuring three others. After this incident, the police reportedly arrested some of the perpetrators, but the ethnic Albanian community complained that the police had ignored their complaints about the robberies before the fatal incident brought public attention to the problem. There continued to be sporadic reports of physical abuse or brutality by the police, but there was no noticeable increase over previous years.

Ethnic Albanian leaders of the southern Serbian municipalities of Presevo, Bujanovac, and Medvedja continued to complain about the underrepresentation of ethnic Albanians in government structures. Southern Serbia's ethnic Albanians have proportional representation in the multiethnic police force in southern Serbia and control of local governments in municipalities where they constituted a majority.

In December, the privatization agency approved the sale of a public company in southern Serbia to an ethnic Albanian amnestied member of the Liberation Army for Presevo, Medvedja, and Bujanovac (UCPMB)--reportedly the first sale of a public company to an ethnic Albanian. The following day, members of the local municipal assembly called on Prime Minister Kostunica to block the sale "to protect the national interest." The privatization agency quickly withdrew its approval on the grounds that there was only one qualified bidder, although a number of other single-bid privatizations had gone through. The bidder complained that the sale was overturned on ethnic grounds.

The MUP joined with OSCE, the Coordination Body for Southern Serbia, and municipal leaders to form a working group to deal with concerns between the ethnic Albanian community and police.

The SaM Minorities Law recognizes the Roma as a national minority and explicitly prohibits discrimination against them; however, Roma continued to be targets of numerous incidents of police violence, verbal and physical harassment from ordinary citizens, and societal discrimination. Police often did not investigate cases of societal violence against Roma. At year's end, two persons were on trial for a 2003 incident in which Roma were beaten; a separate juvenile proceeding was conducted for a minor who was also involved in the beating.

Many Roma lived illegally in squatter settlements that lacked basic services such as schools, medical care, water, and sewage facilities. Some of these settlements were located on valuable industrial or commercial sites where private owners wanted to resume control; others were on the premises of state-owned enterprises due to be privatized. There were no reports of Romani settlements being closed during the year; one settlement on privatized land in Belgrade was scheduled to be demolished, but the action was suspended pending location of alternative housing for the IDPs and other Roma living there. On August 6, the European Roma Rights Center (ERRC), the HLC, and the Center for Minority Rights of Belgrade filed a criminal complaint in connection with the August 2003 attack by 6 villagers on an extended Romani family of Muslim faith in Luzane. The attack followed years of threats and slurs against the family's ethnicity and religion by non-Romani neighbors. The police report of the attack was incomplete and inaccurate, and there was no indication that police would provide protection in future, so the 36-member family moved away.

In 2003, the Belgrade City Assembly adopted a plan to construct 58 small settlements for socially vulnerable persons with the objective of resettling some of the Roma from illegal settlements; however, no settlements have been built because of opposition by neighbors of the sites.

Romani IDPs from Kosovo were particularly subject to discrimination and abuse (see Section 2.d.). Some non-Romani refugees and IDPs also suffered from discrimination.

Romani education remained a problem. Many Romani children did not attend primary school, either for family reasons, because they were judged to be unqualified, or because of societal prejudice. Due to the lack of primary schooling, many Romani children did not learn to speak Serbian. Some Romani children were placed mistakenly in schools for children with emotional disabilities because Romani language, and cultural norms made it difficult for them to succeed on standardized tests in Serbian. The UNHCR, with government support, began health education programs for Roma and catch-up and head-start programs for Romani children. The SaM Government emphasized increasing enrollment of Romani children in school. During the year, there were 70 Romani children in middle schools and 69 Roma in vocational colleges and universities.

In reaction to widespread anti-Serb violence by ethnic Albanians (who are primarily Muslim) in Kosovo in mid-March, two mosques in Serbia--attended by Bosniaks, Roma, and others--were burned (see Section 2.c.). There were also more than 40 incidents in Vojvodina of attacks on property of ethnic Albanians and Bosniak Muslims following the Kosovo violence. In the most serious Vojvodina attack, two Molotov cocktails were thrown at a bakery.

The SaM Ministry for Human and Minority Rights ran an "SOS" hotline for minorities and others concerned about human rights problems. In July, the Ministry, in conjunction with OSCE and a local NGO, hosted a regional conference on "Tolerance above All" in Belgrade.

