0 calificaciones0% encontró este documento útil (0 votos)
46 vistas24 páginas
The purpose of this memorandum is to analyze the compliance of the
provisions relating to ethnicity of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s 2012 Law on the Census with BiH’s domestic and international anti-discrimination commitments.
The purpose of this memorandum is to analyze the compliance of the
provisions relating to ethnicity of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s 2012 Law on the Census with BiH’s domestic and international anti-discrimination commitments.
The purpose of this memorandum is to analyze the compliance of the
provisions relating to ethnicity of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s 2012 Law on the Census with BiH’s domestic and international anti-discrimination commitments.
HERZEGOVINAS LAW ON THE CENSUS UNDER DOMESTIC AND EUROPEAN DISCRIMINATION LAWS
Legal Memorandum
August 2012
ANALYSIS OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINAS LAW ON THE CENSUS UNDER DOMESTIC AND EUROPEAN DISCRIMINATION LAWS
Executive Summary
The purpose of this memorandum is to analyze the compliance of the provisions relating to ethnicity of Bosnia and Herzegovinas (BiH) 2012 Law on the Census with BiHs domestic and international anti-discrimination commitments.
BiH adopted the Law on the Census in February 2012. The Law on the Census includes a census form that asks each citizen to identify his/her ethnicity and religion (citizens may choose to not declare this information) and requires a declaration of mother tongue. Citizens who self-identify as members of the three constituent peoples (Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats) are provided with tick boxes for their answers to these questions. Citizens who do not self-identify as members of the three constituent peoples must write in their answers to these questions. Civil society organizations have challenged the census form on the bases that it was adopted without public consultation and could entrench ethnic divisions and intolerance toward minorities.
BiH has three primary sources for domestic and international anti- discrimination commitments: (1) BiHs Law on Prohibition of Discrimination; (2) the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); and (3) the influential holding of the European Court of Human Rights in Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina.
BiHs Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, which establishes the domestic legal standards underlying anti-discrimination, provides that differential treatment on the basis of ethnicity is discriminatory unless the government can provide a justifiable reason and legitimate means for the differential treatment. Similar to the BiH Law, the ECHR provides that differential treatment on the basis of ethnicity (or language as a proxy) constitutes discrimination unless a reasonable and objective justification can be provided, and the means used to pursue that justification are proportionate.
In Sejdic and Finci, the European Court held that BiHs Constitution and Election Law discriminate against ethnic minorities by only allowing the constituent peoples to stand for election to the Presidency and the House of Peoples. Sejdic and Finci reiterated the requirement that discriminatory laws can
3 only stand if they have a reasonable and objective justification, and that ethnic tensions in BiH no longer constituted a justification for continued discrimination against minorities.
Based on the application of the BiH Law on Prohibition of Discrimination and the ECHR, the differential treatment of ethnic minorities on the census form is likely discriminatory. By differentiating between constituent peoples and other ethnic minorities, the form may have the impact of solidifying ethnic divisions within BiH. Because ethnic discrimination is endemic in BiH political and public life, holding a census that formally distinguishes between constituent peoples and others perpetuates and solidifies these divisions. In addition, the form places the burden of expressing ethnic identity on members of minority populations. Further, given the findings of the Sejdic and Finci decision, there is likely no reasonable or objective justification for this differential treatment. BiH is not currently facing an imminent risk of conflict, and discriminatory laws and policies seem to be making the political situation worse, rather than preserving peace, as the government has argued in past cases. As a result, the census form is likely discriminatory.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statement of Purpose 1
Introduction 1
BiH Law on the Census 3
BiH Anti-Discrimination Law 5 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination 5 Discrimination Under the Law 5 Permissible Instances of Discrimination 6 BiH Case Law on Discrimination 7
European Anti-Discrimination Law 9 European Convention on Human Rights 9 Article 14 10 Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 10 European Court of Human Rights: Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 11 Interpretation of Article 14 11 Interpretation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 12
Analysis 13 BiH Anti-Discrimination Law 13 Differential Treatment 13 Reasonable and Objective Justification 15 European Anti-Discrimination Law 16 Differential Treatment 17 Reasonable and Objective Justification 18
Conclusion 20
2 ANALYSIS OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINAS LAW ON THE CENSUS UNDER DOMESTIC AND EUROPEAN DISCRIMINATION LAWS
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this memorandum is to analyze the compliance of the provisions relating to ethnicity of Bosnia and Herzegovinas 2012 Law on the Census with BiHs domestic and international anti-discrimination commitments.
Introduction
In 2008, Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) signed and ratified a Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) with the European Union (EU). In order to move forward in its EU accession process, BiH must conduct a census in accordance with EU standards. 1 In keeping with this commitment, the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH passed the Law on the Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in Bosnia and Herzegovina in February 2012. The Law establishes a framework for counting every citizen of BiH, including: citizens who usually reside in and are present in the state; citizens who usually reside in the state but are absent; citizens who maintain a residence in BiH but reside abroad, and; foreign citizens with residence permits. 2 The Law includes a census form with questions pertaining to ethnicity, religion, and language. The form lists BiHs constituent peoples (Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs), and provides a write-in option for others (members of ethnic minorities, along with persons who do not declare an affiliation with any ethnic group because of intermarriage, mixed parentage, or other reasons). 3
The census form has been challenged by civil society and questioned by international observers as differentiating between constituent peoples and minorities without a reasonable and objective justification. 4 Based on the legal standards enumerated in the BiH Law on Prohibition of Discrimination and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly as interpreted by the
1 Stabilization and Association Agreement art. 88 (European Union and Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2008), available at http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm77/7743/7743.pdf. 2 Law on the Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2013, art. 4, 40 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2012), available at http://www.bhas.ba/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=101%3Azakon-o-popisu-stanovnitva- domainstava-i-stanova-u-bih-2013&catid=60%3Adokumenti&Itemid=84&lang=en. 3 BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA CONST. art. 2 (1995). 4 Steering Committee of the International Monitoring Operation on the Population and Housing Censuses in Bosnia and Herzegovina, First Assessment Report, para. 72 (2012), available at http://www.bhas.ba/census/779849_Report%20First%20Mission%20BiH%20Census%20revised.pdf.
