Evaluation Report 4/2002

Ministry of Foreign Af fairs

Legal Aid Against the Odds Evaluation of the Civil Rights Project (CRP)of the Norwegian Refugee Council in formerYugoslavia

Information from theRoyal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The Ministry’s Information Section providesinformation with regard to current foreign policy, trade policy, and development cooperation policy.

Material can be ordered fromfax no. + 47 22 24 27 87

Foreign Ministry switchboardTel. + 47 22 24 36 00

Fax + 47 22 24 95 80 or + 47 22 24 95 81

Information is available on the Internet athttp://odin.dep.no/ud

Information to the media:The Ministry’s Press Spokesperson and

the Senior Information Officer on Development Cooperationcan be contacted through the Foreign Ministry switchboard

Foreign journalists:The Norway International Press Centre, NIPS,

is the Foreign Ministry’ service centrefor foreign journalists in Norway,

tel. + 47 22 83 83 10

In countries outside of Norway,information on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

may be obtained fromNorwegian embassies or consulates

Published by the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

January 2003

Printed by Hatlehols AS, Brattvaag 030191-02

Circulation: 1200

E-747 E

ISBN 82-7177-707-6

Legal Aid Against the Odds

Evaluation of the Civil Rights Project (CRP)of the Norwegian Refugee Council in former Yugoslavia

A report prepared by

The Danish Centre for Human Rights (DCHR)in cooperation with T & B Consult

Mr Fergus Kerrigan, DCHR, Team LeaderMr Gunnar Olesen, T & B ConsultMr Francesco Castellani, DCHR

Mr Thomas Birath, T & B ConsultMs Anne-Marie Garrido, DCHR

Responsibility for the contents and presentation of findings and recommendations rests with the evaluation team. The views and options expressed in the report do not necessarily correspond with

the views of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

3

Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Fact Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.1 The Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.2 The Civil Rights Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2 Methodology and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3 Legal Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.1 Clients/Beneficiaries/Target Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.2 Categorization by Kind of Assistance Rendered and Relevance of Legal Intervention . 183.3 Quality of Legal Aid Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4 CRP’s Advocacy Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5 Project Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335.1 Exit Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

6 Human and Institutional Capacity Enhancement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376.1 In former Yugoslavia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376.2 In Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

7 Administration of the CRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417.1 Reporting and Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417.2 Efficiency and Cost-effectiveness in the Use of the MFA Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417.3 Funding and Funding Cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417.4 Preparation, Deployment and Follow-up of CRP Personnel in the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427.5 Performance of the NRC Secretariat in Oslo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

8 The Applicability of the CRP Model in Other Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458.1 The Usefulness of Legal Aid to Refugees and IDPS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458.2 CRP Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458.3 The Operational Aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468.4 The Time Factor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499.1 Relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499.2 Cost-effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499.3 Competence Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499.4 Applicability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509.5 Future Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509.6 Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

10 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5110.1 Competence Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5110.2 Applicability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5110.3 Future Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5110.4 Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Annex I Terms of Reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Annex II Institutions and Persons Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Annex III References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Annex IV Fact Boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Annex V Background to the CRP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Annex VI Description of Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Annex VII Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Annex VIII Organogram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

TablesTable 1. Current Staffing Levels in the CRP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Table 2. CRP Clients in Croatia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Table 3. CRP Clients in Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Table 4. Clients in Bosnia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Table 5. CRP Clients in Kosovo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Table 6.1 Country related inquires on CRP: Kosovo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Table 6.2 Country related inquires on CRP: Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Table 6.3 Country related inquires on CRP: Bosnia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Table 7 Elements of a General Strategy for CRP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Table 8 Emergency and Development Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

5

Abbreviations

ADF Americas Development FoundationADI Association of Democratic InitiativesAPN Agency for the Mediation of Real Property TransactionsARC American Refugee CouncilBiH Bosnia and HerzegovinaCBA Croatian Bar AssociationCDHRF Council for the Defence of Human Rights and FreedomsCRO CroatiaCRP Civil Rights ProjectCRPC Commission for Real Property ClaimsDCHR The Danish Centre for Human RightsDOS Dalmatian Organisation of SolidarityECHO European Community Humanitarian OfficeECHR European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November

1950FRY Federal Republic of YugoslaviaHLC Humanitarian Law CentreHPCC Housing and Property Claims CommissionHPD Housing and Property DirectorateIC International CommunityICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural RightsIDPs Internally Displaced PersonsIRC International Rescue CommitteeKFOR Kosovo ForceLSC Legal Services CoalitionMAC MacedoniaMCS Mercy Corps ScotlandMFA Ministry of Foreign AffairsMPDL Movimento Por La Paz El Desarme y La LibertadMPWRC Ministry of Public Works, Reconstruction and ConstructionNATO North Atlantic Treaty OrganisationNGO Non Governmental OrganisationNHLO Network of Humanitarian Law Officesno MoI An expression for lacking records of former residence in Croatia at the Ministry of

Interior NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development CooperationNRC Norwegian Refugee CouncilODPR Office of Displaced Persons and RefugeesOHCHR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human RightsOHR Office of the High RepresentationOSCE Organisation for Security and Co-operation in EuropePLIP Property Law Implementation PlanPoA Power of AttorneyRS Republika SrpskaSEE South East EuropeSDF Serbian Democratic Forum

6

SDR Swiss Disaster ReliefSFRY Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia SLO SloveniaSMART Specific, Measurable, Accurate/attainable, Realistic, Time-boundToR Terms of ReferenceUN United NationsUNHCHR United Nations High Commissioner for Human RightsUNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for RefugeesUNMiBH United Nations Mission in Bosnia and HerzegovinaUNMIK United Nations Interim Administration Mission in KosovoUNTAES United Nations Transitional Authority in Eastern SloveniaUSAID United States Agency for International Development

7

The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) starteda Civil Rights Project (CRP) in the formerYugoslavia (in Eastern Slavonia, Croatia) in1996 in the context of the Erdut Agreement,formally ending hostilities in Croatia inNovember 1995. The project was intended toensure protection of the rights of the (mostlySerb) population through legal aid. Throughthe work of the Eastern Slavonian CRP offices,similar needs became apparent amonginternally displaced persons (IDPs) andrefugees elsewhere in the region. A Serbiaoffice was opened in Novi Sad in 1997. From1999 to 2001 CRP expanded significantly,opening several offices in much of the formerYugoslavia. Today the CRP has a total of 13offices located in Croatia, Federal Republic ofYugoslavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina andKosovo, still officially a part of the FederalRepublic of Yugoslavia. For practical purposesthis report refers mostly to Serbia and Kosovo.

The chief objective of the CRP is to enhance theprotection of the civil rights of IDPs andrefugees both in their places of origin and of

residence. It entails strengthening judicialsystems and ensuring equal treatment of allethnic groups. A further objective concernsrendering assistance for voluntary repatriationand reintegration in persons’ places of origin,and, for those who do not return, for integrationin the place of temporary residence. CRPoffices have given legal aid on issues of accessto the place of origin, on property and tenancyclaims as well as other legal matters hamperingthe reestablishment of life in the place ofresidence. Finally, the CRP offices haveprovided legal aid to a segment of the localpopulation that risk facing a situation causingthem to flee their homes.

CRP receives more than half of its overallfunding from the Norwegian Ministry ofForeign Affairs (MFA). Since the establishmentof the first CRP office in 1996, NRC hasreceived a total of NOK 57,965,932 from MFA(2001 figures included), of which the total costsamount to NOK 50,859,826. In the same period,other donors have funded CRP with the sum ofNOK 40,380,931.

Fact Sheet

9

The Civil Rights Project (CRP) of theNorwegian Refugee Council (NRC) began inCroatia in 1996, spreading over the next threeyears to The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. It has beensupported by the Norwegian Ministry ofForeign Affairs and a variety of otherinternational donors, including UNHCR, OSCE,and ECHO.

CRP have assisted tens of thousands of personsdisplaced or threatened by conflict to obtainvital documents essential to the protection oftheir civil rights, and given legal information,advice, assistance and representation to enablethe protection of those rights. The project hasaimed primarily to provide displaced personswith a realistic choice of whether to integrate intheir present place of residence or return totheir country or territory of origin. It attemptsto do so by working to restore protection ofrights violated and denied as a result of armedconflict and ethnic cleansing in the countriesand territories of the former Yugoslavia. Theproject was managed as four or more separateprojects, each with their separate managementstructures. CRP had never been externallyevaluated prior to the present exercise. InAugust 2002, the Norwegian Ministry ofForeign Affairs requested the Danish Centrefor Human Rights and T&B Consult(Copenhagen) to evaluate the project.

The purposes of the evaluation were:

• To assess the relevance of activities duringchanging phases of the project,emphasising protection, avoidance of flightand durable solutions;

• To assess the relevance of CRP to help re-establish legal systems acceptable todemocratic societies;

• To assess complementarities with OSCE,UN and others;

• To assess cost efficiency compared toservices rendered by similar organisationsin particular other NGOs;

• To assess whether comparative Norwegianadvantages have been exploited;

• To assess whether CRP have contributed tocompetence building of professional actors;

• To assess whether competence building ofNorwegian professional actors has takenplace;

• To assess the applicability of the CRPprogramme in other places;

• To make recommendations for a continua-tion of the program.

The evaluation proceeded by means of apreliminary desk study, examining projectproposals, reports and working documents.This was followed by a presentation ofpreliminary findings. A first mission (toCroatia) was again followed by a presentation inOslo, quickly followed by missions to the othercountries and territories of operation.

The major – and most successful – of CRP-ledactivities has been provision of vital documentsto displaced persons and members of minoritiesby means of cross-border action through anetwork of offices. This has been supplementedby legal assistance and representation with ahost of conflict-related legal issues, includingrecovery of private real property, pensionrights, tenancy rights, citizenship and residencerights, and labour and employment rights.

CRP staff has shown commitment to providingquality and professional legal services indifficult circumstances. They have actedcreatively and persistently to find solutions tothe problems of clients. They have won thetrust and respect of the beneficiariesthemselves, of the surrounding community, ofnational NGOs and international organizations.They have provided services that are relevantto the target groups. In addition, NRC hasestablished productive and cooperativerelationships with international organizationssuch as UN agencies and the OSCE, enteringinto partnership relations with theseorganizations.

Executive Summary

10

CRP have used the information gained throughlegal representations to advocate for the rightsof its target groups in international fora. Theyhave tenaciously and assiduously fought tosecure these rights, using all available legalavenues. However, due to political obstruction,a host of legal obstacles and poorly functioninglegal and administrative systems – solutionshave been slow in coming. CRP beneficiarieshave been Croatian Serb refugees in Serbia andBosnia, both sides of the Kosovo conflict, andinternally displaced persons.

CRP have been spearheading the provision oflegal services of this kind to the target groupsin question. It has brought professionalism andcommitment to the task. However, the organi-sation has grown in an ad hoc way, expanding inresponse to needs and opportunities, ratherthan following a coherent strategy. Forinstance, expansion was notable in response tothe Kosovo conflict in 1999.

While useful data handling and case trackingsystems have been developed by the project,more could be done to adapt them to reportingrequirements and to the need to compare datato assess rates of success between differentstrategies and offices. Reporting to theMinistry of Foreign Affairs could be improvedsignificantly.

The Civil Rights Project has operated in a greyarea between urgent provision of services and amore long-term goal of restoring the rights ofminorities and the rule of law. Results in thelatter areas have been slow in coming.

CRP could benefit target groups by enhancingcollaboration with them and with nationalNGOs providing similar services. Doing socould help realize a secondary goal, that ofbuilding up sustainable civil society capacity inthe protection of minorities in the placesconcerned. The need for legal aid is likely toincrease in some areas of the former Yugoslaviain the coming years (especially in FRY andCroatia), but could perhaps decrease in Bosnia(depending on the implementation of theProperty Law Implementation Plan) and inKosovo.

The project has generally been cost-effective,but could benefit from a more methodologicalapproach to design and priority setting. Humancapacity in the field of intervention has beenenhanced among CRP personnel, thoughstandards could have been even better withgreater engagement with NGOs from theregion.

The Norwegian Refugee Council could applyelements of the CRP in other contexts, butbefore doing so should undertake thoroughappraisal studies of the places and contexts inquestion, taking fully into consideration thecapacities and interests of local stateadministrations and non-governmental organi-sations. An exit strategy should be in place fromthe moment of engagement in the country. TheCouncil should improve their own capacity inthe area of project design and strategy.

11

The Danish Centre for Human Rights (DCHR)and T & B Consult were responsible forcarrying out the evaluation of Civil RightsProject (CRP), a project run since 1996 by theNorwegian Refugee Council (NRC). Theevaluation team consisted of: Fergus Kerrigan,Lawyer, and Head of Programme (TeamLeader), DCHR, Gunnar Olesen, PoliticalScientist, Consultant, T & B-Consult, FrancescoCastellani, Historian, Project Manager, DCHR,Thomas Birath, Political Scientist, Consultant,T & B-Consult and Anne Marie Garrido,Political Scientist, Project Manager, DCHR

The team was assisted by experts in the region:Srdjan Dizdarevic, Professor, Board member ofHelsinki Committee for Human Rights in BHBosnia-Herzegovina, Bozidar Jaksic, Phil.dr.Head of the Scientific Project, University ofBelgrade, Serbia and Ankica Gorkic, Lawyer,Legal Advisor, Coordinator for Legal AidProject, Serbian Democratic Forum, Croatia

The team would like to express our thanks to theexperts who assisted us in our field studies, theNorwegian Refugee Council and the visitedgovernmental bodies, domestic agencies, andinternational organisations. We further want toexpress our appreciation of the help provided bythe many national NGOs who opened their doorsto the team, providing inspiring arguments andimportant information. Last, but not least, theclients and beneficiaries of this project deserve aword of thanks for the goodwill and opennessthey showed in patiently explaining theirproblems and sharing their insights with us.

1.1 The Context

The last decade of conflicts in South EasternEurope created considerable numbers ofrefugees and internally displaced persons(IDPs) throughout the region; today they countabout 1.2 million. The issues of integrationreturn and compensation are highly politicised.Procedures are bureaucratic, repetive, and hard

to understand. Authorities are often arbitraryand lacking in accountability. National systemsof legal aid are almost non-existent. Thebackground of the project is described in detailin Annex V.

1.2 The Civil Rights Project

CRP was initiated in Eastern Slavonia in mid-1996 in the context of the Erdut Agreement onthe peaceful return of this Serb-controlledterritory to Croatian sovereignty. The projectwas intended to ensure protection of i.a.citizenship, property and tenancy rights of thepopulation (i.e. internally displaced andindigenous Serbs at risk of flight). The largestand most immediate challenge was to assist alarge number of Serbs to secure Croatiancitizenship. One year later, CRP opened anoffice in Novi Sad in the FRY to assist refugeesin dealings with Croatia and Bosnia. Theoperation in Eastern Slavonia was scaled downwith the end of the UNTAES mandate in early1998, though this was balanced by the openingof a sub-office to Novi Sad in Subotica. 1999 wasa year of very significant expansion. Many newoffices were opened, including Sisak (Croatia)in order to work the rights of returnees. In thesame year, CRP opened in Banja Luka. After theinflux of Serbs from Kosovo into southernSerbia in mid-1999 and afterwards, an officewas opened in Kraljevo. 1999 also saw theprogrammes of court representation for clientsin Croatia and a large-scale operation inKosovo, consisting of a main office in Pristinaand eight field offices, covering the wholeterritory and largely financed by UNHCR.While the initial assessment of needs related toethnic Albanian returnees, it quickly becameclear that the group that really neededprotection was the Serbs. Legal aid was in mostcases not really possible, as the judicial andadministrative systems were so weak. Instead,large-scale information and advice activitieswere carried out. In 2001, a sub-office toKraljevo was opened in Nis.

1 Introduction

12

NRC in Oslo have one desk officer devoted tothe projects, and provides input on a policy level(since 2001) from a policy advisor. Anaccountant works on CRP financial reports.

Overall, the largest group served has beenCroatian Serbs, and the largest single activityhas been procurement of basic documents.CRP have tried to sustain a multi-ethnic staffing

policy. Staff have shown considerable loyalty tothe project. CRP aim to couple legal aid withadvocacy activities, where the latter are basedon data and experience gained through thelegal aid activities. CRP sees perhaps itsgreatest strength in its presence in all four ofthe territories mentioned, permitting extensivecross-border legal services.

Table 1. Current Staffing Levels in the CRP

Staff Croatia FRY BiH Kosovo

No. offices 2 5 1 5

Local staff 8 35 6 21

International 1 1 1 3

Completed legal education 5 17 4 19

Total 9 36 7 24

13

The overall objective of the assignment hasbeen to provide an informed analysis of CRPperformance since 1996, looking at therelevance, efficiency, quality, cost effectiveness,administration and management of the project,and its human capacity enhancement. Tasksincluded assessing the contribution of theproject to the development of democracy andthe rule of law; the project’s applicability toother areas of transition; and looking at possibleCRP exit strategies. The study is intended toprovide a framework permitting MFA and NRCto draft plans for the future of CRP and makedecisions on funding matters. While theevaluation team looked at the project as awhole, in practice it meant a series of differentprojects. The team did not distinguish rigidlybetween MFA-supported elements and thosefunded by other donors as this could first havedistorted the picture and second would haveclashed anyway with the aim of examiningcomplementarity. While examining the entirehistory of the CRP projects, the report givessomewhat more emphasis to the present andfuture of the project than to its past.

The process comprised a desk study thatincluded interviews with stakeholders inNorway and an in-depth study of documentarymaterial followed by missions to the field. Thematerial included annual applications andreports to MFA and other donors and reportsconcerning the modus operandi of the project.The team also sought as much relevantdocumentation as possible during visits.

The field study included visits to all CRP officesin the former Yugoslavia. There we becamefamiliar with case types, case flows and case

handling methodologies, prioritisation of cases,internal administration, distribution of tasksand responsibilities, team work, electronicinfrastructure and client interaction. The teamsought to ensure a participatory approach. Thevisits to CRP offices used a variety of methods,including individual staff interviews, generaldiscussions at staff meetings and structuredworkshops. The expert input from the staff tothe evaluation is thus the backbone of theanalysis. In line with the participatory approachof the evaluation, the team has, together withNRC, developed a format for statisticalreporting to be used for the evaluation.

All the field studies included visits torepresentatives of the international community(including Norwegian diplomatic representa-tions) and national NGOs with mandatessimilar to that of the CRP. Seminars were heldwith groups of interested NGOs in Serbia andCroatia where interaction between CRP and thebroader context in terms of complementarity,co-ordination and co-operation was assessed.We also sought to elicit the perception held ofCRP by its peers. These visits were furthersupplemented by visiting national authorities,Ombudsmen and (in Croatia and Kosovo) theBar Association and local judiciary. In Croatia,we also met several CRP-affiliated lawyers. Theevaluation team met beneficiaries and potentialbeneficiaries to assess their knowledge of CRP,its usefulness, and their satisfaction.Beneficiaries were chosen from those visitingthe CRP offices, randomly selected (havingboth pending and terminated cases), and, forcontrol purposes, a number of representativesof beneficiaries that were not CRP.

2 Methodology and Objectives

Statistical material on CRP Croatia’sperformance is only available from 1999onwards. Of all clients 97% were from Croatiaand 99% of the inquiries relate to Croatia. Thedata also shows a peak in clients and inquiriesin 2001. But 2002 is not yet at an end, and thedifference between 2001 and 2002 numbers

may well be less pronounced in the finalreckoning (table 2). According to theinformation received, of the 11,031 requests,CRP Croatia resolved 1,705 cases (15.46%),1,688 (15.30%) cases were cancelled, leaving7,638 inquiries (69.24%) pending.2

15

CRP has, since mid-1996, assisted tens ofthousands of persons in the former Yugoslaviawith a wide variety of legal and administrativematters and problems. It has almost certainlybeen the single largest provider of suchassistance to displaced persons in this region,equipping innumerable victims of conflict withvital elements necessary to make difficultchoices as to their future. This sectionsummarises the substance of legal work doneby CRP. It examines the question of

beneficiaries, and roughly divides CRP’s workby the kind of assistance offered.

3.1 Clients / Beneficiaries / Target Groups

CRP itself has explored its beneficiaries interms of status, i.e. refugee, IDP, returnee orperson at risk of flight (minorities at risk).1 CRPalso produces statistics based on the ethnicityof the beneficiary: Roma, Serb, Croat, Bosniac,Albanian etc.

3 Legal Aid

Table 2. CRP Clients in Croatia

Clients in Croatia by year of reception and country of origin

Origin 1999 2000 2001 2002 Totals

BIH 23 48 44 29 144

Cro 702 1870 3032 2085 7689

Ser 3 9 20 19 51

Mac 0 2 0 0 2

Kos 1 1 27 3 32

Totals 729 1930 3123 2136 7918

Clients' requests in Croatia by year and request-related countries

Country 1999 2000 2001 2002 Totals

BIH 10 41 29 5 85

Cro 216 1305 5780 3607 10908

Ser 1 10 5 5 21

Mac 1 3 1 0 5

Kos 0 0 12 0 12

Totals 228 1359 5827 3617 11031

1) In some instances, it appears that CRP has given assistance to persons not fitting into one of these categories, but who arenevertheless in need of legal assistance for reasons related to the conflicts, e.g. clients with former refugees status and other specificminorities of the domicile population. Additionally, there seems to be some divergence in the definition of target groups by statuspracticed by the different offices.2) The Croatia statistics do not include some 800 cases handled by a staff lawyer.

16

It is also quite clear that refugees from Croatiaform by far the largest CRP-assisted group inSerbia (62%) over the years, followed byrefugees from BiH. IDPs from Kosovo make up17% of the project’s beneficiaries. In 2000, theoffice cases were divided among Croatian Serbswith 72.43%, refugees from BiH with 13.54%with IDPs from Kosovo making up a moderate12.72%. In 2002 IDP cases reached 24.41%,basically the same as the previous year, withinquiries from Croatian Serbs amounting to68.73 % of the total.