Other Societal Abuses and Discrimination

Serbia's homosexual community stayed hidden due to fears of violence and discrimination. The one occasion the community was visible--when it held a gay pride parade in 2002--the event was violently broken up, with police assisting the attackers. Slurs against homosexuals appeared in the media.

Incitement to Acts of Discrimination

The law prohibits dissemination of information that incites violence, hatred, or discrimination; however, propaganda against "sects" continued in the press, and religious leaders noted that instances of vandalism often occurred soon after such press reports. Some texts used in military and police academies contained propaganda against religious sects.

Section 6
Worker Rights

a. The Right of Association

The law provides for the right of all workers, except military and police personnel, to join or form unions of their choosing, subject to restrictions including approval by the Ministry of Labor and a statement from the employer that the union leader is a full-time employee, which reportedly was tantamount to an employer approval requirement. A state-affiliated trade union federation continued to dominate organized labor, due to preference for unions belonging to it by the managements of the state-owned industries that dominated the economy. Smaller federations of independent trade unions competed with the government-affiliated federation, but were successful in doing so primarily in the relatively small proportion of the formal nonagricultural economy that is not state-owned. In the state-owned sector, 60 to 70 percent of workers belonged to unions. In the private sector, only 4 to 6 percent were unionized, and in agriculture approximately 3 percent.

The criminal code does not prohibit antiunion discrimination, and it was not a significant problem during the year. While it did not provide any specific examples of problems, the Nezavisnost national trade union center made generalized allegations to the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions that its members in Serbia were exposed to "harassment and persecution" by company managers and the Government and that two-thirds of applications for the registration of local Nezavisnost branches were delayed by the authorities for longer than the time limit set by law. Nezavisnost asserted that company managers prohibited the operation of the unions and their entry to company premises on the grounds that they were not registered and claimed there were reports of workers having their pay docked, being transferred to lower-paid positions, or being threatened and even assaulted after joining Nezavisnost. Local independent labor experts could not corroborate these claims. According to an independent labor expert, about 20 Nezavisnost members were prevented from working at one tractor factory in 2003, resulting in one violent skirmish. According to the labor expert, there were no incidents of company managers harassing union members during the year. Granting of applications for labor registration was, on occasion, delayed by 1 or 2 months, but often the delay was due to incomplete applications.

b. The Right to Organize and Bargain Collectively

The law allows unions to conduct their activities without interference, and the Government protected this right in practice. The right to organize and bargain collectively was recognized and exercised freely in practice. A union must have 15 percent of employees as members in order to negotiate with an employer or 10 percent of all employees to negotiate with the Government.

The law provides for the right to strike, and unions held several strikes during the year; however, the law restricts strikes by employees in "essential service production enterprises," such as education, electric power, and postal services--approximately 50 percent of all employees. These employees must announce their strikes at least 15 days in advance and ensure that a "minimum level of work" is provided.

There are no export processing zones.

c. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor

The law prohibits forced and compulsory labor, including by children; however, there were reports that such practices occurred (see Sections 5, Trafficking and 6.d.).

d. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment

The minimum age for employment is 16, although in villages and farming communities it was common to find younger children at work assisting their families. Children--particularly Roma--also could be found in a variety of unofficial retail jobs, typically washing car windows or selling small items such as newspapers; however, in recent years, this type of labor has been less widespread because adults, lacking other options for employment, have taken many of these jobs. Romani children were often forced by their families into manual labor, compelled to beg, or trafficked abroad to work in begging or theft rings. The Labor Inspectorate of the Ministry of Labor, Employment, and Social Issues checked for child labor during its inspections; however, the Ministry stated it found no violations during the year. The Ministry also included prevention of child labor in its regular child and family protection programs.

e. Acceptable Conditions of Work

The minimum wage of approximately $95 (5,600 dinars) per month did not provide a decent standard of living for a worker and family.

The standard workweek of 40 hours was generally followed in state-owned enterprises but not in private companies. The law provides that an employee may not work overtime for more than 4 hours a day or for more than 240 hours within a calendar year. For an 8-hour workday, one 30-minute break is required. At least 12 hours of break are required between shifts during the workweek, and at least 24 hours of break are required over the weekend. Payment of overtime--50 percent above regular pay--was regulated by collective agreements.