3 European Court of Human Rights (European Court) in Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, this differential treatment is likely discriminatory. Commentators have noted that laws and policies that continue to divide ethnic groups, such as the census form, are causing more harm than good within BiH. 5
BiHs Law on the Census
The Law on the Census provides the parameters for the census form. Though Article 8 of the Law provides that the topics of ethnic/national affiliation, religion, and mother tongue will be covered by the census, Article 12 provides that respondents do not have to answer questions relating to ethnic/national affiliation or religion. 6 In the census form, BiH citizens have the option of declaring their ethnicity/nationality Bosniak, Croat, Serb, Not Declared, or Other and their religion Islam, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Not Declared, or Other. Citizens are required to declare their mother tongue, with options for Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, or Other, and no option for Not Declared. 7 For ethnicity, religion, and mother tongue, citizens who are members or minority groups or who do not wish to identify as members of the three constituent peoples are required to write in their answers. 8 The written answers may only be eighteen characters in length. 9
These questions appear as follows:
5 Second Class Citizens: Discrimination Against Roma, Jews and Other National Minorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, 2, 3 (4 Apr. 2012), available at http://www.hrw.org/node/106194/section/3. 6 Law on the Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2013, art. 8, 12 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2012), available at http://www.bhas.ba/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=101%3Azakon-o-popisu-stanovnitva- domainstava-i-stanova-u-bih-2013&catid=60%3Adokumenti&Itemid=84&lang=en. 7 Census Form to the Law on the Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2013, questions 24, 25, and 26 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2012), available at http://www.bhas.ba/popis2011/P1_25_6_2012_FIN_ENG.pdf. 8 Census Form to the Law on the Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2013, questions 24, 25, and 26 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2012), available at http://www.bhas.ba/popis2011/P1_25_6_2012_FIN_ENG.pdf. 9 Census Form to the Law on the Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2013, questions 24, 25, and 26 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2012), available at http://www.bhas.ba/popis2011/P1_25_6_2012_FIN_ENG.pdf.
4
Public outcry over the census ethnicity, religion, and language questions arose after the passage of the law; many BiH NGOs and human rights organizations argued that the questions would only perpetuate intolerance and discrimination against the states minorities, and would further entrench ethnic divisions within BiH by making it difficult for citizens of BiH to choose not to align themselves with the constituent peoples. 10 Representatives from the NGO coalition Initiative for Free Declaration and the Roma Information Centre Kali Sara have publicly criticized the census, claiming that, like the Constitution and the Election Law, it favors BiHs constituent peoples. 11 These groups also expressed concern that Parliament adopted the law without any public consultation. 12
In addition, though the Law on the Census was adopted in pursuit of EU membership for BiH, EUROSTAT which gathers statistics on EU institutions and provides guidelines for EU and EU candidate states to gather statistics domestically does not require collection of information pertaining to ethnicity, religion, or language. 13 The EU does, however, recommend that where these questions are included, they should be optional. 14 Though the questions in the census form that pertain to ethnicity and religion provide a not declared option,
10 Anes Alic, NGOs: EU Must Address Flawed Census Law, SETIMES.COM, June 4, 2012, at 1, available at http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2012/06/04/feature-02. See also http://www.romatransitions.org/bosnias-census-plans-discriminatory/. 11 Anes Alic, NGOs: EU Must Address Flawed Census Law, SETIMES.COM, June 4, 2012, at 1, available at http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2012/06/04/feature-02. See also http://www.romatransitions.org/bosnias-census-plans-discriminatory/. 12 Anes Alic, NGOs: EU Must Address Flawed Census Law, SETIMES.COM, June 4, 2012, at 1, available at http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2012/06/04/feature-02. See also http://www.romatransitions.org/bosnias-census-plans-discriminatory/. 13 Upcoming Bosnian Census, Continuation of Genocide by Legalization, THE BALKAN CHRONICLE, June 11, 2012, at 1, available at http://www.balkanchronicle.com/index.php/world/world-news/balkans/2293-upcoming-bosnian- census-continuation-of-genocide-by-legalization. 14 Delegation of the European Union to BiH, European Union Newsletter, No. 6, at 7 (2010), available at http://www.delbih.ec.europa.eu/documents/delegacijaEU_2012011214342751eng.pdf.