Of the 44,230 inquiries dealt with by CRPoffices in Serbia, 9,904 (22.39%) were resolved,3,670 (8.30%) were cancelled, and 30,656(69.31%) are still pending. It should further bementioned that besides CRP’s office, NRC’soffice in Belgrade also implements a UNHCR-founded repatriation programme for CroatianSerb refugees. Up to 2002, NRC had dealt with7,113 cases under this programme

Table 3. CRP Clients in Serbia

Clients in Serbia by year of reception and country of origin

Origin 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Totals

BIH 217 630 1087 2262 724 479 5399

Cro 1285 4242 1423 2676 4454 3347 17427

Ser 15 22 151 186 146 131 651

Mac 1 1 2

Kos 306 1241 1941 1146 4634

Totals 1517 4894 2967 6365 7266 5104 28113

Clients’ requests in Serbia by year and request-related

Country 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Totals

BIH 106 324 981 3284 945 920 6560

Cro 781 8406 2568 4254 5872 6479 28360

Ser 187 60 134 719 3427 1426 5953

Mac 0 0 0 0 1 18 19

Kos 0 0 290 1098 1176 774 3338

Totals 1074 8790 3973 9355 11421 9617 44230

Table 4. Clients in Bosnia

Clients in Bosnia by year of reception and country of origin

Country 1999 2000 2001 2002 Totals

BIH (Fed) 21 156 158 74 409

BIH (RS) 28 319 438 150 935

Cro 51 486 241 129 907

Ser 1 1 3 5

Slo 2 2

Kos 4 2 6

Totals 100 964 842 358 2264

Clients’ Requests in Bosnia by year and request related country

Country 1999 2000 2001 2002 Totals

BIH (Fed) 17 145 172 106 440

BIH (RS) 26 299 440 171 936

Cro 61 508 363 150 1082

Ser 1 2 1 4

Slo 3 1 4

Kos 3 3

Totals 104 956 978 431 2469

17

In Bosnia the total number of inquiries overtime amounted to 2.469. Of these inquiries 1376(55,73%) relate to Bosnia, filed almost entirelyby people originating from Bosnia. Most ofthese inquiries concern RS. The second largestnumber of inquiries (1,082 or 43.82 %) in Bosniawere placed by clients originating from Croatia

and concerned issues related to that country.CRP business in Banja Luka thus reflects thegeneral situation in Bosnia, where the two mainreturn issues are minority returns to RS andreturn of Croatian Serb refugees to Croatiafrom RS.

Table 5. CRP Clients in Kosovo

Kosovo CRP 23 Aug. 99 01 Mar. 00

Clients 29 Feb. 00 % 31 Dec. 00 % 2001 % 2002 % Total %

Albanians 3.656 75% 4.372 65% 3.269 53% 624 33% 11.921 60%

Serbs 802 16% 1.435 21% 1.668 27% 887 47% 4.792 24%

Roma/Askhalia 195 4% 412 6% 941 15% 306 16% 1.854 9%

Others 250 5% 518 8% 300 5% 77 4% 1.145 6%

Totals 4.903 100% 6.737 100% 6.178 100% 1.894 100% 19.712 100%

Cases and clients are declining in number. If thetrend of the first six months of 2002 continues,cases will be down by 2,559 to 4,230 and thenumber of clients by 2,450 to 3,728 in 2002 (a38% drop in cases and 40% drop in clients).

3.1.1 Placement of CRP Offices and Relevance in

Terms of Target Groups

In Kosovo, an initial gearing of the projecttowards the needs of Albanian returnees, to alarge extent founded upon the UNHCR priorityto promote rapid return, proved to be a seriousmiscalculation. In the past years there has beena steady increase in the proportion of minorityclients there, and a corresponding decrease inthe Albanian majority cases. In 2000 there were65 % Albanian cases and for the first six monthsof 2002 the figure is 33%. As many interlocutorsin Kosovo considered minority legal aid to bethe really important area, this also illustrates agenerally sound strategic choice by the NRC.

The total number of inquiries reported to theteam amounts to 77,442 handled by the CRPs infour countries. Most of these (45,582)concerned Serb refugees and IDPs originatingeither from Croatia, BiH or Kosovo. Serbs arethus by far the largest group of beneficiaries,which can easily be explained by the hugenumber of Croatian Serbs remaining displacedin the region (see Annex V). However, it has

also been the consequence of deliberatestrategic choices, based on estimates of needs,such as the location of offices (in RepublikaSrpska, for example). A third factor is one of acertain inevitability: the initial choice toestablish a CRP office in Eastern Slavonia gavethe project an overwhelmingly Serb clientele(and, to a lesser extent, staff). The reality of awar-divided society made it unlikely thatanything other than a tiny number of Croatswould approach the project for assistance asthey also had an option of governmentassistance through state policy. Thus choicesmade in critical situations dictated byimmediate humanitarian agendas and agencieshave a way of dictating the future direction ofwhole programmes. The project has generallycorrectly chooses to help those most in need.The overall balance of the CRP should thus notprimarily be measured by the ethnicity ofclients, but the relevance of areas ofintervention, request dealt with by CRP closelymirror the main legal issues hindering durablesolutions.

The CRP office in Bosnia was opened with theaim of serving refugees from Bosnia (thoughnot exclusively) located in CRP’s areas ofresponsibility in Serbia. In the first year, theoffice assisted a majority of Croatian Serbs,though this has now changed, so that the

18

majority of clients now come from withinBosnia. The Banja Luka office is easy to reachfor Croatian Serb refugees, as most of them arelocated in the Banja Luka area of RS. Itsplacement is also thus highly relevant forminority returns to RS. Also in Serbia, the CRPselected spots close to their beneficiaries andonly opened an office in Belgrade as aconsequence of the cooperation with theUNHCR return project. In Croatia the twooffices are placed in areas where continuedprotection is necessary (Vulkovar) and wherethere is a focus on return (Sisak). Some CRPstaff members did mention the lack of an officein Knin as a problem, but the team found thatCRP seemed to cooperate well with a local NGOin the area. Kosovo offices are now all located inareas relevant to minorities. While the Kraljevooffice was opened primarily to service IDPsfrom Kosovo, it was unable in practice toprovide them with legal assistance in relation toKosovo because of the non-functioning ofinstitutions there. CRP thus to some extentshifted its emphasis to refugees from Croatia.

The statistics also show a pronounced fall off incases in CRP Bosnia. This is the result of aconscious policy aimed at scaling down thevolume of cases and enhancing the generalquality, servicing and impact of cases dealt with.It additionally aims at avoiding an accumulatingnumber of unresolved cases in light of apossible NRC exit.

Inquiries to CRP in Kosovo peaked in 2000 andhave been falling since (see table 6.3 below).CRP Kosovo considers this to be a positivetrend, as it indicates that other legal aidproviders are assisting clients outside theprimary CRP target groups, enabling CRP tofocus more on its own target groups. The fallalso reflects the decision to narrow the focus ontarget groups and cases to be dealt with.

The statistics from CRP offices in Kraljevo andNis show the bulk of clients to be refugees fromCroatia (56% in Nis and 69% in Kraljevo) withIDPs from Kosovo coming up behind (21% inKraljevo and 38% in Nis). This is a bit sur-

prising, considering IDPs are the majoritytarget group in Southern Serbia. It illustratesthe importance of adaptation to local condi-tions, and CRP should consider prioritising amore targeted effort to reach IDPs in SouthernSerbia.

In general, the team found that CRP arereaching the defined target groups. Thecomposition of clients in each country andoverall indicates the success of the project inmeeting regional refugee and IDP needs asindicated by UNHCR statistics. The project isthus highly relevant in terms of beneficiariesreached.

3.2 Categorization by Kind of AssistanceRendered and Relevance of LegalIntervention

CRP’s own statistics place cases in certain“legal types”, including ownership (reposses-sion/reconstruction/other inquiries), pension,health and social security, labour, tenancyrights (repossession/other inquiries), repatria-tion, and then another category coveringdocuments. Annex 4 illustrates case flow formany of the legal matters and annex 5 a generaldescription of some of the legal issues involved.

It is difficult to paint a general picture of thedifferent legal issues because there aresignificant definitional variances betweencountries. For example, CRP Serbia havedefined 45 different legal types, while in CroatiaCRP is operating with 90 different legal types.Any attempt to compare inter-country wouldtherefore be a very precarious exercise. Hencethe overall picture of CRP performance set outhere is at best indicative, based on facts noteasily comparable. For managerial purposes,CRP should continue to develop statisticalperformance reporting through an integratedsystem based on comparable cross-countrycriteria as it is not very useful dealing with avariety of incommensurate definitions.

19

It was, however, possible to compile a list oflegal types on the basis of 8 general categoriesfor CRP Bosnia and CRP Serbia, and for Kosovoa similar overview is provided, but for CRPCroatia the 90 specific types in use rendered asimilar compilation impossible, as some of theitems are not clear and seem to overlap.

However, in a very rough assessment of the11,031 registered inquiries, those under“documents and status” seem to amount to alittle more than 40% of the total, whileownership and pensions issues each clock in ataround 20%.

Table 6.1

Country related requests Kosovoon CRP since opening 1999 % 2000 % 2001 % 2002* % Total %

Housing and property 770 3,27 1.398 5,94 1.005 4,27 348 1,48 3.521 14,96rights

Compensation/ 1.644 6,98 3.829 16,27 415 1,76 83 0,35 5.971 25,37reconstruction

Document issues 179 0,76 1.889 8,03 2.054 8,73 1.033 4,39 5.155 21,90

Pensions 52 0,22 494 2,10 525 2,23 81 0,34 1.152 4,89

Employment 23 0,10 690 2,93 772 3,28 128 0,54 1.613 6,85

Family and matrimonial 37 0,16 22 0,09 83 0,35 38 0,16 180 0,76rights

Humanitarian aid/ 308 1,31 977 4,15 733 3,11 129 0,55 2.147 9,12Social benefits

Other 625 2,66 1.697 7,21 1.202 5,11 275 1,17 3.799 16,14

Total 3.638 15,46 10.996 46,72 6.789 28,84 2.115 8,99 23.538 100,00

*Only up to June 2002

Table 6.2

Country related inquiries Offices in Serbia on CRP since opening Cro % BiH % Ser % Kos % Mac % Total %

Citizenship 329 0,74 29 0,07 429 0,97 6 0,01 0,00 793 1,79

Documents and status 17.573 39,73 773 1,75 3.469 7,84 254 0,57 18 0,04 22.087 49,94

Durable solution 1.947 4,40 197 0,45 67 0,15 174 0,39 0,00 2.385 5,39realisation

Labour 1.458 3,30 461 1,04 33 0,07 439 0,99 0,00 2.391 5,41

Ownership 2.211 5,00 2.646 5,98 241 0,54 1.657 3,75 0,00 6.755 15,27

Pension 2.354 5,32 239 0,54 85 0,19 87 0,20 0,00 2.765 6,25

Tenancy rights 967 2,19 1.661 3,76 13 0,03 35 0,08 0,00 2.676 6,05

Other 1.521 3,44 554 1,25 1.616 3,65 686 1,55 1 0,00 4.378 9,90

Total 28.360 64,12 6.560 14,83 5.953 13,46 3.338 7,55 19 0,04 44.230 100,00

Table 6.3

Country related inquiries Offices in Bosnia on CRP since opening Cro % BiH % Ser % Kos % Slo % Total %

Citizenship 27 1,09 2 0,08 0 0,00 0 0,00 0 0,00 29 1,17

Documents and status 89 3,60 178 7,21 0 0,00 2 0,08 0 0,00 269 10,90

Durable solution 21 0,85 8 0,32 0 0,00 0 0,00 0 0,00 29 1,17realisation

Labour 33 1,34 40 1,62 0 0,00 0 0,00 0 0,00 73 2,96

Ownership 284 11,50 580 23,49 2 0,08 0 0,00 1 0,04 867 35,12

Pension 274 11,10 17 0,69 1 0,04 1 0,04 1 0,04 294 11,91

Tenancy rights 330 13,37 520 21,06 1 0,04 0 0,00 2 0,08 853 34,55

Other 24 0,97 31 1,26 0 0,00 0 0,00 0 0,00 55 2,23

Total 1.082 43,82 1.376 55,73 4 0,16 3 0,12 4 0,16 2.469 100,00

20

In general questions related to “documents andstatus” seem to be very important everywhere,especially in Serbia, but also in Croatia andKosovo. In Bosnia the picture differs withownership and tenancy rights issuespredominating. This may be the result of theprioritisation of cases mentioned in section 3.1above. Housing rights, ownership and tenancyrights are also universally important issues –followed by labour and pension rights. Therange of legal issues dealt with by NRC in theCRP project corresponds thus closely to themain legal refugee and IDP-relevant issues

identified by the IC and concerned NGOs in theregion. CRP have become deeply involved in allmajor legal issues hindering durable solutionsto the refugee and IDP question in the region,making their intervention in terms of legalissues dealt with highly relevant. CRPprogressed from dealing with the most urgentissues such as of citizenship and documents, toaddressing more complex ones. In general itmust be said that CRP have respondedappropriately to the various kinds of casearising.

The Legal Aid Pyramid

RepresentationAssistance

AdviceInformation

Large-scale legal aid programmes shouldusually be designed with a pyramidal structure,so that services provided at the lower levelsreduce the need (though not always thedemand) for legal advice can be lessened bywidespread provision of legal information.Legal assistance usually means helping theclient to state some form of claim vis-à-vis athird party, whereas representation usuallyinvolves provision of legal counsel in aproceeding before a court or other adjudicativetribunal. The team has used these workingdefinitions.

While this kind of approach has been followedby CRP in a general way, it has not been done

systematically. Both in relation to its ownactions and its coordination with other legalservice providers CRP could benefit from a“subsidiarity principle”: CRP managers shouldask what is the effect desired and for how manyactual and potential beneficiaries. Interventionsat the lower levels of the pyramid should alwaysbe fully considered before applying higherones. Particularly worthwhile options to pursuein mass casework are training others to provideelementary services and trying relievepressure on legal services by providing legalinformation through print and other media –brochures, radio programmes, informationvideos, etc.

21

In the following text, the report follows theabove division for purposes of illustration. Weare aware that this division is absolutely notwatertight: there are pensions cases wherelawyers were not assigned, and labour cases(particularly in Kosovo) where courtrepresentation has been given, often precededby the provision of legal advice, and possiblyassistance with obtaining relevant documents.

3.2.1 Information

Dissemination of information on rights andlegal options amongst the target group is a CRPpriority. CRP’s cross border nature is a clearadvantage in the dissemination of information,as CRP often have access to the latest reliablelegal and procedural developments acrossborders. The mobile teams are important assetsin the effort to reach out to ever expandingtarget groups, increasing the areas covered,enabling provision of assistance andinformation to those that are most difficult toreach. In Bosnia, the CRP office ensurescomplementarity with other organisations byavoiding areas served by other organisations. Agood deal of CRP’s work in southern Serbia(particularly of the mobile teams) consists ofinforming and advising refugees of the UNHCRand Croatian and Bosnian governmentprogrammes for return, and assisting people toavail of them, and similar assistance in BiH. It isclosely related to the question of documentation.In Kosovo, the mobile teams have played aparticularly important role in bringing legalinformation to the enclaved communities.

Much general information is also available atCRP offices. At the Subotica and Novi Sadoffices, for instance, detailed information onhumanitarian aid provided by different organi-sations, including intervention procedures andcriteria and contact information, is hung on thewalls of the waiting room. At the initial stages ofthe project, CRP printed posters informingabout CRP services and, in Serbia, CRP haveprinted “right to return posters” as part of anECHO-funded campaign.

CRP media activities are most apparent inSerbia where CRP have produced document-

aries on return to Croatia and BiH, and producedTV and radio spots. Of note is the funding byNRC of a seemingly successful radio project inthe Kraljevo area where national NGOs assistedpromoting and broadcasting radio shows as partof a campaign to fight xenophobia in the area,where resentment of IDPs from Kosovo waswidespread. The use of electronic media did notseem to be part of a coherent, regional PR-strategy. The Refugee Radio Network, a networkof local radio stations assisted by the DanishRefugee Council in Bosnia, could be useful forCRP to achieve regional coverage and develop aregional PR-strategy. CRP in Serbia disseminateinformation through the UNHCR-fundedmonthly magazine “Pravi Odgovor” for refugees,which is widely distributed. NRC/CRP occupythe two middle pages (and occasionally more) forlegal information.

CRP in Serbia published a tenancy rights leafletand a calendar, distributed to clients anddifferent agencies. In Bosnia the evaluationteam found no CRP leaflets for disseminatinginformation. The team was informed that CRPhad spent some time developing informationbrochures on reconstruction assistance inCroatia, but dropped the project when UNHCRpublished theirs. There may have been a lack ofcoordination in this instance.

3.2.2 Advice

CRP offices are generally open to clients 3–5days a week, and clients come either byappointment or simply show up. Particularly inthe early phases of CRP operations, enormousnumbers of people were knocking at CRP’sdoors. Mobile clinics have been widely used asadvice centres, and are still part of the CRPprojects in Kosovo and southern Serbia.Statistics for visits were usually kept on amonthly basis. Advice is given in relation to allCRP “legal types” and often leads to assistanceor representation. The offices vary significantlyin their approach to the form and scope ofcounselling and the information provided.

3.2.2.1 Ownership – Reconstruction

CRP offices provide counselling on state andNGO-funded humanitarian aid, such as, e.g.,

22

reconstruction of property. In Croatia, the stateprovided funds for the reconstruction of war-damaged homes, with an application periodexpiring at the end of 2001. In NRC’s case, thisfits neatly with the shelter programmes.

3.2.3 Assistance

3.2.3.1 Documents

Assisting people to obtain basic documents hasbeen CRP’s single largest activity, and the mostsuccessful. CRP has helped to obtain tens ofthousands of vital documents. The servicefulfils a key CRP aim crucial to clients: it givesthem the elementary tools to make decisionsconcerning their future. It is the first step inreconstructing legal identity and essential inasserting other rights. Kosovo workingbooklets for example, document years ofservice for pension purposes (usually forminorities in Kosovo) or show that an IDP isstill formally employed and entitled to a salary.The existence of cross-border networks(initially, CRP’s own offices, but later includingnetworking with other NGOs) has been vital inthis respect.

Less visibly, CRP, through the sheer extent oftheir work in this area, make a considerablecontribution to normalizing access to admini-strative channels for minorities. Manyinterlocutors testified to a typical process inCroatia where a local authority would start bybeing resistant or openly hostile to inquiries,but gradually opening up by dint of sheerpersistence. This persistence is often empha-sised as characteristic of CRP operations bothby CRP offices themselves and partners such asthe UNHCR.

In Kosovo, a substantial part of CRP resourcesis devoted to assisting members of minoritygroups to obtain personal documents, whichmany members of the Roma and Askalia groupshave never possessed. While official obstaclesto obtaining documents have diminished ordisappeared, NRC assistance to these groups totackle the authorities remains of considerablevalue. In a significant number of casesconcerning Kosovo, registries have either beendestroyed, misplaced, or the client is lacking

documents and is not registered anywhere. Ifdocuments or registration are lacking it is notpossible to legalize a Power of Attorney (PoA).CRP Serbia and Kosovo provide mutualassistance to one another in respect of theseproblems.

Although IDPs are FRY citizens, they faceserious documentation and registrationproblems, rendering them unable to enjoyrights on an equal basis with other citizens.Officially recognised IDPs face the problem ofnot being allowed to re-register theirpermanent residence from Kosovo to Serbia,threatening their freedom of movement. This isdue to the refusal of the Serbian authorities (thepolice) to allow IDPs to de-register theirpermanent residence in Kosovo.

A second problem involves the substantialgroup of unrecognized IDPs, who, by virtue oftheir lack of a recognized address, lose theirright to free health care and are forced to liveunder terrible conditions, often deprived of foodand the services provided by internationalorganizations to recognized IDPs. These IDPslive in unrecognized collective centres,(properties occupied without permission of theowner) due to the desperate lack of organisedcentres for IDPs in Serbia. The SerbianCommissioner for Refugees underlined theefforts of the government to finalize a law onIDPs tackling these issues. This and otherrelated problems are areas in which both CRPSerbia and the evaluation team felt that CRPshould do more.

3.2.3.2 Naturalization Cases

Particularly for persons who lacked RepublicCitizenship of the former Yugoslav federatedrepublic of Croatia in SFRY, obtainingcitizenship or proof thereof frequently involvedcontentious proceedings with the authorities oradministrative court. NRC pursued these casesvery assiduously during and immediately afterthe UNTAES mandate period. Its advocacy ontheir behalf did produce results, in the form ofcases finally handled.

23

3.2.3.3 Durable solutions – Integration

“Integration means losing refugee status,right to accommodation, and right toassistance” (CRP Serbia staff member tothe team)

Officially, FRY encourages integration ofrefugees through acquisition of citizenship. Butit is a difficult choice because it means refugeeslose their right to housing and modesteconomic assistance. For IDPs the situation iseven more difficult as they are often in a legallimbo as non-refugees and de facto non-citizens,and cannot produce documents demanded bythe authorities. Though CRP are very engagedand imaginative in the often successful attemptsto retrieve documents for IDPs and adviserefugees on integration and/or repatriationmatters, there seems to be little or no discus-sion or ideas of how to generally advocate withthe authorities for a smoother integration ofrefugees. There seems to be a tacit under-standing on the part of CRP that repatriation ispreferable to integration. Legal assistance givento IDPs does not seem to effectively combat thetendency of opaque bureaucracies to keepsome IDPs in a state of de facto segregation intheir own country.