It is mandatory for each company to establish a safety and security unit to implement safety and security regulations; however, in practice, these units often focused on rudimentary aspects of safety, such as purchasing soaps and detergents, rather than on providing safety equipment for workers. By some estimates, there were 20,000 workplace injuries annually in Serbia, with approximately 100 fatalities. Workers do not have the right to remove themselves from situations that endangered health or safety without jeopardy to their employment.

KOSOVO

Kosovo is administered by the U.N. Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) pursuant to U.N. Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1244. UNMIK promulgates regulations to address the civil and legal responsibilities of governmental entities and private individuals, and ratifies laws passed by the Kosovo Assembly. UNMIK promulgated the Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self Government in Kosovo (the Constitutional Framework), which defined the Provisional Institutions of Self Government (PISG). Kosovo has a multiparty political system with four dominant ethnic Albanian parties and several minority parties and coalitions. In October, Kosovo Assembly elections were held that were determined to be generally free and fair. The Constitutional Framework provides for an independent judiciary; however, the judiciary continued to be plagued by instances of favoritism and outside influence, particularly in many interethnic cases.

The U.N.-authorized, NATO-led peacekeeping force for Kosovo (KFOR) continued to carry out its mandate to maintain a safe and secure environment and defend against external threats. UNMIK Civilian Police continued to transfer basic police authority and functions to the local Kosovo Police Service (KPS). The Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC), comprised largely of demilitarized former Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) members, continued to develop its capacity as a civilian civil emergency response agency. UNMIK international civilian authorities and KFOR leadership generally maintained effective control over security forces; however, there were reports that elements of the security forces acted independently of their respective authority. Some members of the international and local security forces committed human rights abuses.

The economy, in transition from a centrally directed to a market -based economy, was built primarily on agriculture, mining-related industries, and construction services, and was heavily dependent on foreign assistance. The estimated population was 2.3 million, although demographic figures were unreliable in the absence of a recent census. Economic growth was approximately 3.5 percent for the year. Unemployment estimates ranged from 30 to 50 percent among ethnic Albanians and higher among Kosovo Serbs and other ethnic communities. Wage increases generally kept pace with inflation.

UNMIK and the PISG generally respected the human rights of Kosovo's residents; however, there were serious problems in some areas, especially relating to Kosovo Serbs. KFOR and UNMIK police were responsible for killing several protesters during riots in March after the protestors failed to heed prior warnings and threatened the international security officials or those they were protecting. Several killings resulted from attacks that appeared to be ethnically motivated, and some perpetrators of the killings were arrested during the year. One death and several injuries resulted from landmines and, particularly, from unexploded ordnance (UXO). Lengthy pretrial detention was a problem, and the judiciary did not always provide due process. UNMIK occasionally limited freedom of assembly and forcibly dispersed some demonstrations. Religious tensions persisted. Freedom of movement for ethnic minorities, particularly Kosovo Serbs, continued to be a serious problem. Violence and discrimination against women remained significant problems. Trafficking in persons, particularly women for sexual exploitation, was a serious problem. Persons with mental and physical disabilities faced social discrimination. Severe societal violence, abuse, and discrimination against minority communities were serious problems, particularly during the March riots. Child labor was a growing problem.

RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person

a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life

There were no politically motivated killings by UNMIK, the PISG, KFOR, or their agents; however, in March, KFOR and UNMIK Police were responsible for killing several Albanian protesters during riots while defending themselves, Kosovo Serbs and other minorities from violent mobs (see Sections 2.b. and 5). On April 17, an UNMIK special police officer fired upon a group of 24 UNMIK corrections officers while they were leaving the Mitrovica Detention Center, killing 3 and injuring 11. A subsequent investigation determined that the perpetrator, who died of injuries sustained during the incident, acted alone.

Landmines and UXO from the 1999 conflict remained a problem, particularly in rural areas. During the year, UXO or landmines killed 1 person and seriously injured 13, compared with 3 fatalities and 16 serious injuries in 2003. UXO, particularly the remains of NATO cluster bombs, was the main threat.

