OSCE/ODIHR database of legal reviews and legislation

The proposed Draft Law aims at specifically regulating associations receiving foreign funding (qualified as "non-profit organizations" or "NPOs"), in particular by regulating the scope of their authorized activities and prohibiting them to carry out broadly defined “political activities”, requiring them to register in a special Registry and all their materials to include the mark “NPO”, as well as to submit additional reports compared to those already required by the existing 2001 Law on Associations and Foundations. Pursuant to the Draft Law, NPOs would also be subject to a separate legal regime of oversight and inspections, and a range of sanctions for violations of the provisions of the Draft Law that may result in the ban of the NPOs’ activities. The Joint Opinion notes numerous shortcomings, including with respect to the justifications for developing the Draft Law which are not based on any risk assessment or the reference to the need to enhance transparency, which as noted in previous joint opinions, does not by itself constitute a legitimate aim as provided in international instruments. The Joint Opinion also notes that many of the terms used in the Draft Law, including to define an NPO and foreign funding/assistance, are broadly framed and are not compliant with the principle of foreseeability and that the new reporting obligations and oversight regime appear burdensome, without safeguards against the risk of abuse, and imposition of disproportionate sanctions. In light of these serious deficiencies, ODIHR and the Venice Commission call upon the legislator to reconsider the adoption of the Draft Law entirely.

Rezime: Ovim Zajedničkim mišljenjem koje su dali Venecijanska komisija i ODIHR ocjenjuju se propisi o javnom okupljanju (sloboda mirnog okupljanja) koji postoje u Bosni i Hercegovini, na entitetskom i kantonalnom nivou, kao i u Distriktu Brčko. Po tom pitanju trenutno ne postoji nijedan nacionalni zakon, izuzev Ustava Bosne i Hercegovine. Uprkos njihovoj raznolikosti, čini se da svih 12 odnosnih propisa koji su trenutno na snazi u Bosni i Hercegovini slijedi sličan obrazac sa relativno malim razlikama. U većini zakona, konkretne odredbe koje daju definiciju javnog okupljanja napisane su iz perspektive potrebe države da „regulira“ javna okupljanja. Korišćenje takve formulacije odaje utisak da se okupljanja posmatraju i tretiraju kao pitanja koja treba regulirati i voditi, a ne kao pravo koje treba omogućiti. Slobodu mirnog okupljanja treba prepoznati kao temeljno pravo u demokratskom društvu koje se ima uživati, u mjeri mogućeg, bez reguliranja. Okupljanja se moraju regulirati  samo u mjeri u kojoj postoji neodložna društvena potreba za tim u okviru dopuštenih granica utvrđenih u članku 12 Evropske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i članku 21 Međunarodnog pakta o građanskim i političkim pravima. Izmjene i dopune postojećih propisa ili novi propisi se imaju pridržavati ovog načela kako bi bili u saglasnosti sa međunarodno preuzetim obavezama i standardima.

Summary: This Joint Opinion of the Venice Commission and ODIHR assesses legislation on public assemblies (freedom of peaceful assembly) across Bosnia and Herzegovina, on the entity and cantonal levels as well as in the District of Brčko. No national law on the matter currently exists, apart from the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Despite this diversity of legislation, all relevant twelve pieces of legislation currently in force in Bosnia and Herzegovina in appear to follow a similar pattern with relatively minor differences. In most of the laws, the specific provisions providing the definition of public assembly are drafted from a perspective of the state's need to "regulate" public assemblies. The use of this wording gives the impression that assemblies are viewed and treated as issues to be regulated and managed, rather than as a right that should be facilitated. Freedom of peaceful assembly should be recognized as a fundamental right in a democratic society and should be enjoyed, as far as possible, without regulation. Assemblies must only be regulated to the extent that there is a pressing social need to do so within the permissible limits established in ECHR Article 11(2) and ICCPR Article 21. Amended or new legislation must adhere to this principle to conform with international commitments and standards. 

The Urgent Comments analyse the draft amendments to the Criminal Code of the Republika Srpska, which aim at protecting reputation and honour, particularly against defamation and insult (the “Draft Amendments”). At the outset, the Urgent Comments underline the negative impact that defamation laws may have on the freedom of expression, and recall that international human rights bodies, including the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, have called upon states to abolish any criminal defamation laws. Noting the chilling effect on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression that defamation laws may have, it is important that defamation laws when they exist are formulated in a way that excludes potential abuse by the public authorities, and at the same time conform to the principle of proportionality. The Urgent Comments note that the terms used in the Draft Amendments are vague and broad, and therefore open for subjective interpretation and application. While the Draft Amendments provide for exceptions concerning a range of expressions falling under the public interest, made in good faith, as well as a truth defence, such exceptions are narrowly defined. In addition, the nature and severity of sanctions are of particular importance when assessing the proportionality of an interference with the right to freedom of expression and the mere existence of
criminal sanctions for defamation can have a chilling effect, including when negligible in pecuniary terms. In light of these concerns, ODIHR calls upon the authorities not to pursue the adoption of the provisions that aim at criminalizing “insults” and “defamation” in the Republika Srpska. The drafters could instead consider enhancing the existing non-criminal legislation, providing for alternative remedies and civil damages to be paid to the affected persons when the expression reaches a certain level of severity, while ensuring that the said provisions are also carefully crafted to exclude arbitrary application or abuse by the public authorities and fully comply with international human rights standards.