3.2.3.4 Durable Solutions – Assistance with Return

CRP Serbia have implemented a UNHCR-funded project assisting refugees to return toCroatia based upon an agreement on organizedreturn procedures. This has not been withoutproblems. Applicants for return could request a“criminal record check” via UNHCR in order toobtain information concerning possible pendingcriminal procedures. Unfortunately this proce-dure proved misleading as some arrests tookplace despite the check not showing anything.On the other hand, CRP Serbia have made astrong effort to assist clients with so-called “NoMoI” cases, meaning refugees who hadproblems returning to Croatia as the Ministryof Interior denied having any valid records ofthem. CRP have followed up on such cases,providing necessary personal documents, andhere the cross border network proved crucial.

3.2.3.5 Property and Tenancy Repossession in

Bosnia

The CRP office in Banja Luka were very activein ensuring physical repossession of properties.The municipal office was pleased with CRP’sefforts to promote the cases of Croatian Serbs,refugees often living as illegal occupants in theBanja Luka area and now in danger of beingevicted following the recent change in PLIPstrategy.

CRP make a large difference both in pushingfor decisions by the authorities and in respect ofthe execution of the decision with the PLIPauthorities. Given the PLIP mandate ofensuring an impartial and smooth handling ofproperty cases, CRP channel all of its casesthrough this body, leading to a somewhathigher success rate. This illustrates CRP’spersistence, a quality stressed by CRP staff,national NGOs and international organisationsalike as a key characteristic of their work. CRPpersistence in these cases is particularlyimportant, as the lack of a bilateral agreementon legal aid between Bosnia and FRY meansthat PoAs issued in FRY are not valid in Bosnia,and, consequently, that the CRP in FRY cannotrequest the services of lawyers in BiH.3 CPR inBosnia have not found the PLIP to be veryeffective in its area of operation, and do notalways use it. Property repossession often goestogether with other problems, such aspensions. CPR Bosnia see its assistance withreinstatement of pensions as important infurthering durable solutions.

3.2.3.6 Kosovo

CRP Kosovo and Serbia pursue repossessioncases on behalf of IDP owners whoseproperties in Kosovo are occupied by AlbanianKosovars or are the subject of illegitimate rentalagreements between the latter andinternational workers in Kosovo. Some KFORcontingents also occupy properties in Kosovowithout any legal right. CRP Kosovo havecriticised both this and the UNMIK failure toestablish a claims commission, workingtogether with the Ombudsperson. CRP Kosovo

3) See case flow illustration in annex 4.

24

also assist people to register their claims withthe HPD. As HPD usually insists on theclaimant coming to their office in person, itconsists mostly of advising them as to theprocedure and transporting them to the HPDoffices. CRP have not so far played significant arole in relation to securing a favourableoutcome in the adjudication of the claim(though it has assisted some clients to preparerequests for reconsideration of HPD decisions).The Kosovo team noted that in cases related toproperty and employment, which are importantfor the minority, solutions have been very rare.

3.2.3.7 Labour and Employment Issues

CRP have also provided assistance in labourcases, mainly related to Eastern Slavonia andKosovo. A short account of the background tothe Eastern Slavonia cases is found in annex V.

Labour issues also arise in Serbia in relation toIDPs from Kosovo, where the team heardevidence of unequal treatment given to ethnicSerbs on one hand and Roma on the other. Bothgroups include employees who were forced toflee their homes and jobs in Kosovo in 1999.The Serbian authorities, according to thisaccount, have continued to pay salaries toSerbs, but not to Roma and other minorityIDPs. CRP have stated that they wish to takeaction on questions such as this to a greaterextent in the future. The team agree that it ishighly relevant concern, though discriminationof Roma people may go beyond the IDP remit.

3.2.4 In-court Representation

“It is important that you demonstrate to theclient that all possibilities are used” (CRPlegal advisor in Kosovo)

Croatian Serb refugees and returnees havereceived the greatest volume of courtrepresentation in cases before Croatian courts.In addition to the Croatian cases, some 142 CRPcases have been brought before courts inKosovo (many labour related cases, a key issuefor minority groups, as well as some concerning

commercial rental property). In Serbia, therehave been two important court cases withpositive, though not final, decisions concerningminority tenancy repossession – one at theSupreme Court and one at the Municipal Courtin Belgrade.

There are no explicit criteria for when courtrepresentation will be given, though there aregeneral practices and common understandings.The Banja Luka office seem to have comeclosest to developing criteria, screeningapplications to clarify the legal facts, assess thepotential impact of the cases and thevulnerability of the clients. Where CRP offercourt representation, the preliminary legalwork is all done by CRP jurists (often across theborder in BiH or FRY), using standardized legalpleas as a rule. This method ensures a certainquality and reduces the costs of external legalassistance. The external lawyer in practice onlyappears in court, making at most minormodifications to the plea. In addition to payinglawyers, NRC’s own staff in Croatia oftenrepresent clients in court with power ofattorney. This may be jeopardized in Croatiabecause of legal proceedings against NRC stafffor unauthorized practice of law.

The main legal areas in which in-courtrepresentation has been given are summarizedbelow.

3.2.4.1 Ownership – Property Repossession in

Croatia4

CRP only accept property repossession caseswhere the client wishes to return and repossesstheir property. Those who wish to sell theproperty in question and integrate in FRY aregenerally dismissed and referred to the APNauthority in Croatia instead, which has themandate to buy such property. CRP areattempting to explore the workings of the newlaw by bringing private suits in cases where thebureaucratic formalities of the handoverprocedure have not been completed by theMinistry. It is worth noting that, despite all of

4) See Annex IV for a description of the case flow regarding repossession of property in Croatia. Annex V contains a summaryaccount of the property repossession issue.

25

the feet-dragging described above, this issue isperhaps the only major area of court litigationin Croatia in which CRP can ultimately be verysure of success. Fundamentally, the Croatianstate has no valid arguments against the right ofpersons to the enjoyment of their own privateproperty, and even quite conservative Croatianlegal scholars are in disagreement with the newlaw for this reason. Government officials saythat the only real obstacle is financial – findingthe funds to construct new houses for theremaining occupiers.

All indications are that legal aid for privaterecovery suits will be a necessary part of thesystem, both as a prick to the public prosecutorto pursue eviction cases against illegaloccupiers and as an independent means ofrecovering homes. Though the figure of 8,000occupied properties was used in severalinterviews, the need to construct about 3,000new homes was also mentioned. Thus, in thisarea at least, the need for court representationin Croatia is likely to increase.

There is also the possibility of a morecooperative relationship with the MPWRC. Inan interview, the assistant minister claimed that5,000 vacated properties (in poor condition)had simply gone unclaimed by the owners. Hesaid that MPWRC had requested the assistanceof an NGO in locating them. This may well be atask with which NRC could help.

3.2.4.2 Ownership – Other

This category includes a variety of mattersrelating to private real property, includinginheritance questions, and to propertypreviously owned by private cooperatives.

3.2.4.3 Pension, Health and Social Security

Pensions cases in Croatia constitute anothermajor area of CRP legal aid work. A great manyof them concern the non-payment of pensionarrears for the years 1991–95 for Serbs wholived in the Serb controlled areas or in the FRY

during that period (and even after – some didnot reassert claims to their pensions until aslate as 1999). The CRP affiliated lawyers inSisak estimated that about 80% of the courtcases they had taken for NRC concernedpension arrears. While there were some earlypositive decisions from Croatian courts inrespect of the obligation of the CroatianPension Fund to pay arrears for pensions notpaid in the years 1991 – 1995, the courts soonstopped issuing such judgements. CRP Croatiastatistics mention 541 pension cases going tocourt.5 Two were finally resolved, the other 539remain pending at various stages of appeal,after denials by the pension fund(s). Annex VIgives a description of the grounds on whichpension claims have been denied by courts andadministrative bodies. One application has beenmade to the European Court of Human Rights.

CRP has invested considerable resources inthese cases, both in terms of the work done byown staff and in fees paid to external lawyers.Relevance must be assessed, inter alia, inrelation to the chances of success with these legalactions. This is difficult for the team as neitherNRC itself nor other NGOs seem to haveproduced written analyses of or advocacymaterial on the pensions issue in English.Neither the Deputy Ombud, otherwise often aCRP ally, nor another very senior legal expert,were optimistic about the chances of success,mentioning the arguments on prescription andreceipt of pensions from other sources (seeannex VI). Important pending cases have yet tobe decided on by the Croatian Supreme Courtand Constitutional Courts (and by theEuropean Court of Human Rights, in theapplication submitted there) so there is littleauthoritative guidance to go by. Depending onthe outcome of a sample of these cases, wherethe various arguments noted above have beenaired, CRP will have to assess the options and toevaluate whether it is worth the expense topursue new cases of this kind.

5) The Croatia statistics on court representation are rather unclear, including for example “court procedure” (118 cases), and“lawsuit” (301 cases) as separate categories. As all court representation by definition includes court procedure and lawsuits, thesecategories are meaningless. Other inaccuracies in the statistics result from the non-inclusion of hundreds of cases where the CRPlegal advisor in Sisak has provided representation.

26

3.2.4.4 Tenancy Rights6

Generally, tenancy rights were terminated inone of two ways: by the operation of a speciallaw (so-called ex lege terminations), and bymeans of a judicial procedure laid down underpre-independence legislation. NRC and othershave seemingly concluded that there are nofurther legal avenues to pursue in relation tothe ex lege terminations. Another NGO, theSerbian Democratic Forum, informed the teamof a plan to deposit 1,400 legal complaints inrelation to these terminations, but seeminglymore as a symbolic gesture than in any hope ofobtaining any remedy. Recent statements fromNRC indicate that a recent judgment of theConstitutional Court may offer an opening.

NRC have, through the scale of theirintervention, led the way in litigation of caseson tenancy terminations by judicial procedure.Despite the obvious injustice, prospects of legalsuccess with these cases appear to be verylimited, mainly because of the prescriptionissue. While the evaluation team obviously doesnot claim to have legal authority on thesematters, it does seem that the “old” judicialdecisions terminating the tenancies are in thenature of “instantaneous acts” rather thancontinuing situations. In the Loizidou case,7 thecrucial point was whether the applicant couldstill be regarded as the owner of the property inquestion. According to Croatian law, formertenants are no longer the “owners” of thetenancy rights, both because of the terminationprocedure, and because these rights them-selves no longer exist as a legal category. Theteam doubts therefore that a Strasbourgjudgment of the kind above would requireCroatia to give redress in respect of all of thecases that were not reopened, or open the wayto a flood of such suits. On the other hand, wedo recognize that a decision of this kind wouldhave enormous moral and advocacy value, andwould thus be a significant tool in NRC’s

advocacy efforts to press Croatia to compensatethose who had lost their tenancy rights.

3.3 Quality of Legal Aid Work

3.3.1 Four Parameters Have Been Used to Measure

Quality

i) Assessment of Peers / Colleagues;The quality of CRP’s work was widely praisedby NGOs, international organizations, nationalauthorities, the Ombudsman, affiliated lawyers,and even the courts in Croatia and BiH.8 Onearea of difficulty is however with the CroatianBar Association. Suits have been brought in thecourts against CRP staff for unauthorizedpractice of law. There is perhaps a concern thatthreats of suits like this against CRP staff couldhave a deleterious effect on CRP jurists’willingness and ability to contest all legalmatters zealously: the threat of action by ajudge or other party could have a constrainingeffect on CRP jurists in court proceedings.

In Bosnia the quality of CRP work was praisedby everybody in the international community,by the Dept. Ombudsman of BiH and by allother authorities. Particularly important wasCRP’s capacity to provide “a full package” oflegal aid services, especially including courtrepresentation in countries of origin.

ii) Observation by the Team (IncludingChecklist)The team used a checklist when assessing CRPoffices. Observations confirmed good practicein terms of handling of clients’ files, a pleasantand professional manner among CRP staff,rigorous respect of legal deadlines. Insulatedareas were available for client consultations.The CRP database is an excellent case-trackingtool. Some offices could enhance their waitingrooms by providing brochures and putting upinformation posters on issues relating torefugees and IDPs. The offices of Novi Sad andSubotica are a model in this respect. In the

6) A summary explanation of the issue of tenancy rights in Croatia is contained as annex to this report.7) Case no. 40/1993/435/514, judgment of 28 November 1996.8) One instance was mentioned in which returnees had been moved from a collective centre in a CRP area in the third quarter of2001 without CRP having been able to provide legal services to them over a period of a few months. The team was unable toinvestigate this further, but suspects that there may have been some capacity problems given CRP’s workload at the time.

27

offices in Banja Luka, however, one noted thatclosed cases were stored on a shelf in the officeof the legal assistants, thus easily accessible. InSisak, this was the situation with all case files,current and closed. If possible, ways should beexplored to ensure complete confidentiality andsecurity of client files.

iii) Satisfaction Among BeneficiariesThe team had a number of interviews withbeneficiaries, selected at random amongstvisitors to the offices, through improvisedhome visits and visits to collective centres. Thebeneficiaries all tended to be satisfied with theassistance received. The need for counselling isclearly widespread. In Kosovo there is a greatneed for legal aid to help redress the situationin which the minority population findthemselves. Minority beneficiaries, especiallyamong enclave-based minorities in Kosovo,expressed particular satisfaction. Lastly, as CRPstaff pointed out, the continuing demand forCRP services among the beneficiary groups is atestament to the trust felt by them for CRP.

iv) Results AchievedTo a large extent, achievements have alreadybeen discussed in the preceding sections. CRPstatistics attest to high rates of success inobtaining documents. Information and adviceactivities are typically more difficult to measure,though the indications are that informationcirculated by the various players, includingNRC, has tended to reach refugees andreturnees. The indications are that this is nottrue to the same extent for IDPs, especiallythose belonging to minority groups. Moving onto the more difficult problems faced by CRPclients, outcomes seem generally inverselyproportional to the complexity of the cases. Thelarge majority of solutions are found within the“lighter” cases related to lost documents. Therehas been substantial success with propertyrepossession in BiH, through the admini-strative procedure. Litigation cases are tied upin court for long periods. The question ofwhether they will eventually produce positiveresults for clients is addressed below.

3.3.2 Evaluating the Effect of In-court

Representation by CRP

In evaluating CRP in-court representation wemust take account of several factors. Caseprocessing is extremely slow due to backlogs atthe courts. Secondly, court representation isgiven mostly in relation to issues where CRPclients face a welter of legal obstacles and stiffresistance from the Croatian state. For thesereasons, virtually no cases have actually beenwon, as confirmed by CRP statistics. All lawyersand legal aid systems must ask whether aparticular case is worth spending money andresources on. At some point, there must be acut-off point beyond which it is not prudent topursue cases with no realistic chance ofsuccess, whatever the moral justice of theclaim. In many other contexts, a legal aidstrategy would be to take a few strong cases tothe courts to win a decision of principle onissues of importance. Depending on theoutcome of such cases, decisions related to thepursuance of further claims within the samearea could be taken. While it may be arguedthat Croatia does not have a system based onprecedent, this is only partially true. The role ofthe Constitutional Court (including judicialreview) introduces elements of a precedentsystem, as has been seen in other countriesemerging from socialist law – lower courts donot contradict its judgments. ECHR rulings aresure to reinforce this tendency.

CRP has instead pursued very large numbers ofsimilar cases in the courts, without being sureof legal success. NRC (like other NGOsproviding similar services in Croatia) protestthat it is worthwhile pursuing these casesregardless. It cites a close relationship betweenindividual casework and advocacy, bringingattention to the issues raised and injusticesdone. Other factors, including significantdivergence among individual courts, are alsocited.

Whatever the merits of such arguments, theteam’s view is also that CRP’s reporting has notmade sufficiently clear the low rate of successin “winning cases”. As things stand, anobserver might conclude that NRC were trying

28

to hide poor results. We do not think that is thecase. Thus, NRC should be explicit in its viewsand strategy. In future, CRP should also makeuse of the possibilities offered by its databaseand network of offices to assess the utility ofpursuing particular kinds of case through thecourts. It may be necessary to revise thewisdom of pursuing so many pension andtenancy cases.

Consideration should also be given to impactvis-à-vis project goals. As was stated above,NRC’s work has been weighted towards thereturn option rather than local integration. Ofcourse, the choice of option depends to a largeextent upon a number of issues – not allnecessarily of a legal character. Success withimmediate goals does not always lead tosuccess with the larger ones. People continuedto flee Eastern Slavonia during the period ofintervention there, and the same was true ofKosovo.

3.3.3 Relevance in Relation to MFA Priorities

A distinction should be made betweencompliance with obligations of a formal natureand of a more substantive character. MFApriorities can be ascertained from two sources:(i) the Report to the Storting no 13(Stortingsmelding no. 13) and (ii) the objectiveslaid down in the agreed project documents, (theapproved funding applications). These are of avery general character which raises thequestion whether the MFA could be moreexplicit in setting priorities for the project. Itwould be difficult to do this without moredetailed reporting from NRC. It may beadvisable for the Section for Western BalkanAffairs to look into its own resources in thisfield, and be more demanding in terms ofproject strategy, clearly identifiable objectives,outputs and indicators, both in relation toproject design and reporting. There could begreater rigour in the design of projectdocuments.9

3.3.4 Relevance in Relation to Issues and Changing

Legal Phases

As indicated in the discussions above, sometarget groups have, in practice, been favouredabove others. It is possible through proactivemeasures and organisational profile to attract acertain kind of case. An example can be seenfrom Serbia where CRP, through their principalfocus on the Croatian return issue, left otherfields open to others. The Humanitarian LawCentre in Belgrade, for example, havevigorously pursued cases against FRY forrefoulement of refugees from Bosnia and illegaldrafting into militia groups there. The Centrehas also assisted Roma people under threat ofeviction from an unrecognized settlement inBelgrade and consequent homelessness. Thus,while in Croatia, CRP generally have taken acombative stance vis-à-vis the state, theopposite prevails in FRY. Part of the explanationis that those with the greatest problems inSerbia (unrecognised IDPs or non-registeredRoma IDPs) cannot be helped by way of purely,or even principally, legal means. Working withthese problems would involve a strategy basedmuch more on advocacy at the national level.

The question of the project’s capacity to adaptto changing legal phases and regimes is to alarge extent considered in the precedingsubstantive sections. One can say that legalregimes change because of changes insubstantive law, in the formal architecture oflegal systems, and in the capacity of suchsystems or their methods of work. NRC havebeen quick to adapt to changes in substantivelaw, exploring the (as it happened very limited)possibilities of the Croatian Programme ofReturn. It is well-informed and ready to do thesame in relation to the more promising changesadopted in July 2002. (See Annex VI and thesection on in-court representation.) NRC havealso been proactive in trying to procurechanges in law and practice, as in relation to thelack of a claims mechanism in Kosovo (also asdiscussed elsewhere in this report). The

9) Sections entitled “objectives” are often descriptive and lacking in specifics (SMART criteria could be useful).

29

combination of advocacy with casework givespossibilities to maximise effect in this respect.

Likewise, NRC has adapted to proceduralchanges, such as the PLIP in Bosnia, using andexploring this, and coming to qualified con-clusions as to when it is best used. Occasionally,there have been incorrect assumptions as to theoperational time-frames of legal systems, as inKosovo in the beginning of the programmethere. To some extent, decisions to move intonew legal phases, such as the beginning oflarge scale litigation in Croatia, have comeentirely from the demand side, in terms ofclient’s needs. There is no evidence that NRCundertook a preliminary study of, or madeestimates concerning, likely prospects forcasehandling periods. As the CRP is an aid-financed project with one year grants, we feelthat such planning would have beenappropriate.

3.3.5 Complementarity on Case Level

Here the evaluation team focused on sharing oftasks with other legal aid providers (includingclient referrals with UNHCR, OSCE, andNGOs. As figures were not available, whatfollows is based partly on impressions. NRCappears to regard itself as the primus legal aidplayer inter pares, given its greater resources,experience, higher quality of staff, workpractices and organisational set up. Thisappraisal is shared by many, especiallyinternational observers; it also reflects CRP’sfocus on cooperation with international ratherthan national organisations.

Collaboration between CRP and UNHCR hasdeveloped over time, and CRP have at timescontributed to improvements in UNHCRprocedures, as noted above.10 The high numberof referrals by international organisations suchas the OSCE and UNHCR was also noted. InBosnia the UNHCR would have appreciatedeven closer collaboration with NRC/CRP if ithad been possible to find the necessaryfunding. OHCHR say they would alsoappreciate closer cooperation with NRC/CRP

and mentioned a planned OHCHR/UNDP“Municipal Assessment Programme” as apossible opening in that direction. It was quiteclear that with the channelling of institutionalcapacity mainly towards Croatian Serb refugeesthe CRP had a speciality of their own in theBosnian context, appreciated not least by theBosnian Ombudsman institution. It againtestifies to the value of CRP’s cross-bordercapabilities. OHR underlined the importance ofthe documentation provided by CRP whichsometimes proved essential in talks with theauthorities, particularly Croatian authorities,concerning return of refugees from Bosnia.

More specifically, NRC regards itself to becomplementary to the others by its higherconcentration on and – in Kosovo – greaterexperience in tackling minority issues. Theevaluation team has not observed anyduplication of work due to the large need of thetarget groups. Collaborative routines aregenerally not as well established with NGOs.Some sharing of labour does exist between theCRP and other NGO providers of legal aid,though mostly in the shape of informalagreements on the geographical distribution ofoffices. The scope and quality of cooperationvaries significantly from office to office. InCroatia and Serbia informal agreements onreferrals in document procurement cases existwith DOS, SDF and the NHLO network. Thenational NGOs refer cases to CRP when theirown expertise and/or resources fall short.