A small, loosely organized group of "Bridgewatchers" remained intact but largely inactive in Mitrovica. They were present on the Austerlitz Bridge during the March riots, but were not linked to human rights abuses as in previous years.

KPS and UNMIK Police officers investigating sensitive or politically related crimes were frequently targeted. For example, on March 23, KPS officer Arsim Rustolli and Ghanaian UNMIK Police officer Kojo Essuman were killed during an attack on their patrol in Podujeve/Podujevo municipality and four Kosovo Albanians were awaiting trial on resulting charges at year's end.

Three Kosovar Albanian men suspected of involvement in the March killings of an international and Kosovar police officer were transferred into UNMIK custody on June 8 after being arrested in Albania. The suspects include Florim Ejupi, Kosovo's most wanted fugitive who escaped from the KFOR Camp Bondsteel detention facility after being arrested in connection with the Merdare February 2001 bus bombing near Podujeve/Podujevo that left 11 Serbs dead and 40 wounded.

There were allegedly politically motivated killings of Kosovo Albanians. For example, on March 17, unknown persons killed the father of Avni Elezaj, a former Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) fighter and former bodyguard of Alliance for the Future of Kosovo (AAK) President Ramush Haradinaj.

There were also allegedly ethnically motivated killings of Serbs during the year, especially during the March riots. The March riots resulted in the 20 deaths including of 8 ethnic Serbs and 12 ethnic Albanians. On February 19, the police and KFOR found two Serb corpses in Lipjan/Ljipljane with gunshot wounds inside a civilian vehicle parked on the road. On June 5, 17-year-old Serb Dimitrije Popovic was shot and killed, and another Serb teenager was seriously injured, in a drive-by shooting. KPS officers immediately arrested two young Albanians--Albert Krasniqi and Labinot Gashi--both of whom confessed to the crime and were awaiting trial at year's end.

There were no developments in the following 2003 killings: The killing of two witnesses in the Dukagjini group case, Tahir Zemaj in January and Ilir Selimaj in April; the August sniper killing of UNMIK police officer Satish Menon; the September killing of KPS officer Hajdar Ahmeti; and the September killing of KPS officer Agim Makolli. UNMIK police announced that Bedri Krasniqi was wanted in connection with the November 2003 killing of KPS members Sebahate Tolaj and Isuf Haklaj.

No arrests were made by year's end for the 2002 killings of Smajl Hajdaraj or of Ilir Selimaj and his pregnant sister-in-law.

b. Disappearance

There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances; however, criminal kidnappings for ransom took place and thousands of persons remained missing from the 1999 war.

During the year, the Prizren prosecutor's office announced arrest warrants for two former Serb policemen, Goran Janjusevic and Slavisa Milkovic, suspected of committing war crimes against the civilian population in the Prizren region, including the kidnapping and killing of Ardian Zyrnagjiu during the 1999 conflict. The suspects remained at large at year's end.

Approximately 3,200 persons remained missing from the Kosovo conflict at year's end, of whom 77 percent were Albanian, 17 percent were Serb, and 6 percent were from other ethnic groups. During the year, UNMIK's Office of Missing Persons and Forensics (OMPF) continued the identification of the remains of missing persons in Kosovo. From its establishment in 2002 through the end of the year, the OMPF performed 1,170 exhumations and conducted 858 autopsies. Many bodies of missing persons have been recovered and the focus was on establishing the identities of the exhumed remains so that they can be returned to their families for burial. By the end of the year, the OMPF submitted 2,160 bone samples to the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) to identify remains through DNA testing, which had returned 797 results.

The OMPF continued to cooperate with the Government of Serbia to receive identified remains of Kosovo victims from the 1999 war found in mass graves in Serbia; however, progress was slow. The OMPF received 849 bodies transferred from the Republic of Serbia, most of which were returned to families for burial, including 641 ethnic Albanians and 98 from non-Albanian communities. Associations of families of the missing held a series of protests on August 30 and November 3 to 5 demanding that the Government of Serbia immediately return over 200 sets of identified remains to Kosovo and open Serbia's government files on missing persons. The missing persons technical dialogue between officials in Pristina and Belgrade was hindered for political reasons, but UNMIK was working to resume the dialogue at year's end.