5 the question on mother tongue does not, and thus may not meet EU standards, because language in BiH can act as a proxy for ethnicity. 15
In its September 2011 Adapted Global Assessment of the National Statistical System of Bosnia and Herzegovina, EUROSTAT noted that the questions regarding ethnicity and religion could cause controversy in BiH, and called on the Agency for Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BHAS) to look for new and administrative sources for collecting demographic data of this sort. 16
Other groups, including the Initiative for Free Declaration, have recommended that the census form be amended to make the question regarding mother tongue optional and to provide more choices for self-identification for instance, by allowing respondents to freely write in their response (without any pre-determined tick-boxes), or to denote multiple identities. 17
BiH Anti-Discrimination Law
Passed in July 2009, the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination implements the prohibition of discrimination contained in Article 2 of the BiH Constitution. 18 The Law delineates the responsibilities and obligations of all competent government authorities to ensure protection, promotion and creation of conditions for equal treatment of all citizens of BiH. 19 Article 2 defines discrimination, Article 3 defines the forms (direct and indirect) of discrimination, and Article 5 establishes exceptions to the prohibition on discrimination. The BiH Constitutional Court has likewise provided standards for what constitutes discrimination under European, and by extension, BiH law.
Law on Prohibition of Discrimination
Discrimination Under the Law Article 2 of the Law defines discrimination as differential treatment, including exclusion, limitation, or preference, based on ethnic affiliation, national
15 Census Form to the Law on the Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2013, questions 24, 25 and 26 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2012). 16 Jan M. Byfuglian and Gunther Kopsch, Adapted Global Assessment of the National Statistical System of Bosnia and Herzegovina, EUROSTAT, 57 (Sept. 2011), available at http://www.bhas.ba/dokumenti/AGA_2012_001_01- EN.pdf. 17 Initiative for Free Declaration, BiH Census 2013 Initiative for Free Declaration: Demands, August 2012. 18 BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA CONST. art. 2 (1995). 19 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 1 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html.
6 or social origin, or connection to a national minority. 20 The government of BiH may not discriminate against a citizen of the state by limiting his/her enjoyment of the rights and freedoms of public life. 21 Moreover, the prohibition on discrimination extends to both public bodies and the private sector, particularly with regard to the provision of social services, membership in professional organizations, and employment. 22
Article 3 establishes the specific types of discrimination prohibited in BiHs governmental policies. Direct discrimination occurs when a person or group of persons is put, or could be put, into a less favourable position as compared to similarly situated individuals. 23 Any government official who excludes a group of persons based on their ethnicity, national origin, or connection to a national minority violates this provision. Similarly, if an official is aware of governmental discrimination and fails to protect those suffering it, he/she is guilty of direct discrimination. 24
Indirect discrimination occurs when an apparently neutral provision, criteria, or practice has or would have the effect of putting a person or group of persons in an unfavourable or less favourable position. 25 A law is indirectly discriminatory if it negatively affects a certain segment of the population, even though it seems facially neutral.
Permissible Instances of Discrimination The Law on Prohibition of Discrimination also contains exceptions to the principle of equal treatment, recognizing that in certain limited instances discrimination may be necessary. For a law that provides for differential treatment of a certain group to fall within these exceptions, the government must provide an objective and reasonable justification for the differential treatment. 26 In addition,
20 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 2 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html. 21 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 2 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html. 22 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 2 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html. 23 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 2 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html. 24 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 2 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html. 25 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 3 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html. 26 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 5 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html.
7 the law must seek to attain a reasonable goal, and the means to achieve that goal must be proportional to its ends. 27
Further, there are a number of specific situations in which discrimination is legally permissible. Some of these situations seek to remedy previous discrimination or disadvantages in public life and employment by promoting the active participation of particular groups. For instance, if a temporary law is designed to prevent or compensate damages that persons suffer due to discrimination on Article 2 grounds, and thereby enable those persons active participation in public life, discrimination is allowed. 28 The exceptions also allow employers to give special treatment to people with disabilities if such treatment is necessary for them to train and do their jobs. Additionally, in certain professional activities where a persons features (including religious beliefs) affect how he can perform his duties, discrimination may be legally permissible. 29 Discrimination is also legally permissible with respect to citizenship, as stipulated by law. 30 The law also allows for discrimination under family law, which provides certain requirements for marriage and favors arrangements that protect the rights and privileges of children. 31
BiH Case Law on Discrimination
Courts in BiH have considered discrimination under both BiH and European Law. Prior to the passage of the 2009 Law of the Prohibition of Discrimination, BiH courts applied the European Convention, which was incorporated into BiH law through the Constitution. As a result, BiH has substantially more case law on discrimination under the ECHR. However, because the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination was adopted in compliance with international standards and mirrors language used by the European Court in its discrimination analysis, BiH courts are likely to analyze BiH and European anti-discrimination laws using similar standards. 32
27 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 5 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html. 28 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 5 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html. 29 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 5 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html. 30 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 5 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html. 31 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 5 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html. 32 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 1 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html.