While other NGO legal aid providers workingwith refugees and minorities in Croatia haveformed a Legal Services Coalition, NRC has sofar not participated. Doing so could lead to thecreation of larger referral systems, a nationaladvocacy platform, a clear division of labour andthus better services to a larger proportion ofthe target group. CRP enjoy high respectamong these organizations and they wouldwholeheartedly welcome CRP into the fold.Although the Croatian Bar Association appearshostile to the project (because of its support forlegal actions brought against a CRP staff

10) See section 3.2.3, on procedures for return to Croatia.

30

member for unauthorised practice of law), it ison record as stating that its pro bono legal aidprogramme is open to receiving applicationsfrom CRP clients for legal representation. Thiswould seem to be worth exploring, both interms of promoting understanding of legalissues related to refugees and minorities among

an important and influential group, and in termsof the concrete (and free) legal assistancewhich would be made available. CRP shouldtake the CBA at its word and facilitate thetransmission of applications, at least on a trialbasis.

31

“CRP has to attack the government fortaking away the right to change permanentresidence status, which basically is aviolation of the constitutional order” (CRPstaff member in Serbia on IDP situation)

CRP aim to use data and insights obtained fromcasework as a basis for action vis-à-vis theauthorities to find solutions. Although CRPhave not formulated any specific advocacystrategy, various advocating initiatives havebeen taken over time, most comprehensively in2002 with the publication of a study of courtdecisions in tenancy rights cases in Croatia.NRC have also produced advocacy material inrelation to property repossession cases inCroatia. They have not yet done so in relation topensions.

Advocacy initiatives consist both of formalwritten analyses of the above kind, and lettersand informal contacts and talks between CRP,the authorities and international actors onremoving obstacles to durable solutions. Thisapproach has produced some success inrelation to the citizenship question in Croatiaand the related “no MOI” cases. The latter formof advocacy is less well documented, exceptperhaps in relation to the UNTAES period,when relationships with the UN Authority wereparticularly close and the power of the latterextensive. In general it seems that the largerpart of public advocacy initiatives have beenconnected to the rights of Croatian Serbs inCroatia.

CRP have pursued relatively “silent” advocacyin the sense of informing the internationalcommunity in order to enable it to applypressure for change on national authorities.These initiatives have been taken when projectshave failed to reach a satisfactory conclusionfor clients through the ordinary procedures, orin tandem with them. Using hard data fromcase handling experience was highly praised byrepresentatives of the international communitywho said that the thorough documentation

provided by CRP was crucial in backing upcriticism of the authorities and makingsuggestions for change.

The team received samples of advocacymaterial on specific issues of which one was therequest for reduction or elimination ofadministrative fees for handling applications forrenunciation of citizenship of BiH. In 2001 NRCcommunicated with the Minister of Civil Affairsand Communication, the Minister for Treasuryof the Institutions of BiH and the head ofdepartment of Legal Affairs at OHR on thismatter and the fee was subsequently dropped.In the spring of 2001, in a concerted action byNRC offices in Croatia, Yugoslavia and BiH,diplomatic missions of the Republic of Croatiain Yugoslavia and BiH were informed of theopportunity accorded owners and co-owners offamily houses and apartments damaged by thewar to submit requests for reconstructionthrough diplomatic missions. In Serbia, CRPalso provided evidence of their interventionwith the Republic Ministry of Justice and LocalSelf-government concerning difficulties inobtaining excerpts from registry bookstransferred from Kosovo to Central and SouthSerbia. and asking them to take issue with themalfunctioning administration. In Kosovo themost cited case of advocacy concerns thealleged abuse by UNMIK of its immunity forseizing property and impeding “forced bycircumstances” sale of empty Serb property inKosovo. CRP emphasized that such stepsviolated the human right to property, andtherefore should be addressed by theOmbudsman, as has been the case. Thisincident was also on the mind of CRP Serbia asthe owners of the mentioned properties areliving as IDPs in Serbia.

Beside these “triangle” advocacy interventionsinvolving CRP, the authorities and internationalcommunity, CRP have also provided documen-tation for the UN Committee on Elimination ofAll Forms of Racial Discrimination in 2002, theUN Commission on Human Rights in 2002, and

4 CRP’s Advocacy Work

32

a briefing note for the special Representative ofthe Commission on Human Rights on a visit toBiH in July 2001 and to FRY in August 2001.CRP have also shared their specialist know-ledge with the IC on, for instance, the writing ofUN publications.11 These examples are by nomeans an exhaustive presentation of the CRP’sadvocacy efforts, merely an indication of thetypes of advocacy involved. They show highlevels of cooperation and synergy withinternational organs, but also point to someinherent limitations. As mentioned above,CRP’s advocacy has not raised the integrationof refugees and the situation of IDPs at thepolitical level in Serbia.

National NGOs, who in general praised CRP’sprofessionalism and services found nonethe-less that the organisation was not verycommunicative and tended not to engage injoint strategic advocacy efforts with them.While national NGOs understood that publiccollaboration could be difficult for a foreign

organisation, this does illustrate the problemthat CRP does not operate in a vacuum, but insocieties in transition to democracy. CPR couldusefully consider how it should assist in thedevelopment of public dialogue between civilsociety and government, as this is a basicfeature of a working democracy. It appears tothe team that the ideal way to accomplish thiswould be to use principles similar to those of“silent advocacy”, but this time creatingalliances with national NGOs and networks andtargeting national bodies (the legislature, themedia). Advocacy efforts in Geneva, Warsawand Strasbourg need to be coupled tocampaigns in Zagreb, Belgrade, Pristina andSarajevo. Indeed the latter provide perhaps thebest example of the way forward: NRC BiH co-hosted a workshop with OHCHR on the CERDreporting mechanism prior to the examinationof the Croatian state report. The BiH office hasalso played a role in briefing new staff ofinternational organisations in general.

11) Lydie Ventre: “Legal analysis of the Croatian “Programme for the return and Accommodation of Displaced Persons, Refugeesand Resettled persons”, and return-related laws”, UNHCHR BiH, February 2000.

33

“The CRP project has been field driven”(CRP management official)

CRP emerged and expanded in an ad hoc way inresponse to particular needs and opportunities.While individual applications for fundingmention elements of a strategy (most often interms of objectives), they have never beenmelded together into a coherent whole, and inconsequence CRP lacks an explicit, overallstrategy. A strategy can inform donors,taxpayers and other stakeholders of thecommitments of NRC on specific areas. It canprovide a basis for assessing particular optionsagainst overarching visions for guiding

development. Preferably, strategies for complexprogrammes should be based on a thoroughappraisal of concrete needs and conditions.Periodic reviews can be used to obtain inputsfor renewal and development of strategies.

The table below attempts to set out the mainelements of a suitable strategy for CRP, in termsof the questions which should be asked. Whilesome of the right-hand column entries emanateeither from NRC documents or interviews anddiscussions, it is important to emphasise thatthe table in no way represents a complete “CRPstrategy”.

5 Project Strategy

Table 7. Elements of a General Strategy for CRP

Why? Vision/Overall (development) Protection of civil rights in the country objective of origin & country of residence; and

equal treatment of all ethnic groups

Strengthening legal systems in thesecountries

How? Immediate Objectives Indicators of Success Voluntary & informed return to the home country

Reintegration in the country of origin orintegration in the county of residence

What? Outputs/Key Result Areas Indicators of Success Administrative & judicial decisions infavour of rights of target groups

What? Activities Indicators of Performance Legal aid, incl. across borders

Who? Target groups Refugees, IDPs, persons at risk of flight

Counterparts Government agencies; Courts

Stakeholders Donors

Allies NGOs, IGOs

When? Time factor, phases expected Combination of short (acute) and long termination term aims

When is the job done? ?

Core Values Rule of law, HR & non-discrimination,multi-ethnicity, professionalism

Assumptions / Risks / Extraneous Politics, funding, functionality of Factors Having a Bearing judicial & admin. Systemson Success

This includes only strategy at the general level.There is, of course, also a need to work on astrategy at the tactical or operational level(elsewhere in the report, we allude to legalstrategies and strategies for legal aid, advocacystrategy etc). Overall, the team found that theCRP concentrated much on concrete action

alternatives based on a broadly defined aim toprotect minorities and facilitate durablesolutions for its target groups. The question ofthe link between timing and strategy isdiscussed below in relation to the potentialapplicability of the CRP model elsewhere.

34

Several elements of such a strategy havealready been defined in project proposals andother reporting documents addressed to theMFA. The vision or development objectives ofthe project have been identified as:

• the protection of civil rights• the promotion of equal treatment of all

ethnic groups• the strengthening of the legal systems• the enforcement of the enjoyment of

individual rights; and • the possibility of a choice between two

durable solutions; local integration orreturn

Though interrelated, these various elements allpoint in different directions with regard toCRP’s future development and the formulationof the project’s ultimate goal in relation to theimplementation of human rights standards.Bringing them together into one clear vision isthus a precondition for the subsequentdefinition of mandate and priorities. The focusmust be on the individual client, though caseoutcomes depend on system level factors. Inthis way, the development objectives of the CRPcan be defined into one coherent vision.

Regarding the values guiding CRP’s work, ofwhich the team learned at seminars with CRPstaff and from the project documentationavailable, the rule of law, human rights and non-discrimination, multi-ethnicity and professio-nalism stand out as the core values of theproject. There is little doubt that this stronghuman rights focus has been at the forefront ofCRP actions. The benchmarks for respect of therights in question are in practice those set outunder the ECHR in Strasbourg. While onecould argue that return and avoidance offurther flight really require respect of the fullcatalogue of rights under the ECHR, NRC havenot seen this as their mandate, and have(wisely, in our view) focused on those related toflight. Should NRC remain until the two –closely related – goals have been accomplished?How would one know when they were? Thesequestions are addressed in more detail below.

5.1 Exit Strategy

“We want to become well-qualified“professional threats” like theHumanitarian Law Centre” (CRP Belgradeofficial)

One question of principle must be answeredhere, namely, whether CRP’s objective ismerely to solve acute problems linked todurable solutions for the target groups, orwhether it also should entertain more long-term objectives such as contributing todemocracy building, developing civil societyand the legal sector, and putting in placesustainable mechanisms for protection ofminorities.

In fact, even if the objectives are limited to theformer, it is clear that these will not be achievedovernight. Initially, project documentsconcentrated on the acute problems, but theyhave increasingly come to concern longer-termgoals. Broadly speaking, NRC could respond inthree ways:

i) NRC will remain in the area until athreshold (to be defined) has beenpassed with respect to durablesolutions;

ii) It is taking longer than expected, wewant to hand over responsibility forreaching the threshold – whichrepresents our horizon limit – to localactors;

iii) In addition to (ii), we want to leavebehind sustainable mechanismstargeted on enhancing respect for HR,protection of minorities and respect forthe rule of law.

ToR speak of “development of sustainableefforts to promote civil rights by NGOs andgovernment institutions in the region”. Wewere also asked (by ToR) to examine thecontribution of CRP to the building of capacityin the former Yugoslavia, particularly in civilsociety. Such tasks are typically not found inNRC project proposals or reports. In the light of

35

this aspect of ToR, the evaluation team assumesthat the answer is closest to (iii).

NRC has until now not formulated a generalexit strategy. Some efforts were made in 1998 inCroatia, and, more recently, it has adopted aparticular option (transformation to a nationalNGO) in Kosovo. Both of these processeshowever, seem to have been relativelyspontaneous and pragmatic responses toexternal pressures from donors, particularlyUNHCR.

As many interlocutors have emphasised, aminimum exit strategy would be to ensure thatcases already taken on are completed, thatmembers of staff are given time andopportunity to make necessary preparationsand that administrative requirements are met.The first would require that NRC calculate thesize of its likely financial commitment to casestaken on: a case involves x no. of hearings(6–7?) and y amount of time. Provision of costsper hearing and mechanisms to inform clientsacross borders would have to be put in place.Then there are administrative issues such asstaff redundancy pay etc., in the event thatthere is no handover to national management.At a more ambitious level, trying to ensurecontinued capacity, NRC should look at least atthe following options: (1) Creating one or aseries of local NGOs; (2) Merging with aparticular local NGO or national network; (3)Make efforts to create a regional NGO ormerge with a regional NGO or regionalnetworks.

5.1.1 Staff and Management

All of these options would require bringinglocal staff into leadership positions well inadvance of the NRC pullout, to allow them todevelop the necessary sense of ownership andresponsibility, gain the necessary experience inmanagement roles, and understand moreclearly the issues involved. CRP Croatia hasdifficulty in attracting qualified staff, despiteoffering attractive salaries, while in Serbia andKosovo, there may be the additional problem ofCRP jurists finding more attractive offers

elsewhere when Norwegian funding comes toan end.

5.1.2 Alliances and Opportunities

There is a need to engage closely with localnetworks so that options of integrating withthem or elements of them are an option afterthe Norwegian pullout. Great strides are beingmade towards networking in Croatia, with theformation of the Legal Services Coalition. At aseminar held with the members of thiscoalition, there was a willingness to contem-plate all options, even to the point of mergingthe legal aid functions of the variousorganizations. Active participation here couldassist in securing a viable future for the CRPventure beyond the horizon of NRC’s ownpresence. Transmission of such expertise isclearly in the interest of the target groups. CRPexpertise in running large scale legal aidprogrammes, its cross border contacts and itsknowledge of international human rightsprocedures could be an invaluable source ofreference and learning for the smallerorganizations that form part of the backbone ofthe LSC. Some of the other organizations havemuch to offer in terms of advocacy expertise atthe national level. UNHCR expressed itseagerness to support projects in the name ofthe network, rather than of individual agencies.In Serbia, a recent report on the Swiss-supported Network of Humanitarian Law Offices(NHLO) mentioned strategic cooperation withCRP as a possible way forward in that network’stransition to local ownership.

A gradual, phased pullout is important, sothat the local structures are not left completelyalone immediately. This would include explora-tion of funding on a partnership basis during atransitional phase, with monitoring by NRC of anationally managed project. Capacity buildingof local staff and affiliates would be necessaryto avoid organizational gaps appearing.

5.1.3 Consideration of How To Preserve Regional

Networking

Although CRP has seen its regional reach as itsforte, CRP has never been run as one project. Ifintegrated management of CRP as a whole has

36

been impossible for NRC, it would obviously beeven more so after a Norwegian departure. Itwould seem that one of the best ways to ensurethe perpetuation of regional networking wouldbe to expand beyond CRP’s own network, inaddition to building on existing links to otherorganizations.

5.1.4 The Assessment of Medium/Long-term Needs

There must be some doubt as to whether anational NGO can really survive in the longterm based on legal aid related to cases in adifferent country. At some point, costs willlikely dictate that persons with unresolved legalclaims in respect of Croatia approach Croatianorganizations. This is a major issue for thefuture of NRC in Serbia. It would be advisablefor CRP Serbia to develop its activities with afocus on legal problems in FRY. On the otherhand, the paucity of players in the legal aidsector in Serbia, CRP’s experience, and alegislation that is more permissive in terms ofopening up for salaried jurists to plead in court,count as advantages. This is not quite so clearcut in relation to Kosovo, as the unresolvedsovereignty issue, irrespective of the outcome,is unlikely to be resolved without measures ofcompensation to displaced minorities who donot return. In Croatia, the need fororganizations with the expertise and

wherewithal to defend an unpopular minoritywill remain in the long term. The need for legalaid to protect this minority is clear. Thelegitimacy, and respect, afforded by CRP’sposition and history in Eastern Slavonia inparticular is a significant “capital asset”, interms of long-term survival. It would be a pity tolet this go to waste. In Bosnia, it would appearthat local organizations, with the internationalsupport they still enjoy, will play the primaryrole. In Kosovo, as mentioned, the die seems tohave been cast, and CRP seems to be opting fora niche in relation to the protection ofminorities. While this seems a correct choice,this challenge will probably change greatly inthe event of a termination of the internationalpresence in Kosovo.

5.1.5 A Mission, and a Constituency

International organizations have often made themistake of thinking that they can createnational NGOs to fill in the gaps left when theydepart. An NGO requires more than this. Thefigure in annex 4 illustrates one idea of theNGO ideal. Very careful consideration of thereal prerequisites to forming and maintainingan independent NGO must be considered. CRPin some respects resembles a service-mindedpublic office rather than an NGO in theBalkans.

37

6.1 In former Yugoslavia

6.1.1 Internal Capacity Enhancement

During the field missions the team discussedtraining opportunities for staff. In Serbia theentire staff seemed satisfied with theopportunities to acquire new skills. The officesdid much to organize dissemination of newinsights, and those with specialized knowledgein certain areas take part at internal seminars tobuild up the capacity of colleagues. CRP Bosniaseemed to be very focused on building upcapacity and developing standards throughdialogue, coaching and discussions. The yearlyseminar was mentioned sometimes as animportant tool for disseminating knowledge aswell as for enhancing a corporate spirit. InCroatia, the staff appreciated both the seminarand a computer training course in 2001 for allstaff. The 2002 seminar was on the question ofinternational human rights procedures,particularly the ECHR. In Kosovo, internationaland national staff were confident about beingable to manage the transition to localmanagement, thanks to on-the-job and othertraining and to the gradual handover of the localoffices.

However, staff at all the offices we visitedmentioned two important skills currentlylacking in the CRP: management experienceand skills (among local staff), and fundraisingskills. In light of a probable NRC exit the needfor training in these areas was urged by all, anexhortation the evaluators fully endorse. Thiswas echoed in Kosovo, too, where there wasalso a need to develop ideas concerning how togo about profiling and managing anindependent NGO – with roots and respect inthe local community. More English-languagetraining would also be beneficial. The VukovarCRP office seemed likewise ready to take upthe challenge of going it alone if necessary, andexpressed a wish for the training required.

They echoed the view that other NGOs inEastern Slavonia were proficient fundraisers.

Finally the team found that opportunities fordeveloping skills in use of international humanrights procedures were missed by most staff. Itmay not have been prudent for the project tobecome so dependent on one internationallawyer by giving him almost sole responsibilityfor the international advocacy efforts.

In Croatia and Kosovo (as well as for minoritiesin Serbia) it could be worthwhile to consideralternatives to CRP working practices wherebyparalegals do preparatory work for externallawyers. It could be beneficial to secure placesfor minority Serb jurists as apprentice lawyerswith existing firms would secure some accessto the legal profession for the minoritycommunity in the long term and would be anelement in the protection of minorities in thefuture. One wonders if arrangements could bemade whereby apprentice lawyers in friendlylaw firms could prepare the cases.12 Somelawyers affiliated with the project expressed awish for further training or seminars facilitatingexchange of case experience.

6.1.2 Capacity Building Effect on the Legal System

as Such – Contribution to the Rule of Law and

Democracy

It was reported orally to the team that CRP inSerbia had worked closely alongside the SerbianCommissioner for Refugees at its incipience.CRP entered into a dialogue with the Commis-sion and helped build it up. Likewise the officesof HPD (Kosovo) and CRPC (Bosnia) inBelgrade were full of praise for the assistancegiven by CRP to promote HPD amongst IDPsand refugees and by referring cases to theinstitutions. In Kosovo, as in Croatia, CRP andthe office of the Ombudsperson had an excellentworking relationship.

6 Human and Institutional Capacity Enhancement

12) And perhaps participate in open clinics at CRP offices one or two days a week, taking on all cases in return for a retainer fee(part of which could be paid as an advance loan to help them pay the almost 6,000 Euro Bar membership fee).

38

One must also pose the question of whether thelegal aid activities in themselves lead toimprovements in the system. We have alreadyreferred to the gradual changes in admini-strative practices that usually occur inconsequence of persistently claimed rights.While it is difficult for one NGO alone to claimthe entire credit for such developments, NRChave made a difference

6.1.3 Effects on Civil Society Development

From the start, CRP entered into a partnershipwith the Americas Development Foundation(ADF) to unite the ideals of immediate provisionof services with long-term civil societydevelopment, especially to benefit the Serbminority community. The opportunity to marrythis urgent task with the developmental aimwas lost when the two organizations partedways in mid-1997. NRC, preoccupied with theextent of the immediate problems before it,does not appear to have examined how to retainfocus on the longer-term aim.

There is no denying that this is one area whereCRP performance could have been stronger.There is a view that CRP is more in competitionthan in partnership with some other NGOs.While some competition is obviously healthy, itis less obviously beneficial when it is between arich, expatriate well-established northernEuropean NGO and national NGOs trying tomake a mark in a war-torn and impoverishedBalkan. NRC does not seem to have analysed itsrole as an NGO in a country in transition ordefined a clear policy on cooperation with otherNGOs, a concern that grows more and morecritical as the IC regards its presence asincreasingly dispensable. CRP is the primaryholder of expertise in legal aid management inthe former Yugoslavia. It will take some time fornational systems to emerge, but NRC/CRPcould assist in their emergence by playing acoaching role in relation to the creation andoperation of legal aid networks, together,perhaps, with the Swiss-funded NHLO inSerbia.

6.2 In Norway

6.2.1 The Adequacy of the Use of Norwegian

Comparative Advantages

One clear comparative advantage in thefunctioning as an international legal aid NGOthat emerged, is the good track record andreputation that Norway possesses in theBalkans, and the legitimacy this has renderedto the project mainly known as “the NRC”rather than the Civil Rights Project. In Serbia,where the level of confrontation with authoritiesremains the lowest, it eases relations. InCroatia, where relationships with theauthorities are more contentious, Croatiaseems ready to accept that criticism is madehonestly and in good faith, which it may havebeen less willing to do with respect to NGOsfrom larger countries with historicalconnections to Croatia. It is thus the view of theevaluation team that this specific comparativeadvantage has been exploited adequately,especially in relation to access, dialogue andadvocacy through international agencies, mostparticularly the UNHCR. With regard tonational authorities, it is the view of theevaluation team that additional windows ofopportunity exist as discussed in Chapter 4.

Another developmental opportunity for CRPproject strategy, especially in the bridge-buildingcontext between humanitarian assistance anddevelopment aid, is the anticipated furtherinvolvement of Norwegian expertise in thedesign of development-oriented projects.