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The Constitutional Framework and Criminal Procedure Code prohibit such practices, and there were no reports that UNMIK, KFOR, or the PISG officials employed them.

On February 16, KFOR authorities arrested KPC Commander General Selim Krasniqi and three other KPC officers on suspicion of involvement in abusing innocent persons in the Prizren area in 1998.

During the year, some KPC members were suspected of involvement in misconduct; however, the extent of KPC leadership involvement was unclear. During the year, the 12 KPC members suspected in December 2003 were reinstated because the police investigation failed to find sufficient evidence of criminal activity.

There were reports of attacks and threats against Kosovo Albanian political and institutional figures as well as Kosovo Albanian individuals. For example, on February 21, an explosive device in a vehicle in the town of Peje/Pec injured Kosovo Minister of Environment and Spatial Planning Ethem Ceku, two AAK party officials, and two KPC members. On June 30, unknown assailants attacked a member of the Democratic Party of Kosovo (PDK) presidency branch in Peja/Pec, Rexhe Krasniqi. No suspects were identified by year's end; however, credible observers often blamed such attacks on rival political party members. Nonpolitical motives, including clan rivalry and common criminality, were also suspected in some cases.

Serbs, Roma, Ashkali, and other minorities were subjected to societal abuses on a regular basis, including attacks by violent mobs during the March riots (see Section 5). For example, on March 5, three Kosovo Albanians beat a Kosovo Serb who was traveling on a train near south Mitrovica.

There were some credible reports of politically motivated attempts to intimidate UNMIK officials and KFOR officers. For example, on March 24, a hand grenade was thrown towards the Mitrovica main bridge from the majority-Serb northern side and two KFOR soldiers sustained minor injuries. In August, a Serb, Zivorad Cvetkovic, was sentenced to 5 years in prison for the crime.

Prisons generally met international standards, and UNMIK permitted visits by independent human rights observers. Prison and detention center conditions were generally good and did not pose a serious threat to life or health. Facilities were at times overcrowded; however, the construction of two new facilities began during the year. UNMIK operated eight facilities (Prizren, Mitrovica, Pristina, Gnjilane, Peja/Pec, Lipjan, and Dubrava--blocks one and two) with a total capacity of 1,356 inmates. UNMIK Police corrections officers managed the prison system and increasingly transferred responsibilities to the local Kosovo Correctional Service (KCS).

UNMIK has implemented the recommendations contained in the 2003 report of an independent commission to improve hygienic conditions in Dubrava Prison, rectify the lack of educational and recreational activities, provide additional training for local correctional staff, and improve institutional and management processes; however, funding constraints were a problem.

Women were held separately from men, and juveniles were held separately from adults. Pretrial detainees were held separately from convicted prisoners and those awaiting appeal of their convictions. High-risk prisoners were held in a special block of the Dubrava prison. Prisoners were permitted to vote in the October elections.

d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention

The Constitutional Framework and Criminal Procedure Code prohibit arbitrary arrest and detention, and UNMIK, KFOR, and the PISG generally observed these prohibitions in practice.

UNMIK Police continued to transfer police authority and functions to the KPS, while maintaining oversight. The KPC continued to train and develop its disaster response skills and undertook humanitarian projects. An international commissioner of police directed both the UNMIK police and the KPS. The combined force was generally effective. Minority membership in the KPS was approximately 15 percent at year's end. Corruption in the security forces was a problem, particularly in the KPS border police.

An UNMIK Office of Oversight investigated corruption in UNMIK, and the criminal justice system. The judicial system effectively prosecuted members of the security forces who committed abuses. The KPS Professional Standards Unit (PSU), run by UNMIK Police, conducted 100 disciplinary investigations against KPS officers for participating in or failing to prevent violence in the March riots; most of these investigations were still ongoing at year's end. One officer was terminated for her participation in an assault against a minority family. While the local criminal justice system generally did a poor job of investigating, arresting, and convicting perpetrators of crimes against minorities, the UNMIK Department of Justice tracked over 300 criminal proceedings associated with the March riots during the year (see Section 1.e.). Some international NGOs also accused KFOR and UNMIK police of failing to prevent the March riots.