8
Like the European Court, the BiH Constitutional Court applies a two-part test to determine whether discrimination has occurred: first, it will examine whether groups in analogous situations have received differential treatment and, if they have, it will examine whether there is a reasonable and objective justification for that treatment. 33 A reasonable and objective justification occurs where there is a legitimate aim and a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the aim and the means employed to achieve that aim . 34
The Court does not indicate whether the differential treatment must result in unfavorable consequences for one group. In Case No. U-12/09, the Court found that there was differential treatment where a law regarding maternity leave for women working in state institutions, which was neutral on its face, impacted women in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH) and the Republika Srpska (RS) differently. Because of entity policies in place, women in FBiH received less compensation during maternity leave. 35 The Court held that the different impacts of the law on women in FBiH and RS constituted differential treatment, which amounted to discrimination because the means employed (reliance on local regulations) were not proportionate to the aim sought under the law (providing social protection and compensation for women on maternity leave). 36 In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered that even in states with similar federal structures (such as Germany and Switzerland), maternity leave is equal for all women, regardless of where they live. 37 Though the appellants in this case brought claims under both the ECHR and the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, the Court only engaged in analysis with regard to the former. The Court did note in passing, however, that the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination obliges all competent authorities in the State and in the Entities to harmonise all
33 Dvadeset tri zastupnika Zastupni!kog doma Parlamentarne skup"tine Bosne i Hercegovine i pet zastupnika Doma naroda Parlamentarne skup"tine Bosne i Hercegovine, Case No. U-12/09, 20 (2010), available at http://www.ccbh.ba/eng/odluke/povuci_pdf.php?pid=310480. 34 Dvadeset tri zastupnika Zastupni!kog doma Parlamentarne skup"tine Bosne i Hercegovine i pet zastupnika Doma naroda Parlamentarne skup"tine Bosne i Hercegovine, Case No. U-12/09, 20 (2010), available at http://www.ccbh.ba/eng/odluke/povuci_pdf.php?pid=310480. 35 Dvadeset tri zastupnika Zastupni!kog doma Parlamentarne skup"tine Bosne i Hercegovine i pet zastupnika Doma naroda Parlamentarne skup"tine Bosne i Hercegovine, Case No. U-12/09, 21 (2010), available at http://www.ccbh.ba/eng/odluke/povuci_pdf.php?pid=310480. 36 Dvadeset tri zastupnika Zastupni!kog doma Parlamentarne skup"tine Bosne i Hercegovine i pet zastupnika Doma naroda Parlamentarne skup"tine Bosne i Hercegovine, Case No. U-12/09, 24 (2010), available at http://www.ccbh.ba/eng/odluke/povuci_pdf.php?pid=310480. 37 Dvadeset tri zastupnika Zastupni!kog doma Parlamentarne skup"tine Bosne i Hercegovine i pet zastupnika Doma naroda Parlamentarne skup"tine Bosne i Hercegovine, Case No. U-12/09, 24 (2010), available at http://www.ccbh.ba/eng/odluke/povuci_pdf.php?pid=310480.
9 regulations in order to establish non discriminatory conditions of political, economic and social life in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 38
The Court has also dealt with discrimination on ethnic grounds, but with different results. In the Appeal of Stranka za Bosnu i Hercegovinu (Party for Bosnia and Herzegovina) and Mr. Ilijaz Pilav, Case No. AP-2678/06, the Court acknowledged that the inability of Others to run for election to the Presidency and the House of Peoples under both the Constitution and the Election Law constitutes differential treatment. Although the Court did not say that differential treatment must amount to unfavorable treatment to constitute discrimination, the Court acknowledged that the differential treatment of Others effectively restricted their electoral rights. 39 However, the Court in this case held that there is a reasonable and objective justification for differential treatment of Others. The Courts analysis in this respect was cursory, noting only that the restrictions (the means) were justified given the current situation in BiH and the necessity of the preservation of the established peace (the aims). 40
While the standards that the BiH Constitutional Court apply for discrimination mirror those set by the European Court, as it will be shown, the Court reached a different outcome in the Pilav case than the European Court reached in the similar Sejdic and Finci case. The difference in outcomes between the two Courts is due to differences in the reasonable and objective justification prong of the discrimination test.
European Anti-Discrimination Law
BiH became a member of the Council of Europe in 2002 and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) in the same year. 41
BiH is thus bound by the provisions of the Convention and by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. 42 With regard to discrimination, BiH is bound by Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 of the Convention, which pertain to discrimination with respect to the rights contained in the Convention,
38 Dvadeset tri zastupnika Zastupni!kog doma Parlamentarne skup"tine Bosne i Hercegovine i pet zastupnika Doma naroda Parlamentarne skup"tine Bosne i Hercegovine, Case No. U-12/09, 24 (2010), available at http://www.ccbh.ba/eng/odluke/povuci_pdf.php?pid=310480. 39 Stranka za Bosnu i Hercegovinu i Ilijaza Pilava, Case No. AP-2678/06, 10 (2006), available at http://www.ccbh.ba/eng/odluke/povuci_pdf.php?pid=67930. 40 Stranka za Bosnu i Hercegovinu i Ilijaza Pilava, Case No. AP-2678/06, 10 (2006), available at http://www.ccbh.ba/eng/odluke/povuci_pdf.php?pid=67930. 41 Council of Europe, Bosnia and Herzegovina (last accessed Aug. 15, 2012), available at http://www.coe.int/country/bosnia-and-herzegovina. 42 Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights 1, 34 (2009).
10 and with respect to rights guaranteed under national laws, respectively. Additionally, BiH is also bound to implement the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina.