6.2.2 Building Competence among Norwegian

Actors

As described at greater length in section 7.4,international staff are generally young, highlymotivated jurists whose legal qualifications,spanning human rights and refugee issues,have mainly been gained in their native country.They have limited international and managerialexperience. CRP thus utilizes existing expertisewhile building competence among theNorwegian judiciary, among lawyers, the civilservice in general, and the Directorate forImmigration in particular. The evaluation team

39

found that postings to CRP field offices and thework on human rights, refugee issues and legalaid provision, represented useful steps towardsa career in international work for the youngermembers of staff, and as such could be ofimportance to future career possibilities.

NRC has stationed a total of 43 internationalstaff members at the CRP field offices between1996 and 2001 though the period of placementfor each individual has been relatively short.While this means that more people are gaininginternational experience, the relatively highstaff turnover may hamper continuity.

International staff have had two main functions:1) to undertake project and personnelmanagement, and 2) to provide substantial legalaid. Capacity has thus mainly been built withinthese two areas. With regard to internationalhuman rights and refugee law, knowledge hasbeen acquired in work on specific legal issuesfacing the region. Such expertise could beuseful for line ministries dealing with theseissues, e.g. the MFA and the Directorate forAliens. More could be done to build upknowledge of international human rights law, asthe NRC has acknowledged given its recentefforts in this area. As to project and personnelmanagement in an intercultural environment,staff have acquired new skills that could be ofuse in a broader context.

Further, knowledge gained on the provision oflegal aid and on case handling in a post-conflict

context, i.e. where the legal regime is underdevelopment and humanitarian assistance isbeing replaced by development aid, couldclearly be of use for future MFA and NRCactivities. The evaluation team found, however,that such knowledge could be furtherstrengthened and more widely applied: first, thework of international staff could be moresharply focused within specific areas, mostnotably in relation to project management. Theteam is not aware of any training having beenprovided in this field. Young Norwegianprofessionals might, for instance, be offeredwork as a national Project Manager’s right handman during the placement, following thepractice of other organisations. This wouldfacilitate a more systematic transfer ofknowledge and training of new staff.

Second, further lessons could be learned from asystematic process of debriefing after a fieldassignment, which would help identify trainingneeds and assess the usefulness of knowledgegained. It would lessen the relatively highturnover among international staff and whathas been characterized as “failures” whereposted staff members only stayed in the post fora few months or did not deliver the desiredresults. (Out of the 43 international staffmembers, 9 had not worked out in one way oranother.) The high number (5) of such failuresin Kosovo is partly explained by the urgency ofthe mission and the rapid response to the callfor action in Kosovo.

41

7.1 Reporting and Documentation

CRP has not been one project, but a series ofprojects. Management is national rather thanregional. There is likewise no central reportingfor the project.

Reporting to MFA appears weaker than toother, more demanding donors in the field,such as ECHO and UNHCR. The latter havespecific reporting formats for content andquality. However, in interviews with MFAofficials, knowledge of the contents of theproject seemed to be higher than one mighthave expected from reading the reports. Thus,reporting and monitoring of the project do existand take place in connection with the frequentmeetings between MFA officials and NRC, bothin Oslo and the Balkans, though it is a ratherinformal approach.

Prior to the evaluation, CRP statistics did notprovide an thorough division into the kinds oflegal help provided (information, advice,assistance, court representation). Nor werethere clear categories regarding the status ofthe cases (pending, resolved favourably,resolved unfavourably, at first, second instanceetc.). Better information flows would help CRPmanagers to make choices that the teamexpects will be forced upon them in the future(as mentioned in chapter 3). The CRP databasewill have to be adapted to become a better andmore useful reporting and management tool. Itcould help to answer questions concerningrates of success in particular kinds of case atparticular offices, general performance figuresetc.

7.2 Efficiency and Cost-effectiveness in theUse of the MFA Grants

Budget and expenditure figures received fromNRC are attached as an annex to this report.The figures indicate occasional large surpluses:566,000 in Croatia in 1999, a similar amount in

Bosnia in 2000, and more than 1.3 million inSerbia and 1.8 million in Kosovo in 2001.

Except where this is indicated in the tables inAnnex VII, the funds have reportedly beenreturned to MFA. The Section for WesternBalkan Affairs has often permitted reallocationto future periods, as indicated. In somerespects, such as the separation of projectactivities from administrative expenses in Oslo,MFA has had a strict line, though (smaller)reallocations among budget lines are generallyaccepted on the basis of subsequent reporting.

In relation to cost-effectiveness, NRC does havehigher item costs than national NGOs in theBalkans, in the form of higher salaries andexpatriate salaries that the national providersdo not incur. There has been a steady decline inthe numbers of international personnel, asurged by the MFA. One other NGO used adifferent method of paying lawyers: paying a setmonthly fee instead of the NRC rate per case.For lawyers with extensive caseloads, such anarrangement could be beneficial to NRC. Theteam did note that NRC had negotiated a feerate with lawyers below standard Bar rates, butthis is hardly surprising considering thepreparatory work done by NRC. It is not easy tocompare numbers of clients helped and/orcases brought with budget outlays, due to a lackof adequate data and marked differences in thekinds of case brought. In legal aid work,comparisons of this kind should preferablyhave some parameter or other ensuring thatoutputs of a similar quality are being measuredagainst each other. Even in respect of the samekind of service (obtaining documents forexample) the same document may be muchmore difficult and time-consuming to obtain inone region than in another.

7.3 Funding and Funding Cycles

CRP has been funded by annual allocationsgranted by Norway’s national assembly the

7 Administration of the CRP

42

Storting in Oslo. This has perhaps contributedto the lack of long-term strategies andapproaches concerning the project. While it isnot in the immediate power of MFA or NRC tochange these procedures, project funding hasin fact been relatively stable over the six-yearperiod. Thus, although no guarantees can begiven, some projections can be made, andtentative understandings over a term longerthan one year reached between the two parties– MFA and NRC. It is possible that the relativelylow administration allocation awarded NRCOslo to manage the project, may contribute tothe project’s “field-driven” character. There areconsiderable resources to meet personnel costsin the region, but not in Oslo. As there is noregional management, and the amount of“salary time” paid for at a 5% fee is limited,central management remains relatively weak. Ifthe project were to go towards a gradual pulloutwith NRC adopting a coaching and monitoringrole, it would be necessary to provide funds forsuch input, either in the form of a regionalproject manager or one based in Oslo but visitingregularly (or, perhaps, a gradual transition fromone to the other as part of a gradual diminutionof NRC’s role). Resources could also come fromNRC’s own funds.

Reference is made to the CRP organogram. Thedeparture of the regional legal adviser in 2001led to regular meetings among projectmanagers, which have been very welcome.Where resident representatives are not directlyinvolved with CRP, occasional misunder-standings may crop up. Coordination betweenoffices within the same country does not alwaysappear to be very strong, each office tending tohave its own strong identity.

7.4 Preparation, Deployment and Follow-up of CRP Personnel in the Field

In the period 1996–2001, a total of 43international staff members, mostly youngjurists, were stationed at CRP field offices informer Yugoslavia. Generally speaking, NRCwas generally more satisfied with theperformance of these younger recruits. Juriststended to come from private law firms, the

public prosecution service and other govern-ment agencies such as the immigration service.Only a few had previous experience of work ininternational organisations, management orpolitics. The ratio of international – mostlyNorwegian – staff has been relatively high andrepresented a large fraction of CRP’s budget.Salary levels are somewhat higher than forother international NGOs. Lastly, the averageperiod of placement in the field offices has beenrelatively short and staff turnover consequentlyquite substantial, though it must be said thatthis average is somewhat skewed by theparticularly high turnover in the first phase ofthe Kosovo operation.

The basic philosophy of recruiting internationalstaff for CRP field missions has been two-fold.Firstly to have outsiders representing theorganisation in areas where relationshipsbetween the local population and refugee/IDPgroups are tense or sensitive and second tostrengthen field offices capacity inninternational human rights and refugee lawissues.

As to the first purpose, the comparativeadvantage of recruiting Norwegian staff isdiminishing as highly qualified national staff,well versed in their own national legal systems,are being recruited in increasing numbers,bilateral relations in the region are becomingincreasingly normalized and national legalissues are becoming increasingly complex.That these developments have actually beentaken on board is reflected in the gradualdownscaling of the presence of internationalstaff, and in the gradual take-over of somemanagement functions by national staff, e.g. inrelation to the identification of advocacy issues,previously undertaken by a regional advisor.The MFA has also provided impetus todecrease international staffing. Nevertheless,there is some mismatch between theinternational staff – young, motivated juristswith a domestic background and limitedinternational and management experience –and the work they are asked to do, which is of aprimarily managerial nature. This is somethingof a paradox considering that the one thing

43

these highly competent people lack is manage-ment experience and reporting and fundraisingskills. Furthermore, as responsibilities arebeing handed over to national staff, inter-national staff with such skills and qualificationscould play a highly constructive role in traininglocal staff in them.

As to the second purpose, that of strengtheningcapacity in international human rights andrefugee law, finding qualified internationalpersonnel in relation to legal qualifications,knowledge of international human rights andrefugee law and region-specific refugee/IDPissues has not been easy, once again leading toa relatively high staff turnover and, at times, anuneven quality of work. Furthermore, thesubstantial complexity of legal issues and thelegalistic context requires broad knowledge ofthe national legal system, which obviously takestime for to acquire, especially by non-nationals.It is further not facilitated by the relativelylimited time international staff remain in thefield (currently for one-year terms); muchresources have to be channelled into jobtraining by national staff in the field offices.Finally, in the present context, as pointed outabove, the comparative advantages of thesespecific qualifications are diminishing. Reasonswhy Norwegians should be inherently better inthese fields are hard to come by.

Another useful way of ensuring successfulperformance in both areas would be tostrengthen the training of international staff,ideally prior to embarking on their missions.There is no systematic programme of trainingin place. There have been occasional assign-ments of newly recruited Norwegian personnelto some older, more well-established offices,prior to posting to new offices. The RefugeeCouncil – especially its Oslo office – couldbenefit from a systematic process of debriefingfollowing completed field assignments, in orderto gain, as said, lessons. Procedures for out-going staff to initiate incoming staff havesometimes been insufficient. However, thelower turnover and satisfactory procedures forthe transfer of knowledge that are in place

among national staff have clearly benefitedinternational staff.

7.5 Performance of the NRC Secretariat inOslo

Direct Oslo NRC inputs to the CRP project areof various kinds, including budgeting andproject formulation, facilitation of coordinationamong the country offices, reporting andliaising, recruitment, management of seniorpersonnel, and some policy issues. Asrecruitment and personnel issues are coveredin the foregoing section, we will not repeat thatexercise here.

At the field level, budgeting inputs are sentfrom the local offices to the central level. NRCin Oslo usually makes only minor changes tobudgets submitted by the country offices. Inresponse to surpluses (read: underspending)encountered, NRC in Oslo has increased itsvigilance regarding budgeting practices. In2002 it introduced monthly transfers to thefield, based on requests, submission of expensereports and account holdings. The AGRESOsystem, NRC’s adopted system, has providedfor efficient follow-up. The project coordinatorin Oslo engages in direct dialogue with thefinance/administrative officers in the field onfinancial issues, and with the residentrepresentatives if necessary. The coordinatorusually visits field offices twice a year, followingup on project plans and activities.

In 1999, much of the responsibility for projectmanagement and budgeting was decentralizedto the resident representatives, leaving Oslowith supervisory and control functions. It isnow up to the resident representative to decidehow much authority to delegate to field officeswithin the country. Expenditure tends to becontrolled at the country office level, especiallyas regards variable budget items. The systemsseemed to work well.

Reporting on the grants issued by NRC hasoccasionally been subject to long delays. Oslohas favoured the use of an Oslo-based branch ofa major international auditing firm rather than

44

local firms. While this gives the advantage offamiliarity with NRC practices and procedures,it could weaken the chance to engage indialogue with the individual projectadministrators and NRC managers in the field,thus sacrificing what could have been a capacitybuilding opportunity. However, the loss is partlymade up by the dialogues with the Oslo deskoffice/coordinator.

In different phases of the project, NRC’sintervention on policy issues has varied. The

dialogue between field and Oslo was strong atthe outset of the project, and field-levelcoordination grew stronger during the time aregional legal advisor’s office was in place.Since late 2001, communication goes throughproject managers, with policy advisorstravelling occasionally to the field. The fieldoffices expressed satisfaction with the currentset up, though both they and the advisor feltthat coordination and policy dialogue could beimproved still further.

45

In the opinion of the evaluation team, thequestion of the transferability of CRP elsewheredeals with the following four concerns:

1) A general question is whether individuallegal assistance can be developed as auseful tool in work with refugees anddisplaced persons.

2) What is the CRP concept? In order toreplicate CRP, one has to decide what isin essence;

3) There is an operational aspect;

4) And there is a question of time frames.

8.1 The Usefulness of Legal Aid toRefugees and IDPs

The team has no difficulty in agreeing that legalaid (from information to representation) can bea very useful tool in refugee assistance. We alsoagree that it is an underdeveloped area.UNHCR-funded legal programmes focus mostlyon the aspect of protection, and, to ourknowledge, there are very few or noprogrammes at all with an explicitly cross-border approach.

8.2 CRP Philosophy

Over time CRP has grown organically througha field-driven, bottom-up approach, developingcapacity to meet the needs of beneficiaries.While this approach has had its advantages inrelation to specific circumstances, it hassomewhat clouded the view of the project as aregional project with a coherent philosophy. Inchapter 5 of this report, table 6 sets out theproject objectives, as stated in project proposalsand reports to MFA. Space does not permit us

to repeat them here. On a general level, CRP’sphilosophy can be tentatively summarised as:the restoration of the identity of refugees, IDPsand endangered groups as legal subjects in orderto enable the individual enjoyment of concreterights on an equal and non-discriminatory basis.The focus is on the level of concrete rights ofindividual clients, where the success of thecases pursued depends on system level factors.Individual casework is therefore complementedby advocacy.

Fundamental values include a strong humanrights focus. Most of the rights the projectattempts to ensure are social and economic, i.e.relating to housing, employment, socialsecurity, and pensions. Moreover, there ispromotion of procedural fairness and equalitybefore the law, including the principle of non-discrimination.

Where traditional protection-related thinking inpost-disaster situations tends to focus on non-refoulement, security issues and humanitarianneeds, the CRP concept is innovative inaddressing the underlying human rightsviolations. The philosophy practically combinesthe traditional practice of international refugeelaw with additional instruments frominternational human rights law.13 Through theinsistence on the actual restoration of basicrights of individuals, including property rights,the CRP philosophy keeps the focus on thecomprehensiveness and quality of thedefinitions of protection, integration andrepatriation. The bridge to basic human rightsalso ensures the inclusion of IDPs andvulnerable potential refugees and IDPs in thepromotion of rights. However, this essentialpart of what we term CRP philosophy needsfurther exploration as a project based on humanrights. By developing the human rights-basedapproach, CRP could achieve more clarity

8 The Applicability of the CRP Model in Other Places

13) Through stressing the principle of non-discrimination on concrete individual rights, CRP actually touches upon the ICCPR,ICESCR, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the European Convention forthe Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).

46

concerning which human rights to pursue in theconcrete circumstances, and to develop humanrights-defined indicators for performance.Using human rights indicators could furthergalvanise the CRP to operate in politicisedcontexts where IC is involved with its ownpolitical agenda.

8.3 The Operational Aspect

CRP perceives itself as a cross border legal aidproject, but it is questionable whether this is anessential element of CRP philosophy moregenerally. Most IDP situations for example –including that in Uganda – do not involve a defacto border, and a CRP initiative will likely bedealing with a single legal and administrativesystem. The cross border aspect has beenpronounced in the Balkans due to the specificcharacteristics of the area: common languagesand similar justice systems. The Cross borderelement would likely be less pronounced inareas characterized by differences in language,administrative and legal culture, and basicvalues between host countries and homecountries. Many other practical points mustlikewise be considered, such as the recognition/validity of documents, the practicalities operatingon both sides of a border, communicationsfacilities, the possibilities for travel etc. In othercontexts, it could well be plagued by a muchgreater degree of insecurity. Legal work isgenerally dependent on a relatively high level ofphysical and social infrastructure. As a greatdeal of NRC’s refugee work is outside theEuropean continent, it will in most places beless sophisticated than in the formerYugoslavia.

The methodology applied by CRP requiresadherence to the basic principles of rule of lawand international human rights standards,including non-discrimination by the legalsystem, at least in principle. In the Balkans CRPadvocacy is based on non-adherence to theseavowed principles where minorities areconcerned. Both legal casework and advocacymay be weaker where official commitment tothese principles is less well entrenched. Theformer Yugoslavia has many particularities of

this kind, including the very strong presence ofinternational community organs, as conduits ofCRP advocacy. There are few other places witha presence of the same order of magnitude andinternational political commitment. Theusefulness of international complaintprocedures would be far smaller due to factorssuch as non-ratification of relevant protocolsand possible difficulties in filing complaintsagainst a host state with which one’s relationsare generally antagonistic.

Similar considerations clearly apply in relationto the functionality of the legal system in whicha project is operating. While CRP hasconsistently mentioned capacity building oflegal systems among its objectives, it has hopedthat capacity building will occur as a side effectof its legal aid and advocacy work, rather thanthrough specific interventions. Concrete outputin this area has been very modest (it is hard tosee how it could be otherwise, as a legal aidproject essentially devoted to challenging alegal system is not well-placed to be a partner inits reconstruction).

8.4 The Time Factor

The experience gained in former Yugoslaviaillustrates the difficulties inherent in expectingtoo much of dysfunctional legal systems.Outside of the Balkans, legal systems aregenerally likely to be less, rather than morefunctional. While Uganda is fortunate to bebenefiting from large assistance programmes toits legal system, long delays and inefficienciesare unavoidable, even more so in the conflict-torn north. In Afghanistan, one can hardlybegin to speak realistically of the rule of law inmost of the country. Moreover, it can bequestioned whether mounting a well-oiled andfinanced legal aid mechanism feeding casesinto a dysfunctional legal system is always inthe best interests of the population as a whole:attention may be diverted from other equallydeserving legal and social matters. In such acontext, it may be worthwhile considering anentirely different approach, more explicitlybased on capacity building: one of CRP’sgreatest contributions has been in relation to

47

provision of basic documents to displacedpersons. In some situations, this could possiblybe done through a cooperative approach –authorities may well be willing to reintegratethe refugees, but require help to putregistration and other documentation systemsin order.

Any CRP involving more complex forms of legalaid would likely develop into a long-termcommitment, as refugee and IDP issues tendnot to achieve durable solutions in the shortterm, and because of the factors describedabove. While there are examples of durablesolutions achieved in the short term, CRP

initiatives may well be of limited relevance insuch circumstances. (In the context of arelatively short-term refugee or displacementcrisis, the information component wouldprobably be most important.)

An unavoidable time aspect is linked to thefunding and agendas of international agencies.This is important because two different sets ofoperational tools are applied. In relation toproject design, the tension between the urgentpriorities of emergency relief and the holisticview of development projects is obvious. Thetable summarises the differences between thetwo types of interventions.

Table 8. Emergency and Development Interventions

HumanitarianAssistance

DevelopmentAssistance

Project Cycle

Short –coterminouswith situationof acute crisis

Long – overallstrategydemanded &emphasised

Rationale

Meetingspecific acuteneed

Building ofsustainablecapacity

Management

International –primarilylogistical

National, withstrong political(advocacy)elements

Funding Cycle

Short(12 months orless)

Long (3–5 yearcycles)

Success Criteria

Quantitative:measured inservicesrendered

Infrastructural

Risks

Creation ofdependency,distortions

Linked tosustainedpoliticalcommitment

In this respect CRP is very different from anemergency relief assistance project, where thepresence of international NGOs is justified bythe combination of urgency and lack of localcapacities. While CRP is thus essentially a long-term project, NRC’s expertise and programmesfit more into the emergency relief model.Application of CRP in other places would requirethe incorporation of development thinking intoNRC strategies.

There is a danger that the content ofprogrammes could be strongly influenced byshort-term projections and optimistic politicalagendas. NRC will only be able to counter thesefactors if it is in possession of a clearphilosophy, understood and articulated by itsmanagers.

CRP has gone through a number of phases.They could be analysed for the benefit of laterapplications of the philosophy. Both CRP Croatia

and Kosovo had to go through an initial stage ofestablishment and development in the localcontext. Such efforts have either coincided withor preceded attempts at restoration of docu-mentation, without which further legal action isoften impossible. Legal aid activities aregradually expanding (moving from administra-tive procedures to complex litigation challenges),while project management structures areconsolidated. While there are exceptions, onecould say that, as a general rule, the politicaladvocacy component, either in terms ofdialogue or as pressure through the inter-national community, has gradually increased inimportance.

Reference is made above to the early alliancewith ADF and its subsequent break-up. In ourview, there is an important lesson for the futurehere. In transitional societies, there must bedevelopment of democratic government, withan open dialogue between government and

48

national NGOs. The interventions ofinternational actors must always encourage thisprocess. Efforts to secure short-termobjectives, which hinder this development,could well prove damaging in the longer term.

In conclusion, the evaluation team finds thatCRP philosophy could be applied in other post-disaster situations, especially if implementedthrough partnership programmes with nationallegal aid and human rights NGOs. It should beconditioned upon a mandatory pre-appraisalstudy to assess the appropriateness of a CRP-type intervention, examining elementsincluding systemic capacity, vulnerability of

various groups, probable intervention time-frame, relations with other providers (actual orpotential) of similar services. Applicationelsewhere should be based uponcomplementarities with relevant intergovern-mental agencies, especially UN bodies, as wellas bilateral donors and upon thoroughadaptation of the philosophy to the local contextwith a long-term perspective. Lastly, specificand realistic targets should be set from theoutset of the project, and specific attentionshould be given to an exit strategy specifyingthe CRP contribution to the sustainableimplementation of these rights within thenational structure.