Police generally openly arrested a suspect using a warrant issued by a judge or prosecutor; however, in certain high security cases, suspects were arrested secretly by masked or undercover police officers. All arrests must be based on prosecutor orders and arrestees must be brought before a judge within 72 hours; however, there were reports that UNMIK police used this authority as a means of minor punishment with no intention of filing charges, particularly in the case of petty offenders. Based on the new criminal code that came into effect on April 6, a suspect has the right to be informed about the reasons for the arrest in a language that he or she understands; to remain silent and not to answer any questions, except about his or her identity; to free assistance of an interpreter; to defense counsel and to have defense counsel provided if he or she cannot afford to pay for legal assistance; to medical treatment including psychiatric treatment; and to notify a family member. These rights were generally respected in practice.

Although KFOR did not require arrest warrants, its arrest processes were generally transparent. However, KFOR detention practices were not always fully transparent. For example, the attorney for Shukri Buja, a former KLA commander arrested after the March riots, complained that he had difficulty locating his client. The KFOR Commander may intervene to extend the detention of persons not charged with a crime or ordered released by the courts in increments of 30 days. On May 4, KFOR extended the detention of former KLA commander Sami Lushtaku at Camp Bondsteel under suspicion of involvement in the March riots and for numerous weapons-related charges. He was later released and all charges were dropped.

A detainee may be held in pretrial detention for a maximum period of 1 month from the day of arrest, which can be extended by the courts up to a total of 18 months. The new criminal code introduced on April 6 includes measures to decrease the need for pretrial detention, such as house arrest, an appeal for detention on remand, and expanded use of bail. However, a backlog of pretrial detainees remained; approximately 2,000 persons were detained on remand during the year. UNMIK established a commission to compensate persons held in detention who were later found not guilty.

e. Denial of Fair Public Trial

The Constitutional Framework provides for an independent judiciary; however, the local judiciary was at times subject to bias and outside influence, particularly in interethnic cases, and did not always provide due process. Legal authority is held by UNMIK under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244. UNMIK police and justice worked with local judges and prosecutors, while maintaining executive responsibility for judicial system planning, policymaking, operations, management, administration, coordination, and monitoring. There were credible reports of corruption within the local judiciary, and allegations that courts, including the Supreme Court, deferred to the Government in some cases.

The court system includes a Supreme Court, 5 District Courts, 24 Municipal Courts, and a Commercial Court. There were 18 international judges and 8 international prosecutors who were appointed by UNMIK to handle interethnic and other sensitive cases. At year's end, there were 21,668 criminal cases unresolved in the municipal courts, and 2,371 criminal cases unresolved in the district courts.

The Government of Serbia continued to fund and manage a parallel judicial system in Serb enclaves in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244.

UNMIK, through the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), maintained several organizations to increase the professionalism of the judicial corps. The Kosovo Judicial Institute continued to train judges and prosecutors. The Judicial Inspection Unit continued to monitor judicial performance and make recommendations on discipline and training. The Kosovo Judicial and Prosecutorial Council (KJPC) was responsible for the review of cases of judicial misconduct. Since 2001, KJPC opened 458 investigations and found some evidence of misconduct in 41 cases, resulting in 7 reprimands and 10 recommendations for removal.

Although the law provides that serious cases are tried by a panel of five judges (two professional judges and three lay judges), an UNMIK regulation provides that cases of a sensitive ethnic or political nature may be tried by international prosecutors, possibly before a three-member panel of professional international judges. Of the 232 active cases handled by International Prosecutors during the year, approximately 79 were tried before international judges, which typically resulted in a conviction rate of over 90 percent.

The local bar association, the Kosovo Chamber of Advocates (KCA), remained weak, but was improving. The OSCE started a local NGO, the Criminal Defense Resource Center, to assist the KCA in capacity building. Some Kosovo Serb lawyers participated in the legal system, and the Serbian Bar Association continued to provide free legal assistance for Kosovo Serb defendants in Kosovo. In addition, the OSCE provided security and logistical support, such as secure transportation to Serb attorneys who represented Serb defendants in Kosovo courts.