Ovo Zajedničko mišljenje Venecijanske komisije i ODIHR-a procjenjuje zakonodavni okvir u vezi sa javnim okupljanjima (sloboda mirnog okupljanja) u Bosni i Hercegovini, na nivoima entiteta i kantona, kao i na nivou Brčko Distrikta Bosne i Hercegovine. Trenutno ne postoji zakon na nivou države u vezi sa ovim pitanjem, sa izuzetkom Ustava Bosne i Hercegovine. Uprkos ovoj raznolikosti u zakonodavstvu, čini se da svih dvanaest relevantnih zakona koji su trenutno na snazi u Bosni i Hercegovini prate sličan šablon sa relativno malim razlikama. U većini zakona, specifične odredbe koje se odnose na definiciju javnog okupljanja odražavaju perspektivu potrebe države da „reguliše“ javna okupljanja. Ovakvo formulisanje daje utisak da se na okupljanja gleda i tretira ih se kao pitanja koja je potrebno regulisati i njima upravljati, prije nego da je u pitanju pravo koje je potrebno omogućiti. Sloboda mirnog okupljanja treba biti prepoznata kao jedno od osnovnih prava u demokratskom društvu koje se treba uživati, koliko god je moguće, bez regulisanja. Okupljanja treba regulisati samo u onom obimu u kojem postoji izražena društvena potreba da se to učini i unutar dozvoljenih ograničenja ustanovljenih članom 11 (2) Evropske konvencije o ljudskim pravima i članom 21 Međunarodnog Pakta o građanskim i političkim  pravima. Dopunjeni ili novi zakoni se moraju pridržavati principa usklađenosti sa međunarodnim obavezama i standardima. 

Summary: The Draft Law on the Public Assembly defines the rules for such assemblies in Republika Srpska, one of the two entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. While there are certain positive elements, such as a clear procedures for appeals against decisions regarding assemblies, the draft law has a generally restrictive approach to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and does not facilitate for enjoyment of this fundamental human right.  The draft law places heavy burdens on organisers of assemblies, despite the fact that facilitating assemblies is a clear responsibility of the state, in particular of law enforcement authorities. Such burdens include the need to provide a detailed request for holding an assembly, to a have a clear structure, the responsibility to maintain order. Furthermore, the draft law contains too many restrictions and options for prohibiting or dispersing an assembly, making such restrictions and prohibitions the rule rather than an absolute exception and last resort. Overall, the draft law needs to be substantially changed to be compliant with international standards.

Parlamentarne istražne komisije (PIK) predstavljaju važan alat u funkcionisanju zdrave demokratije. Iako se pravila i prakse koje postoje u cijeloj regiji OSCE-a u nekim aspektima razlikuju, uporedna studija nadležnosti ispitivanih u ovoj bilješci otkriva da svaka PIK koja se bavi pravosuđem mora pažljivo uravnotežiti javni interes i opći mandat parlamenta s jedne strane, a s druge strane podjelu vlasti i nezavisnost pravosuđa. Međunarodni standardi, preporuke i prakse zemalja koji su iznijeti u ovoj bilješci pokazuju da PIK-e mogu, a povremeno i trebaju, direktno stupiti u kontakt sa članovima pravosudne vlasti kako bi razvili jasno razumijevanje sistemskih izazova i razvili odgovarajuća zakonodavna rješenja u skladu s njihovim mandatom. Međutim, PIK-e moraju posebno paziti da osiguraju da njihove aktivnosti ne narušavaju nezavisnost pravosuđa, uključujući poštivanje jasnih pravila za ispitivanje članova pravosuđa. Istražni rad PIK-a može obuhvatiti pitanja koja podliježu tekućem paralelnom sudskom postupku. Međutim, u takvim slučajevima PIK-e moraju osigurati da svojim postupcima ne riskiraju vršenje bilo kakvog stvarnog ili percipiranog neprimjerenog utjecaja na sub judice pitanja, to jest, PIK-e se moraju suzdržati od komentiranja ili poduzimanja radnji ili provođenja istraga koje bi mogle prejudicirati ili utjecati na ishod tekućih slučajeva ili istraga ili suđenja koja se trebaju pokrenuti. Nadalje, principi, razvijeni u skladu s međunarodnim standardima, preporukama i dobrom praksom, predlažu se radi usmjeravanja rada Privremene istražne komisije Predstavničkog doma BiH.

Summary: Parliamentary committees of inquiry (PCIs) represent an important tool in the functioning of a healthy democracy. While the rules and practices that exist across the OSCE region vary in some respects, the comparative study of the jurisdictions examined in this Note reveals that any PCI looking into the judiciary must carefully balance the public interest and the general mandate of the Parliament on the one hand, and the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary on the other. The international standards, recommendations and country practices set forth in this Note demonstrate that PCIs can, and at times should, directly engage with members of the judicial branch in order to develop a clear understanding of systemic challenges and develop appropriate legislative solutions in accordance with their mandate. However, PCIs must exercise particular care to ensure that their activities do not infringe upon judicial independence, including by respecting clear rules for the questioning of members of the judiciary and by ensuring that their actions do not risk exercising any real or perceived undue influence upon ongoing judicial proceedings or investigations. The Note also proposes a set of principles drafted in line with international standards, recommendations and good practices in order to guide the work of PCIs when carrying inquiries over judicial activities. 

Summary: Overall, ODIHR finds that the Shanghai Convention raises a number of concerns from an international human rights law perspective, especially regarding the ability of States Parties to adopt broader national definitions of the terms “extremism” and “separatism”, allowing criminalization of the broad range of conduct that may be captured by such terms and the absence of any requirement to ensure that implementation of the Convention and obligation of co-operation between States Parties is rendered in accordance with international human rights law.