49

9.1 Relevance

1. Refugees, IDPs and minorities at risk inthe former Yugoslavia have apronounced need for legal aid andadministrative assistance to securerespect for their civil and humanrights. In order to be fully effective,such aid needs to extend acrossborders. NRC assistance to thesegroups has been highly relevant.

2. The quality of the legal workundertaken by NRC is high. Thisconclusion is supported by ourobservations during the field studiesand attested to by various stakeholdersand observers. Quality is reflected inthe composition of the staff, workpractices and management, treatmentof clients and the preparation of cases.

3. The beneficiaries of CRP legal aidhave overwhelmingly been refugees ofSerb ethnicity. Internally displacedpersons, particularly in the latter phaseof the project, have not benefited asmuch. In addition, the project hasfocused on the return option a greatdeal more than on local integration.

4. NRC has achieved considerablesynergy with international organiza-tions in former Yugoslavia both on legalstrategies and advocacy issues, thoughsomewhat at the expense of promotingdialogue in the countries themselves.

5. NRC has, in general, adapted itsapproaches to changes in law and legalsystems in an appropriate manner,though the adoption of new strategiescould have been preceded bysystematic plans and forecasts to agreater extent.

9.2 Cost-effectiveness

5. The cost-effectiveness of someelements of CRP’s legal aid (particularlylitigation of disputes) is uncertain due toa combination of severe legalconstraints and ineffective and at timespoliticized judicial and administrativesystems.

6. Cost-efficiency of CRP projects issatisfactory: resources are carefullyused to run a well-working organizationand there is little waste. However, thefinancial costs of running theorganization are rather high comparedto the local legal aid initiatives, due tothe considerable international staffinvolved and a competitive professionallocal salary structure.

9.3 Competence building

7. Overall, CRP is weakly connected withthe local community. The contributionto sustainable capacity is mostlyapparent in the training of the local staff.In relation to legal aid work in the localcivil society, the opportunity for capacitybuilding is underused.

8. A potential for national advocacy onthe issues raised by the legal cases dealtwith is somewhat under-exploited.While working complementarily withinternational organizations in theformer Yugoslavia, NRC has done lessto promote dialogue in the countriesthemselves. In some places, there areindications of a need to inform targetgroups more efficiently on the activitiesof the NRC.

9. Legal assistance to IDPs does not seemto effectively combat the use ofopaque bureaucracy to keep some of

9 Conclusions

50

IDPs in a state of de facto segregation intheir own country.

9.4 Applicability

9. Elements of CRP’s experiences may beapplicable in other contexts of forcedmass displacement, particularly in theprovision of documents, which is avital element in reconstructing the livesof victims of conflict.

9.5 Future organization

11. The handing over or exit strategy forCRP has been under-emphasized. NRCseems to have focused ratherautomatically on the creation ofsuccessor NGOs formed by the localCRP staff, which would depend onexternal funding to be provided by theNRC/MFA or other sources. Theplacement of such NGOs in thecommunity has not been addressedparticularly well.

12. Overall sustainability concerns inrelation to the future provision of legalaid in former Yugoslavia have mainly

been addressed solely on the basis ofthe future of the NRC-successorprojects, taking less account of the civilsociety initiatives in the field or possiblefoundation for a public legal aidstructure.

9.6 Administration

13. Project reporting and legalmanagement could be substantiallyimproved by enhancing the statisticalreporting ability of the database. A lownumber of durable solutions andsuccessfully solved cases has not beenhighlighted. Completion of activities isoften substituted for the achievement ofobjectives. Harder and moredispassionate analyses of the chances ofsuccess of particular strategies arecalled for.

14. The Civil Rights Project has sufferedfrom the lack of an overall strategy toguide intervention. Strategic decisionshave thus at times been taken in an adhoc way. Generally, though, choiceshave been to the benefit of targetgroups.

51

10.1 Competence Building

1. The Norwegian Refugee Council shouldengage more intensively with nationalNGOs and networks working withrefugees in the former Yugoslavia, andshould take steps likely to facilitatesustainable capacity, such as bringinglocal staff into management positionsand providing them with the necessarytraining and coaching.

10.2 Applicability

2. Preparation of future Civil Rights typeprojects should include a carefulanalysis of the nature of the legal andpolitical environment in which they willoperate, consider realistically thetroubled nature of post-conflict societiesand set out clear assumptions about theconditions required to do the job,including the time available. Accountshould be taken from the beginning ofthe relationship to civil society andother relevant actors and to all possibleapproaches to facilitate the legalreintegration of persons into society.

3. Specific and realistic targets should beset from the outset for CRP, withparticular attention given to an exitstrategy specifying CRP’s contributionto the sustainable implementation ofthese rights within the nationalstructure.

10.3 Future Organization

4. The Civil Rights Project should developan overall strategy with long-term andimmediate objectives, and the means to

achieve them, operational priorities,criteria for success and a time frame.

5. The Norwegian Refugee Council andthe Ministry of Foreign Affairs shouldenter into an understanding on projectfunding that enables an exit from theformer Yugoslavia that favours buildingof sustainable capacity.

10.4 Administration

6. The Norwegian Refugee Council shouldimprove its project reporting, includingstatistical reporting, both for purposesof internal legal management and tohighlight results achieved and assump-tions made for the benefit of theMinistry of Foreign Affairs. Legalstrategies should include a carefulassessment of the chances of success inparticular assignments before embarkingon legal representation on a mass scale.The CRP database should be developedto improve capacity to undertakecomparative assessment of legal strate-gies at particular offices.

7. NRC management capacity in Osloshould be strengthened and enhancedin the area of project design and strategy.

8. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs shouldconsider means to enhance the capacityof the Section for Western BalkanAffairs in project-related reporting as away to improve the quality of projectdesign, monitoring and reporting.Cooperation with NORAD could beconsidered in this respect.

10 Recommendations

53

Evaluation of the Civil Rights Project (CRP)of the Norwegian Refugee Council in formerYugoslavia

1. Background

The Norwegian Refugee Council, a voluntaryorganization involved in refugee questions andrefugee work in four continents, established aCivil Rights Project (CRP) in collaboration withUSAID (United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment) in 1996 in the mandate area ofUNTAES (United Nations TransitionalAuthority in Eastern Slavonia). This was doneas a follow-up to the Erdut Agreementconcerning peaceful reintegration of EasternSlavonia in Croatia. The legal experts of theproject have provided free legal assistance tointernally displaced persons (IDPs) andrefugees in the region and to a segment of thelocal population that could risk facing asituation where they would have to flee awayfrom their homes. Assistance has been givenindependently of the ethnic background ofclients.

The work has subsequently been expanded informer Yugoslavia through various phases ofthe conflicts. CRP objectives have generallybeen to contribute to/facilitate return; tocontribute to protection of minorities; tocontribute to rule of law/promotion of humanrights; and to assist individuals with securingtheir legal rights, particularly related to returnand repossession of property. Displacedpersons often require access to legal assistancenot only in their current place ofresidence/asylum, but also in the place of priorresidence, where they try to vindicate rightsacquired prior to the conflict in formerYugoslavia, such as property rights, citizenshipor status right, pension rights, right to freedomof movement, etc..

Thus, CRP assists in several different legalsystems, some of which are national systems(Yugoslavia, Serbia, and Croatia), and some of

which are hybrids of national and internationallegal systems (Bosnia and Herzegovinia and itsconstituent entities, the Federation of BiH andRepublika Srpska, and Kosovo). CRP runs localoffices in Croatia, the Federal Republic ofYugoslavia (Serbia and Kosovo) and Bosnia-Herzegovina. CRP also operates mobile teamswho visit and inform people in distant placesthrough mass meetings and individualconversations. Main target groups areminorities at risk of becoming displaced,refugees/IDPs contemplating return,returnees, and refugees/IDPs that areundecided or attempt to integrate locally.

Through its network CRP has direct access tothe client populations in the place of asylum. Italso provides follow-up legal assistance anddirect linkages to necessary institutionsthrough joint handling of cases by offices in theplace of asylum and in the place of formerresidence. This includes advocacy withgovernment authorities or internationalorganizations as well as the joint use of a net-work of private attorneys on NRC contract forin-court representation. The CRP networkpermits particular attention to cross-border orinter-state issues that complicate the legalrights of populations displaced across borders,for example the failure of successor states toharmonize legislation or to reach bilateralagreements.

The Norwegian Refugee Council is in a processof developing models and drawing lessonslearned in the fields of legal assistance,counselling on return and related activities, foruse in other geographical areas where refugeesand internally displaced persons (IDPs) needassistance.

CRP is financed through contributions from theNorwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, USAID,UNHCR (United Nations High Commissionerfor Refugees), ECHO (European CommunityHumanitarian Office), and the NorwegianRefugee Council itself. CRP’s budget for 2001

Annex I Terms of Reference

54

amounted to NOK 35,9 million, of which NOK17,2 million was contributed on a grant basisfrom the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

2. Purposes of the evaluation

The main purposes of the evaluation are:

1. To provide information on theexperience of CRP in providing legalassistance to refugees and internallydisplaced persons in the Balkans,including information on the mostimportant types of advocacy issues thathave been raised by CRP, and theirtiming.

2. To find out whether financialcontributions to CRP activities from theNorwegian Government through theMinistry of Foreign Affairs have beenused in accordance with prioritiesindicated by the Ministry.

3. To assess the overall relevance ofactivities performed in relation to civilrights needs and human rights needs ofrefugees and internally displacedpersons during changing phases in thepost-conflict legal regimes in thesuccessor states of former Yugoslavia,emphasising protection, avoidance offlight, and durable solutions for thosealready displaced. It should also beassessed how relevant CRP activitieshave been to help reestablish legalsystems acceptable to democraticsocieties in former Yugoslavia, with asecured respect for individual rightsand freedoms. The complementary roleof CRP activities in relation to otherinternational actors’ mandates andinitiatives (in particular those of theUnited Nations and OSCE (theOrganization for Security andCooperation in Europe)) should also beconsidered.

4. To assess the cost-efficiency of servicesprovided by CRP as compared toservices rendered by similar organi-zations and institutions, in particularother NGOs; and to assess whether

Norwegian comparative advantages inthe fields of civil rights and humanrights have been adequately exploitedthrough the project.

5. To assess whether information andexperience obtained through CRPactivities have contributed to competencebuilding of professional actors in formerYugoslavia.

6. To assess whether competence buildingin Norwegian professional actors hastaken place.

7. To assess the applicability of experienceand lessons learned during the CRPprogram in the Balkans in relation toother geographical areas where theNorwegian Refugee Council is or maybe involved, as for instance Pakistan,Afghanistan, and Uganda.

8. To provide recommendations con-cerning the continuation of civil rightsactivities presently undertaken by CRPin the Balkans, and their futureorganization.

3. Scope and Method

The evaluation should cover the overallassistance provided through CRP during theperiod 1996–2001.

As general background information theevaluation team should study relevant materialin the Norwegian Refugee Council and theMinistry of Foreign Affairs, such ascorrespondence, agreements, completionreports and other reports; and the team shouldinterview key people in the Council and theMinistry.

In addition, the evaluation should include in-depth studies of important activities during fieldvisits to four geographical areas in the Balkanswhere CRP has provided considerableassistance: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia,Kosovo, and Serbia. These visits should includeinterviews with target groups, with expatriateand locally employed CRP personnel, and withrepresentatives of other donors andcollaborating organizations, such as UNHCR,OSCE, and USAID. They should cover key

55

areas of CRP activities, including efforts toresolve for refugees and internally displacedpersons the issues of status (citizenship anddocumentation), access to housing (propertyand tenancy right restitution), and access toincome (public benefits and employment). Inthis connection, it is important to assesswhether the key issues raised and theobjectives pursued by CRP have been the mostrelevant ones for the beneficiaries; whetherthere have been changes in their needs as timepassed by, and whether CRP has been able toadapt to such changes. Has the legal assistancehelped the beneficiaries to take well-informeddecisons concerning durable solutions forthemselves and their families? Have relevanttarget persons been reached in practicethrough media information and through CRPoffices and mobile units? It should also beassessed what impact legal assistance has hadupon individuals in terms of access to admini-strative and legal procedures, documents etc.,and possibilities of exercising rights to returnand other durable solutions; and an estimate ofsolved cases.

During the field visits, the team should alsoconsider to what extent CRP has documenteddiscrimination/abuse of legal systems to hinderor prevent refugees/IDPs from exercising theirrights, and to what extent such documentationhas been used or may be used to the benefit ofindividuals. Further, the team should assesswhether CRP has to a greater extent than otherlegal projects in the region succeeded inpursuing all legal remedies available topromote essential objectives. Does it constitutea significant “value added” in relation to otheractors’ activities? The team should consider therelevance and quality of CRP’s regionalapproach and cross border cooperation, and itsminority focus in relation to target groups. Itshould also assess whether CRP’s activitieshave contributed to the development ofsustainable efforts to promote civil rights byNGOs and government institutions in theregion.

The evaluation should include an assessment ofthe administration of CRP support, inter alia the

handling of the grants at the level of theMinistry, the Refugee Council, and the localCRP offices. It should assess the Ministry’scollaboration with the Council, the functioningof the relevant part of the secretariat of theCouncil, and the preparation, deployment andfollow-up of CRP personnel in the field.

Quantitative elements related to the differentactivities during the years 1996–2001 should bestated in the evaluation. The number of personsassisted in connection with different categoriesof problems should thus be indicated, classifiedaccording to countries and years. In the case ofthe Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, relevantnumbers for Kosovo and Serbia should beindicated separately. Appropriate categoriesshould be developed by the team in contactwith NRC staff. Relevant categories shouldinclude:

• Property/housing issues• Documents/citizenships issues• Labour issues• Pension issues• Convalidation of former rights

The qualitative impact of each type of activitiesselected for in-depth studies in defined areasshould be assessed against those of the criteriamentioned below that are seen to be relevant ineach case:

• The aims and objectives as indicated atthe time of financing

• The degree of satisfaction indicated bydifferent types of beneficiaries

• The extent to which the CRP activity hasbeen appropriate to achieve a change inthe civil rights situation at the local orthe national level

• The extent to which the activity hascontributed to networking andcooperation between differentorganizations for civil rights promotionand/or led to further activities in thisfield

56

4. Evaluation Team

The evaluation should be undertaken by a teamof 3–4 persons with legal, social science, andcivil rights competence. Among the membersthere should be persons with experience inrepresenting individuals in instances ofdiscrimination by legal and governmentinstitutions, with experience from thegeographical area of the former Yugoslavia, andwith NGO experience. Members of the teamshould have evaluation experience regardinglegal aid and/or human rights projects,experience with refugees and/or internallydisplaced persons, preferably knowledge of theSerbo-Croatian language, and good knowledgeof the cultures in the region. All team membersmust be able to communicate fluently inEnglish, and at least one team member must beable to read Norwegian without any problemsof understanding. The evaluation team mayengage local expertise during field visits. Thereshould be at least one female member in theevaluation team. The leader of the team shouldhave extensive evaluation experience andproven managerial skills.

5. Reporting of Findings

The evaluation should result in a final reportnot exceeding 40 pages, including an executivesummary of maximum 4 pages. The evaluationteam will write a maximum 2 page summary ofmajor findings and recommendations, forpublication in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’Evaluation Summary series. The technical

quality of the final report and the 2 pageevaluation summary will be such that they canbe printed without any further rewriting orediting.

Throughout the evaluation, the team mustmake efforts so that the evaluation becomes alearning experience for persons in the Ministryof Foreign Affairs and the Norwegian RefugeeCouncil engaged directly or indirectly in CRPactivities. The evaluation team should activelyuse workshops and seminars both in Norwayand former Yugoslavia to discuss issues,hypotheses, relevant categories andpreliminary findings with main stakeholders. Aspecific plan of such workshops will be made bythe evaluation team in cooperation with theMinistry of Foreign Affairs. It should include aspecial presentation by the team tostakeholders in Norway of main conclusionsand recommendations during the team’spreparation of the evaluation report. Havingcompleted the final evaluation report, the teamwill present its conclusions andrecommendations in an internal seminararranged by the Foreign Ministry.

6. Timing

The evaluation should start two weeks after theexpiry of the date for presenting tenders. Thisexpiry date has been set as July 25. The finalevaluation report should be submitted byNovember 8.

June 21, 2002

57

CROATIA

Lawyers and judiciaryDarko Horvat, Secretary General of the Bar, Croatian Bar Association, ZagrebPjer Skrivaneli, Administrative Secretary, Croatian Bar Association, ZagrebJerina Malesevic, Attorney at Law, Law Office Malesevic, ZagrebDr. Jasna Omejec, Vice President, Constitutional Court of CroatiaMs Vera Bubas, President of the Municipal Court, SisakMs Dusanka & colleague, CRP affiliated lawyers in SisakMs Iva Nenadic-Vuletic, SRP affiliated lawyer, SplitMr Dusko Vukelic, CRP affiliated lawyer, OsijekMr Velimir Slovacek, Cabinet of CRP affiliated lawyer Mr Filakovic, Osijek

NGOsDejan Palic, Croatian Law Centre, ZagrebArtur Sawastian, Head of Office, American Refugee Committee (ARC International), CroatiaKata Lerotic, Legal Team, ARC International-Croatia Ljubomir Mikic, President/Program Manager, Center for Peace, Legal Advice and PsychologicalAssistance, VukovarDragana Arapovic, Program Media Coordinator, Dalmatinski Odbor Solidarnosti (DOS), SplitAleksandra Milosavjevic, Jurust, Organization for Civil Initiative, OsijekKsenija Blagojevic Williams, Project Manager, Serbian Democratic Forum, ZagrebMs Mirica Miljanic, Head of Office, Serbian Democratic Forum (SDF), PakracLjubo Manojlovic, Secretary, Serbian Democratic Forum (SDF), ZagrebMilorad Nenadovic, Member of LSC, Udruzenje Baranja, Hrvatska

Norwegian Refugee CouncilGro Lindstad, Resident Representive, CroatiaMalena Kreca, Legal Assistant, SisakNinko Miric, Legal Advisor, SisakTerje Halvarsson, Manager, Shelter Programme, SisakTatiana Vuk, Administrative assistant, SisakDusko Simic, Legal Advisor, VukovarAlexander Kojic, Head of Office, Vukovar

OfficialsMilan Simurdic, Ambassador, Embassy of The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, ZagrebRikardo Marelic, Head of Department, Government of the Republic of Croatia, Offices forCooperation with International Institutions, Department Sisak, SisakMr Lovre Pejkovic, Assistant Minister, Ministry for Public Works, Reconstruction and Construction,ZagrebMs Annamaria Redic, Ministry for Public Works, Reconstruction and Construction, ZagrebBranca Sindric, Head of Office, Ministry for Public Works, Reconstruction and Construction(formerly ODPR), SisakMarta Vicakovic Mukic, Deputy Ombudsman, Office of the Croatian Ombudsman, Zagreb

Annex II Institutions and Persons Consulted

58

OSCEKsenija Sestic, Legal Assistant, Co-ordination Centre Vukovar, VukovarStephanie Sturzenegger, Field Centre Sisak, SisakSiv-Iren Velmar, Legal Advisor, Field Centre Sisak, SisakMichel Dreneau, Regional Representative, Field Centre Sisak, SisakBiserka Vucenovic, Field Office Vukovar, VukovarSubica Menicanin, Senior Democratisation Assistant, Field Office Vukovar, VukovarTakashi Koizumi, Return and Integration Officer, Mission to The Republic of Croatia, ZagrebRomana Macesic, Legal Assistant, Return and Integration Unit, ZagrebMary Wyckoff, Head of Rule of Law Unit, Mission to The Republic of Croatia, Zagreb

The Royal Norwegian EmbassyMr Knut Tøraasen, AmbassadorHenrik Malvik, First Secretary

UNHCRIgor Sotirovic, Assistant Protection Officer, Field Office SisakIgor Ivancic, Assistant Protection Officer, Field Office KninGünther Scheske, Head of Office & Field Coordinator, Field Office Sisak, Sisak

NRC Clients and others from beneficiary group12 clients/representatives of target group. Names not officially recorded, due to protection of privacy

SERBIA

ECHOKevin Mannion, Head of Office, ECHO – European Union, Humanitarian Aid Office, Belgrade

Embassy of The Republic of CroatiaMarica Zorica Matkovic, Deputy Head of Mission, Minister Plenipotentiary

NGOsZorka Jakovljevic, ICMC, KraljevoLidija Vuckovic, Director, Centre for Human Rights, NisRadovan Milicevic, Forum Kraljevo, KraljevoElina Multanen, Ph.D., Programme Consultant, Grupa 484, BelgradeRatko Bubalo, President of the Managing Board, Humanitarian Centre for Integration and Tolerance,Novi SadBudimir Ivanisevic, Project Coordinator, Humanitarian Law CentreDragana Piletic, Humanitarian Law CentreSivert Mojca, Lawyer, Humanitarian Law CentreDejan Milosevic, Protecta, NisPredrag Vostinic, Co-ordinator, SEE Initiative Serbia and Montenegro, Oneworld.net Dusan Ecimovic, President of Managing Board, Serbian Democratic Forum, BelgradeSinisa Gapic, Sveti Spas, NisBranislav Cubrilo, Head of NHLO Project, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, SDC,BelgradeDejan Kladarin, NHLO Project Manager, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, SDC,Belgrade