UNMIK regulations and the Constitutional Framework provide for the right to a fair trial, and the international and local judiciary generally enforced this right; however, legal experts and human rights observers continued to express concern that the fairness of trials was a problem in criminal cases involving ethnic minorities prosecuted or tried by Kosovo Albanian judicial personnel, so such cases were routinely assigned to international judicial personnel. Trials were public, and the law provides for the right of defendants to be present at their trials, to confront witnesses, to see evidence, and to have legal representation, at public expense if necessary. Defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty and have the right of appeal. There are no jury trials; cases are heard by panels consisting of professional and lay judges.

The Judicial Integration Section, created by the UNMIK Department of Justice in 2003 to promote the ethnic integration of judges and prosecutors into the Kosovo legal system, continued to address access to justice problems affecting minorities, to monitor the treatment of minorities in the justice system, to address instances of discrimination, and to facilitate the integration of court support staff. A special Court Liaison Office (CLO) continued to facilitate access to justice for minority communities in the Serbian enclave of Gracanica, Pristina Municipality. The CLO enhanced access to justice by accompanying minorities to courts, filing documents with courts on behalf of minorities, and providing information regarding court access. During 2004, the CLO in Gracanica dealt with 1,656 requests for assistance. In addition, UNMIK opened a Department of the Pristina Municipal Court in Gracanica staffed by two judges to further increase minority access to the Kosovo justice system.

Kosovo's investigative, judicial, and penal systems, in addition to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), continued to identify and punish perpetrators of war crimes from the 1999 conflict; however, many cases remained unresolved. Domestic war crimes trials continued in local Kosovo courts to adjudicate approximately 38 cases of alleged war crimes and genocide arising from the 1999 conflict. For example, Ejup Rujeva was tried by a panel of international judges in the Pristina district court for alleged war crimes, kidnapping, and murder of civilians in February and March of 1999; the trial was ongoing at year's end.

There were no reports of political prisoners.

The UNMIK Housing and Property Directorate (HPD) has responsibility for restitution or compensation for takings of private property associated with the 1999 war. HPD continued to adjudicate property claims, produce legally binding decisions, evict illegal occupants, restore property to 1999 occupants, and administer property on behalf of owners not in Kosovo. HPD shifted its focus to incorporate the return of displaced persons into its previously exclusive focus on property law implementation, and in the past year referred successful claimants to returns assistance NGOs. During the year, HPD resolved approximately 918 claims per month and carried out a total of approximately 440 evictions (illegal occupants often vacate a property prior to eviction). HPD established a call center to increase outreach to successful claimants, contacting approximately 9,565 claimants during the year. Of the approximate 29,000 claims received by the intake deadline of July 1, 2003, HPD had resolved 23,055 by year's end.

In Mitrovica, Kosovo Serbs in the northern part of the city continued to illegally occupy Kosovo Albanian properties, while Kosovo Albanians in the southern part of Mitrovica also denied Kosovo Serbs access to their property. By year's end, the HPD had made a decision on 730 of the 1,324 property claims in Mitrovica North, Leposavic, and Zvecan and started implementation of the decisions regarding evictions.

f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence

UNMIK regulations and the Constitutional Framework prohibits such actions, and UNMIK, KFOR, and the PISG generally respected these prohibitions in practice; however, some individuals and local NGOs accused KFOR of using excessive force in executing searches in private homes. On August 4, KFOR announced an investigation against seven members of KFOR for allegedly exceeding their authority during a search for suspects in the March riots. The soldiers were subsequently reprimanded and repatriated.

An UNMIK regulation on Covert and Technical Measures of Surveillance and Investigation permits police to conduct covert operations with the prior written approval of an investigative judge or public prosecutor. No abuses were reported during the year.

Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties

a. Freedom of Speech and Press

UNMIK regulations and the Constitutional Framework provide for freedom of speech and of the press, and UNMIK, KFOR, and the PISG generally respected these rights in practice and did not restrict academic freedom; however, there were some allegations of interference with freedom of speech and press by both UNMIK and the PISG, particularly during the March riots.

The independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views without restriction. Most print and broadcast media were independent but regulated by UNMIK. Print media did not have a large circulation; broadcast media appeared to be more influential.