European Convention on Human Rights
The European Convention on Human Rights contains two provisions that prohibit discrimination. 43 Article 14 prohibits discrimination with regard to the rights set forth in the Convention itself. 44 Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, which BiH ratified in 2003, 45 contains a more general prohibition on discrimination that applies to any right guaranteed under any law. 46
Article 14 Article 14 of the Convention articulates that, the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. 47 Based on these guidelines, state parties may not discriminate against individuals based on their ethnic origins with respect to the rights provided in the Convention.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 of the Convention provides a general prohibition against discrimination. Paragraph 1 explains that, the enjoyment of any right set forth by law shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. 48
This provision precludes state parties from discriminating against individuals based
43 European Convention on Human Rights art. 14 (1995), available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/005.htm; Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights art. 1 (2000), available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/177.htm. 44 European Convention on Human Rights art. 14 (1995), available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/005.htm. 45 Council of Europe, Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Status as of 16/8/2012 (last accessed Aug. 15, 2012), available at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=177&CM=8&CL=ENG. 46 Council of Europe, Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Status as of 16/8/2012 (last accessed Aug. 15, 2012), available at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=177&CM=8&CL=ENG. 47 European Convention on Human Rights art. 14 (1995), available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/005.htm. 48 Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights art. 1 (2000), available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/177.htm.
11 on their ethnic origins, regardless of how they self-identify, with respect to rights guaranteed under both European and domestic law. Paragraph 2 of the Article specifies that public authorities may not discriminate against individuals based on the grounds listed in paragraph 1. 49
European Court of Human Rights: Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
In its December 2009 decision on the matter of Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, the European Court of Human Rights interpreted and applied Article 14 of the ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol 12 to BiHs Constitution and Election Law, finding that both discriminate against ethnic minorities. 50 Dervo Sejdic and Jakob Finci, of Roma and Jewish backgrounds respectively, complained of their ineligibility to be elected to the House of Peoples and the Presidency of BiH based on their status as others. 51 The Court held that the provisions relating to election to the House of Peoples violate Article 14, and the provisions relating to election to the Presidency violating Article 1 of Protocol No. 12. 52
Interpretation of Article 14 In interpreting Sejdics and Fincis claims under Article 14 of the Convention, the Court considered Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, which guarantees a right to free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature. 53 According to the Court, discrimination is treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in similar situations. 54 Under Article 14, the bases on which differential treatment will be analyzed for discrimination are sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. 55 A reasonable and objective justification means that the discrimination is necessary to pursue a legitimate aim, using means that are proportionate to that aim. 56 The Court cited
49 Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights art. 1 (2000), available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/177.htm. 50 Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights 1 (2009). 51 Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights 1 (2009). 52 Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights 1, 30-36 (2009). 53 Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights art. 3 (1952), available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/177.htm. 54 Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights 1, 25 (2009). 55 European Convention on Human Rights art. 14 (1995), available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/005.htm. 56 Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights 1, 32 (2009).
12 Case of D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, which determined that ethnicity is a subset of racial discrimination, one that deals with a groups shared nationality, religion, language, and culture. The Court noted pursuant to D.H. and Others, courts must use strict scrutiny when considering legislation or policies that result in ethnic discrimination. 57
The Court held that the Constitution and Election Law of BiH as they pertain to election to the House of Peoples violate Article 14 when read in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The Court reasoned that BiH lacked an objective and reasonable justification for discrimination with regard to election to the House of Peoples. 58 The Court took into account several factors in concluding that the discriminatory measures under BiH law were no longer proportionate to a legitimate aim, which included: the positive developments toward peace in BiH since 1995; the ability to structure power-sharing in a way to include Others; BiHs own goals for EU accession; and BiHs experience with amending its Constitution in 2009. 59
Interpretation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 Sejdic and Finci was the first case where the European Court considered a claim of discrimination under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12. 60 Whereas Article 14 only applies to discrimination with regard to the rights detailed in the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 applies more broadly. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, any rights and freedoms that a state provides fall under the Conventions scope. 61
In Sejdic and Finci, the Court applied Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 in recognition that the Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 deals only with the legislature. As a result, Article 14 of the Convention cannot be used to evaluate the legality of claims to the system for electing the president, as there is no corresponding provision within the Convention and its Protocols. While the Court found that Article 14 did not apply to Sejdics and Fincis challenges of presidential election procedures, it held that the discrimination analysis used for Article 14 should also
57 Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights 1, 26 (2009) (citing D.H. and Others v. Czech Republic, European Court of Human Rights, para. 176 (2007), available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-83256). 58 Judge Bonello of the Court dissented, however, on the grounds that the Court is not in a position to determine whether BiH still has an objective and reasonable justification for allowing discrimination in its laws. Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights 1, 55 (2009) (Bonello, J., dissenting). 59 Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights 1, 35 (2009). 60 Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights 1, 35 (2009). 61 Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights 1, 35 (2009).
13 be used for Article 1 of Protocol No. 12. The Court found that BiHs requirements for election to the Presidency were discriminatory under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 because they lacked a reasonable and objective justification. 62 In support of this conclusion, the Court referenced its detailed reasons regarding Article 14 and election to the House of Peoples, and held that the requirements for election to the Presidency lacked a reasonable and objective justification for the same reasons. 63
Analysis
Under BiHs Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, the European Convention, and the decision of the European Court in Sejdic and Finci, BiHs Law on the Census is likely discriminatory. The standards for discrimination under each of these sources of applicable law are similar: each prohibits differential treatment between groups based on ethnicity, religion and language, unless it is applied in pursuit of a reasonable and objective goal, and the measures used to pursue this goal are proportional. Without such justification, differential treatment constitutes discrimination. Because the differential treatment given to minorities in the census form is not supported by a reasonable and objective justification, it is likely discrimination, and would likely be treated the same way by the European Court as the Constitution and Election Law were in Sejdic and Finci.