59

Norwegian Refugee CouncilPer-Olof Olofsson, Project Coordinator / Head of Office, Civil Rights Project, KraljevoAleksandar Rajicic, Logistic Assistant, Civil Rights Project, KraljevoDaniela Bajcetic Keseric, Legal Advisor, Head of Office, Novi SadIvanka Kostic, Project Manager / Head of Office, BelgradeSlobodanka – Boba Krcevinac, Deputy Resident Representative/Administrator, BelgradeMarit Sjaastad, Resident Representative, BelgradeLjuba Slijepcevic, Legal Advisor, Novi SadMilena Tatolovic, Deputy Head of office / Legal Advisor, SuboticaNenad Vujic, Deputy Head of Office / Legal Advisor, Nis

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian AffairsPaul Hebert, Head of Office & Regional Coordination Advisor for S.E. Europe, OCHA, BelgradeJelena Marjanovic, National Programme Officer, OCHA, Belgrade

OfficialsGoran Basta, Head of Office, Commission for Real Property Claims of Displaced Persons andRefugees (CRPC), BelgradeJasminia Benmansur, Advisor the Minister, Ministry of Public Administration and Local SelfGovernment, BelgradeIvica Ezedenci, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self Government,BelgradeSlobodan Stanisic, Serbian Commissioner for Refugees Trustee, SCR Trustee’s Office

OSCERuzica Banda, Senior Democratisation Assistant, OSCE, Belgrade

The MediaMilka Ljubicic, Editor-in-Chief, Pravi Odogovor Pravi Odgovor, Magazine for RefugeesPedja Vostanic, Radio Free Europe, Kraljevo

UNCHSRichard de la Falaise, Head Belgrade Regional Office, United Nations Center for Human Settlements,UNCHS (Habitat), Belgrade

UNHCHRRichard Towle, Chief of Mission, UNHCHR, Belgrade

UNHCRMiroslav Medic, Repatriation Unit, BelgradeGert Westerveen, Assistant Representative, BelgradeEmily Edson, Protection Officer, Field Office Kraljevo, KraljevoMirjana Zdravkovic, Local Community Assistant, Field Office Kraljevo, KraljevoSasa Valadzija, Assistant Field Officer, Field Office Novi Sad, Novi Sad

BOSNIA

NGOsAmor Bukic, Project Manager, IUSTITIA, Banja LukaDrenko Gacesa, Head of Branch Office in Banja Luka, Serbian Democratic Forum (SDF), Banja LukaMr. Darko, Project Manager, Movimento por la Paz et Disarme y a la Libertad (MPDL)

60

Norwegian Refugee CouncilBerit Faye-Petersen, Resident Representative, Norwgian Refugee Council, Banja LukaUlf Edquist, Project Manager, Norwgian Refugee Council, Banja LukaLegal Staff of Banja Luka CRP, Office

OfficialsValerija Saula, Office of the Ombudsman for Bosnia and Hercegovina, Banja LukaDrago Vuleta, Assistant to Minister, Ministry for Refugees and Displaced Persons, Republic of SrpskaPerica Koljanin, Head of OMI, Banja LukaValeria Saula, Deputy Ombudsman, Ombudsman for BiHIshak Muftic, Head of Department, Service for housing and Municipal Issues, Travnik

OHRJohn Glazebrook, Head of RRTF NW, Office of the High Representative, Banja Luka

The Royal Norwegian EmbassyFrode Overland Andersen, First Secretary, The Royal Norwegian Embassy, Sarajevo

The Royal Swedish EmbassyKajsa Netz, First Secretary, The Royal Swedish Embassy, Sarajevo

UNMiBHJan Bolling, Chief, Regional Human Rights Office, United Nations Mission in Bosnia andHerzegovina, Banja Luka

UNHCRIlija Todorovic, Protection Officer, UNHCR, Banja LukaYasmin Wickramasinghe, Durable Solutions Officer, UNHCR Banja LukaScott Pohl, JPO – Property Law Implementation Process NW RS, UNHCR Banja Luka Claudio J. Delfabro D., Legal Aid & Information Coordinator, UNHCR, SarajevoUdo Janz, Deputy Chief of Mission for Bosnia and Herzegovina, UNHCR, Sarajevo

OHCHRMadeleine Rees, Chief of Mission, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, BiHLauren Matthews, Program Officer, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, BiH

KOSOVO

BeneficiariesJonuzi Hasip, DragashMustafa Karanfilka, DragashIsmael Besir, DragashIn addition, talks were held with beneficiaries in Fushe Kosovo, Kamenica and Gjilan

EUSofia Carrondo, Project coordinator, European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR), OperationsDivision, Good Governance/Institution Building, PristinaIliriana Seriqi, Legal Officer, European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR), Operations Division, GoodGovernance/Institution Building, Pristina

61

Key InformantsBaton Haxhiu, Chairman, The Association of Journalists in Kosovo, PristinaAt focus group meeting in Diacova:Abdullah Quefany, Vice Chairman, the Municipal Council of Diacova, DiacovaDemir Kreka, Chairman, the Roma Community, PrizrenNormi Quefany, Member of the Electoral Council, Diacova

NGOsJehanne Henry, Project Coordinator, American Legal Education Program, GjilanIsa Hasani, CDHRF, GjilanFazzli Abdullahu, CDHRF, GjilanGazmend P. Nushi, Legal Service Manager, Council for Defence of Human Rights and Freedom(CDHRF), PristinaVjosa Nimani-Zylfiu, President, The Association for Legal Aid for Women, (NORMA), PristinaDrita Vllasaliu, The Association for Legal Aid for Women, (NORMA), Pristina

Norwegian Refugee CouncilReshat Retahu, Head of Office, Civil Rights Project, Giljan, GjilanFitnete Dula, Head of Office, Civil Rights Project, Peje/PecHalvard Solevaag, Regional Coordinator, Civil Rights Project, Peje/PecKadri Mjekizi, Head of Office, Civil Rights Project, PristinaCaroline Ort, Project Manager, Civil Rights Project, PristinaEthem Rogova, Contracted Lawyer, Civil Rights Project, PristinaErdin Thana, Head of Office, Civil Rights Project, PristinaFatmir Kutllovci, Deputy Project Manager, Civil Rights Project, PristinaHege Mørk, Regional Coordinator, Civil Rights Project, PristinaKari Mette Monsen, Resident Representative, Norwegian Refugee Council, KosovoThe staff of the CRP offices in Pristina, Peje/Pec, Gjilan and Prizren

OfficialsKnut Røsandhaug, Acting Executive Director, Housing and Property Directorate (HPD), PristinaSamahat Mashkulli, Vicepresident, The Municipal Council, PrizrenRicardo Rodriguez, Local Community & Social Welfare Officer, The Municipality of Dragash(UNMIK) Cornelius Nolen, UNMIK Legal Affairs Officer, Municipality of GjilanTwo representatives of the Municipality of Kamenica

OSCECarsten Weber, Director, Human Rights and Rule of Law Division, HQ Pristina, PristinaVirgjina Dumnica, Chief of Legal Community Support, Human Rights and Rule of Law Division, HQPristina, PristinaGregory Fabian, Senior Legal Adviser on Non-discrimination, Human Rights and Rule of LawDivision, HQ Pristina, Pristina

The JudiciaryMs Besa Krajku, President, The Municipal Court, Prizren

The Ombudsperson Institution in KosovoMarek Antoni Nowicki, Ombudsperson, The Ombudsperson Institution in KosovoDonna Gamien, Deputy Ombudsperson, The Ombudsperson Institution in Kosovo

62

The Royal Norwegian EmbassyHans Olav Urstad, Ambassador, The Royal Norwegian EmbassyRolf Andreas Vestvik, Second Secretary, The Royal Norwegian Embassy

UNHCRHoussam Mu’Allem, Head of Office, UNCHR, Peje/PecTakayuki Ueno, Protection Officer, UNHCR, Field Office, PristinaAnne Christine Eriksson, Deputy Chief of Mission, UNHCR, Office of Chief of Mission, PristinaAriana Zherka, Protection Assistant, UNHCR, Office of the Chief of Mission, Pristina

OSLO

Norwegian Refugee CouncilMarit BackeTora GaarderPål Nesse, Advisor

Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, OsloJan Dybfest, Deputy Director General, Evaluation Section,Sigurd Endresen, Senior Adviser, Evaluation SectionToril Langlete, Adviser, Section for Western Balkan AffairsJo Sletbak, Assistant Director General, Section for Western Balkan AffairsMarie Louise Teige, Higher Executive Officer, Section for Western Balkan Affairs

The team was unable to meet a representative of USAID, due to scheduling difficulties, and arepresentative of OSCE BiH, due to unforeseen hindrances carrying out a scheduled meeting.

63

The most important documentation for the evaluation consists in:

– Advocacy-related documents, including letters to public authorities, CRP publications and themedia

– All project proposals and reports for MFA-funded Civil Rights Project– Documentation from similar organizations providing legal aid, in particular other NGOs in the

region– NRC CRP audit– Selected activities reports from CRP offices– Several hundred selected documents from CRP-related archives at both the MFA and NRC

covering all project phases and correspondence related to them– Terms of Reference of staff members of CRP offices in the region– The CRP case-handling database – The CRP tenancy rights database – The UNHCR database

Other:

– Bubalo, Ratko: “Refugees and Expellees from Croatia – regulations, implementation, obstacles toreturn”, Humanitarian Centre for Integration and Tolerance, Novi Sad, November 2001

– Chandler, David: “Bosnia. Faking democracy after Dayton”. London 1999– Constitution of the Republic of Croatia– Croatian Bar Association, (1995), Tariff Schedule for Lawyers’ Fees and Cost Compensation– Croatian Bar Association, (1999), 70 Years of the Bar Association. 5 Years of the Law on the Legal

Profession and of the Croatian Attorneys’ Centre– Croatian Parliament, (2002), Law on Amendments to the Law on the Areas of Special State

Concern– ECHR Judgement, (1996), Case of Loizidou v. Croatia– Gorkic, Ankica: “Tenancy Right as the Ownership Right” Belgrade 2001 – Humanitarian Centre for Integration, Refugees and Expellees from Croatia– Ombudsman of the Republic of Croatia, (2002), Synopsis of the Work of the Ombudsman in the

year 2001– NRC, (1997), Proposal for Evolution from International to Domestic Non-Governmental

Organization– NRC, (1998), Acquisition of Croatian Citizenship by Naturalization by Residents of the

Podunavlje. Findings and Summary of one and one-half years of work– NRC, (1998), Written Presentation to the 1998 OSCE Implementation Meeting– NRC, (2001), Statement to the Fifty-eight Session of the Commission on Human Rights– NRC, (2002), A Triumph of Form over Substance– NRC/CRP, (2002), Contract for Legal Services– SDR, (1998), Report on SDR Project, Network of Humanitarian Legal Offices– SDR, (2002), Report on SDR Project, Network of Humanitarian Legal Offices– The Law on the Legal Profession, 1994– Ventre, Lydia, (2000), Legal Analysis of the Croatian “Programme for the Return and

Accommodation of Displaced Persons, Refugees and Resettled Persons”, and return-related Law,UNHCHR BiH

Annex III References

64

– NRC, In-Country CRP Staff Vukovar and Beli Manastir, (1998), A Proposal for an indigenousCivil Rights Project

– OSCE, (Jul-99), Reports on Kosovo– OSCE, (Sep-99), Reports on Kosovo– OSCE, UNMiBH, OHR, UNHCR, CRPC: “Property law Implementation Plan (PLIP). Inter-

Agency Framework Document”. Sarajevo, October 2000,– OSCE, UNMiBH, OHR, UNHCR, CRPC: “A new Strategic Direction: Proposed Ways Ahead for

Property law Implementation in a Time of Decreasing IC Resources” Sarajevo, 12 September2002

– OSCE Belgrade: Information on a cross border Refugee NGO Network, 2002– Sali-Terzic, Sevima: “Civil Society”, in Zarko Papic (ed): “International Support Policies to South-

East European Countries”, Sarajevo 2001– The Commissioner for Refugees: “National Strategy for resolving the Problems of Refugees and

Internally Displaced Persons”, Belgrade 30 may 2002– UNHCR Statistical updates on refugee and IDP situation, minority returns etc. on the Balkan of

January 15, 2202, August 31, 2002 and October 1, 2002– UNHCR – BiH Fact Sheet: Legal Aid & Information Centres Network, June 2002– UNHCR BiH: Presentation to the FRESTA SEE Conference in Sarajevo, 20–21 September 2002

on the refugee and IDP developments in BiH 1996 – 2002 by Udo Janz, Chief of Mission a.i. – OHCHR/UNDP: Final draft of Municipal Assessment Programme, May 2002

65

Annex IV Fact Boxes

66

67

68

69

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY)today hosts the largest number of refugees andIDPs with some 229,000 refugees from Croatia,122,000 refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina,and some 234,000 IDPs from Kosovo of whomsome 15,000 refugees and 11,000 IDPs arehoused in collective centres, while some 3.000IDPs and some 2.500 refugees live in unofficialcentres, mostly in the areas of Belgrade,Kraljevo and Novi Sad.

The number of IDPs in FRY remains stable, asthe security situation in Kosovo does not allowsubstantial returns to take place. Concerningrefugees, the number of refugees from Croatiahas only decreased by about 22% since 1996,while the number of refugees from Bosnia hasdecreased by 43 % since 1996. The decrease innumbers of refugees is higher than the numberof returns, as most refugees and IDPs opt forintegration in FRY rather than repatriation.

Since the signing of the Dayton PeaceAgreement, some 896,000 former refugees andIDPs have returned to their pre-war homes andmunicipalities in Bosnia, including some357,000 so-called minority returnees. Minorityreturns have more than doubled with theimplementation of the PLIP, reaching some92,000 in 2001. However an equal number stillremains displaced in the region: some 122,000in FRY, and some 20,000 in Croatia14, whileIDPs within BiH amount to 420,000. Despitethis, the international community expects theeffectiveness of the PLIP to bring thephenomenon of forced displacement in BiH toan end by the end of 2003. Refugees in BIHconsist of more than 20,000 Croatian Serbs,predominantly in the RS, who face obstacles inreturning to Croatia and the return of theirproperty there; and some 6,000 refugees fromFRY, mostly from the Sandzak region.

Thus, the main refugee and IDP problems inthe Balkans today are:

• The large number of Croatian Serbs inFRY and in RS, whose future: i.e. returnto Croatia or integration in FRY and RSis still unresolved.

• The large number of IDPs from Kosovoliving in Serbia proper, whose future: i.ereturn to Kosovo and/or localintegration is only beginning to beaddressed.

• The IDPs in Bosnia waiting to have theirsituation settled;

• The smaller number of refugees fromFRY in BiH and refugees from Bosniastill living in Croatia (most of whom areseemingly opting for local integration).

The Political, Administrative and JudicialContext

The issues of integration, return andcompensation are highly politicised for reasonsof national pride, international standing, andeconomic cost. The successor states remain farfrom the ideal of a transparent, professional andservice-oriented public service. Public admini-stration suffers from a legacy of opaquenessand authoritarianism. This is compounded bythe problems of war, economic blockade anddeprivation, political instability and infighting,insufficiency of resources and low morale.

It is still a challenge to obtain basic documentsand services. Procedures are bureaucratic,repetitive, and hard to understand. Authoritiesare often arbitrary and lacking in accountability.Decrees, circulars and instructions arefrequently unavailable. In these circumstances,the rule of man – in the form of the currentlyprevailing political tendency- often remainsstronger than the rule of law.

Annex V Background to the CRP

14) Croatia hosts some 23.000 IDPs and 20.000 refugees according to UNHCR figures as of 31 December 2001 UNHCR. But thefigure is deceiving, as many refugees from BiH with acquired rights in BiH have obtained Croatian citizenship.

70

Also where the courts are concerned, change isslow in coming. Court judgments are oftenunavailable, and allegations of collusionbetween the courts and political actors abound.The courts are under-resourced andoverburdened (Croatian court statistics for2001 speak of more than a million pendingcases at year’s end). National systems of legalaid are almost non-existent. The formersocialist based systems have either beenofficially abolished or have fallen intodesuetude.

The IC remains an important factor. In Kosovoand Bosnia its representatives still have thefinal word, securing political goals seen asdesirable, occasionally at the expense of thedevelopment of local capacity. In Croatia itsrepresentatives, in a familiar Balkan pattern,extract “extorted promises on paper” that are metwith “skilful” and “refined... obstructions inpractice”.15 The organs of this IC often lack themonitoring capacity and the will to see themcarried out in practice. In Kosovo, theobstructions are cruder: physical securityremains the main hindrance to return of Serbs.Those who remain in Kosovo are still confinedto KFOR protected enclaves, and movementoutside of these takes place under armedguard.

This bleak picture must nevertheless betempered with some optimism. Documents inCroatia have become much more easy to obtainthan in the past, and visa and travel restrictionswere considerably relaxed in the summer of2002, allowing the issue of almost 13,000 visas.There is hope that bank transfers will bepossible between the two countries by the endof 2002. The first judgments concerning Croatiahave been issued by the European Court ofHuman Rights, and a special urgent procedureallowing urgent applications to theConstitutional Court was introduced. In Croatiaand Kosovo, Ombud institutions issue serious,well-documented and highly critical reports.Moves are under way to establish a similarinstitution in Serbia. The accession of the FRY

to the ECHR is expected by the end of the year.In Bosnia, the property claims commission(CRPC) has adopted some 236,000 decisions.

Civil Society

“We don’t have a domestic civil society, wehave an imported civil society” (statementby a local NGO in Vojvodina)

The countries of the former Yugoslavia aregenerally characterised by the internationalpresence in order to build up governments,institutions and societies. In some respects theIC tends to replace the role of civil society asparty in the democratic dialogue betweengovernment and society for reform and change.However, a few NGOs are trying to voicerequests to governments on behalf of theirconstituencies, often in the field of refugees andhuman rights. National NGOs in formerYugoslavia all share the problem of lack offunding. Their largest source of income isgrants from international donors, who areeither directly or indirectly present themselvesin most regions. The IC has tended to usenational NGOs as deliverers of services definedby the IC.

However, in Croatia and in Serbia the capacityof the NGOs is growing stronger,professionalism is increasing and networkingcapacities are high. Within the legal aid field,NGOs in Croatia, have formed the LegalServices Coalition (LSC), providing legal aidacross most of Croatia and advocating withauthorities on a professional and regular basis.In Serbia, the indigenous legal aid NGOs aresmaller than in Croatia and less organised innetworks, but the quality of their efforts isgrowing and their capacity of advocating issueson a national level is elevated. In Kosovo, theinflux of foreign aid has caused an immensegrowth of national NGOs competing orservicing the many international NGOsoperative in the region. Kosovo does have somenational NGOs such as the Council for theDefence of Human Rights and Freedoms

15) “Refugees and Expellees from Croatia” Humanitarian Centre for Integration

71

(CDHRF), Association of Democratic Initiatives(ADI) and Humanitarian Law Centre (HLC).Efforts are under way to encourage the legalaid providers to work gradually towards anational system of legal aid.

In Bosnia, legal aid to refugees and IDPs hasmainly been the province of the UNHCR fundednetwork of legal aid and information officesestablished in 1996. This network has givenlegal services to more than 160,000

beneficiaries, and consists of 39 offices and 17mobile teams run by the American RefugeeCommittee (ARC), International RescueCommittee (IRC), Mercy Corps Scotland(MSC) and IUSTITIA – a national NGO basedin Banja Luka. Outside this network, nationalNGOs such as JOB 22 in Sarajevo, LexInternational in Banja Luka, and a Spanish NGO“Movimento Por La Paz El Desarme Y LaLibertad” (MPDL), as well as the CRP itself, arestakeholders in legal aid service.

72

Private property repossession, Croatia

As was the case over much of the formerYugoslavia, displaced persons were housed inproperty belonging to those who had fled.Some 20,000 private properties were affected.Serbs occupied Croat properties in Serb-controlled areas, and vice versa. The legaldispensation in Croatia after 1996, however, hada blatantly discriminatory effect: Serb occupiersof Croat property in Eastern Slavonia were seensimply as illegal squatters, subject to evictionand the full force of the ordinary property law.Liens could be placed on their propertyelsewhere for damages to the rightful owner.The very same occupiers, however, wereunable to recover possession of their ownhouses in other parts of Croatia. There, speciallaws granted priority of possession over ownersto occupiers, who were either Croat refugeesfrom Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croat displacedpersons, or even simple settlers encouraged tomove to these “Areas of Special State Concern”.Returnee owners languish in collective centres,sometimes year after year, while the state putsthe private interest of one group of citizensahead of the rights of another.

The Croatian authorities, despite internationalpressure, critical judgments from the highestlevels of the national court system, andsustained criticism of the law by the CroatianOmbudsman, has, in one form or another,maintained this discrimination, and violation ofthe right to property. While the particularoffending law was removed from the statutebook in 1998, it was replaced by a quasi-legislative “Programme of Return”. The“Programme” purported to lay down an eleven-step procedure by which municipal “HousingCommissions”, would issue decisions by whichoccupiers were required to vacate the propertyin question, simultaneously offering alternativeaccommodation. In the event of failure by theoccupier to vacate the occupied property, theHousing Commission could take evictionproceedings against the occupier. The Supreme

Court of Croatia issued a letter to the lowercourts, instructing them that the Programmeconstituted a lex specialis in relation to theordinary property law. Thus, according to theinstruction, the courts should not entertaineviction suits in respect of the occupiedproperties by any other party than the HousingCommissions. The owners were thus deprivedof the legal remedy provided by the ordinarylaw. Exercise of this remedy was vested inexecutive organs of highly partial localgovernment bodies in strongly nationalistareas. Not surprisingly, the HousingCommissions failed to issue the orders tovacate in sufficient numbers, and even wheresuch orders were issued, the HousingCommissions did not pursue evictionproceedings in court. Thus, in practice, one ofthe main effects of the “Programme” was todeprive Serb owners of such private propertiesof ordinary legal remedies.