UNMIK controlled broadcasting infrastructure through the Department of Post and Telecommunications, while the OSCE oversaw the Department of Media Affairs. UNMIK also regulated the conduct and organization of both broadcast and print media and established the office of the Temporary Media Commissioner (TMC) and the Media Appeals Board. The TMC was responsible for publishing a broadcast code of conduct, issuing licenses, and imposing sanctions up to and including closing down offending media organs in the event of violations of UNMIK regulations or published codes of conduct; however, the TMC believed the codes need to be updated. For example, the codes failed to adequately protect the privacy of children and crime victims. The Constitutional Framework provides for an Independent Media Commission (IMC) and a Board of the Public Broadcasters independent of the PISG. During the year, UNMIK worked with the PISG to transition the TMC to an IMC and the establishment of a Board of Public Broadcasters; however, the law establishing an IMC was not finalized by year's end. An Assembly-mandated Committee on the Media was established during the year, but its competencies passed to a wider-range Committee on Public Services, Local Administration, and Media following the October elections.

While most print and broadcast media followed accepted journalistic principles, there were some exceptions. In October, the TMC published a report criticizing print media for failing to provide fair and equal representation for all political parties, including minority parties, during the electoral campaign. The TMC received one complaint of a threat against journalists. On August 24, an anonymous e-mail was sent "on behalf of all Muslim believers" to the Radio Television Kosovo (RTK) and TV 21 demanding that they cease the broadcast of two soap operas.

During the March riots, the Association of Professional Journalists in Kosovo claimed that the TMC's visit to three Kosovo-wide TV stations was interference with the press and also claimed that UNMIK police and KFOR blocked the antenna signal of TV Mitrovica. The local Gjila/Gnjilane TV station Men charged that, on April 15, UNMIK police surrounded the station and confiscated material recorded during the March riots. On July 13, the TMC, Robert Gillete, stated that the interference by police and prosecutors in the work of media, in particular the confiscation of TV tapes, was endangering journalistic freedom of speech. UNMIK regulations prohibit hate speech and speech that incites ethnic violence, as well as newspaper articles that might encourage criminal activity or violence. Following several credible reports by international observers harshly criticizing print and especially electronic media for biased coverage and incitement during March riots, the TMC settled cases with three Kosovo-wide TV stations (RTK, KTV, and TV21) on December 17 by obtaining agreement from the stations to spend more than $ 675,000 (500,000 euros) on additional training for reporters and editors.

UNMIK regulations prohibit the publication in both the print and broadcast media of personal information that would pose a threat to the life, property, or security of persons through vigilante justice or otherwise. On June 22, the Pristina Municipal Court found the Bota Sot editor Bajrush Morina guilty of publishing false information on PDK member Xhavit Haliti, who was indirectly accused of the killing of Tahir Zemaj in January 2003; Morina was fined $ 1,823 (1,350 euros).

The Government did not restrict access to the Internet.

b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association

UNMIK regulations and the Constitutional Framework provide for freedom of assembly and association, and UNMIK, KFOR, and the PISG generally respected these rights in practice; however, UNMIK police used deadly force to control the March riots and protect themselves and others. Demonstration organizers were required to notify UNMIK 48 hours in advance for police coordination. UNMIK police estimated that hundreds of thousands of persons took part in protests, demonstrations, and road blocks during the year, including 59 instances in March and 197 instances throughout the rest of the year, constituting a 150 percent increase in demonstrations over previous years. On August 30, the International Day of the Disappeared, UNMIK police forcibly removed approximately 50 family members of missing persons who were blocking the main road in downtown Pristina and protesting the slow progress on resolving the fate of the missing from the 1999 conflict (see Section 1.b.).

The March riots involved an estimated 50,000 to 75,000 demonstrators over 2 days in every major city in Kosovo. During the March riots, measures taken by KFOR and UNMIK police to protect themselves and others as well as to control the crowds resulted in several deaths of Albanian protesters and some allegations of police abuse. For example, an UNMIK police officer shot and killed a protester in Peja/Pec municipality while defending Serbian residents from Kosovar Albanian rioters. No legal charges were brought against KFOR soldiers or UNMIK police related to their actions during the March riots.

UNMIK granted registration for political parties and NGOs routinely.

c. Freedom of Religion

UNMIK regulations and the Constitutional Framework provide for freedom of religion, and UNMIK and the PISG generally respected this right in practice.

There are no specific licensing regulations with regard to religious groups; however, in order to purchase property or receive funding from UNMIK