BiH Anti-Discrimination Law
Differential Treatment Pursuant to the standards set forth in the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, the BiH census form likely discriminates against minorities based upon their ethnicity/nationality, religion and mother tongue. 64 Discrimination is defined in Article 2 as differential treatment, including exclusion, limitation, or preference, based, in part, on ethnic affiliation, national or social origin, or connection to a national minority. 65
Under Article 3 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, direct discrimination occurs where an action or a failure to act puts a person or group in a
62 Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights 1, 35 (2009). 63 Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights 1, 36 (2009). 64 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 2 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html. 65 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 2 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html.
14 less favourable position to persons or groups in analogous situations. 66 The BiH Constitutional Court has held that discrimination occurs where similarly-situated groups are given differential treatment, but does not require that the differential treatment amount to unfavorable consequences or disadvantages for groups. 67
The census treats groups differently, which could result in a less favourable position, persons who do not wish to identify with the constituent peoples, or persons who may wish to simply identify as a citizen.
The census form is directly discriminatory under Article 3, because it openly differentiates between the three constituent peoples, who are given answers on the form, and Others, who must write in their answers. Observers are concerned about how the census data will be used, and differentiating between groups could potentially put minorities in a less favourable position as compared with the constituent peoples. 68 Continuing to refer to minorities as Others and requiring them to self-identify on the census form may solidify their position as second-class citizens. For instance, minorities in BiH currently do not have the same political rights by law as the constituent peoples; until the Sejdic and Finci decision is implemented, minorities and non-constituent persons still may not run for election to the House of Peoples and the Presidency. Additionally, minorities are barred from taking civil service positions in many municipalities and cantons throughout BiH, due to similar ethnic quotas and discrimination at the local level. 69
Furthermore, the census could link certain portions of territory to certain ethnic groups, to the potential exclusion of others; more specifically, some groups are concerned that the census will complete the ethnic cleansing of the 1992-1995 war by confirming that certain ethnic groups no longer exist in significant numbers in certain areas. 70 Therefore, the census form both applies differential treatment to BiHs ethnic groups, and could result in unfavorable consequences for minorities.
The census form meets the definition of discrimination under the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination and under the discrimination jurisprudence of the
66 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 3 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html. 67 Dvadeset tri zastupnika Zastupni!kog doma Parlamentarne skup"tine Bosne i Hercegovine i pet zastupnika Doma naroda Parlamentarne skup"tine Bosne i Hercegovine, Case No. U-12/09, 20 (2010), available at http://www.ccbh.ba/eng/odluke/povuci_pdf.php?pid=310480; 68 Anes Alic, NGOs: EU Must Address Flawed Census Law, SETIMES.COM, June 4, 2012, at 1, available at http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2012/06/04/feature-02. See also http://www.romatransitions.org/bosnias-census-plans-discriminatory/. 69 Protecting Minorities in Bosnia The EU Has a Role to Play, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (Apr. 20, 2012), available at http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/04/20/protecting-minorities-bosnia-eu-has-role-play. 70 Anes Alic, Debates Begin Over 2013 Census in BiH, SETIMES.COM, Feb. 23, 2012, available at http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2012/02/23/feature-01.
15 BiH Constitutional Court. Without a reasonable and objective justification, the differential treatment afforded to minorities and persons who do not identify with the constituent people by the census form is unlawful.
Reasonable and Objective Justification Under BiHs Law on Prohibition of Discrimination and BiH Constitutional Court discrimination jurisprudence, unless the differential treatment in the census form has an objective and reasonable justification, the census form is likely discriminatory under BiH law.
Article 5 of the BiH Law on Prohibition of Discrimination provides that a reasonable and objective justification exists where there is a legitimate goal and a reasonable relation ratio of proportionality between means used and goals to be achieved. 71 Examples of reasonable and objective justifications under BiH law are positive discrimination (compensating victims of past discrimination), differential treatment in certain professional activities where a persons features (including religious beliefs) affect how he can perform his duties, differential treatment with regard to citizenship, and differential treatment with regard to marital status (to protect children). 72 The differential treatment in the census form does not meet any of these exceptions.
BiH Constitutional Court jurisprudence on discrimination likewise requires a reasonable and objective justification for differential treatment i.e., a legitimate aim, and means proportionate to that aim. With regard to the census form, the government of BiH has not publicly commented with regard to a possible reasonable and objective justification for including the questions relating to ethnicity/nationality, religion and language, and providing different answers for constituent peoples and minorities/non-constituent persons, nor did it allow for open discussion of the Law on the Census during which concerns on this issue could have been raised. In the Appeal of Stranka za Bosnu i Hercegovinu (Party for Bosnia and Herzegovina) and Mr. Ilijaz Pilav, Case No. AP-2678/06, the government cited preservation of the established peace as a legitimate aim and concluded, without any further analysis, that the means used (complete exclusion of minorities from election to the Presidency and the House of Peoples) were
71 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 5 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html. 72 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 5 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html.
16 proportionate to that aim. 73 The Courts analysis on this point was cursory, so it is unclear upon which facts it relied in making this determination.