Owners could not recover possession unlessalternative accommodation had first been foundfor the occupiers. A full explanation of thevarious legal and quasi-legal provisions andmeasures relevant to this question is beyondthe scope of this report.

Current Situation and future prospects onthe repossession issue

Legislative changes in July 2002 have doneaway with the role of the biased and inefficientHousing Commissions, and have vestedresponsibility for processing the ownershipdecisions and instructions to vacate, in officesof the Ministry for Public Works,Reconstruction and Construction (MPWRC –incorporating the former Office of DisplacedPersons and Refugees – ODPR). The law setsoptimistic (unrealistic) deadlines for processingof all such decisions. It will be then up to thepublic prosecutor to enforce such decisionsthrough court proceedings for eviction. A majorweakness of this new law rests in the non-

Annex VI Description of Legal Issues

73

imposition of deadlines for transfer of casesfrom the ministry to the prosecutor or for thebringing of cases. The occupiers will, de facto,continue to enjoy primacy of possession untilthe enforcement of court judgments. Theindications are that the MPWRC will be a greatimprovement on the work of the HousingCommissions. The Ministry appeared to betaking the task seriously, mindful of thewatchfulness of international observers on thisissue. Contacts to the authorities in Bosnia-Herzegovina are, according to MPWRCofficials, being systematically undertaken tofind out whether occupiers have recoveredtheir own properties there.

However, it remains to be seen how effectivethe Ministry will be in processing the cases,how diligent and timely Ministry officials willbe in transferring cases to prosecutors, howvigorous the prosecutors will be in bringingcourt actions, and how effective the (extremelyoverloaded) courts will be in handling thesecases.

Repossession of private property andtenancy in Bosnia

Property rights claims and repossession ofprivate and socially owned property have also inBiH been the core issue concerning the returnof IDPs and refugees. But in Bosnia the solutionto this problem has been addressed directly bythe international community (IC) throughimposition of property laws in 1998 and 99followed by concerted effort by the IC toensure the implementation of the laws throughthe local administrations in 2000. In 2001 therate of resolution of property claims raised toover 30% and by July 2002 it reached 57 %totalling 256.000 cases thereby enablingrefugees and IDPs to return home andrepossess their property.

With the “New Strategic Direction” of the PLIPthe IC in general increases the efficiency of thePLIP and affirms the commitment of IC toensure a more rigorous focus on respecting ofthe chronology of claims received by theauthorities. The “New Strategic Direction”

further stresses the importance of ensuringalternative accommodation to temporaryoccupants of claimed premises, as failure indoing so may not delay the reinstatement of therightful owner any more.

As the issue of property in Bosnia is on the wayof being solved, the issue of evictions ofoccupants are creating concerns amongst localauthorities on how to find alternativeaccommodation. In the Banja Luka area thesome 20.000 Croatian Serbs can be difficult toaccommodate elsewhere, while solutions totheir property claims in Croatia does not seemlikely in the foreseeable future.

Property and tenancy repossession inKosovo

After the Kosovo conflict, the Housing andProperty Directorate (HPD) and the Housingand Property Claims Commission (HPCC),were established by UNMIK Regulation1999/23 on 15 November 1999 as an interimmeasure charged with responsibility to restorehousing and property rights and resolve long-standing claims. The HPD mandate for intakeof claims expires on 1st December 2002. Afterthis, it is expected that claims should be filedwith the courts. The HPD receives and filesclaims from individuals only in person at theiroffices and passes it on to the HPCC whichfunctions as an independent judicial organ andmakes decisions on the cases. It is apparent,however, that the HPD is highly inefficient indealing with the large number of cases in thatonly a very small fraction of the cases haveactually been solved and clients have returned,this despite the fact that the HPD has focussedmainly on the “easier cases” where the propertyis either not occupied or where a settlementcould be reached. Furthermore, the HPCC onlymeets once every three months to decide onthe 20,372 claims. It is estimated that the totalnumber of potential clients who have lostproperty or housing rights amounts toapproximately 30,000.

74

Tenancy rights in Croatia

In Kosovo and in Bosnia, this issue is handledthrough the same administrative processes asare applied to repossession of private property.The post-conflict dispensations are based on afull recognition of tenancy rights as propertyrights, and on a restoration of these rights tothe pre-conflict holders of those rights. ThatCroatia has not done this is notoriousthroughout the former Yugoslavia. On thisissue as on others, the policies applied by theCroatian state superficially appear neutral, butactually involve large scale discriminatoryeffects against the Serb populations who fledbefore and during 1995. It is not the task of thispaper to embark on a long explanation of thenature of tenancy rights in the formerYugoslavia16. Nevertheless, an understanding ofthis section is helped by noting a few points.

Tenancy rights should not be equated withleases in the Western sense. They entailed a fargreater degree of “ownership” on the part of thetenant, including transfer to a family member,right of replacement by another similarproperty elsewhere in the former Yugoslaviaetc. There was also a system of taxedcontributions for the particular purpose ofbuilding flats.

Tenancy rights of refugees and internallydisplaced persons in Croatia were terminatedbasically in two different ways and waves. Thesecond wave came in 1995 – 1996, with theadoption of a special law which reduced by 50%the normal period of absence after which atenancy in the former Serb controlled areascould be terminated, and did terminate thetenancies without the benefit of any judicialexamination. The Serbs who had fled wereunable to return within the time limit. Thislegislation was quickly followed by a conversionof the properties into leasehold property,followed in turn by an offer to the lessees topurchase the flats at advantageous prices. The

laws under which the terminations took placewas later repealed after international criticismand adverse judgments by the ConstitutionalCourt, but without any reversal of its effects.

In these cases, the first step is to try to reopenthe legal proceeding under which terminationtook place. As most terminations took placebeyond the Croatian prescription period (fiveyears for this kind of case), reopening isrefused in the vast majority of cases. A smallnumber of other cases have been reopened,mostly upon an acceptance by the court thatthere were new facts not previously considered,and mostly where the five-year limit had notexpired. Out of some 600 cases of this kind filedby NRC, reopening has been granted in ten17.The terminations themselves took place beforethe Croatian ratification of the ECHR in 1997,and are thus not immediately subject to theConvention. The European Court of HumanRights declared inadmissible a complaint basedon the refusal to reopen one such case, asreopening of a civil case is not a remedy for thepurpose of Article 6 of the convention. In onecase, the court did reopen the terminationproceeding when the opposing party (theOsijek town council) seemingly through asimple error, neglected to raise the prescriptionissue. Neither did the town council appeal thedecision to reopen the case. The client had aparticularly well-documented case, withwitnesses and evidence as to the good faithreasons for his departure and inability to returnbefore the termination. Largely due to thesefactors, he won the case and the court annulledthe termination decision. The appeal of thetown council is pending at time of writing.

NRC hopes for a legal breakthrough, whichcould come in the form of a successfulreopening, followed by a confirmation of theinitial decision to terminate. This new decisionto terminate could, in the right circumstances,then be the subject of an appeal to the Supreme

16) A good explanation can be found in “Tenancy Right as the Ownership Right”, Ankica Gorkic, Serbian Democratic Forum,Belgrade, 2001. The issue is also discussed in reports of the OSCE on Croatia. 17) The figure of ten was obtained from NRC Belgrade in early October. The figure of 600 is a qualified estimate based on figuresin the NRC analysis carried out in April 2002.

75

Court or the Constitutional Court, and, ifnecessary, to the ECHR.18

This hope is based on more than onehypothesis however. One is that the towncouncil or other opposing party would pursuethe matter into the higher courts. (Tactically, itwould appear wiser for the state not to do so,and to “sacrifice” one case rather than risk anunfavourable legal judgment of more generalapplication). The second is that the factualcircumstances and evidence in favour of theclient’s claim would be sufficiently strong. Athird is that the hoped for favourable decisionwould have value as a precedent for a largenumber of other cases. In relation to the ECHR,the major stumbling block is that theConvention does not apply in respect of acts

that took place prior to its entry into force forCroatia.

However, even assuming a positive outcome ofan application to the Strasbourg Court, thequestion remains whether a positive decisionwould be of legal significance to others, whosecases were not reopened. Although the ECHRhas a doctrine of “continuing violations”, whichsometimes makes situations which beganbefore the entry into force still cognizable bythe Court, this doctrine only applies where onecan speak of a continuing situation involving aviolation of the Convention. The doctrine doesnot apply in respect of an instantaneous act thattook place before the entry into force of theConvention, even if this act gave rise to anenduring violation of a right protected by theConvention.

18) Based on the protection afforded to property rights in Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR and/or the right to a home inArticle 8 of the Convention

76

Annex VII Audit

Audit 1996-2002, Civil Rights Project in Former YugoslaviaAll figures in NOK, total cost is incl. admin cost in Oslo

TOTAL Cost and Budget 1996-2001 in Former Yugoslavia:

Project nr. Period Expat. Local staff Project Expendi- Budget DifferenceExpenses expenses cost ture received

NRC FILE MFA FILE

Croatia (HR)

61AS1LAA96 POL96-A201 June 96 - Jan 1997 769 494 - 1 754 731 (170 042)

61AS1LAA97 KROK7309 Feb - May 1997 207 362 - 2 046 416 (485 937)

61AS1LA297 KROK7791 June - Dec 1997 413 685 1 005 177 696 361 140 223

61AS1LAC98 KROK8037 First half, 1998 381 869 1 088 373 662 956 (166 802)

61AS1LC298 KROX8010 Second half, 1998 269 927 882 925 615 141 87 993

61AS1LC199 KROY9348 1999 80 686 1 473 397 838 159 (566 758)

61AS1LC299 OSCE April - Dec 1999 -

61AS1LC399 NRC/TV-funds June - Dec 1999 -

HRFL0100 KROY0159 Croatia 573 346 2 019 576 2 446 717 39 639

HRFL0200 OSCE July - Dec 2000 -

HRFL0101 2010016 2001 575 627 1 962 369 1 454 642 (7 362)

HRFL0102 HUMAK May 2001 - April 2002 -

TOTAL HR (1 129 046)

Bosnia (BA)

61AS1LY799 BHZY9461 May 1999-April 2000 752 640 376 850 478 375 (363 135)

BAFL0100 BHZY0156 May - Dec 2000 61 777 224 713 1 307 508 (582 002)

BAFL0101 2010036 2001 1 047 733 847 326 1 063 434 (41 507)

BAFL0102 Tellus 2001/2002 4 850 102 557 77 746 (21 800)

TOTAL BA (1 008 444)

Serbia (YU)

61LA1LAD97 FRYK7197 Second half, 1997 503 035 154 234 835 537 (1 011 444)

61AS1LAY98 FRYK8092 First half, 1998 484 627 380 220 609 158 (197 995)

61AS1LY298 FRYX8064 Second half, 1998 390 854 482 895 745 203 (376 048)

YUFL0199 FRYY9158 First half, 1999 (22 937)

YUFL0599 FRYY9672 Second half, 1999 206 341 492 378 470 000 (431 281)

YUFL0799 FRYY9850 Nov 1999 - June 2000 480 171 290 258 812 333 (417 238)

YUFL0999 ECHO First half, 2000 -

YUFL1099 UNHCR Nov – Dec 1999 -

YUFL0100 FRYY0161 2000 605 947 988 197 1 431 613 (999 943)

YUFL0300 UNHCR 2000 -

YUFL0400 FRYY0568 Second half, 2000 330 317 65 284 382 940 (252 559)

YUFL0600 ECHO Second half, 2000 -

YUFL0101 2010118 2001 (215 340)

YUFL0105 UNHCR 2001 -

YUFL0106 ECHO First Half, 2001 -

YUFL0107 ECHO July 2001-June 2002 -

TOTAL YU (3 924 785)

Kosovo (YU/KO) -

YUFL0399 FRYY9672 Aug-Dec 1999 756 746 20 000 328 328 (194 926)

YUFL0699 UNHCR/TV- Aug 1999-Feb 2000 148 181funds

YUFL0200 FRYY0588 2000 608 807 11 549 1 485 214 (1 017 430)

YUFL0500 UNHCR March-Dec 2000 -

YUFL0103 2010185 2001 (32 765)

YUFL0104 UNHCR 2001 -

TOTAL YU/KO (1 096 940)

TOTAL Cost and Budget 1996-2001 in (7 159 215)Former Yugoslavia

2 524 225

2 253 778

2 115 223

2 133 198

1 767 993

2 392 242

76 272

735 330

5 039 639

74 905

3 992 638

400 000

23 505 443

1 607 865

1 593 998

2 958 493

185 153

6 345 509

1 492 806

1 474 005

1 618 952

931 363

1 168 719

1 582 762

590 424

212 509

3 025 757

880 251

778 541

867 799

4 850 260

1 034 572

1 096 661

2 775 000

24 380 381

1 105 074

9 414 006

2 105 570

9 881 151

2 167 235

12 068 533

36 741 569

90 972 902

2 694 267

2 739 715

1 975 000

2 300 000

1 680 000

2 959 000

76 272

735 330

5 000 000

74 905

4 000 000

400 000

24 634 489

1 971 000

2 176 000

3 000 000

206 953

7 353 953

2 504 250

1 672 000

1 995 000

954 300

1 600 000

2 000 000

590 424

212 509

4 025 700

880 251

1 031 100

867 799

5 065 600

1 034 572

1 096 661

2 775 000

28 305 166

1 300 000

9 265 825

3 123 000

9 881 151

2 200 000

12 068 533

37 838 509

98 132 117

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

77

Budget figures for projects not started or finished 2002

Project nr. Period Budget

NRC FILE MFA FILE

Croatia (HR)

HRFL0201 2020026 2002 3 800 000

HRFL0202 Not yet funded 2002

HRFL0203 Not yet funded Aug - Dec 2002

Total HR 3 800 000

Bosnia (BA)

BAFL0201 2020024 2002 2 000 000

BAFL0202 Tellus 2002/2003 323 800

Total BA 2 323 800

Serbia (YU)

YUFL0201 2020116 2002 6 134 400

YUFL0202 UNHCR 2002 1 149 380

YUFL0203 ECHO July 02-June 03 2 800 000

Total YU 10 083 780

Kosovo (YU/KO)

YUFL0102 HUMAK May 2001-Dec 2002 424 650

KOFL0201 2020014 2002 4 448 400

KOFL0202 UNHCR 2002 6 139 140

KOFL0204 2020012 Second half, 2002 295 900

Total YU/KO 11 308 090

Macedonia (MK)

MKFL0201 2020289 May–July 2002 181 000

Total MK 181 000

Total Budgets for 2002 27 696 670

Notes:

(1) MFA cover 91,497 & NRC 48726

(2) MFA cover 87,993

(3) NRC cover 39,639

(4) 1134400 realloc. to YUFL201

(5) NRC cover 148,181

(6) 1,800,000 realloc. to KOFL0201

78

Annex VIII Organogram

EVALUATION REPORTS

1.91 Hjelp til Selvhjelp og Levedyktig Utvikling2.91 Diploma Courses at the Norwegian Institute of Technology3.91 The Women’s Grant in Bilateral Assistance4.91 Hambantota Integrated Rural Development Programme,

Sri Lanka5.91 The Special Grant for Environment and Development

1.92 NGOs as Partners in Health Care, Zambia2.92 The Sahel-Sudan-Ethiopia Programme3.92 De Private Organisasjonene som Kanal for Norsk Bistand,

Fase l

1.93 Internal Learning from Evaluations and Reviews2.93 Macroeconomic Impacts of Import Support to Tanzania3.93 Garantiordning for Investeringer i og Eksport til Utviklingsland4.93 Capacity-Building in Development Cooperation Towards

Integration and Recipient Responsibility

1.94 Evaluation of World Food Programme2.94 Evaluation of the Norwegian Junior Expert Programme with

UN Organisations

1.95 Technical Cooperation in Transition2.95 Evaluering av FN-sambandet i Norge3.95 NGOs as a Channel in Development aid

3A.95 Rapport fra Presentasjonsmøte av «Evalueringen av deFrivillige Organisasjoner»

4.95 Rural Development and Local Govemment in Tanzania5.95 Integration of Environmental Concerns into Norwegian

Bilateral Development Assistance: Policies and Performance

1.96 NORAD’s Support of the Remote Area DevelopmentProgramme (RADP) in Botswana

2.96 Norwegian Development Aid Experiences. A Review ofEvaluation Studies 1986–92

3.96 The Norwegian People’s Aid Mine Clearance Project inCambodia

4.96 Democratic Global Civil Governance Report of the 1995Benchmark Survey of NGOs

5.96 Evaluation of the Yearbook “Human Rights in DevelopingCountries”

1.97 Evaluation of Norwegian Assistance to Prevent and ControlHIV/AIDS

2.97 «Kultursjokk og Korrektiv» – Evaluering av UD/NORADsStudiereiser for Lærere

3.97 Evaluation of Decentralisation and Development4.97 Evaluation of Norwegian Assistance to Peace, Reconciliation

and Rehabilitation in Mozambique5.97 Aid to Basic Education in Africa – Opportunities and

Constraints6.97 Norwegian Church Aid’s Humanitarian and Peace-Making

Work in Mali7.97 Aid as a Tool for Promotion of Human Rights and Democracy:

What can Norway do?8.97 Evaluation of the Nordic Africa Institute, Uppsala9.97 Evaluation of Norwegian Assistance to Worldview International

Foundation10.97 Review of Norwegian Assistance to IPS11.97 Evaluation of Norwegian Humanitarian Assistance to the Sudan12.97 Cooperation for Health Development

WHO’s Support to Programmes at Country Level

1.98 “Twinning for Development”. Institutional Cooperationbetween Public Institutions in Norway and the South

2.98 Institutional Cooperation between Sokoine and NorwegianAgricultural Universities

3.98 Development through Institutions? Institutional DevelopmentPromoted by Norwegian Private Companies and ConsultingFirms

4.98 Development through Institutions? Institutional DevelopmentPromoted by Norwegian Non-Governmental Organisations

5.98 Development through Institutions? Institutional Developmentin Norwegian Bilateral Assistance. Synthesis Report

6.98 Managing Good Fortune – Macroeconomic Management andthe Role of Aid in Botswana

7.98 The World Bank and Poverty in Africa

8.98 Evaluation of the Norwegian Program for Indigenous Peoples9.98 Evaluering av Informasjonsstøtten til RORGene

10.98 Strategy for Assistance to Children in Norwegian DevelopmentCooperation

11.98 Norwegian Assistance to Countries in Conflict12.98 Evaluation of the Development Cooperation between Norway

and Nicaragua13.98 UNICEF-komiteen i Norge14.98 Relief Work in Complex Emergencies

1.99 WlD/Gender Units and the Experience of GenderMainstreaming in Multilateral Organisations

2.99 International Planned Parenthood Federation – Policy andEffectiveness at Country and Regional Levels

3.99 Evaluation of Norwegian Support to Psycho-Social Projects inBosnia-Herzegovina and the Caucasus

4.99 Evaluation of the Tanzania-Norway Development Cooperation1994–1997

5.99 Building African Consulting Capacity6.99 Aid and Conditionality7.99 Policies and Strategies for Poverty Reduction in Norwegian

Development Aid8.99 Aid Coordination and Aid Effectiveness9.99 Evaluation of the United Nations Capital Development Fund

(UNCDF)10.99 Evaluation of AWEPA, The Association of European

Parliamentarians for Africa, and AEI, The African EuropeanInstitute

1.00 Review of Norwegian Health-related Development Cooperation1988–1997

2.00 Norwegian Support to the Education Sector. Overview ofPolicies and Trends 1988–1998

3.00 The Project “Training for Peace in Southern Africa”4.00 En kartlegging av erfaringer med norsk bistand gjennom

frivillige organisasjoner 1987–19995.00 Evaluation of the NUFU programme6.00 Making Government Smaller and More Efficient.

The Botswana Case7.00 Evaluation of the Norwegian Plan of Action for Nuclear Safety

Priorities, Organisation, Implementation8.00 Evaluation of the Norwegian Mixed Credits Programme9.00 “Norwegians? Who needs Norwegians?” Explaining the Oslo

Back Channel: Norway’s Political Past in the Middle East10.00 Taken for Granted? An Evaluation of Norway's Special Grant

for the Environment

1.01 Evaluation of the Norwegian Human Rights Fund2.01 Economic Impacts on the Least Developed Countries of the

Elimination of Import Tariffs on their Products3.01 Evaluation of the Public Support to the Norwegian NGOs

Working in Nicaragua 1994–19993A.01 Evaluación del Apoyo Público a las ONGs Noruegas que

Trabajan en Nicaragua 1994–19994.01 The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank

Cooperation on Poverty Reduction5.01 Evaluation of Development Co-operation between Bangladesh

and Norway, 1995–20006.01 Can democratisation prevent conflicts? Lessons from

sub-Saharan Africa7.01 Reconciliation Among Young People in the Balkans

An Evaluation of the Post Pessimist Network

1.02 Evaluation of the Norwegian Resource Bank for Democracyand Human Rights (NORDEM)

2.02 Evaluation of the International Humanitarian Assistance of theNorwegian Red Cross

3.02 Evaluation of ACOPAM An ILO program for “Cooperative and Organizational Supportto Grassroots Initiatives” in Western Africa 1978 – 1999

3A.02 Évaluation du programme ACOPAM Un programme du BIT sur l’« Appui associatif et coopératifaux Initiatives de Développement à la Base » en Afrique del'Ouest de 1978 à 1999

4.02 Legal Aid Against the Odds Evaluation of the Civil Rights Project (CRP) of theNorwegian Refugee Council in former Yugoslavia

Published byThe Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs7. juniplassen 1/Victoria TerrasseP.O. Box 8114 Dep., 0032 OsloNORWAY

Available on the Internet:http://odin.dep.no/ud/engelsk/publ/rapporter/032091-990133/

Evaluation reports may be ordered from:E-mail: eval@mfa.noFax: +47 22 24 35 40Tel: +47 22 24 33 54