However, it is unlikely that the government could make the same argument with regard to the census form. In terms of a legitimate aim, dividing citizens by ethnic groups in the census could, in fact, threaten peace in BiH, rather than preserve it, if the data is manipulated to give certain groups more rights and more territory than others. 74 Furthermore, the means employed are disproportionate to this aim, since requiring ethnic minorities to provide their own responses to these sensitive questions imposes a disproportionate burden on minorities as compared with the constituent peoples. 75
Under BiH law, the census form is likely discriminatory. It provides for differential treatment of similarly-situated persons without a reasonable and objective justification for doing so. Because the analysis for discrimination is similar under European law, the census form is likely discriminatory under European law as well.
European Anti-Discrimination Law
Under the European Convention on Human Rights, discrimination is prohibited with regard to any right provided in any law by any state. 76 The European Court, upon which the BiH Constitutional Court bases its analysis, holds that discrimination occurs where differential treatment of similarly-situated groups has no reasonable or objective justification. The Court has also held that heightened scrutiny should be given to differential treatment based on ethnic classifications, especially where a group has historically been disadvantaged based on ethnicity. Because the census form treats minorities and non-constituent
73 Stranka za Bosnu i Hercegovinu i Ilijaza Pilava, Case No. AP-2678/06, 10 (2006), available at http://www.ccbh.ba/eng/odluke/povuci_pdf.php?pid=67930. 74 Anes Alic, NGOs: EU Must Address Flawed Census Law, SETIMES.COM, June 4, 2012, at 1, available at http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2012/06/04/feature-02. See also .Zasto dogovor SDP-HDZcementira diskriminaciju, RADIOSARAJEVO.COM, July 20, 2012, available at http://www.radiosarajevo.ba/novost/85905/zasto-dogovor-sdp-hdz-cementira-diskriminaciju, and
Dogovorom HDZ- SDP ozakonjeno etnicko ciscenje diljem BiH, OTVORENO.BA, July 2, 2012, available at http://www.otvoreno.ba/component/content/article/1-slajd/34684-dogovorom-hdz-sdp-ozakonjeno-etnicko-cisenje- hrvata-diljem-bih.
75 Dalibor Tanic, Bosnias Census Law Discriminatory, ROMA TRANSITIONS, June 13, 2012, available at http://www.romatransitions.org/bosnias-census-plans-discriminatory. 76 Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights art. 1 (2000), available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/005.htm.
17 peoples differently without any justification, it is likely discriminatory under European law.
Differential Treatment Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 of the European Convention, BiHs census form is likely discriminatory. Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 provides that public authorities may not discriminate against citizens based on (among other bases) ethnicity, religion, and language, with regard to any right under national law. 77 In Sejdic and Finci, the European Court interpreted Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to extend the scope of the Convention to those rights and freedoms a state voluntarily provides to its citizens, but used the same discrimination analysis it had used under Article 14, which only applies to rights in the Convention. 78 Similarly, the Court would apply Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Law on the Census because BiH has guaranteed its citizens freedom from ethnic discrimination generally in the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, but this right is not explicitly provided as a separate right under the European Convention. 79
The European Court, upon whose analysis the BiH Constitutional Court often bases its analysis, first provided its rule for discrimination in the Case Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium (the Belgian Linguistics Case). 80 In this case, the Court held that not all differences in treatment constitute discrimination; only those that treat people differently without an objective and reasonable justification, which means a legitimate aim, and reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised constitute discrimination. 81 In D.H. and Others v. Czech Republic, the Court held that ethnic discrimination is a particularly invidious type of discrimination, that no difference in treatment which is based exclusively or to a decisive extent on a persons ethnic origin is capable of being objectively justified in a contemporary democratic society built on the principles of pluralism and respect for different cultures, and that differential treatment based on ethnicity will thus be given heightened scrutiny. 82 Though the
77 Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights art. 1 (2000), available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/005.htm. 78 Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights 1, 35 (2009). 79 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html; BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA CONST. art. 2 (1995). 80 Case Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium, European Court of Human Rights, para. 10 (1968), available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-57525. 81 Case Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium, European Court of Human Rights, para. 10 (1968), available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-57525. 82 D.H. and Others v. Czech Republic, European Court of Human Rights, para. 176 (2007), available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-83256).
18 Court in D.H. and Others did not hold that a showing of disadvantage by one group is necessary to prove differential treatment, it did hold that groups that have suffered disadvantages in the past, such as Roma, are more vulnerable to discrimination and therefore require special protection by authorities. 83 The Court reiterated these principles with regard to ethnic discrimination in BiHs Constitution and Election Law in Sejdic and Finci. 84
As stated with regard to the analysis under BiH law, by requiring citizens to either identify with a group or write in answers about their ethnicity, mother tongue, and religious affiliations, the census form treats members of ethnic minorities differently and singles them out for potential mistreatment by public bodies, professional organizations, or employers. Because ethnic discrimination is endemic in BiH political and public life, holding a census that formally divides BiH citizens into constituent peoples and others perpetuates and solidifies this discrimination. 85 According to the European Court, differential treatment on the basis of ethnicity (or language as a proxy for ethnicity) requires heightened scrutiny, and minorities that have suffered discrimination in the past, such as those in BiH who have been excluded from assuming a range of public positions, deserve special protection by the government, rather than continued isolation. 86
Therefore, the questions pertaining to ethnicity, religion and language on the census form likely constitute discrimination under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention, because they treat groups differently on the basis of ethnic identification. According to the European Court, differential treatment is only permissible pursuant to a reasonable and objective justification. 87
Reasonable and Objective Justification Under European anti-discrimination law, differential treatment of similarly- situated groups does not constitute discrimination where the state can provide a reasonable and objective justification for the differential treatment. 88
83 D.H. and Others v. Czech Republic, European Court of Human Rights, para. 182 (2007), available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-83256). 84 Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights 1, 32 (2009). 85 Anes Alic, NGOs: EU Must Address Flawed Census Law, SETIMES.COM, June 4, 2012, at 1, available at http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2012/06/04/feature-02. See also http://www.romatransitions.org/bosnias-census-plans-discriminatory/. 86 D.H. and Others v. Czech Republic, European Court of Human Rights, para. 182 (2007), available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-83256). 87 Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights 1, 32 (2009), 88 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 5 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html; Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights 1, 32 (2009).
19
Though the European Convention does not mention exceptions in the same way the BiH Law does, the European Court has held, similarly with the BiH Law, that there is an exception to the prohibition on differential treatment where a state can provide a reasonable and objective justification, defined as a legitimate aim and a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realized. 89 The European Court has likewise held that positive discrimination is permissible to correct inequality through past differential treatment. 90 Therefore, under both BiH and European law, the government of BiH may only legally discriminate against its citizens when it seeks to attain a reasonable and objective justification and the means used to achieve that goal are proportionate to its ends. 91
Moreover, the factors relevant to the European Courts determination that BiH no longer has a justification for discrimination in Sejdic and Finci are relevant to analysis of the census form as well. In Sejdic and Finci, the court held that BiH had no objective and reasonable justification for state-sponsored discrimination, due to the following factors: the positive developments toward peace in BiH since 1995; the ability to structure power-sharing in a way to include Others; BiHs own goals for EU accession; and BiHs experience with amending its Constitution in 2009. 92 Indeed, the Court cited a 2009 report on BiH prepared by the European Commission which noted that although discrimination in the Constitution and Election Law was necessary to establish peace in BiH, its racially discriminatory roadblocks have stymied, rather than facilitated, political growth and BiHs progress towards joining the EU. 93 The Court also observed that BiHs candidacy for EU and NATO membership resulted in positive advancements for the country, and that BiHs decision to become a member of the Council of Europe as well as its expressed desire to join other European groups illustrates its willingness to abide by Europes human rights standards. 94 The Court also cited a 2005 Venice Commission report that described various alternatives to BiHs current political
89 Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights 1, 35 (2009). 90 Kuric and Others v. Slovenia, European Court of Human Rights, para. 388 (2012), Thlimmenos v. Greece, European Court of Human Rights, para. 44 (2000). 91 Law on Prohibition of Discrimination art. 5 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d302a9f2.html. 92 Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights 1, 35 (2009). 93 European Commission, Bosnia and Herzegovina 2009 Progress Report, SEC(2009) 1338, 7-8 (Oct. 14, 2009), available at http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2009/ba_rapport_2009_en.pdf. 94 Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights 1, 26-27 (2009).
20 system that could effectively manage the state while sharing powers amongst the states ethnic populations. 95
The factors considered in Sejdic and Finci apply to the census form as well because of relationship between constitutional reform and the census. The right to be free from discrimination with regard to elections is directly connected to the right to be free from discrimination with regard to the census in BiH. Minorities and non-constituent peoples are currently denied the right to participate in public life, and formalizing their status as minorities in the census puts them at risk of further marginalization and limits their opportunities to engage in BiH as citizens. 96
Furthermore, the data obtained from the census could be used in the constitutional reform process to support proposals that continue to exclude minorities and individuals who do not identify with the constituent peoples. 97 Because the factors set forth in Sejdic and Finci are still relevant for BiH, the Bosnian government does not have a reasonable or objective justification for treating minorities differently on its census form.
Though BiH has not offered a reasonable objective justification for the differential treatment of minorities and non-constituent persons, as explained above, the European Courts analysis of BiHs inability to provide a justification for state-sponsored discrimination in Sejdic and Finci likely applies in this case as well. Therefore, the questions pertaining to ethnicity, religion and language in the census form are likely discriminatory under both BiH and European law.
Conclusion
The census form accompanying BiHs new Law on the Census contains questions on ethnicity/nationality, religion and mother language, and provides pre- filled answers for the constituent peoples while providing a short write-in option for minorities and citizens who do not identify with the constituent peoples. This differential treatment is likely discriminatory under both BiH and European law. The BiH Law on Prohibition of Discrimination forbids the government from favoring one group of citizens without a reasonably and objective justification.
95 European Commission for Democracy Through Law, Opinion on the Constitutional Situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Powers of the High Representative, CDL-AD(2005)004 (March 11, 2005), available at http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2005/CDL-AD(2005)004-e.pdf. 96 Advisory Council for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Concerns Over 2013 Census in BiH (last accessed Aug. 21, 2012), available at http://www.acbih.org/wp/?p=2647. 97 Protecting Minorities in Bosnia The EU Has a Role to Play, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (Apr. 20, 2012), available at http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/04/20/protecting-minorities-bosnia-eu-has-role-play.
21 Similarly, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the European Courts reasoning in the Sejdic and Finci decision, requires that differential treatment based on ethnicity, religion or language have a reasonable and objective justification, and employ means proportionate to the goal sought. Given the potential implications of the census form in solidifying ethnic divisions in BiH and the improvements in BiHs political situation noted by the Venice Commission, there is likely no reasonable and objective justification for this treatment. As a result, the census form is likely discriminatory.